Defence Procurement Minister James Cartlidge has outlined plans for the Royal Navy’s Future Air Dominance System, the Type 83 Destroyer, at the Full Spectrum Air Defence Conference in London.

The minister provided an insight into what this system will encompass.

He noted that these new vessels will operate as more than just typical warships. Instead, they will form part of a distributed sensor network.

They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a ‘system of systems’,” Cartlidge stated. The Future Air Dominance System is anticipated to utilise a blend of advanced technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons and complex radar sensing capabilities. These systems will operate both crewed and uncrewed.

“Our Royal Navy is building its Future Air Dominance System. Likely to comprise the new Type 83 Class platforms – which will one day replace Type 45 – 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. Able to raise an umbrella over our fleet, contribute to control of the air over a wider area and allow us to maintain freedom of manoeuvre through increased detection ranges.

As the name suggests, dominance is the name of the game. And dominance will be achieved through faster response times and greater lethality over longer distances.

Sticking with our present capability, we continue investing in our Sea Viper Evolution programme. Ensuring our current crop of world class warships have the air and missile defence systems to protect Maritime Task Groups against increasingly more complex threats, including ballistic missiles.”

Britain’s new warship – A Type 83 Destroyer concept surfaces

A concept image, potentially showing Britain’s new Type 83 Destroyer, emerged during a presentation at a naval conference.

The presentation, aimed at shedding light on the current and future advancements in warship design with respect to fire safety and damage control, contained a slide showing a potential concept image for the Type 83 Destroyer.

The following is my attempt at enhancing the image.

The Type 83 Destroyer project was officially unveiled in March 2021 through the publication of the United Kingdom government’s defence command paper titled, ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’. Within this paper, the Type 83 Destroyer was referenced in association with the government’s shipbuilding strategy for 2030, outlining planned sustained investments in naval development.

As of now, the Ministry of Defence has not made public any concrete design details pertaining to the Type 83 Destroyer, though it is anticipated that the ship will proceed into the conceptualisation phase soon.

Britain’s new warship – A Type 83 Destroyer concept surfaces

In February 2022, the Ministry of Defence verified that the Type 83 Destroyer is being engineered to counter the emerging threat posed by hypersonic missiles. Additionally, it is contemplated that the vessel may be integrated into a broader defence framework known as the ‘Future Air Dominance System’. The Type 83 Destroyers are expected to come into service in the latter part of the 2030s, replacing the existing Type 45 Destroyers.

Back to the image, though not high resolution, it provides a tantalising glimpse into what the Type 83 Destroyer might entail. The ship’s sleek design is immediately apparent, with a distinctive hull that prioritises stealth and speed and is somewhat reminiscent of Type 26 Frigate and Type 45 Destroyer. Its streamlined superstructure is suggestive of advanced radar and sensory technology integration. Of note is CEAFAR.

The concept reveals a ship comparable in size to the Chinese Type 055 Destroyer (which is around 12,000 tonnes) and armed with a five-inch main gun, Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems, two 30 or 40mm guns and additional unidentified close-in weapons systems, plus a significant missile payload. The missile payload seems to be divided into two sets of Mk 41 vertical launch system cells, each holding an estimated 64 VLS, resulting in potentially 128 missile cells per ship.

Read more here.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

238 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_735038)
10 months ago

Absolutely, however, such weapons may be required on older hulls before T83? The current drone storm of development is going to drive R&D in only one direction and even then, it may be too slow. A spokesperson said recently, ‘Drone development is not measured in years nor months but in some cases in weeks.’ One thing the Ukraine War has done is to speed up expidentally military technology on both sides. Not just land systems are gaining but also air and sea weapons too…..interesting times.

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_735039)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Yes, it’s exponentially!

Crabfat
Crabfat (@guest_735042)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Absobloomin’lutley!

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_735123)
10 months ago
Reply to  Crabfat

😄

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_735140)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

You can edit your posts, had no idea what that last post in reply to yourself meant for a bit.

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_735179)
10 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Thanks for that, it’s the spelling that gets in the way.😄

QE1045
QE1045 (@guest_735050)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Good thing the UK is developing high power lasers then. Dragonfire is making steady progress with more trials over the next few years, plus a separate laser system (with Thales as the prie contractor) is soon to be fitted to a Type 45.

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_735437)
10 months ago
Reply to  QE1045
QE1045
QE1045 (@guest_735445)
10 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

Ahead in platform integration but not ahead in high energy laser development

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_735122)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Remember Dan Dare? He had a ray gun back in the 1950s and so did the Star Trek ships and crews, so now fiction becomes fact. The most likely route to fully blown T83 laser systems will be less developed designs fitted to T26s and possibly T31s. It will be interesting to see just what space these weapons will need as that will determine if such systems can be cascaded. Later T26s could if required, get some redesign to accommodate compatible T83 lasers?

