Talk:Amur-class submarine

Delete and Merge

 * Concur with comments below. "AMUR" does not currently exist and should be described as the export variant options of the "LADA"/"PETERSBURG" Class - NOT in a separate article.
 * Further, the table of multiple variants should either be deleted or correctly footnoted with an authoritative citation. The reference currently cited ONLY mentions the 950 and 1650 design variants.  The citation is certainly authoritative since it comes from the RUBIN Design bureau, the entity responsible for the submarine design.Федоров (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Separate Amur class isn't exist. Amur is just export variant of Lada-class submarines. Lada class is Project 677, and Amur class is Project 677Э (677E - export). Amur-950 and Amur-1650 are two variants of Project 677E which differs in weight (950 tons and 1650 tons). So, Amur class submarine has to be merged to Lada class submarine. --217.118.66.21 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (--Rave (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Agreed, but we'd really have to make sure it's done in such a way that differences and similarities are easily understood. The differences in displacement are so great that even if the design is basically the same it does require some explanation. If source material to cover that is available and presentable in a concise manner - definitely merge. DanielAgorander (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Put it all in one article and explain the differences under "variants" and thats it. Besides, at the moment the only sub in this family that actually exists, is the Lada-type. Despite many claims to the contrary no actual subs of the Amur-type (or any other variant) are currently under contract, let alone construction. I just mention this to put the relevance of any variants into perspective. 58.171.222.51 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that the Amur-type does NOT actually come with AIP. Even the source for this claim in the article only states that provisions have been made in the construction for integration of a fuel-cell type AIP. These "provisions" can mean anything, even limited to space arrangements and the like. Russia has not yet displayed any fuel-cell AIP and instead appears to promote the use of nuclear batteries (such as the ones used in deep-space probes) as an AIP-solution in recent times. 58.171.222.51 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Radio-electronic" has probably been mistranslated from the Russian adjective радиоэлектронный. The correct English counterpart is electronic warfare. Fixing for now unless someone comes up with better information on the subject. 82.130.32.172 (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC) the data table with "citation needed" it s not correct, or this data it s false.....http://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.files/45-92/dns/865/list.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juakoblabla (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Capabilities relative to the Lada Class?
Are the Amur-class subs, being the export version, downgraded in relation to the Lada-class subs? If so, in which ways?Axeman (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)