Talk:Akula-class submarine

Initial comments in this page
I think I will delete the passage about Walker, until it is sourced. I mean we are not going around adding passages about russians spying for americans in stealing technology for Zaslon radar of Mig-31, which happened, and scandals around Shkval supercavitating torpedo, to which there are very good sources. Here is a nice video to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiKoA2pbmbc 99.231.46.37 (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.


 * There is an inconsistancy on this page and Typhoon class submarine, this one calls the submarines with the NATO designation "typhoon" "bars" whereas the Typhoon class submarine article says that the NATO designation "akula" belongs to the "bars" class of soviet submarine. Does anyone know which is which? HoratioVitero 18:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC) sorry about the name issue
 * It's like this:

the information in the *appearances in film* section is not correct: in the movie as well as in the novel 'The hunt for red october' no Akula class attack submarine appears. however it s an fast attack submarine, nato designation Alfa, soviet project number 705 'Lira' --Solarsystemsurfer 17:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Leasing to India "edit-discussion"
I would politely ask all the Indian Navy fans not to 1) post unquoted, alleged, unverified info without giving a single citation, 2) edit quoted, verified, citation-provided edits that do not fit their own personal wishes/POV/wet dreams, 3) making erroneous/blatantly false edits (like 900 km range for Club missiles instead of 300 km) 4) putting "pseudo-citations" that, when checked, consist of some newspaper article that has nothing to do with the matter.

There is NO OFFICIAL discussion about Akulas being leased to India, let alone sold. Actually, the only OFFICIAL who spoke about it was the Indian Navy CINC (citation provided in the article), who denied it. Period. Reverse-editing and deletion of previous info that comes without explanation (at least on the talk page) can be considered as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.230.66 (talk • contribs)

Also the date is not verified and has no backing.It should be deleted until there is some mainstream coverage about it. manchurian candidate 08:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Quietness" of the submarine
I noticed there is a claim that the Akula class is as quiet as the American Seawolf class, backed up by a citation from Pravda. As a source, Pravda is about as reliable as The Onion at worst, and the National Inquirer at best (Pravda loves their Batboy-style stories). It is certainly not a very objective source for most things, let alone anything Russian. Following the link, the article says "According to some US experts, the degree of stealth of the improved sub of Project 971 has caught up with that  of the US Navy multi-purpose fourth generation submarine Seawolf (SSN-21)." However, none of these experts are named (there is a reference to Adm. Jeremy Boorda, who didn't say what has been implied here), and the opinion of "some US experts," even if they exist and are verifiable, does not make it a fact. The wording of the statement in the Wiki needs to be altered at least, and removed altogether at most. I have added a "dubious" tag to the claim to encourage discussion of the statement; I was tempted to remove it altogether, but perhaps someone can furnish a better source than the Russian propaganda machine. Dziban303 (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Akula is certainly not as quiet as a Seawolf. I have sources of information that were compiled by Norman Polmar which I will include that compares the sound performance of the various later generation builds to Vessels of the USN. The original Akula was actually slightly noisier than an original 688, about the same as a 637. The improved Victor III made improvements over this and was similar to a i688. The Improved Akula made massive improvements in quieting and is regarded as slightly quieter than a i688, which is a remarkable achievement. The improvement in sound quieting from around 1988 to 1991 was truly massive and has sparked speculation that the Walker spy ring had managed to sell information on quieting technology to the Soviets. I don't know if the Walker issue is true or not so I won't include this conclusion. Undercurrent383 (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Pure nonsense. The Akula II doesnt even aproach the 688 yet alone the improved one. It was noisier by a huge margin. The reds cant make a half decent SSN. Don't let ivan decieve you. Their rust buckets were about as noisy as whales mating. Their latest SSN maybe might be on par with early model 688's and thats being optimistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.41.0 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Its weird how so many people apparently have access to classified acoustics data on nuclear submarines and are able to make such certain judgments. I guess intelligence personnel and active servicemen must spend a lot of time scouring wikipedia for opportunities to disseminate state secrets.94.175.244.252 (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nerpa
Cited sources regarding the Nerpa addition to this article do not state that it was the Nerpa involved in the Nov 8th 2008 accident. It likely is the Nerpa, but the information is sketchy until actual confirmation. Stick to your sources, please. 68.203.81.234 (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing
the section "Akula-II submarines" para is contradicted within the first 2 sentences. the first there is only one, then another is added which is said to be still in service.

