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.
As long as we get 10 of them and they also have an ASW capability I will be happy.
That would send the Thin Pinstriped Liners puce. Wonder if they might try to cancel the MoD in response.
I’m sure Musk’s Doge will try.
[ 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/
Steve. Surely ASW is what frigates do?
Yep, a trio of DD, FF & SSN coves each domain with overlap (Air, Sea, Sub-Sea etc.)
With so few Hulls in the RN Escort Fleet even a modest ASW capability would not be a bad idea. If only for the Ship to be able to deploy and defend itself from Subsurface threats, that is all.
Not really. I’m on my phone so I’m not thumbing in my history of escorts, but Frigate = ASW comes from WW2 RN terminology. Even in the 1950s we whee already making exceptions, and if you look outside the RN that was never a thing.
Yep there have been RN AAW frigates and RN ASW frigates and RN ASW destroyers and AAW destroyers… they have had frigates bigger than destroyers and destroyers that were essentially cruisers but not named as such for political reasons.. the US are even worse they have designated the same ship a frigate, then a destroyer and then a cruiser. The Japanese have designated a carrier as a destroyer and the Russias always call their carriers cruisers so they can sneak them into the Black Sea.
Confusing ain’t it!
At least the RN seems to have settled on ASW / GP Frigates and AAW Destroyers for the last 30 or 40 years.
Now we just need to commit to building lots more of them.
Cheers CR
You are of course correct, at least in the current context. I will clarify: as long as they have ASW capability that allows them to detect, defend against and prosecute a target of opportunity, I will be happy.
If you look at every other western navy every AAW ship can also contribute to the ASW screen and can at least protect itself.
Prosecuting a sub is difficult making it run away far less so.. and once an electric boat has disengaged it’s not re engaging.
They will be an air dominance system. Not ASW. That’s why we are building T26.
We don’t have enough ASW capable assets
Imagine our ASW frigates didn’t have CAMM, a minimum air defence capability, and had to wait for AAW vessel to arrive, to defend against an air target?
A minimum ASW capability is required for sub surface threats?
I mean a minimum ASW capability on a AAW vessel.
Yet most Navies have multi-role warships, we need all our very few ships to have some sort of overlap in capabilities, give the T26 a decent radar and it can also contribute to AAW, rather than self defence.
Most navies don’t have carrier groups to form. For us the ASW elements on an AAW ship would be useless as it will be consorting a carrier or amphibious ship and won’t hear much past them. The equipment and skilled warfare team are wasted then.
Same the other way around with AAW on the ASW ships. The ASW ship needs to sprint and drift ahead of the group to listen for submarines. It can’t always stay on the threat axis to deal with airborne contacts. So it’s AAW kit plus sensors plus, again, specialised warfare team and missile loadout that are not going to be well utilised in a formation.
We do things our way for a reason whatever anyone else does.
HMS Duncan usually deploys around the Mediterranean Sea ( on it’s own ) likewise HMS Diamond in the Red Sea,they rarely will deploy as a group.CSG Deployments are the exception rather than the rule.
T45s are notoriously noisey vessels so if the T83s are not to get the expensive sound proofing of the T26s then doing away with ASW capability would be a sensible move.
Pity no more concept images.
So far nothing between the BAE cruiser and the minimalistic arsenal ship.
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.
Italian destroyer not frigate…
Indeed, steel is cheap, no point in building small.
Italian Torpedo Boat Catcher 😉
All of the type 45s have plenty of sea mileage left in them beyond mid 2030s surely
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.
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.
I agree on the T31/32 issue.
Keeping Rosyth on drumbeat is of national importance
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.
Drone threats are what the 40mm and 57mm Bofors cannons are best for, I’d expect the 30mm and phalanx to be slowly phased out in future in favour of larger calibre weapons with air burst ammunition. The 57mm on the T31 holds 1,000 rounds, that’s a lot of dead drones.
But it’s not a 1 shot kill system like a missile
But it could be with the 57mm Mk110, if the RN takes up either BAe’s ORKA or the DARPA/Raytheon MAD-FIRES guided rounds.
Hopefully, lessons learnt from Project Cabot on distributed capability among lean/uncrewed vessels, can be incorporated .
I’m happy but also feel conflicted as i’m under impression the Type 45s haven’t even fully entered service yet
? The last T45 entered service in 2013.
Yes but I know what he means they barely seem to have had sustained operational service, at least one has spent as much time in reserve/dry dock as it has in active service.
Plus they are still doing capability inserts (CAMM)
Legacy of the MODs FFBNW fudge.
Just hoping it won’t be 15 year lag until the T31s get the Mk41 VLS
HMS Warspite was doing capability inserts in 1944… not sure that means she only just entered service when she was retired in 45.
We want eight (well, 12 in a perfect world) and we won’t wait
Type 83?The RN’s type numbering system is in tatters again :/
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).😂
I think because the 80 series are large broad spectrum combatants while the 40s are smaller AAW escorts.
