I mentioned a moment ago that the Soviets are leaders in marine gas turbine technology. These are some of the other kinds of things that the Soviets do particularly well. In the titanium welding, for example [deleted]. So there are certain areas of technology in which they have become quite proficient. Aviation programs— TYPHOON IMPROVEMENTS Senator COHEN. Admiral, before you go, would you explain, if you can at this level, improvements made in the Typhoon? Admiral BUTTS. Improvements made in the Typhoon as opposed to the Delta? Senator COHEN. Improvements in general-we talked about this the other day. In the past several years we have been told that the Soviets have sacrificed quieting in favor of speed and size. What is the situation now? Admiral BUTTS. Overall, sir, the Soviets have been working very actively [deleted]. That is quite an improvement for the Soviets because for many years we have regarded their submarines as clunkers. [Deleted]. Along with the acoustic quieting, the Soviets are also [deleted]. Admiral BAGGETT. [Deleted]. The process, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is not all that complex [deleted]. Senator COHEN. Compare this to when the SS-18's were developed. We were told the Soviets built a bigger misile and warhead to make up for lack of accuracy, and then the SS-18 evolved into a missile which is almost if not just as accurate as our Minuteman, and it seems that the same thing has taken place with their submarines. Before we were told, well, it is bigger and it is faster, but it is noisier, therefore easier for us to detect, and now they are coming out with the follow-on models which are bigger, faster, and harder to detect. Admiral BUTTS. Clearly the Soviets view their missile submarine force as the meat and potatoes of the navy. They want to do everything they can to protect it. They recognize our acoustic advantage and perhaps our operational advantage and are trying to overcome that. They are handicapped in some of their older submarines in the way the submarines were built in the first place, [deleted] which Admiral Baggett mentioned, which are critical. There is no indication that they have made any sweeping changes, but they are getting better and better, and it is still a black science. Acoustic quieting is not easy. Admiral Baggett mentioned that they had in fact successfully [deleted]. BACKFIRE BOMBER Backfire is still the foremost aircraft for Soviet naval aviation. They now have about [deleted] of these aircraft assigned to Soviet aviation. Senator COHEN. What is the rate of production for these aircraft? Admiral BUTTS. I think for about [deleted] per year. I will get that exact figure for you. Senator COHEN. If you would. I think they agreed to limit their production to 30 a year under SALT II, and my understanding was that they were increasing that rate of production in violation. Admiral BUTTS. You are talking overall. The Soviet navy has been getting about [deleted] per year. Senator COHEN. What information do you have concerning rates of production? Admiral BUTTS. Overall, I can get that figure for the record, sir. I think that the last figure I saw suggested something more than 30. [The information follows:] BACKFIRE BOMBER PRODUCTION A recent review of the evidence has produced agreement in the Intelligence Community that the Backfire continues to be produced at a stable rate of 30 aircraft per year. [Deleted.] Admiral BAGGETT. [Deleted.] Admiral BUTTS. This is the Backfire regiments [deleted]. Senator WILSON. Admiral, could you go back one slide? I cannot tell, but it looks to me as though each of the aircraft is in sort of a depressed pod. Admiral BUTTS. Each one is in a revetment, yes, sir, for protection, and this is typical of Soviet aircraft protection, not only for the navy, but for the Soviet air forces as well. Senator WILSON. In other words, that is supposed to protect them from everything but a direct hit? Admiral BUTTS. Yes, sir. If you get a near burst on the ground, unless it is right at the entrance to the revetment, it will provide a large degree of protection. Senator WILSON. We just saw something similar to that in Israel except even better. They actually covered it. Admiral BUTTS. The Soviets have bunkered some of their tactical fighter regiments, particularly in Eastern Europe. We see that as a common hallmark, and that is very similar to what the Israelis are using, the same type of bunkered revetments. In addition to the Soviet reaction to our carrier, there were any of a number of other kinds of Soviet naval activity around the world which attracted our attention this past year, and I would like to just mention a couple of them. When the Minsk was in the Indian Ocean, Forger aircraft from Minsk intercepted U.S. A-7's. This is the first time this has been done at sea. Also, the Forger's [deleted]. The Minsk didn't have a very successful deployment. She had some engineering problems. But she did get from the Soviet Pacific fleet to the Indian Ocean and back home in 108 days and didn't have to be towed back in. She was dead in the water a couple of times, belching black smoke a couple of times, and there was an oil slick at least once, but overall it was, I guess, by Soviet standards a fairly successful operation. Senator WILSON. Do you know what caused her to go dead in the water, what kind of difficulty? Admiral BUTTS. We think that they have been having some kinds of propulsion plant control difficulties on that ship since they built her. They have not had those kinds of problems on her sister ship Kiev. Kiev is a much more professionally operated platform than is Minsk. And that may be a function of fleet subordination or a function of who happens to be in command. The Soviets tend to leave their commanding officers in command for long periods of time, 6 years or upward. In fact, the longest one of which we are aware, we know-and this is fact-[deleted]. I guess they were hanging him around at sea until he finally got it right. My point is, sir, the Soviets also tend to train their own relief, so if the commanding officer is proficient, then his relief is likely to be proficient. If he is inept, we hope that he will pass along those traits as well. Senator COHEN. Admiral, has there been a change in the tempo of operations that you have noticed? Admiral BUTTS. Only slightly, sir, but in certain key areas, I will show you a couple of instances, it is an attention getter, and I have got a bar graph a little later on that shows you this slant, and over the last few years it really hasn't been that pronounced, but it is going up. This is the Forger aircraft I mentioned before. It is not a very good airplane. Some of our aviation analysis describe it as an airplane that should not be left out at night by itself. I don't know if it is that bad, but the Soviets clearly need a better aircraft, [deleted]. FORGER/HARRIER COMPARISONS Senator COHEN. How does this compare with the Harrier? Admiral BUTTS. This really does not compare with the Harrier. The Harrier is a much more effective and capable aircraft, sir. I would be happy to give you a side-by-side comparison for the record, look at the statistics on this one and Harrier. Harrier really jumps out at you as being a very capable plane. [The information follows:] FORGER/HARRIER COMPARISON Performance characteristics for the YAK-36 Forger A and the AV-8A Harrier are as follows: 1 Although Forger's four weapons pylons are each capable of carrying [deleted] restrictions imposed [deleted] functionally limit the combat load [deleted]. 