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.
Editor's Note: The first two installments (November 1980 and December 1980) addressed the evolutions of the present families of combatants. This section discusses some of the major auxiliary types. In a future issue, we will publish the current Soviet Navy ship-type designations and the NATO class names assigned to the ships which bear the type-designators.
Soviet naval auxiliaries can be divided into two categories: those which directly support the deployed fleet, and those which perform auxiliary duties largely independent of the combatants. The former category is supplied with tactical pendant numbers which are changed as operational needs dictate, while the latter (if not named) carry alphanumeric hull numbers which are rarely changed through the life of the ship. For the alphanumeric category, it is possible to deduce the function of the ship from the letters on her sides. For the former. Soviet press and other references have supplied many of the ship designations, as has been the case with combatants. The generic description for all Soviet naval auxiliaries is VS (VspomagateTnoye Sudno, auxiliary vessel).
For a few types, like GKS (Gid- roakusticheskoye KontroTnoye Sudno, hydroacoustic monitoring vessel), there are no Western counterparts. Some categories are very precise in definition, while others are very broad. PM (Plavuchaya Masterskaya, floating workshop) is applied to a wide variety of naval tenders and has been employed on civilian ships assigned to the fishing fleet. Some naval PMs ("Oskols” and “Amurs") are primarily spare parts carriers and light repair tenders to all comers, others ("Lamas”—although in recent appearances, ships of this class have borne tactical pendants), transport, and presumably service, cruise missiles, and some are true “floating workshops” ("Dneprs”), although intended primarily to support submarines. The term tanker or Voyennyy Tanker (naval tanker) covers everything from a dead- in-the-water refueling Khobi to a sophisticated multi-cargo underway replenishment oiler like a Boris Cliilikin or a Dubna. Meanings for some of the acronyms are not entirely clear, while for yardcraft only a few categories are known.
Enough is known of auxiliary ship typing, however, to be certain that Soviet designations do not necessarily fall into line with Western concepts. Tugs, for example, come in three categories: MB (Morskoy Buksir, seagoing tug). SB (Spasatel'nyy Buksir, rescue tug), and RB (Reydnyy Buksir, roadstead tug). These tug categories are difficult to match against, say, the U.S. Navy, where six distinct varieties of tug are recognized (ATS, ATF, ATA, YTB, YTM, and YTL).
Some designations are misleading: GS (Gidrograficheskoye Sudno, hydrographic vessel) may apply to a Biya or Kamenka-class navigational aids servicing and survey ship, but it is also applied to the several “Mayak" intelligence ships (whose true category is KRZ [KorabT Razvedyvatel’nyy]) which have somehow never managed to find names.
Let us, then, address some of the more important auxiliary types in alphabetical order.
GAfS-Gidroakusticheskoye Kontrol'noye Sudno (Hydroacoustic Monitoring Vessel)
The GKS first appeared in the late 1950s in the guise of a group of built- for-the-purpose versions of the "T-43" minesweeper. For many years, these ships were referred to as "survey ships” in Western publications, despite the existence of a Soviet naval dictionary clearly stating their purpose. A GKS is intended to deploy and monitor special hydrophone arrays for measuring the radiated sound levels of Soviet surface ships and submarines. That the Soviet Navy would now have more than 20 such ships in service (including the follow-on, gas turbine- propelled "Onega” class), all fairly large ships, would seem to indicate that the Soviet Union is intensely interested in the sound levels produced by its combatants.
GS-Gidrograficheskoye Sudno (Hydrographic Vessel)
The Soviet Navy has had responsibility for hydrographic surveying and maintenance of navigational markers since its inception, through the Naval Hydrographic Service. A significant proportion of the more than 700 naval auxiliaries fall into the GS category, although many of these ships also perform related roles, such as oceanographic research and intelligence collection in waters far from home waters. Other than the prc-World War II Mur- man-class Arctic survey ships. Soviet GS ships were adaptations of merchant and fishing designs until the advent of the Polish-built “Samara” class in 1962. Since that time, at least, the GS has been built in two undifferentiated categories, short-ranged and long-ranged, with the home service, short-ranged ships bearing the GS-se- ries pendants and the longer-ranged units having names. Smaller, inshore survey craft are referred to as GPB (Gidrograficheskiy Pribezhnyy Bot). with the "P-02”-class launch (normally a Reydnyy Rater, roadstead cutter) and "Nyryat-I” (originally designed as a VM [Vodoloznyy Morskoy Bot, diving tender]) having been built for that purpose in the 1950s and 1960s; the new general-purpose tenders of the Flamingo class will probably also be produced in a GPB version.
