The UK’s Type 83 destroyer programme, part of the Future Air Dominance System (FADS), is expected to provide significant contributions to the nation’s shipbuilding sector and broader economy, according to responses from Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, in Parliament on 11 February 2025.

The FADS programme will replace the UK’s current Maritime Air Defence Capability provided by the Type 45 destroyers and is currently in its concept phase. Highlighting the government’s strategic vision, Eagle stated in response to a question from Luke Akehurst (Labour MP for North Durham), “This Government is committed to delivering a thriving shipbuilding sector across the UK, supporting the whole supply chain, from design to repair, systems, and integration.”

When asked whether the Type 83 destroyers’ design, manufacturing, and support would be carried out by UK companies, Eagle emphasised that “it is not yet possible to confirm where these ships will be built as it is subject to due commercial process.” However, she confirmed that the programme would secure jobs in shipbuilding until “at least the mid-2040s, depending on the number of platforms built.”

Work continues behind the scenes for Britain’s new destroyer

Eagle also underscored that the programme will carefully consider the role of UK businesses and communities in its development. “Analysis of supply chain involvement and social value will be conducted during this phase. Social value and sovereign considerations will inform any subsequent investment,” she said, suggesting that the government is keen on maximising both economic and national security benefits.

The Type 83 programme is expected to deliver significant growth for UK shipyards and support the government’s Defence Industrial Strategy. Eagle stated that projects like the Type 83 “demonstrate the breadth of the UK’s shipbuilding skills, innovation, and capability” and will help ensure the long-term sustainability of the sector.

With decisions still pending on the shipyard locations, the Ministry of Defence say it remains focused on securing opportunities that benefit both local economies and sovereign industrial capabilities.

At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!

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

98 COMMENTS

  1. we have to build in UK its not a question to be pushed down the road if we keep the manufacturing expertise. easy win for Labour to say yes, to be built in UK
    unbelievable

      • And it isn’t like she is saying anything that that last lot didn’t say either!

        Totally repackaged ‘news’….

          • They could start initial build while the last T-26 is still in the shed especially as it will be in multiple sections I presume and just brought together there. Let’s hope there is a smooth change over whenever it occurs.

          • Hugo, the old sheds will be empty by about 2030 and the last T26 will be ready for fit out by 2031/32. So we could start the T83 program in about 2030 which would be about right as the first T45s will or should be replaced by about 2038. The whole program would be completed by 2048.

            What does concern me is numbers and affordability. As much as I would like to see 9-12 T83s it will not happen. These ships look like topping 10-12,000 tons and have anything from 96-122 VLS cells. What I think could be achieved is 4 T83s and 8 T46s. The T46 would be a 8-9,000 ton 64 cell air defence with limited anti submarine ability based on either the T45 or the T26. I would prefer the T26 as the base line. One T83 and two T46s could be started at the same time and enter the fleet as a unit.

            As Spyinthesky said I do hope that the T83 program will not be kicked down the road leaving the T45s to remain in service beyond there sell by date as we have with the T23s. By kicking things down the road means a loss of the skilled work force, training a new work force, and restarting production, all of which takes time and adds cost.

  2. It’s not likely to take long to build two or three ships. Given current trends this is all we can expect. I can’t see that helping the ship building industry.

    • It depends how they are specced. I would not hold out hope for a >10,000 tonne, 128 VLS cell cruiser, as some people seem to be expecting. A more realistic option for the RN would be a slightly larger Type 45, with somewhere in the range of 72-96 VLS, and a small landstrike and ASW capability but a large focus on all domain AAW. That way, the Type 45 can be replaced one for one, and ship-building is maintained. It might also be more palatable for other nations – Australia for example.

      • It should be high tonnage and large, steel is cheap and space is valuable.
        And with GP frigates like T31 on pirate duty, they can be dedicated to CSG duty only. Small batch would matter less then.

      • 2040 is a long way off and traditional air defence systems are already looking dated against current threats. Not sure focusing on 100 odd VLS is the right focus, the focus should be on alternative options for dealing with missile and drone threats.

        In addition surface drones are now a massive problem and no doubt by 2040 subsurface ones also.

