Talk:Project 941 submarine

Multi-hull drivel

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 86.148.7.122 (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 81.154.77.219 (talk • contribs) 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 81.154.77.219, 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)

It's now many years later, but I just wanted to note that I was curious as well where these internal schematics came from, so I have asked on the image's talk page. The schematic image was added back to this article in 2018, but no source was given, and not even an edit summary was provided. TheFeds 07:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

commons:User:Mike1979 Russia was kind enough to edit the description of File:Typhoon_class_Schema.svg with some sources. One source has links to an article and an image that may be relevant. TheFeds 07:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Whether it is true or not, it is poorly written and unclear, and needs to be explained better. I would have no idea what the writer was trying to describe if I hadn't gone and looked at the diagram on the I-400 article. The average reader cannot decipher this. "Multiple pressure hulls" could mean hulls inside of hulls, or watertight segments, whatever. And I have to question just how much having twin or triple hulls "increases survivability", since a submarine with the entire port half of the hull flooded is going to be in serious trouble. Some of the crew may be alive, but they will be sitting on the ocean floor (provided the water is shallow and the hull doesn't sink below crush depth), and most likely they will be sitting sideways, since the flooded half of the hull will sink while the unflooded half will try to float. Of course, I assume both hulls are divided into watertight compartments as well, which is far more useful for saving the ship.

70.16.213.248 (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is still not convinced of the multiple hulls, there is a photo on this page of what is clearly a Typhoon class under construction (https://interestingengineering.com/biggest-submarine-in-the-world-dmitriy-donskoy), clearly showing twin hulls with central missile tubes.

64.223.162.211 (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Name change

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

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?

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 "...at least".

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

Media references

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 87.78.118.107 (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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/

  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 ^Notify_Online 11:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Typhoon-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/20121021045936/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/episodes/nuclear-submarine/ to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/episodes/nuclear-submarine/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090623155259/http://community.livejournal.com/ru_submarine/17486.html to http://community.livejournal.com/ru_submarine/17486.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Photos section

I propose that this section should be removed. Besides being a bit out of place, the information is pointless without more context. When I view the coordinates for the second bullet point with Google Maps, there is no Typhoon present as the imagery is constantly updates. I would have to open Google Earth and scroll through images taken at different dates to find the Typhoon (if indeed whomever wrote that bullet point was even using Google Maps/Earth imagery at the time).Vepr157 (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)