Defence Procurement Minister James Cartlidge has outlined plans for the Royal Navy’s Future Air Dominance System, the Type 83 Destroyer, at the Full Spectrum Air Defence Conference in London.

The minister provided an insight into what this system will encompass.

He noted that these new vessels will operate as more than just typical warships. Instead, they will form part of a distributed sensor network.

“They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a ‘system of systems’,” Cartlidge stated. The Future Air Dominance System is anticipated to utilise a blend of advanced technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons and complex radar sensing capabilities. These systems will operate both crewed and uncrewed.

“Our Royal Navy is building its Future Air Dominance System. Likely to comprise the new Type 83 Class platforms – which will one day replace Type 45 – these are more than just ships. They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a “system of systems”.

They will be highly automated. Blending missiles with new technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons. Incorporating both uncrewed systems and complex radar sensing capabilities. Able to raise an umbrella over our fleet, contribute to control of the air over a wider area and allow us to maintain freedom of manoeuvre through increased detection ranges.

As the name suggests, dominance is the name of the game. And dominance will be achieved through faster response times and greater lethality over longer distances.

Sticking with our present capability, we continue investing in our Sea Viper Evolution programme. Ensuring our current crop of world class warships have the air and missile defence systems to protect Maritime Task Groups against increasingly more complex threats, including ballistic missiles.”

Britain’s new warship – A Type 83 Destroyer concept surfaces

A concept image, potentially showing Britain’s new Type 83 Destroyer, emerged during a presentation at a naval conference.

The presentation, aimed at shedding light on the current and future advancements in warship design with respect to fire safety and damage control, contained a slide showing a potential concept image for the Type 83 Destroyer.

The following is my attempt at enhancing the image.

The Type 83 Destroyer project was officially unveiled in March 2021 through the publication of the United Kingdom government’s defence command paper titled, ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’. Within this paper, the Type 83 Destroyer was referenced in association with the government’s shipbuilding strategy for 2030, outlining planned sustained investments in naval development.

As of now, the Ministry of Defence has not made public any concrete design details pertaining to the Type 83 Destroyer, though it is anticipated that the ship will proceed into the conceptualisation phase soon.

Britain’s new warship – A Type 83 Destroyer concept surfaces

In February 2022, the Ministry of Defence verified that the Type 83 Destroyer is being engineered to counter the emerging threat posed by hypersonic missiles. Additionally, it is contemplated that the vessel may be integrated into a broader defence framework known as the ‘Future Air Dominance System’. The Type 83 Destroyers are expected to come into service in the latter part of the 2030s, replacing the existing Type 45 Destroyers.

Back to the image, though not high resolution, it provides a tantalising glimpse into what the Type 83 Destroyer might entail. The ship’s sleek design is immediately apparent, with a distinctive hull that prioritises stealth and speed and is somewhat reminiscent of Type 26 Frigate and Type 45 Destroyer. Its streamlined superstructure is suggestive of advanced radar and sensory technology integration. Of note is CEAFAR.

The concept reveals a ship comparable in size to the Chinese Type 055 Destroyer (which is around 12,000 tonnes) and armed with a five-inch main gun, Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems, two 30 or 40mm guns and additional unidentified close-in weapons systems, plus a significant missile payload. The missile payload seems to be divided into two sets of Mk 41 vertical launch system cells, each holding an estimated 64 VLS, resulting in potentially 128 missile cells per ship.

Read more here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

238 COMMENTS

  1. Absolutely, however, such weapons may be required on older hulls before T83? The current drone storm of development is going to drive R&D in only one direction and even then, it may be too slow. A spokesperson said recently, ‘Drone development is not measured in years nor months but in some cases in weeks.’ One thing the Ukraine War has done is to speed up expidentally military technology on both sides. Not just land systems are gaining but also air and sea weapons too…..interesting times.

    • Good thing the UK is developing high power lasers then. Dragonfire is making steady progress with more trials over the next few years, plus a separate laser system (with Thales as the prie contractor) is soon to be fitted to a Type 45.

    • Remember Dan Dare? He had a ray gun back in the 1950s and so did the Star Trek ships and crews, so now fiction becomes fact. The most likely route to fully blown T83 laser systems will be less developed designs fitted to T26s and possibly T31s. It will be interesting to see just what space these weapons will need as that will determine if such systems can be cascaded. Later T26s could if required, get some redesign to accommodate compatible T83 lasers?

      • Ah, also remember the scientists around that time saying, no worries, lasers would never be powerful enough for use as weapons.
        * Not many folk believed them, even then. However, acceptance based upon facts available at time rather than speculation.

        Know this next ‘shot’ is cheap and totally indulgent. But reminded me of the EEC debate in the 70s. Told, no worries, In would not lead to greater sovereign control from Europe. * Ditto the paragraph. Why most have far greater faith in universal sufferage, filtered through the social lens of human common sense.

        My apology for wherever your cornflakes have ended up…….

        • The US were using lasers back in the 80s in New Mexico, so 30+ years later I can imagine that these weapon systems will be pretty useful,

          • A further extension of the electromagnetic spectrum for detection, disruption & destruction. The power generation of large naval vessels being ideal for that. Though the recent reveals over small nuclear generators that auto-default to safely could lead to smaller, more numerous units (not yet hand guns, mind …..😏)

      • Yes and although Dan Dare had problems he and Digby won through; so The Pukon better watch out as he will feel the heat.
        You gotta be at least 70 to understand the science here.

    • I think it’s rather like an iceberg the bit you see gives little indication of the overall power of the weapon, it will likely even get generationally smaller I suspect even as the power generated tends to push in the opposite direction, the true inwards and power generation is hidden within the ship.

