Talk:People's Liberation Army Navy Surface Force

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / National / Asian / Chinese

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	National militaries task force
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

Numbers[edit]

The PLA navy does not have 2 type-092 Xia SSBNs only 1 and not more then a maximun of 3 Type-094 Jin class.Please change or find source. 83.227.5.128 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

There's much useful information here, apparently more recent than other sites. The text contains references to events as of 2005 and 06 but it would be helpful if the orders of battle had dates so that readers can judge currency of information. 16 Oct 06

Nr.Abbreviation[edit]

I've never seen the word Number abbreviated as Nr. before, but Nr. is used several times in the, very nicely laid out, charts. Perhaps # instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.147.208 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varyag[edit]

This article the installation of catapults as one of the things China would have to do in order to make the Varyag operational. This is incorrect, because as an Kuznetsov class carrier the Varyag is specifically designed to operate without catapults. Installing catapults would probably be rather difficult to accomplish as well, since it would require major alterations to the ship's hull. 71.203.209.0 07:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft carrier Section conjecture[edit]

The introductory section on aircraft carrier status is conjecture, and political theory as to the outcome of what will happen when (not if) China gets a carrier / carrier fleet. There is some long-winded diatribe on how able the Chinese shipbuilding industry is, which is not really appropriate for this section either.

IMHo the entire section could be reduced to a breif status of the aforementioned Veryag, and left at that. Facts only. Mercator079 03:12, 14 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the information regarding China's carrier plans (and utilization of carriers within their overall military doctrine) is conjectural, and the vast majority of that is based purely on American projections of Chinese intent. The Chinese themselves have published very little information regarding official doctrine regarding carriers, and much of what they have published has been at times contradictory. IMHO, their interest in producing/procuring a carrier is primarily for use as OPFOR in military exercises, not for operational use. But that's as much my conjecture as anything. Rpine75 (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap[edit]

This article has too much overlap with People's Liberation Army Navy - could someone pleae move the policy stuff over there? Ingolfson (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Type 054B source check[edit]

Would it be possible for somebody fluent in Chinese to check the sourced article given for the claim that the Type 054B is "under construction"? (Link.) The article does not look like a reliable source.

The poor Google translation seems to indicate the article was written by an anonymous author. The article contains a list of capabilities the author expects of a Type 054B; no sources seem to be given to corroborate these estimates. Words alluding to the concepts of "construction", "shipyard", etc. are missing, at least in the translation.

Given the amount of speculation that surrounds Chinese military procurement, it would be best if claims like this were backed up by clearly reputable sources, or even hard evidence (such as photographs of the ships actually under construction.) 99.233.142.173 (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Submarines[edit]

Why aren't submarines listsed?203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undid non consensus edits Feb 10[edit]

Today I counted 33 non discussion edits[1], there was no discussion on these edits. Adding material when you feel like it and not stating anything, what is going to be put in if there should be some discussion needed first. I undid these edits simply bcause there is no real discussion on what they are tryin to do.--173.239.196.216 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked yesterday for this exact same disruptive editing. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like harassment to me. On the off chance that it is not, 173 please explain what specific objections you have to the material. "It was not discussed" is not a valid objection by itself as the vast majority of changes to Wikipedia articles are not discussed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty finding and defining reliable source[edit]

As an editor, finding reliable and citable Chinese military sources feels extremely difficult as there is a lack of a reliable source list for the Chinese military in general.

Military publications that are considered "reliable", i.e. Janes, etc. often don't have complete coverage for the Chinese military, and in this case, the PLAN. This is particularly acute in the launching, commissioning, and decommissioning area, which affects ship numbers information. On the other hand, there are many indications that launching, commissioning, and decommissioning activities are indeed taking place. However, the proofs - many of them pictures or videos - for these activities often are located in unreliable sources like blogs or Twitter accounts, making them non-citable per Wikipedia rule.

So now I'm confused about how to handle this problem; Do we leave the incorrect ship numbers alone (which upsets me as a military enthusiast), or edit them to the correct information but without source/ with the unreliable sources? TypingTyper (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Type 055 "Asia's largest warships" claim[edit]

The Type 055 section contains the claim that these ships are Asia's biggest warships since World War 2 (other than aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships).

But the Soviet Sverdlov-class cruisers were built in the 1950s and displaced over 13,000 tonnes standard and over 16,000 tonnes at full load. At least two of the Sverdlovs (the Admiral Senyavin and the Dmitry Pozharsky) were part of the Soviet Pacific Fleet at some point or another.

On top of which, the Kirov-class battlecruiser Admiral Lazarev (formerly Frunze) was also part of the Pacific Fleet, and the Kirovs displace over 24,000 tons (over 28,000 fully loaded).

Are we not counting Soviet/Russian ships as Asian, even if they're stationed on Russia's Pacific coast? Carney333 (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]