The Royal Navy are now looking at concept designs for the upcoming Type 83 Destroyer, the warship that will replace the Type 45 Destroyers.
More information on the Type 83 came to light at a formal meeting of the Defence Committee with the topic of ‘The Navy: purpose and procurement‘.
Glynn Phillips, Group Managing Director Maritime and Land UK at BAE Systems, said at the meeting:
“In terms of starting conceptual options early, we are, along with Navy and Defence, already looking at concept designs for the replacement of the Astute programme. The Navy are going through the concept designs for the Type 83, which will ultimately replace the Type 45.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded to a written Parliamentary question recently and said:
“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 Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Glasgow region. 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.
I don’t think it is a terrible mockup, it is quite respectable one.
It’s a lovely mock-up…. But Where are the triple 16 inch gun turrets? Lol…
Obviously FFBNW! 😉
7th Gen Stealth gun turrets… Thats why you cannot see them…
True but just not related to anything remotely concrete really.
It looks identical to stock images used for the Australian export model T26 ‘Hunter Class’, but with T83 photoshopped onto the hull.
Since they’re considering it.
I’ve no doubt that the t26 suitably fitted could be classed as a destroyer in its own right already
You’ve typoed Type 82 instead of Type 83 in the first line George, just FYI.
Cheers, sorted now!
Hang on you said that a variation of the type 26 is considered for the job. Does that mean it would be a proper destroyer in terms of tonnage and weapons systems?
What is a proper destroyer in terms of tonnage? The Type 42 started at 3,500 tonnes.
We can’t keep getting bigger with every iteration. A T26 based ship makes sense apart from the hull cost is very high as it is an ASW design.
So it will be a aaw frigate? Not destroyer
I thought the RN designated type by primary use. So ASW = frigate, AAW = destroyer. Nothing to do with tonnage.
oh i was just asking. because i think tonnage matters internationally. example of this is the Zumwalt’s which are said to be cursers by tonnage. even though the USA claims they are destroyers
It doesn’t. Tonnage of ship types has always been variable, and usually increases as the years go on. “Cruiser by tonnage” can mean anything from 1,000t’s for old protected cruisers through to 15,000t for heavy cruisers, that’s a pretty big margin.
Internationally it’s becomes even more complicated since language doesn’t translate precisely. All French surface escort ships for example are “Frigates” regardless of role or tonnage (same for German surface escorts).
Even the US doesn’t have strict guidelines of what is a “Frigate” and what is a “Destroyer,” it’s more “We have two classes of ships, one’s bigger than the other so the bigger one will be called Destroyer and the smaller one Frigate.”
Don’t forget the Ticonderogas, which are cruisers that are now smaller than a destroyer. US designations have had a few such oddities.
The U.K. has had some oddities as well, the Type82 being a classic case.
IIRC the Ticonderogas where originally meant to be classed as Guided Missile Destroyers, and it was only after budget cuts that they where reclassified as Cruisers.
Little bit, although with the Type 31’s the distinction is getting blurry and becoming more “What was the type of ship it’s replacing called?” in the RN. (Type 31’s are not ASW assets).
Type 8x indicates a general purpose ship. Type 82 was both AAW (Sea Dart) and ASW (Ikara). The change from Type 4x to Type 8x would imply the addition of AAW to the current T26 ASW capability. With the removal of the need for target designators for each channel of fire (as with Sea Dart, Sea Wolf era) means the surveillance radar, computer control and missile silos are what is missing. So a T26 with Sampson and the Mk41s full of SAMs would meet the need?
ya but its a frigate hull. 2030 going forward a frigate hull can’t simply do the job of a destroyer it would be too small.
big nasty frigate
Yes we can. Destroyers have litterally been getting bigger and bigger since there have been Destroyers. The originals only displaced 200t!
Does it matter whether you call it a frigate or a destroyer (or a sloop/cruiser/blah blah blah) ? It is what it is. We used to have ‘through deck cruisers and some weirdos thought they were small aircraft carriers….. go figure.
Is it me, or has the UK Government FINALLY woken up to the fact we are an island nation and need a proper Navy to support our interests ? Everything seems to have a greater sense of urgency about it than a couple of years ago.
I think it’s more likely they realized there is money to be made in all this.
I think leaving the EU has brought a lot of minds into sharper focus, rather than having the luxury of delegating so many decisions to Brussels.
No defence decisions have been made by Brussels. Big EU countries have retained different defence and procurement decisions.
Sure. I was talking generically rather than specifically. Should have made that clear.
It’ll be interesting though, to see how the EU Army and other military decisions pan out in years to come.
Though barely a merchant fleet to maintain freedom of the seas for!
Poking sticks in the Russian belly and pompously posturing in the China Sea for our US overlords doesn’t quite add up to a role.
I’d wish in the mean time to muscle up the T45s with some extra silos and ASMs as the late 30s is a very long way off. The Italian’s have already designed and will be building a large destroyer DDX at the end of this decade! Who’s ahead, who’s behind…
Good Morning Geoffi. Are you the man who used to be known as Geoff and has now added the’i’ to distinguish the two of us? If sohope you are well and thanks. Cheers geoff
Naval mugging in international waters is obviously a growing trend, as last week’s escapade in the Black Sea clearly demonstrated. I’m sure both Russia and China intend to make any NATO ships in what they claim is their waters as uncomfortable as possible in the future. The critical phase will be when merchant shipping gets the same treatment, hence the urgency to increase the size of most Western navies, especially the RN. I’ve banged on about Global Britain for some time and now it appears to be official UK policy. That being the case, short and long-term naval ship planning is essential, though the Type 83 is far too early to pin down the final design. Basing it on Type 26 may not be a wise move as the general concept may be too dated for Type 83 application?
The timescales of these projects is astonishing. Imagine any country in say 1918 planning its equipment purchases for 1939.
With the pace of technological change, is it really possible to look so far ahead? Aiming for a smooth construction programme that retains key skills and avoids redundancy and rehiring costs is very sensible. But looking 20 rather than 10 years ahead seems a stretch.
It’s the same for everyone Peter. As soon as something is written down it’s out of date.
QEs were conceived in the late 90s and not becoming operational until 2018. So that was a 20 year project. In peace time modern defence projects, particularly at the high end can be time consuming.
As new technologies emerge they do need time to mature before coming reliable enough to be put into production and deployed.
Lots of US ship designs are fundamentally 40 years old they just keep updating the basic design in batches.
British ships built in 1912 were being decommissioned in the early 1920s while many in WW2 were 1st WW vintage, there doesn’t seem to be any real set pattern to longevity, circumstances and in particular technical/strategic/political/cost changes seem to dictate the pace or otherwise.
If they are only hitting the drawing board now the finalised design will take into account the latest and potential future technology. It’s also why we order in batches, for example batch 2 and 3 type 26 might include upgraded radar and sensors not included in batch 1. So the process of continually improving designs is a slow moving one.
Absolutely, the fundamental hull design surely only ages slowly it’s the innards that dictate both changes generally and any need as a result to change the bull design to accommodate.
Well said.
I think the issue is that we have an imminent capability gap against intermediate range ballistic missiles and long range, aircraft launched supersonic AShM which threatens the credibility of the CSG. That’s why USS Sullivans accompanies HMS QE. SM2 outranges Aster 30. What we have to decide is are we going to buy Aster 30 Block 1 NT for current threats and wait for Block 2 BMD or decide now to jump to SM3/6?
IIRC there are a couple of Sampson sets going spare after we cut the T45 order from 8 to 6. And Type 26 comes with 24 Mk41 VLS ( the Australian Hunter version will have 32 ). So if the T26 hull is seaworthy enough to support Sampson at a reasonable height and the systems integration is feasible it might be an attractive short term tactical option to build a couple more T26 as ABM ships with SM3/6. A CSG might sail with a AAW T45, one T26 tasked with ASW + land strike and another T26 tasked with ABM.
It has been implied that the T45s will be getting some Aster 30 Block 1NTs to supplement the standard Aster 30s. When the recent defence paper referred to Aster being upgraded.
An MBDA spokesperson has been quoted as saying by IHS Jane’s that the upgrade would enable the Aster 30 B1NT to “engage the whole range of short-range ballistic missiles [SRBMs, of up to 1,000 km range] and some segment of the medium-range ballistic missile [MRBM] domain”.
The main element of the B1NT upgrade is the inclusion of a new high-resolution Ka-band (26.5-40 GHz) active radar seeker to replace the existing Ku-band (12-18 GHz) seeker on the current Aster 30 Block 1 missile. The shorter wavelength of the new Ka-band seeker, and accompanying new missile calculator, will provide the B1NT with a longer target-acquisition range combined with its better angular resolution than its predecessor, according to MBDA.
The upgrades were primarily being paid for by France and Italy for the improvement of the land based SAMP/T system, but the UK has also invested in it as part of the T45s upgrade.
There has been very little said or rumoured regarding the development of the Block 2 BMD missile.
The Block 1 NT upgrade, will put the missile in the same capability and range league as the SM6.
That’s good technical background. Thx. So regarding status, starting presumably with SAMP/T do you know where are we with respect to naval deployments on say the Fremm/ Freda/ Horizon ships?
The T45s are supposed to be getting some additional radar, comms and ECM upgrades following the power improvement plan, that also coincides with the introduction of the Aster NTs, though the MoD haven’t given a timeframe yet. They also haven’t said what these upgrades will include.
I would hope that the S1850M is going to be replaced with the SMART-L MM AESA radar. This radar is in service with the Dutch navy. It has shown it has substantially better performance than the PESA version. It has also be specifically developed for ABM search and tracking. Where in 2019 it provided a exoatmospheric tracking solution for a SM3 interception. I would really like to hear that Sampson is getting a front end upgrade But I’m not sure there is enough funding available.
The White Paper alluded to the upgrades and the 1SL has also given hints. There is some info on the MBDA website regarding the NT and SAMP/T, with a single entry about PAAMS equipped ships.
Italy’s Horizon class are getting a new Leonardo AESA radar to replace the EMPAR PESA radar. They have also stated that they will be introducing the NT missile. The French have been very quiet on their Horizon class upgrades. The EMPAR radar is really holding back the capabilities that Aster has. I will expect France to announce a radar upgrade, just to be on par with Italy.
We will have to wait and see what is released in the next 6 months. Fingers crossed it will be good news.
Again, thx for the info and as you say we can expect good news I think. That said as my old boss used to say I’ve got an itch that I just can’t scratch…the T45 engine and radar refits look lengthy. We only have 6 ships. If it can be done I can see the attraction of putting Sampson and SMART-L MM on the T26 which are in build and putting Standard missiles in the Mk41 vls. Sort of get back to 8 AAW destroyers.