Also the "Lease to India" has no mention of a lease. only a payment for finishing a ship, which in turn comes off as an acquisition.Lihaas (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Akula an "attack" submarine, not a "ballistic missile" submarine
This article states that the Akula class is the same as the NATO codeword Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine. However, later in the article it states that the Akula class is an attack submarine. Shiprun65 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe what is being said is that the Akula is the Russian name for the 'NATO' Typhoon. But NATO calls this sub the Akula.--Senor Freebie (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Akula III sub-class?
Hi All, I've noticed that in the "summary box" (is that the correct name?) in this article's footer there is a mention to the Akula III (composed by the submarine Gepard + 2 cancelled units); however there is no section/sub-section detailing this subtype. I'll do a quick search of online sources that mention the "Akula III", and if successful will create the corresponding section in the article (at least to allow someone more knowledgeable / with more time to fill it with appropriate info). Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My "quick search" results: couldn't find reference in "verifiable" sources that prove that Gepard is a diferent sub-class, hence I'm unsure if 'the Akula III exists as a sub-class of the Akula class. For the time being, I'll not create the proposed section. Regards,DPdH (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the russian designers (V. Pyalova) says in an interview that Gepard differs in so many aspects from the 971U project, that it could be even called Akula III. So it´s neither an official russian nor NATO designation.Alexpl (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical?
There's a sentence under the Akula-II submarines that goes:

"Due to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, production of all Akula's slowed."

Shouldn't it be "production of all Akulas slowed"? When you put an apostrope, doesn't it show ownership? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.222.198 (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Fixed.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  07:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

NERPA - Akula I or Akula II
The Russians reference what NATO calls Akula I as the Shchuka-B. Using the Shchuka-B covername the Russians make no distinction between Akula-I and Akula-II and make no mention whatsoever of an Improved Akula-I or an Akula-III. Russian distinctions within class are reflected in variations of the Design #, also referred to as Project # by those who do not know that the word "Proyekt", cognate to the English "project", in Russian means "design". Within the Wikipedia article there are references to Designs 971, 971I, 971U, and 971M. Unfortunately, there are NO sources cited for any of the Design numbers other than 971. By logical progression and by the Wiki rules, this would mean that there should be no Wiki entries for these designs unless they can be backed up by authoritative sources - preferably primary sources rather than general citations in derivative commentaries.

When I corrected the entry for NERPA from Akula-II to Akula-I I chose to follow Russian usage where Shchuka-B is equivalent to NATO Akula-I. The RIAN references cited to attempt to point out that my correction is wrong merely underscore the fact that RIAN, reporting in English, falls into the error of the using incorrect equations appearing in English language publications. RIAN is a news source and can be as prone to error as any news source when it deals derives article from a mass of archival reporting rather than from an authoritative pronouncement by either by a name official of the Russian shipbuilding industry or the Russian Navy.Федоров (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My point is - since no official source, Russian or Indian, clarifies if it is Akula I improved or Akula II, we have to go by what is reported in the news. AND since the Nerpa was launched a decade later than its intended date, design modifications may have been made. We know that Nerpa started out as a Project 971 submarine, but was it completed and leased to India under the same project, or under a different project? If that is not clearly stated by an official source, then we have to rely on the latest neutral news articles. Anir1uph (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On the other hand my point is that we should not presume beyond what is actually known from source that are in a position to ACTUALLY know. News articles that cite no sources for their information do not inspire confidence that they ACTUALLY KNOW.  Many merely repeat what others say, presuming that other unnamed sources might know.  This approach merely compounds the difficulty in ascertaing what is actually true.  You stated that NERPA clearly began as a Project 971.  Therefore, in the absence of any authoritative information that anything changed, the WIKI article should keep it as an Akula I.  Any other definition should be prefaced by "reportedly" - clearly indicating to any reader that the information following may not be correct.Moryak (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am saying that even the russian source that i have cited also states that Nerpa is a Project 971 submarine. And the same source also states that it is an Akula II submarine. Unless you can show me any neutral source that says that Nerpa is an Akula I submarine, i think we should call it an Akula II. I am open to reverting it to Akula I if you can get a source that actually says so. Thanks. Anir1uph (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What you are telling me is that you are choosing the Akula-II half of the cited source's Project 971 / Akula-II reference. What I'm choosing to do is to take the undisputed Project 971 part of the reference which denotes Akula-I.  If you can cite a source that provides a Project number for an Akula-II (971"x") authoritatively tied to NERPA then I would be glad to accept that source as indicating that NERPA is an Akula-II.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moryak (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What i am doing is that I am choosing the whole of the cited source. The news source says that it is a Project 971 AND an Akula-II. I am taking both. Unless you can show me a source which directly calls the Nerpa an Akula I...


