Type 83 Destroyer to enter service in ‘late 2030s’

But will it be good enough?

The cost isn’t the hull but the systems.

So I would say move fast, break things, build a really big hull.

Yep steel is cheap and and space inside is free, infact the additional space can save money as you don’t need bepoke kit designed to fit in a crampted space so more off the shelf kit can be used. Also space means maintenance is easier therefore quicker again saves money longer term.

But we’re limited by the build halls at BAe and Babcock unless they build outside again, which costs more.

There is room to extend the build sheds?

I agree that having more space also means that updating the shop is easier and you are not stuck with obsolete bits ‘because they fit’.

Even stuff as simple as automated valves or pumps can be an issue with obsolescence.

Hi SB,

You ask an interesting questions so I had a look on google earth and a few other pictures to make sure I was looking at the right sheds.

There is plenty of room in front of the shed and a bit behind them but there are two issues that I can identify. First, the sheds are squeezed in between one of the big dry docks and another newish looking building so whilst you might be able to increase the length of the shed you are going to be limited on how much extra width you can add. So I am guessing there is a limit on the beam of anything you build in that shed.

Secondly, I also noticed that the space in front of the shed is about one frigate in length, so I wonder if that is required for some reason… The original idea was for the T31s to be built in a number of yards and assembled at Babcocks so that space may have been needed for aligning ship blocks before rolling them into the shed?

I think I remember reading somewhere Babcocks said they would extend the sheds if they needed to, but I have no idea how much expansion there is available. All depends on how big T83 is going to be.

Now if it was me specing the design I’d want 144 mk41 VLS, two 15″ quick fire guns to support the 2 companies of RM my 2 Chinooks will be landing, not forgetting… 🙂

Cheers CR

I *think* you would add to the front of the sheds.

As the ships will be wheeled out onto a barge – I *guess* and then launched from there by sinking the barge.

I don’t think the front hard stand is needed.

How much beam do you need?

“How much beam do you need?”

No idea mate. My point refers to the suggestion that the T83 is likely to be a large ship. My understanding is that that idea is based on three points that have been made over the years, 1) steel is cheap and space is free, 2) the 80 series of type of numbers is intended to large general purpose ships, 3) the main weapon system of these ships is very likely to be a large missile system.

The first two suggest a ‘desire’ to build big for many reasons that others have mentioned here and elsewhere, the last point is a ‘driver’ i.e. physics and operational threats ‘drive’ the need.

So for me anything less than 10,000tons will likely be not be up to the job (I have based this on the size / capabilities of the T45 and that many would agree with the need for large silo capacity). That is a lot bigger than a T31 around which the Babcock sheds were designed. So if the length to beam ratio is 7:1 is it not possible that the beam may be pushing the limits of the current sheds? Not sure.

What I really don’t want to see is capability compromised because we don’t have the necessary infrastructure and I include numbers as part of capacity.

I believe that we if do not get our defences sorted (by ‘we’ I mean the West as a whole) then it will be odds on that we will face direct conflict with Russia, China or both… and probably sooner than we might expect.

Logical conclusion, these ships need to be big to carry the weight of capability, the class needs to be more numerous than the T45 and they need to be delivered in a timely manner. Absolutely no chance of any of it at the moment, of course.

Cheers CR

If beam becomes an enormous issue, I suppose you would be limited to only building one in the shed and doing another the old-fashioned way assembling blocks on the hard. It might limit build speed, but that or a smaller, less capable ship would be the choice of the MoD.

Remember the RN are updating Sea Viper system(PAAMS), so it will be carried forward with a silo of Aster 30 block 1 NT.
Remember the Sea Viper system is proving itself well in the Red Sea!
Mk 41 silo be used mainly for ASuW.

The new shed as far as I am aware can build a hull 170 meters long inside and side by side. That sounds long enough to me.

I’d hoped for 600 feet and three funnels! Everyone loved the old County class as they had unheard of space and accomodation. Truely world cruisers at 10,000 tons. If we get 6 we’d always need 8. 8 is the magic number for efficiency of numbers. Why cant the MOD see this?

