Talk:Type 039A submarine

AIP claim
Removed the following paragraph and replace with Janes citation on the AIP.

''Unconfirmed reports claimed that the PLA Navy has already experimentally fitted the air independent propulsion (AIP) system on some Type 039 (Song class) and Type 035 (Ming class) submarines, and it is speculated that the Yuan class could well be the first Chinese submarine to be fitted with an operational AIP system. However, official Chinese publications only claim that the fuel cell propulsion system and the closed cycle diesel propulsion system are being tested (As of 2005), and nothing is said of such AIP systems being successfully installed on submarines (As of 2006), and thus the speculation of Yuan class is equipped with AIP system cannot be proved.'' Koxinga CDF 11:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything to confirm that it has an AIP system, so I have removed all references to it. If someone wants to add it back, a full citation is required (that means either a formatted URL link, or a specific article, date, publication, etc). Also, please do not add anything about rumours unless it is clearly substantiated with a source. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

the name is Type 039A
the Type 041 is a guess of media. There is need be changed.59.174.165.96 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

mdc.idv.tw
I have removed the information sourced from this website. This, by all appearances, is a self-published enthusiast website. (The name "Military Dreamer's Club" probably gives it away.) The author(s) are unidentified, and it is impossible to assess their credentials, or what editorial oversight exists. Some information appears to be taken from other websites (like Janes), but in those cases those websites should be used, not mdc.idv.tw. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Pakistan Navy SSP programmes
There is confirmed news that Pakistan will buy 8 submarines of the Type039A(Yuan class). There are no concrete references of this programme and any differences are unclear. Should be merged with the original class under exports as it existed earlier. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2017 (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. Unfortunately no consensus for the move has emerged. It could be prudent to participate in a centralised discussion to establish a guideline for Chinese submarine naming or even naming of ships in general. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Type 039A submarine → Yuan-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) 18:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC) ,
 * Support. This per other pages. Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, Yuan-class submarine has 410,000 hits in google search while Type 039A submarine has 29,800 hits. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reject. Not everybody is into NATO, not everybody uses NATO naming (especially not in Asia), and the submarine has a proper, indigenous name. MaeseLeon (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment  What about all Soviet Submarines then? They are not part of NATO, yet all their Submarines have NATO names. And as stated above by Adamgerber80, the NATO name is more recognizable, thus should be named per WP:COMMONNAME. Skjoldbro (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, the Wikipedia policy on this issue is totally inconsistent (possibly inexistent.) Soviet submarines and ships are named using its NATO codeword, but airplanes or missiles for instance use the Soviet/Russian name. Chinese missiles, airplanes and ships are named using the Chinese name, and we now want to arbitrarily change one submarine class name to NATO-standard? Honestly, it doesn't make much sense to me. Further, I don't think there is much of a "common name" issue here. Us people who know what a Yuan-class submarine is most probably know that it's a 039A and vice versa. The rest of the world doesn't know either of them. It's not exactly popular, common knowledge. Best regards, MaeseLeon (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment : this should be a grouped request and discussion with Talk:Type 096 submarine and Talk:Type 096 submarine. 83.228.159.212 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC).
 * Support-for Consistency and Use commonly recognizable names. Most sources in Asia outside of the Greater China region use NATO names.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. See WT:AT. Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 25 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.

Export Royal Thai Navy
Bangkok Post reported about some problems regarding these submarines. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2270895/navy-buying-sub-with-no-engines https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2289282/navy-says-china-sub-deal-not-stalled-but-insists-on-german-made-engines These are not the latest news, the problem is still going on. 2003:C2:EF14:100:25E8:7F36:4E11:C35A (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)