This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
MINE COUNTERMEASURES: The British Go It Alone (Again)
By Commander M. G. M. W. Ellis, Royal Navy
combination of good intelligence alert “minewatching.” Minewatc is the task of trying to observe, by ^ or radar, mines as they are dropPe j£ aircraft and fixing their positions^ entails long periods of boredom _
for something to hapP with
minewatching
ad
MCM in
A il
a
o<
Those readers who studied at the U. S. Naval War College in the mid-1970s will remember the extremely valuable tabletop wargame which required the students to get a task force across an ocean in order to "project power” into a friendly country which had asked for U. S. military assistance. They will also remember how, having fought off every type of aircraft, missile, and torpedo the enemy could muster, the mission was apparently aborted at the last move of the game by a simple airborne- minelaying operation.
This brought home very strongly the simple lesson that, in “peace” or war, the mine remains a weapon which can be used to great effect by a weaker power to frustrate the intentions of a powerful navy. It seems particularly effective in less-than-full-war situations because, if activated in a timely manner, it forces the power that wishes to use the mined area to make the move which can cause the destruction of his ships. This is nothing new. In 1972, the U. S. Navy effectively closed the port of Haiphong in Vietnam by mines; similar lessons can be drawn from Korea (where Vice Admiral C. Turner Joy was forced to call off an amphibious landing at Wonsan) and the Corfu Channel Incident, to say nothing of the great mining campaigns conducted by both sides in both world wars.
Yet the U. S. Navy has apparently allowed its once numerous mine countermeasure (MCM) forces to dwindle to three ships and a handful of helicopter-towed sweeps. While these helicopter sweeps are undoubtedly effective, the combined U.S./U.K./
Egyptian operation to clear the Suez Canal in 1974 showed that a mixture of waterborne and airborne mine clearance was essential. The U. S. Navy is not alone, however, in its apparent indifference to the mining threat.
Speaking at a press conference on 6 June 1978, at Portland, England, following a joint exercise by the five minesweepers of NATO’s Standing Naval Force Channel and the six frigates of NATO’s Standing Naval Force Atlantic, Admiral Sir Henry Leach, NATO CinC Channel, stated that a shortage of MCM resources was one of the Alliance’s chief weaknesses, saying “If reinforcements for Europe have to wait while suitable channels are swept clear of mines, it is a pretty intolerable situation.” He went on to remark on the aging status of most of NATO’s MCM vessels and noted that while new ships and methods of minesweeping and hunting were being developed, he was “not so confident in terms of numbers. The new ships are more expensive, so the countries concerned are able to purchase only a smaller number of them. We are undoubtedly going to be short.” .
Within the limits of its tight budget, the Royal Navy does seem to take the mine threat seriously. In common with many other NATO navies in the 1950s, the Royal Navy built a large number of 500-ton wooden-hulled minesweepers, basically to an updated World War II design. While these vessels have done sterling work in combat patrol and training roles, they have rarely been used for actual mine countermeasures, but when they have, as in clearing the
North Sea minefields (a task 'v went on well into the Sixties), 1 _ have proved very effective. ^ur!jjne more, over the years British Countermeasure Forces, under ^ leadership of Captain (MCM) w 0. based in Rosyth, Scotland, have veloped the new technique of ml hunting. ,e.
The basis of minehunting is 1 ceptively simple sounding task o ^ ing and rendering harmless e single mine laid by the enemy in area or channel to be cleared. Its j ecution is exhaustingly difficult ■' ^ on occasions, requires a degree o sonal bravery rarely matched in 0 naval operations. . . a
Finding each mine begins
Rid?
waiting
Armed with intelligence
.......................... „ information,
c> , iptr
Forces proceed into the area and j to search for the mines with extred1 accurate, high-definition bo£t ,, searching sonars (which can te i beer can from a Coke bottle ing to the boast of one sailor in ^ Shoal ton, the first ship to be _ ^ }
with one of these mine, or possible mine, is locate1 -s may have to be done immediate I ^ later in a general cleanup operation- mine is normally rendered harmlesS^ placing a charge alongside and stroying it by a countermine e*P j sion. This countercharge can be P ‘
s'vepi
mines remaining in the area to
°ngside the enemy mine by taking a a 1 boat (manned or remote con- ^ ec0 out to a position vertically 0Ve the mine and dropping or lowS it to the mine. Alternatively a
mote-controlled submersible vehicle or a • .
^ swimmer-diver can take the 3r to the mine. Swimmer-divers tc^h ° required if an enemy mine has e recovered intact for intelligence Poses. Obviously, minehunting rees extremely accurate navigation Ord °rS an<^ contr°l equipment to comate successful countermining. tjc “as*s °f minesweeping is statis- s- This is largely because ship- th ntS Can ^>u^t ‘nt0 m‘nes so that sl?^ are not activated by the first or almost any number of ships, lch passes over them. The ship- sh'ntS a^S° wor^ aga*nst simulated are^’ W^'c^ 's what most minesweeps ' Thus, the execution of mine- eping requires long periods of re- tive operations to reduce to an actable level the probability of unbeared. The techniques of minesweeping were developed by the late 1940s and include mechanical, magnetic, and acoustic sweeps. Further development has continued, but the painstaking hard work of attrition sweeping has not been eased. However, the MCM vessels which have developed these techniques are now becoming old and in need of replacement.
From about 1970, studies and developments were set in motion by the Navy Department of the British Ministry of Defence to design and build a replacement MCM vessel, to be known as the “Hunt” class (presumably because minehunting was to be a principal role) and named after famed British fox hunts. The operational requirement for mine countermeasures in British waters must be based on the essential minimum need to keep open the approaches to key installations and also the narrow seas between England and mainland Europe, in order to safeguard the route by which military reinforcements and supplies pass to Europe in time of tension or war. Calculations made on how many mines could be laid by a potential enemy in these areas led to the concept that a new MCM vessel had to be a combined sweeper and hunter, as opposed to the separate ships used hitherto. This flexibility will ensure that the right ship will always be in the right place at the right time, even though it means the ships must be bigger and more expensive than if they had only one role. This flexibility, however, will probably mean that the total number of MCM vessels will be smaller than if separate-role vessels had to be built. These new MCM vessels will need to be supplemented by other craft, mostly in the support role. These will include trawlers for deep-water sweeping and for buoy-laying, and hovercraft and helicopters. Helicopters for mine
Four of the Royal Navy vessels that helped clear the Suez Canal of mines—HMS Bossington (M-1133), foreground, Abdiel (N-21), Maxton (M-1165), and Wilton (M-1166)—are seen in Port Said.
ii III mini.
Table 1 “Hunt’’-CIass MCMV Specifications
Note: The gun is provided so that the "Hunts," like all their predecessors, can carry out patrol duties to supplement the Royal Navy's growing fleet of specialist offshore patrol craft-
625 metric tons (615 long tons)
56.5 meters (186 feet)
60 meters (196 feet)
9-9 meters (32 feet)
2.2 meters ('IVi feet)
45
Single Mk-9 40-mm. j
• A
Latest British mechanical, magnetic ana
acoustic sweeps ,e.
Type 193 Mk-2 sonar; two French PAP m*ne
structor vehicles
Latest support system for mine disposal s mers, including a one-man compression charn
lO*'
This adoption of GRP led naval constructors into an entirely n^j field at the limits of science ‘ ^ technology. Besides its propert,eS strength and no magnetism, the n1, rial is an electrical insulator an transparent to electromagnetic ene t ^ (This is why it is used for radott>e (
serie5
car
be
b»se<
ne"'
It
countermeasures are not yet attractive to the British, simply because the weather in the English Channel and other task areas can still ground them for significant periods of time. While hovercraft suffer from low endurance and towing power, opinion is turning towards these new craft as they develop. Although many ancillary craft will be used in MCM, advances in mines mean that it will not be possible to take up dozens of trawlers and fit them with simple minesweeping gear for the shallow water task as was done in World War II. Mine warfare has advanced considerably since 1945, and there are now no cheap mine countermeasure options.
