So Akulas don't have countermeasures?
Obviously there were limits to the possible length of that scene, but it sucked that it ended like that.
shareI've had this discussion before. I admit that I am no submariner, but I believe that the scene was pretty poor. IMHO they made an error by making the Soviet/Russian sub an Akula. It should have been an earlier model... but I feel that in the situation where an Akula had the drop on an Ohio class that was in the middle of a mutiny with the Captain & XO having a shouting competition that the Akula would win.
Trouble is, it's no guarantee. US technology is pretty damned good, and Soviet/Russian technology is slightly behind. I feel that the diffierence in technology isn't very big, but it is definitely there.
The fil makers wanted the two giants to duke it out and of course the Akula could not win... or there is no story. A better writer would have made the Akula any earlier Soviet attack sub. I'm pretty sure a submariner would NEVER want to be in the sights of ANY sub at ANY time, so it would be extremely realistic for them to be pissing themselves even if it was an Alfa... but that's not what they did.
The thing is the result IS possible. There are just TOO many variables. The Akula could have won or lost, but I definitely would have betted on the Akula if it was IRL.
The Akula here was an attack sub, not a boomer, correct? NATO (and I'm assuming the US Navy), use the term Akula for Russian/Soviet attack subs. They (the Russians) call their boomers Akula (NATO calls them Typhoon class).
What are the chances that an Ohio class sub would win in a shootout with a Soviet attack sub? Even in The Hunt For Red October, the boomer (albeit a Russian boomer) needed help from a Los Angeles class attack sub to not get blown to kingdom come by the Russian attack sub.
Also, how effective are those counter measures anyway? They seem to work far too well in these movies.
The Soviets didn't necessarily apply a "class" name to their subs, any class names you may have heard were likely applied by NATO. US attack subs were of the Los Angeles class and "Boomers" or missile boats were of the Ohio class.
The Soviet "Typhoons" were their newest missile boats (boomers) - the 'Red October' was a fictional variation of the Typhoon Class. The "Akula" subs (a name applied by NATO) were attack submarines (not a class name but a sub type like the Kilos). I have never heard a 'class' name being applied to Soviet attack boats.
The bottom line is the 'Akula' referred to in this movie was an attack boat and the Soviet's best attack boat ever built (which by the way came about as a direct result of the Walker family spy ring).
The Alabama was a missile boat (or boomer) of the Ohio class.
As far as who would win a battle between an Ohio and an Akula....as is the case with any fight it matters not the system but the men and women operating the system. That being said any attack boat will usually win in a running fight.
The Akula here was an attack sub, not a boomer, correct? NATO (and I'm assuming the US Navy), use the term Akula for Russian/Soviet attack subs. They (the Russians) call their boomers Akula (NATO calls them Typhoon class).
You mainly have the idea right but you are confusing and conflating several different things.
We do not call their attack subs, Akula.
We call one specific class of attack sub (They have several), Akula.
They do not call their boomers Akula.
They call one specific class of boomer(They have several), Akula.
Akula is being used as a Class name.
You were using it as a name for a type of vessel, not simply the class.
There are several things you need to keep straight.
VESSEL TYPE
CLASS NAME
NATO REPORTING NAME
NICKNAMES
HULL TYPE DESIGNATIONS
Vessel type and hull type designations are the same thing, with the latter being a shorthand code to denote the former
Nuclear powered attack submarine is the vessel type, the hull designation of which is SSN.
A non-nuclear (Diesel-Electric) attack sub is an SSK. A nuclear powered ballistic missile sub is an SSBN, etc...
"Boomer" is a nickname applied to any and all Ballistic missile subs. It does not denote a specific class.
Class names are for a series of vessels all built to the same plans and layout within a vessel type.
For the US, we have the Los Angeles Class, Seawolf class, and Virginia class, all of which are SSNs.
Now during the cold war, we often did not know what the class name the Soviets used for a particular class of ship or sub. We saw them, analyzed their particulars and capabilities, but we didn't know the name. But we had to call them something in order to differentiate them in reports.
Enter the NATO Reporting Name.
Most soviet subs were named after a letter of the Military Phoenetic Alphabet.
Alpha, Charlie, Kilo, Foxtrot, Delta, Whiskey, etc... Until we ran out of letters (Russians were big on making a lot of different subs). Then we had to start giving them other names. TYPHOON was the Nato reporting name of a particular class of SSBN. The same one which Red October was a fictional variant of.
After the Cold War was over, we started learning the names of Russian classes. Turns out the TYPHOON was called the Akula class by the Russians themselves.
Meanwhile, when we still did not know the Soviets own names for their things, the Soviets fielded a new advanced and deadly SSN Attack Sub. We gave it the Nato reporting name of AKULA (Russian for Shark). We did not know that the Soviets called their latest SSBN class, Akula.
The Soviets called this new Submarine class, Shchuchka, or "Pike".
In most academic and military papers on the subject, a Class name will be first letter capitalized, whereas a Nato reporting name will be in ALL CAPS.
For example: The last remaining active Submarine of the Akula [TYPHOON] class is the submarine, "Dmitriy Donskoy".
(A bit off topic but of interest... Dmitriy Donskoy was the submarine responsible for the mysterious "Norway Spiral. He was test firing a new "Bulava" SLBM for use in the follow-on SSBN class replacing the Akula[TYPHOON]... The Borei class SSBN.)
Nato Reporting names in themselves are interesting.
You can tell quite a bit about what something is just by its name.
In Soviet aircraft, all bomber names started with a B. If the word was signle syllable, it was propeller driven. if multiple syllables, then it was jet powered.
BEAR was a prop driven bomber, BLACKJACK and BACKFIRE are jets.
C was for cargo/Transport aircraft.
CUB, COLT (prop), CANDID, CONDOR (Jet).
F was fighters, FENCER, FULCRUM, FLANKER FISHBED, etc...
Missiles...
Air to Air missiles were A... ATOLL, ARCHER, APEX, etc...
Air to Surface missiles were K...
KITCHEN,KELT,KINGFISH, etc...
Surface launched missiles were S.
SUNBURN, STYX, SHADDOCK, SEPAL, etc...
Surface to Air... G.
GUIDELINE, GOPHER, GOA, GRUMBLE, GAINFUL, etc...
And much more.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! share
Excellent summary.
There has tended to be a lot of pop-media confusion about NATO code names (Reporting Names), in that people assume the names were applied by the country of origin to the equipment, and therefore would normally have some positive connotation.
During the first Gulf War, when the term "SCUD missile" was on everyone's lips, ill-informed pundits would cast about for some definition of the word scud that seemed in some way fearsome or noble or poetic, usually not realizing that 1) the missile's designers/operators never called it that, and 2) the only significance to the word itself is the first letter.
One minor correction, though. The Tupolev Tu-95 bomber, code named Bear, is propeller-driven but not piston-engined. It is a turboprop.
I missed a lot of the Talking head pundits during that time, Being at sea in the Persian Gulf and all. or transiting to and from.
lol.
And thanks for the error catch. I knew that. (headsmacks self).
I was being inexact.
Error corrected.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!