        Building around an improved t45 is a mistake in my opinion.

  4. It will be interesting to see where the RN go with FADS and the T83.

    It is worth remembering what the RNS wants FADs to be essentially it’s not just and air defence destroyer but a disagrigated set of systems for air dominance at sea in the littoral and over land, but also surface strike and the ability to destroy threats.

    They have also said that the core will be a spiral development from the T45 sea viper system and upgrades.

    With a T45 replacement siting in the centre of the system but the system being a lot bigger that just one core ship and instead having a wider net of sensor nodes and effectors.

    What does this mean, well the very latest radars are immensely heavy and power hungry beasts…infact that’s one of the main drivers for the new Italian DDX destroyers essentially becoming 13500ton cruisers.

    So it’s very likely that the T83 is going to be very large and over 10,000 tons.. what does this mean for numbers… maybe a drive down in numbers possibly only 3-4 ?

    But as the RN is looking for a more desegregated system does this mean that the RN may be looking for a number of lesser AAW vessels to carry the desegregated sensors and capabilities…you can see this happening in the Italian with a future of two AAW destroyers and 2 exquisite 14,0000 vessels..but then a good AAW sensors and Aster 30s distributed across 19 armed frigates.

    So I do wonder if we will see an order for 4 very big 10,000+ cruiser like vessels, then a number of smaller AAW focused frigates..maybe off the back of the T31 order.

    • I doubt we’ll see proper warships. More likely the aspiration is for low/uncrewed platforms to carry more missiles. And liable to get cut

    • ‘So it’s very likely that the T83 is going to be very large and over 10,000 tons.. what does this mean for numbers… maybe a drive down in numbers possibly only 3-4 ?’

      I don’t see it this way – I think that whilst a larger combatant is possible, I doubt it will carry a large amount of VLS cells, and will instead be built with upgradability as a feature. Large power generation capacity, plenty of space for future systems, but delivered with roughly 72-96 VLS and a basic land-strike and anti-submarine capability. The focus will instead be on a all-domain air defence capability, probably centred around Aster-30 Block 1NT.

      Currently, the Type 83 destroyer has a problem to solve: what will it utilise as its interceptors? Aster-30 B1NT, SM series, CAMM-MR? I think that will define capability and depth as well.

      • Not a large combatant ? But delivered with 72-96 VLS. Basic land strike, anti submarine capability, large power generation capability…Well if you add in the latest generation of AAW sensors your not getting a ship like that for less that 12,000 tons…that’s just the reality I’m afraid..

        • Having read that the T-26 is built to a near maximum exploited capacity ie little room for future upgrades that demand more space/weight it certainly seems that a more capable and complex Air Defence warship will need to be substantially bigger considering it will need added capacity for future capability from the start as compared to T-26 power generation alone will likely be a good bit more demanding and missile load will need to be a good bit greater than T-45 with greater missile range and more complex sensors and capacity for hi power lasers/microwave weaponry, probably substantial mission bays for flexibility too. Must admit 10000 tons is looking seriously tight to get that sort of wish list, but would surely even with compromises, be an absolute minimum to contemplate even with reduced manning and ai focused systems.

          • To be honest from what I have read with the future generation of sensors..even if you keep the number of missile silos down to a low number your struggling with a 10,000 ship…Italy started with a 12,000 concept and apparently they are now moving to 14,500 tons all driven by the requirements of the latest radar.

          • The weight growth margins on the Type 26 have been made public – as far as im aware the same cannot be said of the Type 45,these figures would need to be known and compared to make your point valid.

        • It’s published that the weight of the next generation Leonardo radar is what has driven the Italian DDx to the likely 14,000 ton mark..any next gen RN radar is going to be the same in weight and power requirements..physics is physics.

