Talk:Akula-class submarine

message: 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)
thread_title: Initial comments in this page

message: 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)
thread_title:  Leasing to India "edit-discussion" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Quietness" of the submarine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nerpa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Akula an "attack" submarine, not a "ballistic missile" submarine 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Akula III sub-class? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Quite right. Fixed.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  07:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical? 

message: July - August 2012 in the gulf of Mexico remained 3 weeks without being spotted by us-radars until it left the US territory waters
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188791/Russian-attack-submarine-slipped-past-US-Navy-patrolled-Gulf-Mexico-weeks-undetected.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://freebeacon.com/silent-running/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steliosb (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation 

message: "This design requires more power than single-hull submarines[citation needed] because of the greater wetted surface area, which increases drag."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but double-hull construction allows optimization of pressure hull for firmness and outer hull for minimizing drag; a single-hull would always be a compromise. So, the lack of a source cited must be for a good reason.. 188.134.8.72 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-hull vs. double-hull 

message: 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 necessarily 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:
*http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/akula/specs.html
*:Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://web.archive.org/web/20110605033644/http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/akula/specs.html
*: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 12:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Akula-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131035047/http://rushincrash.com/forces/nuclear-submarine-kuzbass-returns-to-the-fleet-until-the-new-year/ to http://rushincrash.com/forces/nuclear-submarine-kuzbass-returns-to-the-fleet-until-the-new-year/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416233014/https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/971.htm to https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/971.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently states that "The class is also known under the name Bars (meaning 'snow leopard')":</br>  
I dunno where this idea comes from; the source here (at globalsecurity.org) is quite definite about it, but the ru article makes no mention of it and nor do the sources there. 
Also, Bars doesn't mean snow leopard at all: Russian has two words for the leopard (pantera pardus); «барс» (from Turkish) and «леопард"» (from the Greek)(ru), while the snow leopard (uncia uncia) is «Ирбис» (Irbis), or «сне́жный барс»  (snezhnyy bars, lit: 'snow' 'leopard')(ru). 
What the ru article does say is that some of the Schuka-Bs were given names previously used by the earlier Bars class, giving rise to the nickname 'cat series' («кошачьей серией» ) but that doesn't make them known as the Bars class. 
In addition, one of the units, K-480  (ru), was named Ak Bars, but this is a reference to the national emblem of Tatarstan, known as the 'White Leopard', or 'Snow Leopard' (and from the Turkish Ak Bars, meaning 'white leopard'). Contariwise, another (unfinished) boat, yard number 519, was to be called «Ирбис» (Irbis): Make of that what you will...</br>
I'm loathe to take out stuff that's sourced without raising it for discussion, but it looks like bollocks to me. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bars (snow leopard) class 

message: This submarine is in fact the Shchuka-class, the Akula-class is a large ballistic missile submarine not related to this class. Whilst the article does mention the correct name, the name in the title remains incorrect and misleading that can cause confusion between the two classes of submarine.
It is only logical and factual to use real names instead of foreign nicknames unrelated to the country of origin.
41.182.123.54 (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no: The Shchuka-class were the project 671 boats (codenamed Victor). These were the Project 971 Shchuka-B class. And the difference between the Russian name and the NATO reporting name, and those of the Akula /Typhoon boats is explained very clearly in the article. But as this is the English language WP it is in fact logical to write in English, and use the names commonly used in English; no doubt the Russian language WP writes articles about British & American stuff in Russian, without Anglophone editors insisting on them using the real names, rather than foreign names unrelated to the country of origin, hmm? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

text: We go by the NATO designation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.6.31 (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please avoid foreign nicknames in article titles