Some elements of he IT industry resolved this by banning projects lasting more than 6 months. Needless to say much of he public sector failed to get onboard.
With the RN it might mean far more use of modular designs with plug and play kit.
Going to have to isn’t it the technology changes are just too large and unpredictable to commit to for too Long.
True. If you look at the private sector you will see the dominance of tech like the smart phone. New models emerge on an annual basis but little has changed. There is alway something better or diffrrent. On a new warship perhaps we should be focusing on the platform. Make it easy to swap stuff out for a better versions as soon they become available. That way you get smaller projects moving quicker.
Look at the F35. It has its concept roots dating back to the mid 80’s and 90’s and we still only have a handful here in 2021.
Stuff takes so long.
And that’s what the Chinese and other potential adversaries are partially pinning their hopes on. They have the wealth, numbers and expertise stolen from all over the world to develop new systems in the blink of an eye.
The Royal Navy was thinking about ships and naval gun designs unlikely to be on the slips until the 1930s in 1918. The King George V class was heavily derived from research and ship design thinking stretching back to late First War, though their design process began in 1928, 12 years before first launch. They are not talking of fixing a design now, just assessing the potential options and balance of capability in designs that will be useful some 20 odd years hence. Given modern missile and aircraft development lead times of 20 years plus there is some good indication of the likely threat environment that far ahead.
I seriously hope Type 83 isn’t based on T26. Nothing wrong with Type 26 of course, it will be a fantastic ASW vessel but I am not convinced the hull dimensions are sufficient for a top tier AAA destroyer coming into service beyond 2030. We really need to look at the latest Korean and Chinese designs.
A Type 55 destroyer has 112 VLS. Saturation attack is something that the RN must take seriously as a threat, especially considering we have so few destroyers. An uplift to 8 vessels would be nice, although unlikely.
I personally would like to see a 13,000 t vessel with 96 VLS cells ( 8 X MK41 silos), 2 x Dragon Fire and sufficient space both inside and out for future weapons upgrades. With 96 VLS we could have a mixture of quad packed Sea Ceptor, Aster 15/30, Tomahawk and anti-ship missiles. Maybe even a few anti submarine missiles.
We would have options, endurability and firepower to retaliate.
agree with much of your points, with some exceptions:
-Increase displacement to 17,500 t (estimated dimensions to be 216m long by 24m wide, with draft under keel of 6m (8m under forward sonar bulge).
-Increase VLS capacity to 128 cells using 2x 64 cell Mk 41 modules as per on USN Ticonderoga-class. One 64 cell module to be full (Strike) length for TLAM/long range AA/ABM capability, the other to be short (tactical) range for quad-packed Sea Ceptor to provide mass short range AA capacity)
-Provide additional deep-strike VLS volume for long range Hyper sonic missile capacity.
A new AAW destroyer design would want to put the radar as high as sensibly possibe (like T45) to extend detection range for sea skimming targets, so imo the L/B ratio will finish up closer to the 7.2 (for both T26 & T45) rather than your 9.0 in order to give a more stable platform.
But, with such a large and costy design, how many RN can afford? As detailed designing usually cost more than a single unit cost, if the planned number is smaller, the actual delivered number will get even smaller.
I think RN shall stick to “a bit smaller than US DDGs”, so that at least 6 hulls can be built even if the government decides to cut the budget to “a bit less than 2% GDP” (as was only in a few years ago).
If the budget is more, just build 8 of them. For sure, building 8 hull will cost much less than 8/6 = 1.33 times, because of detailed design cost and initial build inefficient (or learning curve).
It depends on the contract. If the same is done as per the QE class and the T26s, we should be ok! The contract was written so that if the ships were cancelled the Government would hit a massive financial penalty. Which was probably the only reason saving both carriers from Cameron’s Government.
It truly is a numbers game. The 6 T45s has shown that they are too few to meet all the tasks. So fingers crossed they at least go for 8 or 9.
In a future conflict, the ship that survives being attacked will be the one who not only has the most effective systems but also the largest weapon’s reserves. The South Koreans are definitely aware of this with their batch 2 stretched KDXIII destroyers (L=170m, B=21m). But that’s not surprising considering their neighbours. The US Navy are also talking about the Arleigh Burke replacement being nearly the size of Ticonderoga cruiser (L=173m, B=16.8m). Around the 170m length is where I think the T83 needs to be as well, which would be about the same size as the late Tiger class cruisers.
The US Navy has announced that it is shelving any further research into the rail gun project. It is instead put this funding into hypersonic missiles, which they are looking at installing on the Zumwelts, subs and the Arleigh Burke replacement. The missiles will need to be housed in at least the strike length version of the Mk41 VLS cell, perhaps even a deeper version. So if the US Navy is looking at these missiles as being the main weapon, then so should we. If this is the case, the ship will need to have a large volume to house such a missile VLS cell.
The T45s were designed around PAAMS, so will the the T83 being based around “PAAMS 2” or also include other roles such as land attack etc? The previous T82, HMS Bristol was a more rounded destroyer by contrast.
It does NOT depend on the contract.
If budget is lowered, and T83 contract cannot be changed, we will just see the government of the day selling one CVF, simply because there is no other choice.
Money is clearly an issue. Asking more is OK, but by doing it what are we risking?
anger labour demonstrator?
I’ll second that……
In regards to the logic behind the size of the hull/number of VLS cells:
So that would cost about 3Bn each. Sorry, but that’s totally unrealistic.
Well the thing is that is the direction other navies are going in. The Chinese Type 055 is at 13,000t with 112 vls. The Korean Sejong the Great is not too far behind in terms of displacement and carries 128 vls. The Americans DDG(X) is looking like it’s going to be closer in size and firepower to the Ticonderoga than to the Arleigh Burke. And that’s before we get to the Russian Lider.
The Type 83 is going to need to be competitive not just with the Type 055 and the Lider, but also with whatever comes after them.
damn might as well call em dreadnaughts by that point!
The T55 has 112VLS because 70 of them will probably miss the target 😄
What makes you think that?
Because I’d eat my hat if the weapon technology is anything close to the capability of Sea Viper and Sampson radar.
What will need to be looked at size wise is what can be built in the current facilities and how much would it cost to upgrade etc. If it is a type 26 variant the frigate factory BAE would of built if 13 had been ordered would have come in handy. I don’t know what ship sizes Hoban can build
When you hack many of the design elements from the west it’s highly likely the end result will be effective without necessarily being the best.
Underestimating an adversary with the human and economic resources of China is potentially a catastrophic mistake. This is a country that put a rover on mars on it’s first try. Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that they will always be playing catch up when it comes to these things.
Well said. But internal politics of China may lead to its downfall. I highly doubt that the Chinese citizens are gonna keep their mouth shut for very long. Maybe in 50-60 years or so China will at war with it self.
They can put a rover on Mars, but they still can’t build a decent jet engine. Much of it’s technology is still borrowed from Russia design.
Let’s see how long that continues. The much hyped development of WS-15 engine appears almost complete. We’ll know in a few years if they still can’t make a decent jet engine.
We will see. But even the Russians still cannot design and build fighter engines of the quality of Western jet engines. Certainly nothing that matches the superb EJ200 or P&W F119.
Thinking about numbers, the T45’s were supposed to number at least 8, then the budgets and lack of political will kicked in. I seem to recall that long lead items for numbers 7& 8 were ordered, I wonder if they are sitting in a warehouse somewhere?
Its also worth remembering that the T42’s numbered 14, with two sunk in the Falklands. At that time we only had one potential adversary, the Soviet Union, now we have multiple threats. I would like as much as anyone to see some cruiser sized ships, but they can still only be in one place at a time. Let’s try and go for numbers as well as capability.
Thing is though steel and air are cheap. It the subsequent systems that cost. Hopefully the planners and designers will remember this and build a larger ship that has scope for further development.
Yes… looking at T32 this seems to be the RNs idea.
I would go further adding volume saves costs long term. More space around components shortens maintenance time as access is easier and your not tied down to one component that the space was design for, which allows for an alternative or or more modern equivalent to be fitted even if its shape is somewhat different.
They’ve been dealing with the French in recent years that’s why we’re not persona non grata over there nowaday.
I’d like to see those 2 more T45s built to bolster the fleet and could help manage the upgrade of the rest of the MLU of the class.
Modi is a well known nationalist, and seems to win elections on the back of it. I appreciate that some in India still look back and object to the Raj, much as many look back to it with nostalgia! However, if it comes to any form of confrontation in the East I would much rather have them on side, after all they do have form when it comes to facing down the Chinese.
No lime seriously hate Britain. I heard one if them out and even say britian will I dians footstool in the future. And a pupet of USA. but nevertheless we need them for any confrontation in the east as much as it worries me.
Sounds like a troll. Just because he says he’s something doesn’t mean he his. There’s a building in St. Petersburg full of people claiming to be every nationality under the sun.
I mean there was atleast 100 other comments praising him for it.
Nate, could I suggest that you read what you have written before you press send. I have no idea what it is you are trying to say?
The T31s are a step towards that. However good a warship is, they all share one feature: they can only be in 1 place at 1 time! (& a lot of those places will be maintenance, refit, training…) So we need more than the 6, 8, 5 of the most recent designs. (And the more of 1 type you build, the more economic the later ships are).
Size is also good, cos it allows expansion with more weapons, stores, crew comfort (= retention). Best eg is the Spruances vs T42s.
Interesting you should mention dragon fire., last week the Israelis showed off a laser mounted on a Cessna which shot down a nbr of flying drones., I wonder what progress will be made in this field over the next 10 to 15 years.
Israel Tested An Airborne Laser To Shoot Down Drones
The Israeli airborne laser prototype achieved a 100% success rate against target drones over the sea at different altitudes and ranges above one kilometer.
https://theaviationist.com/2021/06/24/israel-airborne-laser-for-drones/
personally i would like 120 vls for future asters, 16 launchers for anti ship weapons and the dragon fire could act as a close range air defence or long range depending on the situation. plus think 100/120 of then should be perminantly reserved for anti air purposes and the rest 20 for maybe land attack/ asw missiles or more anti ship weapons weapons.
Given the numbering, and the concept design being based on the excellent ASW hullform of the T26, could it be that the T83 might be a true multirole combatant? One that has the AAW capability of T45 but the ASW capability of T26, and which, over a long production run, could eventually replace both ship types?
Is there any value in an idea to have 18-24 dual role ships that can function as either AAW or ASW? Or is it overkill?
Such a ship would be more costly to design, build and maintain than a single T45 or T23/26, but potential savings could be made in crewing, and it would give flexibility to tasking and roulements as each ship of the fleet could do every task, as opposed to only 6 ships specifically for AAW and 8(plus the 5 T23s currently without TAW) ships for ASW. With 18 dual role ships, you could deploy more ships to either task, depending on the scenario, without breaking the fleet trying to get ships to sea.
