Talk:Typhoon class submarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Russian and Soviet military history task force

Weren't there 8 Typhoons?

I remember that there was 6 Typhoons built. Only 2 of them remain active. EisenKnoechel

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)

Contents 1 Inconsistancy 2 Source 3 Class naming 4 What do the symbols mean? 5 Should this article be in Commonwealth English? 6 Typhoons in fiction

[edit] Inconsistancy

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Class naming

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)