An early decision in the “Hunt”- class development was for a glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) hull. The obvious requirement to avoid steel because of magnetic mines had previously been satisfied by wood, but maintenance (particularly against rot), strength, and metal/wood interface problems caused a shift to the new “wonder” material. Glass-reinforced plastic is a misnomer; “resin-bonded glass fibers” would be a better name for this representative of the new technology of strong materials. Its strength derives from an interesting combination of properties. Glass is inherently very strong but, unfortunately, very brittle—the two properties should not be confused. A crack in glass (and all glass, except new-made pieces, is covered with fine cracks) will propagate explosively under stress. However, if the technique of the weak interface is used, whereby a strong material is interleaved with a weaker material, a crack developing under stress in the strong material will stop when it reaches the weaker material as the stress is diverted in different directions. Thus, in GRP, a matrix of strong glass fibers is intimately inter-
Standard Displacement
Waterline
Overall
Beam
Draft
Crew
Gun
Sweep Gear Hunting Gear Diving Gear
leaved with the weaker resin or plastic. The process works; GRP has proved to be as strong as steel in countless small craft, including transatlantic racing yachts. To test the concept in a larger vessel, the Royal Navy contracted Vosper Thornycroft to build a minehunter, HMS Wilton, to the existing “Ton”-class design. Commissioned in 1973, -and like many other ships, she carries a cheerful nickname, courtesy of the sailors of the fleet; she is known as HMS Tupper- ware. She has proved to be extremely successful and participated in the Suez Canal clearing operation of 1974. Her experience to date has shown that maintenance costs of a GRP hull are only one-fifth of her wooden or steel equivalent. A further and unexpected bonus is the complete absence of leaks, enabling the ship’s bottom to be used for storage.
-lew
Its unique properties meant studies and experiments had to ried out to transfer techniques on steel hulls or frames to the hull with very little steel about should be remembered that wooden minesweepers have quite ft* sive steel frames. There was the si problem of grounding electrical a . electronic apparatus. Hitherto e*e cal engineers had simply bonded t equipment to the hull or frame, ing this would achieve a corn^f ground potential with the sea. 1° ,^j vessels, however, special electt
CarT^ f^ates and lines have to be e ully provided to prevent floating Th' ntla^S an<^ extraneous radiation.
ls !s necessary because of the conse- sh6- dangers to men (e.g. electric e | ’ ^uel> and electrically initiated
feet °S'Ve devices, in addition to ef- v on the magnetic signature of the and radio interference caused by Ranted current flows, cl ,eSC studies and experiments were
‘ y interrelated with the requirements f
tur IOr a very *ow magnetic signa-
ele,
and the extensive electrical and j^Ctr°nic fit of a modern MCM vessel. rad'C^ Standard equipment (e.g. basic an ° SetS^ ^aS to redesigned or Ul C ^rorn non-magnetic materials at least with the absolute minimum Magnetic metals.
°dern miije countermeasures ree extremely accurate navigation,
of
‘‘eht
cont
control of sensors, and a full
inuous up-to-date picture of the
env: com
r art methods cannot cope with these sio lrernentS’ wR‘cR fed t0 the deci- t0 fit the new vessel with an inte- teed computer-based mine coun- ^ measures control system. A variant computer_assjste<j actjon informa- p.°n system (CAAIS), which is widely *n R°y.al Navy frigates, was chos ’ ^errant' Ltd. has developed this ^ em to give the new MCMV a com- On- lr*formation center which will be e °f the most advanced available to j ships anywhere.
can be assumed that the MCMV similar in principle to the offered for sale to
lr°nment to be presented to the mander. The older visual and
C*AIs
()^ranti system
er navies. At the heart of this sys-
(em
^hich
■s the FM1600D mini-computer,
processes navigational and sonar
hnPuts and provides the necessary out- sj^.s to a display console and other 'bboard systems.
^be display console is designed for
"se b.
(Mh
y the minehunting control officer
'Ub,
inf,
Co) and has a 12-inch plan display
e which presents contacts and other orrnation in an integrated tactical ture by means of electronic symbols Vj. Ottering. This display can also be 'Ved by the ship’s captain and is
vie’
k,
Sui
Pped with a tracker-ball,
^eyboard, and tote, so that the MHCO ‘ communicate with the computer.
The FM1600D computer provides the necessary accuracy and ensures that the navigational inputs from the appropriate radio-fixing aids or Doppler sonar are precisely transferred to the system’s other functions—e.g., the auto pilot. The computer can also control the sonar, either in a programmed search pattern or to relocate a previous contact.
Accurate and comprehensive records are also essential to the effective and economic employment of MCM forces. First, they enable objects detected on the seabed to be relocated minutes or days later. Second, they enable such contacts to be passed from one ship to another. Furthermore, these records contribute to the overall plot of MCM operations in an area. The computer data in the MCM control system are therefore copied onto magnetic tape for direct transfer or can be printed out on hard copy with an X/Y plot. Further computer assistance will be available to derive search plans and to solve the statistical problems of attrition sweeping. It is possible that, with information in binary form, the vessels may be fitted with a data link to exchange mine warfare and other operational information with other MCMVs, other warships, and shore bases.
The first “Hunt”-class MCM vessels are being built by Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton, and will be powered by two 1,770 h.p. Ruston-Paxman Deltic diesel main engines driving fixed-pitch propellers through ahead/ astern clutches and reverse reduction gearboxes to give a speed of 17 knots. A third Deltic diesel engine provides power for slow-speed running and maneuvering via hydrostatic transmission systems, air clutches, and main gearboxes to the ships’ propellers. Other machinery, also driven hydraulically, includes sweep winches and a bow thruster. The engines are specially designed and constructed to have a low magnetic signature. A hybrid computer was extensively used to establish the dynamic behavior of ship and machinery; this was invaluable in deriving a control system which will allow the ship to achieve optimum performance without overloading the machinery and transmission systems.
HMS Brecon, first of the “Hunt”
MCMVs, was launched from the covered building berth specially constructed, with other associated facilities, for these glass-reinforced plastic vessels on 21 June 1978 by Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Kent. HMS Brecon, which will be accepted into service in November 1979, is believed to be the largest plastic vessel afloat anywhere in the world. No doubt, she will eventually be known as HMS Tupperware II.
The order for the second of the class, HMS Ledbury, was placed with Vosper Thornycroft in 1976. In that same year, it was also announced that the establishment of a second production line for "Hunt”-class MCMVs at Yarrow Shipbuilders’ Glasgow shipyard had been authorized. It is reported that at least 12 ships of the class are planned.
HMS Brecon was built in the facility originally erected for the construction of HMS Wilton; the construction hall had to be extended to accommodate the larger vessel. The hull mold was constructed of aluminum alloy at HM Dockyard Devonport, shipped in sections to Southampton, and reassembled. Work on HMS Ledbury is now proceeding in the mold. Also at Southampton is a full-scale shore-test facility for the propulsion machinery which has enabled Vosper Thornycroft and the Ministry of Defence to test and refine the propulsion system for the class.
With HMS Brecon and her sisters, the Royal Navy clearly hopes to be better placed to respond to Admiral Leach’s call for an improved mine clearance capability for NATO. It is hoped that this will lead to a similar response from the other NATO navies. At the very least, the Royal Navy will be able to ensure that reinforcement convoys to Britain will not be frustrated on the last stage of their voyage by a simple mining operation.
I
:eedings / July 1979
105
Navstar Goes To Sea ___________
By Lieutenant Commander J. A. Strada, U. S. Navy
Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation equipment has successfully undergone concept validation testing on board two Navy vessels. Navstar is a satellite navigation system being developed jointly by the Army, Navy, and Air Force to provide continuous position, velocity, and time information to users anywhere on or near the earth. The position information is accurate to ten meters, the velocity to 0.1 meters/second, and at the time, to a few nanoseconds. In addition to latitude, longitude, and altitude, the Navy user can obtain range, bearing, and time to any three-dimensional point that he chooses, allowing an officer of the deck, for example, to navigate in restricted waters during periods of low visibility. Although only four Navstar satellites are currently in orbit, the final constellation will consist of 24 satellites in 12-hour, 11,000-nautical mile orbits.*
Navy testing of the Navstar equipment involved the employment of a large equipment shelter which was
craned on board each ship in tur The shelter houses the ^aV?jt*g equipment as well as data recor equipment. In December 1978, shelter was placed on board the - foot landing craft LCU-1618, °Pe ^ ated by the Naval Ocean Systems e ^ ter in San Diego. Navstar navigat\^ accuracy was measured on an strumented test range off of San ^ mente Island, and possible signal m tipath effects were investigated using variable-height, submarine ante welded on the stern of the craft-
Navstar Shipboard Test #/: The Navy Concept Validation testing was conducted on board the LCU-1618. The Navstar shelter was placed on the LCU’s after housing, and a variable-height submarine antenna (above) was installed on the stem to evaluate the effects of signal multipath on Navstar accuracy. Two Navstar sets, operating independently, demonstrate excellent agreement in latitude and longitude during the test.