Maybe the aim to have offensive long range strike capability on T83 is what pushed them to make the decision.
40 series have never really had anything beyond AAW, but at least Bristol had Ikara, which sort of looks like a cruise missile if you squint and look at it from the side.
I was just reading up on the Tribals. I didn’t know they were supposed to be more powerful than they were, but the Treasury stuck a 3,000 ton upper displacement limit on them (according to the Wiki). I had no idea that HMT had naval design experience even back in the 1950s.
They didn’t nor any idea of basic engineering hence they equated cost with size. It’s costs too much so make it smaller, hence c dry cramped ships and very difficult to modernise.
Steel is cheap and air is free ! Hence the size and growth potential of the Bays, T45, T26 etc.
The crazy thing is that pre WW2 the Navy were responsible for ship design via the 3rd SL (Controller of the Navy), DNC and RCNC and every ship was built with “a board margin” which was usually 10% over what was required. That allowed for natural growth, upgrades, extra crew and copious tons of paint (I’m not joking).
Post war the CS & HMT got involved and just mucked it up.
Spookily we seem to be reverting to the old way of doing things and it’s bearing results.
Yes. That was supposed to be sarcastic. I meant that I didn’t realise that such specific Treasury interference was going on after the war. Now it tends to be about overall cost and number, which I suppose is actually better. I had never considered they could be getting better!
Aah the old Thames Ironworks enthused mantra. Sadly didn’t do them much personal good.
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.
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!!!
It’s easy to see where jd vance gets his oratory skills being a remf journalist
As Adam Boulton said last week Vance is a piece of shit….I think he underestimated his stench
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.
I have never really understood why this isn’t the default: a lightweight X-Band high up and an S-Band (or L-band) further down; although I’m not sure I’d go as low as the bottom of the mast. Also maybe an upward facing antenna for anti-balistics.
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.
Sensitivity and resolution dips would be a better phrase….
Isn’t detecting fast, high flying targets at extreme ranges what S1850M already does? (albeit with a blindspot directly fore of the radar because of the superstructure)
About 10 years ago, BAe did show a son of Sampson. This was a fixed array, but had a much bigger surface area and though was still slightly smaller than the SPY-1D panel size. It is intended to be fitted as part of a three/four panel array to give the 360 azimuth view. Its main advantage is that with a larger array, you can generate more effective radiated power along with increasing the receiver sensitivity. Thereby maximising your detection range.
I say it’s a problem, but in reality it’s not, the current T45 set up with Sampson set up high does not use the best sized antenna arrays. The two back to back arrays are sized for top weight, not maximum detection range. However, as the ship also has the S1850M, this L band radar has a significantly longer detection range. So the two radar systems compliment each other. Thereby you can get away with the Sampson using less than ideal sized AESA arrays. Which allows it to be fitted 40m above sea level to give that extended radar horizon.
A ship now faces a multitude of airborne, surface and subsurface threats. If I just focus on the airborne threats, then I’d say the sea skimming cruise missile be that sub-sonic or supersonic is still the primary threat. As it uses the radar horizon to hide behind for the approach, thereby leaving the ship with very little reaction time to identify, validate and respond to the threat. High angled diving supersonic missiles have been a threat since the 1960’s and Russia has traditional favoured these. Whilst anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM) are relatively new to the scene.
Before the Red Sea operations and the Houthis threat. I’d say most navies weren’t taking ASBM seriously. As the missile has to be directed to an area the ship is known to be in, then find the target when it gets there. The kill chain is its weak spot. If you take out how the ship is found in the first place, the ASBM is next to useless. However, the Houthis with Iranian support have shown that the ASBM must now be regarded and taken seriously. If shipping is especially within sight of land, it makes the ASBM kill chain a lot more robust. The ASBM that the Houthis have used so far, have either been converted SA-2 surface to air missile or a “direct copy” of an Iranian Khalij Fars (Fateh 110). Neither of which have been truly successful. According to publicly available information, seven merchant ships have been hit by Houthis ASBM and of those only one was sunk. Meanwhile the coalition of Navies have managed to shoot down 9 (7 by USN, 1 by RN and 1 by FN). How this stacks up against the Chinese ASBMs is open to conjecture. Though you can presume the Chinese missiles such, as the ship launched YJ-21, will have much better seekers than the Iranian versions.
Then there’s hypersonic missiles, such as the Russian Zircon. We know Russia have used the missile against Ukrainian land targets. The flight profile has been publicised by the Ukrainians. So yes the missile is hypersonic in its cruise phase, which so far has been seen above 80,000ft. But then it slows down to about Mach 4.5 to find and then dive on to its target. This then makes it no different to the legacy supersonic high angle diving anti-ship missiles Russia has designed in the past. But there is also hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) that can be used against ships just around the corner. China is pushing ahead with its trials based on the DF-ZF. Where they are saying the HGV can “loiter” above an area and search for a target. Where it then dives down on it at speeds approaching Mach 10.