Maybe 20-odd years ago when we had far more destroyers and frigates it could’ve been a way to reduce cost by having a smaller number of dual role ships, as opposed to the larger numbers of specialist ships. But is this even workable now, given numbers of surface combatants are so low, that we can’t make savings through ordering fewer examples of a hybrid design because hull numbers as they are are rock bottom?
I couldn’t agree more and have often stated that the RN could have circa 10 hull-forms with a bit of thought.
QEC class – 2
T26 ASW class – 15 (replaces T23)
T26 AAW class – 15 (replaces T45’s)
Aegir Class – 15 (replaces Albions, Waves, Forts, Argus, Bays and Tides)
Astute Class – 10 (replaces and uplifts SSN fleet)
Successor Class – 4 (replaces Vanguard)
New 120m Global Mission Class – 15 (replaces Rivers, Echo)
New 60m Multi Mission Class – 15 (replaces hunts/sandowns)
New 30m OPV Class – 15 (replaces P Fleet)
Specialist – 4
This would give an RN/RFA total of 110 ships, which is more than today, but provides a good drumbeat of 1 ship per class every 2 years (30 year NSS plan).
The above can be trimmed, but given the massive reduction in ships since 2010, perhaps a slight increase back to a more manageable number of vessels that can be leaner manned is more appropriate.
what is clear with any plan that aims to have a constituent drumbeat, is that circa £4bn pa is required to fund this at today prices, the money is needed no matter what – its how we schedule it that is important and a wisely scheduled drumbeat will keep the flow of money static each year if smoothed properly. govt enforced delays to QEC added 25% to the cost, I suspect the same is happening to T26.
Nice “ship shopping” list here but I don’t know if we’ll ever get up to 15s of anything again. For this decade I’d like to see an extra T26, up-missiled T45s plus one more Astute.
we have to launch at least 3 ships per year to remain at our current size, the rest is deciding which ships, admittedly I have increased the fleet slightly and I think the 2 x T26 classes will merge into one, but this is not a particularly fantasy fleet scenario, this is how do we replace our fleet over a 30 year period.
one of the problem we have had from my perspective is this lack of drumbeat, here we at least know what the hull types are going to be and the rest is a schedule, but it will require £4-5bn pa and there is no getting away from that (30% of the Equipment budget – inc nuclear is good value).
No
Two points:
1. Ex-MP Paul Sweeney seems to be the only source for the story that the MoD is actively looking at a modified Type 26 for the Type 83. His motivation is obvious: drumming up work for his ex-constituents on the Clyde.
2. Whatever the Bae dude said at the parliamentary hearing, the first stage in the MoD process is to create a requirements statement for the T83. It will be a long while before any kind of design is conceptualized by them. Doesn’t stop Bae or Babcocks from dreaming but that’s all lit is right now.
I agree, it in his interest to have the T83 based on the T26, even if the hull isn’t really suited as a “destroyer”.
I accept I’m being greedy but I’d be keen on having theT4X’s to replace the 45’s And the T83 (or whatever) to be larger ‘cruisers’ to ride shotgun on the carriers. They would be available for other ops too of course, maybe 3 with one always ‘about’ for the primary role if required. Maybe take a few shakes of the magic money tree to shake the coins lose though.
I’m with you there Andy, we could have 4 of each.
Completely agree with your sentiment, being even greedier, I would like to see 6 t8xs to be built in the next 10 years or so to operate alongside the t45s. Currently, if we assign 2 t45s to a carrier that leaves us with 2 for routine duties. I think it’s fine for the t45s to be used this way (historically they have been used to supported our allies ships) whilst also breaking off hither and yon for local missions when the csg is in safer areas, but in doing that we are essentially left with the t31s and perhaps 1x 45 or 26 able to be deployed elsewhere at any one time. A further creation of 6 larger missile destroyers would give us a reasonably credible navy alongside two routinely deployable csg. The issue with lack of ships to support 2 CSG in dangerous areas alongside other global deployments isn’t going to go away.
With current planned ship numbers we have three choices
1. Have one fully capable csg able to be deployed (2 type 26, 2 45s, an astute and supply ships) with a further carrier with no supporting ships for use in an emergency Falkland style scenario (relying on allies or pulling our ships off other missions) with the other 4x45s, 6x26s, 5×31 and 6 subs to give us a reasonable balanced navy for other Global deployments .
2. Have two semi capable carrier groups (with 1×45 and 1×26 and one astute shared between) which are able to routinely deploy but cannot operate in dangerous areas without allied support, whilst at the same time gave the other ships listed above for use for other global deployments.
3. Have two fully protected CSG (2*45 2*26 each, however one would still be lacking an astute) able to operate globally, leaving one astute, 2ish 31s and 1 45/26 for other global deployments at any one time, essentially relegating the majority of the rest of the fleet to pirate hunting or other such lower risk activities.
Whilst not amazing, the uplift and increased flexibility 6 larger destroyers would give us when inputted into any of the three scenarios above is clear.
Finally, after decades of strategy over many governments will we see a proper competition for the build of our high end escorts.
Babcock will fiercely compete for this contract and they are arguably in the better position given all their recent and current experience.
There is now no possibility of BAE gouging us again, apart from the Astute replacement of course.
We will hopefully get a great deal on these new destroyers, no doubt we will be looking for more export success, possibly even a build coalition with some other countries.
If we assume that these are to be exportable then there is probably some cost limitations on these things.
Indonesia are buying FREMM frigates, so they and others that may be like them (in 2040) are able to spend significantly but not astronomically.
To keep costs down the hull could be based on a slightly enlarged (160m) Arrowhead or Type 26 design.
With 160m there is room for 2 VLS, fitted for but not with of course, the client can configure it however they like.
I’d love to see 2 hangers.
Going to have to be (at least) in the 10,000t+, 96+ VLS, category if they want them to be taken seriously by the Russians & Chinese.
Here is a list of countries by GDP in 2040, there are many countries that will be able to afford a few of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal)#Long_term_GDP_estimates
I would re-run the Type 31 program, I’d say you have $5B, to make 4 destroyers in the next 10 years including a factory. Then we export that along with tech transfer.
Why not these country just design and build their escorts by themselves? Exporting design can be foreseen, if MOD/HMG strategically invest on it and UK keeping the skill high. But, building is almost hopeless for these “strong” economies. Build-export is much more feasible against smaller echonomy, such as Oman or alike.
The real money is in the weapons systems, radars, engines, sonar and other sensors. Most countries will want to build the hull themselves unless they have no ship building facilities worth talking about.
Hmmm
Would the factory be in England? Where would Mr Sweeney like it?
Hi Trevor,
Sunderland might be an option, check Google images of Sunderland docks. There’s a whole bunch of laid up North Sea Oil support ships tied up to give you rough scale.
Cheers CR
Lots of interesting ideas but I think we have to be careful. One of the reasons CVAO1 was cancelled back in the sixties was the Cruiser lobby in the RN were pushing hard for a replacement of the ex WW2 cruisers that were being retired. The price tag for both classes were skyrocketing and the Treasury and politicians just pulled the plug and we ended up with neither. Its not the size i’m concerned with it’s the all singing all dancing design your talking about. A ship with Type 45 AAW and Type 26 ASW would be eye wateringly expensive. The RN isn’t getting a bigger share of the MoD budget it’s just spending it more wisely and benefiting from the overall increase. It would be incredibly dangerous to assume the RN would either get a bigger share or that the total MoD budget will carry on receiving big increases.
The best indication will be the Australian & Canadian T26’s. These are to have destroyer grade radars & CMS with a reasonable missile load out of 32 mk41 cells, with the Canadians adding 6 ExLS cells. All this without touching the multi mission bay. Turn the multi mission bay into boat bays & add 32 tactical length mk41 & you have already exceeded current T45. There could also be room for more upfront than 32.
I reckon the T83 might not be based on the T26. Remember the T82 was a large destroyer (some say light cruiser) designed to accompany the cancelled carriers of the 1970’s. Now because they’ve chosen T83 for the new destroyer I reckon they intend it to do a similar role. It may well be very large, have plenty of SAMs and a land attack capability intended to act as a force multiplier to the CSG. If it was a simple replacement for T45 they’d call it T46 would they not? Can we hope for 6 large, well armed T83s? A reckon that will be down to the treasury and the ability of BAE in Glasgow to build such large ships.
To start thinking about the T83 until the requirements of the ship is written down is a pointless exercise. The reason I say this is as follows. A AAW DDG is diffrent to a DDG that is ASW capabile, to start with the stern and underwater hull profile is diffrent. Then comes the next question radar suite, for what will it be used for, area anti air defence or ballistic missile defence. If the T83s are to be carrier escorts do they need large helicopter hangers and a 5 inch gun or for that matter boat bays for RIBS. Then comes the next question point defence, is that to be Dragonfire, if yes how much extra power is needed, will the rail gun idea become available, again extra power meaning a bigger engine room meaning a bigger ship. So if the T83 is to be a AAW-BMD DDG then no helicopter hanger is needed apart from a smaller one for say 4 RUAVs, a main gun of 76mm or 57mm will do the trick, they will not go on the gun line. However if the rail gun concept does work then the T83 would be the best ship platform to put it on. 4 x 40mm and 2x Dragonfire with Iron Fist could be the point defence systems, and 96 Mk41s or A-70s would be the best solution for the VLS. As for the radar suite possibly a upgraded 3 or 5 plane SAMPSON. However if the T83 is to have ASW capability equal to a T26 then a full helicopter hanger would be needed, a Towed Array would be needed etc. A AAW-BMD DDG would be about 10-11,000 tons, with ASW ability it would need to be about 13,000 tons.
Someone mentioned that if money was available they would like to see a T46 and a T83. This actually makes more sense, I think we can all agree that 6 T45s is not enough escorts for the two carriers and an Amphib group we could get away with 9 such ships. Depending on what the T83 is going to be can we afford 9 13,000 ton ships, I would love to say yes but the answer is no, So a combination of 6 T46s+3T83s would be a better fit. The T46s would also be attached to the carrier groups but would work as the AAW squadron flagship for the T26/31/32 whislt the T83 would be purly with the QEs and Amphibs, so a 6+3 would be a good number. A T46 could be based on the T26 but depending on what the MoD is thinking about the T83 a completly new design could or would be needed. The T46 idea would be about the same as the T45 is now on a slighly extended T26 hull, a 76 or 57mm main gun, 2x dragon fire, 2x 40mm, 32 A-50 VLS and 24 Mk41s or A-70s VLS with a three plane SAMPSON array, 2 x helicopters and no multi mission bay.
Again this is only thinking out loud, until the MoD put something on paper we have no idea what they are thinking. For all we know they might be thinking of the old command and control cruiser concept or a helicopter cruiser concept much like what the Italians had in the 1970s.
