The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has provided an update on the Future Air Dominance System (FADS), with market engagement continuing to progress as part of its efforts to develop advanced capabilities for air and maritime defence.
Following the initial market engagement event in December 2024, the MoD is now moving forward with the next phase, including the second Market Engagement Event (MEE2), which will take place on January 28, 29, and 30, 2025.
This phase focuses on further refining the FADS programme and gathering feedback from industry partners on current market capabilities and potential solutions. The MoD has emphasised the importance of these engagements, noting that the development of FADS will provide integrated air and missile defence (IAMD) and long-range precision strike capabilities across air, land, and maritime domains.
The system is expected to replace the Type 45 Destroyers and will be a key part of the UK’s future fleet, ensuring air defence for the Carrier Strike Group and Littoral Strike Group.
The FADS programme follows a “system of systems” approach, centred around six core themes: SENSE, DECIDE, EFFECT, CONNECT, HOST, and ENABLE. As the MoD continues to advance the programme, the market engagement events provide an opportunity for suppliers to contribute their expertise and inform the next steps in the development of this cutting-edge system.
The upcoming MEE2 sessions will allow further interaction between the MoD and industry stakeholders, helping to refine the programme and ensure the successful development of FADS and its associated platforms, including the Type 83 Destroyer.
A concept image emerged in 2023, potentially showing Britain’s new Type 83 Destroyer, the image 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.
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, as pointed out above, it is contemplated that the vessel will 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.
Is the image official?
No, not at all. BAE and the Ministry of Defence haven’t commented on this and while the reveal of a potential Type 83 Destroyer concept image may have been unintentional, it has undoubtedly captured the imagination of naval enthusiasts.
Remember, the Type 83 destroyer programme is still in the pre-concept phase.
This is bonkers. We cut T26 from 13 to 8 solely on the grounds of cost, then made up the difference with a much cheaper T31, with limited sensors and weapons and a simple propulsion system. Neither has of course been evaluated in service.
To replace T45 with something much larger with an increased weapons fit will obviously cost much more. With the continuing pressure on the budget, dreaming up something like this is absurd and navy leadership needs to be challenged on the whole project. Their collective lack of realism has delivered 2 oversized, over budget carriers we can’t afford to fully equip with all the consequent damage to the rest of the surface fleet.
We need a replacement for T45 that is affordable and low risk, using as much as possible of existing designs, sensors and weapons.
We would be better off building additional T 26 to increase ASW capability. For AAW, a T31 based development might be sufficient. Both should be affordable.
Regrettably, I think that navy leaders are even more useless than our politicians and that takes some doing.
We’re talking about a ship replacement in 20 years, it’s going to need new tech.
And you’re wrong about the carriers as usual.
We can’t afford more frigates, do you not see all the other naval programs going on.
When new tech is available, a platform to deploy it will be needed but not necessarily something completely new, much larger and unaffordable in the numbers we need.
I am clearly right about the carriers- £7b to build, £9b for 48 F35 to support expeditionary warfare that we can’t really do because we can’t afford to maintain and crew the LPDs it would need. Most independent commentators agree that the RN is a hollowed out, unbalanced force.
Italy’s proposed DDX will be 10/11000 tons to carry more existing missiles. The Dutch are trying to enhance their AAW ships with support ships, effectively arsenal ships.
Whatever the RN chooses it has to be affordable.
It is not simple to retrofit new radars, especially fixed arrays onto an existing design, and we shouldn’t build any more ships using Aster as its defences if we’re trying to consolidate on Mk41.
Carrier cost was inflated by political delays and a demolished shipbuilding industry, you really think a single wonder ship or smaller alternative would’ve been vastly cheaper?
And you’re complaining about the cost of F35, the only viable carrier fighter out there currently, no one’s gonna invest in last gen.
Why do you think we’ll be going beyond what the Italians have done, there is zero concrete info on T83.
Also the Netherlands are having to buy “arsenal ships” because their radar system cannot use the latest SM2 missiles, it’s out of nessecity more than an enhancement.
The problem with T-26 for the role you envisage is that as has been revealed during I believe the Canadian version there is only 1 to 2% growth potential for future weapons and sensors thus restricting future upgradability without substantial additional buoyancy modifications. That would create most seriously problems for example CEAFAR as the Australians discovered, so a substantial redesign of the T-26 would be required to remotely fill this role even as we see technology now let alone for what might develop by the time these ships are being laid down. As such a new design is probably a near necessity to create a competitive anti air destroyer. A cut down good enough might be possible but with little scope for further advancement once built I fear. So big decisions indeed.
I would agree with Peter that it has to be affordable, so we can aquire enough of them, 8 or 9.
If we go for 12,000 ton plus, highly sophisticated surface combatant, it’s going to end up being 4 units and cost 3 billion each!