I agree totally the Royal Navy in my opinion needs 30 escorts ideally.
5 T 31, 5 T 32 or 31 beach 2 and 12 T 26. with 8 T 83 also 10 SSN,s. This would be a balance force. but It is extremely unlikely unless the government of the next 15 year’s starts to smell the cordite

Yes it would be just a big a task, with issues, discussed on other threads!

I suppose the key is finding that good enough sweet spot and not looking for perfection…type 31 shows you can find that ground.

Also the reality of AAW is a bit different and keeps changing…

1) the fleet itself is different, once the RNs escort fleet had profundity poor air warfare capabilities and needed lots of specialist AAW hulls even to provide protection against moderate threats…I forgot the exact numbers but if you looked at the escort fleet of the 1980s a very large percentage of the frigates could not even defend themselves against low end threats..where as the modern RN frigate fleet has 100% of its frigates not just able to defend themselves against almost all threats but able to also provide a short range area defence capability….so the fleet as a whole is profoundly different…with all future frigates having mk41 silos the opportunity for more networked approach’s is significant.

2) the threat has changed and expanded…its both retrograded and returned to the mass of low end threats as you would have seen 80 years ago..in which the possibility of many hundreds attritional targets overwhelming defences is real, as well as expanded into the proudly challenging areas of stealth threats, networked Heuristic intelligence attacks (a very high end version of the low end threat in which the attritional units not just overwhelm but test, find and target weakness), hypersonic and ballistic threats….

All in all probability one ship and one sensor platform is not the whole answer…but instead the RN needs to look at what does the RN need as the central node for a task groups AAW capacity to be built around and then what else needs to be invested in to support that node as part of a network of capabilities..

But I agree, nailing down what the core looks like ( as a ship) then building it, will be fundamentally important…

The solution is bound to involve a large, high power, high mounted radar!

That is a given.

So once you know how high and how heavy ship – then design can get going.

As you know I’ve long argued that distributed missile firing and control is the way forwards.

That said the T83 needs a decent number of tubes to deal with systems being jammed.

Indeed and the reality of the tubes is they are low in the hull anyway so less of an issue…as you say agree the sensor and then maybe even see if you have an off the shelf hull that could be used….as long as it fits the sensor and has growth for a missile farm who really cares if it’s a new or old hull.

These things are pretty iterative anyway.

I’d say that the potential T83 hull is well known from studies done in the 1960’s.

Really a small committee’s needed to do the high level design and make decisions on power plant etc

T45 is still so good and ahead of its time I really can’t see why T83 can’t just simply be a renewed version of T45. No one in the USN is complaining that they are replacing Burkes with flight III Burkes.

Every time you let defence contractors away with building something “cutting edge” for cutting edge sake you end up with way less for way more.

A renewed T45 incorporating an upgraded radar with 5 arrays including un upward facing array for ABM and an enlarged space for 96 Mk41 launchers and job done.

No need to mess around with mission bays and modules, just build a decent AAW destroyer.

“ A renewed T45 incorporating an upgraded radar with 5 arrays including un upward facing array for ABM and an enlarged space for 96 Mk41 launchers and job done.”

Hmme so a radar 2.5x the weight of SAMPSON?

That will need one biiiiig old ship. Might look a lot like a Tide or a shrunk QEC…..

The 96 VLS slots isn’t a lot more than T45 will have with A30 (48), Sea Ceptorb(24) & NSM (8)…..that is 80 shots.

So I’d actually think it might be 48 SYLVER and 48 Mk41 and some soft launch and some AShM canisters.

The reason for the separation is that you can fire multiple types simultaneously…..you might want to interdict a long range threat to the CSG with A30 and a short range threat to mother with Sea Ceptor at the same time as popping off a AShM. This way you don’t have dead time due to eflux.

An upward facing flat panel would be on top of the superstructure and not on the mast so it would need far less ballast. I don’t think I’d go for an upward facing panel at all, but something like four panels in a square canted at 45 degrees. Not quite as efficient when looking upward if the ship is tilted, but not far off. However would also be able to scan horizontally and do a volume search job, partly replacing the S1850M.

Errrrr well

I think you’d have a few issues making it work coherently with the other plates.

