The UK’s next-generation Type 83 destroyer has officially entered the concept phase, with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) again confirming that the class will be the core of the Future Air Dominance System (FADS), replacing the current Type 45 destroyers in Royal Navy service.

Responding to a parliamentary question from Mark Francois MP, Minister of State for Defence Maria Eagle provided the first official update on the Type 83 programme’s status, confirming:

“The Type 83 Destroyer will be the core of the Future Air Dominance System (FADS) programme, which has commenced its concept phase. FADS will replace the UK’s present Maritime Air Defence Capability vested in the Type 45 Destroyer Programme.”

The update signals the formal start of project planning for the UK’s next major air and missile defence warship, which will take over from the Type 45s in the mid-to-late 2030s.

What We Know About the Type 83 Destroyer

While still in the early concept phase, the Type 83 is expected to be a significantly larger and more capable platform than its predecessor, equipped to counter advanced missile threats, including hypersonic weapons.

A previous MoD update described the FADS programme, including Type 83, as:

“A transformative multi-domain programme that will provide Integrated Air and Missile Defence against the toughest of threats in the air domain, and strike against the hardest of targets in air, land, and maritime domains.”

Industry engagement has already begun, with the MoD holding a Market Engagement Event (MEE) in December 2024 to gather input from defence contractors on the project’s direction.

According to the MoD’s Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) team, the engagement was designed to:

“Gain a greater understanding of the marketplace capabilities, capacity, and skills regarding the potential requirement(s); understand where industry sees challenges and opportunities in relation to the potential requirement(s).”

A further session may be held in early 2025 as the Royal Navy refines its requirements.

A Successor to the Type 45 Destroyer

The Type 45 destroyers, which currently serve as the Royal Navy’s primary air defence warships, will be phased out in favour of the Type 83s.

A concept image that surfaced in 2023, though unofficial, hinted at a vessel larger than the Type 45, potentially closer in size to the US Navy’s Zumwalt-class destroyers or China’s Type 055 destroyers. While exact specifications remain unclear, it is widely expected that the Type 83 will feature:

  • Advanced radar and sensor systems, potentially including next-generation phased array radars.
  • Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) capability, optimised to defend against ballistic and hypersonic missile threats.
  • A significant missile payload, likely utilising Mk 41 vertical launch systems (VLS) to house a combination of air defence, land attack, and anti-ship missiles.
  • A future-proofed power generation system, capable of supporting directed energy weapons (lasers) and railgun technology.

When Will the Type 83 Enter Service?

The first Type 83 destroyer is expected to enter service in the latter half of the 2030s, with a potential Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in the late 2030s or early 2040s.

Given the extended timelines involved in ship design and procurement, it remains uncertain how many Type 83 destroyers will be built or whether the Royal Navy will receive a one-for-one replacement of its six Type 45s.

The government has previously indicated that the Strategic Defence Review will determine the final force structure, with decisions on fleet size and capabilities expected later this decade.

Next Steps

With the concept phase now officially underway, the next major milestone for the Type 83 programme will be the selection of key design partners and initial capability requirements, leading to a main procurement contract.

As the UK’s largest and most advanced future surface combatant, the Type 83 will define the Royal Navy’s air defence capabilities for the second half of the 21st century.

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

71 COMMENTS

    • That would send the Thin Pinstriped Liners puce. Wonder if they might try to cancel the MoD in response.

        • [ 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐃𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐔𝐬 ]

          Start your career with us today and work from the comfort of your home! No skills or experience required—just your dedication and a desire to succeed. Receive your payments weekly or monthly, depending on your preference. It’s a great opportunity to kickstart your career, earn a steady income, and enjoy the flexibility of working on your own terms! So Hurry and

          Get Started Now.”….. 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/

    • Agree, big question is what is the radar going to be, everything else will flow from there but it looks like we are dropping the SAMPSON rotating AESA concept in exchange for a series of fixed arrays.

      • That seemed to be BAE’s thoughts a few years ago.
        It remains to be seen whether they can get the small band radar high enough up the mast without using a rotating system.
        But the primary radar ought to be fixed arrays with all of the money being pumped into AShBMs and hypersonics by our “opponents”.

      • A pity if that is the case, but unless monies are going into technology development now it may not not be a UK solution. Sampson was 20 years from proof of principle to a working radar. Less of a leap now, but still significant. The rotating solution has advantages, height, weight and redundancy for starters.

