The concept phase for the recently announced Type 83 Destroyer will begin in the next few years.
Kevan Jones, MP for North Durham, asked via a written Parliamentary question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the planned timeframe is for the concept and assessment phases of the Type 83 destroyer.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“The Type 83 will replace our Type 45 destroyers when they go out of service in the late 2030s. We anticipate the concept phase for Type 83 to begin in the next few years with the assessment phase following.”
Also, there are no concept images of Type 83 so our terrible mockup above will have to do for now.
Surprise announcement
The Defence Command Paper, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age‘, surprised many by stating that the UK will develop a new destroyer type, the Type 83.
The white paper states:
“The concept and assessment phase for our new Type 83 destroyer which will begin to
replace our Type 45 destroyers in the late 2030s.”
What might the Type 83 Destroyer look like?
The Type 45 Destroyer replacement is just an early concept at this stage but a variant of the Type 26 Frigate has been officially being considered for the job.
Last year the UK Defence Journal spoke to Paul Sweeney, former MP for Glasgow North East and former shipbuilder and we were told that consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26, a variant that could function as a future replacement for the Type 45 Destroyer fleet – the programme now referred to as Type 83.
For a little bit of context, Paul Sweeney is a Scottish politician and was the Member of Parliament for Glasgow North East until the last election. More importantly for the purposes of a discussion on shipbuilding, he was formerly employed by BAE in Glasgow. Paul has worked with the APPG for Shipbuilding which published the results of inquiry into the Government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy, taking evidence from a range of maritime security stakeholders and industry.
It is understood that the Ministry of Defence have an aspiration is to achieve continuous shipbuilding with the Type 26 programme in Glasgow beyond the current planned number of eight vessels.
Sweeney told me after attending the steel cutting ceremony for the future HMS Cardiff:
“It is clear that we now have a unique opportunity to create a truly international naval shipbuilding alliance with Canada and Australia with Type 26 (both countries have purchased the design) – and consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26 as an eventual replacement for Type 45 – known currently as T4X.
The aspiration is to achieve continuous shipbuilding with the Type 26 programme in Glasgow beyond the current planned number of eight vessels.”
We’ll publish more about the Type 83 as it becomes available.
One thing I noticed in the Command Paper on the 2030 fleet is the absence of Batch 1 River. Presumably these will go when Type 31/32 arrives. Batch 2 Rivers will then return to UK?
I think so, noting they’ll be 20+ years old at that point too.
I think T31/32 will pick up the B2 “stations” overseas, and be far more suited to them, the B2s being the best of a bad job really.
Yes. it’s all part of a Growing Navy……….
Hope it carries hypersonic or subsonic stealth AshM
they will be obsolete before then, youre not thinking 10-15 years #
What will be obselete by then?
subsonic and stealth stuff. we will probably use lasers or guns that fire portals to suck the enemy away.
surely would need to stretch the type 26 for a full on destroyer role
Easily done nowadays with Elastic Composites ……. Truth be Known, we could get bigger main Guns too. It’s not too much a Stretch of the imagination.
I’m sure I’ve heard that one about elastic composites before Captain, but I’m sure it was something to do with a Vicar and an actress…..
What were we talking about again??
Heard somewhere that to mount a similar sampson radar so high up it would be in theory possible to do it on a smaller beam due to current composite materials and building techniques. Maybe overall length need not be the same as the T45s either ? ….so of based on the T26 hull its really going to be an air defence frigate . Or do we still need to call it a destroyer for prestige purposes ?
….just checked and there is only approx 2.5 m difference between T45 and T26 in length. Approx 1.5 m in beam .
It’s actually ~0.4m difference in beam (20.8m vs 21.2m), but turning a T26 into a T83 needs a lot more than just an upgraded SAMPSON. Also needed are at least double the VLS and a volume search radar. There’s also the power generation issue. The single MT30, combined with the 4 diesels, produces only produces a little less power than the twin WR-21 setup on the T45, but its still less on a platform that’s going to be deploying more powerful sensors and lasers.
Basically, a ship of the T26’s size and layout just can’t do what we need a future destroyer to do.
Yeah agreed ..looking at the T45 it also has the space to embark 60 marines and the command facilities to be used as a flagship …that simply means more volume required than a T26.
The Canadian version has 24 x seaceptor, 8 x NSM plus 32 x Mk41’s and the evolved sea sparrow can be quad packed, more firepower the our current 45’s
Not particularly. In terms of raw number of missiles, sure, but inferior in terms of air defence capability. The CSC can shit out a load of short range missiles or some Tomahawks, but for an air defence destroyer it’s lacking
The Canadian version will be equipped with the spy7 radar which is one of the newest and most advance radars out there. It will also have camm, essm2 and eventually sm-2 block 3c missiles for long range air defence. Hardly lacking by any stretch.
The CSC is certainly not lacking in firepower for a frigate, but a few SM-2s doesn’t make it an air defence destroyer, which is my point.
On top of that, the Canadian and Australian variants are both well over 800t heavier than a T26. Obviously we can’t be sure, but that’s probably almost all of the margin for future upgrades gone. The whole point of the T26 is that building bigger and futureproofing is better, so why would we then cram a destroyer into a frigate hull when designing a new hull is relatively cheap?
You are right in that technically it’s not a dedicated air defence destroyer but that doesn’t mean that it’s lacking in air defence. It is a multi role platform and many would argue that in an era of constrained budgets, multi role makes a lot more sense than a dedicated air defence ship.
The point I was making is that the CSC as it’s currently proposed will still be one of the most capable air defence ships around. It’s has one of the newest radars, a range of anti air missiles and has CEC which arguable makes it a lot more capable that a dedicated individual air defence DDG.
Because Australia and Canada will be doing that .
No they’re not? Australia has their own fleet of dedicated air defence destroyers, while Canada has openly considered an enhanced variant of CSC to replace the previously retired destroyers (although I believe that’s been dropped).
In a world where the average destroyer already has 64-96 VLS, and literally everyone complains about the T45 being underarmed, 32 VLS plus 24 Sea Ceptor is clearly not enough to warrant a destroyer designation.
All that I meant, was it has the capability at the moment, if you stretch it, like we did with rothesay, leanders, type 22, type 42 it could be configured to do the task required, maybe it would be cheaper allowing us more ship at cheaper cost instead of 6 for 6
Regarding power generation, T45 has IEP, T26 is CODELOG, so can’t compare total MW directly, because the drive system is different. Need to work out what’s available for hotel/weapons load, after accounting for propulsion.
On T26, the MT30 drives the shafts directly via gearbox, so the GT cannot contribute to electrical power. There is about 12MW total electrical from the DGs. But the motors are only for slow cruising because it’s Diesel Electric OR Gas (i.e. not both at the same time). So in theory full 12MW is available for hotel when sprinting on GT, and perhaps half and half when slow cruising on DE i.e. 6MW hotel.
T45 (pre- PIP) had 2x DGs in addition to the WR21s, total (GT+DG) about 45MW electrical i.e. nearly 4x the electrical output of T26. But the motors are 20MW each so only 5MW is spare (for hotel) when at sprint, per the original design.
Looking at that, I’m not sure there is too much difference, in available hotel power, between T45 and T26. The T45 would in theory be more efficient though, through full range of speeds, which is the main purpose of IEP so not surprising.