We need to be sensible…..
And what is sensible exactly, because it’s sounding more like incapable of dealing with the modern threats we face.
… and that’s the problem isn’t it, what balance between good enough (that might not be or soon won’t be) and gold plated and serious room for capability upgrades over its life we go for. The first risks limited, perhaps increasingly obsolete ships in larger numbers, that could potentially end up as inadequate platforms, the other high capability very complex ships that can be further upgraded and relied upon to compete with whatever the enemy have but in far fewer numbers. Need to find the sweet spot but no easy answer I fear.
Additional T26, yes. Preferably 12. Replace the T45 with T31 AAW, no. They should remain decently capable GP frigates for duties like around the ME and so on, areas that need a bit more oomph that what a River has.
Look at the trend worldwide. The PLAN Type 055. The USN DDGX. The Italian DDX. Japan’s Maya class and South Korea’s Sejong the Great class. All are bigger, heavier, longer, wider and more powerful than their predecessors. Better radars, more missiles, of more types.
Pretending that a mid weight frigate has the capability to match what are essentially cruisers now is just ridiculous. The only real alternative to building a Type 83 that has the ability to tackle futuristic threats like anti ship ballistic missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles and the like is stepping back from the big leagues and accepting that allies are necessary to provide the carriers with proper protection on deployment and we can only contribute to NATO ASW strength and lower risk duties with GP frigates.
The issue is the funding hasn’t been there for decades.
What is ridiculous is the apparent inability of the RN to grasp how over specifying has contributed to the collapse in numbers. As to the idea that a 6000/7000t ship would be overmatched by 11/12000t “cruisers”, when was the last surface to surface naval combat? The key role of modern destroyers is AAW protection of a carrier strike group. The anti ship capability of the carrier’s aircraft would put either type out of action.
We might be better increasing the SSN fleet than splashing money on even more expensive large surface escorts, which, interestingly, even the USN is worrying will be unaffordable at £3b apiece.
Such a cost is a non starter for the RN.
So you want to give up on the surface fleet entirely? SSNs cannot do half of what the surface fleet can, even if they’re a key asset
Didn’t say that. But increasing SSNs at the expense of additional surface escorts might be a better use of resources. AUKUS will probably do just that.
Submarines despite attempts to do so can’t operate in an anti air capacity which is required for all manner of takes including our own forces at home and operating elsewhere as well as effectively defending carriers and themselves. This Country relies on merchant shipping to survive so a high quality of air defence is vital and will continue to be. The exact specification can be debated but you can’t simply say that such ships aren’t a necessity and in reasonable numbers.
if they ever get to build them then we are looking into the 2040’s before the navy gets even one of them
Interesting that they’re pivoting towards the MK41 rather than sylver. I’ve always thought that the Sylvwr was a better launcher intrinsically, but the Mk41 is more established and has more already developed weapons available (although not many that the UK currently uaes), the most obvious one would be tomahawk, but sylver can launch stormshadow/MdCN which the UK has lots o that would of course require some joined up thinking and cooperation across two services which means it won’t happen. Presumably it would mean a move away from Sea Viper/PAAMS, which seems a shame, are they planning another whole new SAM system, which would seem ambitious!
A replacement for Storm Shadow is well into development and the Ukraine Forces are making excellent use of the current inventory now it has been let off the leash ( finally)
What missile defence. System they fit it will need to be able to grow to acccomodate future threats like hypersonic and Ballastic missiles as well as considerable reserve electrical power for directed energy.
Well there are two European Led studies into future SAM/BMD needs underway ( HYDIS and EU HYDEF ) ,the choice will depend on what becomes of them.
It would be good if the mk41 could launch Sylver based missiles too. Is there much in it dimension wise between the two?
Will the UK FCASW be made mk41 compatible then? On this T83 concept there could a mix of mk41/Sylver mix?
They’ll aim to make it mk41 compatible and drop slyver entirely
The French have already been making efforts to make at least some of their missiles Mk41 compatible they know that with Mk41 becoming the World standard they will lose orders if they don’t as much as they resent it.
Well let’s hope this is pushed through at pace . I’m no expert 🙂 but I guess a more modular approach to ship design that can upgrade modules quickly like different weapons or bay areas . And at least 9 built which can mean at least 3 working at any one time
Ha ha ha. We’d be lucky to get 2.
Nine? Six would be nice. Maybe four, with two additional AAW configured Type 31s. My personal hope is for six ships with around 80 Mk41 and a great radar. A 10,000 ton cruiser being imagined by some is absurd, especially since these are the same people lamenting low ship numbers. Give us a ship of slightly larger size than the Type 45, with maximum of 100 VLS cells and make good use of quad-packed CAMM and dual-packed CAMM-MR, then top up the rest with a long-range terminal phase anti-ballistic SAM like SM-6 or a European equivalent.
