Talk:Typhoon-class submarine/Archive 1

First comment
Weren't there 8 Typhoons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmoebaMan (talk • contribs) 04:59, 25 June 2004

I remember that there was 6 Typhoons built. Only 2 of them remain active. EisenKnoechel 04:37, 16 October 2004


 * Acording to [Hazegray] and [GlobalSecurity] six vessels were built. GlobalSecurity also mentions that the construction of an additional submarine of this class was cancelled. According to GlobalSecurity, two boats are in active service. Sietse 12:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Also see: Красный Октябрь (Red October), "In the story, Red October is the seventh Typhoon; in reality the seventh Typhoon was officially cancelled before it could have been commissioned.". kallemax 09:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency
the akula class submarine article says that the NATO lable "Typhoon" actually applies to the "bars" soviet submarine, this article says that the NATO lable "Akula" applies to the "bars" submarine, does any one know which is which? HoratioVitero 18:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

To the post above:

Akula is the actual Russian name for the Typhoon Class missile submarine (Typhoon=Nato name).

Bars is the actual Russian name for the Akula Class attack submarine (Akula=Nato name).

It's a bit confusing, blame it on whoever who named the Bars class 'Akula';).


 * There is no Bars class. The submarine Bars is one of the members of the Shchuka-B class. &#10149;the Epopt 00:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a Bars class to the same extent as there is a Borey class. This is due to bad translation since when the Russians use the cognate term "class" it means the same as "type" in English naval terminology.  When Russians use the term "type" it means the same as "class" in English naval terminology.  Unfortunately for most, you have to be very conversant with Russian naval terminology in order not to fall prey to the "false friend" problem in language translation of words that are cognates - i.e. while used in a foreign language they sound like known English words . . . but the meanings differ.  This is yet another reason why is it useful to use the Western English language convention normally reflected in the Russian naval ship naming approach uswed by NATO.Moryak (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the NATO codenames for subs, Akula is the NATO codename for the Project 971 fleet sub the Soviets gae the service name of Bars to. Typhoon is the NATO codename for the Project 941 ballistic missile sub the Soviets gave the service name of Akula to. So the inconsistency arises, to me, from NATO's using a Soviet name for a Soviet sub which the Soviet's themselves named Bars and the NATO name is the same name the Soviet's used for a different sub. Which NATO named Typhoon. -annonymous 3/10/11 10:33 PM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.4.39 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Media and Images
If anyone happens to know of a source of images of the interior of the submarines it would be appreciated if some more could be added or even linked to this page. Especially the swimming pool, sauna, gymnasium and so on. I have seen these before on a television documentary, and they are rather modest compared to land-based swimming pools and gyms, but the fact that they are on a submarine at all is still very unique and offers some perspective on the sheer size of these vessels. Considering it's one of the well known features of this class, it would be worth including. Also other images of the general habitat on board the vessels would be welcome. DrBuzz0 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Some images you can see at http://submarine.id.ru/thumbs/941/index.shtml The documentary is called "Mission Invisible" and is produced by Corona films in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inginerul (talk • contribs) 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Source
I'd very much like a source for the claim that "High internal volume also allows Typhoon class submarines to provide good conditions for their crews, including sport facilities, sauna, swimming pool and a smoking room." - I don't for a moment believe that there is or ever was a swimming pool. Possibly a gym and smoking room are plausible. --Corinthian 00:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The most advanced soviet-built submarines (Alfa, Akula, Typhoon class) have relatively small crews, and aren't overcrowded. Typhoon class is designed for very long operation time and has seriously improved life conditions, probably the best among all submarines. Here is a lot of photos: http://submarine.id.ru/thumbs/941/index.shtml, including interiors. Specifically, here are the swimming pool and sauna. CP/M 22:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course if there is a pool, it begs the question of how the water is kept in its pit while the sub does an emergencey ballast blowout. In such events, some subs can reach an angle of ~45* (with the bow pointing up).