I don’t think there’s that much difference in the dimension of either T45 (152m x 21.2m x 7.5m draught) and T26 (150m x 21m, can’t find draught), but I don’t know how much impact these little differences make in ship-building. True the masses are quite different 7,300-8,500 tons for T45, 6,900 tons (8,000 full load) for T26. So maybe they can play almost the same role with the right fitting out?
They key factor may be size reduction of next gen machinery and systems that allow it to fit in a T26..but im starting to think it might still be a tight squeeze. Historically at the start of a ships life if things are already a tight squeeze, then there tends to be not much of a ships life in the long run!
The rate technology is advancing I am sure the Type 83 will use some sort of quantum based phased array radar that will tell you what’s happening on the dark side of the moon.
It’s good to see warship design running properly again and not let the skill sets just vanish.
It’s the same with Submarine design, they need to have a core team jumping straight to SSN successor, keep the core together and keep them busy.
The problem of how you bridge the gap when you only have 7 SSN’s in the fleet is a thorny one though…
If we still had a fleet of 12/4, we could have maintained a steady drum beat of SSN and SSBN replacement design and construction.
And cold fusion reactors for power….although they will not call it cold fusion as only nut job tinfoil hats call it that.
The beam is the least of the issues and its not just mast height that is a factor in the masts construction,
Sampson weights in at around 9 Tonnes at the top of the mast. 9 Tonnes of mass rotating at 30rpm means that the angular momentum and resultant gyroscopic forces on the mast are very, very large.
Think of a small gyroscope you may have had as a kid and the force you needed to apply to it to get it to turn. Its the same thing here but the rotating mass is far heavier ( But slower) and you can now add in pitch and roll of the vessel as well as altering course and speed which will all apply moments of force to the mast structure which the rotating Sampson will resist ( Newton’s 3 law and gyroscopic principles)
Composites will simply not have the strength or rigidity needed to support such a rotating radar. Of course you could go for fixed panels at far greater cost but it would mean a simplified and lighter arrangement on the mast head.
I though the T45 mast was fibreglass?
I would not agree the statement that “Composites will simply not have the strength or rigidity needed to support such a rotating radar”.
Look at an F1 chassis – there is no steel there.
Or the AV8B wing – Technora and carbon fibre in the main
The cover over the radar plates is( The big white ball with spikes coming out of it) composite…the mast is steel.
An FI car does not support a spinning 9 ton weight and is ridiculously light.
What I was told, maybe wrongly, was that the mast frame looks pretty much like a steel electricity transmission pylon with a fibreglass covering over the top of it to keep the weight down.
In some photos you can see a pattern in the surface that would be very hard to go in steel and easy to do in GRP that looks like it reduces the RCS.
Who am I to say – you are the warship maintainer!
I think you would be surprised just how light and just how strong you could make a vacuum formed composite fibre square mast like that. I used to work in a lab certifying new composite systems for Lloyds register.
Good points about mast construction. Electricity pylons support a massive amount of weight and tension from the suspended cables, which are much bigger up close than they look from the ground. So I don’t think it’s impossible, even with 9 tons on top.
Also, Sampson is air cooled. IIRC the air handling unit (AHU) is on the deck just below the dome (9 deck?) A significant top weight saving could be had by moving the AHU lower down into the hull. The supply/return air can then be ducted to the top of the mast. The ducts would be large but could be made from thin metal or composite, so a lot lighter than the AHU (and the pipework) because these are full of chilled water (CW).
More survivable too – the ducts would still work (mostly) even if battle damaged. The air pressure is much lower than the CW pressure. AHU and CW pipework is done if the water pressure drops/leaks out, but these elements would be better protected in the hull.
Thin metal ducts would probably be avoided as they might provide pathing?
Similarly you probably couldn’t use carbon fibre in the mast, but you could use aramid fibres like Kevlar, as it is a conductive matrix.
Thanks that’s good info.
Once you consider all the possibilities there must be a solution in there somewhere!
You forget that the hardware gets half as small every ten years. If I said due to a change in the way HMG helped fund projects and a revolution in power and circuitry will hit the UK industry in the same way a superconducting wafer held 600 chips per disc in 2007, yet now holds several thousand via 3D integrated superconducting qubits.
These projects will have a great bearing on what can be built with power while weight will no longer being an issue via a q concept that’s now being proven.
I am inclined to think that what ever Type-83 ends up design wise a rotating antenna for the radar won’t be a feature. The latest generation of AESA like SPY-7 are highly modular making it easier to distribute T/R modules over the mast. I doubt we will see a volumetric radar like S1850M as well.
This is obviously based on the assumption that you are sticking the current gen Sampson on a destroyer that will be in service maybe 20 odd years from now . My thinking was that maybe a future derivative of sampson, or even a new radar altogether may well bring significant size and weight reductions making a high mounted radar possible.
The size between a T45 and T26 certainty makes a difference, for the front missile silo of the T45 to be twice as big. it will be likely a T45 size hull, or larger for a bigger missile silo.
There is no reason to double the size of the front missile silos. It is actually better on something like a destroyer to have more than one missile location (otherwise you risk loosing the lot due to battle damage or accident – as per the German ship with a stuck missile hatch causing the loss of the entire silo system). Loosing a frigate is not good, loosing a destroyer is way worse as they tend to have the most missiles, the best missiles & the best radars.
In the case of a T26, 32 already fit at the front (as per Canada & Australia). To me, the multi mission bay is a likely location to fit a midship silo system for a destroyer version. Both the Australian & Canadian T26 are already slated for destroyer class radars. The launch of the first Australian T26 (likely before Canada), will start to answer the practicality of a T26 based destroyer.
I expect it will call for a new and larger hull design. The Americans are going bigger for the successor to the Arleigh Burkes, expected to be anything up to the size of the Zumwalt class, which are about 15,000 tons.
And the beam…?
Well apparently, they will be so good that only 4 will be needed which. as we all know will probably equate to Two…… unless by then the Green Party get in and we won’t need any at all because they will be seen as a waste of money…… I’m off to hug a Tree.
Yup the greens , Liberals and a lot of Labour have stated they will look at getting rid of the miltary, expect the money saved to be relocated to vanity projects: such as this breaking story from Winchester:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/18B6/production/_117762360_greta_300321_onlinepic2.jpg
£24K Greta Thunberg statue at Winchester university
Pippi Longstocking is as safe as can be from attack but if you put a statue of Churchill along side her…………..
Oh come along Jack, if a teenage girl with a mental health issue and a cycling proficiency badge isn’t worth £24000 of bronze statue, then who on earth is…..
Ok, I made up the cycling proficiency badge, but I stand by my statement…..
Did you know that autism is not a mental health condition, it is a developmental condition. The two are quite different.
She claims to be able to see CO2, she definitely has mental health problems
I stand corrected, changes made in the sake of accuracy….
“Oh come along Jack, if a teenage girl with a Developmental condition (that can apparently see Co2) with a cycling proficiency badge isn’t worth £24000 of bronze statue, then who on earth is…..
Ok, I made up the cycling proficiency badge, (and not too sure about the Co2 bit) but I stand by my statement….
Is that better Julian?
Yes, A bury your head in the sand crowd!
You think this is bad. Have a look at the statue outside the Theatre Royal in Plymouth and the pile of iron on the city’s foreshore.A £350.000 monument to ???? whilst City services are being cut in the middle of a pandemic.
Now let’s be fair it was the ultra lefty student union that have voted to call it a waste of money vanity project. It was the money grabbing university management team that commissioned the statue to stick it in front of their capitalist supporting innovation centre….pissing money away is a universal human nature………and since when has it been labour or Lib Dem policy to do away with the military ( greens yes, but we all need the idealistic lovelies To laugh at….well until the planet heats up 6 degrees and we go extinct ).