Only two T31s?
For the cost of 6 first class ships, we could have a T82 style specialist carrier escort (4?) working with a class of 4-5 T31 derivatives.
The AH140 hull itself is very cheap, the fitout could be tailored into the budget quite easily.
This is a non story and should just be ignored. Somewhere in the basement of MOD there are probably a bunch of junior geeks designing the concept parameters for an inter-stellar battlecruiser able to sense divine etc any incoming Cylon fleets. Concepts are the life blood of civil servant idiots the world over.
Really no hurry at the MOD, they started this project over 3 years ago and have now got to the stage of asking for ideas, brilliant.
To be honest I think one of the core requirements should be that that can be delivered quickly and in numbers, preferably 10 of them. Unless the RN is going down a diffuse high low mix of a small number of very large exquisite ships, backed by a larger number of jobing AAW vessels.
If they’re anything like the cost of the T26 we won’t get more than 6
As described here, they will cost far more than T26B2. A number of second tier “jobbing AAWs” is likely and I think sensible.
What we really need is for these requirements to actually be a wishlist, and the quantity to be a high priority for a change. I’m a big believer in continuous build, so I’d want a T26 to be built every 15 months that T83 isn’t ready for build, whether we need them or not. You’d better believe that would speed the T83 process. Having a five year gap with only OPVs produced would not appear to be a major issue for the Navy; however, it might be a problem for keeping in-house skills, and there would be knock-on effects. I’d also want T83s (or more T26s) to continue in build until the next designed frigate is ready. This kind of certainty (absent BAE or Babcock really taking the Mickey) would give us lower unit costs and a better chance of an export industry.
Who’s going to pay for the ships in build that we cannot afford to crew or support
And I very much doubt this will be a 2nd tier AAW project
They probably still wont end up with Tomahawks.
I hope not, given the money we are investing in FC/ASW.
As with any weapons system, it depends on where it’s intended to serve, and what it’s intended to do whilst there. Type 45 was born in the era of asymmetrical warfare and the “peace dividend”, where it was obvious that a new AAW vessel was needed to replace old hulls, but if you asked anyone if combat against a real peer adversary was likely, they’d shuffle their feet and start talking hypotheticals. That’s partially why Type 45 wasn’t launched with the sort of silo fit that it should have. The proposition was there, from BAE Systems, and was covered quite well on Navy Matters, Mr. Beedall’s old site, over twenty years ago. Type 45+, effectively, with an additional section amidships for strike length VLS.
Now, of course, we’re in different territory. Ukraine and the Persian Gulf are petri dishes for modern combat, and you can bet your hairy backside that everything down to a seagull fart is being scrutinised at length here in the West – and elsewhere.
Drones have shown themselves to be a huge, and GROWING force multiplier. The spread of anti-surface ballistic missiles is highly concerning, and, as mentioned in the article, hypersonic systems will spread, and become their own threat.
If you’re at the start of a serious process to see what UK industry can build (and we may well be glad that Harland and Wolff is at least staying in the hands of a NATO ally, going forward), then I would suggest there are several factors to consider:
1: Sheer size. In order to remain on station and combat-ready, ships are simply going to need more weapons in the standard load. That means, as part of the mix (see below), more missile cells, of different types. A lot more. That means a bigger hull, by definition. Aye, the Americans have conducted successful trials with VLS reloads whilst underway in recent weeks, but it’s still not an easy proposition. Otherwise, an enemy can just saturate an opposing force with attritable drones and wait for them to empty their silos before getting really serious with the heavy, expensive, accurate stuff. Current CIWS will only get you through so much.
2: That “mix” mentioned has to include energy weapons, right from the off. We’re at that stage where it’s no longer a daft dream of someone who watches a lot of Star Trek, these things are effective, and real. That means plenty of juice on tap, and again, a hull big enough for a useful combat fit. Without hard details of capability, I would speculate two emitters, maybe, fore and aft.
Then there’s the other non-kinetic bear in the room: advanced EM weapons. The sort of thing that doesn’t just jam the adversary, it literally reaches out and disables them, at the core systems level, at a distance. The Americans already have a very unique-looking Arleigh Burke class recently entered service, which has huge bulges around the bridge area, far bigger than anything connected with even the latest AEGIS systems. They’re not saying a lot, unsurprisingly, but the thought is that this precisely the sort of non-kinetic weapon I mean. Then there’s the work that Leonardo do, here in the UK and elsewhere. If you look at the publicly available info on current and future projects, some kind of non-kinetic effectors are in the pipeline for GCAP. If Tempest can carry it, Type 83 can carry something similar, or better. As can both the forthcoming frigate types, it can be assumed.
As we all know though, in the final analysis, it’s like that old Swedish pop group once sang about: “Money, money, money…..”