    • At 12,000 tonnes these are cruisers, I think we should change our approach and build a smaller number maybe 4 of them very much focused on air defence and bmd but have just one with a task force then get an upgraded T26 with a better radar to be a general purpose destroyer.

      • The problem with building four is there would be occasions were only two would be fully operational and perhaps one available for operations at very shot notice

        Six is the absolute bare minimum, in reality I would say nine would be a sensible number.

        • Not if they are cruisers supported by general purpose destroyers. This how US CSG are typically formed with one cruiser and 4 destroyers.

          • Yes I can see them being joined by upgraded T26, T32 and maybe while they still can T45. The T45’s have another 20 years in them. Most of them only a few miles on the clock and still in showroom condition.

      • My issue with limited numbers is reflected in the decision to build just six T45s, which I believe has caused availability problems for the RN.

    • We will receive 2 type 83s and the rest will get ditched for budget concerns haha and the fact that we are part of NATO and our allies with save us 🥱

  2. We shall see what happens, though with that level of tehnology and power required we may look back at todays tiny fleet with only 6 T45 as the good old days.

    I’ve just looked at potential ship names and as the darings are all D I looked at E.

    Not exactly awe inspiring choice of E names for RN ships.

    Emerald, Enterprize, Edinburgh, Effingham, Exeter, Engadine and not a lot else that would be appropriate these days. Can’t realy use Earls, Empire, Emperor due to PC issues and Excellent, Exploits and anything starting with EU is just asking for trouble. Lets not even mention HMS Explosion.

    • Exeter is one of the proudest names in the Royal Navy going back almost 350 years with a fighting record second to none. As for the rest perhaps bar Edinburgh I agree.

    • Encounter, Express, Eagle, Echo and Electra all can be used these are fantastic names. Add in Emerald and Enterprise perhaps Emblem, Endurance, Endeavour, Euralyus, Exploit, Exeter. Will we get more than 12?

      • Sadly I think if they have a potential 128 missiles per ship with addition of advanced radar/sensors, if they do get built to this high configuration then it will be 2-3 to be solely to be used for CSG work. But surly that would leave the door open to a possible lesser spec T26 based AAW variant to make up the numbers for other duties with similar loadout to what the T45 has now. 2-3 T83 and 6 T4x wouldn’t be a bad option. Name wise I think Endeavour should be top of list.

      • They are all just a bit boring and not really in your face. We will not be able to build many so how about something that just screams “British warship so shift it”.
        Nelson, Rodney, Drake, Anson, Cunningham, Tovey, Ramsay, Hawkins, Raleigh.

        Or
        Indomitable, Invincible, Glorious, Courageous, Indefatigable, Illustrious, Implacable,

        Actually I like the idea of just skipping from D to I and add a few such as Insurmountable and Impressive.

        just a day to be a bit silly.

      • Brilliant names, shows you just need a bit of imagination, Emerald and Electra especially good, added to my previous 2 Eagle and Enterprise. Shame it’s not Emagination perhaps..

        • Encounter and Electra went down fighting to save Exeter at 2nd Java Sea. There are no finer examples of Naval Heroism and devotion to duty than our Destroyers and other small ships and boats in WW2.

          • Not war ships but for to commemorate sheer bloody minded courage, Rawalpindi and Jarvis bay.

    • Loads of great and historic names to choose from beginning with E. Unfortunately the Royal Navy seems to abandoned naming classes by the letter, maybe because the size of the fleet and pace of new ships entering service means they’d rather just pick a hodgepodge of famous names as we’ve seen with the Dreadnought’s and T31’s.

      • Challenger, 22s were Bs and 45s are Ds but then again we had ships of the Cathedral class , the Leander class, and the Tribal class when I did my time in the Andrew

        • Yeah I guess they’ve always had a mix of letter based names and more thematic ones.

          There’s something about the alliteration of classes by letter that I really like, but then the size of the fleet and pace of shipbuilding means they’re not exactly having to dredge up obscure or less impressive names anymore!

          • With how everything is now classed as offensive I doubt if half the Given names in the Fleet archives would be permissable Challenger

    • Ahh the good old days where ur dad is dead from TB, half the family works in coal mine coming home to a shared flat with 12 people. When u could beat ur wife and lads in the pub would pat u on the back. No antibiotics needed they were tough 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

      • Well I did put Rodney on my list and Cunningham. Hence my moniker which is a tribute to 2 RN Admirals.
        ABC after Andrew Browne Cunningham and Rodney.

        As for the names post, I just thought we could all do with a little bit of Good Natured “Blokes down a virtual pub banter”.

        If it was me choosing I’d guess we want 8, will get 6 ordered and end up with 4.

    • Aah but as I have alluded to before, Enterprize has probably become the most futuristic influence and inspiration in ship names ever from real to fiction back to real again… even if it was mostly because having been captured from the French was then unfortunately captured by the colonials during the Revolutionary war. Probably should have been part of the Inspiration class thinking about it as nothing else has got close when you think about it.

      As for E what about Eagle and Excalibur. So that’s three decent ‘E’ names which is probably all we will need by then.

    • HMS Exocet, HMS Exciting, HMS Extrordinary… … HMS Embarrasment, HMS Exploited, HMS Efficiency Savings, HMS Eliminated, HMS East of Suez, HMS Ex PM-at either end of the spectrum.
      Have some fun with this!