Quite frankly you have to be a wee bit idealistic yourself if you think the modern Conservative governments would do much more than cut the crap out of the armed forces if for a minute they thought they could get way with it ( let’s be honest, they don’t actual want to spend money on anything).
If you want a really decent percentage of money spend on the military it’s alway best to go totalitarian…now they know how to fund the military.
I presume those wasting the excessive energy to produce that statue definitely are not getting the irony. I wonder what she herself would think.
Is she waving 2 fingers…?
these type of people are peace mongers that we saw in the 1930s and 1970s. they try to fight for their cause yet they do the thing they are fighting for typical.
One only one….we float it up to the moon and it can provide cover with a reach of 50% of the entire planet.
Hi folks are well.
Good news again with the roll out of new ships and design following Type 31 and 32.
However, I do have concerns about the time it takes us to build our ships. One could argue that although China builds very quickly, questions about quality may be raised about the finished product.
Also again there is the matter of Scottish independence, where would the ships be built in England.
Cheers
George
” Hi Folks are well “…… well yes they probably are but some of us are a bit shorter….Personally. I’m as well as can be expected given my height…… about your other question, I think we could buy our ships from China…. it would make a lot of financial sense.
No… don’t say the “i” word!!
Be careful or else you’ll have Daniella on your back for mentioning this and she speaks with a knife edge tongue bing a forum moderator!
Hello George – to be Fair to China whenever you see pictures or video’s of their Warships at Sea they ( to me ) always seem to be Smart and Well Presented – this may be due to a variety of reasons – maintenance regimes etc,but they don’t appear to me to be of dubious Quality.
I don’t think anyone is saying the Chinese are idiots but they don’t have the hard experience of surviving battle damage that has informed RN design.
There are a lot of things that you can see on the outside of Chinese ships that you would not do that way if you knew. And you have to assume that inside is similar to the outside.
The escalating costs of military equipment are killing budgets and forcing ever smaller numbers. Why would we choose as a baseline a design that is already absurdly expensive? The Canadian forecast for its 15 Type26s is £45m. Ours cost >£1.3m each and rising.
Would we not be better using the Type31 as the basis. We might then be able to afford more than six.
I’d bite your hands off for a warship of that calibre that only cost £1.3m!
£45 b and £1.3 b sorry. I was just noting that T26 is an expensive platform to start from. I have no idea how much of the cost arises from rafting the engines and other measures to quieten for anti submarine operation. But if we want more than 6 Type83 they will have to be cheaper. Denmark uses the Iverhuitfeldt as an air defence frigate. Could we not do the same?
Hope that’s now clear.
Get your point, it’s true they are greatly increased in cost due to the advanced sound deadening characteristics. I guess it’s all speculation but if it’s based around the T26 that could in fact mean many different ship designs coming out of it it certainly seems pointless re inventing the wheel but I’m sure the wheel itself can go through any degrees of change to suit needs and budget while still potentially saving on time and money in the design and development process. Not that that is any guarantee it will mind.
Sorry, How much ? …… I think you may be a little short of the mark/Brain Cells, either way, try again.
Actually, Having read your post again, I must admit to being totally confused …….6 Type 31’s to replace our 8 type 26’s ? Please explain mate.
And I suspect what makes T31s cheap now won’t be cheap in whatever development takes place to make them a T45 replacement.
It’s due to the cost of T45 and T26 that the concept of the T31 came about. Gov now offers a fixed cost ceiling, and it’s up to industry to come up with the goods.
Worth reading both RUSI and the Thin pinstriped line comments on the defence command paper. Both tend to be supportive rather than critical but on this occasion express concerns about the lack of detail and affordability.
To keep meaningful numbers of anything, we have to get unit costs down.
Japan has built very capable looking destroyers for @ £ 650 m. We ought to be able to achieve something similar.
Hi Peter. I’ve see the post from the Thin Pin striped line, he writes some good articles. Hopefully more detail will emerge over the coming month’s. I guess with a lot of the future tech, they simply don’t know yet how many UAV’S for example we are going to need at this early stage.
Built destroyers for 650 mil yes they did…however the kit inside them was under Foreign Military Sales from the USA on a different budget and not in the build cost. Aegis, SPY Radar, Missiles and launchers etc…probably not much change out of 2 possibly 3 billion dollars per ship when that is factored in.
Let’s jus go all in and produce what I will somewhat nostalgically call a ‘Light Cruiser’ – mainly because I envision it to be the biggest ships in the fleet other than the QE’s or the Rafa’s.
Let’s make them very well armed and highly effective for all roles above, on and below sea and order 10 of them to replace the 31’s.
Stick 4 of them ‘east of Suez’, supported by 4 32’s that are skewed towards ASW/MCM and you’re pretty much done.
You’ve got a ‘lone raider’ that really can operate independently, support by 32’s. All 8 of them are capable of supporting the ARG/BCT or whatever it’s called that’s supposed to be permanently based there.
The remaining support the active CSG, the NATO ARG and if you’re lucky, one for independent operations.
River 2’s for the WI, FI and Med.
I will now drink my pint.
Hello mate…… not sure where you are from or what your name is but i’m fascinated by your reference to 8 type 32’s and Rafa’s……in fact, i’m just confused by your whole post to be honest…… Can you please help me out ?
No worries Captain!
Didn’t mean 8 X 32’s, meant 4 X 32’s + 4 X 83’s or whatever they’re going to be. They must be all singing and dancing though.
Between 8 RN Vessel’s, with 4 being the dogs, supported by 32’s focused on ASW etc, you don’t need to deploy anything East unless it’s a CSG, which comes with its own escort.
I will now drink my second beer!
Ha and Lol……. I’m still proper confused but at least you tried to explain in a decent and non combative fashion……… personally, I’m Tea Total ….. at least until the clock shows both hands in an upwards direction somewhere in the northern Hemisphere ….. after that and I’m a true fighting machine…… just ask Heroditis
I must be losing it, for agree or not it still makes perfect sense to me.
T32 isnt ASW focussed, nor likely to he goven it will parallel the expebsive T26 program of Asw optimised ships. Plus putting 4 of each East of Suez how? We’re looking at a fleet of 5 T32 total and hopefully 6 T83.
Why not deploy our actual ASW ship, T26 east? That is afterall what the US-UK tasking agreement is all about to put the best possiblr ASW and AAW assets out there given Iranian subs and missiles.
The UK’s aim after doing that is to put a GP ship there for more presence, so T31.
Why do we need so many ships out there? We have interests elsewhere also…
A fair point well made Rogbob, but I fear the fault is mine and I should probably have expanded a lot more on my thinking.
For those of you who can be bothered to read it, grab yourself a glass of whatever whatever you favour and settle in – I’m having one.
I will start with the low hanging fruit. Simply put, we need nothing more than River 2’s in the West Indies, Falkland Islands or Western Mediterranean.
WI: Uncle Sam’s back yard. Anything gets a bit shooty, they’ll be on it like my ex-wife and my neighbours car bonnet. The rest of the time, they’re flag waving, helping in disaster relief or taking out drug smugglers – an operation controlled by the USCG.
FI: The Argies are, at absolute best, a decade away from posing any credible conventional threat to the sovereignty of the islands.
West Med: It’s all about picking up illegal immigrants crossing to Europe from North Africa.
