Talk:Type 055 destroyer

southfront.org and Brian Kalman

Concerning the use of southfront.org article https://southfront.org/chinas-type-055-destroyer-from-blueprint-to-reality:

https://southfront.org/about-southfront/

Apparently the site and contributors are all volunteers; there is no indication concerning the quality of editorial oversight. (The site also relies on individual donations to operate; this does not strike me as a operation of professional analysts.)

Brian Kalman does not seem to be an analyst of any notable reputation. A Google search for "Brian Kalman" seems to reveal that he has published mainly in globalresearch.ca, southfront.org and therussophile.org. globalresearch.ca has generally not been viewed as a reliable source on Wikipedia (it has shown up multiple times on the reliable sources noticeboard), and regularly republishes articles from southfront.org (which is apparently a partner of globalresearch.ca.)

None of this indicates a good quality source; it's does not seem far removed from what might come out of the dime-a-dozen amateur China-watcher sites. Better to wait for something to come out of a more reputable source. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 22:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

building

Here are two links that say that currently more than one Type 055 is being built. Jane's is a premier defence publication and Navy Recognition is quoted elsewhere in the article. http://www.janes.com/article/66337/plan-operates-towed-and-variable-depth-sonars-in-south-china-sea-exercise

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/january-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4827-satellite-image-show-a-third-type-055-destroyer-under-construction-in-china.html

Someone please update the article with above sources (I'd do it myself but I'm worried about messing up the formatting).

I updated the infobox. Someone else can do the table.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.46.9 (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 

amateur China watcher

Discussing this is probably pretty pointless, but anyway. In my opinion, it's dishonest for RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) to describe Henri Kenhmann as an "amateur China watcher" and thus reject an article from a reliable source. Kenhmann's work has been used by Jane's three times, and they referred to him as 'an experienced observer of Chinese military developments', 'a seasoned observer of Chinese military and scientific developments' and 'PLA analyst'. http://www.janes.com/article/search?query=kenhmann He has also been described by Bill Gertz, whose articles are used as sources for many Wikipedia articles, as an 'Asia watcher'. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-prepares-satellite-missile-test/ Additionally, he has been quoted by Navy Recognition (again, a widely used Wikipedia source) multiple times.

To sum up, Navy Recognition is a reliable source and using Kenhmann's work doesn't make it less so, just like it doesn't invalidate articles by Jane's or Bill Gertz. 86.61.46.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Navyrecognition "article" is, for the most part, a translation of the one written by Kenhmann for his own website. Not that in the case of Janes and Gertz, Kenhmann is not the sole source; those try to assemble something from source of various quality, rather than relying on one source of mediocre quality. The professionals tend to do that.

I cannot find much in the way of "Henri Kenhmann" publishing anything beyond his website, nor much in the way of credentials. He may be good enough to be added to the basket of amateur sources that the professionals sift through, but anything coming from Kenhmann alone is not enough. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 12:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

My view remains unchanged from above. Even if it's just a translation, Navy Recognition is a reliable source (de facto, the 165 search results show that) and if they endorse Kenhmann's work in this case, it's an application of their editorial judgment. In other words, it's no different than if the article in Navy Recognition carried Kenhmann's byline - it wouldn't be any less reliable than their other pieces.

For the record, I also disagree with the above comment's musings about "mediocre quality" and amateur/professional distinctions and do not recognize its author as the last word on what or isn't "enough".

"To sum up, Navy Recognition is a reliable source and using Kenhmann's work doesn't make it less so, just like it doesn't invalidate articles by Jane's or Bill Gertz." 86.61.46.9 (talk) 17:02 (UTC), 7 April 2017

Appreciate that you updated the article. 86.61.33.176 (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Cruiser vs destroyer

I do not think the article "Top Stories 2017: International Acquisition" from the US Naval Institute provides any evidence that China has designated the Type 055 as a "cruiser." It seems more likely that the author and publisher (Americans) are classifying the ship according to how the US classifies its own ships.

It may be best to keep the article name as "Type 055 destroyer" until something more official from the Chinese side appears. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

According to what I have heard from multiple people who are knowledgable on the subject - while not published, and thus not citable, those who you would expect to know what they are talking about, at least - the PLAN officially considers Type 055 a cruiser now, and the USNI publication is simply the first significant Western source to follow suit. Citable sources include: National Interest [1], Globalsecurity [2], and perhaps most significantly, the International Insitiute for Strategic Studies [3]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Global Security article uses both "cruiser" and "destroyer" to describe the Type 055. The IISS shows the Zumwalts and Flight III Arleigh Burke as "cruisers" when it seems the US classifies them as "destroyers"; IISS apparently has its own definition for "cruiser" ("surface combatants that displace over 9,750 tonnes" according to the article.) I suspect NI is calling it a cruiser based on the comparison to the Ticonderoga (i.e. example of US definition.) These sources are sufficient to note that, say, Western sources see the ship as a cruiser (however that is defined.) But they are not sufficient to show that China has designated them as cruisers.