    • Will have to share Enterprise moniker w/ USN. Enterprise is a CVN, currently in build, believe due to be commissioned circa 2028. 🤔

      • Well that is nothing new it has happened pretty well all the time since you colonials decided to rebel and pinch the name 🇬🇧
        The new one will be the 8th USS Enterprise’s since 1776, and 15 HMS Enterprise’s since 1707. So a lot of overlaps in fact due the life span of the last USS Enterprise CVN65 she actually had 2 little namesakes.

        So please stop using it or stump up a copyright fee please ?

        Or just start putting a letter at the end USS Enterprise H 😉 Oh no don’t, because you lot sue for zillions at the drop of hat, Paramount would sue the USN.

        • Well, your’s may be more numerous, but our’s are larger! 😆😉
          Actually, gentlemen should be able to resolve this contentious and weighty issue via a suitable game of chance.

    • Invincible, Inflexible, Indomitable. That’s probably enough names for all the 12000 ton cruisers we get. Then a true 8000 ton destroyer to replace the 6 type 45s.

  3. Hmm, nice drawings and good intentions, but actually building them in sufficient numbers within a reasonable time frame (prerably before we need to do Lifex refits on the 45s) will be the key, based of course on the idea that there will eventually be some sort of funding made available?

    • The names of these large 12,000 ton ships may well not start with the same letter. Perhaps they will be ordered two at a time, using historical names, ie, HMS Lion & HMS Tiger, then HMS Iron Duke & HMS Malborough. Then HMS Manchester & HMS Liverpool as they are major Cities & were mysteriously left out of the Type 26 Frigate orders….

  4. And in the meantime, progress on increasing missile armament on our current AAW destroyer, Type 45 ……

    • Sea Ceptor to enter service on the T45’s from 2026 when Defender emerges from a lengthy refit. The Naval Strike Missile cannisters should start to be added around then or a little before.

      Basically by the time they are all around mid life the T45’s will finally end up with the sort of level of armament originally envisioned!

      • I always prefer the here and now during an increasing risk scenario i.e. over the shiny, not to say – just perhaps – rose-tinted, future. Rgs

      • Hopefully not too little CAMM on the T45s, they could go beyond 24 and go up to 36-48, make up for not utilising the the MK41 spaces. 24 & NSM is definitely better than nothing!

  5. Current generations of directed energy weapons like Dragonfire are around 50KW. They would have to be orders of magnitude more powerful to take out hypersonic missiles at a safe range.

  7. Long into the future. Of more relevance were Cartlidges comments on current capabilities, there are 6 AD programs associated with the army. 3 of which are SHORAD, meaning Starstreak improvement and vehicle replacement. MRAD Sky Sabre expansion, linked to Terrahawk AA Guns, and CUAS with the new sights. 3 others unannounced.

      • And of course, no one faces the music for it. Least of all Wigston.
        No wonder Putin invaded if the west is as mucked up as it appears, that the forces ( and other bodies ) discriminate against the majority of the population they represent and the bulk of the pool from which they recruit.

        I doubt much will change, give it a few years.

        • Daniele Wigston should have been arrested and criminal charges Wigston was judging people by colour & Gender .I don’t think Putin got any real conviction or beliefs about anything other than self preservation and money I think Putin waves the anti lgbtq stick knowing it’s popular among the middle aged / older generation in Russia . Wealthy pro Putin pro war privileged younger Russian generation living in Turkey swing bothways

        • Gone are the days when you are selected on merit for a role but rather your ethnicity.

          He should be sacked or resign after these findings.

    • Good “inside” information Daniele! Let’s hope as this comes sooner than later. Drones have changed the face to warfare for good.

    • I bet not a single one of those army programs comes to fruition. except maybe retaining Starstreak and possibly upgrading it a little.

      • Unless Labour cancel them preferring manpower numbers and reservists, ( see shadow DS comments ) I myself think all will happen.

        It is one reason why numbers of posts are dropping, to buy more modern stuff with emphasis on the RA, Drones, AD, Precision Fires, EW, and ISTAR, which were outlined in FS a few years ago.

    • Not heard of the Terrahawk program. Is this based on MSI Terrahawk VSHORAD. If so I am hoping the Army switch the 30mm Bushmaster to the CTAS 40mm. Very little point logistically in having another gun calibre.

      • Apoligies mate, indeed It is. There is no “Terrahawk” program AFAIK, I just labelled it so as I’m not up to speed on what exactly it entails beyond the AA cannon which I read the army have trialled. I understand the capability is one of the 6 AD programs previously mentioned.
        When was the last time the army had an AA gun? 70s?

        • I know that the RAF Reg had a couple of Oerlikons that were captured of the Argentinians in 1982. I don’t think they kept for too long, as they didn’t meet the expected cruise missile threat. How times have changed!

        • The new German replacement for gepard looks good. It programs each bullet as it shoots out the barrel. Can’t remember it’s name now. If it works as advertised it shows the tech is available.
          Really the forces should be going all in on the CTA cannon if it is a game changer like it’s made out to be. More units brings costs down. If it’s only going on Ajax it would be as well-being dropped as it will be a costly unique weapon.

          • Totally agree. Having both the RN and Army using the same weapon system would not only help logistically, but also bring down the ammunition costs.

            I still find it hard to understand the rationale as to why the Type 31 is getting the Bofor’s instead of the CTAS? I get the reasons for the 57, though I would have picked a second one going on the hangar roof and put the two 40s either side amidships.

            I wonder if CTAS has thought about a 57mm version? The telescoped cartridge will hold more propellant, so the muzzle velocity will be greater and enhance the maximum effective range. Plus it can still be loaded with the standard 57mm smart rounds.

  8. We need 6.

    If 3, then the generation after that will be 1 or 0.

    This isn’t hard to work out.

    We have got to master the shrinking numbers issue, or the navy will vanish.