Summary: Anything more warlike working these tasks is overkill and a waste of resources. River 2’s are what’s required with the remaining pair alongside the River 1’s working home waters to deter those pesky continental types.
Moving on, and of course assuming I’ve read it correctly – corrections welcome, the UK is looking to boost it’s presence East of Suez.
From what I have read, there’s talk of a permanently deployed Brigade Combat Team as well as whatever the Royal Marines new set up is meant to be – Littoral Strike something or other.
If we’re setting up a centre of operations in the region, it’s going to need to be supported by the Royal Navy, especially if it’s distributed between, probably Oman, Singapore and Brunei as seems most obvious. So here comes thinking on the ships.
Type 31 is meant to be a lightweight general purpose frigate. What I’m saying is build them but at least give them an advantage in ONE capability because at the moment, they’re not going to be particularly useful beyond ‘being there’. Air defence is my 1st choice (because 45’s are in short supply)
Type 32 is meant to replace the MCM fleet, using Autonomous Systems etc. Great! Let’s weight their capabilities towards the underwater roles.
They can act independently as ‘light frigates’ but when working in pairs, they become potent and better able to support the aforementioned BCT or LSG.
Type 26 and 45 permanently support the deployed CSG and the supposed LSG for Norway and you still have a couple of 26 sorting out the Russians, protecting the CASD and contributing to NATO taskings.
And finally… Because this is doing my brain in and I’m about to finish my 4th glass, the summary:
Build 31 & 32 but skew their capabilities as mentioned above and alternate the build between them.
Reconstitute the Pacific fleet as the Indo-Pacific fleet and stick all these ships in it, permanently based East of Suez.
When we’re done building them, build 10 all singing, all dancing ‘Light Cruiser’ to replace the 45 and the 31 which mean’s they’re big, but bloody good at everything and can actually provide a serious contribution as a ‘lone raider’ or as part of a battle group.
I hope that makes a bit more sense but to be honest, I need to get to the shop for another 4 pack before it closes…
32s are not focussed on ASW. 26s are.
We do not want or need T32s as all singing. They are for constabulary duties
I get the logic of using the Type 26 hull as a continuous build should result in fewer complications. But the T26 was designed to be very quiet and added considerable cost. Is that really needed for a destroyer? Would designing out the noise reduction features result in the same cost as designing a purpose-designed hull?
Hull Form and Hull Build configuration are two totally different things.
So could it be done then or would a whole new design be more practical.
If a hull design and fit out is quiet for sub hunting would that not also make it more difficult to be hunted by subs?…could that be important for a capital ship that will probably have limited sub detection capability ?
Anybody able to explain how the RN arrived at Type 83 as its a huge numerical jump from T45
HMS Bristol type 82 ,so on from there which I think some one mentioned already before on UKDJ.
Frigates were 1X and 2X. Destroyers 3X 4X. Fleet escorts were 8X I think.
8X type numbers were originally for ‘multi-role’ vessels.
Type 81 was the 1960s Tribal Class General Purpose Frigates
Type 82 were late 1960s DDGs for both AAW and ASW.
Bristol was also specifically designed as a carrier escort – so a probable hint.
Yes the only possible logic I would say… unless they don’t need to worry about running out of 2 numeral numbers due to there being no further replacements to worry about soon after. This is probably getting anal now but why go from T23 for example to T26 are the missing numerals relevant? Or do they just want to make it look more different and modern by numerical distance.
These were planned but not built – Type 24 and Type 25 – in the 1980s. Type 24 (Future Light Frigate) was a planned but not built towed array tug and Type 25 a cut down type 22 ASW frigate, also not built. In the end only Type 23 was built – and it was much altered during design to take on all the roles of the three planned classes.
I was curious about the t8x, as air defence had generally been t4x. Let’s hope this is a sign of a strong hybrid and not signs that top end air defence is no longer affordable.
The ’80’ class are considered general purpose. Type 81 was used for the Tribal class, and Type 82 for the Bristol class. Therefore, the numbering might indicate the intention for Type 83 to be more of a general purpose Destroyer, rather than being designed soley around AAW.
There’s also the point that it might have been chosen as a nod to HMS Bristol and her proposed class of warships that were designed to protect the CVA-01 carriers. Type 83 might have been chosen as the ambition to have large carriers has now come to fruition.
Given the Type 83 designation im going to agree with Ron5’s assessments on the subject- it will be a Completely New Hull , Multi Role,much Bigger than a T45 or T26,probably up to around 10,000 Tons,2 x MT 30’S,4 x Diesel Generators,Sampson MK2 or equivalent and FFBNW Lasers.
Attaboy!!
Sounds very plausible ………
So the QEC IEP propulsion/power system, put in a 160-170m hull to end up with something of similar size and maximum displacement to the Sejong the Great or Maya-class destroyers, but with a lot of energy generation for radar, microwave and laser technologies?
Since they are using the Type 8x designation perhaps that also means supporting a higher level of ASW capability? Perhaps with more focus than T45 had on quiet running, albeit not to full T26 levels. It will be a HVT in its own right after all. Also a much more comprehensive ASW weapons set, in addition to the helicopter, to counter submarines getting past the T26s and in close to the carrier.
So this might drive more VLS cells to support an increased AAW capability including ABM. Significant land attack and ASuW missile capacity, with perhaps both supersonic/hypersonic and sub-sonic FC/ASW options, but hopefully dual role for flexibility to avoid land attack and ASuW specific variants. Then a modern VLA, perhaps with greater range and higher sea state launch capability than current options, based on the new light torpedo in combination with the BAES Kingfisher ASW concept using the 5″ gun.
Perhaps a bit of a fantasy fleet specification, but it doesn’t seem too extreme given the increasing threats to a carrier and its escorts, especially from AIP subs.
Think you are right they are likely to be big flexible all rounders in theory (true global fighting ships in concept with plenty of potential growth), whether they end up that in practice by the end might be somewhat more up for debate and what state the economy is in.
The ship itself with a proven propulsion system, using components common across the fleet, may not be too bad from a purchase and operating cost perspective IMV. Its supporting all the high end functionality that I suspect will drive the cost, but I’m not sure we’ll have much choice for a credible defence.
The radar solution(s) will presumably be one major cost center. But how sophisticated it is/needs to be and hence its cost, may in part depend on what other assets we have to contribute to the picture, including for example T83 (and/or other escort) hosted organic AEW (UAV based) when outside a CSG deployment, and a persistent surveillance LEO satellite network, both of which could be in place by first ship launch.
The other major cost center will be all the high end missiles required in inventory to support fully populated deployments, replenishment and reserves. But hopefully commonality across the services and across roles for say FC/ASW, would mitigate purchase, training and maintenance costs.
Correct,a Proven Powertrain Arrangement ( hopefully no Type 45 Banana Skins ) plenty of Electrical Generation Capacity and significantly more than 48 VLS Cells – should be achievable in the right Timeframe.
Yep, the 10000 figure would allow it to enter the black sea under existing treaties etc.
Unless of course the high density power options that RR are working on for A->A DE weapons are fitted into the package?
Agreed, the RR immbedded power generation would be ideal as you could combine the compact units to make something modular and scalable. That would open all sorts of possibilities.
However I think it’s still some way off – Marine market volume is insufficient to support the enormous GT development costs. The technology has to mature in the Aero sector before a Marine derivative becomes viable. So Tempest needs to fly before it can happen.