The latest threat that has been used is the suicide drone. These are either the very basic quadcopter that carries an anti-tank HEAT grenade or a explosive charge. Or the larger fixed wing drones such as the Shahed 136. According to Reuters, some 13 ships have been hit by the larger suicide drones, though none have been sunk. Because they are relatively small and slow flying, a lot of radar systems will filter them out as non threat. Which is what I expect happened with a lot of the Russian SAM systems attacked by the Bayraktar TB-2 drones in Ukraine. These drones are really inexpensive and can have a two video feed via satcoms, making it easier to find a ship and target specific parts such as the bridge.
Ukraine quite successfully used ATGM against the Russian Navy’s small patrol boats and even some LSTs. Against larger ships, the ATGM won’t sink the ship. However, when faced with a barrage of ATGMs, I’m pretty certain the ship will turn around than risk being repeatedly hit.
I guess you should still include aircraft drop dumb munitions. But in todays age of sophisticated air defences a ship can provide. This must be seen as a suicidal mission, but shouldn’t be discounted.
With all these threats early radar detection is still the key in defeating them, either by using kinetic rounds/missiles or the soft kill by using countermeasures. If I remember correctly the multiple attacks by the Houthis on the USS Mason in 2016, the ship used everything in its arsenal to either intercept or decoy the anti-ship missiles (C-802/Noors) fired at it. But the ship was attacked in sight of the coast. Whilst at sea and out of sight of land and with a lower radar horizon. Early detection, identification and response must be predominately automated. Where having the radar up high on mast is still an advantage over a lower but larger fixed panel array fitted to the upper superstructure.
Even with the Sampson mounted up high on the mast, the ship’s radar horizon is still really close. For me, I would like to see the T83 come with a much larger aircraft hangar. I would like to see the ship equipped with something like a number of the Proteus helicopter drones, which can be used to extend the ships radar horizon. We have discussed this before, but even with a single mechanically rotating Osprey AESA radar. The Proteus will provide the ship with extended surface radar coverage. Where when flying circuits above the ship at 1000ft, it will push the radar horizon out to 72km. Which is significantly better than the T45’s 26km. If it can fly higher even better, as it could extend the horizon out past 100km. For a ship, currently armed with Aster 30, it would mean that interceptions can be targeted beyond the ship’s visual horizon. Based on the information seen by the drone. This will be significantly beneficial against supersonic sea skimming missiles. But also against the smaller drones, which an airborne X-band radar should have no difficulty in detecting. There are still questions over the Proteus’s capabilities, including its flight duration and the type of weather it can safely take off and land on the back of a ship. But I’m sure the forthcoming trials will be looking at that. I am really hoping that the Navy do look at fitting something like the Osprey radar to the Proteus. As it will give the ship a significant advantage in dealing with sea skimming threats.
I wonder if Proteus will too big and too expensive. A single rotating Osprey 30 antenna setup (28kg without the rotation mechanism) might well be within the limits of Peregrine (max payload 50kg). It won’t need range, but if that cuts endurance too much, perhaps the S-300 Camcopter would be a more practical and cheaper platform than the 3 ton Proteus.
A Proteus could probably even lift the SeaSpray radar that the Wildcats use, which has a range of about 150km against ships and has a publicised air to air mode.
I think that Seaspray, or something very like it, was also one of the payloads shown when Leonardo revealed the Proteus design a few months ago (there’s a Navy Lookout article on it).
I should have asked, are you sure an Osprey 30 can detect missiles at 75km? The Thales I-Master advertises that it can detect “ships up to 100km, vehicles up to 35kms and infantry movement up to 15km”, and that has a similar weight set-up (30kg) and possibly even a larger sized antenna than Osprey 30. Admittedly the Osprey is newer.
Hi Jon, it’s not guaranteed on the Osprey’s range, as Leonardo don’t give specific details, only generic. However, its performance will depend on the version of Osprey being used. My preference would be the larger Osprey 50, as it is more powerful and more sensitive, so will “see” further than the Osprey 30. From what information Leonardo do put on their blurb about Osprey, they only give one size and weight. So I am presuming it’s for the Osprey 30, as that’s the most commonly used.
What is guaranteed though, is that the Osprey 50 for example judging by its images, has an antenna array cross sectional area nearly three times that of the I-Master. Which means it will have a greater effective radiated power output and is more receiver sensitive. So it should be able to detect smaller targets from much further away.
The point about using Proteus is yes its bigger, but that also means it can carry more fuel. Duration is a key aspect of the AEW requirement. The longer you can keep the aircraft in the air the less aircraft you need in the hangar for replacing it. I guess the other opportunity with Proteus, is if it has a spare weight capacity, perhaps there is an option of either fitting two Ospreys back to back on a mechanically rotating mount, or preferably fit at least three fixed arrays. Though to be greedy, I would prefer four. As with four it provides a more even radar spread and coverage, due to the limits when operating near the extreme left and right of the array.