    • At this point they would be so energy hungry and huge, that with the state of the RFA and the tankers, I wonder how exactly they’d keep a fleet of ships including these behemoths and the carriers fueled, especially with frequent refueling necessary. Sometimes I wonder if these cruiser like ships would be better off with nuclear power generation. Especially considering the advances in small reactors, Rolls Royce’s SMR, and work in the dreadnoughts, I wonder if there would ever be potential for nuclear cruisers, and potentially retrofitting nuclear into the QES, considering they’d potentially get CATS. Of course, then we’d probably need an extremely good defence net and stocked ships, though I guess that’s the point. make these ships so valuable the bean counters give the go ahead to arm them to full capability. Oh well I guess I can only dream realistically though.

      • Which reminds me did anyone see or know of the Lockheed Martin proposed electromagnetic drone launch system that just happened to be shown in imagery on the QE class carriers sitting next to the ski jump. Haven’t heard anything solid written about this proposal as yet but it was talked about on a YouTube video this past week so information is otherwise sparse. Nothing included about how the drones could be recovered mind.

        • Also on the foredeck of T45!
          Organic AEW, perhaps?
          GA-ASI usually produce quite a lot of documentation about their designs (the endurance-payload curve of Mojave, for example) so if it’s a serious concept we should hear more soon.

      • A larger hull = bigger fuel tanks.
        It is also worth remembering that the processing of all of these systems has become far more energy efficient overtime.
        Compare the computing power of a computer in the 80s and the power it consumed vs a smartphone that can perform trillions of operations a second whilst using less power than a lightbulb.

    • Worth noting that Italy going for 2 DDX’s and 2 AAW DD’s isn’t a change from their policy, Italy has for a while now ordered Destroyers in Batches of 2. Also for their frigates and PPA’s: They might be able to carry Aster 30NT but given their small magazine size and the fact that there is no other interceptor they carry, I doubt they’ll be carrying many 30’s for area defence. With 16 rounds they really are just self defence AAW assets.

      (Also I gripe at calling things Cruisers just because of their displacement. T-23 was Cruiser sized if we want to play that game.)

  6. Mention of a commercial process when in reality BAE will be the only shipbuilder set up to deliver a warship the size and complexity of T83.

    Rather than a notional veneer of competition between the various UK companies we should be acknowledging that the size/scope of our shipbuilding needs largely prohibits this and instead champion each having specialisms and working together to pitch for foreign business.

  7. Perhaps we should be looking at a collobative programme with Japan. Their 13 DDX design is planned for the same time scale.

  8. ‘“it is not yet possible to confirm where these ships will be built as it is subject to due commercial process.” ‘ – what happened to the idea that all warships would be built in the UK? I appreciate there is a difference between built in the UK and being built by UK companies – but that sentence does suggest a certain ambivalence.

    • That probably means where in Scotland they’ll be built. We all know it’ll be Govan. Even if BAe get another 5 Type 26s on their order books, no way will HMG give a contract to build 10,000 ton complex destroyers to Babcock. They’d rather have an excuse to delay spending the money anyway.

        • If BAE are contracting out blocks to Furgusson’s, I’m pretty sure they’d be willing to spread the love to anywhere with capacity.

      • Babcock at Rosyth is going to be have to be given something to do after T31 completes in say 2031-33. Shutting it down isn’t going to be an option. So a repeat of the T26/T31 hi-lo split is likely with 4 more complex vessels built at Govan and 2 Type 31 styles dig-a-hole-and-fill-it-in exercises to keep Rosyth going. Otherwise what is Rosyth going to do after T31. There obviously isn’t going to be a QE/PoW replacement as that project should have already started.

          • Would be great if we got Batch 1 replacements, but I have a sneaking suspicion that that’ll be a cut. The Batch 2’s where originally supposed to take over the Batch 1’s after all.

        • Why would a QE-class replacement already be in the works? These ships are expected to serve into the 2060s perhaps even the 2070s. Therefore, 2040 is probably the earliest we can expect a replacement to be considered.

      • To be honest they don’t want to make any commitment that will ease any pressure on the SNP for the next election so even though we know where they will be built they don’t want it confirmed before they have to so that voters don’t conclude they don’t have to worry on any potential election or vote for independence. All a game of hide and seek really.

