Only around GBP 1 million has been spent on platform-specific design work for the Royal Navy’s planned Type 83 destroyer over the past three financial years, with the Ministry of Defence admitting it inherited the programme as an underdeveloped concept on entering office, the department stated in a written answer to a parliamentary question.
Conservative MP Sir Alec Shelbrooke had asked the Secretary of State for Defence to set out the total spend to date on the Type 83 project, including pre-concept and early concept phases. Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry Luke Pollard’s response indicated that the figures are difficult to disaggregate because Type 83 sits within a wider capability framework.
Pollard said: “We inherited an underdeveloped concept for Type 83 when we took office. The Type 83 Destroyer forms part of a wider Future Air Dominance System (FADS) capability concept, making specific costs for the Type 83 element hard to differentiate from the wider whole.” He continued: “Over the last three financial years, c.£1 million has been spent on platform-specific design for the Type 83. This forms part of c.£6.9 million which is the broader notional spend for Type 83 work as a part of FADS.”
The figures show a programme still very much in its earliest stages, despite the Type 83 having been publicly identified as the future replacement for the Royal Navy’s Type 45 air defence destroyer fleet for several years. The Type 45s entered service from 2009 onward and currently provide the area air defence capability for the carrier strike group, with the class subject to its own significant modernisation programme through the Sea Viper Evolution and Power Improvement Project upgrades. The original timeline indicated Type 83 would begin replacing the six-ship Type 45 force in the late 2030s.
The Future Air Dominance System framework under which Type 83 is being developed is intended to capture not just the next-generation surface combatant but the broader mix of sensors, weapons and command and control capabilities required to deliver fleet air defence in the 2040s and beyond.
The strategic defence review published in June 2025 retained the requirement for a successor to Type 45 within the Royal Navy’s force structure but did not provide a detailed timeline for the Type 83. Royal Navy and industry sources have for some time expressed concern publicly about the pace at which Type 83 has been progressing through its early concept stages, with the relative scale of investment to date offering a measure of how much remains to be done before the programme can move into demonstration.
I’m increasingly coming round to the idea of a T45 batch 2 with all the lessons learnt applied from the start. The hull is big enough to incorporate new tech such as Dragonfire and unscrewed additions. Saves a lot of time and money on a brand new design.
Google is now paying $300 to $500 per hour for doing work online work from home. Last paycheck of me said that $20537 from this easy and simple job. Its amazing and earns are awesome. No boss, full time freedom and earnings are in front of you. This job is just awesome. Every person can makes income online with google easily…….,,.
.
More Details For Us→→→→ FindJobs1.Site
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—.,.,.,.,.—>>> PAYAtHOME1.COM
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—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
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—.,.,.,.,.—>>> Homeprofit1.site
I know the budget is tight but I’d rather we found the cash for screws. I’d hate for a piece of expensive kit to fall overboard just to save the cost of screws.
Don’t you trust Velcro?
Gaffer tape
I agree. Makes far more sense to build on a known hull, albeit with some inherent faults, but we should know what the problems are surely. Obviously nothing has been done on the T83 and by the time the programme progresses we’ll have managed to waste more money and time as usual.
The Type 45 design process started in 85, its a bit long in the tooth to expect that it can remain competitive in the 2050s. The power requirements for new radars and laser weapons needed to allow the ship to do its job in 30 years time means a bigger hull. The various versions that the USN came up with for the DDX came in around 13000 tons.
Its a design formulated in the 1990s , and even if there was yard space for it, it would be easier to adapt a T26. Bae proposed a VLS array instead of the mission bay. The french added a could of Freda AAW versions of the Fremm line so a small build of T26 enhanced with AAW spec would make more sense and stretch the T45 out as to the latest date possible.
That will leave you zero tonnage to upgrade or add new systems over a projected 30 year life.
T45 size don’t work for big ABM’s, you need larger radars and missiles. Need to be 1 bigger or MAYBE you split into 2 ships.
In plain English,it is just a Concept,nothing more ?.
Well people keep saying conventional stuff is obsolete ( I’m sure it’s not ) so lets make our minds up.
I also keep reading that T45 can carry on for longer as they’ve seen less use than planned? Is that fair? Or falling into the T23 trap?