ALL PHOTOS COURTESY OF AUTHOR
Navstar Shipboard Test #2: The Navstar shelter, dubbed “African Queen II" by the triservice test personnel, was placed at the after end of the Fanning’s helo deck to afford maximum satellite visibility. A variable-height antenna mast mounted on the shelter permitted collection of signal multipath data. Above, Major Paul Thompson, USAF, relays Navstar steering information to the bridge. On the bridge, an aircraft-type steering display—driven by Navstar data—is positioned for the Fanning’s helmsman. Left, the frigate’s forward gun fires based on Navstar navigation data.
107
r°°eedings / July 1979
addition, simulated antisubmarine warfare exercises were conducted with a P-SB aircraft, also equipped with Navstar, flown by pilots from the Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Maryland.
In January 1979, Navstar went to sea on board the USS Fanning (FF-1076) and was tested in a variety of Navy scenarios. Navstar information was used to navigate the San Diego channel and to provide ship’s course and speed to the fire control computer during a naval gunfire support exercise. Other testing included man overboard
recovery, precision anchorage, and Navstar immunity to shipboard radio frequency interference. Finally, Navstar provided at-sea navigation fixes to the Fanning's navigator during a ten- day cruise from San Diego to Acapulco, Mexico, and back.
The test teams on board both vessels had an interesting joint-service flavor, consisting of Navy test engineers, Army technicians, and Air Force operators. The accompanying photographs focus on these test teams and their interaction with the crews of both vessels.
*For additional information, see NAVSTA Global Positioning System: Navigation for Future," pp. 101-4, April 1977 Proceedings, "Decision Pending on Use of NAVSTAR -A tern,” pp. 148-9, December 1979 Proceedings-
Over-the-Horizon with a New Helo
By Lieutenant Commander John Cook, Jr., U. S. Navy
The introduction of the Harpoon missile, although somewhat shortlegged, has dramatically increased the antisurface warfare offensive punch of U. S. Navy surface ships. The introduction of the Tomahawk missile would finally give the U. S. Navy’s surface ships the capability that their Soviet counterparts have enjoyed for years. However, if we are to realize the effectiveness promised by either of these missiles, we must solve over- the-horizon (OTH) detection, classification, targeting, and damage assessment problems.
Shortly after the turn of the century, U. S. naval forces extended the range of their sensors and weapons by using aircraft. Since it is ludicrous to contemplate sufficient numbers of aircraft carriers to protect underway replenishment groups, convoys, and tanker routes, more combat capability must be placed in U. S. Navy surface ships. Sometime in the distant future fixed-wing vertical or short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft may be available to achieve the Navy’s 1913 goal of having an airplane on every U. S. naval combatant. However, it will be a long time before V/STOL is operational. During this interim period, we must develop a solution to get more aircraft on board our ships or face being outclassed by the Soviets, which might result in events so unfavorable to us as to obviate any future V/STOL accomplishment. If we think
of V/STOL only in the conceptual terms of mission requirements, we will find that significant capabilities can be acquired today, with low technological risk, at an affordable cost. That is, by employing aircraft that become airborne by accelerating a large mass of air a little bit instead of a small mass of air a lot—i.e., helicopters.
Helicopter development, which only began in earnest after World War II, is just reaching maturity. Recent helicopter developments have demonstrated significant performance improvements that require a reassessment of the helicopter’s potential contributions to naval warfare. Some warfare tasks and supporting tasks that could be accomplished by a helicopter system are
► Antiair warfare—air defense (detection and classification with a selfdefense capability)
► Antisubmarine warfare—pouncer
role only .
► Antisurface warfare—against a small combatant/surfaced submarine
► Amphibious warfare—naval gunfire control (close support, secondary)
► Mine warfare—dropping mines (limited)
► Special warfare—various missions from communication relay to SEAL close support
► Intelligence—reconnaissance and surveillance
► Over-the-horizon targeting—Harpoon and Tomahawk
► Command, control, and com munications—various missions
► Electronic warfare—jamming ception, ESM detection
► Search and rescue
► Logistics support .
Such a helicopter could be
oped from any of several recent signs such as the Sikorsky 300+ K ABC prototype or the Bell HelicoPc 330-knot tilt-rotor prototype- coaxial Sikorsky ABC helicopre^ though marginally slower than tilt-rotor design, does offer some
de-
the dis-
- com'
tinct advantages. Its size is more -
/ith destroyer-type ships- an
patible wi
there are more usable locations forward-firing weapons. (Helibo ^
for
French’
and Danish navies and coo
U- S’
missiles are in use by British, »•- ,,
- uld
Italian
be readily acquired by the Navy. Purchases of existing Wesr weapons would also serve to imprl interoperability and alliance cohesive ness.)
The proposed operational caP^ bilities and possible weapon loads 3 as follows:
Size: Compatible with an esC
ship; nominally like r LAMPS I
Approx. 21,000 pounds 300 knots; 200 kno1
Weight:
Speed:
Endurance:
Crew:
cruise for maxim endurance 3.5 hours
Two (pilot and a sei operator)
um
nsof
lange:
6,000 pounds (fuel weapons)
700 nautical miles
ionics:
Avj
w,
UHF with secure capability and automatic relay HF
Directional data link (UHF, HF)
TACAN or Navstar GPS Radar surface and air search modes TACNAV plotter (ASN-123 or equivalent)
ESM equipment (ALR-142 or 66 and ALE-29A)
FLIR or LLTV eapons configurations (with quick ^econfiguration possible):
Configuration 1: Air Threat
• 2 air-to-air missiles (SRAAM or SHAFRIR missiles employed by the U.K. and Israel; sensors are contained in the missile and require little support from the aircraft)
• 1 ALQ-119-type jamming pod
^ • bulk chaff
Configuration 2: Small Surface Combatant Threat
• 2 air-to-air missiles
• 2 air-to-surface missiles
^ (Sea Skua, U.K.)
Configuration 3: LAMPS Pouncer Support
• 2 air-to-air missiles
• 1 air-to-surface Sea Skua
• 1 Mk-46 torpedo
(or)
• 2 air-to-air missiles
^ • Mk-46 torpedoes
Configuration 4: Surveillance/Scout
• 2 air-to-air missiles
• auxiliary fuel tanks for extended range and endurance
In all configurations this aircraft would be teamed with a surface ship equipped with the primary weapons—e.g., Harpoon or Tomahawk for antisurface warfare and surface-to-air missiles for antiair warfare. The helicopter would provide the initial detection and classification of a threat and assist with over-the-horizon targeting and damage assessment. By giving the helicopter some weapon capabilities, its survivability is enhanced while complicating the tactical picture for an enemy unit which it might encounter.
Escorts with the capabilities offered by this embarked helicopter would have significantly improved effectiveness in a screen for a high-value unit (HVU) and would expand the surveillance area around the HVU while conserving and augmenting carrier air assets. In situations where the escorts are operating independently, the ability of escorts to successfully accomplish their assigned mission and survive is also greatly increased by the capabilities provided by this kind of helicopter. Escorts carrying these helicopters would be highly effective in convoy operations and in escorting underway replenishment groups, assuming, of course, that the bulk of Soviet naval and air forces would be committed against other friendly naval and land forces.
The Navy has, on both coasts, sea- based ASW functional wings which could be redesignated Sea Control Wings and which then would have assigned to them one or two squadrons of the proposed helicopters, in addition to the VS, HS, and HSL squadrons already assigned. These squadrons could be called Sea Control Support Squadrons, e.g., HSC-l, HSC-2. These squadrons would deploy one-helicopter detachments which would embark on certain escort ships that don’t deploy with LAMPS detachments or those that have room for two helicop-
ters and have only one LAMPS assigned. In a typical five-ship destroyer squadron, two or three ships would have embarked HSC detachments, with one ship having an enhanced supply support for the other detachments.
HSC helicopters configured for surveillance could be employed by their ships to fly patrols in designated sectors during transit. The helicopter could fly 100 nautical miles or more from the task force and search an area at the optimal altitude with either passive ESM or active radar. When the helo is using its radar or broadcasting on its data link or radio, its bearing from the task force could be passively monitored. Using simple geometry, two or more surface units could ascertain the helicopter’s precise location. When Navstar navigation satellites are operational, the helo’s exact location could be data-linked from the helo to pinpoint the location of its sensor information. The task force, then, could possess a surface and/or air picture of any target of interest located by the patrolling helicopter and would not have to compromise the main body’s location. This same information would be sufficient to provide OTH targeting information for shipboard-launched antisurface warfare missiles. With its high dash speed, this pouncer- configured helicopter could support a LAMPS helicopter prosecuting a subsurface contact. This could bring two additional Mk-46 torpedoes to the datum, or one Mk-46 torpedo and a 20-nautical-mile-range air-to-surface Sea Skua missile with a 47-pound explosive head. Besides providing torpedoes for another attack under LAMPS direction and a threat against, for example, a surfaced “Echo II” submarine, it would also provide some protection against a hostile air or surface attempt to interfere with the LAMPS mission of locating and destroying the submarine.