  9. Type 83 tonnage around that of a Cruiser hope it doesn’t go the way of the type 82 just one built hopefully not as the QE class should be around for 50 years four at the max would be my guess fingers crossed please make it 6

      • Interestingly the USN does have a modern definition of a cruiser..it just does not bother calling any of its newer warships cruisers for political reasons…it actually uses the excuse that a cruiser by definition has a level of self repair facilities and if a ship does not have that it cannot be a cruiser no matter its size or power…hence the zumwalt 15,000 ton destroyer.

        It’s also has a tendency to change designations..a lot of the Cold War US cruisers actually all started off with frigate and then destroyer designations before becoming cruisers ( basically because the political climate changed and the navy first wanted to hide how many cruisers it was building then brag about how many it had).

        Some navies pretty much refuse point blank to even have destroyers and call everything a frigate….again mainly for political reasons.

        As for the RN it pretends it has a logical approach..but has often made it up as it’s gone along…after all the type 41 was a AAW frigate, the Type 82 destroyer was in reality designed as an all round ASW/AAW cruiser…the type 31…well it’s a frigate but it’s got sod all to do with ASW.

        • Well it’s been a long time since I did my, lets call it what it is, rant, on surface warship categories, and why getting hung up on them in the modern world is kind of silly (and, not meaning offense, I think I last posted a version of it before you where posting here, so you might not have seen it before.

          So Cruiser, Frigate and Destroyer, all three have really changed in the last couple hundred years. Frigate and Cruiser are the oldest. Cruiser having been a bracket category originally, that included Frigates, Sloops and other vesseles that “cruised” on their own on raiding, scouting, escort etc missions (As opposed to Ships of the Line). Frigate kind of went out of style in the 1860’s because, well, a Frigate was a ship that had a single deck of guns, and guns where getting too big for multiple decks, so even main surface combatants where becoming “Ironclad Steam Frigates.” So the differentiation became “Cruisers” vs “Ironclads.”

          Destroyers where initially born out of the need to defend against Torpedo Boats (hence the name “Torpedo Boat Destroyer” which got shortened). They where small escorts designed to defend fleets against fast moving surface targets… and then became used to attack enemy capital ships with torpedos. So by WWI Cruisers where sort of the General Purpose long distance raiders and general purpose surface combatants, while Destroyers where close in surface escorts. And this was kind of all agreed on, and then formalised in Naval Treaties: this is where this BS about “This ship is cruiser sized” comes from because the Naval Treaties gave upper limits on Cruiser displacement that people carry forwards. Due to the arms race and needing more range, better engines, more guns, and better/more torpedoes Destroyers at the dawn of WW2 where already displacing more than some Pre-WW1 cruisers. (The original Daring Class destroyers displaced under 300t btw, so when people are like “This Destroyer is a cruiser” it’s very like…. “uhhhh… no.”)

          By WW2 the need to defend against Submarines basically split the Destroyer line. ASW Escorts did not need to be fast, Submarines sub surface where unbareably slow, and surfaced still not very face), but they needed to be manuverable. They also had little need for deck guns and torpedoes. Meanwhile Surface escorts needed to be fast, over 30knots, have lots of guns, and torpedoes and didn’t have much use for Depth charges. So you had the traditional destroyers continue in the anti-surface (and by extension AA role) while the new kinds of destroyers where made to fight submarines. And this is where it gets annoying. (Also throughout the War Cruisers get a line of battle and convoy escort mission to fight off surface raiders as well).

          As you said, the RN called anti-Submarine destroyers “Frigates.” Well kind of… they called the crash build emeregency ASW ships corvettes and then the purpose build ASW ships Frigates but same thing. The Americans did the same thing except they called them Destroyer Escorts, and then shenanigans happened. First of all after the War the needs from ASW ships changed, and a lot of Surface Escort style Destroyers where refitted to be ASW Destroyer Escorts/Frigates (and yes the US initially did reclassify them). Then the US decided that Destroyer Escort wasn’t a good name, and changed the name to Ocean Escort, and then copied the RN and changed the name to Frigate.