The future of the GS type is somewhat uncertain. The "Finik” is still in production, probably, in part, to replace “Momas” released for duties as intelligence collectors. Within the smaller GS classes, the "Biya" and "Kamenka” are shown in parallel because they are for slightly different purposes. The "Biya” is more slanted toward scientific/survey work, and "Kamenka" is better equipped for navigational aid tending. With the Ministry of the Merchant Marine now involved in operating survey ships (the Dmitriy Ovtsyn class), it is possible
Table I Hydrographic Vessel Development
GS
Small
that naval GS units will be more concerned with navigational aid work in the future. The Flamingo design will take care of GPB replacement require- tttents for at least a decade. (Table I outlines GS development.)
KtL-Kilcktor (Lift Ship)
Although superficially resembling a net-tender, the first class of Soviet mooring buoy tenders, the East German-built, coal-burning "Neptun” was Primarily intended to handle heavy mooring buoys and navigational buoys. Her follow-on, the “Sura” class, was •t great improvement and was built over '4 years, again in East Germany. With Per ability not only to carry and lay ueep moorings nearly anywhere on the ocean but also to supply several hundred tons of cargo fuel to other smps, the “Sura” represents a conquerable asset. The East German des- •gnation for “Sura” is Heheschiff (lift ,'P), and there is no doubt that ships 01 *he class have been used in salvage operations. A follow-on to the “Sura” m'ght have a better method of moving uoys from the amidships hold to the handling point at the stern; in the Suras,” the buoys are dragged down the length of the working deck by a chain-haul.
^Z-Korabl’ Razvedyvatel'nyy ''Intelligence Ship)
• he KRZ is one type which, for ob- v,°us reasons, does not advertise her Pue designation on the side of her hull. Most surviving AGIs had names as- S|gned until late 1979, but the older classes, such as the “Lentras,” used hjS-series pendants, and two opera- ll°nal “Mayak” trawlers continue the Practice. AGIs have nominally come under the control of the Naval Hy- urographic Service. In 1979, the larger. long-range intelligence collectors be- San dropping their assigned names and nave since carried pendant numbers ln the SSV {Sudno 5'r yazey, com mu- mentions vessel) series, a designation considerably less dissembling than hydrographic vessel.” SSV has also been applied to a “T-43"-class hull apparently employed as a small command ship in the Baltic and to the flagship of the Soviet Navy's Danube River F|°tilla, SSV-10 (formerly PS-10).
I he newest and largest of the long- range intelligence collectors, SSV-516, °t the 4,500-ton “Bal'zam” class apparently never had a name, while by n°w, all of the formerly named ships of the Primarye, “Moma,” Nikolay Zubov, and “Pamir” classes carry SSV-numbers. GS will live on as a designation for smaller AGIs for some time, however, since several small stern-haul trawlers of the Alpin'ist class have been adapted as intelligence collectors, probably as replacements for the earlier “Lentra,” "Bologoe,” and “Okean” trawler classes, most of which have not deployed in many years. For long-range work, the “Bal’zam” class should remain in production for perhaps five years. Although the “Bal’zam” is the first AGI to have been armed from the outset, most of the long-range (and many of the short-range) AGIs have now been provided launch positions for SA-7 “Grail" missiles (the “SA-N-5" system), and many now carry 14.5-mm. machinegun mounts as well. Despite the increasing use of satellites for intelligence and surveillance purposes, the Korabl' Razvedyvatel’nyy seems assured of a future in the Soviet Navy.
AS-Kabel'noye Sudno (Cable Vessel)
The laying and maintenance of undersea communications cables (and, presumably, less innocent undersea systems) is the navy’s responsibility in the Soviet system. The last of a second generation of KS-designated
Large
Murmun (1930s) "Telnovsk" (1950s)
“Mod. Telnovsk" (1950s)
I
Melitopol (1952-54)
I.