When a surface task group must operate near a potentially hostile coast, these helos, carrying two Sea Skua missiles, could serve as scouts searching for high-speed patrol boats. With their speed they could sweep a large area, identifying fishing boats, coastal shipping, and other commercial craft from patrol craft or other potentially hostile missile platforms. For prolonged surveillance missions (over 3.5 hours), auxiliary fuel could be carried in lieu of air-to-surface missiles.
As a surface escort group, for example in company with an underway replenishment group, closes the last 500 miles to an objective area, the
threat to it may intensify. P°ssl ^ with two, and certainly with three, these helos embarked, a 24-hour borne surveillance patrol could be Pr vided on a surge basis. They wou configured according to the expee threat.
Whether operating in surface actl groups, amphibious forces, under replenishment groups, or in comp* with a carrier battle group, the P formances of individual U. S. n‘ . ships and task groups are increas ^ significantly by the proposed hehc ter. Someday, when fast, relia heavy-lift, fixed-wing V/STOL hec01^ available, the cycle of putting 111 j and more capability on the aircraft ■ less and less on the ship could reP jj itself. But for now, a high-speed, re^ able, lightly armed helicopter 'vt)U provide a much-needed OTH capab1 1 to our surface navy.
Lieutenant Commander^00 ^
graduate of the LI. S- ^ ^ War College, is a helic°P pilot with primarily vertT-1^
plenishment experience.
masters thesis at the Naval ^ Graduate School addres LAMPS development and employment.
Man Overboard! ___________
By Lieutenant Bruce R. Linder, U. S. Navy
In most cases, the cry "man overboard” is a drill to hone particular automatic responses to ensure timely pick-up of the unfortunate individual who slipped over the side in full view of the posted lookout or other passing member of the crew. These drills are designed, and present-day procedures are formulated, using unquestioned assumptions that may, in certain circumstances, prove invalid. However, was the man seen falling over the side or was his absence noted only later? Do high wave conditions prevent the ship from immediately turning about?
Is visibility restricted? How long will it take to launch a helo? Are strong ocean currents present?
As the situation becomes more complex, whether caused by environmental or time-delay complications, presently accepted pick-up procedures (which are based on timely- recovery assumptions) begin to fall apart. If, for some reason, immediate rescue is delayed, the odds against successful recovery begin to mount. As time passes, ocean areas that must be searched begin to expand, and an unquestioned feeling of dread begins to enter into the searcher’s operations. This feeling of uneasiness exists because one of the most universal and deeply imbedded fears in those who traverse the seas is the fear of being left behind, afloat in a hostile
environment, unable to control destiny, facing a certain forbidding ture unless rescue efforts are prompt The man overboard problem is 0 that can be solved under most c*rcUIT stances by using time-proven te niques of ship maneuvers with whlC all shipboard officers are famil'*1^ Given acceptable visibility and 5 conditions, these techniques "* ensure recovery in a minimum ana ^ ceptable time, rarely necessitating t development of a search plan or ot area coverage techniques. In addit‘°n’ the man overboard phenomenon is n a frequent occurrence, with sh'P^ probably only averaging about one two cases per year. Nevertheless- ‘
^hat is the plan for a ship ordered a position of an aircraft crash at
•ons of rough seas and spray reversal of course is time con-
surni bi
ng and identification of a bob-
head almost impossible? Or, how
you set up a valid search plan in
as of current eddies which defy tor- 1
"'eaki _
Stablishment of his starting reference Point.
ltv0 major problems are encoun- immediately by the searching ‘P in prosecuting a search from this ^'‘nt. First, control of the ship and, Ornately, rescue of the individual are ested in bridge personnel who look °Ut °n a sea devoid of markers or reference points. True, conning officers are coached in their search by other j^ersonnel bent over charts or plotters, J1.1 che lack of visible references com- cates the rescue problem.
Second, the reference point rarely Stays stationary because it is exposed cbe whims of wind, sea, and cur-
eUt. Over a period of time a decided Urift
error is encountered in the acfcrnent of a reference position, and
tll's is
angerous gap in the design of proce- s to meet the man overboard ern exists when such an incident * not occur during conditions that e a quick recovery feasible.
to
j when the pilot cannot be found
/^mediately? What’s the plan during c°nditi'
^hen
pasting or mapping?
"lost of these cases, and in fact any ation which requires commence. *t or recovery operations after a t^° utcant amount of time passes since e loss of the individual is noted, st demand the establishment of a lc search technique. Logical pattern 0lces include expanding box ches or expanding circles to cover k area of ocean starting from the best n°wn location of the man. Theory es further to establish a point of ref- nce for
commencement of the Or k (usually established on a chart °y the use of a mechanical plotter, ^ as the DRT or NC-2,) and then the th fC" cont‘nues geometrically around p at reference point. So far so good?
'■''’haps, the rescuer has already com- u that step which is the major ness of this search method, the an error which is hard to pre-
U.S. NAVY (ROCK!
diet even when armed with the most up-to-the-minute forecasts of current and wind direction.
Obviously, if ships could be equipped with a “reference point” which was responsive to the elements and also provided a visible point of focus for the officer of the deck, rescue techniques might well be streamlined and improved, saving search time and crew energy.
Tired old Oscar helps ships’ conning officers prepare for man-overboard maneuvering situations when a sailor is seen going over the side in good weather by providing a visible reference point. The proposed sonobuoy approach offers a means of establishing a detectable reference point in less-than-ideal recovery situations.
signal light and a simple electronic transmitter and/or a sonar transponder emitting a signal for direction finding and homing.
This proposed buoy could be put together today, using available materials, with a minimum of time or money devoted to design or testing. The buoy that seems to fit the prerequisites described here is a simple modification of the standard sonobuoy in common use today. Use of the shell of the prolific AN/SSQ-41 sonobuoy will
Such a “reference point” should be durable, inexpensive, reusable, and approximate as much as possible the drift characteristics of a man in the water, while providing a means of detection and visibility up to several miles. Of greatest utility is a buoy. This buoy must be equipped with a sea anchor or drogue in order to approximate the drift of an individual who has roughly 90% of his body underwater. Additionally, this buoy should be small enough to be handled by a single crew member. It should possess both a high-intensity flashing
START
TURN 0NE TURN|NG diamETER
60° FROM INITIAL COURSE \V, SHIFT THE HELM FROM FULL RIGHT TO FULL LEFT.
\
\
\ DIRECTION OF TURN 1 ACTUALLY REVERSES HERE
l
V
\
\
\
\
\
\
/
/
the
shift the helm to full rudder m
provide a straight-forward, proven basis for the buoy which could be modified to stay afloat for a minimum 24-hour time period.
A simple drogue, constructed of either nylon material or thin sheet metal, can be deployed under the buoy to provide the drift characteristics of a man in the water. A water- activated battery, buoy electronics, and flotation material are included within the sonobuoy shell. Atop the buoy stands a lightweight mast with a bright flashing light and antenna for the on-board transmitting homing equipment. A lightweight radar reflector might also be added if the buoy’s stability in high sea states could be maintained. The modified buoy would weigh approximately 20 pounds, could be easily stored on board ship, and could be deployed by one person.
Other possible candidates for a
Which Williamson Turn?
By Captain Oliver F. Williams
The Williamson Turn was developed during World War II by Commander John A. Williamson, U. S. Naval Reserve. This turning maneuver enables a vessel to reverse her direction and head back along her original track
The U. S. Navy’s Turn_______________
1NJTIAL
COURSE
NAVAL SHIPHANDLING (NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS) man-overboard buoy could be modified AN/SQQ-18A or AN/SQQ-46A transponder buoys. Use of either a radio transmitter or sonar transponder could be selected for direction-finding uses. The poorer stability characteristics of these buoys and their heavier weights detract from their possible use, but design changes might be made to make them more suitable for man overboard use.
