[MB.]

The weapon is a modified ICBM to be used for naval attack. It would be extremely difficult to intercept an attack from such a weapon however it would not be impossible.

[Typhoon]

Is this an effective area of denial weapon?

Certainly since it could allow China the potential to deny the US surface fleet the ability operate in range of the coast which is why many commentators in the US have taken the risk posed by the anti-ship DF-21 medium range missile seriously. There are a few caveates however in that China needs to demonstrate it has the ability to detect and identify US assets at range and reliably guide the warhead during the final stages of flight. The first part is not so difficult as China already has a number of over the horizon and surface wave radar assets to call upon and seems to be building up a constellation of ocean surveillance satelites ala Soviet US-A/P. What remains to be seen in fielding a anti-ship DF-21 is if China can follow the Soviet Union/Russia and the US in building ballistic missiles with accurate and reliable terminal warhead guidance.

What is left in terms of options when faced with this comparitively cheap anti-carrier weapon?

In terms of defences the US does have an embryonic defence against the DF-21 in the AEGIS system, though this is more last ditch self defence than an offensive shield. For one the SM-2ER would appear to be at the limit of its designed performance with the DF-21 and I dont believe it has ever been tested against something with that kind of performance. Also the radar of the AEGIS system would not allow tracking until the final stage of the engagement and the rapid window for engagement, limited number of missiles that can be guided at any one time or launched over a period all does not put much faith in that system being a solution.

A far less risky alternative would be an aircraft with greater endurance or a stand off missile that aircraft could carry which would allow the fleets to negate the long reach of the DF-21.

[MB.]

Plentiful ABL platforms & JSF standoff missiles perhaps?

[Igor Antunov]

Thanks Typhoon.

Regarding your suggestion, I never understood one thing. Russian strike aircraft are usually very long range, why does the US not couple such long range strike aircraft with it's carriers, giving it's projection forces far better reach, effectively lengthening the arms of the carrier groups, and making the ships less vulnerable to long range missiles such as this one? Is it because of the increased fuel requirements per aircraft, the aircraft would be bigger/heavier thus requiring larger carriers/less aircraft per carrier?

[MB.]

I don't know what you're talking about, the F/A 18 super hornet has a combat radius of nearly 400 n.miles and can be refueled on station as well as outfitted with external tanks. The JSF has a combat radius of nearly 600 n.miles on internal fuel. Which 'russian strike aircraft' are you thinking about? Is it a naval aircraft or an airforce/army aircraft?

Is it because of the increased fuel requirements per aircraft, the aircraft would be bigger/heavier thus requiring larger carriers/less aircraft per carrier?

Of course. Weight to thrust to endurance is always trade off. But you completely ignore airborne refueling which has been in use in war for at least 50 years.

[Rilzik]

The best defense against conventional ballistic missiles is the fact that most of them are nuclear armed and not conventional. Considering the short time it take to reach it's target that doesn't allow a lot of time to weigh the possibilities. China would not risk a nuclear response to a conventional attack. I think your right it is a effective deterrent against the US but and the only thing you need to believe it is that fact that the US is putting so much effort in to countering it.

Also your telling me that somehow china is going to maintain a ballistic missile arsenal of 200 missiles for each carrier group? Are they going to sink the island Okinawa too? I don't know if japan would allow US operations to help taiwan but it's only 150 or so miles away. Not exactly outside the range of our planes. If they planned to build several hundred more hypersonic ballistic missile delivery systems I think it would raise some eyebrows. But they aren't .... for now.

[Godstud]

Russian strike aircraft are usually very long range, why does the US not couple such long range strike aircraft with it's carriers, giving it's projection forces far better reach, effectively lengthening the arms of the carrier groups, and making the ships less vulnerable to long range missiles such as this one? Is it because of the increased fuel requirements per aircraft, the aircraft would be bigger/heavier thus requiring larger carriers/less aircraft per carrier?

As for Russian aircraft range... The MIG 29 has a 700km combat radius that is well within the range of American aircraft of similar design(FA 18). The SU 27 has a combat radius comparable to that of the F 16. Most Russian aircraft are completely comparable in this regard.

The whole point of aircraft carriers is to have mobile launch platforms so you don't really need aerial refueling for really long range missions. Long range missions also have their effects on the pilots, which is a factor as well. US can utilize ground based aircraft in many situations to compensate if needed, which is where foreign airfields like in South Korea come in handy.

The threat of such a missile attack is minimal. If it became a threat then I am sure the carrier groups would employ mid-air refueling and other strategies to maintain sufficient range for defense. Rilzik makes some good points too.

This strategy might work against he first carrier group, but what about after the subs launch their retaliatory strikes on Chinese locations after such an attack? America, for all its faults, knows how to deal with a military like China. It spent 45+ years preparing for war with the USSR, which is similar to China in military philosophy.

[MB.]

Here is an interesting graphic directly related to what we are talking about. Notice the long combat radius of the McNamara era TFX F-111 tac fighter-bomber vs the DF 21 missile range.

[Rilzik]

The f-111 is retired.

