Talk:Type 052D destroyer

"APAR" is a proprietary name
APAR refers specifically to the Thales Nederland-designed radar of the same name. Some clueless editor keeps using this name instead of the actual generic "AESA" to designate an active vs passive MFR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.64.112 (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

unrelated, the listed radar is incorrect, the 052D does not use the same radar as the 052C. 116.88.134.147 (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Aegis?
The comparison of the translated information name does not make sense. In Chinese, the name literally means sacred shield, which does not have any direct relation to Aegis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.74 (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

While not a direct comparison they are very similar. Aegis is what Athena’s shield is called in the Iliad YEEETER0 (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Type 052D destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029183932/http://www.fyjs.cn/viewarticle.php?id=713903 to http://www.fyjs.cn/viewarticle.php?id=713903
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011231629/http://news.inewsweek.cn/news-32022-p-3.html to http://news.inewsweek.cn/news-32022-p-3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905104754/http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=755053 to http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=755053

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Type 052D destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224111231/http://military.china.com/important/11052771/20120920/17441641.html to http://military.china.com/important/11052771/20120920/17441641.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Number of ships and commisioning status dispute.
List of ships and launched and commisioning dates is clearly causing a dispute. Can I suggest add column for ships 1,2,3,4,5, etc as will get source material saying e.g. James 12th ship of class xxx was launched both giving information on that specific ship and confirming for example there was at some point an 11th ship already launched.

There are now public domain information of progress of shipbuilding which would suggest dates of launch and from which ship yard are likly to be available. Suggest ask for additional source if specific entry disputed rather remove entire record. 213.106.240.194 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Example of sourced information

Twitter @dafengcao reports 10 May 2019 19th and 20th 052D launched at Dailen, link to Chinese language text from Hong Kong with Google translate reports as [Wenhui News] at some point have to review credibility of sources, but better information with a flag on reliability rather than no information.

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Type 052D Changsha.jpg
 * Type 052D Yinchuan at port in Karachi, Pakistan.jpg
 * Type 052D Yinchuan being replenished by Type 903 Weishanhu at Gulf of Aden.jpg

Number of planned ships
A far better source than the defenseworld.net article is needed. The root problem is that defenseworld.net's news articles just reproduce the work of other sites. This is not the sort of scholarship that stands on its own.

In this case, the defenseworld.net article "China Launches eighth Type 055, 25th Type 052D Destroyers" is republishes content from navalnews.net "Dalian Shipyard launches 8th Type 055 & 25th Type 052D Destroyers for PLA Navy". The navalnews.net articles looks sketchy on account of the bottom sections on the Type 052D and Type 055 being copied from Wikipedia; compare the contents to the archived Wikipedia revisions (Type 052D and Type 055).

Assuming defenseworld.net did at least put some thought into the 30 ship claim, the "Also Read" section points to China Plans to Build Over 30 Type 052D Guided Missile Destroyers. But this is a repub of content from Global Times' "Chinese guided missile destroyer suitable for mass production: experts". Unfortunately, Global Times is no longer considered a reliable source on Wikipedia (Reliable sources/Perennial sources), and I doubt that an article that republishes Global Times content can be considered reliable either.

The best I can find at the moment is The Diplomat's "The Chinese Navy’s Destroyer Fleet Will Double by 2025. Then What?", by Rick Joe from July 2020, which suggests that 25 may be it for the foreseeable future (there does not seem to be a 26th hull, and Joe speculates the PLAN may be looking toward a successor.) Joe's analysis is referenced in US government report "China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress" (27 January 2021), which lends a lot of credibility to that.

I'd be happy just to leave the data field empty as a hedge against surprises, but if one insists on putting something then 25 seems to be the best supported option. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

seaforces.org
Recent edits have used seaforces.org (eg. Special:Diff/1086182768).

This website - and the page cited - does not have the hallmarks of WP:REPUTABLE: there is no author, the publisher is not notable, and there is no indication of editorial oversight (the About page has nothing.) It suffers from WP:CIRCULAR as it explicitly cites Wikipedia as a source on various pages (via brief Google search), which would be expected of a site that draws from open sources. This seems to be just another old WP:SELFPUB source (like navweaps.com) that may have been acceptable 10-15 years ago, but no longer.

Saying that, seaforces.org is not a reliable source (WP:RS), should not be used, and I am reverting the edit. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)