    • Minimalist arsenal ships only work alongside very capable core complex sensor rich ships, so you need to determine those first and how they will work and what sensor fusion is decided upon so they can fully exploit (if that’s the requirement) other ship’s arsenals whatever nature (including possible arsenal ships) they turn out to be. Can’t see specialist Arsenal ships myself certainly not unless we build such ships with other nations and inter hangable with them. Until present events couldn’t imagine that happening but these days who knows what upheavals could further happen. .

      • There was a ppt by a serving naval officer that explained the concept, essentially it was a 4,000 ton ship with a full fat radar setup and lots of VLS but precious little else.
        Crew live in a central citadel with unmanned machinery spaces, a hull filled with inert gas and no helicopter hangar.
        Not a true arsenal ship, just about as “pure” an AAW ship as you could design.

        • Not sure you could fit a full fat next generation AAW on a 4000 ton hull. If you take the new Italian frigate the fact it’s edged up to 14,000 tons is because the new Kronos star fire band AESA and Kronos quad C band AESA are massive energy hogs and require huge power generation. If it was not for the radar you could probably fit everything it has on a 10,000 ton hull.

    • I’d be surprised if they don’t co-exist TBH.

      T45 does, as you say, have a lot of miles left in the hulls and it isn’t like RN has too many hulls…

      If I was playing fleet design I keep T45 around with T83 until there was another AAW capable class in the fleet. The gapping years are over. That way AAW mass can be built back up.

      I suspect we get 8 x T83.

  4. Three years later than originally planned, but what we need to know is when will it come out of the Concept phase? We can’t afford for it to be stuck there like the Type 32, even if we are considering not moving ahead. Delays hike the price and remove options. For example we can’t have a newly designed Type 32 built in Roysth without gapping. There isn’t the time to insert a design phase. In fact the only Type 32 we could have without gapping is more Type 31s, and we barely have the time to implement detail design on variants.

    We don’t know how long we have for the Type 83 to get out of concept, because we don’t know about the Type 26 bid for Norway. Nevertheless, we should at least get the basic capability requirements sorted asap. We can’t afford timescales like the Type 26.

  5. just don’t put ALL eggs in few superships, needto have multiple distributed sensors and weapons, otherwise a swarm (100+) of low tech drones would drain magazines then only need 2-3 big missiles and job done

    • The recent Type 45 experience in the gulf was enlightening. After the first engagements the RN quickly learnt to trust the Sampson radar suite and only engage incoming missile threats with the asters. Drones were dealt with by phalanx or the DS30 mounts or mini guns, 20mm canons or heavy machine guns. Hell even an assault rifle and shotgun would suffice.
      Dragon fire/ direct energy weapons are the answer to drones. Very cheap per shot.

    • First the low tech drones need to find the warship and have the legs for it. The RN is pretty savy when it comes to air defence.

  6. I’m happy but also feel conflicted as i’m under impression the Type 45s haven’t even fully entered service yet

      • Since when has it not been in tatters only one that makes some sense is the more recent Frigates 21, 22, 23 (24/25 concepts) and now 26.
        I have to confess I just loved the T43 concept design, the last truly original U.K. design and RCNC swan song.
        But the 80’s ! T81 Tribal Frigate, T82 Bristol so T83 follows that. Why not T46 ?

        Then again at 10,000 tons it should be C100 (showing my age with that one).😂

    • We’ve got to get back to public awareness of our armed forces demanding investment and warship construction.
      The we want eight and we won’t wait slogan was highly effective pre WW1 in ensuring the RN battlefleet maintained an edge over the German high seas fleet.
      As it happens now we are facing China with a huge and rapidly growing fleet of seemingly capable but ultimately disposable warships. The West needs to be able to sink very large numbers of PLAN warships whilst suffering little to no casualties themselves otherwise the laws of attrition will defeat us.
      So we want eight. I’d say give us twelve.

  8. We need to build more type 83,s than type 45’s. At least 10
    Need to be constructed to support U.K. air defence plus the carriers. I assume we have all heard the latest comments from JD Vance. The highly decorated USMC Journalist that has never seen the frontline or active service. I rest my case!!!

  9. The rendered image shows Type 83 with a planar array radar rather than a follow-on to Sampson. What are the reasons for this? I always understood that Sampson enables the T45 to “see” further out and better detect low flying threats – attributes we would want to keep in the age of drones and hypersonic missiles, surely?

