The Royal Navy’s next destroyer isn’t just a bigger Type 45 — it’s shaping up to be a whole new kind of warship.
The term ‘destroyer’ might not fully describe what the Royal Navy is planning. While global navies stick with DDG (guided-missile destroyer), perhaps Britain is heading toward a DDL — a directed-energy destroyer — with the upcoming Type 83.
Though still in its concept phase, the programme is already being framed as something far more ambitious than a traditional air-defence ship.
According to the Ministry of Defence, the Type 83 destroyer is “one element of the Future Air Dominance System (FADS)” and will eventually replace the six existing Type 45s. But as Defence Minister Maria Eagle recently confirmed, further announcements will come only after the Strategic Defence Review concludes. That hasn’t stopped the MoD from laying out the vision.
In previous comments, the MoD has called FADS “a transformative multi-domain programme” that will deliver integrated air and missile defence, with reach across air, land, and sea — and crucially, the ability to counter hypersonic threats. In short: a system designed to dominate.
Former Defence Procurement Minister James Cartlidge hinted at just how different these vessels may be. Speaking at the Full Spectrum Air Defence conference last year, he said:
“These are more than just ships. They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a ‘system of systems’. They will be highly automated. Blending missiles with new technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons. Incorporating both uncrewed systems and complex radar sensing capabilities.”
With that in mind, it’s worth considering that the Type 83 may be the UK’s first serious step toward operational naval lasers — not just as an add-on, but as a core part of its air and missile defence architecture.
What We Know So Far
The Type 83 is still in its early concept phase. A Market Engagement Event (MEE) was held by the MoD in December 2024, with a potential follow-up session planned for early 2025. These sessions are designed to give industry partners a chance to contribute ideas — and identify early limitations.
While no official designs have been released, an unofficial concept image from 2023 suggested a ship much larger than the Type 45, perhaps closer to China’s Type 055 or the U.S. Zumwalt class. That would make sense if it’s expected to host directed-energy weapons, power-intensive radar, and a larger missile payload.
Features likely to be included:
- Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) for hypersonic and ballistic missile threats
- Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) as a potential main battery system
- High-capacity missile cells, possibly Mk 41 VLS or equivalent
- Uncrewed and autonomous system integration
- Future-proofed power and propulsion systems
The system aims to provide fleet-wide protection and extend detection ranges, increasing survivability and lethality at standoff ranges.
From DDG to DDL?
Destroyers have long been designated by their missile capabilities — hence the DDG classification. But if lasers and automation become central to how the Type 83 operates, a new designation might eventually be warranted.
Perhaps more importantly, the ship reflects a broader shift in how the Royal Navy approaches sea control, fleet defence, and power projection. With a growing emphasis on “system of systems” thinking, even the way warships are conceptualised is changing.
What’s Next?
There’s no really solid timeline for procurement yet, but an Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is expected in the late 2030s, with full entry into service likely in the 2040s. The Strategic Defence Review currently underway will play a major role in determining the programme’s pace and scale.
For now, the Type 83 remains an ambitious concept. But if even half the promises around DEWs and multi-domain dominance come to fruition, it won’t be just another destroyer.
It’ll be something far more dangerous.
Core vessel with massive power generation, also acting as a mothership with distributed magazine capacity, sensor nodes and protextion through drones in the air, on and under the water.
In effect you have a mini squadron with interchangeable capabilities via the drones deployed..
Seems cost effective with a certain amount of mass that can be ripped before the main vessel
Lasers will never compete with long range missiles like Aster or the Standard series, but could they replace CAMM?
All of the current generation of DEWare barely competing with the shortest of short range missiles, like Martlet. Even RAM comfortably outranges them.
If you dedicated as much space in the superstructure to a laser beam generator as, say, a T26 does to its forwards CAMM battery (ignoring the mk41 exhausts and the base power generation), would the resulting output beam have the range and damage to compete with CAMM in destroying low level supersonic missiles?
Because that equation will be what decides the prevalence of DEW for naval vessels.
You are right in terms of range, RAM is 9 kilometres though the US is looking at a 10 Km range and beyond for its future lasers. But though there are other factors like beam accuracy, power is the decisive factor and US research is looking at 300Kw for serious all round multi threat laser defence but I don’t see that for a while yet, too many power and reliability issues to solve but I presume something 200Kw+ would be the sort of laser that would be the aim for this destroyer concept with a fully developed and mature FESS system no doubt. One has to be currently realistic but hopefully rapid development will transform its potential in the thirties.
I suspect that power generation is the real reason the RN is looking at nuclear propulsion for some of its future surface ships, as you alluded to in a comment submitted for the UKDJ article of 13/01/25 ‘Britain moves closer to nuclear-powered surface warships’.
Would think lasers will need stored energy. Unsure, but maybe similar to emals carrier catapults. Early days for lasers the main advantages appear to be short range way of dealing with multiple drone attacks.
There comes a point where you ship is 15,000t where the economics of nuclear start to make sense particularly if your war shots are electrical in origin.