2 Combat radius is based on a vertical take-off and landing and no in-flight refueling. Harrier's radius, using a short take-off and one in-flight refueling, is about 1,500 nmi. [Deleted.] Admiral BUTTS. Another aviation development which has attracted our attention is the outfitting of Soviet Bear bombers with air to-surface missiles, AS-4's, the same missiles carried by the Backfires. The Soviet Air Force has long had a secondary mission of supporting the Soviet Navy. [Deleted.] Another kind of activity the Soviets are increasingly becoming involved with is amphibious training. This is a large exercise down in the Black Sea this year. It wasn't quite as large as the exercise in the Baltic in 1981, but increasingly the Soviets are devoting attention to their amphibious training and to the naval infantry force that goes with it. Since 1964 they have increased from 4,000 to 14,000. It is a small elite force. SOVIET AMPHIBIOUS FORCE Overall, the Soviet amphibious force we believe is intended for operations principally in the Black Sea and the Baltic. Senator COHEN. What about their LCAC's? Admiral BUTTS. Yes. This is the AIST class. They have [deleted] air-cushioned vehicles. [Deleted]. This is the largest, and then they have two smaller kinds. Senator COHEN. How many do they have? Admiral BUTTS. [Deleted] overall. Senator WILSON. Excuse me. Before you go on, what speed do those make? Admiral BUTTS. About [deleted] knots. Senator WILSON. What is their deployment? Admiral BUTTS. They operate from a ship like this, for example, the Ivan Rogov Lpd, they come out of a dock and go across the surface of the water and right up onto the beach carrying troops or armored vehicles, and they actually go all the way aground before they discharge their passengers and cargo, part of an amphibious landing force. Senator WILSON. What speed do they make leaving the water, going ashore? Admiral BUTTS. They can transition, if the terrain is relatively smooth, they can transition from water to land at speeds upwards of [deleted] knots. Admiral BAGGETT. To give you a feel, the LCAC program we have is comparable to this in terms of speed. The LCAC's that we are developing which have an IOC of [deleted] will have a [deleted] capability transitioning from the landing ship well into the sea. The terrain will largely determine how fast they can go, but down the beach they would make [deleted]. The range capability is out to [deleted] miles, for our LCAC's. As I say, there are some 12 craft now in the budget for LCAC, but we have not yet determined what the inventory objective should be. The biggest benefit you can get from an air-cushioned vehicle such as this is the ability to get the troops and the equipment ashore in the assault wave without having to alert the enemy with all the beach preparations and the minesweeping that goes with a conventional displacement hull. It is very complementary to our helicopter-borne amphibious assault, and allows you to carry equipment up to and including tanks in landing craft such as this. Senator WILSON. In terms of the capacity, how does it relate to a whole conventional amphibious operation? Admiral BAGGETT. It will not carry the same load as the LCU, which is the largest assault craft we have. They are comparable to the LCM-8 class. They have a greater capacity than those which are the real workhorses of the amphibious assault. We are looking also at the landing craft air-cushion vehicle, as a platform that perhaps would offer us [deleted]. Senator WILSON. Thank you. Admiral BUTTS. The Soviets also are continuing conventional amphibious developments [deleted]. Mr. Chairman, responding to your question a moment ago about Soviet tempo of operations, one of the areas in which the tempo is sharply up is at Cam Ranh Bay. [deleted]. Today there are [deleted]. At the same time that this operation tempo in and out of Cam Ranh Bay in South Vietnam has gone up, overall Soviet levels in the Indian Ocean have gone down. They are using this port as a way station for ships from their Pacific fleet going to and from the Indian Ocean. The Soviet Indian Ocean force is supported almost exclusively now by the Soviet Pacific fleet. A few years ago, when the Soviets first began to put ships there, they came from all of the Soviet fleet areas. Now it is almost exclusively the Pacific fleet mission. I mentioned the hospital ship a moment ago. You frequently will find a submarine sitting alongside this hospital ship, and we have seen that also in the Mediterranean. The Soviets routinely use their hospital ships to provide some kinds of support I think other than medical to their deployed forces, principally their submarines. I learned that this does not contravene the Geneva Convention. You can in fact use hospital ships for whatever you choose to use them for up until the point that hostilities actually start. At that point you declare a ship as a hospital ship, and then it can do nothing but hospital kinds of things, before then, fair game. Senator COHEN. How do you know it is a hospital ship? Senator COHEN. It's painted white? Admiral BUTTS. It is painted white, has red crosses on the stack, and the Soviets tell us it is a hospital ship. Senator COHEN. I know that, but how do you know it? Admiral BUTTS. [Deleted] and the Soviets have used them in far away places to provide some limited local support to local populations. Senator WILSON. What if we see a white Kirov class with big red crosses? Senator COHEN. I just wonder what kind of supplies they could give to a submarine. Admiral BUTTS. You might give food. You could also have some small electronics, spare parts, those kinds of things. And you would be expected that any ship this size would have, particularly even a hospital ship, would have machine shops to support itself, and therefore they could probably do certain kinds of limited machine work. Senator LEVIN. How about recreational facilities? |