So is the ideal solution a twin/large hangar, 10k tonne destroyer with a full power radar system?
I think a secondary X-band would probably be ideal as well, in case of exceptionally heavy weather or multiple failure of the AEW drones.
Yes, I think so. The hangar needs to be large enough to hold at least one crewed helicopter, plus a number of drones. A wide twin bay hangar would be more advantageous over a single hangar that is linked to a mission bay, as it means you won’t have to squeeze the drones around the helicopter. Therefore taking the helicopter/drones in and out of the hangar will be quicker and easier.
A multi-panel X-band AESA would be highly beneficial, as not only can it be used for surface and air searches/tracking. As AESA is multimode, it can in continuous wave mode, be used to direct the ship’s guns, whilst still do a pulsed air and surface search.
I agree the AEW drone is essential.
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.
The MOD also needs to consider that it needs to urgently build a new covered refit facility for these ships and even for our new frigates ,refitting and maintaining ships on an open dock exposed to British weather adds months and ,£millions to each refit.
You can’t cover up a ship this size with the mast on
If they are an AAW version of T26 though, not a problem. BAE’s mission bay swap for Hunter should be transferable to both CSC & T26n (in some form). 64 – 96 mk41 & high end radar is a destroyer to most people.
It’s a bad destroyer because of the lack of available weight
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..
And who are you going to lease a destroyer from?
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.
That’s a lot of words for “Nobody”
So negative anyhow, anything is possible if the price is right.
He did give you an answer. He said the USN, so not ‘Nobody’. Whether or not that an at all realistic or practical idea is another thing entirely.
@Leh yeah that’s the same as Nobody.
Personally I’d rather not lease from the US.
We need to wean ourselves off the US for equipment, as they’re becoming increasingly unreliable.
UK-built first, European-built second for anything we can’t produce ourselves.
@Maurice Sorry that you thought a bad idea wouldn’t be challenged. Not my problem if you want to be mindlessly optimistic.
Who from Maurice ?
I understand Argentina still has 3 destroyers, though at 3,600t might be a bit small (& a wee bit old). Leasing a modern high end warship doesn’t happen. Even if you could, it likely won’t have the comms & weapons capability that match. Support ships are a possibility.
Sorry Paul, replying to Maurice.
Lets hope the government see the folly of past procurement numbers and order more of these , 10-12 maybe .
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).
That’s the problem, there isn’t any “UK kit” that can be used in place of the fixed arrays on the River class, because all of our radars are rotating rather than fixed arrays. Beyond that, BAE aren’t really making new radar sets any more, so they’d have to set up shop again.
You would be far better off just developing a new radar and retrofitting it to all of our own T26 than importing the Canadian design, which has been quite heavily adapted in its armament. Not sure how far down you would have to cut the mast before SAMPSON would fit.
There has been noise from the Norwegian end about improving the radar kit in a joint effort with the UK, so that seems the best bet for improving AAW for little extra cost.
As I said, the T31 is much more suited to a role as second tier AAW than T26, which has a significant part of the unit cost sunk into hull quietening measures.
Rotating AESA panels can also be fixed. You need the sensor fusion electronics, which I have every confidence that BAE can adapt. For example the Leonardo Osprey is mostly advertised as fixed panel, but the antenna can also rotate. There may be a cooling issue with just Sampson to the mast! Why import a Canadian radar when we have three primes in the UK that make radars, and more than a decade to sort it?
Hunter variant is likely more relevant, but either way, BAE have already come up with a mission bay swap out that can add up to 64 more Mk41. BAE also has way more experience with CEA (LM is in charge of CSC & Spy 7 is a LM radar) then just about anyone (they have been involved with all the Australian CEA installations).
Norway has been mentioning the radar because the T26 radar is sub par by a large margin (T31 is better). As a T23 upgrade, it’s definitely an upgrade. As a T26 radar (T26 is a big expensive ship), every major naval radar maker out there has better radar(s) on the books (including BAE). It was done on the cheap. Norway doesn’t do cheap.
T83 is not meant to be a 2nd tier ship. T31 is (depending on who you are). You will max out a T31 at around 48 mk41 plus 8-16 NSM in AAW/strike mode. T26 AAW (Hunter) is 96 mk41 pus 16 NSM. You can remove some of the T26 sound reductions quite easily, the hull form is yes, expensive, but there is also a bonus to be found in build efficiency. Shipbuilding hits its maximum gains in efficiency building ships 1 – 3 & maxes out at around ship 5. So by ship 6 the shipyard is generally as good as it gets. Change to a different design & you start again.
Note also that Sampson (other than being a bit old tech), is two ASEA panels back to back on a rotating mount. If you don’t rotate, you need 4 – 6 panels to do the job. Extra weight, power & cooling then becomes the problem. Fixed panel Sampson is not hard. Getting the equivalent height is.