 * You're missing the I that's what's leading to the confusion. It's not just 971 but 971I where I stands for (May be India). Even the last sub in the 971 project Vepr is an Akula-II class submarine. Then came the 971M and 971U which are also Akula-II type. Then the 971I which is an Akula-II class submarine. Navigatorblue (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Now we are addressing my point. For those who want me to find a citation that says Nerpa is an Akula-I my response is "find me a source that says that Nerpa/Chakra II carries a project number that is more than 971".  Talking about 971M and 971U may work for Akula-II but 971I with the "I" standing for the first initial of "India" still does not make Nerpa/Chakra II an Akula-II.  By the way, what are the citations for 971M and 971U?Федоров (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What is your source that a submarine started as a Project 971 cannot be an Akula II. I have already quoted a russian source and indian sources which say that is a Project 971 AND an Akula II. Please find me any source which states Nerpa/Chakra is an Akula I explicitly. Anir1uph (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please also refer to this, this and this. If the Chakra was really an Akula I, don't you think at least one reliable source or either the Russian govt, Indian govt or the Indian navy correct the nomenclature. You might be right, all I am asking is for a reliable and explicit citation for the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anir1uph (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The argument that it's Project 971 or 971I seems not correct. Finally i'm able to find some credible source from Russian govt source. Here it is http://government.ru/eng/docs/9439/print/. It says the Project is 518.Navigatorblue (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A most interesting reference. If NERPA is a Project 518 submarine then it isn't even an Akula Class at all.Moryak (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * May be Borei-0 class. The Project number can vary since it is for India. May be built under a new Project 518. It can also be an Akula-IV class submarine if one goes by your logic. Even though some of the specifications point to it being an Akula-1 type but some do point to it being Akula-II. Don't know what is that. May be Akula-1 with Akula-II capability? Don't know. So either keep it at Akula-II as the media puts it or find out what exactly this subs class. Navigatorblue (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As wikipedia editors, it is not our place to guess or do original research. Whatever we write must be backed up by relevant reliable neutral, and if possible, official sources. In ALL the sources, the INS Chakra/Nerpa is called an Akula II class SSN. Then that is what we are supposed to write here. Anir1uph (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As I've noted before, it is unfortunate that the "rules" of Wikipedia appear to be on the side that champions the view that repetition of incorrect information makes it correct. How sad.  Propagandists take heart!Moryak (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're correct. But why are you feeling for it. The rules of Wikipedia states, Verifiability, not truth. Hope you understand. So if the articles say it to be Akula-II so be it. Even though the sub may be something else. Either a better one or a lesser one. Navigatorblue (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly, Navigatorblue, you seem not to "get" what is being said here. The note of feeling laments the fact that the rules of Wikipedia show a greater interest in verifiability, any verifiability, than in attempting to ensure that the information entered is true.  The "rule" would allow me to quote a verifiable but untrue statement and to have that information survive editing.  As an extreme example I can insert the patently false assertions of Herr Goebbels but, because they are verifiable, they will be allowed by Wikipedia.  I mistakenly thought that the Wikipedia process was meant to winnow the wheat from the chaff, the correct from the incorrect, the true from the false.  The "rules" tell me I am wrong as to the intention of Wikipedia.Федоров (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely understand what you're saying and what you're trying to convey. After this i agree with you that whatever you say is correct. Now talking about rules Verifiability goes for the sub being a Akula-II since all the sources say so. Now, Do we have a source to say otherwise? A Russian govt source/Indian govt or public document made available during signing of the lease? Seems no. So under Wikipedia verifiability it's Akula-II and the truth may be totally different. What one wishes is fact is verifiable and true, but here it's otherwise. It's just verifiability and not truth. Just check the Blue water Navy page and you'll come to know.Navigatorblue (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Operation
July - August 2012 in the gulf of Mexico remained 3 weeks without being spotted by us-radars until it left the US territory waters http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188791/Russian-attack-submarine-slipped-past-US-Navy-patrolled-Gulf-Mexico-weeks-undetected.html?ito=feeds-newsxml http://freebeacon.com/silent-running/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steliosb (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This assertion is made without any proof or citation of any authoritative source. Until there is corroboration, the Washington Free Beacon article should be considered speculative - at best.Федоров (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Single-hull vs. double-hull
"This design requires more power than single-hull submarines[citation needed] because of the greater wetted surface area, which increases drag."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but double-hull construction allows optimization of pressure hull for firmness and outer hull for minimizing drag; a single-hull would always be a compromise. So, the lack of a source cited must be for a good reason.. 188.134.8.72 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/akula/specs.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20110605033644/http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/akula/specs.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Akula-class submarine. 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/20160131035047/http://rushincrash.com/forces/nuclear-submarine-kuzbass-returns-to-the-fleet-until-the-new-year/ to http://rushincrash.com/forces/nuclear-submarine-kuzbass-returns-to-the-fleet-until-the-new-year/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416233014/https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/971.htm to https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/971.htm

