Talk:Alfa-class submarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ships (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.


This article looks an awful lot like an article that appeared on a now-nearly defunct website,

Check this link for details:

Mostly rewritten now. BTW, the article pointed is very uninformed and incorrect. CP/M 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Titanium not a good choice for sub hull?[edit]

It seems titanium hulled submarines cannot be made any more, because some kind of previously unknown and unexpected mechanism of chemistry was discovered which destroyed the soviet's titanium alloys in seawater in 3-5 years. This is strange since titanium is supposed to be highly resistant against any corrosion. Anybody has detailed information about this one? 16:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

3-5 years? Most of the titanium subs served much longer, and, as far as I know, there were no corrosion problems. Titanium, as well as construction alloys, is especially resistant to sea water. Titanium has another problem - although it isn't as brittle as high-carbon steel, cracks tend to develop quickly, so even small cracks are dangerous. However, that wasn't the main problem, as soviet subs have an outer hull (built of mild non-magnetic steel), which protects the inner one against any shocks. Most titanium subs were decommissioned not because of hull-related problems. Titanium isn't used today mainly because of very high price, both for raw alloys and welding.
CP/M 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Must have been thinking about the sound absorbing plates fitted to some subs. JaderVason 20:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Former USN here... regarding the outer hull: steel-hulled subs have a lot of contraction at depth. Ex: one time we tied a string wall to wall across the torpedo room, and watched it start to sag as we dove. Alfas were certainly titanium alloy given their depth capability. You are correct on the welding, though - titanium is reactive and has to be welded through a pure inert gas (argon). That's expensive and error-prone. But the primary reasons for decommissioning Alfas were their reactors and their loss of usefulness. The fact is, they were noisy boats. Once high speed torpedoes were available in the West, the Alfas became disadvantageous. (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Said "plates" are actually rubber; rubber absorbes sound better. --Darkƒire Rules All!!! 22:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy Editing[edit]

This article needs going over for grammar. Tenses are mixed up, sentence structure is off, etc. etc. Alas, I don't have time to go over it myself any time soon, so I've tagged it up in the hope someone else will have a bash at it :)

  • Some copy editing done, but may need further polishing. igfm2 1802 14 June 2006 (BST)
  • Copy-editing done down to Hull section - will attack rest tomorrow perhaps! Tried to standardize the past tense (since they're out of commission) and rearranged some of the sentences to try and get the flow a bit better (hopefully...). Also included a brief sentence in the bit about US reactions to the reported capabilities of the Alfa that mentions the Spearfish torpedo as another direct reaction to the Alfa's speed. Mantrogo 22:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Gone over the Hull section and have rather savaged it. I hope that I've left it clearer! Oh and I moved the point about the Lira with its smaller crew being more like a plane up towards the top. Obviously we could do with quite a few more references but a citation for the 'test to destruction' dive would be great. Unfortunately I don't have this sort of specialised knowledge - anyone? Mantrogo 16:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, for the moment that's it! Thanks CP/M for mending that Spearfish link - hadn't spotted my error! Trust you're OK with the changes I've made. I've little knowledge in this area, so I'm hoping that any of the edits I've done haven't messed up the intent of the text. Mantrogo 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a little notice for propulsion section: some of the fuss was caused by the fact that speed exceeded torpedoes; it actually is neither sufficient, nor essential for torpedo evasion; also, VA-111 was Soviet, so I reworded it. About the hull, it seems all facts are still there, so thanks for saying the same with less words. CP/M 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Alfa top speeds were sufficient to outrun *some* torpedoes - in particular the old Mk 44 which was still in use by NATO back when the Alfas were in service, as I recall. (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you think? Take off the copyedit tag?


Many of the sections have interesting and to most in the West rather revolutionary information. Most of the information seems credible, though I'm interested about any more details regarding those new 5000km range missiles to which CP/M mentions.

I don't want to unduly discredit this article with so much good information by slapping one of those tags saying "This article does not reference its sources". While I'm sure it might do an article some good to be filled with citations and footnotes, uncited portions look inappropriately uncredible with that tag on, which is not always a fair impression.

If any of you can still recall any citable sources, it'd be nice if there was at least a generic Blibiography or Further Reading section, without the "pressure" of that tag. Thank you for your cooperation. Kazuaki Shimazaki 08:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I really forgot about sources. I just threw in the latest info as it got confirmed. I'll find some reports and put in references now. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I believe that the Soviet sub used as protagonist in the novel "To Kill the Potemkin" was supposed to be the prototype Alfa. Both American ans Soviet subs were lost with all hands (including Petty Officer Sorenson, the book's version of "Jonesy" in Red October) in the final battle. This book's in a box, somewhere in storage. John Gregory. 7/12/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Application section.[edit]

Application section is completely out of placed, non-referenced whatsoever, it looks just like someone stated his opinion on the matter. I will take responsibility for deleting it for now. If someone wants to add it, please provide sensible reference and some arguments why should it be added in general. Also, statement about Alfa class being designed for anti-surface warfare is not really making sense, considering Alfa is the most manueverable and fastest submarine ever built. (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

1300 m test[edit]

Article offers no citation for this statement. In the openly available information on Soviet/Russian submarines only the KOMSOMOLETS (Mike Class) was ever reported to have achieve a 1000m submergence depth as a full sized submarine - distinct from smaller manned submersibles.Федоров (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Project Sapphire[edit]

What does the "Project Sapphire" section have to do with this submarine? I am thinking this should be removed from the page. (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Dates for production and construction?[edit]

The article states that production started in 1974, and very shortly afterward states that the first vessel was completed in 1971. The listing of vessels states that at least two vessels were laid down in late 1967. What's up with that? Also, the write-up states that the Papa class K-222 was completed in 1972, while the K-222's own page states that it was commissioned in 1969. This whole section needs some research, citation and correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:2496:9390:65A1:ABA1:72C7:11ED (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)