Then why are the Polish Type 31s being fully fitted with hull sonar and towed sonar?
Because they had the money for a full fat warship, and needed it for their only surface combatant.
Our T31s were designed down to a budget, whereas the T26s are fully optimised.
The two are not equivalent in ASW.
T26 is not fully optimised. T31 has a better radar (& should have had better again). T26 also does not have ship fired torpedoes. T31 was built to a nonsensical budget. Polish A140 will never match T26 at ASW, but no one ever expected it to (including Poland). T26 also has no long range radar (L band) & currently no AShM.
DJ, I meant that T26 is already designed from the keel up for ASW and T31 is already easily converted into an AAW ship, so why push the square peg into the round hole and swap them?
Yes, T26’s radar isn’t optimal and we really ought to fix that, but Artisan is adequate for its role and the mast will be easy enough to swap out during midlife upgrades.
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 .
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..
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)
As far as I know, the Italian Navy has shown now interest in using CAMM-ER. So far, Pakistan is the only naval user, and they launch theirs from enlarged ‘mushroom farms’, not Sylver. It seems unlikely they’ll be integrated, but honestly, they don’t need to.
A mix of ‘mushroom farms’ and Sylver A70-NG (rumoured European universal VLS) would allow us to carry Aster-30 Block 1NT and Aquila, and also FC/ASW, as well as CAMM.
CAMM-MR is also an option – we could pursue a development path similar to the IRIS-T family and develop some ABM akin to the SLX.
Italy is not going to be launching CAMM from mushroom farms. None of their escorts are set up for them. It’ll be CAMM in Sylver.
Apologies, I made a typo in my initial comment. I meant to say ‘The Italian Navy has shown no interest in using CAMM-ER’. I also can’t respond to your second comment (the site won’t let me), so I’ll do it here.
So far, only the Italian Army have expressed interest in CAMM-ER. The Navy have not. With the introduction of Aster-15EC for the French and likely the Italians, the CAMM-ER niche is partially filled by a more capable missile that will not require integration into the A50.
So yes, none of the Italian escorts, be they FREMM, Horizon, PPA or the upcoming DDX carry mushroom farms. However, that’s not because they intend to integrate into Sylver, but rather because they don’t intend to use the CAMM-ER in the naval domain. As I said above, only Pakistan have done that so far, and they used the enlarged mushroom farms.
The Italian Navy absolutely is looking at getting CAMM, it’s at the heart of their Albatross NG air defence system they’re developing.
You’re confusing current inventory with future procurement.
The Italian navy are working CAMM via the Albatross for there new PPX OPV 2300 ton. Going to be robust little combatants, with 76mm rapid, dart and volcano ammunition, 2 30mm CIWS, CAMM ER and maybe even Anti ship missiles.
Albatros NG was industrial development not Italian Navy’s. possible because the Italian AF and Army developed the CAMM-ER.
The Houthis and drone attacks seems to have changed the Italian Navy perception and they asked a feasibility study for their new real OPV’s. That is the first time there are news of Italian Navy asking about CAMM-ER in an Italian ship.
Yes, I understand the aversion to further US purchases, but any deal with France should include Sylver becoming, as you said, a Universal VLS with no fees associated with integration. Ideally we’d get a production facility in the UK, but that might be construed as petty.
If the RN goes ahead with the torpedo missile project, then for vertical launch we have three options: VLA, which isn’t very good; the Japanese type 07, which has no export power; or developing our own missile, for which we’d need integration with our chosen VLS.
To be honest a production facility in the UK isn’t really petty.
Although the main concerns running through many heads would be that this allows us to build ourselves and protects UK jobs and industry, from a strategic view it would pay to have multiple factories across Europe.
If war against Russia comes, guaranteed they’ll be targeting European factories and facilities, trying to break our ability to produce. So having a single factory for one key item makes it a single point of failure. A well-placed Russian strike or even an unfortunate accident or fire would ruin Europe’s ability to produce Sylver (or anything else important, for that matter).
Hopefully no American components
“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?
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
*Useful
As an interim to complement the T45s. There is a AAW A140 variant which could fill this and the Polish and Indonesian variants both have strong AAW components.
To be honest, MBDA could if they chose and Countries put their hands in their pockets, significantly increase the performance of Aster, over and above (pardon the pun) Aster 1NT. As I mentioned in an earlier post Aster 30, has been sized for the Sylver A50 launcher. If it was sized for the longer (deeper) A70 launcher. You could add another 2m worth of propellent to the 1st stage booster. This would punch its height significantly above Patriot PAC 3. As a rough guesstimate, the height would be approaching what the SM6 Block 6 achieves (around 100,000ft+), it would need proper modelling to get a better appreciation of the performance. For MBDA, this would be a quick and relatively cheap upgrade option to significantly increase Aster’s performance.
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.
Not enough Armchairs for that.
And with the gym below taking priority.