It would be fine if you were using it as a separate radar and then combining the 4D picture.

But to try and synthesise a single radar out of that would combine the problems of a rotating head and flat panel system into one system.

The issue is the coherence between the rotating plates and the the fixed plate(s) when crossing between them.

Whilst it can, undoubtedly, be done it is a massive amount more complex than it needs to be and the software R&D would be quite the project.

I meant as a separate non-rotating radar with four AESA panals. Image fusion is well understood these days.

I was talking about beam steering between the top plates and the rotating plates?

Hence why i am suggesting that they would operate as tape separate systems with the images fused post processing.

It’s more Aster and CAMM silos that are needed on T45, with BMD capability. T45 PAAMS is proving itself in the Red Sea. Mk. 41 is ok for ASuW, so maybe 32 needed.

The solution I think should also involve a reloading at sea capability. Then it doesn’t matter quite so much if the ship only has say 64 big tubes and 64 smaller ones.
It needs a good air defence gun as well. A 57mm or two could easily add 2000 rounds of defence.

If the Hypervelocity Projectile gets going from BAE, and I think it should, that would turn a 5″ into quite a reasonable missile defence weapon, notwithstanding the potential for NGFS (unlikely, but still… )
In that case, we could follow the Italian route and have a 57mm on each beam to fire MAD-FIRES or similar. Apparently the fire rate is not enough for proper CIWS role, so either 40mm or Dragonfire evolution might be needed for faster targets.

Lok at the fleet in the Falklands, most of the Frigates could only stop a missile with their hulls.

The T42 was so ineffective it had to be escorted by a type 22 for close in support.

Up until the T22 it was very much a fleet built on a budget.

Many less ships today but T45 and T23 are premier vessels as good if not better in their specific roles than any other vessel on the planet.

T26 will continue this and T31 armed with Sea Ceptor and Mk41 is no joke either.

I find it very disappointing that people on the thread want to replace PAAMS with Mk. 41 AAW which missiles will cost a fortune in FMS tax!
PAAMS is proving itself in the Red Sea as an excellent Area Air Defence system!
So why change a system if it works?

There’s no need to replace PAAMS with AEGIS. It’s the launchers that need rationalizing. Having a mix of Sylver and Mk41 is poor for logistics and maintenance. The Navy should settle on Mk41, but still keep Aster. Half of the integration work has already been done. Just needs someone to stump up the cash to finish it.

Having just Mk41 would give the Navy better control on costs, but also more weapon options.

I did not suggest replacing PAAMs with Mk 41, mk41 is on all our future frigates and there is nothing to stop integrating any missile you want into those silos..there is nothing to stop aster missiles being integrated into MK41 silos and the frigates acting as arsenal ships for PAAMs…the simple reality is the RN will have a fleet that contains well north of 300 mk41 silos..any serious development of a more integrated air defence system based around a further type83 will need to utilise those…it does not mean abandoning PAAMs but PAAMs is the T45 and the type 45 is PAAMs they will retire together…the T83 will have a different system…it may use elements from the PAAMs system but It will most definitely need to lever those 300+ MK41 silos in the fleet.

imo Mk57 should be the standard – as its a modified Mk41 with greater placement options and slightly larger in an overall smaller space I believe.

don’t know why we haven’t gone with this really

Could you have one forward and aft to cover your bases so to speak. A type 83 is too valuable to be in the gun line.

Mk57 silos would be fwd and mid – in T26 they could take over the mission bay for instance.

reduce the deck to merlin size (from chinook and you have more space in centre.

as for guns I would put 2-4 CTA40 or similar to standardise across the whole force (I don’t agree with buying small amount of boors)

put the 5in guns on the T31’s

That would be very good if Aster missiles could eventually be launched from Mk. 41 silos.

I believe they have already been certified

Are you aware of any test firings of Aster missiles from Mk.41 yet?

It’s been certified on EXLS which is a mk41 3 cell system.

i am waiting on link getting approval from MBDA website

Is it the platforms? The t26 are very expensive and yet most of their kit is being lifted from the t23. Extra weapons and sensors are talked about but not part of the massive current cost.