“Samara” (1962)
I
“Moma" (1967)
T
“Finik” (1978) ships (all named) was delivered in 1978. the Finnish-built “Klasma” class. The only cable ship yet to be discarded was an ancient prewar unit, while the four coal-burning “Kalar” class (KS- 1-4) were converted from Polish-built “Soldek”-class cargo ships during 1956-58. These, together with “K.S-7" (a modified “Telnovsk”-cIass cargo ship) and KS-9 (a reworked "MP-2”) will probably be replaced by a new 1,200-ton Emba class being constructed in Finland. Three Embas have been delivered to date.
A'SV-K.orabl’Svyazey (Communications Ship)
The now-discarded KSV designation was applied to the 20 or so "Li- bau”-class versions of the Kronshtadt class. Its noncombatant analog, as discussed above, is believed to be the new "SSV’designator for auxiliaries.
ATs-Kontrol'naya Tsel’
(Controlled Target)
The life of a target ship in the Soviet Navy is a fairly secure one, as the KTs’ target is not actually intended to be hit (target barges are hittable, but they are apparently minutely subdivided and configured for easy repair). "Ts” was applied to several Skoryy- class destroyers during the early 1960s, but those units were either later scrapped or hulked; a later Skoryv tar-
GPP
get ship in the Northern Fleet continued to carry a standard tactical pendant. The current series of KTs are built-for-the-purpose versions of the “Osa” class, either rigged as targets proper (with radar corner reflectors and/or heat generators) or as target controller craft; both versions represent a considerable investment. To simulate larger ships for missile firings, a number of 100-meter-plus target barges have been in service since the early 1960s, while smaller catamaran barges are intended primarily for gunnery practice. The “Bravo”- class submarines are “hard” targets for torpedo firings, but their official designation is unavailable; the OS (Opitnove Sudno, experimental vessel) ships of the “Potok” and “T-43" classes are probably meant to act as targets for torpedo firings as well as being weapon recovery and check-out- ships.
LDK Ledokol (Icebreaker)
Early in their careers, some Doh- rynyci Nikitich-class port icebreakers carried Ledokol-series alphanumeric names, but all Soviet merchant and naval icebreakers are now named. After turning nearly all icebreakers over to the merchant marine by the end of the 1960s, the Soviet Navy then retrieved a few and built several more— all of the Dobrynya Nikitich-c\ass. Some of these, like Peresvet, have been armed and cloaked in naval gray, while others are outwardly nearly indistinguishable from their civilian sisters. The Dobrynya Nikitich class, through many evolutions, has been in steady production since the 1950s at the Admiralty Shipyard.
The patrol icebreakers of the Ivan Susanin class subordinated to the KGB Border Guard are typed as PSKRs and are thus considered combatants by the Soviet Union. They follow in service the Pttrga, which was begun prior to World War II but not completed until the 1950s. The Vladimir Kavrayskiy, which is a greatly modified Dobrynya Nikitich and considered to be an “arctic survey ship,” is naval-subordinated. The Otto Schmidt, another Arctic expeditionary variation on the same design, is civilian subordinated.
A//i-Morskoy Buksir (Seagoing Tug)
Postwar Soviet naval seagoing tugs have all been built to standard designs which (with the exception of the new “Goryn”class) have also been built simultaneously for the civil sector. Lend-Leased units of the U. S. So- toyomo (143-foot ATA) design seem to have inspired the layout of the “Roslavl”/“Okhtenskiy”/“Sorum” line of progression, although the first postwar-built tugs for naval and civilian use were more than 100 examples of the Finnish-constructed Zenit class (a few of which are still in Soviet Naval Auxiliary Service colors). The smaller, flush-decked “Tugur" class, considered service craft by the West, also bore MB-hull numbers, but succeeding classes of harbor tugs have had RB (Reydnyy Buksir, roadstead tug) numbers. The Gromovoy class (a parallel, diesel-driven development to “Okhtenskiy,” later put into production in China), and the much larger Atlant class were never introduced into naval service. Few, if any, permanently assigned naval tugs have names.
The “Sorum” represents the current generation of Soviet oceangoing tug and is also produced in an armed, named version as a PSKR for the KGB Border Guard. The Swedish-built “Goryn” is a more powerful example of Western ocean tug design and may have been acquired in order to improve Soviet knowledge in that area, much as the enormous Gerakl-class merchant tugs were purchased from the Netherlands several years ago.
Since "Sorum” is only a modest improvement on “Okhtenskiy” and so much new tug technology has become available from the West, it is likely that a new MB design will be introduced by the mid-1980s to begin replacing the “Okhtenskiys.”