Ha…. not many here will know what you are saying….. but I do…. Exactly, lose the gym and use the space to upgrade the hurt.
Does anyone know if there is space underneath the T45’s Sylver A50 launchers? Is there say about 2 to 3m of space? If there id then the A50 could be replaced with the longer (deeper) A70 launcher. Gives the ship a few more options and might spur MBDA on to develop a longer 1st stage booster for Aster.
Hi Davey, we know that the fore CAMM/Gym space is sized to take a strike length mk41, so that gives room for 2 S70 sets there.
The Navy Lookout article on PiP for T45 shows the VLS as extending down to 3 deck, but there isn’t anything below it. From the very limited cutaway diagrams on Google, it doesn’t look like anything important is underneath the silo, but that space might be needed for shock protection against torpedoes.
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.
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.
That is becoming my thinking as well.
A full spec air defence “cruiser” of the quality the RN would want is likely to be unaffordable in the numbers the RN would want. So we need to fill in the numbers for less critical deployments with lower tier air defence ships.
Europe is flush with air defence frigates, but I suggest the T31 is probably the best of our two frigates for conversion.
It has room for two radar systems and plenty of VLS, and is a cheaper hull to build than T26.
I’d say get 4 of the full ships (enough for 2 per CSG) and then 6 new T31 AAW builds to take the total AAW fleet up to 10 ships.
There is one clear and obvious lesson that has come out of the Red Sea Operations. Which is that most ships currently have a really poor magazine depth for air defence missiles. Most Western frigates have around 32 cells for air defence missiles, perhaps also including a 21 cell RAM as well as a close in weapon system (CIWS). This is particularly important if you get to a threshold and have to retire to a friendly port to rearm, which can take several weeks.
So to answer some of these issues, we need to take a hard look at what a frigate let alone a air defence destroyer, requires for providing air defence in a peer, a near peer and a asymmetric threat conflict. Could you imagine if a T31 armed with the possible minimalist 12 CAMMs would have faired off the Yemeni coast? I am hoping the MoD will at least give the ship a similar complement of CAMM as the T23.
The Italian Navy did show one path we could take, with the use of guided rounds. They used their 76mm Strales and DART combination to take out both drones and cruise missiles. Admittedly we did not go down the 76mm path and instead opted for the Mk110 57mm. But there are guided rounds in development for it (ORKA, ALAMO and MAD-FIRES). Which is probably a safer and less risky bet than hoping laser based CIWS will be available anytime soon. The US Navy has also restarted the BAe hypervelocity projectile (HVP) program, as a means to further utilise the 5″ in air defence. As they found the gun and airburst HE rounds were moderately successful against Houthis drones. The HVP is a guided sabot, that can take out targets around 20 miles away. Where its expected unit cost is around $80k.
Supplanting the current DS30 with the Bofors 40, is perhaps an obvious choice for the light air defence. Though I would have preferred the Navy opting for the CTAS 40, but that’s water under the bridge for now. The Bofors does does push out the effective engagement range by at least 1.5km over the DS30. Which means it could potential engage more targets as they near the ship.
The other crucial lesson that came out of the Red Sea Operations, was the inability to replenish the Mk41 VLS at sea. The US Navy has started an urgent program to investigate how this problem can be solved. As even the Arleigh Burkes with their 96 cells, needed replenishment at a friendly port after a few engagements. I believe the Sylver VLS has the same problem. Therefore, the RN, France and Italy needs to look at solving this problem urgently.
To give the T31 a more offensive punch as well as better capability for air defence. I would like to replace its forward mounted Mk110 with the 5″ Mk45. With the Mk110 have it fitted in the place of the hangar mounted Bofors. Remove the forward Bofors and replace it with a 16 cell Mk41 strike length/Sylver A70 farm. The two Bofors, mount them amidships. I’m hankering on keeping the two DS30s in place. As they have a manual operation back-up, so if power is lost to the Bofors, the ship still has something usable. Remove the NS100 from the mast and fit it on a short mast above the hangar. However, if money is available replace the NS100 with the NS200. On the forward mast, fit a least 4 X-band AESA panels. These are fairly light so can be mounted pretty high. I would also include an X-band panel mounted somewhere where it lies horizontally, so its looking straight up. Where it can then fill in the dead zone directly above the ship. In the amidships position fit a 32 cell Mk41 strike length/Sylver A70 farm. This gives the ship 48 VLS cells, which could be quad packed with CAMM or a surface launched Spear-3. It would allow CAMM-MR to be dual packed. So a rough guess of loadout would be, 48 CAMM and 48 CAMM-MR in 36 cells, leaving 12 cells for other weapons. But it does mean the ship has 96 air defence missiles, supported by a heavy gun armament which includes guided rounds. If 6 of the cells contain 24 Spear-3s and perhaps the other 6 FCASWs. This along with the 5″ would provide a decent offensive punch in support of amphibious operations or actions against coastal threats like the Houthis.