If China has designated the class as cruisers, that will undoubtedly come out eventually, and with sources we can use. Until then, calling the class a cruiser in articles seems sketchy. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As an addendum, even NI can't keep it consistent. Another "The Buzz" article/blog entry calls them "destroyers" [4]. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• In addition, as of January 2018, there is no article from any reliable source either from Chinese media or military announcements calling the Type 055 "cruisers". USNI's article doesn't provide any evidence on China's designation on Type 055, moreover, they even call the Type 055 "DDG" in the same article. China does classify Type 055 as "missile destroyer" as seen in Chinese state media Global Times.. - Loned (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

References

"101"

The sina.cn article 中国海军首艘055型大驱：舷号101 海军八大金刚之首 reports that #101 has been assigned to the first Type 055. It attributes this to images released by social media, presumably the top-right portion of the image that is in the article:

https://n.sinaimg.cn/translate/w1610h905/20180224/WqMK-fyrwsqh7502904.jpg

Running it through a image analysis tool we get this:

https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=3ca80a67608e1f68a9bfe9f9397576c8dc60bd99.118514

Note that the top of the inset portion is a nearly solid black, which strongly suggests image manipulation.

Really, one wonders why a picture of the entire ship with the number clearly painted on it couldn't be released. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

This is just another example of no-name (likely fan) authors - with no-name (if any) editors - proclaiming rumours - made by other fans - to be true. Even without the doctored image, the sina.cn article would not be reliable. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

But I had received several magazines published by accossiations of CSIC including the No.713 institution which takes part in manufacturing electric warefares for the on-board weaponary as well as the Type 346A AESA.The magazine"Mordern Warships" published by No.714 institution even come out a guide book including all of ships owned by PLAN from 1949,where the Type 055 is coded with 101.As a consequence,I think the No.101 is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 王俊玮 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Type 055 Lead Ship Sea Trial.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Type 055.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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:

• First Type 055 'Nanchang' being formally commissioned to service.jpg
• Type 055 Nanchang commissioning.jpg
• Type 055 Nanchang.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Reasoning for reverting recent edits

The two sources being used to determine the number are:

1. More launches of destroyers, corvettes conclude busy year for Chinese naval shipbuilders (31 December 2019) 2. Chinese navy puts newest platforms on display (24 April 2019).

Source 1 refers to the launch of the 6th Type 055. Source 2 refers to the 1st ship on parade (not commissioned yet). The total of 5 "building" is used as a result. Neither of these sources refer to ships 7 or 8, at least not in the snippets.

-

For the "ships of class" table":

The status of ships 2 to 6 are informed by the available data. The sources used for the launch dates are just for their launches. The change of status to "sea trials" is, therefore, unsourced and have been removed.

The source being used to verify the construction of ship 7 is:

3. https://www.janes.com/article/91450/china-launches-fifth-type-055-destroyer-for-plan (23 September 2019)

The snippet does not mention ship 7.

The source being used to verify the construction of ship 8 is:

4. Construction of China's Type 055 destroyers forges ahead (25 April 2017)

The snipped only refers to ship 1 and 2. Ship 8 is not mentioned.

- RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

While I accept that the actual commissioning dates for the more recent Type 055 destroyers remain unverified, surely what readers wish to know is which ships are actually available to the Chinese Navy at the present time. In this respect, this article is contradictory to the data given in the article List of ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy, which shows that both Anshan (no 103) and Wuxi (104) are already in service ("Active") with the North Sea Fleet, while Yan'an (106) and Zunyi (107) are already in service with the South Sea Fleet, and that Xianyang (108) is currently fitting out prior to joining the South Sea Fleet, probably later this year. In view of the current situation in the seas around Taiwan, it seems reprehensible to fail to mention (or to deliberately understate) the strengths available to the Chinese, and the table under "Ships" needs to reflect the actual situation. Kindly update this article accordingly. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The list is insufficient to support your proposed changes per WP:VERIFY. It is not a reliable source and does not provide supporting sources that could be reused in this article. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the Anshan, Wuxi, Yan'an and Zunyi do not exist, or just that you lack verified information about them to include them in the table. If they exist at all, it is misleading of you not to say so. Note the South China Morning Post of 5 May 2022 confirming that the Anshan and Wuxi are in service with the North Sea Fleet. Even if you do not tabulate them, you should at least mention that they exist and are in service. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

By "list" I was referring to List of ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy. Occurrence in that list is irrelevant. Sources and references used by that list could be relevant if there were any that were relevant, but there are none.

As for SCMP from 5 May 2022, please link to the article. In your edit, you used one from 22 April 2022. From a quick browse (please correct if I've missed anything); it says five are confirmed being in service, mentions Anshan and Wuxi taking part in exercises but not their parent fleet, mentions Nanchang and Lhasa are in service with the the North Sea Fleet, that Dalian is in service with the South Sea Fleet (presumably that's the five confirmed), and then mentions that "A military source told the South China Morning Post earlier that the Yanan, another Type 055, was also in service." Xianyang and Zunyi are not mentioned.