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) 05:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Bars (snow leopard) class
The article currently states that "The class is also known under the name Bars (meaning 'snow leopard')": I dunno where this idea comes from; the source here (at globalsecurity.org) is quite definite about it, but the ru article makes no mention of it and nor do the sources there. Also, Bars doesn't mean snow leopard at all: Russian has two words for the leopard (pantera pardus); «барс» (from Turkish) and «леопард"» (from the Greek)(ru), while the snow leopard (uncia uncia) is «Ирбис» (Irbis), or «сне́жный барс» (snezhnyy bars, lit: 'snow' 'leopard')(ru). What the ru article does say is that some of the Schuka-Bs were given names previously used by the earlier Bars class, giving rise to the nickname 'cat series' («кошачьей серией» ) but that doesn't make them known as the Bars class. In addition, one of the units, K-480  (ru), was named Ak Bars, but this is a reference to the national emblem of Tatarstan, known as the 'White Leopard', or 'Snow Leopard' (and from the Turkish Ak Bars, meaning 'white leopard'). Contariwise, another (unfinished) boat, yard number 519, was to be called «Ирбис» (Irbis): Make of that what you will... I'm loathe to take out stuff that's sourced without raising it for discussion, but it looks like bollocks to me. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There's been no objection to this, so I've gone ahead and deleted it. The source is already listed as an external link, so we haven't lost it. I trust everyone is OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid foreign nicknames in article titles
This submarine is in fact the Shchuka-class, the Akula-class is a large ballistic missile submarine not related to this class. Whilst the article does mention the correct name, the name in the title remains incorrect and misleading that can cause confusion between the two classes of submarine.

It is only logical and factual to use real names instead of foreign nicknames unrelated to the country of origin.

41.182.123.54 (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Well no: The Shchuka-class were the project 671 boats (codenamed Victor). These were the Project 971 Shchuka-B class. And the difference between the Russian name and the NATO reporting name, and those of the Akula /Typhoon boats is explained very clearly in the article. But as this is the English language WP it is in fact logical to write in English, and use the names commonly used in English; no doubt the Russian language WP writes articles about British & American stuff in Russian, without Anglophone editors insisting on them using the real names, rather than foreign names unrelated to the country of origin, hmm? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We go by the NATO designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.6.31 (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)