If they are then they will have given the Treasury a very large stick with which to go after the Carriers
Designing two types cost a lot. Detail design usually cost much more than a single unit cost. If 6 T45 are to be replace with 2 classes, I do not see the hull number is getting more than 4. So, 2 plus 2 at most. Very inefficient.
If two types are really needed, one of them must be of “non-UK” origin, exacly as what UK is now doing with T26 (UK origin) and T31 (Danish).
Why not just stretch the T45 and add a rear VLS for another 64 tubes. Then spend some cash on Son-of-Sampson. Maybe a bit of enhanced ASW capability. Up-rate the power generation for some lasers and stuff. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the T83. Could even order some in the next five years or so. Sorted.
I think the reality is that we don’t need more tubes (72 should be enough – although more would be great) its getting the right tubes (ones that can be quad packed)
I do believe we should probably go for an AB style do it all ship (which T26 can be) as one of the compromises needed to get scale and commonality.
If that means adding a middle section with more VLS fine, but I suspect we won’t be able to fill them or want them. making the 48 sea captor VLS ER and quad packable is a good first step.
i was thinking of cheap options, which HMG Mk1 tend to go for. See if RN could get more bang for its bucks. And sooner rather than later; as ambitiously stuff has a bad habit of getting cancelled by HMG Mk1a.
Hi Pacman27,
Quadpacked tubes. I have been saying that is the way to go for ages. CAMM, CAMM ER and possible SPEAR 3 can all be quadpacked. (MBDA have proposed quadpacking SPEAR 3 but it has not yet been done, I believe).
Having a suitable VLS would provide great flexibility. Even a 12 tube VLS based on ExLS could provide say 12x SPEAR 3 and 36x CAMM or CAMM ER. Got to be the way to go. (ExLS VLS has one control box per 3 tubes, so you have to load out with the same weapon is any given set of 3, I believe.)
Cheers CR
I don’t get the quad pack obsession. As T26 shows, its easier to have simple cold launch tubes near the bridge and with minimum deck penetration. The problem isnt space for tubes, its cost of tubes and missiles.
The problem for the RN is less tubes and more missiles. Having more tubes is pointless as it can’t fill the ones it has (ask anyone on Westminster what they thought about being off Libya with <10 Sea Wolf!)
AIUI the USN has a similar issue, far more tubes than weapons.
It would be interesting to know what, if anything, is in all these Chines ships…
“AIUI the USN has a similar issue, far more tubes than weapons.”
Do you have a link or a source for this? Never heard of this being an issue in the USN and I would bet this would be absolutely scandalous to the military and the public if it was.
AFAIK its common knowledge although hardly plastered across their website.
Doesn’t seem controversial, look at the cost of missiles and the procurement numbers and consider how many are in storage vs having life used up at sea.
Hardly scandal material tbh, it’s just the reality of actual military logistics.
Thank you for the response. I asked because I’ve never heard about such a situation. I agree its something that shouldn’t be controversial but I think many people would be surprised about how the general US populace views the military. The concept of ffbnw would likely get people dragged in front of congress. Not saying that all the those tubes are filled on all vls equipped surface combatants but I’m fairly certain that the majority of the tubes on forward deployed boats are armed and ready to go.
Just an illustration of the number of weapons we’re dealing with, 2020’s budget request called for the procurement of 850 lrasm, 775 sm-6 over a five year span. That’s in addition to hundreds of NSM and tlams. Again, like you said a number of these will be stored in reserve but a typical deployed ab or tico is armed to the teeth.
Would tend to agree with Rogbob over this….
We are in a peacetime situation, why would you be deploying ships fully armed with every tube filled and every inch of space filled with munitions?
I’d have always assumed that normally deployed warships would be risked assessed, and an appropriate number of munitions deployed…. Which too me means, enough to complete the mission, defend themselves if an anti ship missile ended up getting fired at them, but not enough to wage war against the Chinese/Russians and vaporise every inch of the country..
if we were moving into a period of increased tension, then, I again assume, the warships would call in at a friendly naval base and take on more weapons…
Hi Andrew,
I agree, but you do have to have the extra capacity to take on weapons when you need them. So even if the tubes are quad packed with air for most of the time, at least you have the option to pull in somewhere and swap out the air for something that goes wosh bang :).
Cheers CR
On that point I agree. I was responding to the suggestion that the usn didn’t have enough weapons to fill those tubes. perhaps I misunderstood the point that Rogbob was making.
Keep in mind that the forward deployed usn ships routinely patrol some of the most contested waters and have been attacked before. For any of these ships to be in that environment and not armed to adequately defend themselves or if called upon to go on the offensive and strike targets would be a major issue in the us militarily and politically.
Quad packed fresh air probably. 😄
Hi Rogbob,
I am aware of the shorage of missiles, which is clearly not good. I would hope that ships deploying into areas of tension are properly loaded out with SAM’s at least. Apparently, the CSG Wildcats have been equipped with pre-IOC Sea Venom and Martlet, so I take it from that significant effort has been made to equip the CSG effectively.
As for quad packing that is an added capability that can be made use of when needed. There are also other advantages of using standard VLS such as the ExLS. For me a standard VLS system comes with flexibility and reduced through life costs. For example, if the USN gets missile X cleared for operations then at least some of the costs are covered should the RN wish to use the same weapon. MBDA are already working to clear the CAMM ER on the Sylver VLS, so no need for the RN to cover those costs, if they want to replace Aster 15 with CAMM ER on the T45’s as the Italian Navy is apparently doing. However, the current GWS-35 VLS being fitted to the T26 / T31 will require physical modification to accept the bigger CAMM ER. Furthermore, MBDA have also proposed a SPEAR 3 / ExLS combination, so using a standard VLS also offers increased operational flexibility.
Another point I would make is that it is possible to achieve (theoretical) load outs with fewer VLS if you can quad pack, obviously. Whether the space saved could be put to an effective different use I am not sure, but I understand warships are pretty much always crammed with kit so the freed up space would likely be put to good use.
Finally, your point about empty silos is, I believe, something that should be put right and not accepted by reducing the number of silos. That risks giving the penny pinchers the opportunity to further reduce weapon stockpiles, which I would suggest that most of us on here would not be in favour of. Increasing the ship capacity puts pressure on the system to build up stockpiles, although no guarantee that would happen.
Cheers CR
Agree why reinvent the wheel, main issue with T45 is the gas turbine power issues not the hull which would still be more modern the the US boats
I had a similar thought too, Replace the helicopter deck and add a VLS farm in it’s place, T45 was designed to accompany the QEC so A) doesn’t need it’s own helicopter and B) In a shooting war 48 cells won’t last long if we’re sailing in the SCS and it gets hot.
So… Why did the Flight 1 AB’s that didn’t have a hanger but had Harpoon fitted aft instead, have the Harpoon removed and a Hangar fitted?
Because the most valuable asset you can have on a ship is the Helo.
Without a Helo you cannot do OTH targeting when acting as a singleton.
A Helo gives you additional situational awareness, ASuW, ASW, SAR, Transport all things that additional tubes don’t give you. Drones may take some of this load which will remove the need for a big Hangar and deck. However the move back to RM raiding means aviation capability is a requirement.
I understand those are needed capability’s as a singleton, But modifying two T45s as I suggest and have them follow the QECs about as a permanent escort, Almost like a Tico to a USCSG.
If you stretch a ship you do it Fwd of the machinery spaces not aft of them.
Stretching a ship aft would mean huge and complex changes to the biggest spaces containing gensets, engines, motors and most importantly the shafting.
Mk 41 VLS and Sylver takes up a huge amount of internal space on the center line.
A Mk 57 peripheral vls system would be a better choice
I’m wondering what, if any, significance there is to the choice of ‘Type 83’ (rather than 46/47).
83 implies a successor to Bristol’s “high end large escort destroyer” concept. Which may tie in to what some here have already said re. a need to upsize. Altho that’s negated by the suggestion of using the T26 as a starting point.
I thought it was a statement that it is not a destroyer and not a frigate. Others speculated that it might be more of a multi-role vessel.
If we could produce a ship the was a ‘jack of all trades’ it might well be a attractive proposition?
Or it implies a return to the T81 2nd rate all rounder that preceded T82…
Hang on, I just nipped down to the local bus stop and happened to find some secret documents with a concept drawing, think they are using a stretched T26:
😀
But where are the 200 VLS tubes and the double hanger for F35’s.
😀 You only get one VLS tube but you could fire 208 different weapons although you would only have storage for 3. The F35s would be replaced by the F35H variant which you can launch by hand and store under your bunk.
😀
You didn’t include the old Harrier Skyhook concept reworked for F35!
😍
It is good to see the Royal Navy going to receive the latest type 83 destroyers as the Russian Bear is flexing its claws under Commander Razputin who is out to show its dominence on the high seas.The neccessary need for modern technology is ever present and this new type wil required to guard and protect.
Would it not be worth considering the Arrowhead as a starting point for the design. It is a beamy hull which would be good for radar top weight and Its parent, the Iver Huitfeld class carries 32 Mk41 tubes and 24 Mk56 tubes. It’s affordable and could be produced in larger numbers rather than go for a smaller number of larger vessels. It has been said that quantity has a quality all of its own.
Afternoon all. Some very interesting comments above guys.
We must bear in mind what the role of this ship is supposed to be. To me the ’83’ screams, a successor to the ‘role’ of the 82, not the 45. So a dedicated multi-role carrier escort and nothing else. I wouldn’t expect it to act alone ever. Carrier Strike Group and Littoral Response Group are where the RN is heading. So I’d expect an 83 to be dedicated specifically to Carrier and Amphib escort operations. Which makes me think we’ll get no more than 6.
The ‘forward deployed’ and ‘policing’ vessels are going to be covered by the River class, T31 and ‘maybe’ the T32… this fulfills the ‘global presence’ role.
So back to the role of the carrier escort… You’ve got the T26 to combat subs, F35B for strike, astute for anti-ship/sub. That leaves the air defence domain, anti ballistic missile defence and maybe even cyber capabilities. This is where I see the 83 specialising and being a total badass.
Future… Again being a spiritual successor to the 82, I suspect it will be a larger platform to test future capabilities. Dragonfire as an example. I reckon it will have the power requirements built-in for future applications like that.
But hey who knows, the concept hasn’t even started yet. I for one am very excited to hear more about it in the coming years.
Cheers!
M@
There is a lot of talk about a modified version of the T26 for the T83 Destroyer project combines ASW and AAW into a single multirole platform. Whilst I believe that there is some merit in looking at such an option I am concerned that the experiences of the RAN and RCN suggest that the T26 hull’s size may be a significant constraint and risk.
