From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Rocketry (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Drive up to border and launch[edit]

The article I just posted shows exactly why units do not drive up to the border to launch their missiles so the maps given are bogus and should be replaced with maps showing maximum ranges from actual launch facilities. Hcobb (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But given time they could drive to a border and get it set up. (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Assuming nobody responds while the concrete is setting. Hcobb (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Bunch of crap. You could create a concrete launch pad in a few days at a pre-surveyed site near the border - in the direction of a developing threat. The article outlines that two peacetime deployment locations have been identified in central China, and would presumably be where the missiles are stationed during periods of low-threat. Why on earth would you build _mobile_ short-range ICBMs with the intent of stationing them in fixed positions which puts no meaningful strategic targets under their footprint? It's like noticing that US aircraft carriers spend a lot of time in San Diego, and then drawing aircraft strike radii centered on Point Loma . Megapixie (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The current location holds at risk the primary threat to the Chinese government, which is the Chinese population. Hcobb (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
These units can be monitored by satellite and taken out by space. That is the kind of technology China would have to deal with if they wanted to go nuts. Ipunchouthorses (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Claim of only ASBM exist removed[edit]

With the release of pictures of the Iranian Khalij Fars(Persian Gulf) ASBM based on the Fateh-110, I've removed the claim that the DF-21D is the only ASBM in existence. Here's a link to the new ASBM: Demon Lord Razgriz (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Doubts over China's 'wonder weapon'[edit]

The Asia Times's article with the same title contains this response by Arthur Ding (professor at the Political Warfare Cadres Academy in Taipei):

Asia Times Online: The DF-21D can strike US aircraft carriers and sink them in a very short time. Will this development have an impact on the naval balance in the East China Sea?
Arthur Ding: This is the ultimate goal China aims to achieve. But technically speaking, it's not feasible. That is because when the missile re-enters the atmosphere, its speed would be somewhere around Mach 7 [2,382.03 meters/second]. That is so fast that there would not be sufficient time to re-direct the warhead to hit an US aircraft carrier precisely. A carrier could only be hit indirectly by a special warhead, such as a fuel-air explosive.

Maybe that's worth incorporating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ballistic" As A Misnomer[edit]

Wikipedia's definition of "Ballistic" includes: "A ballistic missile is a missile only guided during the relatively brief initial powered phase of flight, whose course is subsequently governed by the laws of classical mechanics." The terminal guidance capability of the "anti-ship ballistic missile" is a defining feature, so there's really no reason to call it ballistic. US intelligence probably named the thing, but I'm not sure Wikipedia needs to follow suit. Aceoaces (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

10 million dollar rocket can sink a 6 billion aircraft carrier?[edit]

Is it true that a single 10 million dollar rocket can sink a 6 billion dollar aircraft carrier? -- (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Heck John McCain almost managed to do that with a much cheaper bomb. Hcobb (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ASBM and PGS[edit]

Range aside, it seems to me the Chinese ASBM's precision guidance and conventional/kinetic warhead put in a similar class with the Prompt Global Strike ballistic missile options, conventional variant Minuteman and Trident missiles. I wonder if in the future they'll deploy it in a similar way beyond anti-ship, call it a Prompt Regional Strike capability. It's easy to see how these could be destabilizing and risk provoking a nuclear response. Doyna Yar (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

DF-21D, World's first Anti-Ship Ballistic missile?[edit]

The article states that China has tested the World's first Anti-Ship Ballistic missile ,DF-21D in 2005.

But as far as i knew, India's Dhanush (missile) was tested before that. It was first produced for testing in 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That article lists the first test in 2012. Hcobb (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

US Navy counter[edit]

Solid enough reference to mention? Wait for more official word? Hcobb (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DF-21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)