          By this point the classification is already breaking down, the Destroyers are being required to cruise on their own, rather than stay near a fleet that will sustain them, and have grown in size to the point where, in practice, they are just cruisers. The line between Frigates and Destroyers? Well size, and to a certain degree, hull form is no longer relevant to whether or not a ship is a ASW or Surface escort, it’s more about sensors and quietening. So you can have a Destroyer, like an Arleigh Burke, do ASW work, or a Frigate, like a Type 23 do ASW work. In reality it really became “Destroyer is our big escort, and Frigate our small one.”

          And that’s just the English speaking world. For example the Italians don’t actually call their “Destroyers” Destroyers, which would be “Distruttore,” they call them “Cacciatorpediniere” which litterally means “Torpedo Boat Catcher.” A hint to their origin. Germany has historically very rarely used the term “Destroyer” and certainly never really had any split between ASW and Surface Escort Destroyers (even in WW2 they where still using the term “Torpedo Boat” for some of their Destroyers). There seems to be a strong belief that Germany doesn’t like calling it’s ships Destroyers for political reasons, I’ve never seen an official source for that. What I have seen is sources stating that in German Classification a Frigate is a ship that is specialised in *either* Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Air Warfare, or GP Anti-Surface duties, while a Destroyer is a ship that can do all three without compromising any mission set. (Personally I also feel that “Zerstörer” in German, Hamburg and Lütjens notwithstanding, is associated with specifically ASW specialised ships).

          ANYWAY

          The moral of the story is: None of the ship classifications now are hard and fast rules, especially when other languages are concerned, and even if they where, the role, size and shape of all three has changed enough in the last 200 years that picking an arbitrary point in time (and it’s always the 1930s) and saying “Well by this standard this ship is a cruiser” is pointless and silly, and whenver people do it, I delight in picking a different time period and doing the same comparison.

  10. at the rate this labour government is cosying up to chine,, what are the chances that china might build them cheaply, lolol.

    but seriously we do need more than 6, perhaps 10 to start with, just an idea.??

  11. at the rate this labour government is cosying up to chine,, what are the chances that china might build them cheaply, lolol.

    but seriously we do need more than 6, perhaps 10 to start with, just an idea.??..

  12. We need more competetive shipbuilding in this country overall. The major european defence shipbuilders Navantia/Damen/Fincantieri are also civil shipbuilders with a range of offerings, so they are busy building yachts/tankers/cargo/cruise ships when there isn’t a military order. They also build military vessels for e.g. columbia (lower tier stuff than T26 etc). These companies manage to retain skills, yards/facilities and be price-competetive.

    However in the UK the only game in town for a major surface combatant is BAE and maybe Babcock, and they are exclusively defence contractors first, so they just sit around doing nothing till an RN order comes along.

    • Obviously the T83 order will share the work around, sections, hulls built by babcock and H&W or such work, but i expect BAE will be prime contractor, and they know that and are thus able to charge whatever suits.

    • Most of the European military ship builders are public sector organisations it’s why they are effective at supporting their Navies.

  13. They should go to British yards , a no brainer . What we do need is a constant flow of ships to keep the shipyards busy and retain skilled workers . Is 1 destroyer and 1 frigate a year too much to ask ? After the debacle with keeping t23s in service a regular flow of new ships i just whats needed and id the quality is there overseas orders will surely follow

      • I’m not a naval expert by any means but I was having a chat with a treasury official last year over some drinks about the lack of hulls in our navy. I said we need more and he said I need to justify the need for more vessels etc.

        Anyway, I gave up on justifying why say 6 Type 42s weren’t enough and suggested that maybe we could setup a crowdfunding page to fund more building…at which point he became rather annoyed at the suggestion and stormed off.

        • Someone. perhaps you should have just told him about the rule of 3, meaning that of those six T45s, we could expect just 2 to be either at sea or immediately available for sea duty. Then remind him that we are a global player and really should be showing a presence in ‘The Seven Seas’!

      • More automation = less crew
        Less crew = fewer repair teams
        Fewer repair teams = ship is more likely to sink
        Fewer ships because of sinkings = starving United Kingdom population
        Starving population = lose war
        See Germany 1918.