Back in April the Navy Lookout did a piece on the T83 and suggested a different set of missions for the T83, Air Defence, ABM defence and Land (Surface) Attack which got me thinking.
I would suggest these missions are more compatible with each other when considering the demands they place on the platform design. To explain this I will highlight the differences in the ASW and AAW mission as I understand them, although I am quite willing to be shot down by those who know better.
The current ASW platform, the T23, has often been described on here by experienced and knowledgeable posters as a hole in the water, highlighting the excellent acoustic characterisitics of the T23, which the T26 is likely to improve upon even further. However, what is often not discussed is the limitations of sonar itself. Sonar effectiveness starts to degrade as the platform increases speed because of the wake turbulence around the hull. 12knots is, apparently, seen as a level above which sonar effectiveness and radiated noise levels are such that a platform is put at a significant disadvantage relative to a peer enemy. This is apparently true for submarines and surface units even if fitted with towed arrays. So if you are trying to conduct ASW as part of a fast moving Carrier Strike Group, you either break way from the group to prosecute a threat independently, at speeds below 12knots, or you rely on helicopter ASW assets. The one saving grace for the ASW force is that any threat submarine will have the same physical challenges and limitations imposed upon it. In short the ASW battle is still a game of stealth and patience that requires a very quiet platform. Achieving acoustic stealth is a complex task that looks to minimise radiated noise by a wide range of measures that include noise damping and isolation of machinary and clever hydrodynamic design and, of course, considerable tactical skill and experience.
The AAW battle, on the other hand, being fought on and above the surface is rather more up front and open, at least once contact is made and the shooting starts. The reason for this is that the AAW platforms will have their radars up and running for obvious reasons. Such large radiation sources are a clear ‘hello’ signal to any reasonably capable enemy. Specialist AAW platforms have as their primary role air defence of high value assets (HVA) such as aircraft carriers or conveys. Critically, for the combined ASW and AAW concept the AAW ships will need to be running at speed in order to maintain an effective defensive position on the HVA and these in turn will be running at speed either to launch aircraft or simply get out of trouble. Given the speed of modern merchant ships and carriers this will mean speeds well in excess of 12knots. Another, factor driving the platform requirements is the size of the AAW system itself. Specialist AAW radars such as those associated with the RN’s Sea Viper system are large and heavy requiring big hulls to carry them at sufficient height above the water to provide an effective radar horizon. The medium to long range SAM’s such as the Aster 30 missile are also big placing yet more upward pressure on hull size, especially if you want to carry lots of SAM’s to deal with saturation attacks. This increase in size will drive up propulsion system size, all of which drives up acoustic signature of the platform.
This difference in tactical requirements suggests that ASW and AAW roles lend themselves to seperate platforms, with very different characteristics, something that is borne out by the RN’s practice of seperating the two roles.
The roles suggested by the Navy Lookout article for the T83 would fit well together for the simple reason that they could be accommodated into a large hull without placing incompatible tactical requirements on the design. So a large hull of perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 tons may be the order of the day. Such a hull would be expensive, but weight alone is not a major driver of cost, it is the systems that drive the cost particularly the radars and weapons which you are already committed to procuring if you intend to maintain a position as a tier one capable navy. Building big has proved in recent programmes to reduce cost of ownership by making maintenance and modification easier and hence cheaper so building big is not necessarily a one way cost driver.
So build it big and place compatible roles into the design requirements and you have a potentially cost effective solution. Do not try to shoe horn incompatible roles into a single hull or you risk too many compromises. A well balanced fleet is likely to contain specialist and general purpose units, something the RN is apparently trying to achieve by adopting tough cost control (e.g. T31) and innovation (e.g. autonoous vehicles). Hopefully they will succeed.
Cheers CR
I think you’ve summed it up CR, great post. ‘Proper’ ASW escorts are a different beast to the rest of the assorted escorts, whether AAW or ‘general’, the UK used to concentrate quite heavily on ASW frigates and even then it was hard work to find the submarines when they’re trying to hide. Having been on the other end of it, we’ve had to put a ‘stick’ or two up to let either MPA’s or skimmers know where we are so they could get training in. I know (from surface dwellers) that the kit has got better but submarines generally have an advantage.
I can see the attraction of a ‘tits, bums, fannies, the lot’ escort (maybe thinking of the wrong Escort there 😂 ) but its a lot of stuff crammed in that’s not going to be used a lot of the time and in the days of reduced manning, that’s a lot of matelots who will be redundant, great for DC and making up boarding parties and whatnot but having specialist vessels that can do a bit of the other stuff is probably where we’re at. Helos are a great asset for ships in an ASW role, yes, of course, if you’ve got a towed array and a hoofing big sonar hanging out the bottom of the boat is a big advantage but if you don’t and you have helos with dipping sonar and torpedoes then its a cheap alternative if you know there’s a boat in the area, submarines will go out of their way to avoid getting ‘pinged’.
Thanks Andy,
I think “specialist vessels that can do a bit of the other stuff”, is the right way to go. The crewing issues that you highlight had not occured to me, but is obvious now that you mention it. I would also assume that if you have a fully multi functional platform you will need an equally fully functional CIC with sufficient workstations to enable the ship to be fought on all fronts simultaneously, so more expense that would likely rarely be used to its fullest extent.
Also, the RN has a reputation for having some of the best crews in the world and I wonder how much of that is down to effective specialisation built into the fleet structure. For example, an ASW platform will obviously focus on its ASW capabilities, but also undertake plenty of AAW training with regards to point and medium ranged area defence (given the CAMM effective range), leaving the big picture long range area defence and (hopefully one day) ABM defence to the air defender specialists. This I would assume allows each platform the opportunity to do its main task very well and still be able to ‘contribute’ to the other bits effectively. So a RN ASW platform can slot into a NATO task group bringing top quality ASW capability with it and still be able to contribute to the air picture / battle when required. Also, if it has to detach to prosecute a contact it can look after itself without the need for an air defender to tag along. In effective, there is already a degree of multi functional capability built into existing platforms and hence the capabilities of the crews.
Cheers CR
I’m sorry but to me this is a terrible article, akin to a Friday car at Longbrige or Cowley in years past.
There is no new News here. Sweeny is a SNP politician who peddles the shipyards as his political pawns. Where does any official
suggestion come from for the idea that the T83 can be built on the T26?
The parliamentary answer says that the concept/ development of T83 will start in a few years. Despite this the headline blatantly jumps the gun.
I doubt anybody has any idea what the T83 shape will look like, what it’s weapons will be, or it’s radar or it’s wider role. And what it’s enemies are. Will it’s conventional ‘destroyer’ shape be a given?
My take on this, while I absolutely agree that an ideal Air warfare Destroyer would have extensive land attack and a minimum of 90 plus SAM’s, such a beast would be 10,000 tons plus and simply be too expensive….
The number required is clearly more than 6.
6 ships were decided upon during the height of the war on terror, as cost cutting option from 12 to 8 to 6, mostly because governments of the day had forgot about peer warfare and concentration was on angry bearded young men in the desert….
Well the war on terror has been brushed under the carpet, ‘nothing to see here, move along please’ and we are back to peer warfare, with the RN rightly back at the top of the priority list….
So, with numbers and affordability in mind, I think we need 9 ships, I would base the design on a stretched T26 Hull, using as many of the T26 (unmodified) blocks as possible, radar systems and missiles will evolve over the next decade….
I would be looking at a gun system similar to T31, laser point defence and a 90 (plus) missiles load out.
Whatever radar and missile system is employed,the missile needs to have at least a 60 mile range, preferably 100 + miles, with a robust anti ballistic missile capability.
Forget land attack and anti submarine capability, such additions will raise the displacement/complexity of the ship and the unit cost will go through the roof….
I think you’re right about land attack. Given the range and guidance systems of Tomahawk, missiles could easily be launched from a fairly low cost arsenal ship well out of harm’s way.
I am concerned about how few ASW frigates we have. Type31 will have little or no capability,T32 is unknown. But I agree that trying to conduct effective ASW with anything other than a bespoke platform is probably pointless.
Paul Sweeney is aLabour MSP( former MP)and a vocal opponent of the SNP and Scottish independence.
I stand corrected, thank you, although the principle of defending work on the Clyde as opposed to say the Mersey or Humber still stands.
Agreed but it means he comes with a lot less political baggage. Aka see how the english … are ripping scotland off whenever there’s a journo around. Speaking for myself it means I’d listen to what he has to say rather than muttering a few expletives and moving on.
Listen to what he says then remind yourself he is a politician who lost an election and get out the salt. Pinches of it.
@Trevor Agree 100%
I assume Sweeney is soft of voice and high in charisma for this site to be hanging on his every word to the determent of factual reporting.
Great article. Would like the to see the UK e pand it’s naval Fleet
The RN has no platform to launch hypersonic strike from. Idon’t think we have hull capable of housing the hypersonic launch tubs as they’re larger than Mk41 VLS. So the next hulls to be designed, either the T31 or T83 will need to be of the appropriate size to house something like the MAC tubes the US has. Unless RN has no intention of having the capability but will leave us some way behind China and Russia.
Hi Expat,
As I understand it the UK and French are still trying to agree what type of missile the next generation strike missile will be. The UK favouring supersonic longer range, the French wanting hypersonic and accepting the shorter range (with in the size limitations). I believe there is the possibility that the missile might have a selectable flight profile to meet both requirements, but I am not sure how expensive that would and traditionally going from supersonic to hypersonic involves very different propulsion technology.
Cheers CR
Little concerned that article like the above are mostly rehash of earlier articles…
I do not think there is anything new in this one….
You’re concerned, why? Are you paying for this content?
I would. Despite my occasional criticism, this has developed into a “must read” site.
No I just feel that a new article should have mostly new content. Otherwise it is just padding the output with old stuff…
Well it may not be shiny and new but it’s definitely got a conversation going.
We’ve no reason to “pad” anything, this isn’t a business and we don’t make any sort of profit from this, we could publish articles that are a couple of sentences with no impact to anything. Older info is there to provide a background to people who haven’t read other articles.
I doubt the T26 hull form could support a enlarged VLS farm. I have also seen suggestions the hull cannot easily be lengthened.
So T83 may be a new ship. Not like the art above. I think a new hull would be a better choice as it could be more easily future proofed and tailored to a more capable destroyer role.
I understand that BAE indicated to Australia that T26 can go to 64 cells. Not sure where or what you may loose if you do. Both Australia & Canada are fitting 32 strike length mk41 upfront.
I have to ask how would modern anti ship missiles have fared against WW2 era armoured ships For example the cruiser HMS Sussex had an extra layer of armour fitted along her side which proved invaluable in 1945 when a kamikaze aircraft crashed into its side and just left an imprint:
Damn pressed the wrong button
Remarkable. it reminds me of that anonymous artist guy who paints stuff in unlikely places.