Deployment of the buoy at the calculated datum of the man in the water in cases that normally would require a prolonged search would establish a solid reference point for both the conning officer and plotting personnel in order to establish a pertinent search plan. The “reference point” would move automatically under the same environmental forces that the man in the water is exposed to, eliminating the need for lengthy (and probably error-filled) calculations of set and for the purpose of locating a person who has fallen overboard.
The U. S. Navy and the U. S. Coast Guard each have a different procedure for executing a Williamson Turn.
TURN
COMPLETED
\
\
\
\
l
I
I
I
drift. Thus, a search pattern also move with the wind and curre increasing the chances of recovery-
Direction-finding transmitt*” equipment aboard the buoy woul a ensure the ship’s return to the buoy low visibility conditions. Crew rner|^ bers might also be coached that m event of being swept overboard a*^ sighting a buoy, they are to swim the buoy because of the increase^ likelihood of being found by searching ship.
Lieutenant Linder is the °Pe tions officer of the LISS U® McCormick (DDG-8). an^ ^ previously a missile officet board the USS Worden < ^ 18). A 1971 graduate o' ' U. S. Naval Academy, holds a master’s degree in oceanography the University of Michigan.
The U. S. Navy’s procedure, is the same as that developed Commander Williamson, appears be the better method. It eliminat^ the possibility of some human er which can occur with the method use by the U. S. Coast Guard. The C°ilS Guard method for a Williamson Tur”’ as published in the USCG Manual J
Lifeboatmen, CG175, has unfortunate- also been adopted by most of the veS sels in the U. S. Merchant Marine- ^ The following summaries descf ^ the two methods of executing Williamson Turn.
The U. S. Navy Method: Depend‘d on which side the individual *a over, put the rudder hard over to t side to swing the stern away from individual. no
Continue the full rudder until from the initial heading, and opposite direction. The ship’s headiff
will normally reach about 90 *r ,
J hip
the initial heading before the s* r
commences to swing in the opP°s
direction.
The
new
ship continues to turn in the on ,^'rect‘on until you can steady up c e opposite of the initial course.
The U. S. Coast Guard’s Turn
The V.
Pendi
fall ^ °n side the individual
tha$ °Ver’ Put die rudder hard over to t side to swing the stern away from ^ Person. Hold the rudder hard over her1 t^*e S^*P *s swinging, then steady UP on a course about 60° off the origi
nal
course.
Wh,
s\vin;
side
c°Ur:
se 180° from original course.
k ^n examining the two methods, it Worries apparent that the conning of- lcer has ——< — —
Oeiiyp
greater control over the ma-
er*ng of the vessel when using the ' S. Navy method. His initial two full rnan<^s t0 tf16 quartermaster are j tudder one way and then full ruder fhe other way.
nen using the Coast Guard
nod, the conning officer gives the
^ lal full rudder and then depends on
e quartermaster to steady up on a
^ tse 60° from the initial course. In
actual emergency situation this
id become an erratic maneuver, dnd • . _
, especially if the quartermaster jtked experience or became excited. vv°uld also appear that with the
Navy method you have a better probability of ending up on your initial track line steering the reverse course.
It is interesting to note that the Merchant Marine Officers’ Handbook. published by the Cornell Maritime Press, Inc., describes the Williamson Turn using full rudder one way and then full rudder the other way, the same as the U. S. Navy method. The diagram illustrating the maneuver, however, indicates the vessel’s heading will only change 60° with the first full rudder maneuver, which is similar to
the U. S. Coast Guard method.
The Williamson Turn is an emergency maneuver that should be performed by all ships in the same manner. I recommend that Williamson's Williamson Turn, as used by the Navy, be adopted by all seafarers.
Captain Williams, a Master Mariner, is presently the Operations Supervisor of Marine Transportation with the Atlantic Richfield Company.
Soviet Naval Ship Names -------------------
and Arthur Davidson Baker III
By r;
leutenant Commander Charles E. Adams, U. S. Navy,
c°nsi:
•stency over the years which date sarist times. The manner in which
Soviet practices in the naming of ships reflect a continuity and
to T;
ew ships of the Red Fleet are named ntorms to a pattern not much satlged from the late 19th century. A tty of these names also reveals a ^•king similarity to the practices of estern navies and can provide an in- 8ht int0 the Soviet view of the roles a tnissions of the various ship classes as well, into Russian thought, lst0ry, and culture.
,, As in Western navies, naming a ,°viet ship is frequently used to honor lstinguished personages (e.g., all but
one of the “Kresta II’’-class cruisers), places (the Kiev-class aircraft carrier/ cruisers), or admirable human traits (the bulk of the destroyer classes). Also not surprising is the Soviet practice of naming newer ships after other, notable ships of the past (e.g., the “Kynda” cruiser Varyag, the “Kashin” destroyer Steregushchiy, and the “Ugra” training ship Gangut). The pervasive influence of the Communist Party on all aspects of Soviet life can even be noted in the naming of ships, with names like Dzerzhinskiy (a Sverdlov cruiser) and the ubiquitous . . . skiy Komsomolets' names noted on many ships of various classes.
Although there was no interruption in the custom of naming naval ships upon the transition from Imperial to Soviet rule, the majority of modern Soviet combatants sailed incognito until 1973- At that time, there was an apparent change in policy, resulting in these ships appearing with their names clearly displayed. This change was no doubt intended to instill in crews a sense of esteem and identification with their ships, as well as to enhance the Red Fleet’s image with the Soviet public and the world as a whole.2 These motives reached their culmination in the spectacle of the Soviet’s current prides bearing their names—
guished Soviet military, primari naval, officers have been honore Some, like Admiral Oktyabrys' ^ (namesake of a “Kresta II”) were flio^ good Party men than competent e ers. But on the other hand, 1 ^ Admiral Drozd (“Kresta I ) vvaS^ “comer” whose untimely death m automobile accident in 1942 ende a extremely promising career, ^
hon-
Rear
Kiev and Minsk—emblazoned on their bows and across the sterns in golden letters two meters high!3
The 1973 ukase apparently did not extend to all classes of ships. Although known to have them, the animal-named “Riga”-class frigates do not display names. Also unexplained is the absence of names from a few ships of a class of which the majority are named. Examples of this are three of the “Alligator” landing ships and several of the “Ugra” submarine tenders. Perhaps the performances of these hulls have not met the standards required for them to wear names as do their sisters. Similarly, for some of the large classes of smaller ships, only a few of the class have names, the remainder having letter-number designators only.4 Those in the former case that are known to have names, however, do not display them openly.
The Soviet submarine force deserves the reputation as a “silent service” even more than its U. S. counterpart. References to submarine names in Soviet sources are scanty, and as in the U. S. Navy, the ships do not wear their names externally, preventing visual recovery by Western observers. Hence, very few Soviet submarine names are known, and these primarily from passing references in the Soviet press. However, it is known that, in the main, and up until at least World War II, the Soviets used letter- number designators instead of names, much as was the U. S. practice prior to the 1930s. Recent press references to individual ships indicate that now at least some submarines are given “good Communist” names.
The short history of the Soviet Navy is notably lacking in great naval victories and other accomplishments upon which to build a tradition. Nevertheless, serving it well have been a significant number of distinguished leaders whose deeds, mostly in the Great Patriotic War (World War II), would have earned them recognition as heroes in any country’s naval service. Also, there have been a number of “hero ships,” whose services have merited perpetuation of their names by bestowal on later and more modern units. In addition, not long after the initial excesses of the 1917 Revolution, the Communists realized that they were the inheritors to a rich legacy of which they, as Russians, could be proud. Thus, there has been no lack of names worthy of commemoration by a namesake ship.
Because of their great and sometimes heroic deeds, it is not then surprising to see Soviet ships named after Tsarist military and naval leaders and heroes, in spite of their sometimes “decadent” aristocratic or bourgeois origins.'’ Admiral Makarov, for example, was a naval officer of outstanding achievement by any standard. The Sverdlov-c\d.ss cruiser Admiral Senyavin honors one or more, perhaps all, of an entire family (two brothers, their father, and son of one) of 18th century officers. Admiral Nakhimov (whose name has been given in turn to a Sverdlov and then to a “Kresta II”-class cruiser) was the victor of the most recent Russian fleet victory, against the Turks at Sinope in 1853.
In the naming of some of the more recently constructed ships, distinleaders of lesser note (rear seniority for the most part) are ored by namesake minesweepers. Admiral Pershin, namesake 0 “Natya”-class unit, for example head of the Krylov Institute, c ^ Soviet equivalent of the David lay ^ Naval Ship Research and Developing Center, in the 1950s and 1960s- ^ fleeting the increased importance the expanding Soviet Naval Infant^ the impressive new amphibious assa ^ ship Ivan Rogov honors Colonel ^ eral Ivan Rogov, a noted proponent^ naval infantry during the World II era.
