Talk:S5-class submarine

This Page has been deleted multiply times previously

the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. And this page:-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arihant_follow-on_submarine Mayank Prasoon (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mayank Prasoon: Yes, I have notified the editor who created the article to look at those deletion discussions and take care of the issues which appeared in earlier (deleted) articles. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 07:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay Mayank Prasoon (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mayank Prasoon and Sarvatra: I have explained in a section below that a source cited in this article is HIGHLY credible. It is inappropriate to consider the deletion of this article.-VaibhavafroTalk 05:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

previous deletion via AfD

i request to check admin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arihant_follow-on_submarine & 2 here previous deletion discussion.--Nahal^(T) 08:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The article has new references that confirm the submarine is in development. These references were absent in the 2015 discussion so G4 does not apply, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Credibility of the sources cited in the article

I want to point out that this source, which is cited multiple times in the article, is a highly credible source. It is penned by the same author who FIRST DISCLOSED THE PRESENCE OF THE K Missile family. It is therefore inappropriate to consider the deletion of the article.—VaibhavafroTalk 07:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

For more proof, see this and this.—VaibhavafroTalk 08:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for cooperation Vaibhav, I too was aware about 3 deletions earlier. So, I went ahead to create this only when I had got WP:RS. Above media reports, I've referenced Security scan episode of state-owned Rajya Sabha TV (sorry for not giving direct link as YouTube URL isn't allowed & RSTV is yet to upload archive on its website) broadcasted on September 12, 2019 which is a discussion about S-5 class ballistic missile submarine and ultimate reliable source for development of the project.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: Yes, Rajya Sabha TV is also a very good source. But I believe that Sandeep Unnithan, who wrote the article mentioned above, is the go-to man for the government for releasing information. He was the first one to write about the K Missile family and INS Arighat. Thus, he is of top-notch reliability.-VaibhavafroTalk 09:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed his credibility counts for sure. I'm just saying a discussion on a government's broadcasting channel like Rajya Sabha is like an official announcement of project and hereby, nulifies the need of WP:RS. This entire article can stay on support of this single source.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: I fully agree with you. In the meantime, I think we should add that RS TV discussion in the external links section.-VaibhavafroTalk 15:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I have unreviewed the page as source is relying on a Twitter tweet nothing official from the Indian navy WP:CRYSTALBALL.

FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 15:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• • See the first three references Atlantic306 (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fitindia: See the other references. If you want, I will spam more references. I have explained in a section above about why a cited source in the article is highly credible.—VaibhavafroTalk 01:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro:Noted. FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 04:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nuclear reactors and horsepower

The CLWR-B2 is no contest a 190MW reactor, but these are 190MWth (thermal)but there is no known way to obtain 250,000shp, as well as 190MWe = electric Watts : the 190MWth are used to war water which will create vapor that will run turbines. Most of nuclear turbines have a 30-35% efficiency => 57-66.5 MW => 77,520-90,400 shp. The Russian turbines used with the, how surprising 190MWth OK-650B/OK-650M found on Akula-class submarines only have about 18% efficiency : the OK-7 steam turbine generates 32MW (43,000 shp) and add to two OK-2 Turbogenerators producing 2 MWe. For reference, the 150MWth K15 reactor used on French Triomphant class generates 30.5MWe = 41,500 shp dedicated to propulsion The new generation of Siemens turbines allow a 60% efficiency, so these would generate 114MW = 155,040 shp which seems dubious here : AFAIK, at the present day, these have only been used for nuclear plants, althugh feasible, smaller versions to power nuclear ships still have to be built yet. The more likely to happen is the use of an OK-7 turbine, maybe license built. This is not known at the present day but India has leased an Akula-class for a decade so it makes sense that they seek a similar propulsion with a reactor of 190MWth too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:5B1:B060:129:BF3C:17B9:BDA8 (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Undefined reference

Hello Anupom Nath! You made this edit yesterday which relies on a citation named "Propulsion". But there's no such citation in the article, and the reference you added results in an error. Are you able to provide the required citation and fix the error? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)