It has been revealed that a key capability of the Type 83 Destroyer, the ship replacing the Type 45 Destroyer, will be the development of a counter-hypersonic capability.
On the 14th of December 2021 the Defence Committee published a report titled ‘We’re going to need a bigger Navy’. The Government’s response has been published below.
The Defence Committee concluded in their report:
“The Defence Over the next decade the UK and the Navy will face an increasingly
complex international security environment. Russia and China will remain the
primary adversaries at sea, with the relative importance of the UK’s response to each
likely to shift and potentially interact through the decade.
Developments in technology, particularly in hypersonic weapons, are changing the conduct of naval warfare and grey zone operations are becoming increasingly important for the UK’s security in the maritime domain, as they are in others.”
The Government responded:
“The Committee’s report aligns with the Government’s assessment of the
complex security environment. In the maritime environment, this is being driven
by the confluence of assertive state actors, who are increasingly operating in the ‘grey
zone’, and the proliferation of lethal technology.
The Integrated Review (IR) recognised this challenge and has invested in the Royal Navy (RN) accordingly. This included ‘subthreshold’ capabilities, such as enhancing the Royal Marines as a Special Operations capable Commando Force. The Defence Command Paper committed to a concept and assessment phase for the Future Air Defence system to replace the Type 45 Destroyer, a key element of which will be the development of a counter-hypersonic capability.”
You can read their response in full by clicking here.
The Type 83 Destroyer project will enter the concept phase shortly.
Kevin Jones, MP for North Durham, previously asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the concept and assessment phase for the Type 83 destroyer will formally begin.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement”, responded:
“On current plans, Navy Command intends to formally commence the concept phase for Type 83 in early 2022 with the assessment phase to follow in due course.”
More information on 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.
We need them now, not in 20 years time…
Never going to happen now. Even if a design was finalised and funding allocated for them tomorrow we just don’t have the shipbuilding capacity to build them now alongside Type 26, Type 31 and the Astutes and Dreadnoughts.
I think we should get 8 or 9 Type 83s, though, and operate the first two alongside the T45s to boost the numbers, then have the 3rd T83 replace the oldest T45.
We should at the very minimum be fitting anti-balistic missile versions of Aster to the T45s. Seeing as they will all be heading in for refits to sort the engines. The T83s are a long way off (And not even really that urgent, the T45s will have so few miles on the clock they should last for a while)
Far better to ensure the T31s or T32s are outfitted as AAW ships to augment the T45s.
“We should at the very minimum be fitting anti-balistic missile versions of Aster to the T45s”
Yes, I would expect that we will hear an announcement regarding NT variant being put on T45. Other than extending the silo length, which I think is needed, it should integrate pretty easily into the CMS.
So relatively low cost and low risk upgrade which can be delivered quite quickly with the appropriate budget lines in green!
Everything needs Mk 41 Tubes and the weapons to fit in them or we are going to be out gunned. Maybe we should look at a cheaper launcher to retrofit on T23 and River class and Q ships.
Meanwhile the carriers need CAAM.
It was mentioned here, and I fully agree. Adding 5 meters to the overall length of the T26 would likely allow a second VLS to be fitted.
With two MK 41 verticle launchers you would have a more than capable AAW platform .
And with the ships already in production, the time frames and budgets would be realistic. Simply follow on the T26 with a Batch 3 of 8 more AAW units.
As far as cost control and value for money ; Ordering a second batch of the T31 s would increase hull numbers and reduce the workload on the bigger T26 / T45 assets.
Better off getting B2 T31 (or T32) at least turning the handle on a perfected design has known costs and risks as opposed to starting another blue sky project.
Maybe also extending the production run of T26 and increasing the drumbeat.
More of the same thing is cheaper to build and to sustain that lots of isolated types.
I’m not sure how you produce an anti hypersonic platform when we don’t have any hypersonic(s) in service?
Whatever form a T32 may take, I would hope that production rate could be high on the agenda it should allow the navy to quickly expand the size of its fleet. I wonder when more Will come out about the class
The T32 order will be formally announced as soon as T31 #1 has been evaluated to not be a lemon.
It is the first time Babcock have built a warship.
Then I suspect we will see T32 being built in the second bay overlapping T31 production.
It is not the first time Babcock have built a warship. Most relevant is their contribution to the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, both in detailed design (iirc the majority of the work in stage 3 design was conducted by Babcock) and construction of the 2 carries themselves.
Separately they have also constructed the Le Samuel Becket class for the Irish Naval Service. The original contract was for 2 ships but this was extended to 4 so they must have done a good job!
QEC involved everyone in the UK defence fabrication business – including BAE.
I don’t think you can compare the Samuel Beckett class to a full on warship.
I think what Babcock are doing is very credible and will succeed and lead to more orders.
I would expect the announcement of funding for T32 imminently and the build contract late next year.
Yes I think it’s time to think about tweaking what we have and having a batch three type26 ( call it a type 83j that got far greater AAW capability but by the nature of the T26 hull will have useful ASW as well ( an 80 designation would need to be a proper duel role escort anyway).
If we also keep building on the T32 hull as well calling the batch 2 a T32.
we just need to up the build rate as quickly as industry can do it using both production lines, open the money taps and give them their head. I’m sure we can put two hulls a year in the water if the money was there.
We really cannot afford for the MOD to go off on some sort of design feast for the T83 and T32. Just build on what we have.
I agree.
Keeping things simple at launch is the key to getting stuff done.
Most of our enemies do have hypersonics. That’s why we need anti hypersonics.
I may not be up to speed but which of our enemies has demonstrated the capability to hit anything with a hypersonic weapon?