Quiet is expensive.

The 5” gun is new and very expensive

Mk41 VLS is new.

I’d be surprised if much is transferred from T23 -> T26 other than a refurbished Artisan…..maybe the 30mm mounts with 40mm barrels.

The sonar will need to be upgraded and refurbished.

But I think the first T26’s will have brand new kit that was never fitted to the T23’s.

“The 5” gun is new and very expensive”

You mean new to the RN but decades old with the USN? Albeit the latest version of it.

I just wish we’d standardise on one type & calibre of medium gun across all escorts, like we did since WW2 with the 4.5″, rather than having 57mm on our T31s & 5″ on the T26, when the 5″ would be far better suited to the T31. I still think 57mm is too small for an escort MG.

I hope some planning/preperation is going on to up build times if we need to!

T26 are not expensive (for what they are) and most kit is not being lifted from T23 although some is

current price is £840m per unit – order 10 more from the new factory and you are probably down in the £600m range

With small armed forces, don’t you need very high quality equipment?

If instead you had a lot of modest platforms, you could not crew them and they may not be able to fully do the job.

It’s more that it’s better to have the modern reliable modest platform, than not have the platform at all…if you cannot deliver the exquisite platform before your old ship rots out from under your feet your, to put it bluntly likely a bit screwed as your enemy is not going to politely wait for you to get around to finishing the perfect platform…

Also when I say modest I don’t mean rubbish I mean something that can to the job…using a heart attack as an example..the gold standard save your life treatment is primary angioplasty..but for that you need a primed and ready cardiac surgery team ready to run…with a catch lab etc…but you can also save your life using thrombolytic therapy ( clot busting drugs..they just need an ED team with the right drugs)…now of course it’s lovely to have primary angioplasty..but if the hospital does not have the cardiac team and specialist suite…you had better hope they have at least got the ED team with the training and drugs to treat you the less than perfect way…and not scrapped the old way while they are still trying to build the perfect cardiac centre..it’s the old 80/20 argument…better to succeed in something that gives you 80% capabilities than fail at getting something that would give you 100% if it was ready but instead gives you nothing at all…

If that worked, the government would just cut more. It would become, to extend your analogy, “take a couple of asprin, and if you aren’t dead in the morning make an appointment through an ICS.”

80% of 80% is 64%. We need an acceptable minimum too.

There is a balance to be struck, thats for sure. In my own field – the army – there have been examples of this sort of thing. CVR(T) Scimitar was deemed to be rotting from under the crewmens feet (even though Ukraine is finding them very useful in arduous combat), so Scimitar was withdrawn from British service in April 2023, but gold plated Ajax was not yet ready – so we have a fairly absurd situation of fielding some ‘passed over’ Warrior IFVs in a recce role in the interim.

In WW2 we had a lot of moderate, good enough ships. The Germans had a few over engineered ships. We won or saw them off in every combat except the Denmark Straits.

True. The issue today will be manning those extra moderate ships – the RN can’t fully man the handful of ‘high quality’ ships that they have today.

Or an enhanced Type 26 class variant with more VLS missiles for anti ship and land attack missiles. Or a beefer Type 31 thar looked like the version built for Indonesia and Poland, which looked more the Ivar Huitfeld. Or they could just buy the older Flight I and Flight 2 Arleigh Burke class destroyers when they are going to be essentially replaced by the DDG (X) or even a bigger Arleigh Burke class destroyers, dubbed the Flight IV.

The US Marine Corps are already deploying a squadron of F-35B fighters on the Queen Elizabeth carrier to help trained the Royal Navy to use their F-35B fighters. One of the mission of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers is use them like the LHA like the first two US Navy America class LHA, which resembles more like a light carrier since it is not have a dock.

Already far too late if the MOD take their usual relaxed attitute to time.

It’s likely to take 1.5 years to start the ball rolling (because of the election), plus two in concept, plus one to get initial designs, plus 2 for competition and selection, plus 4 for detail designs, plus 1.5 for price negotiations and contract signing, plus 9 years to get into service. A total of 20 years!

