November 15, 201114 yr One of my favourite games used to be 2nd Fleet, due to its focus on the cold war / greenland-UK-iceland gap. And one of my favouite units froms that game was the "Ticonderoga". With that as my starting point, i set out to find an approximate Soviet equivalent to compare it too. I quickly found the Project 1164 Atlant. I'd never heard of it. The Atlant is same type of ship (CG) and it even has the same build year (1983). On paper, it looks to be the perfect match of NATA v Soviet guided missile cruisers. How do they stack up from a H4.1 point of view? Coming soon 1. Physically 2. Sensors 3. Weapons 4. Overall
November 16, 201114 yr Author Physically Both ships were made in 1983, so that is where I will draw the line for comparison, how capable were each when they first floated. Both are Medium size warships. The Ticonderoga gains a small advantage because it is "quiet" whereas the Atlant is "noisy". Small advantage Ticonderoga. The Ticonderoga is capable of 30kts while the Atlant is slightly faster at 32kts. Is this much of a difference? Its equivalent to 2 miles per hour faster. Or 48 miles over a 24 hour period (depending on the scale of your game). To be honest, the difference would be close to none in my own games. Even. The Ticonderoga has 204 damage points while the Atlant has 232. Its a small difference in the Atlants favour. Is an extra 28 damage points material? Let me try for some perspective. A Maverick causes 27 damage points, an Exocet missile inflicts 33 damage points, Harpoon is 45 damage points and a Russian Grumble (found on the Atlant) causes 18dp. Whereas I think 2kts is not worthy of an advantage in terms of speed, I think an extra 28 damage points is worthy of an advantage. Apart from being able to absorb an extra Maverick for example, it will also impact on the amount of critical hits when the damage ratio is calculated. Small advantage Atlant. The Ticonderoga has CPP (controllable pitch propellers. See 3.1.1) while the Atlant doesn't. CPP allows faster acceleration & faster deceleration. In my view this would only be an advantage in close-in combat, most likely encountered when outrunning torpedoes are involved. Very small advantage Ticonderoga. Determining an overall grade comes down to the Ticonderoga being quiet and the Atlant having 28 extra damage points. Which advantage would you rather have? I was leaning towards the quiet vessel using the "prevention (of detection)" is better than a cure (having more damage points available). But this really only applies when submarines are involved, so maybe the small advantage isnt even that big, in fact maybe the advantage swings back to the Atlant since those extra damage points come into play whether the opposition is a submarine, aircraft or another ship! Grrrrrrr. Too close to call, Even. Sensors Given both ships birthdays are the same year, it will be interesting to see the difference in Sensor performance, which often ends up being a straight IT comparison of the day. Countermeasures Ticonderoga ACM: 2G towed ECM: 3G Jam & Decoy ESM: 3G Atlant ACM: None ECM: 2G Jam & Decoy ESM: 2G A clear advantage to the Ticonderoga in all 3 cases. The Atlant doesn't have any acoustic countermeasures and is a generation behind in terms of electronic countermeasures and electromagnetic support measures. Advantage Ticonderoga. Surface radar Ticonderoga surface 57 32 18 10 6 Atlant surface 30 30 20 11 6 Interesting how the Ticonderoga can detect large and medium sized ships at longer range, and then the Atlant can detect smaller ships at longer ranges. Even. Air radar Ticonderoga air 284 213 159 68 20 Atlant air 243 153 114 49 15 The Ticonderoga can detect air units out at longer ranges, so it appears to have a small advantage. Sonar Ticonderoga has a hull mounted sonar with an active range of 4.7nm and a passive range of 2.1nm, low frequency - medium frequency. Atlant has a hull mounted sonar with an active range of 3.8nm and a passive range of 0.9nm, medium frequency. The Atlant also has a towed array sonar with the same details (3.8nm/0.9nm/MF) as its hull mount. A bit off topic, but the Ticonderoga looks to have a massive advantage when it comes to engagements against submarines. The Atlant doesn't seem to be equipped to deal with them at all. The Atlant is less agile, has no acoustic countermeasures & while it has a competent sonar it is not as powerful at the Ticonderoga's (see the example under Perry v Cornwall to see the large impact a small difference in sonars has in detecting submarines). Its true the Atlant has a backup towed sonar that the Ticonderoga doesn't have, but it is not enough. Advantage Ticonderoga. The Ticonderoga has the advantage in countermeasures, surface radars are even, air radar is small advantage Ticonderoga and sonar is advantage Ticonderoga as well. Big advantage to the Ticonderoga in this most important category, where being able to detect the enemy and fire first is often who wins the engagement. 