It’s clear that the limiting the T45 to just 6 left a gap 7 would have been far more efficient destroyer’s are a core vessel to any navy larg flexible and heavily armed with significant anti air capabilities to protect the carrier group. At least 8 if the type should be planned for the T45’s when available are worked hard the luxury of numerous destroyer’s we had with the T42 was excellent and provided a very strong backbone to the fleet get them designed, built and in service as a priority over frigate building
I think it’s worth remembering that 6Type 45’s replaced 14 Type 42’s (don’t forget we lost 2 in the Falklands) I know that they are much more capable, as you would expect, but they can still only be in one place at a time.
actually we could have them now
upgrade the T26’s radar and made ship cells and you have an AAW capability better than the T45.
perhaps too late for Glasgow, but not for the remaining 7 in tranches 1 and 2.
then tranches 3 and 4 can perhaps add 5 metres mid ship and add another 8
all based on the T26 hull and MTE we should save ourselves enough money to afford the extra 2 ships.
there is no need for a new design T26 hull is good enough, even if that mean less flex space.
these are going to be high level combatants – let the T31/32 be the workhorses and the Multi Role support ships be the RFA and motherships for Minehunting and commando raiding.
We just need a bit more thinking out the box and leadership to make it happen.
I keep hearing the type 26 is at or near design limits for weight etc. I’m not sure how this has been done on a brand new ship or what causes this to happen as I’m not a ship builder. Maybe others will know more about this and why it is the case
It is down as 11k tonnes full load I believe and is nowhere near that, I think the issue is how to accommodate the heavy radars the Canadian and Australians have on the mast area which is a point t load rather than the overall loading, but am certainly no expert and would gladly defer to those who know better.
I think there is plenty of scope to add the latest empar radar or even another artisan or other radar above the helicopter bay if we wanted if the above is the case and spread the radar load across the ship.
we should also add the stanflex system to all our ships going forward as it is proven to work and makes maintenance easier and seems cost effective
Hence the 83 , as Australia wants more size and may procure off the drawing board literally as the 26 is seen to be at its limits before any evolution .
Meta centric load is all to do with stability.
Sampson worked backwards.
Time to respond
Seed of incoming
Height needed
Weight of radar / meta centric
Hull size
OK you do that as an iterative loop model but you get the drift.
It is why Sampson is the way it is. The lightest way to get that power and resolution high up.
Which is why it is a shame we don’t have Sampson on QEC as the mast can be higher as it is such a big heavy hull. It was on some of the initial designs. With full cooperative engagement it would make a massive difference to a task group’s situational awareness.
thanks I wasn’t aware of that…
it would seem time to put Sampson on the QEC’s and Albions with CEC (something that should be on all our ships) – from memory they are £10m a pop
inexpensive upgrade that offers so much value, especially if we can provide an upgraded version of Sampson as well
the artisan can be used on the landceptor system if the RN don’t need them.. thats one of the beauties of standardising on this stuff.
I would leave artisan on the Albions.
It can then be teamed up with Ceptor (maybe containerised) as the radar and BAE CMS will have been sorted for it on T26 and T23.
Ceptor could be very useful to suppress units over the horizon or take out manpad teams.
Bear in mind Albions/Bays job is to get very close in and so they need to be able to suppress fire and take out elements in the way.
Sure ideally that is done by Apache / drone but if Ukraine has shown anything it is the need to throw a few well thought through missiles at attacking elements.
actually we are on the same wavelength on this
I don’t understand why Ceptor isn’t containerised – even the land Ceptor would benefit from this and given they are cold launched seems more efficient.
could even go on a river with the right wiring and radar etc.
the only reason I can think this isn’t being done is cost.
How long did it take us to build them back in the day!
Modern shipbuilding techniques (Block) should be able to counter the complexity of today’s warships and be able to turn them around within the same timeframe.
https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-00-ClassInfo.htm
Isn’t the problem all the multiple systems that are all far more complex?
The ships back then were far simpler and didn’t require multiple complex computer systems all in sync with each other.
That said if we really ramped up production we could probably build a Type 26 in 9-12 months.
hey Steve I don’t think this is the problem, as almost everything is modular it should slot in, BAES and SAAB deal with most nations using the kit we want so have the experience in both install and configuration so I think it’s easily doable
if we adopt Stanflex and standardise on MK41 and a quad packed SeaCeptor VLS then we could have these being worked upon concurrently, with a test unit used for testing on site (empty of course)
the speed of build is set by HMG. I am sure HMS Glasgow could be active this year if we wanted it to, but we don’t and that’s why these ships are fairly expensive, they are not £1.2bn to build probably closer to £800m but due to MOD account ting practices certain sunken costs and future maintenance are embedded to produce a full cost.
speed up the build and increase the order to 14 and the price will come tumbling down, perhaps around the £600m mark, problem is only BAE know if this is true or not, but they can definitely improve efficiency but there is no real incentive to do so as in its current guise this is seen primarily as a job maintenance exercise rather than what it should be which is building excellent ships in the volumes our military needs to support our governments strategy, and put simply 8 is deemed not enough by many independent bodies.
Pompey built the battleship Dreadnaught inside a calendar year and that was with rivets!!! Nowadays with new building equipment and practices the slow production rate is hard to justify.
I totally agree, no excuses not to be able to build these within two to three years.
Low production is all about the drip feed of money on an annual basis. If we gave the shipbuilding company’s their head we could see 2 hulls a year within a coupe of years ( one T26/83 and oneT31/31.
we could have the 8 T26s and 6 T31/32s in the water by 2030. The T23s need to be kept on until they are utterly knackered ( at least the 8 with tails).
we cannot let the numbers of escorts fall any more, we need a year on year increase as the new hulls are commissioned. Until we get to an appropriate numbers ( 28-30 would be appropriate if we are facing a potential risk of a general war within a decade) So if we are sensible we should aim in 2032 to have commissioned:
8 T26s
6 T31/32
6 T45
8 ( T23 tails )
The remaining T23s should be decommissioned as the T83s/T32s come on line ( so they should be gone by 2036) . With the T45s being decommissioned from 2036-2040.
