The concept phase for the recently announced Type 83 Destroyer will begin in the next few years.
Mark Francois, MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked yesterday via a written Parliamentary question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate he has made of the initial operating capability for the Type 83 Destroyer.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“The Type 83 will replace our Type 45 destroyers when they go out of service in the late 2030s. We anticipate the concept phase for Type 83 to begin in the next few years with the assessment phase following.”
Also, there are no concept images of Type 83 so our terrible mockup above will have to do for now.
The Type 83
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 announced the upcoming “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? We do not know but I’m going to take a stab at it anyway.
The Type 45 Destroyer replacement is just an early concept at this stage but a variant of the Type 26 Frigate has been considered for the job, at least to some degree.
Last year the UK Defence Journal spoke to Paul Sweeney, former MP for Glasgow North East and former shipbuilder and we were told that consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26, a variant that could function as a future replacement for the Type 45 Destroyer fleet – the programme now referred to as Type 83.
For a little bit of context, Paul Sweeney is a Scottish politician but more importantly for the purposes of a discussion on shipbuilding, he was formerly employed by BAE in Glasgow. Paul has worked with the All-Party Parliamentary Group 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.
‘A few years’. Expect the Type 45’s to run into the 2040’s and this ‘concept phase’ to start 2030.
They should run into the 2040’s, they weren’t cheap ships and they are still extremely capable, when they are actually able to be at sea which unfortunately doesn’t seem very often.
Hopefully, seeing the availability issues we are having now, we go with more than 6 boats for the Type 83. I’m not holding my breath though, we will probably end up with 4.
Yes embarrassing when you have more aircraft carriers available than air defence destroyers built to defend them. But yes by 2040 they will be under 30 years old for the most part and should if these propulsion issues are finally solved have a few good years left in them.
I suppose the real point here, is a drumbeat of construction, so we can avoid very expensive life extension refits, like the T23.
I would want the T45’s replaced as they reach the 30 year point, or soon afterwards.
Ideally, we need 9 Type 83, to ensure 5 are always available and 6 at a push.
A larger RN (it’s certainly shaping up to be a larger force structure), will have an expanded need for AAW specialist ships.
“Ideally, we need 9 Type 83, to ensure 5 are always available and 6 at a push.”
Probably mentioned it before but I’d be happy to split the ‘replacement’ bit of it and have 3 (seeing as how I’m playing fantasy fleets hopefully more) T83 cruisers and a AAW destroyer. Whether that destroyer was a variant of the T26 or something more advanced…. what ev’s. Even if it was 6 (or 8/10 seeing as how I’m doing the whole fantasy thing and various anti ship/land attack missiles are on the increase) they could carry out the more specific role of AAW while the larger vessels are able to carry out this role, they would carry more ‘stuff’. If they could squeeze an extra Merlin in due to the larger size then that’s a bonus and could give a wee bit more ASW capability.
We’ve been surprised by the T32’s as a wee Brucie Bonus so who knows what’s in the pipeline, while the T31’s might not be all that we’d hoped for, they’re happening and for now at least, things seem to be happening on a lot of fronts equipment wise. It seems a bit of a boom time for the RN although this is still a long way off and there may well be regime changes between now and then, a boy can dream of hoofing big cruisers to ride shotgun on the CSG AND some AAW destroyers.
I like it Andy, I like it, sold mate!
i’ll bet the whole design project will cost more than a t 31 beurocracy is expensive.
Agree, we need to get a view on what our fleet needs to look like.
realistically I think the RN has a requirement for 6 active fleets that will mean that we generate a new fleet every 5 years indefinitely.
Fleet 1 – Carrier Strike 11 Ships
Fleet 2 – Carrier Strike: 11 Ships
(1 QEC, 2x T26, 2x T45, 2x T31, 2 x Tides, 1 x SSN, 1x FSSS)
Fleet 3 – STG 1 – 15 ships
Fleet 4 – STG 2 – 15 ships
Fleet 5 – STG 3 – 15 ships
Fleet 6 – STG 4 – 15 ships
(1x SSBN, 2x SSN, 1 x T26, 1x T4X, 1 xT31, 2x MRSS, 4 x Spartan multi mission ship, 2 x Fast Patrol, 1 x Specialist)
Deep Maintenance fleet (8 Ships of the larger classes)
Now you can mix and much to your hearts content and I am not saying the above is perfect, what I am saying is that the above represents my view of a balanced 90 ship Royal Navy that is achievable at £4bn capital expenditure per annum at a drumbeat of 3 hulls per year.
this is perhaps the exercise the MOD should be doing and committing to.