    • SAMPSON’s advantage over fixed systems is that only two arrays are needed to provide 360 degree radar coverage.
      That makes the radar lighter, so that it can be positioned higher up. That in turn pushes the radar horizon out, which was a key part of the requirement for T45 because supersonic, low flying anti ship missiles were seen as the greater threat.
      But now the threats have split into two main channels; hypersonic/ballistic high diving missiles and small, low altitude drones. The high flying missiles don’t need a radar high in the ship but do need a powerful (and thus heavy) one that doesn’t spend time not looking in certain directions, which favours a fixed array over a rotating one (it will be practically impossible to build a hypersonic missile capable of flying near sea level for any length of time). The small drones can’t be detected at long range anyway (and there’s no point in shooting at them from so far away) and so a smaller fixed array (again, fixed is better for dealing with swarm attacks because there are no blind spots, however short they last for) high up is all that is necessary.
      So it is most likely that T83 will include fixed phased arrays rather than rotating ones, but BAE have revealed very few details of their radar development work and so we don’t really know.

      • I’d say it will have to have both.

        Otherwise all the enemy needs is a better EXOCET.

        Sure hypersonic the new buzzword but equally the turbofan tech to build Storm Shadow type missiles isn’t that hard to master. If you produced a ship that cannot control that threat axis it would be obvious and therefore the R&D pathway of any separable enemy of the UK.

        • I agree SB. I think most systems would be stressed by a multi missile spear3 type attack, with an NSM type attack on another vector

        • I know it will add to the price but couldn’t they stick Sampson on top of the mask with the panels? The panels don’t need to go all the way to the top of the mask, couldn’t they just add some extra steel work or what ever it will be made out off on the top for Sampson. Best of both worlds.

          • In theory yes but as has been found with the Australian T-26 the weight of the panels already are a struggle to accommodate at any reasonable height (it’s the main advantage of rotating) so incorporating both would be very difficult and certainly so without a way broader beam. It’s why the mast itself is such a specialist job in making it as strong but light as possible. Now one presumes that over time flat panels may become more compact but from what I understand the cooling technology is much of the problem esp on flat panels, while the T-45 cleverly uses the nature of the mast to circulate and cleverly cool its radars.

            I too will be interested to see what Bae offer, whether it’s a Sampson based set up of some kind or possibly a version of the Australian CEA set up which is arguably the most likely alternative with a cooperative agreement of some kind. We certainly can’t afford to lose our expertise in this sector in my view.

        • I think a high up X-band fixed array won’t be too difficult on a ship designed for full fat fixed panels (most european frigates have them on c. 5000t and we seem to be heading towards 10000).
          So a CEAFAR style two tier system, but with the shorter frequency, lighter panels at the top of the mast and the giant multi-mission primary radar around the superstructure/bottom of the mast.
          Hopefully by 2035 the RN has AEW and distributed sensors nailed down so early detection of sea skimmers isn’t so much of an issue for the ships themselves. You can see the effect of that with the USN, E-2 means that the ABs can focus mainly on ABM and use datalinked missiles guided by the E2 for over the horizon shots.

          • Hopefully by then we should have some sort of light helicopter radar drone for our escorts, get 2 or 3 for each ship and you could have them hovering above the ship on 24hr surveillance.

            @spyinthesky it won’t let me.reply to you for some reason, I thought the main trouble for the Australians was that the hull of the type 26 just wasn’t designed for a heavy mast? What about maybe having 2 separate masts so the weight is more evenly distributed across the hull.

      • My understanding with fixed arrays was that they still scanned ‘digitaly’, via the phased array, and therefore have blind spots.

        • You can perform an electronic scan incredibly quickly, so it’s not like rotation where timescales are measured in seconds.

  10. Where will they build them? If they are larger than the Type 45 destroyer then they won’t fit in BAE’s nearly ready new build hall, so that’s annoying.

    • The new sheds will house them, though they may need some form of extension if the ships get beyond about 10,000 tons. Even then based on my look at the new Italian destroyer design, only part of the bow would extend beyond the present hall so at worst wouldn’t mean much of the ship exposed and the part with least external work. Seems doable to me, I don’t see us doing modern cruiser sized ships.

      • They could easily extend the sheds into the Clyde, since they no longer need to use the hard standing and the angled quay (cant remember ita proper name) that glasgow was on.

  11. The Type 45 may have to have a foreign stable mate between now and 2040. The UK should consider leasing at least two or three destroyers within the next three years if not before as the global threat is about to multiply. The Type 83 looks like a brilliant ship but it’s the short -and medium-term is the greatest concern right now..