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_735167)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Ah, also remember the scientists around that time saying, no worries, lasers would never be powerful enough for use as weapons. * Not many folk believed them, even then. However, acceptance based upon facts available at time rather than speculation. Know this next ‘shot’ is cheap and totally indulgent. But reminded me of the EEC debate in the 70s. Told, no worries, In would not lead to greater sovereign control from Europe. * Ditto the paragraph. Why most have far greater faith in universal sufferage, filtered through the social lens of human common sense. My apology for wherever your cornflakes… Read more »

Mick
Mick (@guest_735189)
10 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

The US were using lasers back in the 80s in New Mexico, so 30+ years later I can imagine that these weapon systems will be pretty useful,

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_735506)
10 months ago
Reply to  Mick

A further extension of the electromagnetic spectrum for detection, disruption & destruction. The power generation of large naval vessels being ideal for that. Though the recent reveals over small nuclear generators that auto-default to safely could lead to smaller, more numerous units (not yet hand guns, mind …..😏)

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_735283)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Yes and although Dan Dare had problems he and Digby won through; so The Pukon better watch out as he will feel the heat.
You gotta be at least 70 to understand the science here.

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_735293)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

75 in my case!🙄

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_735141)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

I think it’s rather like an iceberg the bit you see gives little indication of the overall power of the weapon, it will likely even get generationally smaller I suspect even as the power generated tends to push in the opposite direction, the true inwards and power generation is hidden within the ship.

Jim
Jim (@guest_735158)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

At 12,000 tonnes these are cruisers, I think we should change our approach and build a smaller number maybe 4 of them very much focused on air defence and bmd but have just one with a task force then get an upgraded T26 with a better radar to be a general purpose destroyer.

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_735176)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim

The problem with building four is there would be occasions were only two would be fully operational and perhaps one available for operations at very shot notice

Six is the absolute bare minimum, in reality I would say nine would be a sensible number.

Jim
Jim (@guest_735240)
10 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

Not if they are cruisers supported by general purpose destroyers. This how US CSG are typically formed with one cruiser and 4 destroyers.

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_735285)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim

Yes I can see them being joined by upgraded T26, T32 and maybe while they still can T45. The T45’s have another 20 years in them. Most of them only a few miles on the clock and still in showroom condition.

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_735181)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim

My issue with limited numbers is reflected in the decision to build just six T45s, which I believe has caused availability problems for the RN.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_735208)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Agreed

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_735284)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim

They have to be at least that size to carry the KWs and armour.

David Barry
David Barry (@guest_735305)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

Armour? What about the photon shields and deflectors?

That warp drive will take space as well!

peter Wait
peter Wait (@guest_735281)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Lasers to take out cruise missiles require a minimum of 300 KW !

QE1045
QE1045 (@guest_735341)
10 months ago
Reply to  peter Wait

That’s a measure of power, not intensity. Intensity defines the effect on target.

Robert Billington
Robert Billington (@guest_735563)
10 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

We will receive 2 type 83s and the rest will get ditched for budget concerns haha and the fact that we are part of NATO and our allies with save us 🥱

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_735045)
10 months ago

We shall see what happens, though with that level of tehnology and power required we may look back at todays tiny fleet with only 6 T45 as the good old days. I’ve just looked at potential ship names and as the darings are all D I looked at E. Not exactly awe inspiring choice of E names for RN ships. Emerald, Enterprize, Edinburgh, Effingham, Exeter, Engadine and not a lot else that would be appropriate these days. Can’t realy use Earls, Empire, Emperor due to PC issues and Excellent, Exploits and anything starting with EU is just asking for trouble.… Read more »

DiscoDave
DiscoDave (@guest_735051)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

HMS Eiffel Tower has a nice ring to it

Mick
Mick (@guest_735191)
10 months ago
Reply to  DiscoDave

It’s the right of every warship to identify as a cucumber and be called a non binary name HMS is right out I’m afraid

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735211)
10 months ago
Reply to  Mick

If insane, idiotic, never to be questioned PC culture could be effectively weaponised we could build OPVs that identify as carriers or destroyers; or indeed nonentity over promoted politicians as visionary statesmen.

Mick
Mick (@guest_735212)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

We are doomed, doomed I say!!!

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_735346)
10 months ago
Reply to  Mick

😂😁

Sjb1968
Sjb1968 (@guest_735053)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Exeter is one of the proudest names in the Royal Navy going back almost 350 years with a fighting record second to none. As for the rest perhaps bar Edinburgh I agree.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_735145)
10 months ago
Reply to  Sjb1968

If we have Exeter can’t we have Eastbourne, less illustrious a ship history true but just had a delightful break there.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735184)
10 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

My birthplace too, so has my vote!

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_735060)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Encounter, Express, Eagle, Echo and Electra all can be used these are fantastic names. Add in Emerald and Enterprise perhaps Emblem, Endurance, Endeavour, Euralyus, Exploit, Exeter. Will we get more than 12?