OS-Opitnoye Sudno (Experimental Vessel)
OS has been applied to a variety of ships since the early 1960s. These ships have been configured to conduct trials of various military systems, primarily weapons, but also support deep submergence vehicles, Arctic exploration, and other naval-related basic research.
Other than the "T-43”- and “Po- tok”-class torpedo trials ships, all OS- units have been adapted for their new tasks from existing merchant ships or combatants. The mid-1950s’ construction “T-43”-class trials tenders were succeeded by the “Potoks,” a variant of the “T-58” minesweeper design equipped with 533- and 400-mm. torpedo tubes, diver-support gear, and probable recovery and checkout equipment. The largest OS unit was the former Kirov-class cruiser Voroshilov, deleted from the active ranks around 1957 and extensively rebuilt to act as trials ship for the “SA-N-3” missiles system in the 1960s.
Not all trials ships have OS-series numbers. The Nikolay Zubov, for instance, acted for many years as a navigational systems trials ship but retained her name. Other trials systems have been incorporated in nominally or fully operational warships, notably underway replenishment gear in the fourth “Kresta-II” and missiles in the “SAM Kotlin” Bravyy, the “Kashin” Provornyy, and the “Kara” Azov.
PB-Plavuchaya Baza (Floating Base)
The Soviet "floating base” has evolved in a different manner than the Western submarine tender and cannot be considered in the same context. The modern Soviet submarine forward deployment support tenders of the “Don” and “Ugra” classes draw their design inspiration from the German Otto Wiinsche and Waldemar Kophamel, ceded to the Soviet Union in 1946. Their employment concept follows the German concept as well: a long endurance, relatively speedy, and wellarmed surface command-and-control tender carrying fuel, spare torpedoes, and battery-charging facilities for submarines, as well as provisions, relief crew, and some spares, and having minor voyage repair capabilities. Such ships, as part of the fleet train, carry tactical pendant numbers. Their size and capabilities make them excellent, comfortable flagships, a duty which they frequently perform. Thus “base” carries more the implication of a locus of operations than a repair facility.
The smaller, second-rate PBs of the “Atrek” class have an older lineage in Soviet service, with examples of altered merchant ships employed for submarine support going back to the Tzarist Navy. They possess most of the support capabilities of the first-rate PBs but are smaller, much slower, have much less elaborate C1 facilities (being intended to operate mostly in home waters) and are normally unarmed. In the absence of a “Don” or “Ugra,” Pacific “Atreks” have been pressed into service for deployed duties.
What the Soviet Navy does not have is a large, heavy repair tender type specifically tailored for submarine maintenance. The “Dnepr" and “Modified Dnepr” classes of PM
(Plavuchaya Masterskaya, floating workshop) are intended for submarine maintenance but are quite small and only marginally mobile. A host of other types support or supply submarines: “Amur" and “Oskol” PMs carry support submarines as well as surface ships; “Tomba“-class generator ships supply power and steam; Amga-class missile transports carry ballistic missiles for PLRBs and PLARBs; “Lama”-class PMs (with tactical pendants when out of home waters) carry cruise missiles for PLRKs and PLARKs; and recently, “Vyte- grales’Tclass VTs like Donbass have carried torpedoes and other stores for submarines. Such "submarine rescue” classes as “Prut” (an SS-Spa- satel 'noye Sudno, rescue ship) probably also have minor repair facilities for submarines.
The oldest "Dons” are now some 20 years in commission but should still provide up to another decade of deployment service before relegation to home service. Nonetheless, some new class of PB could make its appearance during the 1980s, as it has been more than a decade since the last “Ugra” PB was completed.
PDS-Pozharno-Degazatsionnoye Sudno (Firefighting and Decontamination W.swe/yPZHS-Pozharnoye Sudno (Firefighting Vessel)
Until recently, naval units of the “Katun” class were appearing with the acronym PDS. A new unit, however, is PZHS-96. with the "decontamination” dropped from her name. This may either be a part of a general streamlining of the auxiliary type series acronyms (SBR has become merely SR), or a desire to draw less emphasis from the nuclear and biological warfare connotations of decontamination. Small naval fireboats, principally the “Pozharnyy” class, were typed PDK (Poz.harno-Degaz.at- sionny Kater). but are now designated merely PZHK (Pozliarnyy Kater). Both vessels and cutters can also act as tugs in pulling service.