      • Whomever is willing to release ships for lease. The US may be the obvious choice but the UK can not cope with just 4 Type 45s ( 2 in rotational refit) and meet its increasing commitments. Events are moving at a rapid rate and we can expect increased presence of Russian and Chinese naval vessels in UK waters. Another alternative might be to modify two or three Type 26s with upgraded weapon systems as a halfway house compromise until Type 83 these would be either from the approved fleet or additional hulls.

  12. UK unlikely to be able to afford 10 of this future Type 83, therefore my suggestion is an immediate follow on order for a Type 26 air defense variant based on the enlargened Canadian Type 26 fitted with an update combat and weapon system from the current Type 45. Only changes to the Type 26 for this variant (Type 46??) is drop the Mark 5 127mm gun for the 57mm on the Type 31, the towed array sonar (keep hull mounted).

    Order 5 to first supplement and then replace the Type 45, and when the 6 or so TYPE 83s are ordered in the next decade these Type 26 (Type 46??) air defense variants can play the role of the ARLEIGH BURKE destroyers in the USN while the Type 83 play the cruiser role of the Ticonderoga class with a comprehensive anti-ballistic missile defense while the air defense based Type 26 (Type 46??) take on the more traditional fleet air defense role with limited anti-ballistic missile defense capability of the upgrades Sea Viper 30 and NT missiles deployed on the Type 45s.

    Finally an additional orders of the Type 31 (call them Type 32) with a larger load out of Sea Ceptor ER missiles and towed array sonar or remote under sea vehicle operations for anti-submarine warfare to help augment that role of the Type 26 would also be desirable. For additional anti-submarine warfare hulls, especially for UK home water and Eastern Atlantic defense, the RN should be looking smaller OPV type hulls like upgrade Rivers B2 or smaller designs

    These solutions are a more affordable way of upping ship numbers for both the anti air and subsurface roles that the RN needs more vessels for.

    • Why base an air defence destroyer on T26, a specialist submarine hunter, when we have an adapted air defence frigate already in T31? And then try to optimise T31 hulls for Anti-submarine warfare when they are so ill-suited for it?
      T31 (well, Arrowhead 140) has provision for a much bigger primary radar and also a volume search radar like the T45’s S1850M aft, as on the Iver Huitfeldts.
      Far better to use Rosyth, which will become available for block build around 2030, to produce AAW T31s, and add extra unchanged or slightly adapted T26s onto the order at Govan during the wait for T83 which will undoubtedly be built there.

      • Canadians are using their Type 26 in the AAW role so why can’t the RN do same? The Type 31 as used by the Danish Navy is similar to how the Canadians are intending to use their Type 26, in the case of the former, an AAW with some ASW capability while the latter(Canadians) are opting for a frigate optimized for ASW but with good enough AAW capability.

        What I am proposing is simply acquiring a Canadian Type 26 with UK kit and a large part of the ASW kit stripped out and more emphasis placed on the AAW role using updated Type 45 kit. Also as @Rst2001 states below my approach will help with “speeding” up the production line that will make it more likely for the Norwegians to order the Type 26 for their Navy. The more Type 26 order the lower the acquisition costs (hopefully).

    • Sounds perfectly sensible . The RN simply has not enough ships at the moment so like for like replacement does not cut it. I would like to see the uk govt order another 3 of each t26 and t31 straight away. If uk want the Norway team work why not just place an order for at least 3 preferably 6 type 26 today which will have a spin off of industry scaling up for fresh orders before a Norway contract maybe signed . It will also improve chances of winning the contract .

  13. If you take the rule of three then we would need 6 Type 83s to always have 2 available for a Carrier Strike Group. If you want to have a CSG and then be able to defend anything else at the same time
    then you need at least one more available ship. That means you would need 9 Type 83s. That seems doable at 2.5% of GDP when you consider at lot of the big holes in the Royal Navy should be patched by the time we start paying for these ships..

  14. Hopefully we won’t get Mk41 on type 83. Buy European, get lots of Sylver, and stick with CAMM and Aster like Italy and France. (Equally hopefully Germany sees sense in doing so eith F127, probably too late to change 126)

    • Is mk41 that much of an issue? It plays little role in the CMS so not a vital part, more of a heavily engineered box than anything else. Obviously complete dependence is a very bad thing, but the RN seems to have that covered with independent CAMM.
      Sylver is largely monopolised by the French at the moment, and they’re even less friendly when it comes to missile integration. Ideally VLS would be something the RN had worked out for itself during the T45 design, it seems ridiculous that we have to go scrounging to the French or US every time.

