Talk:Type 091 submarine

Non-encyclopedic wording

Discussing the inability of the sub to launch missiles while submerged, someone wrote, "This is a huge tactical drawback and makes a missile launch suicidal against most enemies." This is obviously strong, non-encyclopedic wording. The source cited states things very differently, saying the shortcomings "compromise [the subs'] operational effectiveness and their wartime utility against ASW-competent adversaries." I've changed the wording in the article to match this.67.68.47.206 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another one decommissioned?

Sounds like another Han-class sub may have been decommissioned, although it's not clear which one: [1] Cfmdobbie (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

missiles?

[ The submarine is also inhibited by an inability to launch missiles while submerged. ]

its a SSN, when do SSN "launch missiles"? it appears the article is using dated and incorrect information, does 091 have this capability? or is it a mere experiment which none of the active 091 submarines have this capability. Akinkhoo (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is in reference to the C-801 anti-ship missile it carries. Cfmdobbie (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Consistent with other RM's held recently, consider joining the discussion at WT:AT. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Type 091 submarine → Han-class submarine – Rename to NATO name, as is common with other submarine pages such as the Akula, Typhoon, and more. Following WP:TITLE for Consistency and Use commonly recognizable names. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose for now. This move should at least await the discussion at WT:AT, see below. Andrewa (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the outcome of the related requests. Dekimasuよ! 08:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

See WT:AT#Submarine classes and consistency. Andrewa (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chief designers

Better and clearer sources are required.

Erickson et. al does not support the claim that Peng was the chief designer of the submarine, and claims that Huang Xuhua was the chief designer.

The Chinese-language source, as far as I can tell, supports the claim that Peng as the chief designer of the submarines, and that Huang Xuhua was one of the deputy chief designers, but does not support the claim that Huang succeeded Peng in 1983; a cursory look shows that "黄旭华" only shows up once in the article, and 1983 doesn't show up at all.

User:Lvhis, try not to break WP:INTEGRITY. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 06:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@RovingPersonalityConstruct: New source was added. --Lvhis (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Continental Location of Russia

The article states that the Type 901 is "he first indigenously-produced nuclear attack submarine in Asia.",

I am still learning the ropes of wikipedia, but geographically Russia is also in Asia,

Are we going by where the actual submarine was built? (due to the Soviet Union's love of building their ships in euro-balkan docks)

If not, should it be changed to South-Asia or East-Asia?

Please let me know. Nir Koren (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)