Large submarine tender names.
the most part, honor heroes of the ^
Fleet submarine force who died m
Great Patriotic War. Enlisted
have provided inspiration lot
names used on other small combata
and amphibious ships. Nikolay
hov. a Pacific Ocean Fleet ^
nl£>
i
i
gator”-class landing ship, for examp
voslok is part of the Pacific Ocean eet' her sister Sevastopol is in the
°rthern, not the Black Sea Fleet.
Probability named more for their °rld War II “hero ship” forebears lan they were for the cities, j a small degree the study of °v*et naval ship names can also pro- V|cle clues to concepts of roles, mis- and sometimes even status. ^ese concepts differ from those of estern navies and to a great extent
°fnrades during the fighting on Sakhalin in 1945.
distinguished civilians, whose th m^uenceci or were related to e Navy, are also honored by ^mesake naval ships. The oiler Boris 1 ’ktn is named for an outstanding giVaI afchitect, while her sister Boris utoma is named for the recently de- ^ased, long-time head of the Ministry . upbuilding. The naval research P Akademik Krylov is named for ussia s counterpart to the U. S. Ad- eIrai David Taylor. Explorers and sci- tlsts, some dating to the 18th cen- /> provide names for other oceano- Phic research and survey ships. eral of these ships, after suitable Odification and conversion, “re- rc" the foreign electromagnetic ectrum or “survey” Western mili- " and naval operations as intelli- °e°Ce collectors.
Geographic clues can be misleading fu en attemPt*n& to deduce a ship’s . action or fleet assignment. While it
s true that the “Kresta-I” cruiser Vla- dn
PL
N
e first four “Karas” were assigned 0 the Black Sea Fleet and bear the Jetties of Black Sea ports. The name of e fifth "Kara,” Petropavlovsk, how, er’ led some analysts to assume that pe Was named for the Kamchatka t‘n|nsula naval base city and that she p u‘d thus be home-ported in the ^cific; they were right in the latter, ^t for the wrong reason. The Pacific cean Fleet base’s actual name is Pe- topavlovsk-Kamchatskiy and, like the ^ ara and the two preceding war- “Ps of the same name, it commemo- !ates the name of an inland city in the °rthern Kazakhstan Oblast. In the sPting of 1979, however, Petropavlovsk arid her newer sister, Tashkent, duly Cc°mpanied the “ASW cruiser” Minsk
the Pacific. Both “Karas” were in all
w,
th;
carry on the traditions of the Tsarist Navy. In pre-Revolutionary times, there were three rates of destroyers: large destroyers, torpedo-boat destroyers, and torpedo-boats. From the former grew the leader type, generally named for people. These might be said to have modern descendants in the larger classes typed by the Soviets as Bol’shoy Protivolodochnyy Korabl’ (BPK or large antisubmarine warfare ship), such as the “Karas” and “Kresta IIs.” Tsarist torpedo-boat destroyers and torpedo-boats usually had adjectival human trait names, and this practice has carried over into modern usage. The “Kola”-class ships, as the last example of the torpedo-boat or second- rate destroyer built by a major power, were thus given human trait names.6 The “Krivak” class, still building, with its trait names, appears to carry on this tradition and to have been conceived as a class of second-rate destroyer-type ships. The recent change (demotion?) of the Soviet designation for the “Krivak” class to Storozhevoy Korabl’ (SKR or patrol ship) apparently has not also resulted in a change to the naming pattern for the class.
The “Riga”-class frigate, also designated by the Soviets as an SKR, perpetuates a type commenced in the 1920s as more of a coast defense or picket ship than a Western escort or frigate. These patrol ships, where built in classes7, tended to have names taken from physical phenomena or animals. The succeeding “Petya” and “Mirka” classes, reflecting an apparent merger of the SKR and submarine- chaser types, now have names commemorating SKR hero ships of World War II—when they have been given names at all.
The “Kresta II” and “Kara” naming sequence suggests subtly the relative status of the two classes and, perhaps, a change of naming policy dictated by changing building programs. Two of the four “Kresta I” class were given place names, and Kronshtadt, the first "Kresta II,” also bears the name of a city. However, none of the remainder of the class has been named for a city. This honor has now been given to the larger and more powerful “Karas” and to the Moskva s and Kievs, suggesting that after Kronshtadt it was decided to reserve city names for the truly capital ships then being built.
Running contrary to the general orderliness of the Red Fleet system are the varieties of ships in types and classes ranging from minesweepers to nuclear submarines that bear the . . . skiy Komsomolets names. Several years ago a Soviet admiral wrote that there were no less than 35 ships bearing the names of specific Communist Youth groups. Today, there are undoubtedly more. Theoretically, the crews of these ships were to be made up in large part from youths of the particular local Communist Youth group honored. In actual practice, this seems not to have worked out, despite the seeming advantages of crew uniformity and morale-boosting potential. Most of these Komsomolets units either had other names or no names at all before receiving the Communist Youth names. An exception is the “Krivak”- class frigate Leningradskiy Komsomolets, which appeared directly from the building yard in 1977 wearing her name. As is common with other ship names in the Soviet Navy, some of the present ships in commission with . . . skiy Komsomolets names commemorate earlier ships with the same name dating in some cases prior to World War II.
In the lists which follow, the authors have compiled, to the limits of available information, the names of the current named combatants of the Soviet Navy. Included with each name is a brief explanation of its significance, either through translation, identification of the individual commemorated, or the location of the geographic feature. Because of space considerations, the brief identification of the individuals honored by a namesake ship often does not do justice to their achievements.
With the great difficulty in recovery of names, the ambitious building and conversion program still under way in the U.S.S.R., and the attrition caused by age, accident, and other factors, the lists can in no way be considered to be an order of battle of the Red Fleet, but instead reflect only those ships most likely to be encountered on the high seas and to
bers which are changed as often as
Soviet era were either completely apohcl sufficiently removed in time as not to be °n^f wrong side in the Revolution and Civil period.
6 When transferred to the Caspian Sea
ficanf
ted rr'er
give an insight into naming policies, practices, and trends. Perhaps it is time for, and this article will stimulate, an official or unofficial Soviet source to provide a more complete and accurate listing. Current Western designators for each class are given in parentheses.
The Soviet type designation is provided (where available) to indicate Soviet concepts of ship missions and functions, which can differ significantly from preconceived Western ideas.
AUTHORS’ Note: For their cooperation and considerable assistance, the authors would like to express their deep appreciation to Professor Michael Klimenko and Mr. D. R. Grant, both of the Department of European Languages, University of Hawaii, and to Dr. Howard Ruskie, Mrs. Elaine LaCroix, Mr. John Lewis, Mr. George Fedoroff, and Mr. Theodore Neely, all of the Department of the Navy.
EDITOR’S Note: The authors' original listing contains two additional columns (the spelling of the ships' names in Cyrillic and a prior name use) and data for most other Soviet naval and naval-associated ships, complete with an extensive bibliography. Because of space limitations, these elements have been deleted from this presentation. If the complete manuscript—which could be used by the Western seaman to make sense of the mass of unfamiliar Cyrillic letters on his counterpart's ship—is published, the Proceedings will feature the listing in Books of Interest.
‘Komsomolets—from Komsomol, meaning Young Communist League (or Union). Komsomolets translates as Komsomol Member or Young Communist Leaguer, but a freer translation is Young Communist.
2 A secondary effect of this change was to render obsolete the Western intelligence art of “dent- ology,” whereby the identities of individual Soviet ships were laboriously established by analysts working with lists of hull dents and scrapes, antenna suits, and small differences in lifeline construction, etc.
3Regional and cultural differences within the vast Soviet Union are manifested in that some Black Sea Fleet units display their names in letters formed in the florid, stylized Ukrainian script.
4The numbers carried on the sides of Soviet naval ships have two different functions. Combatants and auxiliaries intended to directly support combatants at sea carry three-digit numthe ships
immediate tactical subordination requires, typ ^ cally this results in a semi-permanent ^
waters” number which is changed fleet-wi ^ periodic intervals, and an ‘‘out-of-area nu ^ which can theoretically switch daily if reclul ^ (and the paint locker holds out). The unna^j1 combatants have permanent numbers * ^
have no relation to the numbers on the sides ^ the ships. Support auxiliaries without n ^ have alphanumeric, more-or-less permanent ignations on their sides; the letter portion ,n cates the ship’s function (as in MB for Buksirlseagoing tug) and the appended num ^ are not duplicative—although they rarely either in numerical order or construCt,on quence within a class. When a ship norm ^ equipped with an alphanumeric name aPP ^ instead with a three-digit tactical number has happened on occasion with ‘‘Lamas h she is probably temporarily engaged m support.