PhilWestMids
PhilWestMids (@guest_735067)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

Sadly I think if they have a potential 128 missiles per ship with addition of advanced radar/sensors, if they do get built to this high configuration then it will be 2-3 to be solely to be used for CSG work. But surly that would leave the door open to a possible lesser spec T26 based AAW variant to make up the numbers for other duties with similar loadout to what the T45 has now. 2-3 T83 and 6 T4x wouldn’t be a bad option. Name wise I think Endeavour should be top of list.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_735081)
10 months ago
Reply to  PhilWestMids

Morse fan ?

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_735080)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

They are all just a bit boring and not really in your face. We will not be able to build many so how about something that just screams “British warship so shift it”.
Nelson, Rodney, Drake, Anson, Cunningham, Tovey, Ramsay, Hawkins, Raleigh.

Or
Indomitable, Invincible, Glorious, Courageous, Indefatigable, Illustrious, Implacable,

Actually I like the idea of just skipping from D to I and add a few such as Insurmountable and Impressive.

just a day to be a bit silly.

Jim
Jim (@guest_735150)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

At 12,000 tonnes these are cruisers. They should have grand battleship names.

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_735177)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim

Battleship names …. Well, Vanguard will be available when the T83 is being built…

Vanguard
Hood
Warspite
Rodney
Royal Oak etc

SteveP
SteveP (@guest_735217)
10 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

No point calling a warship Rodney as Trigger will just refer to him as Dave anyway.

Andrew
Andrew (@guest_735236)
10 months ago
Reply to  SteveP

Don’t be a plonker!

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_735243)
10 months ago
Reply to  SteveP

😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣👍

Jim
Jim (@guest_735244)
10 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

Warspite getting used for SSBN,

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_735256)
10 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

Not Hood- had a bad outcome- Warspite, King George V, Rodney, Nelson, Vanguard all great names- Royal Oak- bad outcome- avoid too.

Richard
Richard (@guest_735302)
10 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

No Hood I agree, but King George V ?
That good in 1935,but now King Charles III
would be good

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_735376)
10 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Or Barham, regretfully. Only one we’ve seen ‘1st’ hand. Imagine French probably avoid Orient for similar reasons

Paul Bestwick
Paul Bestwick (@guest_735273)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim

Battle Cruiser names, bring back the big cats….

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_735275)
10 months ago
Reply to  Paul Bestwick

Agree like Tiger ,Lion , Panther , Puma Jaguar .Good name’s for large Destroyers or Cruisers. Not to sure the MOD will go back to a Cruiser name again but one can hope 🇬🇧

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_735151)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Some great names there brings back the good old days eh.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735213)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

The RN surely should never be without an Ark Royal?

Jim
Jim (@guest_735247)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

Only for a carrier surely 😀

william james crawford
william james crawford (@guest_735230)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Why did you miss out Formidable?!

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_735287)
10 months ago

Its going to be a T31 would you believe?

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_735470)
10 months ago

Because I forgot 😉

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_735146)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

Brilliant names, shows you just need a bit of imagination, Emerald and Electra especially good, added to my previous 2 Eagle and Enterprise. Shame it’s not Emagination perhaps..

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_735290)
10 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Encounter and Electra went down fighting to save Exeter at 2nd Java Sea. There are no finer examples of Naval Heroism and devotion to duty than our Destroyers and other small ships and boats in WW2.

Shaun
Shaun (@guest_735671)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

Not war ships but for to commemorate sheer bloody minded courage, Rawalpindi and Jarvis bay.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_735253)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

If its getting phaser canons then we need a HMS Enterprise surely

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735090)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Eddie the (Eagle) sounds catchy ABC

Challenger
Challenger (@guest_735095)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Loads of great and historic names to choose from beginning with E. Unfortunately the Royal Navy seems to abandoned naming classes by the letter, maybe because the size of the fleet and pace of new ships entering service means they’d rather just pick a hodgepodge of famous names as we’ve seen with the Dreadnought’s and T31’s.

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735192)
10 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

Challenger, 22s were Bs and 45s are Ds but then again we had ships of the Cathedral class , the Leander class, and the Tribal class when I did my time in the Andrew

Challenger
Challenger (@guest_735245)
10 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

Yeah I guess they’ve always had a mix of letter based names and more thematic ones.

There’s something about the alliteration of classes by letter that I really like, but then the size of the fleet and pace of shipbuilding means they’re not exactly having to dredge up obscure or less impressive names anymore!

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735269)
10 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

With how everything is now classed as offensive I doubt if half the Given names in the Fleet archives would be permissable Challenger

Basil
Basil (@guest_735099)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

HMS Endgame

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_735107)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Ahh the good old days where ur dad is dead from TB, half the family works in coal mine coming home to a shared flat with 12 people. When u could beat ur wife and lads in the pub would pat u on the back. No antibiotics needed they were tough 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Jim
Jim (@guest_735249)
10 months ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Yeah you can afford 8% of gdp on defence when people don’t need schools and hospitals. 😀

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735136)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Why not your good name “Rodney”… Nelson, Eagle, Tiger…?