3. Weapons Defence first. The Ticonderoga has 2 mounts x 127mm 5.2nm 35% 10% manual load, small magazine 2 mounts x Mk 15 Phalanx 1.2nm 80% 50% SSC, manual load, small magazine 2 mounts x Mk 38 Bushmaster 1.5nm 15% 5% manual load, small magazine 4 mounts x 12.7mm 2 mounts x SM2SR II or III block (ROF 4) 90.0/100nm 2G/3G 5/6ATA SSC Atlant 6 mounts x 30mm 1.8nm 60% 30% SSC, manual load, small magazine 1 mount x 6A Grumble (ROF 8) 40.5nm 3G 6.0ATA SSC 6 targets with 2 missiles each 2 mounts x 4B Gecko (ROF 2) 6.5nm 2G 4.5ATA SSC 2 missiles at same target Close in air defence favours the Ticonderoga. That Phalanx system which is sea skimmer capable and has such high too hit numbers is hard to beat. But I have to admit I'm impressed by the Atlats long range air defence. The Grumble and Gecko launchers have high ROF & are SSC. I don't think there is a clear winner here. I don't think I can pick a close winner either. I have not delved into which arcs each weapon covers, it adds too much complication and I am not convinced there is any benefit at that level. Even. Worth noting both ships have manual loading and small magazines for many of their weapons which is another thing I did not expect. I can understand smaller frigates having limited space and therefore small magazines, but not larger cruisers. Offensive capability Ticonderoga 2 mounts x 127mm 13.0nm 65% 33% 12/4 damage points light armour penetration. manual load, small magazine 2 mounts x SM2SR II or III block (ROF 4) 25nm 2G/3G 5 damage points Harpoon (ROF 8) 75nm 3G 45 damage points surface skimmer, terminal manouver, (I"m not sure what "3W" means in the remarks?) Atlant 2 mounts x 130mm 12.5nm 65% 33% 35/11 damage points light armour penetration Sandbox (ROF 4) 300nm 3G 167 damage points terminal dive Grumble (ROF 8) 25nm 3G 18 damage points Gecko (ROF 2) 6.5nm 2G 3 damage points I'll admit, i'm surprised at how under gunned the Ticonderoga is. Apart from those Harpoons its pretty light on for offensive weaponry. The Atlant by contrast looks pretty formidable against the Ticonderoga. Those Sandboxs look like fun! However while they pack great power (range 300nm and high damage points 167) i wonder if they are ever able to land a blow, not being sea skimmers i figure they will be easier to shoot down? But if even one got through, its game over! By contrast the Ticonderoga needs to land 4 or 5 harpoons to cause an equivalent amount of damage. Guns and the odd smaller missiles cancel each other out. In the heat of warefare i'm betting one Sandbox will ruin your day. Against surface targets its Advantage Atlant. The Ticonderoga has 6 torpedo tubes and 3rd generation Mk 46 torpedos with a range of 6.0nm moving at 45kts doing 11 points of damage against submarines only. The Atlant has 10(yikes!) torpedo tubes and 1st generation SET-65 torpedos with a range of 8.3nm moving at 40kts doing 51 points of damage against submarines only. Both Cruisers are only able to use their torpedoes against submarines. Ticonderogas advantage is 3rd generation torpedoes. Atlants advantage is its 51 points of damage. While they only do 11 points of damage, i think being 3rd generation trumps the 1st generation soviet torpedoes. Advantage Ticonderoga. Both ships have helicopters. No grade given. Overall 1. Physical advantage Even. 2. Sensors advantage Ticonderoga . 3. Weapons. Air defence even. Anti-surface advantage Atlant. Torpedoes advantage Ticonderoga. 4. Overall it feels closer than i would have thought. The Ticonderoga's ability to detect a foe combined with higher generation countermeasures makes me think it could survive a conventional battle better than the Atlant. And like a boxer with a good jab, the Ticonderoga looks more likely to land smaller blows on a regular basis against the Atlant which comes across as a bit of a one-hit-wonder, throwing haymakers. Its game over if it lands a punch, but many of them wont hit their target. I prefer the Ticonderogas countermeasures, ability to engage submarines and surer if less powerful offence. Have i missed anything? Do you agree? Any surprises?
November 16, 201114 yr Very interesting analysis, thanks. 3W in Harpoon missile I think stands by three waypoints capable in the target approach. About guns and round loads (in relation with the small magazine issue), we can see: http://russian-ships.info/eng/warships/project_1164.htm 1x2 130 mm AK-130 (600 rounds) – Fire control system MR-184 «Lev-218»6x6 30 mm AK-630 (48000 rounds) – 2 Fire control systems MR-123 «Vympel» http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-70_ak130.htm Ammunition stowage per gun Sovremmenny: 500 rounds Others: N/A 150 to 180 ready rounds on mount http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk45.htm Ammunition stowage per gun Ammunition stowage per gun (see Note 8) Ticonderoga: 600 rounds Arleigh Burke: 680 rounds Others: 475 - 500 rounds The Ticonderogas has about the double of main gun rounds than Project 1164, and her main guns are very separated in the hull, one lucky shot can't disable both, but it's possible in the Project 1164 case.