      • We shouldn’t be putting any money into American industry period at this point. Invest in Europe. It’s the only language Trump will understand, and the only way to get ourselves to a point where we don’t have to worry about what the white house wants.

        • Also, Aster is already integrated on Sylver, CAMM is being procured by Italy, so will be soon. FCASW is joint UK/France so will also be integrated into Sylver. The only way French integration is an issue is if we are stupid enough to buy American missiles.

          (And developing a VLS system is expensive. You can have Sylver from France and 6 type 83s or develop your own and have 3-4 take your pick. There’s a reason why Italy uses Sylver)

  16. “Given the extended timelines involved in ship design and procurement,” Well they should hurry it up then- as its not been hurried so far
    “it remains uncertain how many Type 83 destroyers will be built or whether the Roya? Navy will receive a one-for-one replacement of its six Type 45s.”
    So there may not be a 1-2-1 replacement for the 6 T45’s…are they serious?…really?

  17. Type 32 should be an AAW ship. Low cost base but add back in some proper radars like its parent design. Obviously not instead of type 83 but to boost AAW sooner and relatively cheaply including to be used as air defence for uk itself considering our lack of land based systems. 32 vls for 32 camm, 16-32 camm mr and 8-16 aster 30 nt/sm6/patriot for bmd. Not gold plated but could still be very useless and relatively cost effective

  18. It’s so depressing how slowly this is progressing. Put the UKDJ community in a room for a week with a couple of ship engineers and a CAD specialist and the basics will be done before the weekend!

    • Exactly! You’d think that they’d be bringing this forward by 5 years and make it 2030 for 2035. In the meantime a missed opportunity to put 2x MK41s into the T45s or at least another 2-4 x6 CAMM silos, maybe down the sides of the Asters to give it 36 or 48 CAMM load out.

  19. Good news, although there was never really any doubt that the project would progress. Still about 5 years away from any order and serious sums of money being committed. Given current events, it’s surely impossible to tell how many will be built.

  20. I think it may be time for the AAW fleet to become 2 tier to ensure there are enough platforms. It was a huge mistake dropping from 12 T42 to 6T45, the fact a single T45 is far more effective that 2 T42s ignored the importance of mass..if you have 1 T45 losing that platform for some reason ( mission kill or just mechanical failure) removes 100% of the capability..losing 1 of 2 T42 meant you still had 50% of the capability left…which is infinitely more than the 0% you get from losing your 1 T45.. also 2 T42s can allow one to be moved further out down the threat axis..one T45 can only be in one place 2 T42s can be in two completely different places.

    Essentially the argument that 1 T45 replaced 2 T42s was BS of the highest order..it does not matter how much better one ship is at something it still cannot replace 2 ships..time, space and physics dont work like that.

    So the RN does need to build its hull numbers and AAW wise it should be aiming for 10-12 so it can deploy 4 AAW platforms..2 for a CBG, 1 for an amphibious group and an extra one for coverage of a key choke point ( Red Sea anyone).

    But it does also need to have the best possible AAW destroyer for the carrier battle group and Italy is showing what that means..it’s a 13,000-14,000 ton hull because the next generation radars for the 2030s-2040 are massive power hogs and will need very large hulls to house the power generation required…infact they are also heavy 8 panelled radars is just a cherry for size..the power generation is apparently going to be a killer.

    So maybe the RN needs 3-4 of these big lads so there is alway one to lead the AAW screen of the CBG and 6-9 of a more moderate AAW platform..more a direct analogy replacement for the T45..6000-7000 tons 48-68 missiles and a good but not exquisite area defence radar.

  21. I can’t see the promised modest uplift in the defence budget stretching to more surface ships. In fact I suspect that the increase is recognition that even existing programmes can’t be delivered with existing funding. Aukus and Tempest are international programmes and will be ring fenced. We could opt for a 2 tier approach, supplementing T83 with an AAW version of T31 ( the main role of the original Iver Huitfeldt design.) Any other option would be far more expensive.

    • With two tier you don’t even need more than the current construction budget to get more surface ships. Just don’t stop building tier two escorts, one per annum at £350m (fixed price rising with GDP). Sell after twenty one/two years and you have 20 tier-two ships indefinitely. You’ll need more sailors to crew them though, so automation needs to be the focus of continuous redesign.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here