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_735216)
10 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Well I did put Rodney on my list and Cunningham. Hence my moniker which is a tribute to 2 RN Admirals.
ABC after Andrew Browne Cunningham and Rodney.

As for the names post, I just thought we could all do with a little bit of Good Natured “Blokes down a virtual pub banter”.

If it was me choosing I’d guess we want 8, will get 6 ordered and end up with 4.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_735144)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Aah but as I have alluded to before, Enterprize has probably become the most futuristic influence and inspiration in ship names ever from real to fiction back to real again… even if it was mostly because having been captured from the French was then unfortunately captured by the colonials during the Revolutionary war. Probably should have been part of the Inspiration class thinking about it as nothing else has got close when you think about it.

As for E what about Eagle and Excalibur. So that’s three decent ‘E’ names which is probably all we will need by then.

Ian
Ian (@guest_735168)
10 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

All a bit masculine these days…. The BBC would not mention them …. What about HMS Elsie….

Jim
Jim (@guest_735250)
10 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Enterprise class has a ring to it, Excalibur is pretty awesome too.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_735277)
10 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Like the Excalibur 👍

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_735304)
10 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky
Tom Riley
Tom Riley (@guest_735148)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Enterprise :-)!

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735210)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

HMS Exocet, HMS Exciting, HMS Extrordinary… … HMS Embarrasment, HMS Exploited, HMS Efficiency Savings, HMS Eliminated, HMS East of Suez, HMS Ex PM-at either end of the spectrum.
Have some fun with this!

Last edited 10 months ago by Frank62
Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735215)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

HMS Sir John Nott, HMS Galtieri, HMS Cameron, HMS George Osbourne, HMS Austerity, HMS Cruisey MacCruiser Face, HMS Sunny Uplands, HMS Following all the Science….

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_735278)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

🤗

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735388)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

HMS Boris?

ChrisLondon
ChrisLondon (@guest_735416)
10 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Not good enough.

Spartan47
Spartan47 (@guest_735295)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

How about HMS End Game 🙂

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_735347)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Will have to share Enterprise moniker w/ USN. Enterprise is a CVN, currently in build, believe due to be commissioned circa 2028. 🤔

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_735471)
10 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Well that is nothing new it has happened pretty well all the time since you colonials decided to rebel and pinch the name 🇬🇧 The new one will be the 8th USS Enterprise’s since 1776, and 15 HMS Enterprise’s since 1707. So a lot of overlaps in fact due the life span of the last USS Enterprise CVN65 she actually had 2 little namesakes. So please stop using it or stump up a copyright fee please ? Or just start putting a letter at the end USS Enterprise H 😉 Oh no don’t, because you lot sue for zillions at… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_735486)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Well, your’s may be more numerous, but our’s are larger! 😆😉
Actually, gentlemen should be able to resolve this contentious and weighty issue via a suitable game of chance.

Robert
Robert (@guest_735444)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Invincible, Inflexible, Indomitable. That’s probably enough names for all the 12000 ton cruisers we get. Then a true 8000 ton destroyer to replace the 6 type 45s.

Paul42
Paul42 (@guest_735052)
10 months ago

Hmm, nice drawings and good intentions, but actually building them in sufficient numbers within a reasonable time frame (prerably before we need to do Lifex refits on the 45s) will be the key, based of course on the idea that there will eventually be some sort of funding made available?

CGH
CGH (@guest_735054)
10 months ago
Reply to  Paul42

The names of these large 12,000 ton ships may well not start with the same letter. Perhaps they will be ordered two at a time, using historical names, ie, HMS Lion & HMS Tiger, then HMS Iron Duke & HMS Malborough. Then HMS Manchester & HMS Liverpool as they are major Cities & were mysteriously left out of the Type 26 Frigate orders….

Jon
Jon (@guest_735065)
10 months ago
Reply to  CGH

If you want cities, what about HMS Leeds and HMS Bradford, both barely used by the Royal Navy?

Last edited 10 months ago by Jon
Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735092)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jon

We won’t mention HMS Portsmouth for reasons known

Jimmer
Jimmer (@guest_735175)
10 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

Why not HMS Bristol, for when they build one and then cancel the rest

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735513)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jimmer

Your tempting fate there Jimmer

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735544)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jimmer

She’s still alongside at Whale Island, Hms Excellent, now decommissioned in a sorry state

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_735258)
10 months ago
Reply to  CGH

Manchester and Liverpool were left out because the order got cut from 13 to just 8. If they put some ships back into the equation I’d be happy enough to have a HMS Liverpool and HMS Manchester, Leeds,, Bradford, Hull, Lincoln, Bristol, Swansea, Dundee all added onto the list. Just need another 9 ships added to the type 26 program

Paul Bestwick
Paul Bestwick (@guest_735274)
10 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

If going from the T-42 list, you missed HMS Nottingham

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_735472)
10 months ago
Reply to  Paul Bestwick

So what ! COYR.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_735057)
10 months ago

And in the meantime, progress on increasing missile armament on our current AAW destroyer, Type 45 ……

Challenger
Challenger (@guest_735251)
10 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Sea Ceptor to enter service on the T45’s from 2026 when Defender emerges from a lengthy refit. The Naval Strike Missile cannisters should start to be added around then or a little before.