So based on that source: Yanan might be added to the list (I missed the mention), although I'd be hesitant to say it has entered service given how the article does go to the trouble of pointing out the number of confirmed ships in service; Xianyang and Zunyi cannot be added.

It's all about WP:VERIFY. Content must be supported by reliable sources. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 08:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

102 is commissioned

source: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/chinas-2nd-type-055-destroyer-lhasa-%E6%8B%89%E8%90%A8-commissioned-with-plan/

216.165.209.243 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

105 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/

172.98.148.56 (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

103 Anshan

So concerning more recent edits claiming that this ship has entered service, the chain of sources (and the relevant parts of them) looks like:

On 14 Nov 2021, a tweet [5] claims (Google translated):

The destroyer 103 Anshan was admitted to active service by the Northern Fleet on November 11. It is the 3rd Type 055 entered into service in 2021.

On 15 Nov 2021, NavyRecognition [6] says:

According to a tweet published by East Pendulum on November 14, 2021, the Type 055 guided-missile destroyer Anshan joined China's People's Liberation Army Navy.

This article does not include the commissioning date; neither does it link to the tweet.

On 15 Nov 2021, flot.com [7] says (Google translated):

The People's Liberation Army of China has been replenished with the Type-055-class missile destroyer Anshan. This was announced on Monday, November 15, by Navy Recognition . It is noted that this is the third Chinese ship of this type, put into service in 2021. According to journalists, "Anshan" is included in the ship composition of the Northern Fleet of the PRC Navy.

This article also does not include the commissioning date, nor does it link to the navyrec article or the tweet.

The (same) image used by all three is not illuminating. It is a Type 055 being fitted out, without pennant number, and with a ship's crest inset. This image - presumably the crest was added by an enthusiast - has been floating around since at least July 2021 ([8]).

On the matter of the commissioning date and hull number, these only appear in the tweet, and should not be included per WP:RS.

On the matter of the name and it's entry into service, these are in the flot.com and NavyRec articles. But given the quality of the articles (being nothing more than incomplete retweets) I argue that they do not add weight in terms of verifiability and should also not be included per WP:RS.

---

As for as sources that might meet WP:RS, a brief Google search turned up this SCMP article [9] from 6 Nov 2021, which indicates that the fourth ship (Yanan) may commission in December, and the fifth ship (Anshan) may commission next year. Given the different numbering, care should be taken to determine whether ships are commissioning in the same order as they were launched; otherwise dates become associated with the wrong ship in the table. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is a new article from Naval News on the various type 055 in service. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/11/chinas-4th-type-055-destroyer-anshan-鞍山-commissioned-with-plan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impugno (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the evidence, the commission sequence is not same order as launching sequence. Naval news source clearly states Anshan launched in 2019, which means the ship is not the two simultaneous launch happened in Dalian shipyard in 2018. I reversed the hull sequence per source. The source doesn’t give enough details regarding the connection between launch date and hull number, but it does gives a clear connection between hull number and ship name. Thus I added the name. That’s currently the only source with acceptable realizability-Loned (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that Naval News is WP:RS. Given the list of editors and the small size of the organization, it's effectively Xavier Vavasseur's own website; this runs into - or at least uncomfortably close to - being self-published. Even if NN is reliable, and is not just acting as a rumor-mill relay here (like other sites discussed further above), there's also the matter of how there's a distinct lack of corroboration from other reliable sources (at least the last time I checked, which admittedly was a month ago); it seems wiser to wait for something more concrete to appear. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 07:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Given they have actual correspondents at various arms trade show in US, I think they're no less legit than website like navyrecognition. But I agree, the edit can wait because there's scarce information regarding the launch details. -Loned (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The numbers are FAKE!!!!

HOW IS IT, THAT WITH THE SAME TON/M LENGTH as the Arleigh Burke, the Arleigh Burke has 50% more depth (dismplacing 50% more water, to equilibrate the ship weight to the displaced water weight!).

That is ONLY possible if the number are A LIE >> The ship displacement is MUCH LESS than 11000 ton empty, probably that will be FULL, , because it moves 2/3 of the water of the Aerleigh Burke, it's impossible to have the same weight per m length!!! (just basic Arquimedes law, and YES, ALL ship follow it, like it or not).

So the ship is much more lighter, and so will be IMPOSSIBLE to have the required double systems to keep the ship running under a missile impact (the Aerleigh Burke can, even after crashing with a tanker, "accident" test).

2A02:AB88:C8B:5D80:D841:6519:B09:519A (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

what are you smoking? the length in wikipedia show that the 055 is 25m longer, they are not the "same size" as you claim.101.127.8.197 (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)