Talk:People's Liberation Army Navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Chinese military history task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the People's Liberation Army Navy article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Blue Water? 2 This article really needs help 3 Excise ORBAT 4 Positives but Editing needed 5 Ships and weapon systems on a new page? 6 Go for it 7 Helicopters 7.1 Naval Helicopters 7.2 Aircraft inventory 8 Remove aircraft carrier paragraph

[edit] Blue Water?

FYI, the PLAN isn't blue-water according to most analysts. It will achieve that status at some point, but not for many years. John Smith's 16:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please STOP putting in references to a blue water navy in the intro paragraph. The PLAN is a brown water almost a green water navy but will not be blue water navy for many, many years (they can't even support an ivasion of Taiwan.). L0b0t 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't need blue-water navy to invade Taiwan island. It's only 200 miles from the mainland coast. Peace.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heilme (talk • contribs) 10:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, but even china's green water navy is no match for the US 7th Fleet which has kept the middle kingdom dragon safely in its cage since WWII. L0b0t 15:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Green-water, yes, blue water not quite yet...

An army can't walk across 200 miles of ocean. An extensive amphibious capability is needed which, China does not have. Also you can't say it's the 7th Fleet keeping China in check when China has had no imperialist ambitions and has only recently attempted to extend influence beyond the South China seas. It's like saying the mexican army is the only thing keeping the US in check. --Sirkeg 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My comments took poetic licence and were meant in the spirit of lighthearted fun. However, without the continuous presence of the US Navy, Taiwan would have been subsumed back into China long ago. Cheers. L0b0t 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

well then, you don't seem to be that funny. What's holding back the mainlanders is their lack of amphibious assault ships (then) and now more importantly is their economic interests. The US 7th fleet only makes it harder but not impossible. Peace. Add: btw, sorry for the wrong info; the distance across is closer to 100 not 200 miles. Heilme 00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Bluewater - Maybe, maybe not?

China's navy does not really practise blue water operations much at the moment, but it is increasingly having the ability to conduct blue water operations. It should be obvious that for now, only a small proportion of China's navy (out of its numerous littoral craft and older destroyers and frigates) can only have blue water capability. Yet this 'small proportion' consists of 13 modern destroyers, and 16 frigates (+4 building), as well as 6 replenishment ships, 5 SSNs, etc...and don't forget the LPD building and the Yuting II/III LSTs that can operate in blue water operations...this force alone is considerably far more potent than the Australian Navy, New Zealand Navy, South Korea and Canadian Navy (the four are 'blue water fleets' because they practise blue water operations much, but that does not necessariliy mean they are 'superior' to the PLAN). I mean by 2012, PLAN could probably smash the Australian Navy if it wanted to, or at least deal a lot of damage to the US 7th Fleet (though not necessarily defeating it)...but its intentions for now lie with Taiwan and disputed island chains.

[edit] This article really needs help

Guys, this article really needs work. I'm seeing lots of stuff that looks like it's been cut-and-pasted, stuff that is repeated or otherwise talking about the same thing in different sections. There was even contradictory information (until I removed it) about the blue-water navy. This needs:

1. A lot of deletions of unnecessary content and movement of the more important stuff to new pages. 2. A general-reorganisation by one person or a single group. The weakness of this is that people have been inserting random pieces of information all over the place. John Smith's 22:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excise ORBAT

There is no need for a entire ORBAT nor current weapons/platform development. Someone should remove that section as it is the main reason why this article is so long.

The focus of this article should be the history, mission and doctrine of the PLAN as well as strategic challenges.

Been trying to edit out stuff, but RevolverOcelotX keeps reverting the edits.

Try signing your posts? Yongke 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Positives but Editing needed

Though this article has many flaws, this is a considerable improvement over the previous chinese navy article. It just needs a whole lot of editing.

Another thing I am trying to edit out are any phrases that discusses the obsolesence of the Chinese fleet. Such views are completely eurocentric. For instance, some arguably may class the Royal New Zealand Navy as an obsolete force compared to the Chinese.

Needs editing, but we should keep an open mind while doing so.

[edit] Ships and weapon systems on a new page?

Would anyone object to moving the order of battle to it's own article and just linking to it from the PLAN page?L0b0t 20:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Id say go for it

I agree, let's create subtopic pages for ships and weapons. Adeptitus 06:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I created 2 subtopics to reduce main article size: Ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy, Naval Weaponry of the People's Liberation Army Navy. -- Adeptitus 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adeptitus, it looks much better.L0b0t 02:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we move the PLAN organization section into its own subtopic as well? -- Adeptitus 23:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go for it

Adeptitus,

Yeah, go for the separate Org chart. I have the current list based on the JFS, drop me a note on them. My wiki editing skills leaves much to be desired.

Nice to see u around.

Ok, organization moved to its own page. Now this page looks kinda short and lonely. LoL. -- Adeptitus 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks great. Thanks for taking the time to do this.L0b0t 02:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK added more details in the Org pages. Ain so lonely no more! Koxinga CDF

[edit] Helicopters

I've removed the following section.--

[edit] Naval Helicopters

• Z-9C - Similar to the French AS 565 Panther, naval version of the Z-9 (~26)
• Ka-28 Helix- Purchased from Russia with the Sovremenny-class Destroyer (11)
• Z-8 utility helicopter - Similar to the French SA 321Ja Super Frelon but a naval version (~15)

This would be better off listed on the page for equipment of the PLAN or ships of the PLAN but not in this overview of the whole navy. L0b0t 11:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following section as it would be better in a different article, equipment of the PLAN or some such.

[edit] Aircraft inventory

PLAN operates a large fleet of aircraft, including many land based combat aircraft.

Aircraft	Origin	Type	Versions	In service[1]	Notes
Changhe Z-8	China	transport helicopter		12	license-built SA 321 Super Frelon
Chengdu J-7	China	fighter		20
Harbin H-5	China	bomber torpedo bomber	H-5 SH-5	69 4
Harbin Z-9	China	utility helicopter		25	license-built SA 365 Dauphin
Kamov Ka-28	Russia	naval helicopter		10
Nanchang Q-5	China	attack		93
Shaanxi Y-8	China	transport airborne early warning	Y-8 Y-8 AEW	8 2
Shenyang J-8	China	fighter		48
Shijiazhuang Y-5	China	utility transport		50
Sukhoi Su-30	Russia	fighter/strike	Su-30MK2	24
Xian H-6	China	bomber maritime patrol	H-6 HY-6	51 6
Xian JH-7	China	strike		20
Xian Y-7	China	tactical transport	Y-7-100	4

L0b0t 13:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove aircraft carrier paragraph

The reference is to a dead link, and I can't find the announcement anywhere

Roadrunner 03:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

On March 10, 2006, People's Liberation Army Lt. Gen. Wang Zhiyuan announced that China will research and build an aircraft carrier and develop a CVBG.^[2] Observers said the first carrier would be deployed to secure South China Sea energy supply line.

The chicoms have been talking about this for a while now but nothing has come of it. They don't need it, they don't have any planes to fly off of it, it's not cost effective, I don't think they ever did anything with the Kiev class boat they bought from the Russians. I think it's pretty safe to remove that bit. Cheers. L0b0t 03:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

@L0b0t, that is rather POV. But I do agree that there should be at least some other information about this before it is put up. Yongke 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)