Unless the government make this a priority I wouldn’t expect to see the first T83 in service until 2044. Of course the T45s will be extended. An interesting question is what will Govan be building in the early 2030s when it should have been building the T83s?

That may or may not be the case mate, and if true then we are in trouble – again. Agree that we could probably extend, indeed will more than likely have to extend T45 service life to beyond 2038, but we dont really need to design a new class of ship. The quickest way to get a new AAW vessel would be to join one of the programmes already in motion, be it the US/Italy/Japan or indeed SK. Then build said design in our yards and fit it with whatever kit we deem suitable. Thats basically what we did with our T31’s.
That way there would be no gap after construction of the last 2 T26’s finishes.

Yes. I’d also add the Netherlands to that list, even if most would think their design is likely to be less than exquisite. The De Zeven Provincien class is pretty good and their partnership with Germany on the replacement may not be going quite as well as they would like. If the radar and ABM are seen as important, Thales Netherlands are certainly a company to reckon with.

We do seem to like re inventing the wheel every time we go for a big ticket programme!
There are imo, several countries/companies that we could go into partnership with to deliver something like a T83, and it would be a pretty good asset too, not necessarily the most expensive either. Interesting to see what we decide wrt the T83, will it be a standalone unit, or a asset hub directing ‘arsenal’ type vessels?

Detailed design can be reduced down to 2 years with new tech. The French can get their FREMM AAW fitted out within 18 months before delivered!

BAES: How many ships do you want?
MOD after checking the budget: Four
BAES: You think we’re going to invest in new tech and train hundreds of people on new procedures for just four ships? Will you pay extra?
MOD: then we could only afford three.
BAES: three in eighteen years or four in twenty?
MOD: give us a couple of years to decide….

Hi Mr Deep, check the article on T45 in the Navy Lookout: When will the Type 45 destroyers leave Royal Navy service? | Navy Lookout

You need to go sit on the stair and have serious talk with yourself young man! Ideas like that ferment rebellion.

Nothing like a bit of civil insurrection to get the ball rolling!🤣🤣

I wonder if an air defence version based on the T26 could fill the gap between T45 & T83? Something 10,000t+ as T83 is proposed seems overly ambitious for our resources & may end up limiting us to just 2 or 3 when we need 8+ air defence DDGs, preferably at least a dozen.

Better still, if we remain at so few escorts, make them all, all round capable like the USN has with their ABs.

An AAW version of T31 is easier and cheaper. The Iver Huitfeldt is primarily AAW after all.

I don’t think so as having “an alternative” available, even if it is significantly less capable, will be an excuse for the MoD to cancel T83 or at least limit the numbers. Better to work fast and get a design through before asking the Treasury for a budget, then complain vociferously if they refuse to fund the project.

Evening Frank, not sure a AAW version of the T26 is a viable option, you only need look towards AUS and see the trouble they are in with what they are trying to get out of their ‘Hunter’ class.
I think a dedicated AAW vessel needs to be big for two reasons. One is the height of the main radar, which requires a vessel with a greater beam/length for stability, and the other is for the number of vls tubes required going forward. (Quad packing notwithstanding).
Indeed it is the issue of numbers of tubes that is causing great concern with the USN at the moment. The US will be retiring both their Tyco class cruisers and 4 converted SSBNs this decade. That apparently will lead to a reduction of some 1500 odd vls tubes to the USN. They won’t be able to make up this shortfall untill the B3 ABs come online mid 30s. Not good when the PRC are on a epic ship building spree. It’s not a good position for them to be in if as alluded to by many, things go South in the next few years.

Having invested substantially in carrier strike, why would we move away from that?

How would we deliver air power distant from land air bases? Yes, I know we have got AAR tankers, but could we do sustained combat air ops using more than a pair or a 4-ship of F-35s at distance from the UK without the carriers?

We are ‘Global Britain’ after all, and everyone keeps reminding us about the Chinese threat.

Quite.

But in MOD world rails wag dogs.

If it was – this is threat -> we need this to deal with the threat -> this costs that much -> budgets

Then I would agree.

But this is set a budget, have most of it taken by nuclear, CASD, submarines, pensions and legacy issues.

Then try and fund capital projects that are required out of the relatively tiny amount left.