The B1 has a range of 5.5k kilometers and unless i am misreading the image they are leaving out 1000 nmi from the DF-21's range if we are talking about the new one. It should be 1900nmi not 971nmi

[MB.]

The graph is not referring to the DF-21D and its range is 1,900 miles not notical miles, and the F-111 is not retired in the Australian Air Force and the B-1 is not on this chart.

[Igor Antunov]

Having looked at some specs, almost all modern 4th gen and up russian combat aircraft ranging from the Su-27, Mig-29, Mig 35 up to the PAK-FA all have greater range (ferry, combat) than their american counter-parts. They also weight more and carry more fuel. No doubt this is to make up for the fact that russia has more limited logistics and forward projection capabilities so it's aircraft must project further on their own.

As for the F-111, it is an ancient 60's beast that's no longer in production and besides it's a more a tactical bomber, not an air superiority fighter. One would have issues gaining air superiority against faster, more agile interceptor aircraft. Australia is about to retire hers.

[MB.]

What were the 'counterparts' you based your comparison on? Were you comparing naval fighter-bombers with air force interceptors? The F-111 was easily the most ambitious military project in American history until the JSF, it was designed to fulfill a number of roles including MIGCAP and air superiority, although the F-4 was the primary naval fighter in the former role.

Australia is retiring its F-111s, my point was only to demonstrate that evolving doctrine and policy produces different aircraft, and just because an aircraft is old does not mean it is obsolete. Claiming that something is 'ancient' when it is from the 60s is ridiculous because the primary american strategic bomber is from the early 1950, and is not expected to be retired until well into the next decade (or later)!

One other thing; please refrain from using gendered language when you refer to a nation, it makes you sound like you're from the 19th century.

[NYYS]

False, sir. American aircraft can barely fly, they only exist because Russia allows them to. A single MiG-29 could easily shoot down the entire American air force, and even if they couldn't the new Russian S-700 Magic Bullet could. The American empire is at its end, all hail Country X!

[Igor Antunov]

You seem to be trolling more than usual, Yankee.

Claiming that something is 'ancient' when it is from the 60s is ridiculous because the primary american strategic bomber is from the early 1950, and is not expected to be retired until well into the next decade (or later)!

It's a figure of speech.

One other thing; please refrain from using gendered language when you refer to a nation, it makes you sound like you're from the 19th century.

Come on we refer to nations, boats, aircraft and all things of monumental build as 'she'. That trend never died.

[MB.]

It should have died, a nation and a ship are not female things. they are just things.

[Rilzik]

So, anyway.

From what I understand the Russians have usually made larger aircraft then the US (size and fuel capacity). Especially Air superiority aircraft, MiG's and such until now with their new plane compared to the F-22. I don't know if that holds up to strike/bomber or other aircraft. The Russians have always made a big deal about size though.

They tried to build the largest cargo plane, have the largest helicopters, large subs, large tanks... idk

[Oxymoron]

US positions a few Submarines next to China, as the Battle Group approaches the Subs takeout the Anti Ship Missile sites.

[Typhoon]

Plentiful ABL platforms & JSF standoff missiles perhaps?

The ABL was a bit too much ahead of its time, as a concept it doesnt really work at the moment and the pentagon has realised this with its relegation to a research platform till things move forward. It would never have had the range to operate (especially unprotected) against missiles like the DF-21 in any case, nor really would a fighter based missile and they are not really the best platform for engaging ballistic missiles.

why does the US not couple such long range strike aircraft with it's carriers,

It almost did with the F-111B but that floundered and the navy proceded down the F-14 route instead which while it did not have an insubstancial combat radius was designed primarily as an fleet interceptor and not the sort of strike aircraft the F-111 would mature into. The bug was step backwards in many respects and there was many a lament for the loss of the F-14, the super-bug goes a long way in mitigating these issues and the F-35C takes a step beyond that but who knows with problems persisting we could go full circle back to the F-111B cancellation.
As for Russian aircraft (other than the notoriously short range MiG-29) having superior range, its generally because they are larger aircraft but this must (as again noted above) also stem from the point that Russia does have a huge boarder to patrol with limited assets. Interestingly because of this Russia never gave up on the F-14 type interceptor with the MiG-31 following the MiG-25.

This strategy might work against he first carrier group, but what about after the subs launch their retaliatory strikes on Chinese locations after such an attack?

Going for a relatively mobile missile the Chinese have given the DF-21 similar characteristics to the deaded Pioneer, a mobile missile running round the countryside that gave NATO a considerable headache.

[Monthu]

PAK-FA

Now that's the real joke isn't it. Designed by Bella Oxmyx perhaps? Such an obvious copy, unlike the Tupolev Tu 4.

american strategic bomber is from the early 1950, and is not expected to be retired until well into the next decade

Wiki says 2040

[Igor Antunov]

Now that's the real joke isn't it. Designed by Bella Oxmyx perhaps? Such an obvious copy,

The laws of physics apply the same wherever in the world you happen to be. If you want a stealthy plane, in this case a fighter, it has to be a generic stealthy shape when combining maneuverability with stealth.