617 
In overall performance, the United States and the Soviet Union 
are probably still at par (with the United States may still have a 
marginal overall edge over the Soviet Union), but the faster growing 
commitment in funds and manpower for Soviet oceanic research is 
likely to result in it becoming the leader in oceanography. 
The United States leads the world in technology related to the 
development of non-living ocean resources, such as offshore oil and 
gas and manganese nodules. The United States has also been a leader 
in the development of virtually every major advance in cargo ship 
design, including the containership, the lighter-aboard ship (LASH) 
barge carrier, the sea barge ship, and the first liquefied natural gas 
carrier and in the advancement of roll-on/roll-off technology.!”” 
The Soviet Union, on the other hand, is now equal to, if not 
ahead of, the United States in many important areas with respect 
to naval shipbuilding and equipment technology. Admiral Rickover 
has stated that since 1968: 
. . . the Soviets have introduced over nine new submarine designs, or major modifica- 
tions in design, besides converting older submarines to improve their capabilities. The 
Soviets have put to sea improved versions of their attack, cruise missile and ballistic 
missile nuclear submarines. In the last 8 years, they have put to sea more new design 
submarines than have ever been put to sea during a comparable period in all of 
naval history. The United States on the other hand, has produced only two new 
design submarines during this period. This fact is not surprising since the United 
States spends less than 20 percent of its naval budget on submarines while the Soviets 
spend approximately 40 percent.1%8 
Of the 229 major surface combatants, the Soviets have equipped 
33 with antiship cruise missiles. A small number of U.S. surface ships 
have cruise missiles; the deployment of the U.S. Harpoon cruise missile 
is not expected to begin until 1977.’ The development of higher 
accurate precision-guided munitions, which has been accompanied by 
a similar revolution in explosive yield-to-weight ratios, has made the 
- generally smaller Soviet surface vessels much more deadly than they 
were just 10 years ago. The U.S. Navy has recently tested an ocean 
surveillance satellite, but the Soviet Navy is known to have a more 
ambitious such program. They have conducted test flights of ocean 
surveillance satellites since 1967 and are known to have launched 
12 such satellites.18° When perfected and deployed in sufficient quan- 
tity, such reconnaissance systems can pinpoint the location of surface 
- ships and targets and can relay this message back to offensive plat- 
forms. Application of this technology will make surface ships far more 
vulnerable to destruction at sea. 
Nonmilitary technology in the form of ship designs (roll-on/roll- 
off, Seabee ships) and systems and offshore oil drilling and production 
technology, has been transferred on a regular basis to the Soviet 
Union, either by U.S. companies or by foreign companies under U.S. 
license. As indicated, much of this nonmilitary technology can be 
applied to the military effort. Critics of the current U.S. technology 
transfer policy (or the lack thereof) have called for a complete review 
of both private and public technology transfers to Communist coun- 
tries and their client states. 
177 Hearings on Merchant Marine Oversight, part 1, op. cit., p. 383. 
178 Congressional Record, April 8, 1976, p. H3081. 
179 Information received from the Department of Defense. 
180 Information received from Dr. Charles Sheldon, Chief, Science Policy Research Division, Con- 
gressional Research Service, July 13, 1976. 
