Talk:Type 094 submarine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Type 094 submarine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / 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

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

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

Relevence of the Trivia?

- I believe the trivia is off topic.

Length of Sub

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)[reply]

I'm changing it back to 133m because in the link you provided it clearly shows that the new sub is 133m in length. It also says that the old Xia-class submarine was approximately 120m (122m in the photo), but that this new submarine has been elongated to house the new missile tubes as well as part of the reactor. Glad someone is fact-checking, though! Selevercin 08:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Looks like you sited the new length but never actually changed it back to 120... so then, I'm not making any changes to the length, but just want to make sure it doesn't actually get changed! Selevercin 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops my mistake, yeah your right about the length, when i was filling in the infobox i just skimmed the article to find the length. That will learn me to read the article more thoroughly next time. Capitalistpiglet 12:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Photograph (?)

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)[reply]

Apparently its a photo thats been circulating for some time, the original source is unknown, there is also alot of talk about whether it is a type 92 or 94 since the 94 looks like a elongated 92 and there is no frame of reference in the photo. Im going to pull the pic until there is some evidence that is a 94 instead of a 92. Capitalistpiglet 05:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a legit source please refer to Dr. Jerffrey Lewis's blog <http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/595/type-094-or-jin-class-ssbn-spotted> for a comparison of the Satellite pic to the pic I posted where the good doctor have concluded as have I that they are the same thing.Hallo84 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like both submarines where tied up to the same quayside, although that doesnt in itself prove they are the same submarine. Dr lewis seems to be of the opinion that since it is the same place then it must be the same submarine. However the submarine in question on the first and second pic are facing the opposite direction. Despite that ive looked again at the subs and by taking the distance from the bow to the end of the sail you can see that the submarines hump is just larger than this distance in both pics despite the fact that the jins hump is meant to be elongated to take the larger missiles. So the pic you posted is probably that of the jin rather than the xia. Capitalistpiglet 05:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good then. Besides, if it turns out to be wrong at least it's something to look at for now. But I am reasonibly satisfied that's correct. Selevercin 15:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quietness (?)

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)[reply]

In the discussion page for the Yasen class submarine, under "Quietest claim", someone has posted the rankings of Russian and Chinese subs by quietness, as assessed by the US Navy. The Jin class is actually on the noisy end of the list.67.68.47.206 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Photo

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.

File:Http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/images/JinSSBNx.jpg

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

New picture here

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)[reply]

factually impossible

"with a range of approximately 8,000 km, and is capable of targeting much of the Western Hemisphere, some of it from close to the Chinese coast."

if you go to google earth or take a ruler to any world map, you will see 8000 km is not enough range to target much of the western hemisphere from any part of the chinese coast, so either the range is wrong or the claim is wrong as both are logically exclusive of each other. afaik, the chinese believe they need 11000km range to safely operate in their own water; this 8000km figure 1st appeared from a janes article was just a rough random comment but was redistributed without anyone actually bother to check the data. Akinkhoo (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar problem with that sentence. Assuming it has an 8000km range, it IS capable of targeting ANY part of the Western Hemisphere, provided the sub brings itself in range. Obviously, it is pointless to say this.

So I changed the sentence to: "is capable of targeting some of the Western Hemisphere from close to the Chinese coast". This at least has some meaning (I used Google Earth to satisfy myself - a missile with this range fired from the Sea of Japan can just barely hit the west coast of the US).

But if the 8000km figure cannot be confirmed, someone should get rid of the sentence entirely. I haven't bothered looking.67.68.47.206 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 accident

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)[reply]

October 2015 - first paragraph of "Description"

From this series of edits by Special:Contributions/162.74.52.147, which changed it to read:

According to Office of Naval Intelligence. "The more advanced 094 Jin class SSBN will carry the new JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile with a range of 4000 miles or 7400 kilometers and carries 3 to 4 MIRV warhead.[10][9] The JL-2 SLBM has an increased range over the Xia'sJL-l SLBM and is capable of reaching the continental United States from Chinese littorals. The Jin SSBN with the JL-2 SLBM gives the PLA Navy its first credible second-strike nuclear capability." [11][8]

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 more advanced Jin SSBN will carry the new JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) (~4,000nm). The JL-2 SLBM has an increased range over the Xia's JL-l SLBM and is capable of reaching the continental United States from Chinese littorals. The Jin SSBN with the JL-2 SLBM gives the PLA Navy its first credible second-strike nuclear capability.

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):

The JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM), has nearly three times the range of the XIA-class SSBN’s JL-1 SLBM, which was only able to range targets in the immediate vicinity of China. The JL-2 SLBM underwent successful testing in 2012 and is likely ready to enter the force. Once deployed, the JIN/JL-2 weapon system will provide China with a capability to strike targets on the continental United States.

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)[reply]

another one is commissioned

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)[reply]