  16. 3 or 4 fabulous ships,10,000 tons plus,Dragonfire,Next gen missiles,Hypersonics,BMD capability,multiple drones,….£1.6/1.7bn a pop?…Too expensive to risk in conflict surely??Should go to DAMEN with £6 billion and see what the RN could buy?Part ex the carriers?

  18. In reality the RN should have 10-12 area defence platforms, but these don’t all need to be exquisite infact if they can generate 2 exquisite platforms for the carrier battle group that would be adequate…so 6 exquisite 10,000-14,0000 ton hulls would do…that mass could then be provided by GP frigates with a reasonable radar and slightly longer range missiles. So maybe as part of the FADs providing the T31 class with a slightly upgraded sensor set and an extended range area defence missile, CAMM MR as an example. Maybe do this with the T26 as well and the RN would have a profoundly good set of escorts for area defence with an exquisite + mass mix.

    That is the way the Italians are going,they will have less dedicated area defence platforms than the RN, but will have more total areas defence platforms as well as ABM platforms, will have a good mix of capabilities, but a hell of a lot of area defence capable and ABM capable platforms with capability spread across a lot of platforms.

    2 DDX profoundly exquisite and significant depth of missile numbers ASTER 30 NT ABM capable
    2 Horizon exquisite but less depth of missile numbers ASTER 30 NT ABM capable
    2 FREM evo slightly below exquisite limited missile depth ASTER 30 NT ABM capable
    7 PPA slightly below exquisite limited missile depth ASTER 30 NT ABM capable
    10 FREM effective area defence. Limited missile depth ASTER 30

    • Are you saying we need to order extra T31-EVO with a miniature version of whatever radar BAE produce for T83?
      Sounds a decent plan, just so long as they all get ordered. You probably need 4+4 mix for any effective expansion of AAW.

      • I’m a firm believer that the long term plan should be to get the RN back up to 30 major surface combatants and then go from there. 30 was the number that the defence review identified from the evidence was needed in a peace time world.

        So it should have been 10 AAW destroyers, 10 GP frigates and 10 ASW frigates.. but as air defence becomes more distributed ( ASW and GP frigates can now generally do some AAW area defence work) I would say you could drop down on the specialists AAW destroyers as long as you kept general hull numbers up ( which was the core mistake Labour did in the 2000s to pay for the sand box wars..they dropped the AAW numbers because one T45 could do the job of 2 T42s…air defence wise..but you still needed 2 physical hullls for all the other jobs a ship does)

        So what I think the build programs should aim for
        6 very high end AAW destroyers at 10,000+ tons ( you need it that big for modern sensors) ( built by BAE so from 2035)
        9 T26 ASW ( extend to a batch 3 for 2 extra hulls, they would probably be able to do this and lay down the first T83 in 35)
        9 T31 variants I would simply keep Babcock rolling out T31 variants in a spiral process..with steadily increases mid capability area defence based on the ER/MR CAMM family.
        6 MRSS, make the MRSS its own GP frigate..15,000 ton hull for company level raiding, but with CAMM, medium gun ( 5inch) possibly NSM for long range precision strike. When it’s not doing amphibious work it can then use its well deck, flight deck and mission space as an autonomous vehicle based patrol, mine warfare and littoral control ship.

    • *5 PPA’s, and the key point is ASTER 30NT Capable with a tiny magazine, that also have to carry Aster 15’s. In reality Italy’s Frigate fleet is not an area defence asset, but just there to protect itself.

      • It will be seven, they are just finalising on an EVO PPA which the order will be for 2 to replace the 2 sold off the production line runs. There is also still the option and paper only plan for a total of 10, but this is more like the UK T32 plans….

        As for limited magazine…yes only 16 for aster 30 NT, but it has a 127mm and a 76mm medium gun and the Italian navy does eqiup its units with dart guided ammunition which essentially gives the equivalent of a lot of short range AAW missiles ( effective out to 8km against high G manoeuvring supersonic missiles).