Basically by the time they are all around mid life the T45’s will finally end up with the sort of level of armament originally envisioned!

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_735267)
10 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

I always prefer the here and now during an increasing risk scenario i.e. over the shiny, not to say – just perhaps – rose-tinted, future. Rgs

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735391)
10 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

Hopefully not too little CAMM on the T45s, they could go beyond 24 and go up to 36-48, make up for not utilising the the MK41 spaces. 24 & NSM is definitely better than nothing!

Mark L
Mark L (@guest_735059)
10 months ago

Current generations of directed energy weapons like Dragonfire are around 50KW. They would have to be orders of magnitude more powerful to take out hypersonic missiles at a safe range.

R W
R W (@guest_735113)
10 months ago
Reply to  Mark L

Agreed, but I suspect that in the nearer term DEW will offer a more cost effective defense against cheap drones which can be engaged at shorter ranges with a less powerful laser.

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_735121)
10 months ago
Reply to  Mark L

500KW DEW in the 2040’s, possibly?

Last edited 10 months ago by Meirion X
Marcus
Marcus (@guest_735069)
10 months ago

What does that mean more loafing in ship when they are active

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_735070)
10 months ago

Long into the future. Of more relevance were Cartlidges comments on current capabilities, there are 6 AD programs associated with the army. 3 of which are SHORAD, meaning Starstreak improvement and vehicle replacement. MRAD Sky Sabre expansion, linked to Terrahawk AA Guns, and CUAS with the new sights. 3 others unannounced.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_735170)
10 months ago

Royal Air Force unlawfully discriminated against white male recruits in bid to boost diversity, inquiry finds

Malcolm Rich
Malcolm Rich (@guest_735178)
10 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Boom, drop the mike!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_735201)
10 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

And of course, no one faces the music for it. Least of all Wigston.
No wonder Putin invaded if the west is as mucked up as it appears, that the forces ( and other bodies ) discriminate against the majority of the population they represent and the bulk of the pool from which they recruit.

I doubt much will change, give it a few years.

Peter tattersll
Peter tattersll (@guest_735204)
10 months ago

Daniele Wigston should have been arrested and criminal charges Wigston was judging people by colour & Gender .I don’t think Putin got any real conviction or beliefs about anything other than self preservation and money I think Putin waves the anti lgbtq stick knowing it’s popular among the middle aged / older generation in Russia . Wealthy pro Putin pro war privileged younger Russian generation living in Turkey swing bothways

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_735205)
10 months ago

Gone are the days when you are selected on merit for a role but rather your ethnicity.

He should be sacked or resign after these findings.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_735296)
10 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Exactly.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735185)
10 months ago

Good “inside” information Daniele! Let’s hope as this comes sooner than later. Drones have changed the face to warfare for good.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_735202)
10 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

It’s all on UKAFC Twitter mate, which I follow daily alongside UKDJ.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735392)
10 months ago

Good to hear all this is happening for the UK and thanks for mentioning it
We have to give Mr Cartlidge some cred here!

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_735259)
10 months ago

I bet not a single one of those army programs comes to fruition. except maybe retaining Starstreak and possibly upgrading it a little.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_735294)
10 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Unless Labour cancel them preferring manpower numbers and reservists, ( see shadow DS comments ) I myself think all will happen.

It is one reason why numbers of posts are dropping, to buy more modern stuff with emphasis on the RA, Drones, AD, Precision Fires, EW, and ISTAR, which were outlined in FS a few years ago.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_735291)
10 months ago

Not heard of the Terrahawk program. Is this based on MSI Terrahawk VSHORAD. If so I am hoping the Army switch the 30mm Bushmaster to the CTAS 40mm. Very little point logistically in having another gun calibre.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_735312)
10 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Apoligies mate, indeed It is. There is no “Terrahawk” program AFAIK, I just labelled it so as I’m not up to speed on what exactly it entails beyond the AA cannon which I read the army have trialled. I understand the capability is one of the 6 AD programs previously mentioned.
When was the last time the army had an AA gun? 70s?

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_735321)
10 months ago

I know that the RAF Reg had a couple of Oerlikons that were captured of the Argentinians in 1982. I don’t think they kept for too long, as they didn’t meet the expected cruise missile threat. How times have changed!