PAZ-Plavuchaya Masterskaya (Floating Workshop)
The designation "floating workshop" is applied to a wide variety of Soviet tenders, naval and civilian, powered and non-self-propelled. For many, the designation is not very descriptive. It does not seem likely, for example, that a "Lama”-class PM ac-
tually performs repair and maintenance (beyond checkout) on the missiles she carries. The “Oskol" class is so small as to have very few artisan personnel on board and probably has only limited repair facilities. Many ships with PM series numbers were hulked warships, while a large number of East German-built work barges were given these numbers, although they serve the fishing fleet.
The “PM-124” class were converted Finnish-built cargo barges employed in nuclear submarine maintenance. Probably the only classes of Soviet PMs which fit the Western stereotype of "repair ship" are the “Dneprs” and “Modified Dneprs.” While these are extensively equipped with forges, welding equipment, carpentry shops, etc., they are evidently intended only for submarine support, are very small (4,500 tons), and are few in number. The current series of more than 20 “Amur”-class tenders (like the “Oskols,” built in Poland) carry many more personnel than early ships of the class and may incorporate some improvements in their repair facilities.
The Soviet concept of strategically mobile base facilities employs large numbers of non-self-propelled repair and stores barges (the “PSKL-16”- class floating warehouse was an example of the latter) so that, in the event of the threat of loss of base facilities, these craft can be towed to a base. For that reason, large numbers of floating dry docks have been acquired, and even barracks are maintained as floating facilities. More than four dozen elaborate “Bolva” series accommodations barges (PKZ, Pla- vuchiya Kazarina) have been built for naval and civil use, while many other non-self-propelled auxiliaries are retained for that purpose. "Floating" means “mobile" to Soviet naval planners.
■SB-Spasatel'nyy Buksir (Rescue Tag) The distinction between a rescue tug and a rescue ship (SS) might seem an unnecessarily fine one, yet the Soviet Navy has had both types. SB has been applied to individual ships within classes like “Okhtenskiy” and "Ros- lavl,” whose members are more normally typed MB (Morskoy Baksir, seagoing tug). The distinction seems to be that the SB is equipped in a modest way (probably with divers and an underwater communications system) to serve as a submarine range safety ship; Spasatel'nyy thus seems to be something of a euphemism. As no SBs have been built for at least 15 years, it is possible that the type will be allowed to lapse.
Sf?/?-Sudno Bol'shogo Razmagnichivanya (Large Deperming Vessel)/
SR—Sudno Razmagnichivanya (Deperming Vessel)
Degaussing and deperming have been given enormous attention by the modern Soviet Navy, which, as it maintains the world’s largest stockpile of naval mines, is well aware ot the danger posed by the magnetic influence mine. The Soviet Union has long had by far the world's largest inventory of deperming tenders. Three classes were built in the 1950s, the most numerous being the Finnish-built, wooden-hulled “Sekstans." The current-construction “Pelym" class, a far larger ship, seems intended to maintain the capability inherent in the older craft. SBRs have recently appeared merely as SRs; perhaps the Soviet Navy found the “B” superfluous.
■SS-Spasatel’noye Sudno (Salvage Vessel)
The SS type has been tied to submarine rescue and salvage since its appearance in the 1950s. Although a few individual units of tug classes were typed SS, the majority of these rescue ships have been of standard classes, built for the purpose. The first such design was a modified version of the “T-43” MT (Morskoy Tral'schik, minesweeper) with a stern gallows for supporting submersible decompression chambers and divers’ stages, but with no rescue bell. The second design, appearing shortly thereafter, was derived from the “T-58” MT and had all the features of the “T-43" SS plus a McCann-type bell to port, with rescue decompression chambers below decks. The “Prut" design, appearing in 1961. marked the maturation of the Soviet submarine rescue ship and incorporated four-point mooring capability, flotation buoys, an observation bell, a rescue bell, and submersible decompression chamber. Several “T- 58s” and “Pruts” were named, rather than just given SS-series alphanumeric hull numbers. The Karpaty, the sole “Nepa," was once the most elaborate Soviet submarine rescue and salvage ship ever built. The Karpaty, however, has now been dwarfed by the enormous, icebreaker-hulled Ehl'brus, which displaces in excess of 15,000 tons and carries DSRV-like submersibles to rescue stranded submariners.