I am not sure which of my points you are critiquing!
I support carriers and the associated escorts – and said that we tend to have small numbers of expensive, high capability equipment – small numbers because the manpower cap is so taut.
I do agree that budget setting is not driven by firstly analysis of threat and then provision of the correct number of effective counter-equipments. If it was there would be no equipment black hole – but then we would have arrived at a defence budget that was in the 5-6% area, which Sunak and Hint think is unaffordable.

Surprising that 5-6% was exactly what the UK spent in the 1980s when it also faced multiple threats in a multipolar world….sadly I think it’s unlikely the political classes of this present generation will wake up and smell the coffee until their big loud talk and small stick has backed us into a world of pain….they have been breed on the hubris of the “end of history” and the economics of the peace dividend…a deadly cocktail for a multi polar world in which the west is not very popular and at the same time seen as weak..we either need to change our concept of what you need to sacrifice to make a country that can win wars or essentially shut up.

Thanks. Sadly some things are inevitable with modern (ie post WW2) British government –
a. reduced manpower and platform count in the 3 armed services.[eg. the army (manpower and platform numbers) has been cut once or twice every single decade since the end of the Korean War in 1953]….and …
b. the increase by %GDP of spending on the social areas – Health, Social Care, Benefits, Education.

This is surely no coincidence!

It used to be said about military expeditionary warfare (and other things) that ‘failure was not an option’, but now failure is almost inevitable. Some say we failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and that was in large part due to lack of numbers.

Ironic that within months of the Cold War officially ending in 1991 and politicians rubbing their hands with glee at the peace dividend (the gift that keeps giving, seemingly), we were at war in strength in the desert taking on Iraq for the first, but not the, last time. A few years later we were in the Balkans embroiled in the first war in Europe since WW2.

Hunt!

👍Exactly!

The T83 is the escort fleet!

Compared to what Andy? Don’t think I have de-prioritised the escort fleet.

Global Britain is the current vision not the next government. History is littered with new governments cancelling major capabilities. Labour with TSR2 and Tories wanted to can the carriers.

In the future well be supportive of our pacific allies with intel and technology but forget carriers deployed globally and if that’s the case they become surplus. Maybe political headache to get shot of them but mothballed extended readinss are options

https://www.politico.eu/article/labour-john-healey-defense-uk-military-indo-pacific-aukus/

Carriers take 700 crew, minimum. That’s 7 frigates crewed.

Perhaps I’m reading too much into these release by labour but all I’m doing is applying logic.

At the end of the day if the carriers go its more resources and money for other this so there is an upside to trading that capability.

I would be surprised if our carriers don’t continue to be deployed globally.
However, Healey sees our carriers as still being very useful in the Atlantic, Med, Arctic – and releasing more US carriers to do the Indo-Pacific piece.

Well I won’t be voting Labour or Tory as I can stand either of them. Both are vote for decline, Labour’s EU vision is just spreading the 2% over a smaller geography rather than upping defence spending. Tories will continue to spread the 2% thinly.

Ask yourself this if we didn’t have carriers and policy was to patrol local waters would support building 2 65000t carriers, assembling a fleet to protect them and purchasing the least capable F35 variant. All the areas mentioned can be covered by investing in other assets. Healey knows he doesn’t need them for his strategy, but he also knows how emotive getting shot of them would be.

Healey would be quite the hypocrite to have pop at the Tories for doing a freedom of navigation through the SCS then send a carrier back. He also said Australia wouldn’t send troops to Europe so why would we deploy there.

There appears to be this consensus also that the US is quite happy to fight in the Pacific alone. When we in Europe would expect them to come to our aid, it appears that we won’t be returning that favour. Its not difficult to see why Trump supporters see so little value in NATO when politicians here have already decided they’re going to selectively pick which NATO battles they participate in. Perhaps US quitting NATO and no longer being the global policeman would be a good thing I think we need shock treatment wrt defence.

I will not vote Tory or Labour also.

If we were suddenly no longer a global power and so no longer had a Rank 2 bluewater navy, and the only role of our navy was to patrol local waters, then of course we would not have aircraft carriers or T45 destroyers, and might have one or two fewer frigates.