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_735446)
10 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

Cheers, that’s the one I remember. Didn’t realize that the canons were the same ones used on the Gepard.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_735578)
10 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

I’d forgotten the Oerlikons of the RauxAFReg that Paul notes.

I’ve also seen one outside the NADOC, assume as a gateguard.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_735380)
10 months ago

The new German replacement for gepard looks good. It programs each bullet as it shoots out the barrel. Can’t remember it’s name now. If it works as advertised it shows the tech is available.
Really the forces should be going all in on the CTA cannon if it is a game changer like it’s made out to be. More units brings costs down. If it’s only going on Ajax it would be as well-being dropped as it will be a costly unique weapon.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_735448)
10 months ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Totally agree. Having both the RN and Army using the same weapon system would not only help logistically, but also bring down the ammunition costs. I still find it hard to understand the rationale as to why the Type 31 is getting the Bofor’s instead of the CTAS? I get the reasons for the 57, though I would have picked a second one going on the hangar roof and put the two 40s either side amidships. I wonder if CTAS has thought about a 57mm version? The telescoped cartridge will hold more propellant, so the muzzle velocity will be greater… Read more »

Defence thoughts
Defence thoughts (@guest_735072)
10 months ago

We need 6.

If 3, then the generation after that will be 1 or 0.

This isn’t hard to work out.

We have got to master the shrinking numbers issue, or the navy will vanish.

Tom
Tom (@guest_735075)
10 months ago

Lasers on British warships… that’ll be the day! Anyway we don’t need lasers on warships… we need lasers on satellite’s.

Coll
Coll (@guest_735084)
10 months ago
Reply to  Tom

They need to be on sharks

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_735127)
10 months ago
Reply to  Coll

or bad tempered mutant sea bass – according to Dr Evil.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735186)
10 months ago
Reply to  Coll

That can chase after and zap them 🇷🇺 dolphin’s!

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735096)
10 months ago
Reply to  Tom

We had 1 fitted in a hurry for Corporate in 82 it was an Argon Laser drew a hell of a lot of AMPS pretty green beam and that was about it

klonkie
klonkie (@guest_735130)
10 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

Hi Tommo , which ship did you serve on? I’d wager you have some interesting tales to share re your Falklands campaign experience.

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735187)
10 months ago
Reply to  klonkie

Hi klonkie , did my time on the one of a kind type 82 Hms Bristol all she did was as the mains Communication platform for SUBS , and protect the STUFT that’s why we were fitted up with a prototype Laser probably too stop us blinding our Harrier pilots

Klonkie
Klonkie (@guest_735491)
10 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

cheers Tommo, thank you for your service.

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735648)
10 months ago
Reply to  Klonkie

👍cheers Klonkie

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_735125)
10 months ago
Reply to  Tom

That would require huge solar power station to supply it. Lasers do work better in space.

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy (@guest_735076)
10 months ago

If they are that good, we need fewer.

Watch and shoot.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735218)
10 months ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

The fewer the better, say all our enemies & our own Treasury.

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy (@guest_735220)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

Such was the justification for 6 Type 45s.
It must be right.

Coll
Coll (@guest_735086)
10 months ago

And I thought types 26 and 31 were going to have directed energy weapons.

John
John (@guest_735088)
10 months ago

Can’t see the point of all this very expensive unproven technology being proposed for future warfare , The Ukraine war has clearly shown that future warfare will be determined by who has the best drones and the means of directing them in a battle . Cheap drones in large numbers can easily be delivered to focus on destroying easy targets like modern warships which with lightweight structures would not be able to withstand continuous swarm attacks delivering reasonable explosive power. Drone technology will develop at great speed to learn how to overcome ship borne defence systems . Drones will eventually… Read more »

R W
R W (@guest_735111)
10 months ago
Reply to  John

Hence all the research into directed energy weapons.
They seem ideal against drone swams

Angus
Angus (@guest_735171)
10 months ago
Reply to  R W

A fast acting hard hitting gun system will deal better with the cheap drones and we already have that. No matter how the weapon its really all about the tracking and aiming systems that need to be on top line and capable or your wasting your time. KISS works. A bow and arrow still kills.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_735381)
10 months ago
Reply to  R W

The USA has been pumping a minimum of $1 billion a year for the past 25 years into direct energy weapons. Hopefully it’s starting to work as it should.
Ratheon have a 15kw and 50kw system being fielded just now. Looks good. Task and purpose did a YouTube video on it recently.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_735089)
10 months ago

Totally off topic, I see yet another Russian exec, banking this time, has had an 11th floor accident! I might go to Russia and open a balcony railing business, it would seem to be a gap in the market!!!!!

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735101)
10 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

With bungee lines an extra ?