Another, related category of ships typed SS are the true salvage ships of
(he “Ingul” and “Pamir" classes. Ihese ships are intended to aid distressed surface ships. The newer "In- 8ul ' design includes extensive salVage, lifesaving, and firefighting equipment. The "Pamirs" were built >n Sweden in the late 1950s, and two °t the four later adapted as intelligence collectors because of their extraordinary endurance. The two naval Inguis” were built at Admiralty Shipyard, Leningrad, with later construction units of the class being civilian-subordinated.
Depot
Table 2 Military Tanker Development
Large Medium
Medium
Support
Small
Polyarnik
(1945)
Irtvsli
(1952)
X
Nerclta
(1952)
T
Kazbek
(1954)
^7-Voennyy Tanker (Military Tanker)
I he "military tanker” in the Soviet Navy has experienced a startling growth in capabilities over the last decade. The first underway, alongside rePlenishments of liquids were not attempted until the mid-1960s, and prototype constant-tension solid transfer equipment did not materialize until 1^69. Since that time, progress has been rapid, with new designs receiving elaborate transfer facilities and older units of the "Uda," Allay, Kazbek, and Pevek classes being backfitted with hquid alongside transfer facilities.
today, most important deployed operations are supported by naval •ankers; only a few years ago. upwards of half the Soviet Navy’s deployed refueling was via chartered Merchant tankers. With the exception °t the unique, armed Berezina, which ls referred to as a VTR (Voennyy transport, military transport), all na- ''al oilers and water tankers (MVT IMorskoy Vodoley Tanker, seagoing water tanker)) are nominally civilian- banned. under the Naval Auxiliary Service (the rough Soviet counterpart t° the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the D- S. Navy’s Military Sealift Com- ntand).
During World War II, the Soviet Navy employed at least 46 naval tank- eps, some having been built as far back as 1882. The initial postwar tankers Were small and were intended for home Waters service, being capable only of dead-in-the-water or towed bow-to- stern refueling. The “Khobi" class was a Russification of the foreign technology embodied in the Swedish and Fin- aish-built Kondas and Nerchas. These ships were little larger than Western Vard oilers and the "Toplivo-2" series °f coastal tankers are in some respects ’heir modern descendants.
The Dutch-built, ex-German Kiirrt- ,(‘n, captured by the Soviet Union in
Sofiya
(1969)
Boris Cliilikin (1971)
Berezina-see under VTR
“Uda”
(1962)
Manyclt (1972) to MVT
I
Dubna
(1975)
Pevek | Konda | |
(1958) | (1954) T | |
J Ole | kina | 1 Klwbi |
(1964) | (1955) | |
|
| T_. |
Toplivo-2”*
(1959)
T
Alt ax (1968)
KaUningradneft
(19?)
’Typed as MNS (Mat'aye Nativnoye Sitdno, small refueling ship) and considered yardcraft. all hough capable of coastal operations.
1945 and still very much in service as Polyarnik, was a multi-cargo replenishment ship and provided the probable inspiration for the first Soviet attempt at such a concept, the premature “Uda” class of 1962. These ships were only marginally successful as carriers of both solid and liquid stores and only today are they being backfitted with the proper replenishment facilities. Through the 1960s, the VT fleet was supplemented by small numbers of essentially unaltered examples of standard Soviet merchant marine tanker classes; other than being given over- the-stern refueling equipment, these
Kazbeks,, Olekmas, Peveks, and Allays were then nearly indistinguishable from their civil sisters. The Akli- tuba, the Soviet Navy’s largest ship, was the sole example of the Sofiya class to e- ter naval service, for purposes similar to the Royal Navy’s former Indian Ocean depot tankers of the RFA Dale group. The Boris Cliilikin class, however, was a truly navalized version of a merchant design, initially equipped with weapons and sensors and having a solid stores carriage and transfer capability not inherent in the parent Velikiy Oktyabr design. The parallel Manych had no civil counter-
Table 3 Military Transport Development
Large________________________________ Small
Kolomna (1952) | “Telnovsk" (1949) |
I | I |
Chulym (1953) | "MP-6" (1958-ex DK) |
I | I |
Donbass (1955) | Keyla (I960) |
I | I |
Andizman (1958) | Yuniv Partizan (1975) |
I | T |
Amguema (1975) |
|
I |
|
Berezina (1978) |
|
T |
|
part at all but was unsuccessful as a replenishment oiler and has been relegated to MVT (seagoing water tanker) duties.