We certainly need numbers and particularly anti ship capabilities now. The hypersonic defence whatever form that will take, is probably something that is still some way in the future as anything like vital as things stand. Russia has no hypersonic weapons that can be used against ships indeed they have little use beyond an alternative method of a nuclear payload despite the hype from what I read. China is more concerning however they claim that their cruise missiles have that ability though there is no evidence it has any such ability to hit a ship. If it does it would be a potential threat to a large target like an aircraft carrier perhaps little else presently at least. That is concerning however considering the F35 has a range far short of the range of those missiles so stand off weapons are going to be vital if carriers are to operate safely, at least in theory. That is a larger concern for the US than for us presently and strategically more generally. That said it’s important to examine the situation over time and develop eventually that capability as well as develop our own offensive solutions. In that regard US missiles though later in service true are attempting a far higher level of sophistication beyond the headline of speed and are likely to take matters a generation ahead of others, again from what I’m reading. But time will tell I guess it’s never easy to fight through the hype from all sides.
I’d like to see public rendering for the vessels with a price cap on cost and production rate given a high priority
OK, so given that there are precisely two shipyards in the UK building warships both of who are chocablock, and one of which has never yet completed a complex warship, when whom would build them?
UK shipbuilding was a total disaster until the Parker (common sense) Report came out.
Fortunately as it was a simple common sense remedy written in easy to understand paragraphs it was read (some reports like that don’t get read) and largely adopted.
But we can probably up the speed of build ad some of the limiting factors are around annual budget control, so we could open the funding taps and let the Builders build as quickly as possible. If we keep the hulls for the next two designs T26 to T83 and T31 to T32. This would save time in development as well as reducing any pauses due to moving the lines to complete new ships.
Don’t give up just because we’ve allowed ourselves to become such a manufacturing basket case, warship wise, we just need to build another couple of warship building yards or just get Devonport/Portsmouth doing it again. Much of the infrastructure & many of the skills are already there or can be re-learnt. We’ve led worship building for centuries until recently, so we’re perfectly capable of restoring it so long as the politicians & accountants don’t sabotage it like they have our military.
Exactly! They need to get a bloody move on and stop faffing and waffling about. The US and Italy already have there DDX/G designs pretty much sorted. And we just putting thought to paper!?
Fux the current T45s faster build another two batch 2s, we can’t wait for the late 30s…
Here’s hoping we get at least 8 of them!
Type 45 is great but just too few of them with only 6! 8 or 9 would be fine.
We need eight and we cannot wait!
We were originally promised 12! Daring , Dauntless, Diamond,Duncan. Dragon,Defender should have been followed by Drake,Defiant,Dreadnought,Devon,Donald and Dagger!!
The main reason 12 weren’t ordered is because Donald and Devon don’t sound so cool.
Haha Louis-yes Donald has negative connotations now after the saga of DT but there was an HMS Devonshire. The names I offered were guesses of what the cancelled six might be named. Any other offers folks-not sure if names had been chosen for the cancelled half dozen
I doubt it, although the decision to get more a400m may be the first time the MOD has decided to invest in more of a product after originally reducing the order.
Someone definitely would have spray painted Trump down the side of it!
Donald? Could’ve been a bit awkward given our alliance with the previous US administration
He’d have probably claimed that he was so popular in the UK we named a ship after him! /s
How did you know?
And duck after Donald?!
Never Donald!!!!! May as well be HMS Quisling.
We have a HMS Drake. Its the shore accom and support part of HMNB Devonport same as HMS NELSON in HMNB Portsmouth
Thanks for that info Gunbuster. I hope you are well. Worrying times!!
Most stuff has sailed and is out and about here at the moment. The only worry here is that it’s starting to warm up… 27 degs today!
Average about the same temperature here GB although you of course still in winter!. We don’t get your Arabian temperatures in Durban due to the maritime influence but very high humidity and in the 30’s which makes it uncomfortable. I have been in Namibia in the Namib desert at 43 degrees but it was zero humidity with washing drying in under 30 minutes so not as oppresive
As to the Type 83 I still don’t understand the Numbering system-I know follows on from the 82 HMS Bristol so presume each class(as in Cruisers,frigates etc) is numbered separately but there are often gaps between numbers..?
We need 12 or more type 83s to return some fighting prowess to the RN. These ships will be up against PLAN type 55 and whatever the PLAN put to sea in the next 20 years. Cruisers, battlecruisers…who knows? They are going to need to be big and powerful.
Lets hope the engines works this time round as the T45’s propulsion has been a disgrace (nothing worse than going from 30+ to ZERO when you least need it.The war fighting side works but needs more bangs to make her worth having with ASW and Anti ship with land attack capability, not just fitted for. 8? would be nice but lucky to get 6 me thinks.
The most key features for the T83 will surely be high end cabins and dining – by the time these boats hit the water there will probably be 4 admirals for every vessel in the Royal Navy, we should make sure they are comfortable. They also like high tech sounding specs like being able to detect a cricket ball at 50 miles…..omitting the point that RN vessels don’t have any weapons to actually hit anything cricket ball sized, or continent sized – so how about high energy physics? Imagine how proud those admirals would be when they are saying that our new vessels can detect neutrino oscillation, if you’re on a ship with no weapons the eigenstates of sub atomic particles are about as relevant as the radar returns of cricket balls.
Whatever the Type 83 end’s up being let’s just hope it will be affordable and built in the right numbers.
These are going to be very very expensive ships. You can’t get even a pure AAW ship with the sensors and weapons to counter hypersonic missiles cheap. The T83 is supposed to be a multi roll combatant. That’s going to make in hyper expensive.
Just my 50P’s worth well 10 bobs worth in real money, The T83 programme is supposed to replace the T45’s but the T45’s do not work correctly and are chronically under armed, So why not add the T83’s to the current build program and start to introduce the class from the end of the 2020’s. I know the build programme is tight so we need more yards, Belfast would be a good choice with the Frigate production centred in Glasgow we could have a destroyer centre in Belfast. Along with the RFA build program centred on the Tyne.