        It’s about distribution…essentially because the Italian navy has a lot of platforms that can do long range area defence it will have a highly distributed system.. the individual ships become less important and less of a critical failure point. They can also more safety shove ships far down the likely axis of attack….essentially if a RN and Italian task group both have 2 exquisite AAW platforms, 2 ASW platforms and 2 GP platforms..the Italian battle group will have a wider area of coverage from its platforms long range area defence missiles and ABM capable platforms..because essentially every single one of the Italian ASW and GP ships are also long range AAW and ABM platforms..yes limited in long range AAW war shots but they at least have them…. The core AAW destroyers are the ones that will provide the deep well of area defence war shots…and the battle group then also potentially has an insane number of 76mm guns firing a staggering number Guided DARTs… your theoretical 6 escorts ( 2 AAW, 2 ASW, 2 GP) would have 10 76mm medium guns able to rapid fire guided rounds out to an effective 8km intercept point.

        Essentially if you look at the two nations carrier or optimised surface groups around the mid 30s…

        the Italians will have Aster 30NT probably around 136 shots, Aster 15 around 104 shots and then the 10 76mm with guided rounds and 4 127mm guns as well as 12 25mm close in gun systems.

        The RN will have 96 aster 30 block 1, 176 CAMM, 2 57mm guns possibly with guided rounds, 2 5inch guns, 4 40mm guns, 16 close in gun systems

        The Italians win on ability to distribute, manage threat axis at a greater distance as well as increased mass of longer ranged shots, density of ABM defence, and increases mass of shorter range shots. 5-10 KM probably equal dibs on close in and the RN will with mass of shots at ore medium ranges.

        • It really isn’t. As I said, they can’t do Area defence without compromising their own defence, so the idea that Italy is going to have some sort of distributed ABM naval shield is just fantasy, not unless they order a lot of ships with actual magazine depth. No single combatant is going to be in a position to engage a threat that isn’t directly aimed at itself for risk of going empty.

          Also not sure where you are getting the idea for the complement of an Italian carrier group having that many escorts, since the PPA’s are aimed at replacing their OPV’s, not being carrier strike group escorts.

  19. Probably won’t be the most popular idea, but what about a “DDG AUKUS”? Try to see if the US, UK, and Australia could share a common hull? Hopefully drive down costs through economies of scale. Downsides would be UK may have to adapt Aegis, though perhaps the CMS (and most likely radars) could be modular? As for missile count, I would say cap it at 96, and use drone ships carry more cells like what the USN (among others) is toying with.

  20. “Eagle speak.”
    She rarely gives anything new, just repeats previous grandstanding.
    Do any of these people actually have any knowledge of their brief beyond what her advisors feed her?

  21. Is it just me or is the objectives of building warships to deter enemies or to provide jobs. I’ve absolutely no problem if it does both it’s just there always seems to be a focus on jobs with this Government.

    • Mark. Agreed. Nearly all political pronouncements about new builds start with a lengthy first paragraph about how many jobs will be created. You are lucky if they say anything about the Threat that generated the Requirement or the capability in detail that the new platform will deliver. I have noted that CDS is now doing this which is alarming.

    • Agree it should be both at the same time, you need an industry that builds efficiently good effective warships…but that means your getting the correct number of effective warships.

      To be Fair to them I think it’s more about what the public think…if they say

      “We are going to spend 10 billion on 6 cutting edge 12,000 AAW destroyers to combat china in the pacific, Iran in the gulf and western Indian Ocean and Russia in the high north”…the vast majority of the voting publics would simply “ what about my GP practice I want that first, second and third, f%£k your vanity ships….”

      So instead they lead with what it will do for economic growth, and the mumble the bit about china Russia and Iran.

      Yes it’s irritating for those who are a bit more geopolitically Woke..but most people are not.

    • All governments do the same. You see it with US press releases on defence kit, announcing how much will be built in each state and how many jobs supported.

  22. Slightly off topic but I will ask anyway. Is the Type 32 dead? I know the official line will be wait until the SDR is published but for the longest time there has been precious little heard about it.

    Personally I think it will never see the light of day but I would love to be proven wrong – we need as many hulls as possible!

  23. A mooted Destroyer design would be nice. There can never be enough space for missiles. UK has 5 now that was reduced from the original requirement. We might get 3 next time. Ongoing ‘defence reviews’ and all that claptrap. I for one would love to be proven wrong.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here