The Ministry of Defence has again declined to provide any detail on progress toward the Type 83 destroyer programme, referring a parliamentary question about whether the ship will be ready by 2038 back to a holding answer first given in January.
The written answer, given by Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry Luke Pollard on 22 May in response to a question from James MacCleary MP for Lewes, repeated verbatim the government’s position that “the Type 83 concept is currently under review against the Royal Navy’s Hybrid Navy Strategy” and that “future business case approval remains subject to the Defence Investment Plan.”
The answer did not address whether the programme would be ready by 2038, the year by which the Royal Navy’s six Type 45 destroyers are expected to have left service.
The Type 45, which entered service between 2009 and 2013, provides the Royal Navy’s primary air defence capability and carries the Sea Viper missile system. Without a replacement in service, the Navy would face a significant capability gap in shipborne air defence or be forced to extend the service of the platforms.
The same holding answer has now been given in response to multiple parliamentary questions since January, when the UK Defence Journal first reported that the programme had been placed under Hybrid Navy review. An outline business case had previously been expected in June 2026, but that timeline has not been reconfirmed and the latest answer gives no indication it remains on track.
The programme’s uncertainty is compounded by the continuing absence of the Defence Investment Plan, which was originally due in autumn 2025 and has still not been published. The NAO has identified a £16.9 billion funding gap in the MoD’s 2023-33 Equipment Plan, and reports in March suggested the Type 83 programme could be among those delayed or descoped as part of efforts to find around £10 billion in savings. The MoD described those reports as speculation at the time, however.
The Type 83 is intended to be the centrepiece of the Royal Navy’s Future Air Dominance System, replacing the Type 45 with a next-generation destroyer capable of operating alongside autonomous systems as part of the hybrid fleet. The programme entered its concept phase in March 2025.
It’s not going to happen, ever
It will very likely happen. But it might not be a 10,000 ton very expensive warship.
Actually steel is comparatively cheap. It would be a mistake to try and squeeze it into small hull. The usual will happen they will say they will buy 10 and we will get 5. They will say that drones made the others not required…..
I think 6 would have been a more realistic order. Especially if they are considerably larger than T45. Maybe 8 if they are more T31 size with networked drone warships. I’m only guessing of course.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website——–.—>>> LIVEJOB1.COM
Some things never change. The article could have been written 30 years ago about other projects.
I’m guessing they are looking into cutting planned hull numbers to fund the proposed unmanned ships. Which obviously will need multiple committees that meet twice a year with the first meeting voting on which biscuits will be provided.
They are probably looking at if building a very large very expensive warship is the way to go in this modern era.
Let’s have the bloody DIP first. We need something to handle yesterday… Maybe today. Cos I’m staggered that the MOD has such a vast work force but seemingly it’s not actually doing much because there’s no money and no orders and no anything going on.
There is lots going on.All Procurement hasn’t been put on hold.
The Dip is being delayed by the civil service until after the leadership challenge on the grounds that another leader may well reduce an announced spending plan.
We are all waiting for the DIP to unblock the orders pipeline and provide clarity as to the future defence posture; I surely hope it does (and soon), but I am wondewring whether we are going to be disappointed in a lack of specific actions as opposed to the “aspirations” so beloved of politicians.
I doubt they’d cut hull numbers if we assume they’ll replace T45 on a 1-4-1 basis. Much more likely to ditch it altogether or de-scope.
FLADS is probably one of the best programs to delay to free up funding for GCAP, AUKUS and Trident renewal. There is no need for a 10,000 tonne destroyer any time soon, it’s better to split the program up developing and deploying the type 91 first along side T45 and rolling out the gallium nitride radar for the Type 91 and T26 enhancement. Then simply building an enlarged T26 hull in what ever numbers are needed as the command ship.
We certainly don’t need some multi billion pound program to produce three or four large ships just to keep designers at BAE in a job.
Nothing at all simple about enlarging the T26 let alone sensible.
Yet it’s already been done. The Hunter class is already an enlarged T26.
And had plenty of issues, and didn’t get that much larger.
T45s will be extended in service I’d imagine, given how long some of the class have spent alongside.
I’ve read often here and elsewhere of the importance of design skills and systems vs bashing steel, but it’d still be a high price to pay just for that.
If you recall the Type 26 was reduced from 13 hulls to 8 necause it was too expensive… if numbers are increased it will be a Type 31 derivative… Type 32?
However it has gone very quiet on the increase of escort numbers. We cannot have the situation we have now with the Type 23 where the replacements were not ordered in time and the ships we have left are falling apart.
It is all academic – all the money will be spent on bribing the populous to vote Labour.
It’s taking on average 13 years to BUILD a type 26 frigate. Anyone think we will design (with new capabilities), select and build a destroyer in that time? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.
We don’t need an entire new design and reboot, The manned component of FADS can just be an evolution of T26
FADS radar will need a big heavy ship. I knew there was a reason Fort Victoria was going into refit 🙂
In the light of today’s borrowing figures and the continued low availability of surface escorts, we need an affordable robust platform.
T26 might be the world’s best ASW frigate but we haven’t got one yet.
Ever smaller numbers of exquisite platforms is not the way to go.
Even the USN has been forced to choose a low end design frigate to maintain fleet size.
1 carrier at sea needing 1 maybe 2 air warfare destrohers with mahoosive radars.
Why not make the QEC the radar ship and transmit to the T82/T26s? What ambition do we have for truly independent air warfare destroyer with no counter sub, to sail sail the seas alone?
There is some merit in taking time on this vessel due to the upcoming explosion in drone technology. One option could be to stay the corse and build as planned or reconsider if such warships are going to be still relevent by 2040. Imagin how many drone craft of all sizes and weight could be procured for the cost of a fleet of T 83s. Manning availability and costs will play a significant role in future RN planning and such vessels as this maybe difficult to buy in the required numbers and to train and provide enough crews, based on current dwindeling recuritment numbers.
They’ll kick the can.
Billions saved now.
Further on, if they appear they’ll be fewer, augmented by uncrewed or optimally crewed.
Standard HMG.
Moving on. Would be fun if they grandstanded about 12 T83 like they did about “12 SSN” eh…..in decades to come while they won’t be responsible for the order or cancellation.
Drones are the answer to everything.
What do you call male bees? Oh, yes. You are totally right.
T83, from what we’ve heard from BAE, is being conceived as a single, large destroyer (9000t/10000t range), being escorted and augmented by 4-6 LUSVs.
Now, that sounds big. But, modern AAW destroyers are displacing 12,000t to 15,000t for more conventional designs. 10,000t is actually fairly small, for a modern destroyer.
With a planned crew of somewhere around 100 sailors, that’s a massive benefit as well.
Ideally, they drop almost all shipboard sonar requirements, and place that entirely in the LUSVs.