  9. Lasers on British warships… that’ll be the day! Anyway we don’t need lasers on warships… we need lasers on satellite’s.

  12. Can’t see the point of all this very expensive unproven technology being proposed for future warfare , The Ukraine war has clearly shown that future warfare will be determined by who has the best drones and the means of directing them in a battle . Cheap drones in large numbers can easily be delivered to focus on destroying easy targets like modern warships which with lightweight structures would not be able to withstand continuous swarm attacks delivering reasonable explosive power. Drone technology will develop at great speed to learn how to overcome ship borne defence systems . Drones will eventually be cheap effective attack weapons that could be procured and used by any country to cause chaos anywhere in the world

      • A fast acting hard hitting gun system will deal better with the cheap drones and we already have that. No matter how the weapon its really all about the tracking and aiming systems that need to be on top line and capable or your wasting your time. KISS works. A bow and arrow still kills.

      • The USA has been pumping a minimum of $1 billion a year for the past 25 years into direct energy weapons. Hopefully it’s starting to work as it should.
        Ratheon have a 15kw and 50kw system being fielded just now. Looks good. Task and purpose did a YouTube video on it recently.

  13. Totally off topic, I see yet another Russian exec, banking this time, has had an 11th floor accident! I might go to Russia and open a balcony railing business, it would seem to be a gap in the market!!!!!

  14. Direct energy weapons will inevitably come along once the tech has matured and power generation has been worked out.

    But surely in the meantime modern gun systems like 40mm with clever tracking and ammunition would be pretty good against drones?

    Would ship launched Martlet or Starstreak add a decent layer of defence? I recall the Royal Navy trialled the former but not sure why they didn’t follow it up.

    • I don’t know why the RN never followed up on the Martlet system either, but I see KNDS/Nexter have taken on the concept, recently showcasing a 4 Martlet missile pod on one of their ship’s 40mm RAPIDFire gun mounts. I think it’s to be tested later this year on a French logistics ship.

      • Given the RN is already introducing a 40mm system a combo of replacing the 30mm across the fleet with them as well as Martlet launchers would be a relatively cheap way of adding some more punch.

        • Given the range of the Bofors 40mm is greater than the Martlet and that CAMM has more punch, under what circumstances would you see a shipborne Martlet being used across the fleet?

          I can see it might be a good combo for RFA or the even the carriers.

          • They ought to extend the Marlet’s range a bit, half again or double it. Make it safer for a Wildcat launch too.

          • Agreed. With 3p ammo, range v martlet comparable & can fire multiple rounds in the same timespan, don’t see why anyone would bother with ship borne martlet.

            IMO, 40mm with independent power and radar should replace 20mm, 30mm and don’t bother with Martlet.

        • Cannot really concur. The 30mm ASC is a very flexible, reliable & cost effective general purpose supplement to the 40 Mk 4, also non-deck penetrating in current version and therefore more valuable in reserve.
          I’ve no problem whatsoever the the balanced gun calibre choices made for Type 31 at present.

          • Useless against missiles or fast air attacks. Occupies a station that more capable weapons could use.

          • Apology, ‘what I wrote’ does not seem to be appended to the right reply in first place. Besides T-31 does not have 30mm ASC as part of equipment fit 😕 I’ll go and have a nap.

          • Just a bit miffed that they went for the Bofors, instead of the CTAS 40! Would have dropped the price of the ammo for both the Army and Navy, plus have a larger stockpile plus better logistically. BAe wins which ever system is chosen, as it is an equal partner with Nexter making the weapon system.

    • We had this discussion a few years back. See link to Save the Royal Navy (Navy Lookout now) page. This shows a 5 round Martlet launcher fitted to the side of a DS30M mount on HMS Sutherland in 2019.

      The Martlet missile – the Wildcat helicopter gets its claws | Navy Lookout

      Scrolling down the page, you will see a Martlet being fired and the massive exhaust flame coming out the back of the tube. For reasons only known to Thales, they did not use the “soft” launch method for Martlet as they did with Starstreak. On Starstreak the 1st stage rocket only operates long enough (about 1 second) to kick the missile out of the tube. When it gets around 10ft from the tube, the main engine ignites to accelerate the missile towards the target.

      I think the reason why Thales didn’t use the soft launch method, was that the Martlet was initially only going to be used by helicopters. So a soft launch may not have enough oomph to make sure it clears sufficient space from the helicopter’s forward momentum.

      Gunbuster made a few lurid comments on the length of the flame, due to the kit that the flame could/would hit. This may be the reason why the trial didn’t go any further. Plus why people are now talking about an efflux deflector.

      • DB, why don’t they now try and reduce the Martlet down to 4 too on the DS30mm mount and add in a you beaut “ED”?

    • No doubt it will be interesting to watch this super ambitious and futuristic program’s development play out. There is also no doubt it will have lasers and who knows what else: if the first of class is to enter service in the late 30s, then the last will be expected to remain in service at least into the 2070s. Taking a guess at the extremes of scenario analysis, I will go with: a) “Designed with 144 vertical launch cells, the highly ambitious Type 83 was cancelled when it became apparent the Queen Elizabeth class carriers would be replaced with smaller and more numerous UAV carriers, and budgetary concerns forced the RN to go with a more modest destroyer replacement.”; and b) “With mass needed in the Pacific, all 8 planned Type 83s were built, restoring Britain’s naval pride mid-century with a true cruiser capable of providing a dynamic air defense umbrella for allied fleets, as well as anti-submarine warfare bested only by the RN’s new Type 29 frigate.”