Becasue Boris wants to upend stuff and knows that big changes (ditching 5 decade T4x series and appealing to T82 fans) can appear to be strategy.
So it’ll be an AAW replacement but numbered like this just to look different as T46 would be too easy. T46 would be interpreted as a AAW deriviative of T26 whereas this will almost certainly be an entirely new ship (keeping those skills and facilities busy) as speculated below, larger and more akin to the 10k tonners the Italians are looking at. Noting this leaves T46 as a potential brand for a future cut down change in the program to a mere derivative!
The interesting thing will be missiles, stick with Aster or go US which appears to be Govt tendancy more generally.
Although in the timeline expect Govt changes and perhaps a tack back to Europe!
They should really call it Type 69.
Yes I would agree it is not a destroyer or a frigate or indeed anything else specific farouk. Multi-role is the future with less and less people onboard and therefore potentially more room for weapons.
Needs to be well thought through to be effective.
I realize the Chinese are making and the Americans are considering bigger beasts for destroyers, but there could be an argument for smaller ones that use the Type 26 hull which by all accounts is a fantastic hull design.
It would keep costs down and allow for more hulls, perhaps we could have 8 of them.
T26 is a good design, but limited VLS, ok for the ASW role. A future multi-role destoryer will need more VLS.
Not if they end up costing over 2 or 3 billion a piece, 64 VLS on a small destroyer using quad packed missiles is much more affordable and totally viable.
CAMM is too short range for a AAW destoryer, CAMM-ER and ESSM is a minimum for area defence, and Aster 30 NT for longer range.
You can fit Iron Dome on a frigate.
Maybe CEC can provide a solution to lack of VLS? That also has the advantage of up-arming other ships, rather than having all eggs in one HVT basket like T45.
It would seem CEC, at least as a concept rather than as the USN system specifically, would address a lack of VLS. But not I suspect to avoid a larger VLS capability in T83, because we’ll want to retain independent ship capabilities. Also because the USN CEC is currently an air and missile defense system, although future “cooperative systems” are likely to share surface and sub-service data, as well as air and space data. We should probably accept that all high end platforms like T45 and T26 are HVTs now.
CEC, even ‘just’ for air defence, would enhance CSG defence until T83s are in service though. So we might see CEC implemented as T26s enter the fleet. That capability would then be expanded with CEC used by T26 and T83, with the latter likely to support greater VLS capacity than T45 IMV.
Using CEC in the interim would enable the T26 to use T45 sensor data with its 24 strike length MK41 VLS cells. This would avoid dumping budget into T45 to support MK41 or Sylver A70 VLS expansion, along with new missile integration, relatively late in T45’s life. So fiscally more responsible.
Its then a question of what missiles to qualify for T26 MK41. This might include current and planned Aster variants, but might alternatively (or additionally) support the option for USN solutions such as SM-6 and SM-3. FC/ASW is also likely to require strike length cells, so T26.
Thanks for detailed response, that all makes good sense. I agree CEC (or something equivalent) has potential for quicker, cheaper capability enhancement.
Fair point also about T83 magazine depth – one of my concerns about CEC is the reliability of the ship-to-ship links. A VLS on the ship directly connected to the same CMS as the sensor(s) is obviously more dependable, which is important when timing is critical i.e. for missile defence. So I think you are right it’s an enhancement not a replacement.
Feel pretty certain T83 will be a T26 Air Defence variant unless there are revolutionary new weapons systems onboard like laser, sonic or EM interdiction developed. This would make sense as producing a known design is far less of a technological challenge. It also guarantees the long time future of BAE naval systems on the Clyde.
Personally I’d like to see the left field option of a Guided Missile Cruiser x 4. Maybe 15000 tons, with missile silos for air defence, ballistic missile defence, ship and land attack. One would go with each carrier and the other 2 in reserve for amphibious groups etc. We could call them Lion, Tiger, Princess Royal & Blake. The present Sea Ceptor would get an upgrade too to the ‘extended range’ variant meaning that our T26s also had area defence capability.
Never happen though. We are getting the upgraded T26 for T83.
Actually use of T26 is very unlikely. T26 is already a decade old design in heritage terms and this is a ship for the late 2030s and into the 2040s. All the indications are that high electrrical power will be wanted, noting T26 has less than T45.
The explicit desire stated in numerous places is to retain research and design facilities and people so an entirely new hull is needed to do that.
Any ship is likely to have large VLS magazines requiring a bulbous form which T26 doesnt have.
The Govt will also want to hedge its bets Scotland wise, offering a carrot of work but without commitment so there is an implicit threat it could lose it.
Id also suggest that the shift to 83 naming indicates an entirely new ship whilst 46 would have indicated a derivative.
Well argued. And not let us forget that the T26 design was in some aspects compromised by demands of ASW.
Hopefully it will come with fixed AESA arrays instead of the rotating radar.
It’s in such a long time that i doubt we will still be using AESA
TBH i find this article a bit ridiculous since T45 are barely at midlife. Thes boats do not take that long to build, 1 to 2 years depending on the games bean counters want to play with procurement. With new tech on the horizon, lasers, quantum radars etc.. maybe start talking about actual new designs in 2030, by which time we will have seen how well the T26 has done in operations and what improvements needed in the future
We’re in 2021 and this smells like a PR stunt with 0 substance
My 2 cents
The MoD may have concluded that 6 T45 is not enough AAW, especially if they decide on 2 CSG’s, so T83 could supplement the T45?
I agree that we are not at midlife point and you may be correct in it being more about PR today. However, we know the ships won’t be built fast because their cost will almost certainly constrain numbers to no more than the current 6x and we need to maintain a steady build to keep the yards in work to avoid feast and famine.
Only way to avoid that is significant exports or selling a lot of the fleet early. The former is becoming less and less likely as more countries want to do their own builds. The latter probably works for lower end vessels, it may not be financially viable for high end escorts.
First in class FREMMs took ~5 years from laid down to commissioned. If we want the first of class T83 commissioned in say 2037, when Daring will have been in the water 31 years and commissioned for 28 years, then starting the design in 2030 is too late.
That’s an optimistic view regarding quantum radar, the USN doesn’t even have AESA on the Arleigh Burke’s yet. What T45 taught us and Ford reinforced is that new technology can be very high risk.
I think its about wanting to provide a long-lead ‘drumbeat’ for the shipbuilding industry as part of its revival strategy.
Maybe, but there are plenty of things needing to happen earlier than T83 that the review doesn’t detail, that’s why its a bit of a questionable inclusion currently. Its not like the shipbuilding industry wouldn’t expect replacement to start late in the 2030’s, given the T26 program delays and T23 life extensions required.
But as I responded to LT, designs need to start in the second half of this decade, presuming we’ll go through a competition round or two and because we’re probably looking at slow builds.
I agree entirely. We already have 3 future classes of warship planned (just 8 ships actually ordered). Whilst there is nothing wrong with a long term plan, this is just a distraction from the very real cuts that will bite over the next few years.
Or it’s just Boris playing fantasy fleets in his bathtub.
Politics! All about the jam tomorrow, dont look at the **** today!
A new design that has evolved from previous designs would hopefully be the result and bigger would be better
Otherwise you could get stuck in the USN loop of building Flight 1, 2 and 3 ABs that have little if any change in hull form or mechanical machinery from 30 years ago but have had changes to the weapon and sensor systems . They are now at the point where the design is pretty much maxed out on margin and power supplies but there is nothing to take its place due to the Zumwalt debacle.