Well that starts to dictate the size of the ship and it looks like a reworked T26 hull will not do the job. Simple reason to intercept a hypersonic missile you need to see it as far away as possible from the ship meaning that the tracking radar SAMPSON needs to be as high as possible. At 110ft above sea level the distance to the horizon is about 13 miles. Then it would mean also a three or four faced array, this gives a beam of about 23m, with a length to beam ratio of 7.2 that gives a length of165.6m. These would be minimum sizes but it does start to give a picture of what will be needed. Possibly to save top wieght it should be a fixed array rather than a rotating array. A quick wieght calculation gives a displacement of about 9,500 tons standard. However there does need to be asked the question a second radar array mast of an intergrated mast with surveillance and tracking in one. Swings and round about for this one but with an intergrated mast you do have more deck footprint for weapons.
In many ways I would like to see 8-10 of these type of ships yet I would accept 4 of these if we could build a further 8 anti air Type 26s.
Trouble is Ron I don’t think we have the time to spend 20 years doing the best design possible. We just need to start churning out hulls and that will be the T26 hull or T31 hull. Assuming any 80 numbered type is going to be both a AAW and ASW ship it means a 26 hull or decades before we get them in the water.. and we need to start thinking of a decade as a red line for getting increased capabilities and vessels launched.
Ron if you look at the size difference between the T82 (6,400t) and the T42(3,500t) . The T42 (in it’s original form) is about 55% the displacement of the T82. If we reverse that and apply it to the T45 you get a number over 15,000 tonnes. If the RN is serious about Hypersomic missiles then the Mk41 silo is not big enough and something bigger will be required. That means a bigger ship. The T83 might be labelled a Destroyer, but if my napkin maths is anywhere near. Then this is in reality a Cruiser. For me that means a new design and more built in resiliance. Also the built rate for T26 and Astute is set to avoid feast and famine. What is the point in building ships as fast as you can if it means when they are complete you don’t need a ship of that class for 20 years. The yard goes bust and you have no industry to build the ships you need in 20 years. Now if there is funding for more ships and their crew then an uptick in production is warranted
Hi Paul, good points and I agree. Lets look at your points in reverse order. Rate of ship building, we all agree that the RN needs more ships to do the job needed, and that feast and famine is an issue. So why not make some laws for example a law to state that the RN must have 30 surface combat ships of frigate and destroyer size. Then a second law that states that states that the RN must have a new ship to replace one that is 20 years old. That gives several possibilities, one an increase in RN combat capability, second that no RN ship or class of ships will be completly out of date by the time it is replaced, third a drum beat of ship building thereby increasing build capability and possibly reducing costs and fourth a reserve fleet that would still have 5-10 years of second line service.
As for your comments on the Mk41 I do agree that future RN combat ships will need the ability to have larger VLS systems which in turn would mean a larger ship. A future T83 should be about 12,000 tons which is in reality a cruiser in all but name. When I was giving size and wieght in my post I was looking at a minimum whilst pointing out that a T26 hull will not do the job. I really do think that NATO maritime nations need to combine tech knowhow and work on standard hull designs with each nation equipping the ship according to their needs. Again that should save cost and time.
Better not go the way of the type 82 build, build, build ,time is of the essence fingers out set a price, and stick too it
I think any T83 needs to just be a T26 with a goos AAW capability as well as you say build build build, if it’s not in the water within a decade we are being foolish as that’s the likely tipping point for a Sino- Russian pact being at a point it can go toe to toe with NATO.
Thanks Johnathan now that Putin has seen how the West has sat by with Ukraine, he’ll undoubtedly be looking for some kind of mutual defence pact with his Eastern neighbour China ,who after seeing Putins action China maywell up the anti with Taiwan
Yes it’s going to spiral and the timetable will be set by china and Russians rearming programmes, which have been running for a decade to catch up with the west. We now need to as a power block keep up with the Sino-russian programme so we stay ahead and staying well ahead is the only way we will ever be able to prevent a general war. We need to draw a line and from this point on return to a Cold War warrior mentality and massively rearm and take the economic pain of cutting off China and Russia. It’s going to hurt like hell for the next decade or so, but it’s that or WW3 ( which we may not survive as a civilisation or even species).
Quite correct Johnathan at least we knew where we stood during the Cold war and with China’s aspirations over the South China Seas and its trade routes we’d better start building not differing the patrol boats we’ve sent out there have the Chinese double over in stitches
yes correct, the rivers have their place in the navy, you need constabulary vessels and vessels that can do all the peace time tasks of a Navy as cheaply and efficiently as possible ( after all people forget that navy’s are more so than an army or airforce an organisation with significant peace time jobs that need doing). So for fisheries work, control of trafficking and crime in safe seas, flag showing, disaster support and being present they are great. But you should not be putting them in potentially contested seas. Personally I think it’s criminal that we still have a rivers 2 in the eastern med, it needs to be moved to the western med, it’s not a war ship, but it’s got a potential target pained on it as an RN vessel.
I Realise that the rivers can be useful for anti trafficking drugs/people and light disaster relief but they lack muscle
Yes they need to be well away from any potential enemies. It’s bad procurement that has left the RN needing to deploy them inappropriately. The type 31 should have been started a decade ago really.
The reason is like the academic requirement for a job with the MOD is a degree in Hindsight always required when the Boat has Sailed leaving the Armed forces sitting on the Jetty so too speak Johnathan
Yes and they go on to having a masters degree In not seeing what’s in your face and always happens… I think all western politicians and leaders have it… …some bizarre…”well yes it may have happened throughout history and for ever but we are sure there’s no way there’s going to be another major war of powers….cus you know….well just cus alright…now shut up and let rich people make more money please and stop talking about spending money on things we don’t need”.
I have spent most of my working life dealing with that attitude but in other high risk field………it can all be wrapped up in this little play which in no way reflects any organisation or senior leaders I have worked with and is entirely a work of fiction……
so me ( with actual professional understanding, having lived it and having my own degrees in actuality dealing with Nast shit..)and the Senior leaders (with masters degrees in ignoring the unpleasant shit that’s obvious and climbing greasy poles by not causing waves).
Me: if we do or don’t do that and set up this process Or invest in this service people will die….
senior leaders…don’t be dramatic, we have to be pragmatic and not spend money we don’t have, no we can’t ask for investment ( that would make them look bad and my impact the next step on the greasy pole).