5One can be sure that namesakes of rne
litical of
the
Flotilla
the survivors were given locally signl7Many wartime SKRs were conven chantmen or transferred from the (forerunner of the KGB) Border Guard fleef-
SUBMARINE
FOXTROT (Attack Submarine—SS)
Chelyahinskiy Komsomolets Komsomolets Kazakhstana Kuibishevskiy Komsomolets Pskovskiy Komsomolets UI’yanovskiy Komsomolets Vladimirskiy Komsomolets Yaroslavskiy Komsomolets
Chelyabinsk (city-Chelyabinsk Obi.1) Young Communist Kazakhstan (city-Kazakh SSR2) Young Communist Kuibishev (city-Tatarsk ASSR3) Young Communist Pskov (city-Pskovsk Obi.)
Young Communist Ul'yanovsk (city-Ul’yanovsk Obi.)
Young Communist Vladimir (city-Vladimirsk Obi.)
Young Communist Yaroslavl' (city-Yaroslavsk Obi.) Young Communist
NUCLEAR SUBMARINE
NOVEMBER (Nuclear Attack Submarine—SSN) Leninskiy Komsomolets Lenin Young Communist
Leninets Leninist
VICTOR I (Nuclear Attack Submarine—SSN)
50 Let SSSR 50 Years (of the) U.S.S.R.4
NUCLEAR BALLISTIC MISSILE SUB MARI
HOTEL II (Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine—SSB^^ Krasnogvardets Red Guardsman
ANTISUBMARINE CRUISER
KIEV (Guided Missile V/STOL Aircraft Carrier—
Kharkov
Kiev
Minsk
Novorossiysk
CVS G)
City (Ukrainian SSR) City (Ukrainian SSR) City (Byelorussian SSR) City (Black Sea port)
MOSKVA (Helicopter Cruiser—CHG)
Moskva City (Moscow)
Leningrad City (Baltic port)
SVERDLOV (Cruiser
Admiral Lazarev
Admiral Senyavin Admiral Ushakov Aleksandr Nevskiy
CRUISER
CG/CL)
Naval hero of Russo-Turkb*1
of 1827, also an explorer yjl One/more of five 18 th century commanders, all of one «*
Naval hero of Napoleonic an
ish Wars igtoi
13th Century Prince of N°V‘i; and military hero
ERDl0V (continued)
*leks«ndr Suvorov
"I'triy Pozharskiy
D*nhimkiy
M‘khc“l Kutuznv
%mk
*£+» Revo/yutsia
Zhdc
■Qflov
18th century military commander and hero of Turkish War Hero of Polish War of 1612 Early Bolshevik and founder of Soviet secret police 18th century military commander and hero of Napoleonic War City (Kola Sea port)
October Revolution Early Communist and revolutionary Early Bolshevik revolutionary and politician
KASHIN (Guided Missile Destroyer—DDG)
^ESTa
MISSILE CRUISER
Ad,
"lira/
I (Cruiser—CG)
Zozulya
Zas>opol “se Admiral
Drozd
Distinguished naval commander, ChMnNavStaff (1958-1964)
City (Black Sea port)
Naval commander and World War
V,adivostok
^Da (Cruiser—CG)
Fokin
*>'>•«/ Golovko
rz"yy
***
II hero
City (Sea of Japan port)
World War II CinCPacOFlt and 1st DepCinCNav (1950s and 60s) World War II CinCNorFlt Terrible (after Czar Ivan)
Varangian (Norseman)
Komsomolets Ukrainy | Ukrainian (SSR) Young Communist |
Krasnyy Kavkaz | Red Caucasus |
Krasnyy Krym | Red Crimea |
Obraztsovyy | Exemplary |
Odaryennyy | Gifted |
Ognevoy | Burning |
Otvazhnyy | Valorous (lost in Black Sea 1974) |
Provornyy | Swift |
Reshitel’nyy | Resolute |
Sderzhannyy | Discreet |
Skoryy | Speedy |
Slavnyy | Famous |
Smelyy | Audacious |
Smetlivyy | Sharp-witted |
Smyshlyennyy | Clever |
Soobrazitel'nyy | Quick-witted |
Sposobnyy | Capable |
Steregushchiy | Watchful |
Strogiy | Severe |
Stroynyy | Gracious |
KANIN (Guided Missile Destroyer—DDG) | |
Boykiy | Smart |
Derzkiy | Daring |
Gnevnyy | Wrathful |
Gordyy | Proud |
Gremyashchiy | Thunderous |
Upornyy | Tenacious |
Zhguchiy | Intense |
Zorkiy | Alert |
Az,
large antisubmarine ship
A (Cruiser—CG)
-0v
Kl*ch
lch“kov
■J'yav/ovsk
"Mtn,
:Ee
II (Cruiser-
ntlr‘il Isachenkov
-CG)
Ad,
hakov
"l'ral IWakarov
Ad,
"l'val Nakhimov
City (Sea of Azov port)
City (Black Sea port)
City (Black Sea port)
City (Black Sea port)
City (Northern Kazakhstan Obi.)
City (Uzbek SSR)
20th century naval engineer/ship- builder, DepCinCNav (1950s- 1960s)
World War II CinCBalFlt and ChMnNavStaff
19th century naval commander, explorer, and hero (Russo-Japanese War)
Hero of Russo-Turkish War of
MISSILE SHIP
KILDIN (Destroyer
Bedovyy Neuderzhimyy Neu/ovimyy Prozorlivyy
DESTROYER
—DD/DDG)
Mischievous
Irrepressible
Elusive
Sagacious
KOTLIN (Destroyer—DD, or Guided Missile Destroyer-DDG)
A ,
ni*Tcil Oktyahr'skiy
A,
"lira l Yumashev
X°nsh,“dt
rshal Timoshenko
arshal Voroshilov p ,
,l‘y Chapaev
1827
Naval commander, World War II CinCBlkSeaFlt
Distinguished naval commander, World War II CinCPacOFlt City (Baltic port)
Distinguished military commander, World War II ChArmyGenStaff Distinguished military commander, World War II Army CinC World War II and Revolutionary military hero
Blagorodnyy | Honorable |
Blestyashchiy | Brilliant |
Bravyy | Gallant |
Burlivyy | Tempestuous |
Byvalyy | Experienced |
Dal'nevostochnyy Komsomolets | Dal'nevost (Far East) Young Communist |
Moskovskiy Komsomolets | Moscow Young Communist |
Nakhodchivyy | Resourceful |
Naporistyy | Assertive |
Nastoychivyy | Persistent |
Nesokrushimyy | Indestructible |
P/amennyy | Ardent |
Skromnyy | Modest |
Skrytnyy | Secretive |
Soznatel’nyy | Conscientious |
Speshnyy | Urgent |
Spokoyriyy | Tranquil |
Svedushchiy | Experienced |
Svet/yy | Lucid |
Veskiy | Weighty |
KOTLIN (continued) |
|
Vdoknovennyy | Inspired |
Vliyatel’nyy | Influential |
Vozbuzhdyennyy | Excited |
Vozmushchyennyy | Indignant |
Vyderzhannyy | Steadfast |
Vyzyvayushchiy | Defiant |
SKORYY (Destroyer— | -DD) |
Bessmennyy | Permanent |
Besstrashnyy | Fearless |
Bezuderzhnyy | Impetuous |
Buynyy | Violent |
Ognennyy | Fiery |
Okrylennyy | Inspired |
Ostorozhnyy | Wary |
Ostryy | Keen |
Otchayannyy | Desperate |
Otchyetlivyy | Distinct |
Otmennyy | Exquisite |
Otvetstvennyy | Responsible |
Ozhestochyennyy | Violent |
Ozhivlyennyy | Animated |
Serdityy | Angry |
Ser'yeznyy | Earnest |
Smotryashchiy | Sharp-sighted |
Sokrushitel'nyy | Shattering |
Solidnyy | Strong |
Sovershennyy | Perfect |
Statnyy | Stately |
Stepennyy | Sedate |
Stoykiy | Hardy |
Stremitel’nyy | Impetuous |
Surovyy | Stern |
Svohodnyy | Free |
Vdumchivyy | Thoughtful |
Vnezapnyy | Surprising |
Vnimatel'nyy | Attentive |
Vol'nyy | Free |
Vrazumitel'nyy | Convincing |
Celebrated
Threatening
Indomitable
Ardent
Impressive
Harsh
Frisky
Bditel'nyy
Bodryy
Deyatel'nyy
Doblestnyy
Dostoynyy
Druzhnyy
Leningradskiy Komsomolets
Letuchiy
Razumnyy
Razyashchty
Ret ivyy
SU'nyy
Aysberg
Dunay
Intent XXV Sezda KPSS
Ivan Susanin Ruslan Ruslan
7 too
Kr-
SSR>
Brest
Kamchatka
Sakhalin
PATROL SHIP
KRIVAK II (Guided Missile Frigate—FFG)
Gromkiy
Grozyashchiy
Neukrotimyy
Pylkiy
Razite/'nyy
Rezkiy
Rezvyy
KRIVAK I (Guided Missile Frigate—FFG)
Vigilant
Cheerful
Active
Valiant
Worthy
Harmonious
Leningrad (city) Young Communist
Volatile
Reasonable
Combative
Zealous
Powerful
l 18
KRIVAK I (continued)
Storozhevoy | Watchful |
Svirepyy | Ferocious |
Zharkyy | Ardent |
GRISHA II (Light Frigate- | —WFFL)5 |
A metist | Amethyst |
Brilliant | Diamond |
Izumrud | Emerald |
Rubin | Ruby |
Saffir | Sapphire |
Zhemchug | Pearl |
IVAN SUSANIN (Patrol Ship—WPGF)5
keberg f rapiin.