Add in the 3-4k smaller craft used by the MOD and there is enough to keep the tempo going in yards large and small across the UK if the desire and commitment is there.
the above also avoid expensive life extensions as you always know your slot in the mix.
This fantasy fleet is never going to happen. Current plans are for the following.
2 QE carriers, 8 type 26, 6 type 45, 5 type 31, 7 SSN, 4 SSBN, 5 MCM/asw mothership, 5 patrol ships (I think…) Plus support ships etc
If designing a fantasy fleet it makes sense to me to try and make it realistic, although I appreciate the concept.
The issue with the above planned ship list is it gives us one QE carrier group (QE, 2×26, 2×45, 1xssn plus support ships) 3ssn to saveguard the ssbn, 4 ssbn to ensure 1 is always at sea, 2×26 to perform anti sub for the SSBN.
Leaving a globally deployable fleet of 4×45, 4×26, 5×31, 3 SSN, the ,5 type 2 rivers plus supporting ships and mcms.
Generally these numbers would be OK, the issue arises when you want to use the second carrier. If you create a second QE group similar to the first your effectively left with your 31s and patrol boats, plus 2x26s, 2x45s and 2ssns. This leaves a gap in our SSn capability, and essentially one 26 or 45 deployed at any one time, which isn’t really enough.
Bearing all this in mind, in an ideal world I would see us with 2 QE groups, 2 LPH groups, and a decent amount of type 31s and rivers for other duties. As a min I would imagine the lph would need one aaw ship and one asw ship. We have the ship numbers to do this, essentially ‘all’ we would need would be the two lph (which shouldn’t cost the earth) the helicopters (which I appreciate are in short supply atm) the sailors and a few more type 31s (maybe +4) and a few more patrol boats (maybe +1-3?). The only crux is the second SSN to cover the second
QE group. I can’t see any way of currently filling this gap, unless perhaps we purchased some ssk to try and free up one of the Ssn (not the best concept but the only one I can see loosely working, other than juggling the deployed SSN between roles and hoping we don’t get caught short). That should cost around 3billion. Which although a princely sum, is just about within the realms of ‘could happen’. Especially if they cheaped out on the lph, like Gavin Williams concept if two commando carriers, and used the flexibility of the mcm replacements to fill some of the roles the extra 31s would take up.
Why not, we can create this now as its the same number of hulls as today and HMG have committed to increasing the escort fleet. So we swap out and recapitalise over the next 30 years. (MCM fleet becomes the MMS fleet as an example over time)
This isn’t an instant fix it is to demonstrate that a 90 vessel navy costs £xxbn and should have a drumbeat of 3 vessels per year to keep the yards busy and efficient and smooth the money out thereby avoiding the famine and feast of previous plans that has resulted in too many life’s (that impact morale and retention as well lets not forget), stop gap ordering (Rivers) and loss of skills and knowledge (Submarines).
My point is not the fantasy fleet, its the fact you need a 30 year strategic equipment plan to maintain the required drumbeat and then commitment to fund that plan.
Because defence funding is limited and currently the government are trying to get as decent a navy as possible within budget. As things currently stand it would be a minor miracle if we had two converted oil tankers into commando carriers. I cannot see any more 31 purchases, 45s too old now to have more, and I cannot see an increase in 26 numbers. There is a bit of a feel that we should count things lucky that the 8 26s, and 5 31 orders will be upheld.
You may get some increased flexibility from the 32, if one ship has the same presence as 4 MCM ships (for example), the remainder could be used to support the other frigates. For the new destroyer, if they managed to get some built early or managed to extend the 45s life you could get a temporary upturn in numbers (assuming they build 6 new destroyers) due to overlap between old and new ships.
Two of the issues with our current defence set up are 1. Using nukes as ultimate deterrent 2. Relying on America to come to our aid if war broke out. With both of these in place I understand a bit the politicians thinking regarding a navy that could not defend our country Vs a peer adversary, as I imagine they believe that it simply isn’t needed. So I guess you have the balancing act between people who think the navy should be even smaller due to 1 and 2 above and those who believe it should be larger.
Imo, with a steady increase in missile intercept technology plus a lack of certainty around the true nature of NATOs support, I think our navy should be bigger. But I do agree that it’s a hard sell.
