Talk:Type 093 submarine

message: :Image:SSN093.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SSN093.jpg

message: The cited blog states, "One Chinese researcher states that the 093 is not as quiet as the U.S. Seawolf class or Virginia class but is on a par with the improved Los Angeles class. Another analyst estimates that the 093's noise level has been reduced to that of the Russian Akula-class submarine at 110 decibels . He states that the 094's acoustic signature has been reduced to 120 decibels. According to this report, this is definitely not equal to that of the Ohio class, but is on a par with the Los Angeles. There is no additional information given to evaluate concerning the origins or comparability of these 'data.'"
It is clearly third party information (uncited by the blog's author) and even the author seems to question its veracity.
71.211.212.225 (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "It is estimated to have a noise level of 110db (comparable to speculated Akula class noise level)"

message: http://mil.sohu.com/20140916/n404363632.shtml says one was launched in December 2002 and joined the PLAN at the end of 2006, and another was launched at the end of 2003. So at most two are in service, according to this source.
http://www.guancha.cn/Science/2013_04_02_135879.shtml says that foreign (i.e. non-Chinese) sources claim there are 5 Type 093s in service. It doesn't say which foreign sources these are, so the US DoD assessment is still preferable.
http://wenku.baidu.com/link?url=5F9GSyOJ1YpRsN0SrgVUSmUkZN2zZyYTbAhqk1V0ok7ZSliZ3OQZ_hkiCuYzeDzJcpzPlnMFvOjPR_1bYT8B4yvbJQy03vbZCuByBnlguUi doesn't say how many are in service. It merely notes that the class was launched and underwent trials in the early 2000s and officially acknowledged in 2007.
Therefore I am reverting the in-service number to 2, according to the latest US DoD figures. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know that the second link is a blog. However, its author is a director at the Federation of American scientists and everything else he says agrees with what other sources are saying. Iwilsonp (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

text: This edit changed the infobox ships in service count from 2 to 6, but cites Janes as a source, which says "two already in service". It does say four more are on the way, but until we have RS that says they are in service, 2 is correct. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of subs in service 

message: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-04/03/content_19989106.htm states that the 3 093Gs were "just completed by a Chinese shipyard and a waiting delivery." Therefore, they are not active or in service yet. Hence, the number of active subs remains 2 (the existing 093s), the number of completed subs is now 5 (the existing 093s plus the new 093Gs), and the number of subs building is 1 (since it was estimated that 4 093Gs were under construction, and three of those seem to be complete now.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning the Type 093G numbers

message: http://mil.sohu.com/20150329/n410485168.shtml?pvid=c8e7fc1758357602 does not say the 3 093Gs have entered service. It says they 3 have been completed, just like http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-04/03/content_19989106.htm (examined just above.) The similarities between the two articles isn't a surprise, the former was written in late-March 2015, and the latter in early-April 2015 - around the same time.
So no, there's still no reliable source that says that 5 093/G are in service. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 5 August 2015

message: Pertaining to this edit by User:Jon Hydro Jets (a.k.a. Shulinjiang)...
None of the sources listed for support 7 being completed.
First, the total projected is 6. The US DoD report states:
The China Daily article states:
The Chinese media are, again, ultimately getting there stuff from US DoD.
Second, from these two sources the total completed is 5; see the above section for that.
The number in service (2) comes from US DoD above.
O'Rourke's latest 2016 report also goes with 2 in service. O'Rourke seems to think that the 093Gs reported as "complete" by China Daily were merely "launched" (and merely approaching completion); I suppose we could just go back to saying 4 under construction and 2 active. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit changed the infobox ships in service count from 2 to 6, but cites Janes as a source, which says "two already in service". It does say four more are on the way, but until we have RS that says they are in service, 2 is correct. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 1 January 2016

message: This video is being used as a source. It's format (long Chinese language work without English translation/summary) makes it effectively incomprehensible to - I would wager - most editors and readers, and impossible for same to verify the work is correct. Furthermore, from a more personal point of view, I am uncertain if the work would be considered an "expert" source since I am not familiar with the show.
Unless a summary from a reliable source can be had, I do not think it is appropriate for the video to be used here. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Video-as-source for noise

message: There are more 093 SSN in PLAN now. Confirmed !!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlock this article 

message: Pertaining to this edit by User:Jon Hydro Jets (a.k.a. Shulinjiang)...
There seems to be some confusion over the designations, and the article will need to be modified to reflect this uncertainty. In the meantime, I have reverted the edit until this can be cleared up since it's the root of the matter.
A cursory examination of sources shows differing opinions:
; Ronald O'Rourke, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress (2016)
:2 093 in service. 3 more launched. 6 of all types projected. The report only mentions the 093 and 093A. The report effectively believes the 093A and 093G are the same; O'Rourke refers to reports of the launching/completion of the 093Gs from 2015, but doesn't use the designation 093G. (Pages 14 and 17)
; US DoD, Annual Report to Congress (2016)
:2 093 in service, 4 more to join them eventually. (Page 26.) The four additional boats were identified as improved versions in previous reports, but no designations were given.
; Janes, Image shows new variant of China's Type 093 attack submarine (2016)
:Refers to the US DoD 2016 report concerning the 2 in service and the four additional boats to join them. Identifies the 2 in service as the original 093s, and the additional four to be 093As. (The featured image in this article is tentatively identified as a 093A.) Interestingly, the article says the 093G is in development (i.e. 093G is not the same as 093A.) No mention is made of 093B.
; The Diplomat, Image Reveals China’s New Nuclear Attack Submarine (2016)
:Identifies the 093A and the 093B as being the same. It the quotes the US DoD 2016 report concerning the 2 in service and the four additional boats to join them. Also mentions the 093G; to confuse matters, this article is open to the possibility that the image in the Janes article is a 093G, not a 093A.
; China Daily USA, Navy to get 3 new nuclear subs (2015)
:Gives that a maximum of 6 093s (of all variants) are expected; gets this from CCTV, who got it from Western media, who no doubt got it from US DoD. Says that 3 093Gs are "complete". Given these two items, the 3 093Gs are supposed to be part of those 6 projected boats.
I propose that the existing sections of the article be modified along the following lines:
#In the existing sections, 093A, 093B and 093G should not be used, and the boats following the original 2 093Gs (the third through sixth boats) should only be referred to as "improved variants" or somesuch.
#A new section demonstrating the confusion concerning the designations of the improved variants (something like I just wrote above.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 093A/B/G

message: See the heading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.76 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What type of torpedoes does the Shang-class use? 

message: This was first reported in the daily mail, but the Times have picked up the story: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-kills-own-sailors-with-trap-set-for-us-and-british-vessels-75wdfkc2p
146.200.198.201 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reported loss of type, 093–417 

message: What? Since when are government defense departments considered reliable sources on here? I'm no editor but I've spent tens of thousands of hours reading articles on this site and I've seen some appalling sources used but why would this site allow a defense department to be considered reliable? Government sources always lie. That's one reason why press conferences allow questions to be asked to at least challenge the lies. I'm perfectly fine with the article saying that the Chinese Department of Defense said something didn't happen but using them as a reliable source is absurd. 2604:2D80:6305:600:2C31:267:A437:1BC9 (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Ministry of National Defense is a reliable source on Wikipedia?