River (empties into Sea
also town) sS of
In honor of the 25th Conf the CPSU6
I7th century folk hero Folk hero (and of Pushkin “Ruslan and Ludmilla )
SORUM (Patrol Ship—WPGF)3
Amur River (Khabarovsk
Amursk Obi.)
City (Litovsk, Byelorussian
Peninsula (and region) Island (and Obi.)
MIRKA (Light Frigate—FFL)
Gangutets Veteran of the Battle of jin'
Ivan Sladkov Early Communist naval ag‘t;lt
leader
RIGA (Frigate—FF)
Astrakhan'skiy Komsomolets | f VO'!- Astrakhan’ (city—mouth o Young Communist a's* |
Archangel'skiy Komsomolets | Archangel' (city—Archahf Obi.) Young Communist |
Bars | Panther |
Barsuk | Badger |
Bohr | Beaver |
Buyvol | Buffalo |
Byk | Bull |
Gepard | Cheetah |
Giena | Hyena |
Kobchik | Merlin (falcon) pist Georgian (SSR) Young Com1*1 |
Komsomolets Gruziy | |
Komsomolets Litviy | Lithuanian (SSR) Young Communist |
Krasnodarskiy Komsomolets | Krasnodarsk (city—Krash0 Kr.) Young Communist |
Kunitsa | Marten |
Lev | Lion |
Leopard | Leopard |
Lisa | Fox |
Medved' | Bear |
Pantera | Panther |
Rosomakha | Wolverine |
Shakal | Jackal |
Tigr | Tiger |
Turman | Tumbler Pigeon |
Volk | Wolf |
Voron | Raven 1 9^ Proceedings / July 1 |
RIGa
‘“War
(continued)
T.
Jaguar
(Patrol Escort—PGF/WPGF)8
DzherZb,„skjy
58
Kali
n*nRradskiy Komsomolets
*y°”o/ets Latviy “sk'y Pogranichnik
K0lA
Early Bolshevik, founder of secret police
Kaliningrad (city—Kaliningrad Obi.) Young Communist Latvian (SSR) Young Communist Soviet Border Guard
(Frigate—FF)
I9
Sot elS^'y foerbaydzhan
7*sk‘? Dagestan e‘skiy Turkmenistan
Soviet Azerbaydzhan (SSR) Soviet Dagestan (ASSR) Soviet Turkmen (SSR)
P-adn
SMALL MISSILE SHIP
cHKA (Guided Missile Patrol Combatant—PGG)
<ga
Rainbow
YURKA (Fleet Minesweeper-MSF)
GafeT Gaff
Evgeniy Nikonov . . .
Kaliningradskiy Komsomolets Kaliningrad Young Communist Kontradmiral Khoroshin . . .
T-43 (Fleet Minesweeper
Ivan Fioletov Komsomolets Bye/orussiy
Komsomolets Estoniy Komsomolets Kalmykiy
Mezhadiy Azizbakov
Nikolay Markin Sakhalinskiy Komsomolets
Stepan Saumyan
LARGE LANDING SHIP
—MSF)
Sailor hero of Revolution Byelorussian (SSR) Young Communist
Estonian (SSR) Young Communist Kalmyk (Auton. region) Young Communist Early Azerbaydzhanian Bolshevik
Sailor hero of Revolution Sakhalin (island/Obl.) Young Communist
°sA
MISSILE CUTTER
(Guided Missile Patrol Boat—PTG)
es‘skiy Komsomolets *1icbu
Ur’nskiy Komsomolets
IVAN ROGOV (Amphibious Transport Dock—LPD)
Ivan Rogov World War II naval infantry
commissar
T,
**bovskiy Komsomolets
Sit
,r^skr
'y Komsomolets nsbtadtskiy Komsomolets
0n,s°nolets
Tatarskiy
Brest (city—Litovsk) Young Communist
Michurinsk (city—Moldavian
ASSR) Young Communist Tambov (city—Tambovsk Obi.)
Young Communist Kirov (city—Kaluzhsk Obi.)
Young Communist'
Kronshtadt (city) Young Communist
Tatar (ASSR) Young Communist
OCEAN MINESWEEPER
A (Fleet Minesweeper—MSF)
nir«l Pershin
y.*‘‘tr‘y Lysov hj?tra^rn‘ral Horoshkin *n'» Roshal'
Naval architect, head of Kirov Inst. (1950s-1960s)
Pre-World War II admiral
LANDING SHIP
ALLIGATOR (Landing Ship—LST)
Aleksandr Tortsev Donetskiy Shakhter Krasnaya Presnya Krymskiy Komsomolets Nikolay Fil'chenkov
Nikolay Vilkov
Pyetr ll'ichyev
Sergey Lazo Tomskiy Komsomolets
Voronezhskiy Komsomolets
50 Let Shefstva VLKSM
World War II naval officer and hero Donets (river/basin/region) Miner Red Presnya (district of Moscow) Crimean Young Communist World War II seaman and naval hero
World War II seaman and naval hero
World War II seaman and naval hero
Early Bolshevik hero Tomsk (city—Tomsk Obi.) Young Communist
Voronezh (city—on Don River) Young Communist 50 Years of the Patronage of the VLKSM"1
N.
otes
|----------- Oblast: literally “province”—a
ltIC0~administrative subdivision of a Union Autonomous Republic.
SSR,
u,
Soi
n'on
'Soviet Socialist Republic: one of the 16 Republics of the Union of Soviet
Clalist Republic ASSR.
Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic: ^°l>tico-administrative subdivision within a n,(>n Republic, usually based upon the ethnic < euP of its population.
, ^ Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
^Gs.s.r.
P ese units are part of the KGB (Committee . ^ State Security) Border Guard fleet. The /o r,sha II” names commemorate NKVD rerUnner of the KGB) units incorporated into
0:
the navy during World War II. The naval- subordinated "Grisha I” and “III” light frigates do not bear names.
6CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union). 7Kr.—Kray: literally “region”—a politico- administrative subdivision of an SSR or ASSR. HDzerzhinskiy and Sovetskiy Pogranichnik, probably as well as others, are part of the KGB Border Guard fleet. Formerly typed as minesweepers, the T-58 class are now designated as patrol ships.
9The "Kola” class ships originally bore destroyer adjectival names prior to their renaming upon transfer to the Caspian Sea Flotilla.
1 "VLKSM—acronym meaning Leninist Young Communist League of the Soviet Union.
ECHO II SSGN
JULIET SSG
WHISKER t-B !
Soviet Warship Classes
07m 32001
110 m 4S00I
TANGO SS
KIEV CVSG
400001
KRESTAI CG
KRESTAII CG
SO OOI
MOD KASHIN DDG
KASHIN DDG
47001
45001
KOTLIN DDG
30001
5SOOI
GRISHA PCE
PETYA II FFL
0001
11001
POLNOCNY LSM
ALLIGATOR LST
NATYA MSF
KRIVAK DD
123m 38001
RIGA FF