      • Or(c)”.Because of budgetary constraints, the type 83 will be fitted for but not with directed energy weapons. Originally planned as a class of 6, the number was reduced to 4 in the 2035 defence review, with rumours that the 4th vessel may also be cancelled. The first in class is now 4 years late and £1.8b over initial cost estimates”.

    • My flat has shields. Celtic, Scutum, oval, Saxon/Viking, Kite, Heater, Buckler, riot etc
      Even got a Laser lever somewhere.

      • Frank the number of shields you own is disturbing and I’m not sure where the riot shield sits with that lot 😂😂😂

        I think you may have a case of collectionitis ( an inflammation of the collection need…I have it as well, it’s common in men over 50 but can hit anyone at anytime.

  16. I hope by the time the T83 enters service, we’re still not fitting Phalanx as the CIWS option; it’s already getting long in the tooth as is!

    • But it works and was knocking our rockets in Iraq OK. An updated self contained system needed with minimal external needs. Todays version very capable.

        • My other concern with Phalanx is reload time. In say a fast boat swarm attack, or a saturation AShM attack, Phalanx can run through its ammo drum very quickly. How long to reload? – and add to that reloading under combat conditions!

          Any chance Phalanx will be replaced by the 40mm Bofors on Type 26 and 45 in the future – and on the QEs for that matter? I’m thinking not.

          • And yet the 30mm were never installed on the QEs, almost as if they were waiting for the 40mm to be in service with the RN, to see if that might be a better option.

          • Sadly the Bofors has a major flaw. It has to rely on the ship’s NS100 radar for guidance and tracking. Using the EO sensors as back up. So if the weather is cack and the radar goes down. You’re left with the EO to try an find plus track a target in really cack weather. The Bofors, needs a stand alone search and tracking radar. Then it can be used against targets in all weathers if the ship’s primary radar is lost.

    • Incline to agree, I think with the view that Europe will be central to the next governments policy the RN will bare the brunt. When you think a destroyer is described and a long endurance warship designed to escort a fleet or battle group. To me that sounds like a capability that can be dropped as we won’t be sailing battle groups around the North Sea. You need destroyers if we’re going to remain global not for our own back yard.

      • Goodbye RN. The very opposite of the current strategy.
        If true, I will be looking for all the Labour voters on here.

        • Whilst serving on the DLG Hms London in the 70ts our mess had the sign ” will the last person to leave the Navy ,please switch the lights off ” Daniele

    • Alas, I fear you are right…. apparently it’s understood within Whitehall that Sunak has no interest in defence. The lessons of the Ukrainian conflict will go unlearned to our detriment.

  18. Why the wait until the mid late 30s!? It’s still only 2023, so you can get it done by the end of the 20s so a batch 1 by the early 30s. Is there going to be a mix of MK41s and Sylver’s with later mods of Asters or something new? Can always get an additional batch of AAW T31s to build up the numbers earlier if required. Anyway it’s good to see that there seems to be a lot of momentum with T83 happening. Interstimg radar panels on the rear funnel too.

    • I think our shipyards may be fully occupied with T31,T26, T32 until mid-late 2030s. But we’d all want these ASAP.

    • Why wait until mid-late ’30s? Three reasons:

      First, budgets. Until we get well past the hump of paying for T26 and FSSS, there’s not enough in the budget to take T83 beyond concept.

      Second, OOS dates for T45s. There’s a really bad habit in RN procurement of not doing anything until a year or two after you thought you had to. The idea of doing something early is too mind-boggling to contemplate. If T45s are OOS in mid 2030s, bad habits suggest the MoD will aim for the end of the 2030s for T83 and try to squeeze another few years out of the T45s. If they mess it up as expected, they won’t commission the first T83 until after 2040, and will need to Lifex the T45s. By then, the admirals who’ll deliberately postpone decisions over the next few years will have retired, leaving their successors to mop up.

      Third, industrial capacity. It is felt that the only place to build a complex warship in the UK is Govan and that Type 83 can’t come off the production line until after the Type 26s. The speed of the Type 26s is constrained by annual budgeting, so they probably haven’t paid for Batch 2 to come faster than every 18 months. So the Batch 1 deliveries will be about in 2026, ’27/’28, and ’29, and for Batch 2 in ’30, ’31, ’33, ’34 and ’35 (these are my guesses, but the RN announced construction complete in “mid-2030s”, which fits). The first T83 then could not be delivered before 2036 to be operational in 2038.

    • It’s the one lying flat in front of the aft funnel that is pointing directly up, that should get the eyebrows rising! In that orientation it is going to fill the blind spot direct above the ship, so it can track ballistic and very steep diving targets.

      • Yes, I was wondering about those horizontal panels too. Thought they can’t just be “skylights”!

  19. If history is repeated RN gets a fetish with lasers, abandon all other “old” weapons and then come another Falklands and the lasers disappoint…

  22. This appears to tie in with potential developments with XV Patrick Blackett for carrying podded radar, SAMs and even UAS mounted AEW. Distributing the overall capability.

  23. Photon torpedos & cloaking too! Dream on.

    We’re incapable of putting conventional escorts to sea with basic fit-outs of conventional weapons & systems, so I’m not getting too enthused about lasers.

    Looks like a decent ship though the bow looks classic RN too short, needing stretching. How many will we get? The missile farms look decent size, so maybe capable of considerable land strike so long as they’re not left idle due to FFBNW appropriate missiles.

  24. We do have to remember that direct energy weapons are still very low end effect for a high end cost ( theoretically savings are to be had with use as firing a directed energy weapon is cheap as chips..vs using a round..but the research and capital costs are more).