For the T83 I would suggest the same gun armament, but with at least 96 VLS cells, which should all be the same Mk41 strike length or Sylver A70. Thereby making it easier to mix and match loadouts. But build on commonality with the T31. The ship’s radar is a bit of a conundrum, as L-band (S1850M) gives significant range with not a lot of power, whereas it’s not ideal to provide a targeting solution. Whereas S-band (Sampson) gives a much better targeting solution, whilst requiring more power. Then there’s X-band, which is great for detecting small targets in lots of sea/land clutter. But needs significant amounts of power to have a decent long range. Ideally you’d have all three, where they compliment each other.
The Italians actually have it right by making sure every escort has 1 or 2 76mm rapid with Dart guided rounds..Essentially a dart is around a 90% hit probability against a high G manoeuvring missile out to about 7km and an Italian escort can fling out a lot of them.
…except that there will only ever be one CSG. The other carrier is in reserve.
To create a second CSG would require another SSN, 4 escorts, one tanker and one FSSS. There is no way any future budget is going to be able to afford that.
What on earth we would want 2 CSGs for, when we can’t even form an ASW squadron for the North Atlantic, is bewildering.. There are several dozen much higher air and land force priorities.
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.
It possibly will, especially as the target for every party is now 3%. Remember increasing the size of the surface will be over 2 decades and they will be hitting 3% in the next 8 years.
If peace is somehow engineered in Ukraine and the current threat recedes, how long do you think the commitment to 3% will last? Even if that ambition survives the pressure on overall public finances, there may be other demands on the equipment budget. GBAD, the promised tripling of army lethality, restoration of lost air power, more drones, re building MCM capability, all of which might be more useful than additional surface warships the RN could struggle to crew.
That would all depend on how peace is achieved in Ukraine. If Trump’s current move of appeasement towards Putin continues I can see it lasting about as long as it did when they announced ‘Peace in our time’ We all know how that turned out.
In reality the threat is not going away, any peace deal is simply a pause and move to a focus on none kinetic warfare, Putin and Europe are at war simple as, and that is not going to change when there is a peace deal in Ukraine, it will only end when either Russia changes course, western and Central Europe sell out Eastern Europe and capitulate, there is a major Russo European kinetic war that leads to the complete collapse of one side or every nation dies in nuclear fire.
It’s one of of the big weaknesses of the west that we see war as black and white..on or off. Our enemies know that war is a constant state. It moves between domains but it’s constant..why do you think china has just told the US its is ready to fight and never give up on any type of war…
Harking back to an earlier time “We want eight and we wont wait” It doesn’t hurt to indulge in a bit of wistful thinking now and again.
It’s going to be interesting seeing which weapons systems the ship will use. Standard series is likely off the table now, leaving just European, Israeli or indigenous solutions.
Aster-30 Block 1NT and Aquila are the obvious choices, but CAMM-MR is also interesting. If it could be modified similarly to the IRIS-T SLX to provide defence against standoff threats it would be an ideal replacement. Widening the airframe to create a ‘full bore’ interceptor and adding an ACM system akin to PAC-3MSE would turn it into an agile HTK interceptor. Alternatively, the missile could be redesigned as two stage, perhaps using ramjet propulsion on the terminal section? Having a mix of dual-packed CAMM-MR for cruise missiles and area defence against drones, and a CAMM-MR Block 2 for terminal defence against standoff munitions equivalent to the Aster.
Navalised David’s Sling and Sky Sonic from Israel deserve some attention as well.
Don’t the Israelis themselves use Barak-8 rather than navalised David’s Sling. I’d have thought this was the equivalent to A30-1NT rather than David’s Sling, with Sky Sonic doing the job of Aquila.
Either would work, though Barak is undoubtedly inferior to David’s Sling. Sling has far greater range and speed – it’s arguably more of an SM-6 equivalent.
Hi Leh, not sure what you mean by having CAMM-MR “modified similarly to the IRIS-T SLX to provide defence against stand-off threats.”? CAMM-MR has been designed to give a much wider engagement range than the standard CAMM, the blurb from the Polish requirement, is that it will be a 100km range weapon. It will have the same engagement threat envelop as a standard CAMM. Though, we are expecting that it will expand this to include ballistic threats. Due to lessons learned from the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
I do see a Block 2 CAMM-MR being developed. I fully understand the reasons why the ER and MR have been built the way they are, as it cuts down on redesign and machining costs, as you are just strapping the front end of CAMM onto a wider diameter rocket motor. It definitely makes sense for the next version of CAMM-MR to maximise the unused space in the launcher. However, for the standard CAMM, this has to be balanced against the missile’s fineness ratio (length/diameter), as if you make it too fat, it seriously starts affecting the missile’s terminal speed, due to the extra drag being created. But for the MR version, yes definitely.
