to authenticate what information is availa- 

 ble. Mr. Lee Boylan of Informatics Inc., 

 Rockville, Maryland summarized Soviet-bloc 

 submersible development in a 1969 mono- 

 graph for the Marine Technology Society 

 Journal (v. 3, n. 2) and updated this report in 

 1972 in the same Journal (v. 6, n. 5). Mr. 

 Boylan's original work was based on 206 

 articles and reports from the Soviet Union 

 and elsewhere. It is most comprehensive, but 

 Boylan himself admits that his 45-year his- 

 tory does not comprise the entire Soviet Bloc 

 inventory. There are a few other articles 

 which serve to reinforce Boylan's tabulation, 

 but the picture is still confusing. 



From those details that are available, 

 Soviet submersible development and use 

 have been primarily aimed at fisheries inves- 

 tigations. In 1957 the Soviets converted a 

 fleet-type submarine into the fisheries re- 

 search vehicle SEVERYAISKA. Seven re- 

 search cruises were conducted by this vehi- 

 cle during the next few years. Then it ap- 

 pears to have been decommissioned in the 

 early sixties. 



At present, Russia, according to Boylan, 

 has or has had four submersibles which fol- 

 lowed SEVERYANKA; these are: The 6,562-ft 

 SEVER 2, the 810-ft GVIDON, the 984-ft 

 TINRO 1, and the DOREA for which no 

 operating depth is stated. International Hy- 

 drodynamics of Canada is constructing a 

 P/SCES-class submersible (6,500-ft depth) 

 and the lock-out vehicle ARIES (1,200-ft 

 depth) for the Soviet Union for delivery 

 sometime in 1974. 



Admittedly, this is making very short 

 shrift of Soviet Bloc undersea efforts. Al- 

 though they seem quite active in habitats 

 and swimmer delivery (wet) vehicles, there is 

 little information available on the actual 

 submersible field. A report by V. S. Yastre- 

 bov. Head of the Laboratory of Underwater 

 Research Technique, Academy of Sciences, 

 USSR, tends to confirm that there is really 

 very little to report in Soviet submersible 

 activities. Yastrebov's report (presented at 

 the Brighton Oceanology International Con- 

 ference, 1972) compares the efficiency of di- 

 vers and underwater devices. He speaks of 

 an unmanned Soviet bottom crawler, CRAB, 

 and of manipulator experiments at the Acad- 

 emy of Sciences, but every example of sub- 



mersible performance he cites is of a U.S. 

 vehicle. Furthermore, of 14 references in 

 Yastrebov's report, 11 are from U.S. sources. 

 In another paper given at the Brighton Con- 

 ference, V. G. Azhazha of the Central Re- 

 search Institute of Fisheries Information 

 and Economics analyzed the efficiency of 

 submersibles in fishery investigations. Here 

 again, except for a brief mention of SEVER- 

 YANKA, all of the submersibles mentioned 

 are U.S., English or Canadian. One is left to 

 conclude, therefore, that Soviet-bloc at-sea 

 submersible experience is quite limited, of a 

 confidential nature, or both. 



The "Manned" Aspect of 

 Submersibles 



The most significant omission of submers- 

 ible components in the following chapters is 

 the human component. The Deep Submers- 

 ible Pilots Association and the Navy's Sub- 

 marine Development Group One have de- 

 fined the minimal requirements for an opera- 

 tor or pilot. Chapter 12, herein, tabulates the 

 number and types of operating and support 

 personnel for selected vehicles. Unfortu- 

 nately, all of these fall quite short in actually 

 defining the nature and qualities of the peo- 

 ple who keep the system running efficiently 

 and safely. Indeed, if one were to list the 

 desirable attributes of a submersible crew- 

 man — and the crew includes support as well 

 as operating personnel — the final product 

 would seem unattainable. 



First, for the most part submersibles work 

 far out at sea or in other isolated places 

 where public admiration is not the rule. Sec- 

 ondly, photographers, press agents and me- 

 dia representatives are generally unaware of 

 submersible activities until there is an emer- 

 gency, and these are quite rare. Thirdly, 

 working at sea is arduous, frustrating, con- 

 tinuous and, in the submersible business, 

 calls for the skills of a seaman, an engineer, 

 a diver and a master mariner. The point is 

 that the personnel must be highly-skilled, 

 dedicated individuals who are willing to 

 spend a good portion of their life on a pitch- 

 ing, rolling, benevolent prison. The pay is not 

 fantastic and residuals for television adver- 

 tisements are unknown. One hundred per- 

 cent successful missions are rare, and frus- 

 trating compromise is generally the rule. 



10 