 * In event of a real emergency it doesn't matter much, and, as doors are watertight, the water won't go far. In case of training, or if the submarine is breaking very thick ice (though it can break a few meters just by force of displaced water), the pool can just be drained. CP/M 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the pool had a cover? Bigkev 08:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It just isn't required. Most doors are watertight, and, when closed, the room itself can serve as a cover. Also, Typhoon has a good desalinization capacity, so the water isn't in deficit aboard. CP/M 11:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Class naming
Why is Щука being transliterated into Shchuka? This makes no sense. It should be Shuka. Shchuka would be Щчука in Russian!
 * "Shuka" would stand for "Шука" instead of "Щука". "Schuka" would be a more adequate transliteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.204.21 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This junk with the naming needs to be sorted out. Articles about Russian/Soviet ships should be headed by the Original name, not the NATO designation (which should be referenced, of course, but only as a secondary name). I don't know how to go about redirecting articles without mass confusion, but it certainly needs to be done. Crocodilicus 05:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's silly. The target audience of the English pages are people from nations that would have used the NATO designations. That's what they're most well-known by. You'll just confuse people. It's understandable to use the Russian designations on newer equipment, since NATO is no longer applying names in most cases, but to refer to older products by their Russian names (which very few people would know) is counterproductive. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not for sure. Many NATO names are just alphanumeric designations, very easy to confuse. I'll bring this issue to WP:SHIPS, if it wasn't yet. In any case redirects from both NATO and original names are essential, but I think it's better if people get used to the real name instead of ambigious numbers/letters. CP/M 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to dictate what gets more frequently used. In this case, the NATO names are the most commonly used. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In this specific case, yes (and it is unambigious - so renaming to Akula is out of question), but I'd rather find some convention on this. CP/M | Wikipedia Neutrality Project 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case? I'd say...pretty much every case until the current sub projects. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The articles should be headed by the original name, not by a nickname.--Darz Mol 00:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The NATO assigned names are much more common (to the point of the other names not even being in use) in U.S. and U.K. English and many other (mainly Western European) nations. IMHO this applies to many of the Russian missiles, too. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a leading clarification right up at the top which should hopefully help to disambiguate the situation. -- Rogerborg 12:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(late comment)


 * While I agree that it's "correct" name would be the Russian one, this situation is easily solvable by redirecting the NATO named articles to the main articles. Leonardopsantos (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The “correct” name may well be the Russian one, but isn’t by any means the most common name in English, which is what WP guidelines require.


 * And it is not “easily solvable” by redirects at all; quite apart from the increase in server burden by having common search terms having to redirect to something more obscure, all the main articles involved currently are at the NATO name. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What do the symbols mean?
The table of measurements has typographical elaborations but no key to them. What is meant by the arrows pointing to some weapons but not others, and by the partial underlining? Could it be that some are approximations, and others certified? I presume this stuff was from some source in which these meant something. Sobolewski 22:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Only the weapons themselves have arrows pointing to them, they're listed under their launching platforms (if any). For example, torpedoes and anti-ship missiles are listed under the type of torpedo tubes they're launched from. κаллэмакс 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this article be in Commonwealth English?
I see that this article was changed to Commonwealth English, was this correct? --Wootonius 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Typhoons in fiction
It's been a long time since I saw it, but wasn't there a Typhoon in the pilot episode of Seaquest DSV. It might not have been named as such, but the Typhoons hullform is pretty distinctive. Douglasnicol 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Table
I replaced the table at the beginning of the article for the Ship Class Infobox. No information was lost, although the inbox didn't have any field for the ships in reserve, so I used the 'Total ships stored' field. --Leonardopsantos (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag
Typhoon submarines are among the quietest sea vessels in operation, this needs a reliable source as I read that their double pressure hull design contributed to both noise level and crew survivability in the event of a torpedo hit. (Noise being caused by the difference in shape between outer/inner hulls and increasing pressure during a dive conspiring to create detectable sound louder than that of single pressure hulled subs.) Anynobody 06:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding submarine noise. Some basics need to be understood.  Both single and double hulled submarines make noise.  Basic submarine noise has two sources: rotating propulsion components internal to the hull. and the interaction of the turning screws/propellors and the entire hull of the ship.  The space between hulls is not a major contributor to submarine noise.  The level of the generated noise can be lowered by better balancing internal machinery (similar to what happens when you balance your tires vice not doing so) and placing it on sound/vibration isolating mounts.  For the screw/hull noise better(smoother, less turbulent) water flow over the hull and after appendage characteristics help minimize this noise source.Moryak (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Map link
The fourth map link directs to a site near the horn of Africa that is no where near water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.126.222 (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)