Me but we are looking at a number of catastrophic outcomes and we are going to end up killing children.
Senior Leaders: better put it on the risk register then and come up with some high impact, low cost mitigation’s ( otherwise know as polishing the turd).
Me: Ok it’s a 25 risk on the corporate risk register ( that’s basically a we are going to kill a load of people and need to spend money to prevent it level risk).
Senior Leaders: no it’s not….we have far worse risks than that at a lower level ( me rolling my eyes, thinking yes cus you reduced the risk level so you did not have to spend any money). In context It’s only a 10 risk ( don’t really have to do anything much and just polish that turd).
one year on:
Me ummm we’ve killed 10 people this year…
senior leaders “ well they probably would have died anyway and we can’t prove we would have saved them”
me: “yes we can,we have evidence”
senior leaders:ummm no I don’t think we have and it was only a 10 level risk on the risk register anyway so it’s not our fault and if it was a greater risk you should have told us and asked for it to be increased… yes, get that in the meeting minutes ( just incase you need to sack a poor victim if there’s a public enquiry)
Me: it’s in my report, it was a known risk and we did not mitigate it, 10 people are dead. It was actually suggested it should have been a 25 risk but it was reduced to a 10.
Senior leaders: we have reviewed your draft report and made some revisions that show wider context setting and focuses on key elements terms of reference” and the fact it has been identified as a low level risk with mitigation’s ( turd polishes ) in place.
me ( in my head….bastards, you utter bastards….if only I did not have a mortgage and children).
Bloody hell Johnathan, you make Tolstorys War and Peace look like pamphlet I cam see it won’t be changing in my lifetime unless all the children of politicians at their public schools have too do frontline National service no exceptions when they’ve passed A Levels and expect to go off to Oxford or Cambridge .they instead have too do 9 years .That’s when you’d see the percentage of GDP for defence go through roof ,One can dream though
in fact war in peace is one of may favourite bits of writing, it’s one of those that echos down the ages like pride and prejudice or hard times. But your right I do go on a bit. I always promise to not be so verbose….but alway fail….it’s a character flaw….
As for National service, I think any decision maker who will be making financial decisions should alway have experience of the front line or coal face they will be leading, until you have seen the beast you lead you can’t understand.
Agree with you Johnathan, I think the last PM who had been at the coalface so too speak was Able seaman Jim Callahan Labour prime minister 75/79 did his time in the Navy during the second World War since then apart from the Iron lady excused duties but had the balls too confront dictators the rest just haven’t a clue they should swot up on their school learnt Latin ” If you seek peace prepare for War” a sentence that resonates through History
Yep Heinlein who is another one of my favour reads was a great observer of this and really explored what made a society strong and what individuals owe society ( he was a US SF author from the 1940 into the 80s and is considered one of the 3 best SF writers of all time, he wrote star ship trooper).
he said: “Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral ( I find this word interesting in the context of the west not acting) doctrine that ‘ violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than any other factor, the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and liberty “
He also wrote a lot a out about states in which the population were not willing to defend and sacrifice for were always doomed.
It’s as if some people’s actions today are he’ll bent on rewriting history with a lovely gloss over anything that is not too their taste yet they can’t grasp the fact that the liberties and freedom that they spout about and how their rights have been violated such as the first lockdown just cannot get their heads round the fact that People paid the ultimate price so they can do whatever they think their entitled too do without consequences . It was Plato who wrote “Only the Dead have seen the end of War” something I hope this and future generations don’t have too witness that’s why no Government should underestimate the cost of defence for the freedoms it gives us
God forbid that one day we have to hand out guns to anyone who will take them to defend London’s city streets. It’s chilling this is happening to a democracy and makes me sick that the west has to stand back to not start world war 3 due to nuclear blackmail. If we had been so weak during the Cold War, Europe would be communist and are nation a client of the USSR. I know we simply now cannot wander into a war unprepared, but it still worries me we are making a very big geopolitical mistake and when we look back in hindsight we should have reacted with force. we just don’t know now what is the best for just now, but going forward we had better re-arm and prepare for war and make it clear will will not step back and will go all the way.
There’s enough guns on the streets of London unfortunately Johnathan, one thing I did notice Fri and Sat was the “stop the war coalition” were all mustered outside Downing St I believe their paymasters didn’t want or allow them too stand outside the Russian embassy make of it what you will but I thought it very odd
Yes stop the war seem to have somehow got the wrong end of the stick.
We really need to have these coming into service far sooner that the mid 2030s.
As it’s designation is a 80 it would suggest it’s going to be both a AAW and ASW asset, so it’s going to need a fully quite hull. For me this means it’s got to be a batch three type26 design, this would keep design and setting up the ship year line very quickly as well as providing savings.
We need to rush through the type 26, move to one ship a year into the water and get them built by 2030 then move straight into the Type 83 again with a ship a year in the water.
we also need to rush through the Type 31 builds going for 1-2 per year in the water as well. The type 32 development again needs to be swift and start building in the late 2020s
we need a ten year plan that by 2032 has all the T26s commissioned and worked up, 2 T83s in the water and on the way to commissioning. All the T31s commissioned and a number of T32s commissioned or on the way to commissioning.
We cannot have lots of playing around with slow time reviews of design and gold plating, we just need to build on the production lines we have to make ships and commission them as quickly as we can.
We probably also need to actually more seriously consider how we can keep a number of T23s and T45s that as they are decommissioned are keep in reserve, this will cost, be we need to consider that we are at risk of a peer war and will end up needing some ability to replace losses Without waiting for building to replace losses. I know they will be knackered and it will cost, but we really need to get way from the thinking of the last 30 years and build up a greater reserve and depth.
Hi Jonathon, with time at a pinch I think the easiest is to up gun and missile up the T31/32s to a bit more like the Swordfish type offering to the Polish and Greek navies. I don’t think there is enough time to produce a T26/45 spec vessel any quicker. Hopefully any additional building can be spread to some other yards.
