# Talk:Russian submarine Nerpa (K-152)

The article is a stub and needs expansion--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this submarine in press is classed as Akula-II class, not Akula-I  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.86.39 (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC) 

Can you post a link to the press article? Jehochman Talk 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"This military documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.90.132.193 (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC) 

Is the NATO reporting name necessary in lead sentence? The reason given for adding the NATO reporting name, [1] "NATO names are, frankly, much better known"  is incorrect, it may be better known in NATO countries, but there are countries outside NATO. The name can be mentioned later, but it is pro-NATO bias to mention it in lead. It is not Natopedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the NATO class designation is ok. Outside the CIS it is more readily recognised than (or at least as readily as) the actual class name in Russian. Sv1xv (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the ENGLISH Wiki. It is geared towards English speakers, the vast majority of which are members of NATO states.50.111.44.55 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

While the number of casualties and injuries is important to this article and needs to be included, including it in an infobox is distasteful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OlYeller21 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC) 

I agree with olyeller21, it is needed but it seems wrong to have it in an infobox just as any other piece of information. Its not like "population", this is 20 lives lost and 21+ in danger of being seriously affected. Wikisaver62 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Making the change.  I'm being bold deleting the infobox as the info in it is in the body of the article.  It's redundant to have it listed twice.
The infobox deletion was reverted because the infobox was meant to summarize text in the section.  While I do agree that infoboxes summarize a body's information I believe that the section it is summarizing is too short to warrant a summarization especially since it has its own article.  I will honor that editors wishes but continue with the deletion of the casualties and injuries as discussed and agreed upon here.  OlYellerTalktome08:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is India still interested in this submarine? There should be a note on its status. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

From the Wiki page for Freon " It is one of a class of chemicals called Haloalkanes". I will guess then mean Halon. Halon is also a firefighting agent, and a CFC, which based on its being a CFC is being phased out in the US Navy. Halon dis not displace oxygen; and potentiaolly safe to enter a space where halon had been discharged. Halon, however would break down from high heating, and one by-product was a toxic gas, maybe a nerve agent. Halon might put a fire out but provided No protection to prevent the fire from restarting/reflash. 
Wfoj2 (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


### RE: Fire Source / Freon / Halon
Halon gas does suppress fires by displacing oxygen (it's heavier than air) and it is not a CFC.  CFC stands for Chloro Flouro Carbon.  Halon is Bromine based.  They share similar properties, but are different gasses.  It's kind of like confusing Oxygen with Hydrogen.  Both are volitle, but only one of them we can breathe.  [The above unsigned comment from User:Sundive

Halons are not necessarily Bromine based.  Halon 14, for example is carbon tetrachloride.  Halon 112 is dichlorofluoromethane, which is, of course, a CFC.  David Biddulph (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Fire suppression activity of Halon is not perfectly understood, but it is a chemical process not an oxygen displacement mechanism.  Normal system operation requires a concentration of Halon to be maintained in the space for a period of time.  This concentration is relatively low, in the 15% range, this is why trapping persons in protected areas dose not normally ashyxiate them.  Of course being sealed in a room with a fire has consequences! One of the big drivers for using Halon was this fact as weighed against one of the more popular early suppressants, carbon dioxide, which did displace all the oxygen in protected areas and did asphyxiate all trapped in the space. 69.228.216.116 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The US Navy uses Halon 1301 as its suppression system.  While about as destructive to ozone as a CFC, chemically it is composed of Bromine, not Chlorine.  It works as a fire suppression system through a chemical process that absorbs the energy of the fire as well as through oxygen displacement.  Dumping any gas into a sealed space up to a concentration of 15% will have a significant impact on fire propagation.  Remember, oxygen is about 21% of total air.  It is the ability to absorb the energy of fire (eliminating the heat side of the fire triangle) that makes Halon 1301 an effective suppression agent.  The soak time of Halon is necessary because while enough heat energy may have been removed from the space at the lower oxygen concentration, if the space is ventilated and fresh oxygen introduced there may be sufficient heat energy to reignite the fire (sort of like a backdraft). Dworjan (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes the Navy uses 1301 as do many facilites that installed it prior to it being broadly restricted due to ozone depleting characteristics. But, it does not work primarily as an oxygen displacer like carbon dioxide, or an energy grabber like water mist. For reference just look at the Wikipedia article on it and follow the external link for general information. The primary mechanism is chemical interference with the combustion reaction. 69.228.216.116 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The gas in this case was Freon-22, apparently - chlorodifluoromethane. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the term "gas mask"  is not correct.  I think that a brething device like a SCBA would be used.  A Gas mask would be worthless in this case, as it is unable to supply oxygen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.205.46 (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC) 

It depends on your definition of a "gas mask". The stuff in question, so-called "ПДА" ("personal'nyi dykhatel'nyi apparat" or Personal Breathing Apparatus) is indeed a small oxygen bottle with mask fitting, good for about 30 minutes of idle waiting or 10 minutes of work, indended to keep the crewman alive until the compartment is ventilated, or, optionally, until one connects to a cental breathing line through special hose. There might be confusion of terms, also. In Russian, the word for filtering gas mask and independent one is the same -- "противогаз", so it's neccessary to clarify it in times of doubt. --Khathi (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the good article review, I have moved content related to the 2008 accident to a daughter article to avoid problems with undue weight, leaving a summary in this article.  The content is clearly linked from the relevant section of the article, Wikipedia:Summary style.  Jehochman Talk 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What do we do with the article name when the ship is renamed by India? Jehochman Talk 12:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a tough one to say because India hasn't purchased the Submarine.It just leased it.But I too think that it can be renamed to INS Chakra. Srikar Kashyap (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The submarine is no longer "K-152 Nerpa" I propose all K-152 Nerpa terms to be replaced with INS Chakra except in places where the accident is mentioned  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.215.19 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 

As mentioned by User:Srikarkashyap here Talk:Russian_submarine_K-152_Nerpa#Rename_.2F_Redirect, this is a difficult issue, as the submarine is leased, not purchased. The are rumors that after the expiry of the 10 year lease, India has the option to buy the submarine, but that is disputed, and as such is prohibited under international treaties as this is a nuclear sub. I am not sure what to do. But building a consensus is a must for renaming the article. Anir1uph (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Chakra is "Akula-I Improved" and not Akula-II, there is only one Akula-II ever built that is "K-157 Vepr". It is correct to refer to it as "Project 971-I" a subdivision of "Project 971". Do not refer to it as Akula-II class. This is a wide misconception. standardengineer (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have contacted an expert and will write back with a reputed cite. standardengineer (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Submarines of the Soviet and Russian Navies, 1945-1991 Vol. III by Yuri Apalkov, says explicitly that Nerpa/Chakra is an Akula I Improved Pr. 971I hull. standardengineer (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Russian submarine Nerpa (K-152). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015073949/http://www.pinnipeds.org:80/species/baikal.htm to http://www.pinnipeds.org/species/baikal.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)