Of course the RN could go down that route and get 3 15K ton destroyers with guns that dont have any ammo , a bastardised radar system and other design compromises …but lets hope not.
Maybe bigger isnt necessarily better?
How about a smaller and harder to detect replacement for Type 45 equipped with advanced sensors, rotary drones for advanced detection and short range weapons for self defence (lasers, CAMM etc..), accompanied by an unmanned underwater stealth launch platform which carries cruise missiles, torpedoes, anti ship missiles and long range AA missiles.
This would make ships smaller, less crew and would reduce cost of loading the fleet with expensive missiles. Wheras the unmanned underwater launcher can stay out much longer and one frigate goes for shore leave then another frigate takes control.
Pure speculation, but just to illustrate that things could evolve in many directions
PS it may even free up Astute sub from CSG duties to do more intel missions. T31, etc… now have firepower like heavy destroyers. A real force multiplier in my book.
Just a thought
The rotating radar in Samson isn’t quite the traditional rotating radar perhaps you are envisaging. Bae would claim by rotating two ‘fixed’ arrays at speed higher up they lose little of the superstructure fixed versions persistent 360 degree beam projection while gaining greater range due to their height. With the third planned plate pointing directly upwards this will further increase its overall coverage in relation to ballistic/hypersonic threats and provides constant coverage at a broad vertical coverage presumably. Makes a potent radar certainly and from a design point of view a lot of sense, at least until you start to take into consideration low flying hypersonic threats which may arguably change the balance towards fixed panels. Either way by 2040 who knows what technical form radars will take, like weapons being mentioned here a ship entering service in 2040 may require something very different from what exists now to be effective.
Because, of course, ballistic missiles come straight down (rolling my eyes).
One idea is to use a tethered UAV or UAV swarm to raise the panels high above th ship. This was used on the ‘Dreadnought’ concept ship design of a few years back. http://www.howitworksdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dreadnought-2050.jpg
Hull form is one thing – be that for ASW or AAW but, who truly knows what gubbins will be in the platform in 15 – 20 years, technology is transformational at the moment and I’m not sure even Moore’s Law is keeping up.
Manned? Unmanned? Truly, is there anyone who could grasp the technological breakthroughs we will see in just 10 years time, let alone 20?
Very true and indeed Moore’s Law is indeed finally after various force dawns potentially running out of steam. Most foundries are at 5nm silicon process now (except for Intels snail like progress anyway) and 3nm is deemed, with present technology and materials at least, close to the theoretical limit. That has been stated before mind and progress and technology has broken down barriers but we are really getting into unknown territory beyond 3nm and that is likely to slow the number of transistors that can be incorporated at least reliably onto a given chip. So it’s going to be either a period of great necessity induced advances or technical frustration as we head deeper into these next two decades… or likely some of both I suspect. Either way there’s going to still be big changes, just more difficult to predict in form or timeline.
No breakthroughs in writing software unfortunately.
No kidding. Systems of systems like JADC2 are the future, but the F35 program surely shows the challenges in writing good code, compounded by doing so to a required timeline.
I can imagine T83 leveraging a lot of the experience and design out of T26 to produce an evolved and tailored spec rather than a straight-up T26 AAW variant.
Who know’s what the requirement and the sophistication of the sensors and weaponry will be in 15 years time though!
From what I remember of the info on the QE class build, tonnage isn’t particularly important. The price of steel compared to cost for the combat equipment is fairly insignificant these days. So build a ship the fits the needs of the combat systems and don’t get hung up on the size.
Amen.
That’s true but propulsion size is also related to hull size. It’s not a cost issue for a simple, noisy direct diesel drive like T31, but it gets expensive very quickly when you go IEP or CODELOG etc.
So IMO the optimal hull size, both technicaly and economicly, will be constrained by the maximum output of the MT-30 turbine, T26 is already designed on this basis.
Its also extremely unlikely that anything much bigger/better will become available. MT-30 core is evolved all the way back from 1970s, when the original core development (RB211) bankrupted RR. They won’t be doing that again any time soon! There are some developments in the pipeline, but these will take decades to mature enough to move from Aero into Marine.
R-R some years ago showed an MT30 with an additional stage which took power up to 50MW. Not surprisingly they named the new design MT50. Too much power for anyone then so they quietly dropped the idea.
I’m not suggesting a larger GT would be needed for the T83 but to suggest the MT30 is incapable of further growth is incorrect.
Interesting. RR are already up to 43MW for MT30 with 30FFM frigates, so a T83 design might consider the trade offs between single and dual GTs for IEP.
The maximum output of any engine is proportional to operating RPM, which in turn is negatively correlated with maintenance and longevity i.e. you get more power by running faster, but that causes more wear on the engine, requiring more frequent maintenance and shortening component life.
So the same engine can have a range of ‘maximum’ output, the figure chosen being a trade off between power and availability. As a rule RN seem to choose very conservative ratings, presumably because high availability and low maintenance are important for a global blue water navy. JMSDF can push the envelope a little further because they are operating in a much smaller area.
Reasonable points. Worth recognising though that T83 is going to be an IEP design and almost certainly combine diesels with one or more GTs.
It might only ever hit peak GT output when the ship is at maximum speed AND its powering its sensor suite at full power AND firing energy weapons.
In that context the GT may rarely run at maximum output, so may have minimal impact on maintenance and longevity.
All good points. Bear in mind though with IEP engine speed is fixed by the frequency of the alternator output. Thus GT output cannot be increased by running the engine faster.
T26 and the Korean & Japanese frigates use a CODELOG scheme, DE for cruising and GT mechanical drive for sprinting. This allows the GT to be run a little harder if desired. The other trade off besides engine wear is increased fuel consumption, but that’s less of an issue for sprinting.
Thus IMO the T26 CODELOG design is about the best that’s achievable at a reasonable cost. Of course it would be possible to add a second GT or use a CODELAG arrangement to combine the output, but both would add significant extra cost for very marginal performance gain.
T26 arrangement hits the sweet spot in terms of price/performance, so it’s reasonable to suggest that it’s very likely to be a strong contender for the basis of T83, perhaps with some tweaks.
I’ve certainly suggested previously that T26 might be used as a basis for T83, but on reflection I don’t think it would be wise.
We might squeeze in 48 strike length MK41 forward, with Sea Ceptor aft the funnel, or give up mission bay space for re-distribution of, or more, MK41 cells mid-ship. It doesn’t seem wise to reduce the number of cells from 48 and arguably we should be considering an increase in strike length capacity. But the larger missile load-out, relatively high in the ship, along with more powerful high mounted radar system(s) could cause displacement and high center of mass issues. Also compromising flexibility and future expansion room. Then there is also the the requirement to maintain state of the art capabilities in naval design and avoid the Arleigh Burke problem.
The issue for me with the propulsion for a future AAW is the lack of flexibility in CODELOG, when we may see significant increases in AAW electrical loads for energy weapons and more powerful radar, along with all the cooling those systems will need.
BTW, I understand the GT is fixed speed in IEP for a fixed voltage and frequency from the generator, probably 11kV and 60Hz assuming we leverage the QEC design. But the generator current output will vary according to load, which means the power output required from the GT will increase to maintain RPM into the generator and maintain voltage and frequency as load increases.
All good points
BTW I don’t doubt your understanding – I was specifically addressing your earlier point about Japan getting more output from MT-30.
I think you hit the crux though – is T26 hull sufficient both in size and electrical capacity for T83? It appears to me that something roughly equivalent to T45 maybe could be squeezed into T26 – just about, and with some compromises!