They might have to hold onto the older T23 Monmouth and Montrose, with CAMM/AShM with LA too.
Hi Quentin, I think we should be doing all the easy upgrades as well, like anti ship missiles for the RAF, up gunning all present vessels ect. But I’m hopping that we have a few more years before China Is fully up armed. At present their mercantile strategy and gradually pushing at NATOs edges works, se we do need a ten year plan as I will bet everything I have China does. So we need a plan to up arms what we have and open the taps on our production and commissioning of vessels ( in-fact a lot of what we would have do before commissioning a first of class may need to be after) remember our build rates are not at present restrained by industrial base, but by annual funding rounds. We need to move that up to as fast as it can go.
so it’s not one or the other it’s all of it, we need to understand that we are in an existentialist fight with China and other authoritarian governments as we cannot really exist in the same space. We have been in this fight for 20 years, the end of the Cold War was not the end it was a pause as one campaign was won. We deluded ourselves the West had won a war, when infact our enemies just retreated in disarray and we just gave them all the time in the world to regroup as we dismantled our defences…change of paradigm is needed. It’s not but can we afford to pay for this, it’s can we afford not to and will the budget restrain end in the destruction of our civilisation.
Plus ABM for our navy & for the UK mainland.
Strange many told me here that hypersonics do not work…
They do work but not as they have been advertised.
Missile goes up, flies really fast , comes down and hits a GPS location. That is hardly ground breaking tech…
When they can be made to home and hit a manoeuvring target then things get interesting.
Currently Issues with radar transparent materials ,IR transparent materials in the homing systems, ablation properties, temperature control, control surfaces/PIFPAF/ Flight control systems all need to be proven in operation and they have not.
At just Mach 4 Control surfaces and leading edges can reach over 2000deg C. This is the upper limit for most super alloys used to make control fins. Behind the fin is an actuator ( Hydraulic usually working at say 140 bar/2000 PSI ) It uses rubber/synthetic rubber seals to keep the fluid in and these seals may only be rated at say 200 deg c.
Expansion and thermal shock can jam control surfaces or pop apart missile body joints . Extra materials used to protect the innards from the high temps add weight which reduces range amongst other things like manoeuvrability.
Bloody hell GB…”this is rocket science”!! Nothing’s simple these days! 😆
Certain synthetic rubber seals, when overheated to say 400 degs C, decompose. They produce very corrosive Hydrofluric acid which is obviously not good as it will start to eat stuff internally. All this type of stuff needs to be considered
Type 83 that is a joke ,we need these ships now,our so called best anti aircraft ships ie type 45 are brilliant aircraft interceptor / destroyers but they are all in for refit ,I think one of them is going to limp out next week but think about it our best ships are all in dockyards because they’re fucked ,turns out water in the med is too warm for engine cooling,you couldn’t make it up our best surface fleet , aircraft carrier support ships are redundant , we’re depending on the brilliant but ageing type 23 s , which are doing a wonderful job but they can’t keep going.
The important thing is that there is a seamless build of Type 26’s and following them Type 83’s. The rate should be one per year and increased from present. The type 31/32’s should additional and for export’s where won.
If present Russian warship yards are joined by the massive new one they are building in the Black Sea we are going to be seriously out numbered at sea without adding in the CPA build rate.
The Germans are greatly increasing their defence spend. We should do likewise. Like it or not we are not in a good place and should prepare for hostilities beyond Ukraine.
Possibly join the US future destroyer project, they are on similar timelines.
There have been many points made on what the ship should be, i.e. a development of the T26 etc. But not the burning question of how to deal with the hypersonic anti-ship missile.
Time and distance are the crucial factors in dealing with a threat that uses speed as its main advantage. To deal with this, you need to see the threat from a long way off, giving your combat management system time to work out an interception and launch a missile at it. With perhaps enough time spare to send a second missile at it if the first one misses.
A missile like the 3M22 Zircon is reputed to fly between Mach 7 and 9. But to hit those speeds it must fly high, at over 80,000ft. It can fly lower, but not at the same speeds and its range is substantially reduced. It is believed to use both a passive and active radar to search for and track its target. It will generate a plasma sheath around the missile. Which will effectively blind it as well as hide it from radar (though not IR). Therefore, to look for its target, it must slow down to dissipate the plasma. At lower levels the plasma is a lot thicker than at higher altitude and it will need to slow down a lot more. The most expected flight profile will be a high-altitude cruise, followed by a diving attack on to the target, whilst doing some barrel roles to slow down (at those speeds it won’t be doing anything too erratic!) and make it harder to hit.
A target flying (not covered in plasma) at 80,000ft will be visible to a ship’s radar that is 40ft above sea level at around (410 miles); if the radar is powerful enough. If the missile is travelling at speeds between Mach 7 and 9 (8350kph to 10,735kph) or in more useful terms 2320m/s to 2980m/s. In theory, if the missile is not completely sheathed in plasma it could detect the missile at some 660km away, which means the ship has between 284.5 sec to 221.5 sec, or near enough 4 minutes, to work out if the missile is a threat or not, work out the interception calculation and send the missile, then give it interception updates. The worst part would be waiting for the Zircon to get in to range of the ship’s missiles before it can be fired upon.
For a low-level attack, life gets more complicated for the ship, but also for the missile. Either the Zircon gets fed updated targeting information from a 3rd party or it needs to carry out a series of pop-up manoeuvres to search for the target, it could easily miss the ship due to its speed. Its radar will not be very powerful or complex. Therefore, its detection range will be quite low, possibly less than 25 miles. Every time it activates its radar it will be shouting, here I am to the ship! It does have a passive radar, which would probably be tuned to detect the ship’s radar. Which means it could be directed by the passive radar and then use the active for the terminal attack.
To counter sea skimming and low-level anti-ship missiles, you need to either place a search radar as high as possible on the ship, as per the T45’s Sampson. Or use another means of placing a higher to extend the ship’s radar horizon. Again, time and distance will be crucial in defeating a stealthy subsonic/high supersonic/low hypersonic speed missile that is flying near to sea level.