That’s the crux of it, there is a great deal of uncertainty around what our navy is actually for at the moment. It was easier in the 80s when the principle focus was sub hunting in the gap above the UK.
If the new goal is an america lite (which is what I was assuming) then we need the two fully supported aircraft carrier groups plus the two lesser supported RM groups that I mentioned in my post above, plus sufficient numbers of type 31s and river for other duties.
I think until the UK gov and defence chiefs are clear what our baby should be used for we are going to struggle with ideal for e construction. Another good example us Japan, brilliant navy structure +(imo) based upon one clear goal.
in national fleet inventories missile boats and corvettes are counted as front line units. a worthwhile upgrade to the archer of a fitted 30mm gun and
say a single shot asw torpedo would make useful units operating with a type 31
missiles mounted on archers. and batch2 river corvettes?
its not unreastic to suppose that a t26 coming out of its first maor refit could be configured as a principle aaw ship in the role currently taken by a t45 in the carrier groups
The propulsion issues will only be fixed when the time comes to sell them. No one will be willing to buy a lemon whereas the UK just has to take whatever it is provided with.
strange the way the mod thinks. have big vessels but not smaller ones to protect them, reach 1000s of miles across the ocean but not have the abelites to protect the homeland from an attack. the mod is trying to run before they can walk.
but no more of this fitted for but not with rubbish.
T45 is an embarrassment not a normal, are you really thinking that next team will make mistakes like these one?
It’s uk defence so yes. Inevitably.
how are the type 45s embarrassing? apart from the engine issue, they are a no brainer for air defence. which by the way is there main purpose.
Nate M, it could have been just noisy sailor beds (to just take a fig from Ajax). If prevent the ship mission it is serious.
Yes indeed, but the vessel needs to be operationally reliable and at sea in order to attend the party as it were. Type 45 has more than its fair share of problems which seriously affect that. Its a little embarrassing that Diamond has a serious defect, but what’s more embarrassing is the fact we were unable to despatch a replacement vessel as a matter of urgency…….
That’s why we have FMG mobile their the guys at the ready to fly out and repair ships when required Including engine changes
No the T45 isnt an embarrassment, your knowledge seems to be gained from the red top rags.
You clearly don’t know a single thing about the T45 Destroyer. Or any vessel for that matter.
FMG mobile are well versed in working on the type 45s always have their passports at the ready those are the guys who have all year round tans type 45s don’t seem to like the hot weather
Never seen FMG in my part of the world. Had the BAe team on site for two core changes years ago. That’s a fun job to assist with!
The latter deployments of T45 prior to Montrose where pretty faultless even in the height of summer. By then software mods and modded cores had sorted out the hot weather performance issues.
Unfortunately those not in the know assume a GT issue is the same as the previous core issue which it isn’t GTs occasionally go bang and as you say pretty straight forward to change out… Unless it’s the power turbine!
Probably Bea systems guys contracted for work on type45s (you built it you fix it) no longer the case of( User maintainer ) there seems to be money to be made in the sector of Contracted maintenance and repair . FMG doesn’t get Bonuses just bog standard LOA.
The LOA rates in Oman for Montrose recent FTSP and engine change where huge! I bet that wasn’t factored in by MOD
In Oman ,blimey they use to have a 10pm curfew why didn’t the Montrose use Bahrain?
There out of Service Dates are scheduled for 2034-2036 currently though.
They’ll have to go on beyond that. Indeed, they are only to be upgraded with Sea Ceptor “by 2032”. But some T45s may go in the 2030s in order to keep the others running. Then the question is, will 6 Type 83s actually be built? History suggests that may be unlikely.
Despite all the rhetoric about the supposed level of threat, etc. the reality is that there is no serious rush on much of anything when it comes to modernization and re-equipment.
I think 6 is the maximum the RN will get, more likely 4 or 5. 8 would be great but hard to imagine given the baked-in budget shortfall and all the other projects that will be vying for funding over the next 20-odd years. Dreadnought, Astute replacement, Tempest, MRSS etc., plus the potential for less generous MoD budget settlements in future years and of course changes of government.
Agree. The most reliable predictor of the future is the past. In 1998 when the defence review set the goal of acquiring two larger carriers, the parallel capabilities assessed as required included 32 surface combatants and 10 SSNs. Today thereare 18 surface combatants and 7 SSNs. 12 Type 45s became 6. Officially there is now a goal of 24 surface combatants but there are massive questions as to whether that will be affordable, particularly when the UK Government itself shows absolutely no sense of urgency in terms of getting to that objective.