    We are not at the point a directed energy weapon can act as a close in weapon system or primary air defence system. The energy delivery is just not their..so it’s going to be ancillary system for UAV and small boats..one of the things it has going is you could also set it to dazzle people or sensors as a less than lethal option ( really it’s a light gun replacement)

    The serous end of direct energy weapons was from the possibly around particle beam weapons..basically firing particles that travel near light speed, this can create very significant kinetic energy. But the US have just suspended research on creating particle beam weapons as it will take to long to develop into a practical weapon ( but really if your taking something that can be used against large fast anti ship missiles it would need to be a particle beam weapon).

      • Well yes and no as light is both an energy wave and a particle all at the same time….double slit experiment and all that….bugger know why..to add confusion although light is made of something ( photons) it actually has no mass at all ( it’s mass less), again no idea how this works…so if you fire a stream of photons even at the speed of light they have no mass so have no kinetic energy.

        but protons and neutrons etc do have mass ( 1 amu each) so if you do fire then at the speed of light they hit with kinetic energy…( very high levels of relativistic kinetic energy). It’s why the very Science fiction particle beam cannon is the holly grail of weapons development and the U.S. keep going back to it every decade or so just to check in an see if the science and tec fields can support a weapons programme.

        • Photons have no rest mass, that’s true, but they do have momentum and all their energy is effectively kinetic. [For those that care: E= hc/λ = hf. You can’t use E=½mv², you derive from E = pc]

          The momentum of a photon is small but real, which is how light sails work and photon drives/rockets.

        • Was also going to reply with the light sails point. But yeah protons are interesting and referencing the double slit experiment took me back 🙂

          • Yes, it’s a bit mind blowing TBH, I’ve never really understood how something without mass can still have energy…and something with mass travelling at the speed of light becomes an infinite mass. Physics = we really don’t have a clue and we may all be holograms anyway.

  25. Hi folks hope all is well.
    Always great to see the future of our military having a vision of the future and development of new technologies.
    As a side note, it appears the head of the army is to step down because he has concerns about further cuts.
    Cheers,
    George

  26. Serious Post this time.
    Why build such a large ship if its key enabler is its ability to network with other systems ?
    Surely if it was slightly smaller and had fewer VLS that releases funds to increase load outs on other ships !
    I always thought the idea was that each ship provides its sensor info to other ships via datalinks and they then have a clearer picture. if you have a key node in the network with overall Command and Control (Flagship) they can use their distributed weapons more effectively.

    This looks like putting all the eggs in one basket, which results in fewer baskets.

    We seem to be moving in one direction just when the USN is moving in the other via their DMO concept.

    Any ideas ?

    • Careful now, serious questions on a Friday afternoon…?
      I think this part of the quote from the minister is telling: “Our Royal Navy is building its Future Air Dominance System. Likely to comprise the new Type 83 Class platforms – which will one day replace Type 45 – these are more than just ships. They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a “system of systems.”
      It’s obviously been carefully crafted to be as light on actual content, while sounding like it’s providing concrete details. But the way that he describes “Type 83 class platforms” implies, to me at least, a set of vessels that could have different fit-outs. Everyone loves to use “system of systems” too, but the way that is used normally implies that there are multiple types making up a whole- like the FCAS with its manned, un-manned, and deployable decoys and suchlike.
      That is much more in line with the USN stuff you’re referring to, I think?
      It could be that the “T-83” 12,000 Te model is a bit of a mental image placeholder, so everyone has something tangible to hold on to instead of just a concept. Or it could be that this is the “quarterback” or cruiser, with C&C capabilities and a node function, with distributed forward ranging sensors on unmanned vessels, and other platforms that are essentially floating VLS farms. Or it could be that they are intending on essentially building a gold-plated vessel which does everything, like the T-45…

      • Sadly it has been modelled, that to defeat the air defence systems of something like the T45. You basically need to make it expend its magazine of missiles. Therefore, to make life more difficult for your adversary, you up the number of missiles your ship carries. Bit chicken and egg. Thus you need a larger ship to house the increased number of missiles.

        The other issue is that as demand for longer range weapons increases, therefore the size of these weapon increases, as does the space/volume they occupy. Take for instance the SM3 missile. It has to be housed in the strike length version of the Mk41 VLS, which is 7.7m deep and is 25.12″ squared. The USN/Raytheon have already increased the diameter of the 1st stage booster. But they are now talking of one that can reach even higher altitudes in space, so it needs a bigger 1st, 2nd and 3rd stages. Which means it will need a VLS bigger than MK41.

        There is talk that the Zumwelts, will be the first USN ships getting the hypersonic cruise missile. Therefore they will require a much bigger VLS than Mk41. It has been said that the hatch could be some 83″ in diameter. Which then implies the depth of the launcher will be closer to 9m or more. Now if the ship only carries 8 of these, that is still a huge amount of space taken up on the ship. If we also conclude that a bigger version of SM3 is likely to use this launcher, imagine trying to fit it to an already packed Arleigh Burke destroyer.

        It would be similar issue for the RN faced with fitting something like this to the T26, T31,T32,T45 or T83. From the blurb we know that the FC/ASW sub-sonic version will be capable of air carriage as well as torpedo tube launching. It will likely be of a similar size to Storm Shadow, perhaps only slightly bigger to house more fuel to increase the range. But they have also said that it will fit the A70 Sylver VLS.

        However, the hypersonic version of FC/ASW is a very different beast. If they want any decent range, such as over 500km. Then it will need to be of a similar size to the Zircon at around 9m long. Which makes it too big to be carried by aircraft like the Typhoon and probably Tempest. It also means it cannot be torpedo launched, which is requirement for the French. Their new Suffren class do not have VLS only torpedo tubes.