Another bonus with the additional propellent available in the bigger ER and MR versions. Is that it could allow for the introduction of mid-body reaction jets, as per Aster. The PAC-3 MSE jets near the nose, are one shot only, whilst Aster’s can be used multiple times, so long as there’s propellent left. The mid-body strakes of the ER/MR will help generate more lift during the cruise part of the flight, enabling to fly further. They also help the longer missile turn tighter. However, the reaction jets would significantly help in the terminal phase, when facing a highly manoeuvring target.
I’m sure MBDA considered a 2 stage rocket design. Where a booster is strapped to the standard CAMM. I think MBDA went down the longer single stage route, as it is simpler and quicker to design and develop. You don’t have to worry how the two stages separate cleanly. A two stage system is definitely more aerodynamically efficient than a long single stage. As not only do you reduce the propelled mass, but also reduce the amount of drag being generated. Therefore the 2nd stage will reach a higher terminal speed than the long single stage version. Looking at building the block 2 as a 2 stage missile, would be a better option, but it will require funding for development. Just wonder with the extra length of the ER and MR, whether they’ve gone for a dual pulse rocket motor instead of the single? A ramjet would require a complete redesign, though again it would extend the range.
If you look at all of the recent photos and CGI of CAMM-ER (or even MBDA’s website) the missile now has a continuous diameter from nose to tail (minus strakes) as you suggest. There’s no reason for CAMM-MR not to make a similar shift as the design develops.
Far to big and expensive, an enlarged type 26 would be far cheaper and more commonality with existing type 26.
People love to push this idea as though slapping a bigger radar and 64 extra cells on a Type 26 would be easy. Look at what’s happened with the Hunter-class frigate on Australia. The Type 26 hull does not have the weight margin or design to support that kind of conversion.
Well said.
So 10+ (probably 15 at least) years away with the last T45 commissioned in 2013.
The original T45 programme was a hull-for-hull replacement for the T42 which was reduced to 12, then 8 and now 6.
I believe of the six T45s, 3 are alongside in Portsmouth undergoing maintenance and upgrades today. Mainly because of the unavoidable PIP upgrade because of a design flaw.
BUT is 6 hulls enough and why will the gap between the last T45 and first T83 be 22 years?
WW1 finished in 1918, WW2 started in 1939. That was 21 years.
WW2 finished in 1945, which was 27 years from the end of WW1 and took 6 years. About 3.5 times the process to get a new destroyer into RN service.
Why is this seen as acceptable, or worse something to be excited about?
Warship Building in Peacetime is always going to be a balance between numbers and affordability – the trouble is Politics interferes and tends to throw even the best planning assumptions out of the window.
The RN’s equipment budget will run to maximum 16 escorts over a 25 year cycle. That means one new warship per 18 months on average.
All these calls on here for 10 T83s. 6 T32s, more T26s are just pie in the sky. If the RN equipment budget can be increased over the next few years, it will likely be by just about enough to keep pace with the rising costs of construction, sensors, weapons and the rest.
With the switch in emphasis to NATO Europe, I would doubt that building more naval escorts is on the top 10 defence priorities list.
The Russian Northern Fleet of 26 operational subs, is a significant threat to the UK?
Type 83 isn’t an Air Warfare ship it’s a multiple ship.
By convention in the RN
20 classes are ASW,, “frigates”
40 classes are AAW, “destroyers”
80 classes are multiple, “cruisers”
I support this the RN has so few hulls now you can’t afford or expect that there will always be another ship nearby to support plus as technology improves there’s real benefits from having capability evenly distributed (for example CEC using sensor fusion from multiple radar sensors and utilising other ships VLS’s or alternatively using two towed arrays or extra hanger space for drones/helicopters.
No there has been no 80 cruiser..
T 81 was a GP frigate
T 82 was a Guided missile destroyer with good ASW and AAW.
Not all T 20 designations were ASW frigates..the T21 was in no way an ASW frigate it was a cheap patrol frigate with no real ASW capability.
Also not all T40 designations were destroyers as the T41 was a frigate ( and AAW frigate).
Type 21’s were equipped with a Hull mounted Sonar,and could carry a Lynx,so no,they did have ASW capability.
Having some capability to add to the ASW screen does not make them an ASW frigate…they had an anti aircraft missile it dod not make them an AAW frigate.
To be an ASW frigate you need a hull mounted sonar and be able to hunt Submarines…not sanitise an area with active sonar…all escorts should be able to do that..which is the key issue with the T31.
I meant towed sonar..not hull
I have a copy of Jane’s Fighting Ships that describes the advanced 1970s/80s, Type 82, HMS Bristol as a Light Cruiser, but it was definitely a Destroyer & had the pennant number “D” 23.
I did read, that both the Counties and Bristol were effectively all but light cruisers. But the Navy at the time referred to them as destroyers because cruisers had gone “out of fashion”. As the term was linked to the days of Empire and the MPs didn’t like it.
They were designed for the east of suez cruiser role, but never called cruisers…