Talk:Type 094 submarine

message: Ive changed it back from 133m to 120m since this is the estimate from the google earth image.
fas.org
Capitalistpiglet 23:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Sub 

message: Where did the photograph come from?  I'm just concerned that it is a mixup with another Chinese submarine.  The tagged link on the photo's page requires a password and I've yet to see this photo crop up on any credible news source.  Can we verify the photo before it becomes (rightly or wrongly) associated with the submarine? 
Selevercin 09:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub Photograph (?) 

message: How quiet is this sub? Compare to the other nuclear subs...
* It gets pretty loud when its been drinking. In other words, who knows? Dziban303 18:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quietness (?) 

message: According to this FAS blog post a 094 sub was photographed. Note that this picture shows only 12 missile launch tubes, not as stated in the wiki article 16.
Why would China let pictures like thisone emerge? Your guess is welcome...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.26.122 (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 reasons 
*1 - To show off, let everybody know that it's out there. 094 Jin is new, 092 Xia were having problems for the longest time, which also begs the question --- if the Chinese has the power to hit back with its BMSubs. Since 094 is out there, the answer to the question seems clear.
*2 - I believe 094 Jin is just a test model. They are working on 096 with 16 tubes instead of 12. Just my 50cents. TheAsianGURU (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 3rd reason: It is not a 094 at all but a modified 092 used to test the new JL-2 missile.Sinolonghai (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Photo 

message: http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/10/post_4.php  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.166.243.152 (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture here 

message: If there was a nuclear accident wouldn't the satelites be able to pickup the increase in radiation in the area where the accident has suppossedly taken place? We shud not quote social media which is filled with conspiracy theories and wack jobs as facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.172.14 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 accident 

message: From this series of edits by Special:Contributions/162.74.52.147, which changed it to read:
On my talk page, 162.74.52.147 claims that this quotation comes from page 26 of an (unspecified) ONI report; I believe the editor means ONI's 2009 "The People’s Liberation Army Navy, A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics". The quotation on page 26 of said report is:
The quotation has been altered by 162.74.52.147, not least to include that the missile is MIRVed. Also, the way the quotation is interspersed with references masks this adulteration.
The meaning of the term "littoral" in this quotation is unclear. On my talk page, 162.74.52.147 claims it means Chinese coastal waters; this makes no sense. The missile has a range of 7400 km; the distance from China to the west coast of North America is ~10000 km. If this is the sort of confusion the term "littoral" is causing, it should not be used. Indeed, in ONI's 2015 " The PLA Navy: New Capabilities and Missions for the 21st Century", the term "littoral" is not used. It says (page 19-20):
Again, there is no mention of MIRVing.
Since 2013, the US DoD "Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China" reports have settled on the 7400 km. range, so that number is pretty solid (so far as reliable sources are concerned), as are the physical implication of that.
As for MIRVing, or the lack thereof, the National Air and Space Intelligence Center's " Ballistic & Cruise Missile Threat" report lists the JL-2 as having a single warhead. Based on the JL-2 article, it seems the MIRV comment added by 162.74.52.147 comes from globalsecurity.org (GS). GS does not give a source for this claim, unlike other bits where GS clearly attributes its information to US DoD publications. Given that MIRVing would be a significant claim, either a reliable source on par with US DoD should be found for it, or it should be removed.
I am reverting the paragraph given the poor quality of the quotation and the concerns above. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: October 2015 - first paragraph of "Description"

message: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/04/china-commissions-a-type-055-ddg-a-type-075-lhd-and-a-type-094-ssbn-in-a-single-day/
216.165.211.226 (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  another one is commissioned