I am not sure that we can be absolutely sure that Australia wouldn’t send troops to Europe if Russia invaded westwards or that no-one from Europe, not even a British CSG, would go to the Pacific to aid the Americans in a crisis.

Trump and his supporters see little value in NATO as they perceive that burden-sharing is unequal – is there any other reason?

I think that western European nations should be able to defend our own continent without US assistance, but a massive uplift in political and financial commitment is required by all.

If anything current events make the point that AAW is a real thing.

In any war going towards high end AAW is essential.

AAW is in really always the biggest thing..there are around 450ish military subs in the world…most of those are owned by a small club of nations…there are around 50,000 military aircraft in the world…that’s before you even get onto military drones and the now vast army of anti shipping missiles and the ability of land based forces to attack navel forces in the littoral….even a modest none state actor can now engage a large well equipped navel task group with a credible threat.

The nature of ASW threats are that they are limited in nature, deadly but limited…airborne threats are endemic.

With the above image and the enhanced AAW T26 offered to Australia there must be quite a bit that’s been done by BAE behind the scenes some of which could feed into the T83. You wouldnt be that credible if all you did was just provide nice pictures and models. I’d like to see a British version of the Italian DDX in the mix which could have both Sylver and MK41s and there should be space provision for any other vls iteration, like the mk57(?) that might (or not) be adopted by the RN.

We’re more likely to see more social workers than T83.

Should the current shower wish to retain their self proclaimed ‘party of defence’ moniker, they should order 4*T26 B3. Simples.

The End of History!

Fancies Fukuyama….possibly one of the most damaging figures in modern geopolitical history…”the End of history and the last man” may ironically be the book that in the end causes world war three and conflict between nuclear powers and a real end of history…never was there a more damaging pile of steaming bollox than that book.

👍 Agreed!

Yup but T45 will have to be thrashed to death to make up for the drop in numbers of T23.

An extra 4 T26 would be great but unless there is a gap between T 26 and T83 starting I don’t think it will happen.

Hi Andy yes the article https://www.navylookout.com/adding-firepower-to-the-type-26-frigate/
Shows just how a T26 hull can be used as the new AA vessel.

We can’t really make comparisons with Zumwalt. At this stage, Zumwalt was supposed to be a dedicated land attack ship, little more than a monitor with the AGS. With T83 it has been made clear from the start it will be a first-rate AAW ship, with hints of more all-round capability. If the Zumwalt saga happens to the current concepts, it will end up weighing 50,000 tonnes, carrying ICBMs and a squadron of F35.

If only. I was PM of a small £120m project at Abbey Wood in 2010-2011. I was a freelance civilian on a short term contract with MoD through an agency, in my first post-army job. I worked on a busy floorplate surrounded by at least 50 or so other people all working on other stuff. My boss was a civil servant with dozens of smallish projects like mine under his purview. I had no staff but co-opted specialists as and when required.

Lunching in the very ordinary canteen, I did not go anywhere near a Gentleman’s club – and senior officers only brushed up against my Project very occasionally, such as at Initial Gate and Main Gate.

Nevertheless I love the image you conjure up! Perhaps that’s how they do the super-big projects.

It’s all so upside down.

How much work would it take to certify Asters in Mk41s? I wouldn’t have thought it a lot, but I wouldn’t have thought Mk41s would be as expensive as they are, so I probably have a big old knowledge gap in the practicalities of VLS.

From my understanding Mk41 and Aster have completed a fair bit of computer based modeling.

Physically it is the interaction of the rocket motor’s efflux through the Mk41 vent system. Does it do anything different to other missiles? I doubt very much it will reach the same temperatures, as a launching SM3, which is a significantly bigger missile.

As the missile pops through its environmental seal and passes out of the Mk41 cell, how does it respond to the environment? This could be if there’s wind or say the sea blowing over the hatch. Again it should be no different to other missiles.

Also to be considered is how goes the missile respond to the emergency flooding system? Sylver has a similar system so it shouldn’t be any different.

Basically live firing trials is the next big stage.

Interesting. Thanks for that.