Even if the FADS is distributed around the T91s or whatever they are called, assume the costs still add up to same as a single manned vessel?
I’m sceptical of the low milage claim. Corrosion happens regardless of how many miles are travelled. The type23s are the lesson in what happens in extending a ship way past it’s design life.
The T23 issue is metal fatigue not corrosion.
The T45 was designed for at least a 30 year service life compared to the T23s original 18 years. So they should be good well into the 2040s.
Building on what Robert says above, the T45s were built for a 30 year service life, compared to an 18 year service life for the T23s. Now, the T23s are making it some 30 years in service, suggesting that similar degrees of LIFEX work ‘could’ extend T45 lifespans past 30-40 years.
Delaying T83 makes some sense.
Yes, seems like an easy saving to make.
The hulls will be ok in 30 years time, the radars less so. There’s only so much extra top weight you can put on the hull.
Yes seems appropriate. Especially with the upgrades that are planned for T45 in the next few years.
…but we don’t have enough T45s as it is. The RN needs larger cruiser-size ASM-totting ship-killers that can go up against threats in many locations at the same time, and can defend themselves and the fleet when needed.
Have they admitted that the pre 2040 target is never going to happen yet? The better priority in the short term would be to get the existing destroyer fleet into best condition and integrate the latest ASTER variant. If CAMM-MR does make it into RN VLS cells (twin packed?) it would provide some amount of area defence, but not on the same level as ASTER of course. If the mythical Type 32 does end up being a revised Type 31 it will need improved air defence. the iver huitfeldt-class has a long range search radar similar to S1850M, there’s little reason why an Arrowhead 140 family ship couldn’t have it as well.
Let’s just get this out of the way first, the decision to cut the T45 class from 8 down to 6 was nothing short of incompetence and negligence.
As for T83 Everyone wants more of everything and wants it now, however everyone understands that you can’t do that anytime soon as projects take about 10 years (minimum) to get from concept, to plan, to main gate, build and enter the water.
It all comes down to NEED, WANT and NICE TO HAVE.
Yes we will need a replacement for the T45’s but they are only now getting towards being truly effective AAW assets and TBH they don’t have many miles on the clock.
There are higher priorities right now than additional Naval AAW and that in terms of the Surface Navy means ASW Frigates, GP Frigates, FSS, MROSS and MRSS (an effective CAG for the QE’s).
Which along with the T26 exports, Drones, Dreadnought and SSN(A) in the pipeline means all the Budget is being spent, the suitable yards are all full and the supply chain is ramping up to get everything built.
So unless someone waves a magic wand and expands resource we (A) Can’t physically build any extra AAW vessels, (B) Can’t afford an extra £6/8 Billion to pay for them without cuts elsewhere and (C) once T45 start getting through all the updates we couldn’t crew them and don’t really need them yet anyway.
And although I hate to say this but the other services probably have a higher need for extra resources than the Navy right now. Top of the list has got to be UK GBAD capability, 2 more AEW, 5 P8’s some extra F35 or Typhoons (preferably both) and just about everything in Green for the Army.
But that doesn’t stop a small team working out the concepts and preparing for the eventual need to replace the T45 but please no fewer than 8.
Nothing more needs saying. 👍
Thanks for the summation ABC, I very much agree especially on the need for the airforce and GBAD assets to get priority.
Yup common sense assessment within the limitations we are currently playing with.
Did’nt realise that biscuits cost so much. 1million could’nt have designed a lot prehaps a fancy acornim.
Seems like a bit of a non-story. £1m spent on the central T83 itself, with a broader £5m spent on FADS concepts.
It disregards the money spent by BAE, Babcock and their associates on developing concepts.
This Dash for Drones will backfire on Us…!
They have their Place but it’s No Replacment for Solid Global Presence…! We Sent The t45 HMS DRAGON ‘Eventually’ to Eastern Med / Gulf … FRANCE And ITALY a fleet Well before us …Can’t Imagine a Drone/s Having Anything like that Impact…!
We’ll just build More Problems for Ourselves Without T83..