November 16, 201114 yr There are some elements of the H4 data that have changed over the years, and may or may not affect your analysis. By way of example, Project 1164 Atlant (NATO Slava) DP value is now given as 242, widening the gap between it and the Tico. Weapon DP values and range values have also changed in some respects. Also, while it is a relatively simple exercise to compare sensors and weapons, you need to dig a little deeper to find how they might really perform. For example, the heart of the Tico is its Aegis combat system. The number of targets it can track and engage is not easily reflected in the H4 values (though you can take a look at the SPG-62 directors as a place to start). The Slava, on the other hand, has a high rate of fire for the SA-N-6 but a single director. A major handicap. But then you look at the SS-N-12 Sandbox. Yes, sea skimmers are formidable, but a monster missile traveling at 1,650 knots and at 23,000 feet, with a nuclear warhead option and its own built in ECM, is a different kind of scary. Moreover, there are sixteen of them, and it has been suggested that the missiles can communicate with one another! In other words, one or more missiles can fly at high altitude, with its radar active and searching, while the others fly at lower altitude and remain passive. In the terminal phase, the high flyer could allocate targets and transmit the data to the remainder, who then energize their seekers and attack. You might also want to consider the probable outcome if a lone Tico were pitted against a lone Slava. I noticed that you disregarded the helicopters, but I think that is a mistake. The Tico's Seasprites (two of em) make for a powerful and flexible ASW capability (though not quite as useful as an SH-60B). That's their raison d'etre. The Slava, however, carries one Hormone B. Its sole purpose is to provide targeting for the ship's main armament of SS-N-12. Finally, don't forget to consider the purpose for which each ship was intended. The Tico is the penultimate carrier escort of its time, with emphasis on anti-air warfare. Its ASuW and ASW capabilities, while impressive, are secondary. The Slava, meanwhile, was designed for the ASuW role, perhaps as an escort to a Kuznetsov CV. Its AAW and ASW capabilities are secondary.
November 16, 201114 yr Btw, recent pics of the Project 1164 Atlant (NATO Slava) class RFS Varyag on a port visit to Vancouver. Link
November 16, 201114 yr Great analysis. Isn't the Tico Tomahawk-capable though? 1983 was the original Tico with the twin arm missile launchers, not VLS so no Tomahawk at that time. Since I'm weighing in I definitely agree that I'd rather be on a Tico than a Slava and that I'd call it a Slava instead of a Atlant.
November 17, 201114 yr Weapon DP values and range values have also changed in some respects. Btw, since we're talking 1983, the Tico must make do with the Block I version of the SM-2MR, with range 37.5 nm. (The Block II version, with range 60 nm, did not appear until 1984). That puts its reach at a couple nautical miles less than the SA-N-6a (at 40.5 nm). The effect of even small changes to weapons values can have large consequences.
November 17, 201114 yr The effect of even small changes to weapons values can have large consequences. That's the origin of the very contagious disorder know as OCDBE (Obsessive-Compulsive DataBase Editing), affecting some top-posters of these fora
November 17, 201114 yr That's the origin of the very contagious disorder know as OCDBE (Obsessive-Compulsive DataBase Editing), affecting some top-posters of these fora Huh, wut?
November 18, 201114 yr I'm not sure the Tico would always have the advantage for sonar. The towed sonar on the Slava can be deployed below the layer, which negates the 50% range penalty for cross-layer detection that the Tico will necessarily suffer in most cases. CZ might put things back in favour of the Tico in blue water, though.
November 18, 201114 yr I'm not sure the Tico would always have the advantage for sonar. The towed sonar on the Slava can be deployed below the layer, which negates the 50% range penalty for cross-layer detection that the Tico will necessarily suffer in most cases. CZ might put things back in favour of the Tico in blue water, though. Good point.
November 18, 201114 yr Author I'm an absolute newb when it comes to ships & their weapon systems. Everything in my "analysis" is just what i've assumed from reading H4.1 data annexs. Part of the reason for the write up, was to help me see how ships stack up, what extremes there might be in terms of ranges, to hit chances etc. ... basically to try and get a feel for which ships are good/bad and what the advantages and disadvantages are. From the earlier "Perry" post, i knew at the start that trying to determine which ship is "better" was going to be hard, and would depend on how you defined "better". Better overall? Better at its specific role? It all depends on how you frame the question. Good points about how many targets each unit can track and engage. I picked it up through my reading, but didnt think to mention it. I didnt know the Atlant was called a "Slava". You have no idea how often i wrote Atlanta during my draft! Yes, thanks about the Block I thing. Again, i read Block II came out in 1984 and made a mental note to mention it, but sometimes i'm taking so much in and not writing it down for later recollection, stuff gets missed. Warhorse, great comment/pickup about the towed sonar. Its stuff like that i appreciate, "tactics" almost of how to use something. I was thinking it was only there as a "spare" but what you've pointed out about the layer makes allot of sense, but isnt something i'd have thought of. Thanks everyone for going through the write up.
November 19, 201114 yr I didnt know the Atlant was called a "Slava". You have no idea how often i wrote Atlanta during my draft! That was its reporting name at a time when Soviet ship designations weren't known. Most of us here still think in terms of reporting names.
Create an account or sign in to comment