Talk:Typhoon-class submarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / History / Military (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
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.

First comment[edit]

Weren't there 8 Typhoons?—Preceding unsigned comment added by AmoebaMan (talkcontribs) 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)


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. ➥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 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Media and Images[edit]

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 The documentary is called "Mission Invisible" and is produced by Corona films in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inginerul (talkcontribs) 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


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: , 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[edit]

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 (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. —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. —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. —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. —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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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

Typhoons in fiction[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Multi-hull drivel[edit]

When's someone going to remove the following clueless phantasy drivel.

"Typhoon class submarines feature multiple pressure hulls that simplify internal design while making the vessel much wider than a normal submarine. In the main body of the sub, two Delta class pressure hulls lie parallel with a third, smaller pressure hull above them (which protrudes just below the sail), and two other pressure hulls for torpedoes and steering gear. This also greatly increases their survivability - even if one pressure hull is breached, the crew members in the other are safe and there is less potential for flooding." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  • This is not phantasy drivel but it is fact, no matter that the previous commentor does not understand it.Moryak (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest looking at some pics.
Anyone involved in submarine construction who looks at the configuration/adjacency of the missile tubes, will tell you otherwise.
To obtain their adjacency, the tubes would have to be offset from the hulls to the extent that they'd be effectively db.
It was never a "fact", only postulated and published by Polmar when first pics became available.
The bulge around the bridge, is casing to aid ice penetration and egress of water from bridge fin when surfacing.
The overall section is single hull, with saddle tanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 27 November 2009

  • The above is absolutely incorrect. The Typhoon submarine design is, in fact comprised of at least 25 individual pressure hulls: 2 long parallel hulls containing personnel, propulsion, and other ship's equipment; 1 short hull amidships astride the other two containing main control and periscopes and reflected in the bottom sail bulge; 1 short hull aft for the steering mechanisms; 1 short hull forward for the forward torpedo room; and the 20 individual missile tubes. Authoritative Russian naval sources confirm - no need to cited Norman Polmar or FAS or GSA.Moryak (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
If I might butt in: The diagram in Commons (see here) suggests there are 2 main pressure hulls, right(32) and left(33), with 3 other pressurized bodies; forward (31)(=torpedo compartment,6) centrally (34)(=control room, 9) and aft (35)(=mechanical dept, 18), contained inside a non-pressurized/lightweight hull (1)
Pressure hull seems like the wrong word for the latter three, and I wouldn’t use it for the missile chambers, but it certainly doesn’t show “a single hull with saddle tanks”.
Moryak, if you do have an "authoritative Russian naval source" it'd be interesting to see it.
And, if you have anything to say Polmar is wrong, then you need to bring that. (You also need to sign your posts!). Xyl 54 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to Xyl 54 - The diagram you cite in Commons appears to illustrate exactly what I described. Yes, all of those cylinders can and should be considered pressure hulls because they are designed and built to withstand the full hydrostatic pressure of the submerging submarine. In "normal" designs the weapons are usually housed within tubes within the pressure hull that contains people. The Typhoons have pressure hulls for people and pressure hull structures only for the ballistic missiles.Федоров (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

The name for this submarine has been changed throughout from Typhoon to Akula, with the edit history
“Name consistency, rephrased”
Why? What was inconsistent about it?
The text was consistent with the article title, "Typhoon class submarine", which uses the NATO reporting name. That is consistent with the articles on every other post-war Soviet submarine class, which also use the NATO name, and is consistent with WP guidelines, which say we should "use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources."
So I’ve changed it back. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

New information[edit]

I think this page is missing current information, and it would great if this could be improved.Akula1 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Until when?[edit]

The last sentence in the "History" section is:

Submarines of this class would not be decommissioned until at least, according to Admiral Visotsky.

I'm guessing there should be some sort of date information after the " least".

Wjl2 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Media references[edit]

It is not correct that a towed array would detect a pursuing submarine under all circumstances. Towed arrays in fact do have some limits. For some of them see the respective article. Another fact is that they do have a blind spot or better a blind area (roughly drop-shaped) behind them, which extends to a couple of hundred meters behind the submarine. So one could think of (extremely dangerous) maneuvers to pursue an enemy submarine in this blind spot. For example an daring captain could ground his submarine, wait till the submarine to pursue has crossed him, ascend to the according thermal layer and follow the submarine. That said, I would rather discuss this matter before simply deleting the sentences in dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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 necessaryily 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:

    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b 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 11:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)