Then again, Engaging Strategy posted a comparison of deployed days for Darings and they were broadly comparable to Iron Dukes, so… I’m not sure “doesn’t seem very often” is entirely fair.
maybe some of the project could be based around a batch 2 or 3 type 26 configured as a destroyer
i hope get it sorted out design wise faster than the shambolic t26, and t31 specs were. and a reasonable order size.
they’ll need duct tape to hold them together by then.
Let’s hope they will include anti ship and land attack missiles.
Indeed, and that we build more than 6 of them this time.
I always thought that the T45 should have had more missiles of all types. To me its always come across as a very capable ship but hamstrung with extremely limited missile capacity and capability compared to other destroyer classes. It really would have made more sense to if possible have installed the Mk41 launchers instead of the sylver launchers. More multi role capability and proven tech as opposed to the sylvers that only seem to fire the Asters.
I imagine that will depend upon whether or not the ship takes after T82, or is a direct replacement for T45? As a T45 replacement I can’t see it getting a land attack missile, why use valuable silo space, as that role is going to T26, however, if it comes as a more T82 type ship, then I can imagine it having a more rounded weapons fit. Having said that, perhaps a FC/ASM type missile might fit the bill.
speaking of missile will the type 31s have anti-ship missiles. because i was thinking we could just use the interim solution for them. like the NSM or gungnir. which by the way will give them land attack capabilities to a certain degree.
Well, that’s the million dollar question! We are getting the I-ASM, which by all accounts is going on T23s first. Given that any missile we select will have a shelf life exceeding the T23 OSD, the missile sets will be transferred to other units. My guess is they will arm the T31s in due course, but it’s only my guess.
So the royal navy expects to have 5 I-SSGW fitted to the five general-purpose frigates (Type 23). Then I guess they will be carried over to the (hopefully) five Type 31’s
Looking forward to see what Type 83 will actually look like,but know it’s going to be along wait ,hope RN get at least 9 . Wishful 🤔
And like it’s it was mentioned above bring the whole program forward and do a split batch. The Italian’s have already designed a pretty decent looking DDX destroyer, I think for service entry at the end of this decade, which could be tweeked a bit for the RN especially if using a mix of Aster’s and MK41 silos.
Even if the T45 is a bit under done for some and additional two in the next 3-5 years would bolster the fleet and provide some additional ABM coverage and allow for the upgrades on the first six vessels to be well paced. An extra Astute coukd BD handy too.
… there goes the budget!
You paying? 😄
Well Robert there say UK is 5 richest country ,just take a look how putin has rebuild is navy and there Economy is worse then UKs .Not that anyone’s in great shape because of COVID 19 .So sure it can be done 🤑
Yes, but how much have Russia people had to suffer with a serious lack of investment in health care, education, adult social care, infrastructure ect to pay for it’s military. Nothing comes for free.
No, no, no, no matter which way I look at it the T83 cannot be based on the T26. First issue theT26 is a ASW platform, theT83 does not need the same quite hull. To put a main and secondery anti air radar on a T26 hull is not possible, the seperation between the systems would not be far enough. A T83 will need 72-96 anti air anti ballistic missiles, 8-16 anti ship missiles, 8-16 land attack missles a main gun 3-4 secondery guns and 2-4 point defence systems this does not include 2-4 helicopters. This is a ship of 12-14,000 tons. Some will say its not real, but think about some of the destroyers from Asia, 122 missiles plus helicopters etc. So can a T26 be adapted to take such a radar and weapons fit, not really. For me it looks like a clean slate design.-
I am also of the school of thinking questioning why there is such enthusiasm to base Type 83 on the Type 26 hull, considering the lengthy lead time there is more than enough leeway to develop a dedicated design. Certainly there should be pull through from Type 26 of systems but no more than that.
The time also allows investigation of pressing long term questions in relation to propulsion especially in relation to power generation requirements, growth, the future availability of fuel vs nuclear.
whatever the outcome, i hope that the R.N will get at least a one for one replacement for retiring t45’s
the idea of a ‘beefed up’ type 26 as a destroyer makes sense. if the first t26’s acquit themselves as is expected, then the bulk of the design and build process would a be already in place. the idea will also mean the usual 5 year delay’s arguing over specs etc. which has been the curse of the t45, t26, and t31 design and build. maybe even more type 26’s might be the result.