        The future MBDA Aquila air defence endoatmospheric missile, is a 3 stage rocket, similar to SM3. Though from what I can gather it will be more in keeping with the SM6 role in countering hypersonic threats. It will make the full use of space in the A70 Sylver VLS. Bizarrely they did not get the contract for the European Hypersonic Defence Interceptor (HYDEF) which went to to a consortium led by Spain’s Sener Aerospace and supported by Diehl and Nammo. Which is also of a similar proportion to Acquila.

        The upshot is that you need a larger vessel to house these new and future missiles.

    • Don’t know that much about DMO but I think it’s about expanding the use of autonomous and more flexible vessels but not sure there is any intent to reduce the general size of their destroyers et al, it’s more in addition to those core vessels surely even if overall numbers might be dis used in light of this policy potentially if they prove effective. But as a Pacific and generally Ocean scale navy just don’t see their capital ships reducing in size any time soon. If they did then they might reduce to the size we already operate or are considering I suspect so again no implied logic that we should go smaller though arguably takes away from going much bigger. If we reverse our move to operating wider afield then that might be an argument to generally downsize I suspect but even then a lot will depend upon what autonomous platforms will develop and be utilised as these may demand more space than traditional weapons do and if you need to employ both then there won’t be any logic in down sizing, indeed likely the opposite. But progress in various vital technologies are not yet conclusive I suspect, so such decisions will no doubt be fluid for some time yet.

  27. That‘s more like it.
    No doubt the whole concept will be undermined by the bean-counters, removing hulls and capability from the program.

  28. Again, looking very light/vague on projecting force. If the purpose of the RN is simply to stay afloat and defend itself, this would be easier to achieve by means of GBAD around Portsmouth.

  29. My concern is cost. The concept as in the main photo looks good, but how many will the RN get.

    To be honest I would accept three or four of these on the condition that we would also get six-eight AAW T26s Batch 2s or T46s. I would prefer the AAW T26 version with the same radar suite as the T83. If the radar suite from the T83 is to big then possibly we could use the Canadian version of the T26 but with an added Mk41 Tactical block forward in place of the 24 Sea Ceptor farm.

  30. At the moment this is all conjecture and supposition. Until the government and MOD have placed orders for 10-12 ships I will not believe or get excited about the program.
    Seems obvious to me that the next generation of destroyer will have direct energy weaponry.

    • Even if they order 10-12 it will be in batches so not guarantee that batch 2 will done in the numbers stated!

  31. These things will need some very clever people to think up so spectacular breakthroughs,
    But even if all the sci-fi advances have been achieved the final result will not be a laser as the headline suggests. The energy of laser beams is dissipated by salt, spray, rain and fog. To overcome this, the weapon has to employ microwaves or packets of plasma.

    • One has to take into consideration the nature of the ACA of course and the fact it seemed in that article to be leaning towards the concept of ballistic missile defence, a very narrow use definition. Even if one looks purely from an engineering and technology pov such negativity has also traditionally been applied to new developing technologies, I have alluded before to Griffiths who pretty much defined the concept of a turbine jet engine early last century, yet holding back the progress of the pure jet engine of the type Whittle developed because for 20 years he argued it would only be useful in driving a propeller and would not develop enough thrust to drive an aircraft alone.

      I think it’s why developmental testing is in itself required to prove or disprove conceptual studies to a very great degree which is what is going on presently with laser tech. There were doubts about hypersonic missiles too which helped to effectively stop US research a decade ago only for a turnaround dictated by progress elsewhere suggesting it wasn’t correct to see them as a relatively ineffective, or fruitless technology.with little practical advantage as had been concluded.

      Still big questions about lasers that’s true, but it’s reasonably safe to say it will have useful roles in the navy and elsewhere particularly against drones and swarm attacks of various kinds. Whether it will be effective against higher end weapons is less clear certainly but only by developing the technology can we find out and surely that is precisely why such technology demonstrators in a wide range of conditions is required, computer simulations can only demonstrate let alone prove so much, experts and commentators will always spread across a wide range of views.

    • That really isn’t a good example, as the pointer will have a dot size around 1 to 2mm. Thereby, it will suffer worse dispersion than something like Dragonfire. Which will have an initial beam size of around 10cm in diameter which is then focused down on to the target. So its dispersion wont be as bad. Plus it will have at least 50kW of oomph behind it instead of 10mW. So water droplets will be vaporized as it passes through..

      • DaveyB, If you have access to a THEL or similar! Feel free to prove me wrong. We have had the ability to destroy things with Lasers for decades.Why do you think no country has deployed them? In a lab or in perfect conditions they can be very effective. But combat never takes place in perfect conditions.

  33. Type 83 Destroyer -early BAE concept image.
    My observations from the above image:
    Estimated overall length of 180 metres x 25 metre beam.
    16 x Mk 41 tactical or short length VLS (quad packed sea captor missiles?)
    24xMk 41 strike length VLS.
    Phased array mounted on the large tall pyramid structure, 2 panels mounted on the rear faces of the rear stack.to cover blind spots and one horizontal panel forward of the rear stack to detect plunging missile attack.
    64x Mk41 strike length silos (allowance for deeper penetration for hypersonic missiles?)
    Extra wide mission bay and hanger for unmanned autonomous vehicles stack offset for access between them. Wide flight deck with rear mission bay below for towed array and surface and underwater autonomous vehicles via rear access?
    This would be a large and powerful ship with room for further upgrades.
    (Canister anti-ship missiles abreast of the forward stack, weapon systems above the mission bay if anyone thinks it is under armed!)