But of course T83 is a whole generation later and will need to be designed accordingly, including for DEW etc. I agree that IEP with 2x MT30 would be an ideal solution, both for the platform, for commonality with QE etc. and keeping design skills alive.
At the same time, I suspect MOD will be keen to avoid repeating T45, where runaway unit costs resulted in too small a fleet. So there is perhaps an argument for a larger number of cheaper, less heavily armed vessels.
It will be interesting to see which way they choose to go.
What was interesting to me in Ron’s post referencing 50MW and my subsequently establishing MT30 existing at a peak of 43MW, was the possibility of using only a single MT30 plus say the 4x 3MW diesel-electric from T26 for use in IEP.
That might be pushing it, but a nominal 55MW peak from this might work for T83 at say 160-170m length and 11,000 displacement. Its slightly more than Maya-class reported power, but even the “standard” MT30 output at ~35MW in combination with the diesels wouldn’t be far off Maya-class.
It will be interesting, although we’re probably going to have to wait a long time before we get any inkling.
There are certainly lots of possibilities.
One thing I did just notice, RR say they can build to a range of outputs (for a given RPM) because MT-30 has free rotating power turbine (i.e. the turbine that’s connected to the output shaft/alternator). I think this is a unique feature to RR due to their triple spool architecture.
Presumably the operating speed/pressure of the core is then adjusted to suit the power turbine fitted, with the trade offs to wear/fuel efficiency as I mentioned before. I guess that the minimum efficient output would increase also, so there are a number of design factors to be considered. But regardless, it should mean that 40MW+ for IEP is possible, as you suggested.
Interesting stuff – thanks for your comments, this has got me thinking and understanding a little more how these things work!
I don’t disagree at all, anything may be possible technically. The issue here, as I emphasized, is development cost.
Increased output of the turbine may well be possible but would require extensive development work, and for T83, a redesign of the overall propulsion scheme, negating any cost benefit against a hull common with T26.
Also as I have said before, marine market generally, has insufficient volume, to amortize the enormous development cost for GTs, hence they are all Aero derivatives. Indeed a larger version, would undermine RRs own existing market, for MT30, for which development costs are already sunk.
RR are a business, they will do what makes commercial sense for them. I just don’t see any business case, at the moment, for RR to further develop a GT, which already holds a significant lead in the market.
So being realistic, MT30 is the best that’s going to be available for the foreseeable future. All IMO of course.
I hope this design goes a bit better than the previous numbered destroyer in the ”8x” series…HMS Bristol.
Well she’s lasted longer than any other warship of the era in ‘service’ so not done too bad. Clearly must have been well built at least. Sad if she ends up in the scrapyard after all this time… perhaps they will study her first for hints for this new design for her eventual replacement.
I think with the Type 83 this is the time for the Royal Navy to be bold and do something based on the 2050 Dreadnought semi-submersible cruiser 15,000 ton trimaran Britain’s Future Warship: The Dreadnought 2050 | Military.com. The UK has just about all the technologies lined up for a ship such as this for the late 2030s.
The design should not be too difficult to do (maybe the special self healing acryllic hull material more be fantasy but steel and kevler/composite armor are certainly possible today). Dragonfly laser gun is almost here, so are electromagnetic cannons. 155mm chemical cannon like the Zumwalt is currently available from BAE. Improved Sampson and other AESA anti-ballastic and air radars are already available from BAE and Thales as are improved Aster and Sea Viper missiles. We are also being told that Hypersonic anti-ship and land attack missiles are also in development with MBDA and others.
Basing the T83 on the T26 is the safe option but I don’t think it will carry well into the late 21st century. I would look at the stretched T26 and a Batch 3 of 5 air defence optimised variant to replace T45GBP, and I think this follow-on order for the Type 26 should bring the cost below the GBP1 billion being cited (BAE should be incentived to build and equip them for GBP800 million – Only real difference from the Type 26 would be more MK41 or Slyver 70 VLS for the improved Aster NT2 and improved radars from the Type 45) and call them Type 46. The T83 I would geared towards being and anti-ballistic missile air defense and arsenal warship type escort and/or raider to take on the Chinese Type 55 cruisers that are now being built and the refurbished Russian Peter the Great nuclear cruisers.
Yes money is tight but I think going into 2040s and beyond radical thinking is called for in terms of fleet size and composition. The Type 31/32 will be nearing end of useful life by 2050s and smaller escorts replacement by then may be largely unmanned arsenal ships controlled eiher from the carriers, supply ships or the larger ships such as the proposed T83 and my T46 (enlarged air defence variant of the Type 26).
Sounds like a recipe for Zumwalt, that didn’t go well. We will only ever need small numbers so best to let technology mature a little before taking those kind of risks.
As non-navy bod, can anyone explain ship type numbering to me? We have Type 23, then 26, then 31/32, then 45 and now jump straight up to 83. Numbers are never consecutive and there are big jumps. ??
It’s explained in earlier posts…
Thanks Andrew – I hadn’t read all 117 posts…!
Enter ‘Type system of the RN’ in your search engine, it’s far easier to read then explain.
Thanks mate, a bit clearer now (I think!).
OK lots of toing and froing going on without looking at the needs. So if we take it that the T83 is a GP destroyer for battlegroup escort which seems to be the case then 6 of these ships are needed as a minimum. Two for each of the Carriers and one for the Amphibs with one in refit or repair. The only way you would get lower numbers is if a T46 was to be designed and built as well.
Now that we can agree that logically nothing less than six will be built then comes the tech sensor requirements for carrier/amphib battlegroup protection. So a dedicated anti air radar would be needed, this could well be based on SAMPSON possibly in a three/five plane configuration. The higher mast postion of SAMPSON gives more coverage. Then it would need a general radar, so thats two radar masts with seperation. The ship would also need electronic counter measures, possibly a further mast for that in the same way as the T26 has two ECM poles. With the T8X designation potentially meaning a GP DDG then a hull mounted sonar and towed array would be in the mix.
So weapons, with the T83 potentially being Battlegroup escorts then the 5 inch gun is not needed unless the MoD would buy a rail gun so the 57mm would do nicely. Point defence systems will change from gun to laser in the next 20 years so a second gun system of 40mm would be useful with 2-4 postions for Dragonfire. Dragonfire will need extra power supply so that should be taken into account. So thats the guns taken care of. Now for the missile fit. With a radar suitable for BMD than a missile to use this capability should be installed so in many ways that means an increase in the ASTER weapons fit. Possibly the location for the 16 Mk41 VLS launchers should be repalced by 16 Sylver A-70 launchers. This gives a capacity of 64 ASTER’s. With these ships being dedicated escorts then we could think about installing a further 24 SeaCeptor or advanced SeaCeptor missiles midships between the funnel and aft radar mast. Possibly a A-70 block could be fitted in this postion giving the flexibility to either quad pack SeaCeptor giving 32 missiles or fit other missiles as needed. This means 2-4 data links would be needed.
So that is the electronic suite and anti air suite taken care of, now comes the surface threat. Would the T83 need a anti ship missile if it is a carrier escort, not really, if an enemy ship got to within a hundred miles of the carrier group then something has gone wrong. The T83 should be able to trust in the carrier air group and the T26 frigates to take care of the surface threat. So a dedicated anti ship missile such as Harpoon would not be needed. However a long range supersonic land attack missile with anti ship capabilities would be of use in the 300km-1000km range.