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_735149)
10 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

Added extra but at extra cost obviously 👍

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735193)
10 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Get them on the rebound

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_735128)
10 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

👍

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735221)
10 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

If you can arrange sneekerly placed gaps in the railing integrety a Mr Putin from Moscow/St Petersburg might be interested

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735395)
10 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

And a very attractive looking 28 year old lady too…Bloody terrible.

Challenger
Challenger (@guest_735104)
10 months ago

Direct energy weapons will inevitably come along once the tech has matured and power generation has been worked out.

But surely in the meantime modern gun systems like 40mm with clever tracking and ammunition would be pretty good against drones?

Would ship launched Martlet or Starstreak add a decent layer of defence? I recall the Royal Navy trialled the former but not sure why they didn’t follow it up.

Jon
Jon (@guest_735135)
10 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

I don’t know why the RN never followed up on the Martlet system either, but I see KNDS/Nexter have taken on the concept, recently showcasing a 4 Martlet missile pod on one of their ship’s 40mm RAPIDFire gun mounts. I think it’s to be tested later this year on a French logistics ship.

Challenger
Challenger (@guest_735137)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jon

Given the RN is already introducing a 40mm system a combo of replacing the 30mm across the fleet with them as well as Martlet launchers would be a relatively cheap way of adding some more punch.

Jon
Jon (@guest_735153)
10 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

Given the range of the Bofors 40mm is greater than the Martlet and that CAMM has more punch, under what circumstances would you see a shipborne Martlet being used across the fleet?

I can see it might be a good combo for RFA or the even the carriers.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735188)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jon

They ought to extend the Marlet’s range a bit, half again or double it. Make it safer for a Wildcat launch too.

Stu
Stu (@guest_735233)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jon

Agreed. With 3p ammo, range v martlet comparable & can fire multiple rounds in the same timespan, don’t see why anyone would bother with ship borne martlet.

IMO, 40mm with independent power and radar should replace 20mm, 30mm and don’t bother with Martlet.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_735172)
10 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

Cannot really concur. The 30mm ASC is a very flexible, reliable & cost effective general purpose supplement to the 40 Mk 4, also non-deck penetrating in current version and therefore more valuable in reserve.
I’ve no problem whatsoever the the balanced gun calibre choices made for Type 31 at present.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735223)
10 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Useless against missiles or fast air attacks. Occupies a station that more capable weapons could use.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_735439)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

Re-read what I wrote.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_735442)
10 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Sorry, too abrupt.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_735447)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

Apology, ‘what I wrote’ does not seem to be appended to the right reply in first place. Besides T-31 does not have 30mm ASC as part of equipment fit 😕 I’ll go and have a nap.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735458)
10 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

No problem Gavin.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_735299)
10 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Just a bit miffed that they went for the Bofors, instead of the CTAS 40! Would have dropped the price of the ammo for both the Army and Navy, plus have a larger stockpile plus better logistically. BAe wins which ever system is chosen, as it is an equal partner with Nexter making the weapon system.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735222)
10 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

40mm Bofors is far more capable across more types of targets that our 30mm.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_735440)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

But not more cost-effective in a GP vessel than having both.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735396)
10 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

Wonder if 2*3 Martlet could ever be added to the sides of the Phalanx’s?

Expat
Expat (@guest_735260)
10 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

Is that sustainable power generation?

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_735297)
10 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

We had this discussion a few years back. See link to Save the Royal Navy (Navy Lookout now) page. This shows a 5 round Martlet launcher fitted to the side of a DS30M mount on HMS Sutherland in 2019. The Martlet missile – the Wildcat helicopter gets its claws | Navy Lookout Scrolling down the page, you will see a Martlet being fired and the massive exhaust flame coming out the back of the tube. For reasons only known to Thales, they did not use the “soft” launch method for Martlet as they did with Starstreak. On Starstreak the 1st… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735398)
10 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

DB, why don’t they now try and reduce the Martlet down to 4 too on the DS30mm mount and add in a you beaut “ED”?

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_735117)
10 months ago

Come back to me when it has shields.

Ron Stateside
Ron Stateside (@guest_735156)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

No doubt it will be interesting to watch this super ambitious and futuristic program’s development play out. There is also no doubt it will have lasers and who knows what else: if the first of class is to enter service in the late 30s, then the last will be expected to remain in service at least into the 2070s. Taking a guess at the extremes of scenario analysis, I will go with: a) “Designed with 144 vertical launch cells, the highly ambitious Type 83 was cancelled when it became apparent the Queen Elizabeth class carriers would be replaced with smaller… Read more »

Last edited 10 months ago by Ron Stateside
Peter S
Peter S (@guest_735206)
10 months ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

Or(c)”.Because of budgetary constraints, the type 83 will be fitted for but not with directed energy weapons. Originally planned as a class of 6, the number was reduced to 4 in the 2035 defence review, with rumours that the 4th vessel may also be cancelled. The first in class is now 4 years late and £1.8b over initial cost estimates”.