Banksy
To use a boxing metaphor they’d have an iron jaw. But they wouldn’t stand a chance of destroying or jamming anything that came their way. They’d take a bit longer to sink
I would assume the last thing that went through that Kamikaze pilots mind was the prop as it slammed into the side and peeled off into the sea like an old roadrunner cartoon….
Not very well, in fact missiles, more than aircraft, where the real deathknell of the Battleship.
Images like the one you’ve posted are of the ships armoured belt (not an extra layer of armour but integral to the design), which sat over the vital areas of the ship on the side of the hull (usually protecting a citadel and magazines, but not the rest of the ship) and then a thinner layer of armour on top to protect from long range shells coming down, and some torpedo defence below the water line.
Missiles don’t necessarily follow a ballistic arc, so, as I understand it, to armour a modern warship against missiles like they where against shells would require armour the thickness of the belt (sometimes on Battleships that was over a foot), to be all over the ships citadel; something that would have a massive impact on displacement and balance.
Add in that, since we don’t make armour plate anymore, anything we produce now won’t be of the same quality as that during the war… and… yeah….
Here for example is the armour scheme of the King George V Battleships, you can see the actual belt is about 15inches thick (closer to 17 inches if you include internal armour), but the top protection is only about 6-7inches of armour.
What it looks like from the outside.
If you were after WW2 era ships today you would probably use LGB 20000 pounders. After all that is what killed the battleship. Also modern cruise missiles have bunker busting warheads that might defeat such armour (e.g. Storm shadow).
Take the Type 26 Bow and stern and Engine Sections and add an Extension, money saved on only changing center sections of a hull, and then design super structures to complete tasks.
They’d have to be careful with stability ranges. It could be done but if problems arose they’d probably be very big ones.
Not stability. Hull strength is the issue.
So… What about the shaft line?
You have just added say a 25m insert aft which means a 25m longer shaft. Is the extra shaft kength internal? External? Where will the shaft bearings go? additional A frames?
What about the flexing of the extra Hull length affecting the shaft line alignment?
Don’t add length aft add it midships to fwd as was done on T42 and T22 it’s far easier.
@Johan
Can’t be done. The t26 is at its length to depth limit. Lengthening as described would leave the ship too weak because of the over extension of the hull girder. The ship would not then be able to handle longitudinal stresses imposed by the sea and enemy action.
Think of a roof beam in a house. If the builder has to make it longer, he uses thicker material. A 2 by 4 grows to a 2 by 8, to a 2 by 12 etc. as the width it has to span increases.
Or a bookcase, the longer the shelf, the thicker the material has to be. Otherwise adding books would cause the shelf to bow downwards.
Same in ships, if they’re at the limit of depth of hull to support the length, as the length is increased so must the depth.
And before you ask, extending depth as you extend length is not something you can simply do with an existing ship or ship design.
Fantasy Type-83 look from a Twitter account called @hmslion2
Length: 216m
Width: 24m
Draft: 6m under keel/8m under sonar bulge
Speed: 30+ Knots
Range: 10000 Nautical Miles
Armament: 2x Strike Length Mk 41 64-cell VLS blocks forward (for land attack/anti-surface/anti-ballistic/long range anti-air missiles), 1x Tactical Length Mk 41 64-cell VLS block aft (for short range anti-air missiles), 16x vls tubes for long range Hyper-sonic Missiles, 1x Mark 45 62-calibre 5 inch mount, 2x Bofors 57 mm L, 4x Phalanx CWIS, 2x 30mm DS30M Mark 2
We need a beast to escort the carriers and this or something similar would fit the bill!
Displacement Jamie?
You would struggle to keep her below 10,000 tons…..
That’s an impressive illustration, the scale of the 5″ mount, shows just how big it is.
Never mind displacement, what about cost? I think we could afford one to replace six type 45’s!
That doesn’t look too different to the Italian DDX Design – possible opportunity for collaboration perhaps ?.
I see considerations for the T83 as including anti drone swarm weaponry, do we include land attack or add that elsewhere in the fleet and hypersonic attack and defence weaponry. The size of these missiles is much larger than current types and will require a much larger hull and cells.
Is see the critical point as being whether the T83 will be purely carrier protection or more of a lonr wolf type ship in deciding its form and load out. Maybe we need to think more outside the box for a ship due in 20 years time?
For a pure carrier role, why not go multpile automated smaller platforms which spread out radars, asw, defence and attack on different hulls. A carrier strike group will likely face swarms of missiles in conflict so spreading out your capabilities will allow you to survive attacks for longer if a couple are sunk. The tech for these should be matured in the time frame we are looking at.
If we want a lone wolf type cruiser, then a larger hull proficient in AAW, ASW, BMD and land attack is needed. Why not have a large hanger than can accept both helicopters and an F35b? The F35 would extend the radar range and take out threats well away from the ship. The ship would also need to have a range of offboard systems. The hull is now getting so large as to be stupid.
Therefore my way of thinking seems to always come back to the need to love away from the idea of singular ships and to some form of networked mini Fleet that sail together each with different roles to play. I imagine a central larger manned hull to carry the radar primarily and handle offload systems but with smaller patrol sized ships alongside. Some with towed arrays, others with cells etc. There would be some duplication of roles so if one is taken out we have a secondary capability to takes its place. Maybe the potential T32 mothership idea being developed may be a better base for this but augmented with other vessels around it and higher end radar etc?
Interesting ideas.
It would be a mistake to base an AAW warship on an ASW hull. AAW doesn’t require a ship to be super quiet it instead requires that they have to be large. This is because:
1.It will need to accommodate a large number of missile silos. These are needed because the likelihood of swarm missile attacks have increased and our ability to replenish missile silos at sea is non-existent. 48 silos isn’t going to cut it anymore if it ever did.
2.Ship needs to be able to detect an incoming hypersonic attack early. Consequently ship will needs to have a large high mounted radar and the powerplant to support it.
3.Future weapons such as direct energy or rail guns will have higher power requirements. Ship will need to have the girth to produce the power and house the capacitors and batteries necessary to host these weapons.
I guess MOD already realise this and the move away from the T4x designation to the T8x. These ships will be larger than Type 26.
I think I would be more confortable if we concentrated most of our resourses on arming the ships we will/do have. I know the numbers of ships is important but at the moment we are heading for a fleet with plenty of excellent senors and defensive aids but lacking in offensive capability.
Aren’t you forgetting the F-35’s on the carriers?
The best AAW and land attack weapon in the world.
What happens when a ship is not in the company of a carrier?
Don’t think we’d ever send a single ship into a serious threat situation. So it would always have back up RN or friendly.
The strategy of the RN is focused on carrier groups. That’s a change from the recent past.
Would you not say the jury’s still out on that capability? Currently only 2x AAM and PWMk4, at BLK 4 we get Meteor and Spear 3 integrated, still a little light for long range strike! Perhaps we will purchase a Heavy strike missile, or, it might just get left to TLAM units for that capability (SSN and poss T26), until FC/ASM comes along, who knows!
Not at all. A couple of PW IV’s will take care of pretty much any target.
Might well be true if your target set plays in the sand or in caves, in which case a F35 or even a Typhoon is overkill, but against a more sophisticated opponent, having to get to the tgt area to release them might not be so simple. A few options on that front would prove useful I would imagine.
Agreed. While a single ship that could do both jobs would be considerably more expensive, It would be much cheaper than two ships, two crews, etc.
Make sure there’s plenty of empty space for everything it will be ffbnw….
As a non-military person,(although a taxpayer, which gives me skin in this game) I am puzzled by the ideas which seem to want rehashed versions of the RN’s present designs. It is well publicised that the future lies in UAVs for such as: AEW, sonar buoy distribution, surveillance, launch of anti submarine weapons including torpedoes, logistics delivery etc. Furthermore, the RN has already indicated that at least some element of catapult launch and arrested recovery is likely to be required, even if this is designed for relatively light aircraft. Rather than looking at rehashing T26 would it not be more logical to look at say Hyuga type larger destroyer/ light cruiser designs?
I HOPE they will be fitted with and not fitted for
My assumption is the RN has realised at last that each generation they get a cut, and so the best option is to go for more flexible platforms, rather than role specific ones. It seems a highly sensible approach to me.
That has been true since the Falklands war.
Meaning that the RN has acquired multi-purpose ships since the Falklands showed the wisdom of so doing.
Would think there is still a place for different classes of ships to excel in different area while maintaining a reasonable capability / flexibility in other areas.
The idea of a Type 26 sub hunter with robust anti ship and Local Area air defence capability either working alone or alongside a AAW optimised vessel that has a robust anti ship capability and some anti sub capability (decent bow sonar and a helo with dipping sonar) makes sense to me.
Both have a job to do as part of a csg but each can contribute to dealing with the broad spectrum of threats facing the csg or can operate remotely alone.
P
The future destroyer trend seems to be producing larger ships than the previous generation. A ship with a larger volume means you have more space to pack stuff in, but also means that future growth is no longer hampered by size restrictions. It also means that the ship can hold a larger magazine and thereby cope with a greater number of attacks.
The South Korean KDX is a good example of this trend, with the first batch based on the multi-role Arleigh Burkes Flight 2s, including their Aegis and SPY-1 radar. The second batch are now going to be stretched to 176m long, keeping the same beam of 21.4m, using the latest Aegis and the improved SPY-1D(v) PESA radar (Not AESA for some reason, not sure if SPY-6 is allowed to be exported yet?). The Batch 2s are specifically built with SM3 in mind, as an ABM counter to North Korea and perhaps their Chinese allies. As such, their VLS count is either 88 or 128 depending on the publisher. They will be equipped with SM3, possibly SM6 and their L-SAM which will replace the SM2s, along with RIM-116 RAM and a 30mm CIWS.
The US Navy have announced that the likely replacement for the Arleigh Burke will be nearer to the Ticonderoga cruiser in size, so again around 170m. However, it will not be armed with a rail gun, as the Navy have shelved any further research. Instead, the budget is being focused on hypersonic missiles. Why they shelved the rail-gun project has not been officially announced. But it may be down to the armature erosion problem and the low rate of fire. It seems for the moment they will be sticking with the 5″ gun, but possibly including the hyper-velocity projectile (HVP) depending on its further development.