With the T83 having towed array then it would make sense to arm the ship for anti submarine warfare. There is arguements for and against VL-ASROC, I for one like the idea of being able to launch a torpedo attached to a rocket motor for 25km and then have the torp with a range of 10km drop in. Basically I like subs as far away as possible from surface ships. So yes I would install an advaced VL-ASROC on board. What this now means is a minimum of 32 A-70 launchers and 32 A-50s. So, long range anti submarine platforms (helicopters) some might argue that the carrier could carry these. I am not of that thinking, the carriers are strike/attack platforms it is the destroyers and frigates that are the defence platforms. I am also as an engineer a firm follower of Murphy, so I do not believe in having a single helicopter as it will be down for refit/repair/refueling/rearming etc just at the moment you really need it. So there should be a hanger space for two helicopters of the Merlin replacement size equipped with dipping sonar. The hanger should be able to carry also 3-4 vertial launched UAVs for surface passive survalance 100-150km from the battlegroup. This means that Crowsnest does not need to be airborne all the time giving away the postion of the group. Depending on the area of operations you could have one ASW Merlin and one Apache as an example.
Now to the powerplant, the T83 should have a speed of 28-30 knots and a range of 7,000nmi, with enough power reserve for things such as Dragonfire. It should be able to crash stop and sprint whilst being almost as quiet as a T26. The ship herself does not need boat bays for RM RIBS but should be fitted as a surface group flagship. So we are looking at a ship in the 10-12,000 ton range and about 170m in length, an increase in combat capability but still below US/Chinese/Russian or Japanese weapons fit. However we could go down a completly diffrent route and build something like the Japanese Hyuga class or the old helicopter cruiser concepts.
I think the T83 should be armed with a mix of A50 cells and Mk.57 or even 30″ VLS, to quad pack CAMM-ER or ESSM. Seaceptor is too short range for AAW vessel. If fitted with rail gun most likely 155mm. This vessel will most likely be powered by 2 MT30s?
I agree, my thinking was that Aster would be the main Anti Air Missile whilst an improved SeaCeptor or CAMM-ER would be the last ditch anti air missile before CIWS would take over.
I agree that if a rail gun was to be brought into service it would be 155mm, however there does seem to be some issues with the rail gun at the moment such as barrel wear. It also seems that a rail gun needs about 25-30 MW of power. That is a fairly large power usage and would possibly need a dedicated MT-30. That could mean gas turbines with a total power output of 90 MWs, 50MW for propulsion, 30MW for the rail gun and 10MW reserve plus deisel genarators. Thats a big engine room, even bigger than the carriers. BAE did do some work with a 155mm gun for the Type 45s due to costs and the magazine space needed, it would take up the space designed for the Mk41s it was shelved. This 52 calibre gun with standard shells had a range of 36km, with rocket assisted shells the range was to be 70km. If a 155mm gun was to be installed then I would suggest the completion of this project rather than a rail gun. Well at least until the rail gun technology has been perfected. BAE did do about seven years work into the project, looking at a 52 cal gun and a gun based on the AS90 Braveheart concept with 39 cal. The turret and turret ring mount was to be the same as the current Mark 8 Mod1 with some strengthening of the gunhouse. The major issue BAE ran into was rounds per minute, due to the need for a seprate shell and charge a double stroke loading cycle was needed reducing the rounds per minute from the 20-26 of the 4.5in Mk8 Mod 1 to 12 rounds per minute for the 155mm Mk8 Mod1. It would have menat that the army and the navy could have used the same shell.
Before someone says my power requirements are to high for the T83 a AB has gas turbine power of 80MW if they had a rail gun then they would need 110MW.
I like in many ways the Mk57 VLS however is it really useful for the RN. If installed then every missile in the RN inventory would need to be intergrated. With the Sylver A-70 only the new missile types would need intergration. I suspect that DCNS could design a version that would be the equivlant of the Mk57. I’m not sure what the 30inch VLS is.
The energy that a rail gun can expend, is just in fractions of a second, it is Not continuous.
So super-capacitors will neet to be installed on the vessel as part of the electrical supply system to store electrical energy, and release it instantanteously when the rail gun is fired.
Also the Mark 57 VLS silos are 28 inches in diameter, so you can quad pack CAMM-ER in the silos.
The T45 is a great ship, ruined by a thousand cuts. A new AA destroyer based on T45 would not be a bad idea. This time build 8, give them engines that work, upgraded/updated 4 panel Sampson with the Dutch upgraded S1850M, Latest Aster 30 + SeaViper + Mk41 VLS, CEC or the latest Link (22?), torpedo tubes, lightweight towed array sonar. A 20 ft stretch would take the T45 up to the old County class. 2 Helicopters.
Impressive….
100 posts regarding an announcement of an announcement due in a few years time about starting the concept phase of a new Destroyer….
ha ha.
Interesting isn’t it. Seems like a very emotive subject. Wonder why? Hmmm. ?
Really, can we bekievecanything authoritativemy from Sweeney?
I think not.
very silly to put a total fantasy picture up.
There is no serious suggestion that a T26 could replace the bigger T45. Any serious suggestion that a T26 could be bulked up?
Not least when no serious plans are on the have yet… ???
Thickthumb-itess !!
made me chuckle !
Good grief, don’t let George hear you doubt Sweeney. Geo has pinned his entire T26 as a T45 replacement narrative on a that Scottish MP’s attempts at drumming up business for his constituency.
I should say ex-MP, his voters turfed him out.
Maybe the way forward is to design a single multihull, that can be stretched for each class, so your bow and stern section are the same. and only the center sections change in size. The procurement could call off each ship, to its class hulls could then be completed and delivered to different yards around the UK. Spread the money around the country. as i seem to notice not much MOD money goes into factories down in the south….
Yes, it is at midship the beem is largest. A multihull may need intermediate sections between a midship section and bow, to taper out the differences in hull shape.
can someone shed light why they’ve gone with the type 83 designation and not type 46 as the intended replacement to the type 45? Is this to do with capabilities?
See the chatter below. Basically…
Type 2X is ASW
Type 4X is AAW
Type 8X is General Purpose
The RN look like they are planning to move the destroyer role for AAW to GP. Seems sensible to me. So future RN destroyers would likely operate more like US destroyers as multi-role fleet escorts.
Brilliant Paul – thx for clarifying
And if you are really interested…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system_of_the_Royal_Navy?wprov=sfti1
” We will be thinking about the Type 83 in the next few years. Eventually we will build some,. Not enough, though.”
you cant have a frigate doing the job of a destroyer! that’s ridicules! are we really that tight on budget. i thought we were ment to increase spending! Bojo really got to get a better grip on things.
good we need to replace the t45s will be going into their middle-ages in the 2030s.
T45s have Not been worked hard, so could last longer and be around with some T83’s.
The T83 will Not be a frigate!
Why do they jump in numbers on a type? Does logic not tell us all that a Type 46 is a better number, or am I missing something?
Why does the USA get several decades out of a ship such as an Arleigh Burke and the UK gets 15-20 at best? Take HMS Ocean as an example. Sold to Brazil after a refit that came close to half her build cost, then sold at a loss. The excuse for the sale was the ship is nearing the end of it’s life. I bet Brazil gets 30 years out of her.
Back to the Arleigh Burke, the first in class was built 33 years ago in 1988. How come these ships last twice the life of the T45’s, that have spent most of their life in the garage on Jacks?
Our ship building policy needs looking into.