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:

NATO reporting name	Project	Russian name	other names
Typhoon	941	Akula
Akula	971	Shchuka-B	Bars (lead ship)

- Alureiter 09:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)