    Below are some size comparisons.
    Type 26 and Hunter class Frigate: 149.9 metres o/a length x 20.8 metre beam.
    Type 45 Destroyer: 152.4 metres o/a length x 21.2 metre beam.
    Arleigh Burke Flight 3 Destroyer: 155.3 metres o/a length x 20 metre beam.
    F100/Hobart class Destroyer: 147.2 metres o/a length x 18.6 metre beam.
    World war 2 Cruiser HMS Belfast: 187 metres o/a length x 19.3 metre beam.

  35. Developing and deploying lasers in space is Britain’s top priority. Anything else is just faffing around, whilst wasting precious time, and taxpayers money.

  36. Lasers…
    Current cutting edge laser technology is limited to around 5 km against slow drone/cruise missile sized targets and that’s dependent on atmospherics, power generation and cooling. One effort is a load of industrial lasers bolted together in a slab ( hence the name) …simple but hardly cutting edge. Others use adjustable optics to focus the power better.
    Bigger more powerful lasers for say supersonic missiles or for ABM would need to be on a whole other scale such as Free Electron lasers reaching out 20-30km which need an LPD sized vessel to house the cyclotron and the 20 tefal head nuclear physicists to operate it.
    Lasers will be close in , no more than 5-10km ranged against Slow missiles , drones, surface targets and for “dazzling”. Unfortunately Physics is a bitch and unless someone can break the laws lasers are not going to be Star Wars Turbo Lasers anytime soon.

    CEFAR is a great radar but the cooling requirements are even bigger than Sampson! Lose the cooling and it will slag itself in short order. All that power comes with a wild heat cost and that has to be gotten rid of somewhere and that means massive cooling plants and power generation for the cooling plants. Like T45’s getting that cooling up a tall mast will also mean big pumps and pipework

    On the plus side extra VL tubes and capability to deploy off board sensors is going to be de rigueur for any future vessels.

    • “Dazzling ” lasers as seem above some Council estate’s when a police helicopter is looking for suspects .So give the upperdeck WDP crew hand held Pointer laser pens Gunbuster

      • They used laser pens out here during the troubles against helos. Not a great move. The next thing that happened was an armoured car turned up, the heavy mob leapt out tear gassed , rubber bulleted or just plain old shot you.

        Luckily its been quiet here for probably 7 years now with very little in the way of incidents. You still get the odd incident , usually during school break time ( That tells you a lot!). The lot on the other side of the Gulf have mostly stayed out of the way after they lost a load of agents and agitators to the Security Forces.

        • Gunbuster, At least you have the weather for them, and a police/security Force that does what its paid too do , Back in blighty we seem too have gone full on “Woke” I’m waiting for a knock on the door as I got someone’s Pronouns wrong

          • The regular Plod here are really good. Polite, helpful and very tolerant. However the High top boot wearing lot in dark blue armoured cars…not so much if you piss them off.

            During the troubles me and mates and wives found ourselves driving into a full on riot. Tear gas, petrol bombs, baton rounds, bricks burning tyres in the street. However when everyone from both sides saw we where westerners with ladies in our SUV Expedition. They all stopped, opened a way in the barricades waved us through, closed the barricades and then carried on rioting …absolutely surreal!

          • Thanks Gunbuster , bet that’s not in Amy travel guide book for things too see and do, and there was me thinking ladies couldn’t alter anything that men do out there Great dit though back in blighty at the moment “Just stop Oil” can only throw Jigsaw pieces or powder hardly buttock clenching when caught up in one of their protests would love too see them try it on out the Gulf

  37. The UK government and our allies should buy up all the
    ACME giant mirrors, prevent our enemies getting any defensive capability against our Lasers

  38. The type 26 hull is not the answer, going to be seriously overweight at 12-13000 tons. Big fan of keeping a gun based ciws but phalanx is quite outdated, millennium gun is a great system for anti missile work and against asyememetric threats. A 76mm main gun (or three) would probably also be wiser, is achieving 40km range against land targets and DART is a great system against missiles , mk 45 is only used becauae of BAE and commonality with us warships, useless against missiles and not even the best 127mm gun on the market in terms of range, rate of fire . Or 57mm guns if a similar guided round such as madfires is successful although it’s a bit light for anti surface work . The vls count is about right, I’d be a fan of using a seperate vls to house sea ceptor, the exls is vastly smaller and less penetrative than a mark 41 cell but can still quadpack sea ceptor as it’s a lot smaller than essm (and hopefully camm-er). I hope the west adopts a similar vls system to china, dual soft and hot launch, deeper length etc. 128 normal and strike length cells, 32 exls, 3 76mn (two forward in a horrizon class layout, one aft), starboard and port millennium guns and a cutting edge radar and sonar suite. Granted it’s probably going to be 15-16000 tons but we want these ships to be qualitatively superior in defending a carrier group, not stuck in the cardibean doing anti piracy work

  39. I know Battleships had a Q minship main battery with X and Y aft as with Iron Dukes. I3 fast Battleship or Battlecruiser design iintroduced just over one hundred years ago gained board approval but due to size was to big at this time. But anything like this Type 83 is I3. Weapons forward and missiles with propulsion aft, but in this case, some machinery forward of that midship main battery. Any weapons aft are from airborne craft from the flight deck, but essentially I3, or G3 and N3.

  40. I had a minor part in a laser based communications system in the 80s. Worked fine in the lab and early on in the field trials, that is until it rained and all those rain drops scattered the laser to the point where the system didn’t work. I do hope the developers of this system have remembered that there is an awful lot of water in the air around a warship, spray, rain, fog, low cloud, sometimes all at once.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here