A 155mm L52 gun will lob an unassisted shell about 40ish km, with rocket assistance this can be about 80km. However, with ramjet assistance it can hit nearly 150km. The HVP round when fired from the 155 L39 Paladin reached 120km. This is better than the 5″, but still no way near as effective in range as a missile. However, the rounds are considerably cheaper and would be more plentiful. The HVP was quoted at a unit price of $85,000. Originally designed for the rail gun project by BAe, the sabot can be adjusted to fit gun sizes ranging from 5″, 155mm and 8″. The combined tests that the US Army and Airforce did Aug/Sep 2020 showed that the HVP may be used in the air defence role. Both the HVP fired from the Paladin and the 8″ howitzer each shot down a BQM-167 target drone that was mimicking the flight profile of a cruise missile at a distance over 50km away. It managed to do this because the HVP is a guided round much like Leonardo’s Dart round. The US Navy are looking at further trials to develop the round with the hope it can engage more manoeuvrable and faster targets, but for the moment they are sticking with the 5” gun.
The US Navy are hedging their bets and putting their money into developing hypersonic missiles/glide vehicles. Some of the reasoning is built around the capabilities of the latest SM6 Dual I which can do terminal ABM, air defence, land attack and anti-ship. However, the missile they will be looking at will be possible based around the larger and faster SM3 Block 2B missile. These missiles will be used primarily for land attack, but you can bet they will also be looking at a secondary anti-ship role. The SM6’s has a relatively light warhead, but the additional kinetic energy pack a punch. In trials the SM6 help sink the USS Reuben James frigate in a sinkex. By comparison the SM3 is purely a kinetic kill vehicle, but it will be travelling at hypersonic speeds if it hits a ship. The Zumwalt’s are supposed to be the first ships to be armed with the new hypersonic missiles, followed by the subs and then the Arleigh Burke replacement.
So, what’s in a name? The T83 would suggest a more multi-role ship perhaps like the T82, HMS Bristol. The Bristol’s primary task was to protect the planned CVA-01 carrier and was capable of both anti-air and anti-sub. Does that mean the T83 will be earmarked to do the same? Due to the size of the Royal Navy, the ship will be expected to do more than be a carrier escort, much like an Arleigh Burke. Unlike the T45s, it should be a more rounded and capable ship, which I believe is a good idea. But let’s not kid ourselves, they won’t be cheap. The 6 T45s have not only proved their worth, but also shown that 6 is not enough for all the tasks given to the Navy, especially when they need scheduled or arising maintenance. 9 would be preferable, but if they could purchase 8, it would still be better than the current 6.
Will it need an ultra-quiet hull like a T26, no. But some acoustic dampening will be required perhaps in line with the NATO standard as per the Ivar Huidfeldt design. It will require a similar mission bay arrangement to the T26. Where it can launch unmanned vehicles to do the submarine detection role. Perhaps these underwater unmanned vehicles (UUVs) can at some point be armed with torpedoes, rather than overly relying on the helicopter. Therefore, it won’t need the T26’s tail for reeling out a towed array. It will need a large landing deck and hangar though. As well as a general-purpose manned helicopter and VTOL unmanned air systems (UAS). The UASs need to be large enough to carry a decent medium ranged (200nm) radar plus an electro-optical turret. This is so the ship can independently do beyond the horizon targeting for both surface and airborne threats. The UAS will need to have an endurance of at least 8 to 12 hours. Therefore, the hangar will need to be large enough to house at least three of these UASs plus the helicopter.
For the primary radar fit, I would still go for 2 separate types of radar. A low frequency radar for volume searching and a higher frequency radar for tracking. This allows redundancy in case one is damaged. However, both radars will be capable of providing missile solutions. But it also means that when operating over 2 separate bands, it makes life a lot harder for the opposition to jam. Thales have shown a ground-based version of their SMART-L MM (AESA) radar. This is where the radar is used as a static panel. However, on board ship I would use four of these panels arranged to give a 360-degree view. The SMART-L MM radar will give the long-range volume search, plus exoatmospheric search. The front end of Sampson hasn’t been upgraded since it was fitted. It is still a World class radar, but it can be significantly improved, by replacing its Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) components with Gallium Nitride (GaN). The GaN components can handle a lot more power, but also generate significantly less internal noise when doing so. This means each array’s power output can be increased, but also the receiver sensitivity, i.e. the detection range is increased. The height above sea level is still key to early detection irrespective of any radar equipped UAS. Therefore, I would look at fitting 3 arrays on a rotating mount. By rotating them you can mitigate the lateral detection range drop off past 90 degrees. But it will also crucially remove the 2 rotating dead zones the current Sampson has. So that the radar has a better top (above) view. I would have each panel mounted on a tilting mechanism, like that used on the Captor-E. As the panel is an AESA the very fast scan rate will compensate for the panels movement. But by tilting the panel backwards and forwards, allows the radar to look directly up.
The extra third array and the tilting mechanism will add quite a bit of top weight. However, if the ship keeps a similar L/B ratio as the T45 at 7.2. Then surely, we can get a monohull to keep the radar high on the topmast. If not, then perhaps a pair of outriggers (pseudo trimaran) to help balance the top weight.
For offensive and defensive weapons, the ship will clearly have a wide area air defence role, but hopefully also ballistic missile defence (BMD). At present the US SM3 and SM6 are the go-to missiles for BMD. However, MBDA have proven that the Aster 30 Block 1NT has successfully intercepted ballistic missile targets and there’s hope that the Block 2 BMD is going ahead for exoatmospheric targets. In some respects, the Aster is better than the SM6 for hypersonic interception, due to its mid-body “pif-paf” reaction jets. These will throw the missile to within 2m of the target before activating its proximity fuse. So, in theory it should be a better counter to maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicles.
If the US Navy are going to use SM3/6 as a multi-role missile, then the Aster should also be considered. Both the Aster 30 Block 1NT and Block 2 BMD go considerably faster than Mach 4.5, probably hypersonic to allow it to reach the altitudes for ballistic missile interception and exoatmospheric interceptions, though MBDA haven’t stated so. Either of these missiles will carry significant kinetic energy when striking a ship or land target. If these missiles are also married up with the upgraded Meteor AESA radar, they will be able to pick out areas on a target to strike.
The US Navy use a layered approach to air defence. So ultra-long range is SM3, followed by SM6, medium range is SM2, short range is ESSM and lastly close range is the RIM-116 RAM. An Arleigh Burke Flight 3 may be carrying 5 different types of air defence missile. At present the T45 only carries 2 for medium range and short range (Aster 30 and 15). They are supposed to be getting the long-range Aster 30 Block 1NT. Yet rely on a pair of Phalanx for close in defence. For the T83 this should include a BMD missile either SM3 or Aster 30 Block 2 BMD, followed by the 1NT version, then the standard Aster 30. For short range and close in defence SeaCeptor is both cheaper and can be quad packed in either a Mk41/56 or Sylver VLS cell than a single Aster 15. If the T83 follows a similar VLC cell count to the KDX 3 of 88 or the Arleigh Burke’s 96. By spreading the type of missiles used will spread the cost, without reducing the capability. There is some speculation that the Flight 3 Aleigh Burkes use up to 60 to 70 of the VLS cells for air defence missiles. If we copied this by using a spread of missiles and quad packing the SeaCeptors would give a very deep response to multiple potential attacks.
A recent US Admiral made a comment about using SM6 is conjunction with a sea skimming anti-ship missile. Therefore, the ship would be attacked from two very different angles. Where the SM6 would be used to target the ship’s radar, allowing the sea skimmer an easier path to the ship. He made the supposition that the sea skimmer would be a stealthier replacement for Harpoon but didn’t allude to that being LRASM or the NSM/JSM. Again, this something that the T83 should be looking at, using an Aster 30 in conjunction with a dedicated anti-ship missile to attack a ship. If the joint UK/France anti-ship missile does go ahead, this would be an obvious candidate. But we need a backup in case things don’t work out.
This is where I would suggest that BAe dust off their plans to marinize their 155mm gun system. By using guided shells that are rocket assisted or the NAMMO ramjet shell. Firing between 6 and 10 rounds per minute at distances between 70 and 150km is a cheaper way of hitting a ship with 3rd party designation. The 155mm is a far more useful weapon than the 5” gun. It has a much further effective range, and the shells contain a greater explosive content. With the guided rounds, precision strikes can be made in support of local forces on land, plus the ship can remain hidden behind the horizon. Secondly the 155mm has shown what it may be capable of with the HVP. The HVP gives another (cheaper) option of engaging air threats instead of using a finite supply of missiles. If money was available, I would prefer having two single guns fitted. It would be preferable to have the 2 guns fitted in the traditional A and Y positions, thereby giving an all-round view. If this wasn’t doable due to machinery constraints behind the landing deck, then a single twin mount in the A position.
To back these guns up, I would add 2 BAe/Bofors 57mm Mk3s. These would be used as general-purpose and close in weapon system (CIWS) guns for engaging both surface and airborne threats, using the 3P and ORKA shells. The first gun would be in the traditional B position super-firing over the A gun. Whilst the second gun would be mounted on top of the hangar.
The Falklands proved that a ship without power was defenseless. Therefore, the ship will still need guns that can be manually operated, just in case. The DS30M would still prove useful in this regard.
For future proofing, the ship will need a surplus of power. Although the US Navy has shelved the rail gun. There will still be a need for excess power for lasers used as CIWS. Lasers used for long range engagements in a maritime environment is still a very long way off. This is due to problems of solving beam dispersion caused by water droplets. However, for closer within visual range engagements they will be usable. Dragonfire which is a scalable fiber laser shows what we may see in the near future. But there is still the worry of how effective it will be when weather’s raining cats and dogs in monsoon season. So, the two 57s are there as surety. The other consideration that high powered lasers would prove, is combating satellite surveillance. Satellites can be found by the NASA almanac, that keeps track of all the satellites plus other man-made objects. This will allow a ship to predict and locate a satellite of interest. The laser could be used to either blind cameras, or punch holes in the solar array, thus killing the power supply. It will also mean that the satellite is still in one piece, so no debris cloud is produced and thereby endangering other satellites. The laser would also prove useful in blinding the cameras on a UAV that could be tracking the ship.
Looking at some of the areas I’ve highlighted, the design is looking more like a converted Tiger class cruiser rather than a Bristol replacement. But, the Navy has pretty much everything in place to design and build a superlative ship to replace/supplement the T45. We need a 1SL who can badger the Government and Treasury to accept that we need at least 8 of these ships and that they should be sufficiently armed, so that on day 1 of a conflict they have everything they need to either defend themselves from repeated attacks; or have the immediate means to inflict significant damage and can overmatch any opponent they come up against.
Interesting post mate, lots of ideas to think about. A couple of points that struck me not only with your post, but others too, and that’s the size of the thing – specifically the displacement. There are not that many docks in Devon port/Portsmouth that can comfortably accommodate a T26, never mind something bigger!! I suspect we will need some form of infrastructure build to sort that out-all adds to costs.
You mentioned lasers etc, so , additional power requirements will be a big driver when it comes to propulsion/power selection for the ships. The really obvious candidate in this area is Nuclear power – bags of surplus power capacity, but not I think a likely choice at the moment. Still, 10 years from now, you never know! Will be interesting to see how this one develops.