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—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
Yes
My instinct is forget new designs and increase numbers NOW
We spend a lot of the time of warships reinventing themselves – I will not reiterate the many RN escort type ships have been expensively remodelled since the successful Leander class 60’s 70’s
New build Type 31++ which is a large GP adapatable platform if Babcocks can deliver. Also less costly
It would be right to give them on order for 2 now and more later a give continuity of build to Rosyth and hopefully Denmark may place an order
As regards BAE on the Clyde The type 26 is a specialist quiet AS platform and BAE need orders to fill the new Jan Harvey Hall We are still waiting for the official Norwegian order for 5 so maybe less pressure than Rosyth However BAE need continuity
We are also acting like a nation who is losing credibility with their allies and friends leaving our enemies smirking
And wheres the yard space for this coming from?
Babcock have planning permission for a second hall at Rosyth so there is room for more T31s. Glasgow is much tighter.
Yeah because they have work for the new hall, the contract with HHI for the Virginia class. They aren’t going to build new yards unless theres 30 years of work involved to make the investment worthwhile. You can’t handwave away capital costs and the need for a trained workforce.
The new hall is intended to be 149m long, 65m wide and with doors 35m tall. You don’t build that for submarine parts.
It also lines up with the Venturer hall so that modules can be delivered between the two. The planning application statement is at
docs(.)planning(.)org(.)uk/20251218/194/T7DDXKHFFIE00/xuublm2bi0q6ngt2(.)pdf
Guess where RN submarines are fuelled
Look at the document. The new hall is intended to sit on the landward side of the existing Venturer building and Dry Dock no.1. There’s no way it could have anything to do with in-service support of submarines due to its location away from the water and it’s oversized to build new components, which is all Babcock do at Rosyth for submarine construction.
How this T45+ will intercept Iranian anti ship ballistic missiles with 3000km range with several guided warheads in 15 years time?
The new first sea lord has spoken against ever more expensive large platforms, stressing a need for distributed systems.
Buying 10000 ton air defence destroyers would seem to have been ruled out.
To regain mass, we need a lean manned mothership commanding unmanned vessels.
Could aT31 derivative be part of the solution? If we are going to fund the unmanned vessels T91, then the core mothership must also be affordable. Buying bigger destroyers plus accompanying optionally manned vessels is going to cost more than replacing T45 on a one for one basis.
The laws of physics dont disappear. You need big heavy radars high up for the ABM role. To take that top weight you need a bigger ship than the type 45 to keep the ship stable. The US DDX comes in at 13,000 tons and the CGX comes in at 20,000 -22,000 tons. There’s no point building a fleet defence AAW ship that can’t defend the fleet
Not going to happen. Totally unaffordable even without accompanying T91s. The idea is to distribute missiles and sensors across connected platforms. How good the sensors on a 2000ton T91 might be, I have no idea.
Perhaps not surprising that the FADS programme remains underdeveloped.
It’s hard to see the government logic in doing so little with T83 now considering we’ve seen this story before with most recent naval projects. Even starting the program properly now, it’s unlikely such large complex ships will be delivered on time, even if T45 can be extended, the new target dates will still be missed looking at T26 and 31 programs. MRSS isn’t even properly on the board and ships are leaving service like with T23, MRSS replacement is barely discussed let alone being designed fully.
At this point it seems it would be smart to work more closely with the Italians, they have a strong and sensible ship building industry and successfully iterate designs and get good value for money. They prepare programs at the necessary rate to deliver and keep capacity for foreign orders, which further benefits the industry without costing their navy, unlike T26 program which will have a cost to the navy in terms of delivery schedules.
Currently the Italians are working on a new destroyer hull (14000T range) design which they believe is the size necessary now, they typically don’t go for excess so this seems reasonable and after all the messing around it is where T83 will end up. They’re also working a smaller LPD/LXD which seems to be inline what the MOD had originally been looking for when 6x MRSS were announced a few years ago, this could fit the MRSS need and actually get that project moving again and allow for six for the Royal Navy if procurement between the U.K. and Italy can keep costs down.
Whilst the U.K. is capable of designing ships itself, the government approach to keep pushing projects to the right, ends up leaving us with no ships. At this rate the ship yards will also be without work again and T83 will be to far behind to start build when needed by the yards. Working with other countries who get on with design and work out the issues could benefit the U.K. when design work isn’t funded properly. The U.K. Government approach to defence isn’t changing much beyond rhetoric and having partners is likely the only reason GCAP is continuing at the moment.