With nuclear you have infinite war shots.
It’s not about continual entry delivery, which is what nuclear reactor provides: it’s about instantaneous electrical power and no power plant will provide an infinite power capacity or anything like it. As for the discussions being undertaken, I can’t see anything coming of them unless some lunatic decides to ban all combustible fuels. I suspect that possible future is what’s driving the discussion.
ASTER, Camm, 57/72 and DEW all have their place for different threats, different ranges and different weather conditions.
FC/ASW and ASROC / Surface launched torpedoes also need a place.
Specialist AAW YES….But able to reasonably deal with diversity of threats when independent in locations far far away.is essential
I will wait and see but off board sensors woukd be a great plan. If it’s truly going to be a class eighty then it should be capable of both ASW and AAW.
Off board dipping sonar drones, below the layer (or lfas) and drone dropped torpedoes woukd be great.
A directed energy armed ship. True war of the worlds stuff. The RN revolutionised naval warfare once before with HMS Dreadnought. Maybe just maybe they can do it again.
First of class has to be HMS Thunderchild!
Would the laser actually be red?
The current ones aren’t. That’s just for the pictures.
I have to assume that more than one system will be fitted given multiple threats from all directions and the dwell time on each target. Same for T26 and QE’s ?
Danger of gold plating again?
I agree.
But the difference is that T42 had no viable upgrade pathway and RN had nothing with a VLS in it or the ability to take one.
Here we have a laser system that fundamentally works with any ship with the right CMS and electrical power.
I can see these on the 30mm sponsoins on QEC as they have plenty of electrical power and space and the right radar / CMS combo.
One factor is that this will have its own hull. It won’t be a redesign like the Australian Type 26 variant.
Steel is very cheap. Building a big hull with lots of space for onboard systems is cheap. It’s the onboard systems that are responsible for the majority of costs.
Will Type 83 be an AAW Zumwalt?Another gold plated super ship costing £1.5/£1.8 bn plus?…And the RN gets 3 of them eventually?..
Who knows? Do you know? If you don’t are you just trying to promulgate good old fashioned FUD?
How big would an unnamed craft need to be that could mount Dragonfire , all the power needs , speed and have the seakeeping qualities to patrol as laser pickets? That would solve the range issue of lower lower systems and the LOS limitation but a dozen might be needed to cover a Carrier group.
The Destroyer would also need the ability to recover and repair and refuel any vessels that break down , potentially a dock facility for long. ( Or an RAF carries them)
You mean a Dilly replacement?
Unless they are tiny and therefore won’t have the power they will need a mother ship that can lift them out for high speed transit and repair and also to transit higher sea states.
My issue with this concept is that assuming this hyperthetical nuclear powered 15,000 ton monster will be totally unaffordable.
We clearly need more than 6 and we should be looking at 9 replacements for T45.
We need to lower our sights a tad, I would be happy with a 9 ship class based on the T26 platform and increasing the orders for T26 and T31.
If we go for a nuclear powered laser Cruiser, we will probably get 3!!
Where did you read it will be nuclear powered ?
There has been scuttlebutt about promoting the development of small modular reactors by requiring their installation on larger warships to cut their carbon footprint.
Ahhh… the “Thunberg” class then !
This is more than just hulls in the water. It’s an air dominance system. People have to look past simple numbers.
This was the argument of the likes of Lord West when he fell into bed with the Labour Party and was therefore part of a Government that cut Type 45 orders from an initial 12 to 8 and finally, 6. It ignores the fact that the world is round and even directed energy weapons will still fire in straight lines (over relatively short ranges due to atmospheric attenuation).
As somebody else said, I think the experience of the limited Type 45 numbers should be that we should be aiming for a class of 9 to 12 AAW specialists with an additional land attack capability making them Type 83, not Type 46.
Ambition is one thing as long as, like the Zumwalt, it doesn’t lead to the numbers being reduced to three. However good they are, they can still only be in one place at a time. Unless ofcourse all that quantum research they’ve been carrying out has Really made a major breakthrough.
Speculative clickbait article 🤦🏻♂️
Taking it a bit to far, aren’t we? The technology is yet to prove itself in real world scenarios
Massive power generation ( nuclear seems a good idea) , power storage and a number of lasers seems a good , maybe even obvious idea. Missiles will remain the true main battery, but lasers for (closer) defense.
However, I would not do away with CAMM and automatic canons.
You need BOTH. Lasers have limitations, mainly towards weather and other environmental influences, but also in regards being newer tech and as such unproven.
Lasers. Beam me up, Spotty!
But can a laser weapon yet attack an aircraft behind a cloud or does that take too much energy out to be effective?
These T83 sound incredibally expensive. We are finding just 6 T45s way too few & if T83s are a lot pricier, we’ll probably get fewer. Surely we need something like a AAW version of the T26 with long range SAM like ASTER NG.
The old story, swarm attack on a new type 83 and kapow…one quarter of the advanced fleet gone.