Providing electrical power to supply 4 SMART-L MM panels and 3 Sampson 2 arrays, then a pair of 100kW+ lasers plus everything else, is going to place a huge demand on the generators. Will the T26’s MT30 plus the 4 MTU Type 20Vs provide enough power or the T45’s WR21 plus the 3 MTU series 4000 gensets? I would suggest that running the proposed systems would be very close to the max power supply limit. So would a pair of MT30s be the answer, or 4 gensets? Possibly, but as you suggested nuclear could be an option using a RR PWR3 or their proposed small modular reactor.
At some point in the near future, we are going to have a long hard look at what alternatives to fossil fuels can used in large power hungry ships. I don’t believe a hydrogen fuel cell can be made efficient enough for a large ship. For starters you would need to find a way of safely storing huge amounts of the pressurized liquid hydrogen without compromising the ships ability to fight. Consider the amount of armour required to prevent it from being penetrated by a missile using a HEAT warhead etc? Do we have the capability to mass produce a viable bio-fuel that can be used in ships? Will mass producing a bio-fuel compromise the need to produce food crops? Batteries would be a non-starter, as these would need to be charged somewhere, imagine how long it would take to recharge. The Japanese SSKs use a fossil fuelled Stirling engine to recharge the lithium batteries. But compared to a destroyer, its electrical demand is pitiful, so can get away with a small engine generator. The only realistic and immediately applicable off the shelf option would be nuclear. But then we get into the problem of some countries banning nuclear powered ships from entering their waters, let alone a harbour.
It’s all swings and roundabouts particularly with Nuc power, but once it’s in it gives you what you need! Nothing else seems to fit the bill currently, not sure if it ever will either! Bigger engine and more gensets obviously also work, but as you say fuel…….
Things will be interesting before this comes to fruition.
It does make sense when you take cost into account. Better to have 12 specialised ships that can work together if needs be or be in 12 locations at once rather than 3 ships that can do everything but can only be in 3 places at once.
No point having 1 Arleigh Burke chasing pirates In the gulf and no ships elsewhere, better to have a type 31 for this, a type 26 providing ASW to the north of the UK and a type 45 providing air cover for our csg. Yes in an ideal world even better to have 3 ABs, one for each role, just in case something else crops up, but the funding isn’t there for that.
I can’t help bit feel if we had known T83 was to be a large hulled all-rounder multi purpose ship then we may have made different choices with the t31/T26.
If we are to build T83 at say 12000 tonnes all singing and dancing and in reasonable numbers, T26 could have and maybe should have been a smaller cheaper ASW specialist? Force structure could have been:
T83 x10-12 – AAW, land attack, anti ship, BMD, off board systems and reasonable asw. Protect carrier and used to go to very high risk areas.
T31 x 8 – 5-6000 tonne decent mid range radar with a fully modular weapons system. Base ship can be sent out in patrol, or in moderate asw, aaw or land attack modes dependant on the mission. Used to support amphibious fleets and landings, protecting shipping or augment carrier strike as well as flag waving etc. 12 quad packed cells as standard for seaceptor, but with sections designed to take modules to take either additional Aster cells, spear, heavy asms or tomahawk, towed array etc. The work horse of the fleet.
T26 X 8-10. 3500 Tonne ASW specialist. Towed array, off board UUv and helo with dipping, bow sonar, basic radar, torpedo armed and 24 seaceptor only.
T32 – drone mothership x 3. 15000 tonne through deck. Uuvs and well deck, vixen drones of various types, autonomous helos with various specialisations, decent self defence and some attack capabilities.
River B2s x 5 as is but maybe another batch of 3.
Remember, the former Type 22 frigate was simler to size(148m) as the new Type 26 platform. It was used as an ASW platform, the size made for better sea keeping in rough waters. The Type 23 has been a good ASW frigate over the past 30 years, but it’s size has limited it’s potential. A T26 of only 3500T will be even more limited then T23, with less sea keeping qualities.
Forget about Mk 41 VLS!
In order to use the T26 hull for AAW, and free up space for more missiles, might the helicopter go, to be replaced by autonomous drones which might take far less space? As long as “something” in the area has a helicopter, does “every” ship need one? A type 83 with lots of AAW missiles, a clutch of long range surveillance and attack drones, and long range sea/land attack missiles would be a powerful force multiplier in a Carrier Group?
It does seem as though the RN have truly realised that to cut waste and ensure timely delivery the experience and systems needed to deliver a project have to be in place and well oiled. You can’t allow an industrial base to atrophy as that will bake-in costs and delays from re-learning skills into every project and undermine our ability to deliver project requirements on cost and to programme.
Good job RN.
The Type 26 hull is not best suited to be an AAW destroyer and long term replacement for T45. But it does have Mk41 VLS. If you fitted a suitable radar to augment Artisan and systems could you fill our ABM capability gap with SM3s? ABM and hypersonics are the near term threat to CSG that we don’t have an answer to at the moment. SM3 is the the best there is. If its possible systems and radarwise putting SM3 in the T26 VLS makes sense. Additional small build of T26 ABM sub class?
“Additional small build of T26 ABM sub class?”
You end up with ‘fleets within fleets.’ And they can’t be everywhere.
Quite. But if they don’t need to be everywhere …and IIRC there are a couple of Sampson radars going spare after T45 numbers were cut. The vanilla T26 has 24 Mk41 tubes. The Hunter variant will have 32. It’s an optional insurance maybe to get you through to T83 ISD if you feel doubtful about the Aster Block 2 development.
There are no spare Sampson radars!
Ah, ok. Thx for that. False memory syndrome 😂
You would start by removing Artisan & fit a better main radar as per Australia & Canada. On a T23, Artisan is reasonable. It should not have been on the T26.
Yeah, I did think there were in existence two spare Sampson sets but AR corrected me on that. I was trying to think out of the box of a quick way to increase the AAW destroyer fleet from 6 to 8. Both Australia and Canada are going for flat face AESA radars which require significantly more cooling than Artisan ( or Sampson) and result in more top weight. I think the Canadian design is already running into trouble on that score. If my idea is not feasible then so be it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
As I understand it T26 role is ASW and local area defence for which it has 48 Sea Ceptors. So I think Artisan is adequate. There will be time enough to change it when we figure out what we intend to put in the Mk41 tubes!
The Australian Hunter’s with their CEAFAR may have an issue with ABM. In the vertical plane an AESA panel has a field of regard +/-45 degrees perpendicular to the array, i.e. a field of view of 90 degrees. Now to see straight above the array will need to be angled leaning back 45 degrees. But then it would be able to look down at sea level. Of all the imagery produced so far the main mast does not a show the panels angled back at 45 degrees. The Hunters look like the have a relatively shallow angle so that the radar can look at the sea. This means there will be a large dead zone directly above the ship. Not great for ABM.
Interesting. Can you tell me why everyone is not using the latest AESA incarnation of the Smart 1850 rotating radar? It looks like its angled at 45 degrees so should be able to scan sea to sky with multiple frequencies and transmit target info to a missile. In what respects is it deficient as the radar for a AAW ship?
Probably cost.
At the moment only the Dutch LCF frigates have been fitted with the SMART-L MM AESA radar. The radar is significantly more powerful than the previous PESA version (and electrical hungry). In several Formidable Shield exercises the radar has been used to provide tracking information for SM3s fired from Arliegh Burke destroyers to intercept exoatmospheric targets. The Dutch are the first European Nation to upgrade their ships for ballistic missile defence. At the moment these ships are only equipped with ESSMs and SM2s. The problem they have is the funding for SM3 and SM6. Italy will be the next country to get the MM radar for their Horizon class ships. They will also be getting a new AESA radar to replace the PESA APAR radar. This will coincide with upgrade to the Aster Block 1NT missile. They have done a deal with the Dutch where they are getting the radar in exchange for the 127/L62 Leonardo weapon system.
Both the 1SL and Defence Secretary have said the T45 will be a getting a £500M upgrade, which includes radar upgrades. They have also hinted along with MBDA that the ships will be getting the Aster 30 Block 1NT missiles, not the Block 2 BMD. The current S1850M PESA radar has shown that it can track short to medium ranged ballistic missiles. As far as I’m aware the longer 1NT missile can still fit in the Sylver A50 vls cell, whilst the BMD version needs the longer A70 vls.
So would the MM radar be needed? In my opinion yes and for a number of reasons. Firstly although the S1850M has shown it can track ballistic targets, an AESA radar will provide even better discrimination between a real target and a decoy due to the narrower beam dispersion, therefore better resolution. An AESA is harder to jam or spoof due to its very fast sweep rate, larger operating bandwidth and ability to frequency hop. Furthermore, AESA has true multi-beam transmit capability. Therefore, rather than relying on memory tracking software, an AESA can continuously track multiple targets in real time.
I am hoping that the hints and rumors coming out of the MoD, Thales and MBDA come to fruition. In that the T45s will be upgraded to deal with ballistic missile threats. The combination of Sampson and the SMART-L MM along with the Aster 30 Block 1NT will significantly enhance the T45’s capabilities for dealing with short to medium range ballistic missiles. The MM radar would also set the ship up for a further upgrade to deal with exoatmospheric targets using SM3/Aster BMD.
Great survey of what’s developing in this area. It does look like we can expect T45 to get Aster Block 1NT anti IRBM capability in the A50 silos, with some radar upgrade to match. Whether this is MM or some uplift to Sampson will be decided by cost and UK jobs I suspect. In any event we will get a SM6 level capability.
I suspect SM3 / Aster Block 2 anti ICBM capability will have to wait for T83 for which the radar is anybody’s guess.
Realistically though isn’t the Kh32 type missile more of a likely threat for us right now? Surely only China and Russia have both the satellites and missiles to target a csg with an ICBM, whereas mid tier countries like Iran or N Korea might get hold of a long range air launched supersonic AShM. The Russians believe Kh32 can defeat an Aegis based US carrier screen.
Just wondering the total of this Type 83 will be confirmed and is the expert total.
My personal total is 12…
Just to clear things up a bit, the Type 26 Hull is more than capable of a larger displacement. The Australian Hunter Class have a planned full load displacement of 10,000 metric tonnes, as per recent Australian Senate Estimates.
The most important driver for the Type 45 design was the location of the Sampson MFR; very much driven by the laws of physics in combatting increasingly faster and higher missile threats. It is difficult to imagine this changing for the Type 83 and I wonder if the Type 26 design would be able to support the requirement (excuse the pun!).
I have a question….
The total will be built of the Type 83 Destroyer and also will the VLS Total will be the same as the Arleigh Burke Class and will the Type 83 have same anti-ballistic capability?! Like to see a total of 10 Built.