Finland has provided medium-sized tankers to the Soviet Navy since the 1950s, beginning with the Pevek and evolving through the Olekmct and Allay. The larger Dubna from Rauma- Repola employs U. S. and Swedish technology for her successful multiproduct transfer systems and appears to have been almost a hedge on the success of the indigenously designed transfer systems incorporated in the Boris Chilikins, which have greater cargo deadweight capacity. The current 6,500 D.W.T. group of 26 Rauma- Repola-built Kaliningradneft-c\ass tankers may be taken as the actual follow-ons to the Altay class, and some may enter naval service in wartime, although no new replenishment oilers have been delivered to the Soviet Navy since the fourth Dubna entered service in early 1979.
The lineage of postwar tankers is complex. There appear to be at least four groupings within the type. These would perhaps work out as is outlined in Table 2.
V77?-Voennyy Transport (Military Transport)
The military transport is both a convenient generic category for all types of cargo-carrying auxiliaries and a specific type designation for dry cargo carriers. While few such ships today carry VTR-series alphanumeric names, their use was common until a few years ago. The designation covers mission capabilities which would be differentiated by a number of type-designators by Western navies. Thus, the personnel transport Kuban, the small refrigerated provisions ships of the “Mayak" class, and the various dry cargo and munitions-carrying ships of such classes as the Amguema, Yitniy Par- tizan, “MP-6,” Andizhan, Key la, “Telnovsk,” and the like are all grouped together under VTR. On her March 1979 deployment from the Bosphorus, the 38,000-ton fleet replenishment ship Berezina was declared as a VTR—perhaps reflecting a greater volume of her capacity being devoted to stores and munitions than to fuel than in any previous such Soviet ship.
It has been Soviet practice to renew ships in the VTR category after some 20-25 years of service, although there are examples of older units being retained longer. It would appear, for example, that selected ships of the Yitniy Bartizan class entered the navy to replace superannuated “Telnovsks” dating back, in some cases, to 1949. Yet there is no discernible pattern of acquisition and replacement; this is not too surprising, as the Soviet Navy has not until recently had designed and built for it a tailored VTR-design. The recent possible exception has been the “Ivon Antonov“-class armed cargo ships of about 3,000 D.W.T. built in the Far East. Considering their armament, these ships may be intended for KGB Border Guard service rather than for the Soviet Navy.
Very small cargo and munitions carriers, such as the “Muna” and “Shal- anda” classes, carry yardcraft pendants in the MBSS (Morskaya Barzha Samokhodnaya Sukhogritznaya, seagoing self-propelled dry cargo barge), MTB (Morskaya Torpednaya Barzha, seagoing torpedo barge), or other similar series; when “Munas” are deployed to the Mediterranean, their yardcraft pendants are painted over with VTR numbers.
While only a couple of Soviet VTRs are of much over 6,500 D.W.T. (and most are much smaller), there do seem to be two categories within the type, again “large” and “small." (Table 3 outlines military transport development.)
In the future, the requirement for such ships will very likely continue to be met by drawing from the ranks of Ministry of the Merchant Marine units. Where an underway (or, at least, at- sea) replenishment capability is required, conversions would be performed on existing designs (such as has recently been done to some of the naval Andizhans).
Yardcraft
Although a few yardcraft types and classes have been alluded to in this discussion, space does not permit discussion of the numerous formal yardcraft designators. In any case, it is more than probable that there are more types for which we do not know (or understand) the Soviet designator than for which we do. Finding these out may seem to be of little other than academic interest, yet the readiness and operations of the Soviet Navy (and, for that matter, any navy) depend on the ministrations of such seemingly mundane craft.
Once one gets into the lighters, barges, dredges, floating cranes, sludge removal craft, and the like, their subordination between the Soviet Navy and other arms of the Soviet Government becomes a blur. Yet, just as much attention must be paid by Soviet planners to constant introduction of new classes of such types as is done for the combatants and seagoing auxiliaries. Thus, we have Flamingo GPBs arriving to replace the old “PO-2” and “Nyryats," the “Shelon”-class TL- Torpedolov appearing to replace the “Poluchat-l“. etc., on a regular and predictable basis.