A missile flying at 100ft above sea level will be visible to the T45’s Sampson at around 45.5km (28.3 miles). If the target is flying at Mach 5 (5963kph) or 1656.5m/s. This gives the ship 27.5 seconds to decide if the missile is a threat, work out the interception and then fire a missile at it, before it hits the ship. For an Arleigh Burke destroyer the time is even less, i.e. 23.5 seconds, as it won’t see the missile until it is 39km (24 miles) away.
The Arleigh Burke’s (ABs) four SPY-1D passive electronically scanned array (PESA) panels give it unprecedented long-range coverage. The SPY-1D panel is nearly four metres square and weighs around 6000kg. Depending on the version of AB, it is placed about 20m above sea level. As the additional weight of 24,000kg needs to be kept low. Therefore, its radar horizon is constrained by the panel’s location. The replacement SPY-6 is being fitted in a similar location. It combines S-band and X-band active electronically scanned array (AESA) within a scalable module. It has over ½ as much power than the SPY-1D and even better sensitivity. But its radar horizon is no better. The full-size SPY-6 is heavier than the SPY-1D, so only the Flight IIIs are getting it. The other ships will use a smaller number of modules. The latest SPY-1D (V) gives the AEGIS the ability to search for and track exo-atmospheric targets. When paired with the SM3, it can be used against ICBMs and MERVs before they re-enter the atmosphere. They back this up with the SM6, which can currently engage published targets up to 110,000ft. But they are also developing a larger booster, that could push its height up to 150,000ft or more. Raytheon have said this is so it can intercept hypersonic glide vehicles. These will be cruising above 130,000ft, which is why China in particular, claim they are invulnerable to air defences.
The Type 45 Daring class destroyer is built around the principle anti air missile system (PAAMS). But unlike the French and Italian ships that uses the PESA EMPAR radar, it uses BAe’s Sampson AESA S-band radar. All PAAMS Nations use a second primary radar made by Bae/Thales S1850M which is a development of the Thales SMART-L radar. When the ship was being designed the main perceived threat was the sea-skimming missile. To counter this, the Sampson radar was placed as high as possible above the ship to extend the radar horizon. Thereby giving the ship more time and distance to counter the threat. By placing the radar so high up constrained the antenna array size due to the top weight. Which is why the arrays are relatively small for the operating frequency band, but also limited to two arrays placed back-to-back that are then mechanically rotated.
The arrays are mechanically rotated at 30 rpm or once every 1/2 second. The radar can do both backwards and forward scanning. But it still means there are two rotating 60° dead zones between the end of the arrays. Both arrays are mounted leant back, to extend the elevation view. But with AESA panels the elevation is usually limited to +/-45°. Though the field of view can be extended, but with exponentially lessening range and sensitivity. This means that directly above the ship there is a blind spot.
The BAe/Thales S1850M is L-band PESA mechanically rotated PESA radar. It has a significantly longer detection range than Sampson, though the published ranges are similar. It can track objects up to medium altitude earth orbits, whereas Sampson can track low earth orbit objects. The radar is predominantly used for volume search, whereas Sampson is used for target interrogation and tracking. Both radars have the capability of doing each other’s role. Though Sampson will provide better target resolution due to its higher operating frequency. The S1850M and its mount weighs around 8000kg and rotates at 12rpm or once every 0.2 seconds, which is blooming fast for a long wave radar.
Thales have updated the SMART-L radar to the SMART-L MM. This is now a AESA radar, which is heavier at 9000kg and rotates at the same speed. However, it has over double the detection range compared to the SMART-L.
If the T83 is to be the principal air defence ship that replaces the T45. Then the ship-based radar must have all the advantages it can be given. When faced with stealthy and hypersonic threats. Which means that it will probably require a radar mounted at the highest point of the ship to extend the radar horizon. However, its volume search radar could instead be four fixed AESA panels rather than a mechanically rotating one. The downsides are the additional cost, the power requirements and the weight.
For the ship to handle the necessary top weight and additional weight of four large AESA arrays, the ship needs plenty of beam. But without the balanced length, it will make the ship quite draggy through the water. The previous T82 had a length of 154.5 m with a beam of 16.76m, compared to the T45’s length of 152.4m and a beam of 21.2m. By comparison the T26 has a length of 149.9m and a beam of 20.8m. Therefore, a bigger ship is required. For example, the Chinese Type 055 destroyer is some 180m long but has a beam of 20m. Using the same length to beam ratio of the Type 45. A 180m long ship would have a beam of 25m. This would allow the Sampson type radar to be placed nearly 50m above sea level, extending the radar horizon to nearly 30km compared to the T45’s 26km. However, a Mach 5 travelling missile at 100ft will be detected at 51km, giving the ship an additional 3 seconds of time.
Clearly, a better solution for detecting fast moving targets at longer ranges beyond the ship’s horizon is needed! This can be achieved using 3rd parties to search for and track targets, for example AEW aircraft. But if the ship is operating on its own, then it needs an organic means of looking over the horizon. This could be achieved by using an aerostat that carries a search radar or by VTOL aircraft.
The aerostat may seem like a good solution. Modern versions can withstand winds approaching gale force, they are cheap to produce and maintain. They can carry a relatively good radar. The problem comes when needing to operate a helicopter or an unmanned aircraft to and from the ship. The aerostats cable droops due to the weight and becomes very hard to track, collisions do happen. Furthermore, for the carried radar to have a decent detection range it needs altitude and electrical power. This makes the cable excessively heavy, as it needs to not only have a thick cross-sectional area for the current, but it also needs to support its weight.
The more flexible solution is using a VTOL aircraft. This then frees up the rear deck, so that other aircraft can take-off and land on the ship. It also means that the aircraft is self-contained and can fly away from the ship if required. The aircraft’s radar requirements are for searching the horizon and down towards the sea. As the ship’s radar will be covering the volume and high-altitude searches. This means it can search for not only sea-skimming missiles. But also, submarine launched anti-ship missiles, as well as their pericopes/schnorkels. Using a two-way datalink to deliver radar data back to the ship, but also able to give targeting updates to any of the ship’s missiles that are flying beyond the ship’s horizon. Therefore, a radar operating in the X-band would be ideal. As they have very good resolution and clutter rejection when operating over the sea. X-band radar AESA arrays can be made quite small and light, but still have the capacity to detect objects nearly 200 miles (321km) away. This would give the ship around 194 seconds or 3.13 minutes to deal with the same Mach 5 100ft sea skimming threat.
If the aircraft is an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) that uses either tilt-rotor or fluidic propulsion, it could remain aloft for a least 8 hours depending on its overall and fuel capacity size. It would mean, that the ship needs to carry more than one for continuous coverage. The aircraft’s size is critical, as it will determine the engine used and thereby the amount of electrical power it can generate. This will then determine the size of the AESA array, but also the number of arrays the aircraft could carry, which is preferably four. There are a number of radars available off the shelf, that could meet the requirements, such as Leonardo’s Osprey 50.
This then plays into the required size of the ship’s hangar space. If three UAVs were carried, to cover continuous operations. There would still be a requirement for a manned ship’s helicopter. Perhaps even a fourth UAV to act as loyal wing man for the helicopter or an independent strike asset. The T45’s hangar can accommodate two Wildcats or a single Merlin. A Wildcat has a nose to tail length of 50ft (15.24m) and a between wheel width of 9.65ft (2.94m). A Merlin is comparatively 63.4ft (19.3m) long and 16.15ft (5.1m) wide.
To operate this many aircraft will need a substantial hangar. Probably along the lines of the late HMS Tiger cruiser. Would the ship still require a mission bay, like the T26 and T31? I would suggest it does, especially if was to be a multi-purpose ship. But this needs to be additional to the hangar. If the ship is to be used to counter submarines etc. Will it need a very quiet hull, or one that is relatively quiet? If the ship uses its mission bay to hold unmanned ASW vehicles that can operate away from the ship. Will this help to keep the noise reduction costs down?
When is comes to the missile system? I would look at keeping Sea Ceptor but replace Aster. Aster is a great missile, but it doesn’t have the range to intercept anything above 80,000ft. The easiest and most obvious solution would be the SM6. This is getting further upgraded with a larger 1st stage booster so that it can intercept hypersonic glide vehicles flying above 130,000ft. But that’s putting cash into the US pocket, MBDA could do just as well.
MBDA could easily increase the size of the 1st stage booster for Aster 30. But I would go further and replace it with Meteor. Attached to the Aster 30’s 1st stage booster. The missile will be able to achieve low hypersonic speeds over Mach 5, as the throttleable ramjet is the key. It will allow the missile combination to reach well over 200km range and punch above 80,000ft. Some believe ramjets are limited by altitude, but they can operate over 100,000ft even up to 130,000ft, though their efficiency drops off dramatically. The missile’s momentum will be able to allow it to glide to 140,000ft and probably more. At these heights the lack of air will significantly decrease drag. A bigger 1st stage booster would allow it reach even higher. In this respect it would be no different to the SM6 as they both rely on aerodynamic surfaces for directional control and would be gliding towards the target.
The JNAAM project with Japan, will give Meteor a World class leading AESA radar, along with some updated avionics. If it was to be used in a ship based anti-missile form, having the Asters mid-body reaction jets would be highly beneficial. Especially engaging very high-altitude targets. To fit these to Meteor, would require space given over to the reaction jet controls and some stored fuel. Which would cut down on some of the fuel carried for the main engine. However, Meteor with reaction jets would significantly increase its Pk value.
The US Navy are looking at a wider and deeper version of the Mk41 strike length cell, to accommodate larger hypersonic weapons. They are expected to be twice as wide and ½ again as deep. This will take up a huge amount of volume in a ship. The proposed DDG(X) has two VLS cell farms one in front of the bridge and one amidships. Some of them state the forward farm will be replaced with the larger system. The published imagery of the ship does not show or detail a mission bay. Plus, the hangar is a regular sized one. This ship looks long, in keeping with the Chinese Type 055.
For our proposed T83, that incorporates the very large hanger, mission bay, two VLS farms, a main gun etc. Will a ship with a length of 180m be long enough, steel is cheap after all? Could we be looking at a ship with a length closer to 200m and a beam over 27m? This would definitely put it in the cruiser category, with a max load displacement close to 15,000t if not more. But with such a ship, there would be plenty of space for future upgrades. It could operate freely on its own in or around conflict zones. Plus have the means to counter hypersonic weapons.
Why not a couple of the BAE UXV (UKDJ, 8 Sep, 2017) type vessels, based on the T45 platform, while we wait for the T83? Might have to modify a bit for ABM but already designed to go or was it just a model concept? It still looks good and a bit radical. Sorry I can’t copy an image over but I’m sure someone here can. Thanks.
So when does the Concept Phase begin, ‘early 2022’, or ‘in the next few years’?
The difference appears to be ‘Previously’ and ‘Recently’. Maybe current affairs will speed things up again.
Navylookout is suggesting future maritime combat will revolve around shipborne ballistic missiles, ABM, directed energy CIWS and hypersonic cruise missiles, s well as potentially railguns, and that the world’s most capable navies will have to build extremely large, expensive guided missile cruisers with ample (nuclear?) power plants to get effective platforms for them.
combined with the increasing vulnerability of CVs to standoff weapons, it seems to me like the cash cow centrepiece of maritime power may be about to shift. The idea reminds me of the Russian kirov-class nuclear cruisers built in the 1980s as well-armed and well-protected Nimitz-hunters.
if this is a game we’re going to have to play, Type 83 will have to be very ambitious and the purse strings will have to come very loose. Hypersonic, ballistic and anti-ballistic missiles themselves are eye-wateringly expensive, and such ships will likely want over 100 of them with adequate radar and CIWS. The project would rival Dreadnought in its price.
A horde of type 83’s is exactly what we need, this is great to see the high interest in the relam of defence amidst the threats. The UK must remain strong in the sea and get plenty stronger in the years ahead.