Ron Stateside
Ron Stateside (@guest_735455)
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

A valid scenario for sure.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735225)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

My flat has shields. Celtic, Scutum, oval, Saxon/Viking, Kite, Heater, Buckler, riot etc
Even got a Laser lever somewhere.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_735234)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

Frank the number of shields you own is disturbing and I’m not sure where the riot shield sits with that lot 😂😂😂

I think you may have a case of collectionitis ( an inflammation of the collection need…I have it as well, it’s common in men over 50 but can hit anyone at anytime.

Last edited 10 months ago by Jonathan
Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735459)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Definately Jonathan, they’re just the tip of the iceberg!

David
David (@guest_735126)
10 months ago

I hope by the time the T83 enters service, we’re still not fitting Phalanx as the CIWS option; it’s already getting long in the tooth as is!

Angus
Angus (@guest_735173)
10 months ago
Reply to  David

But it works and was knocking our rockets in Iraq OK. An updated self contained system needed with minimal external needs. Todays version very capable.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735226)
10 months ago
Reply to  Angus

But very short ranged, meaning debris can still hit the ship. Bofors 40mm can engage a lot further out.

David
David (@guest_735268)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

My other concern with Phalanx is reload time. In say a fast boat swarm attack, or a saturation AShM attack, Phalanx can run through its ammo drum very quickly. How long to reload? – and add to that reloading under combat conditions!

Any chance Phalanx will be replaced by the 40mm Bofors on Type 26 and 45 in the future – and on the QEs for that matter? I’m thinking not.

Paul Bestwick
Paul Bestwick (@guest_735276)
10 months ago
Reply to  David

And yet the 30mm were never installed on the QEs, almost as if they were waiting for the 40mm to be in service with the RN, to see if that might be a better option.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_735308)
10 months ago
Reply to  David

Sadly the Bofors has a major flaw. It has to rely on the ship’s NS100 radar for guidance and tracking. Using the EO sensors as back up. So if the weather is cack and the radar goes down. You’re left with the EO to try an find plus track a target in really cack weather. The Bofors, needs a stand alone search and tracking radar. Then it can be used against targets in all weathers if the ship’s primary radar is lost.

FieldLander
FieldLander (@guest_735132)
10 months ago

Do not count our chickens. More cuts are coming.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_735237)
10 months ago
Reply to  FieldLander

Yeh, we could end up with a cheaper option: fitting the Waves with photon torpedos and Mk41 vls 🙂

Expat
Expat (@guest_735246)
10 months ago
Reply to  FieldLander

Incline to agree, I think with the view that Europe will be central to the next governments policy the RN will bare the brunt. When you think a destroyer is described and a long endurance warship designed to escort a fleet or battle group. To me that sounds like a capability that can be dropped as we won’t be sailing battle groups around the North Sea. You need destroyers if we’re going to remain global not for our own back yard.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_735292)
10 months ago
Reply to  Expat

Goodbye RN. The very opposite of the current strategy.
If true, I will be looking for all the Labour voters on here.

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735515)
10 months ago

Whilst serving on the DLG Hms London in the 70ts our mess had the sign ” will the last person to leave the Navy ,please switch the lights off ” Daniele

David
David (@guest_735313)
10 months ago
Reply to  FieldLander

Alas, I fear you are right…. apparently it’s understood within Whitehall that Sunak has no interest in defence. The lessons of the Ukrainian conflict will go unlearned to our detriment.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735133)
10 months ago

Why the wait until the mid late 30s!? It’s still only 2023, so you can get it done by the end of the 20s so a batch 1 by the early 30s. Is there going to be a mix of MK41s and Sylver’s with later mods of Asters or something new? Can always get an additional batch of AAW T31s to build up the numbers earlier if required. Anyway it’s good to see that there seems to be a lot of momentum with T83 happening. Interstimg radar panels on the rear funnel too.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735227)
10 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I think our shipyards may be fully occupied with T31,T26, T32 until mid-late 2030s. But we’d all want these ASAP.

Jon
Jon (@guest_735232)
10 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Why wait until mid-late ’30s? Three reasons: First, budgets. Until we get well past the hump of paying for T26 and FSSS, there’s not enough in the budget to take T83 beyond concept. Second, OOS dates for T45s. There’s a really bad habit in RN procurement of not doing anything until a year or two after you thought you had to. The idea of doing something early is too mind-boggling to contemplate. If T45s are OOS in mid 2030s, bad habits suggest the MoD will aim for the end of the 2030s for T83 and try to squeeze another few… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_735309)
10 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

It’s the one lying flat in front of the aft funnel that is pointing directly up, that should get the eyebrows rising! In that orientation it is going to fill the blind spot direct above the ship, so it can track ballistic and very steep diving targets.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_735401)
10 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Yes, I was wondering about those horizontal panels too. Thought they can’t just be “skylights”!

Last edited 10 months ago by Quentin D63
AlexS
AlexS (@guest_735154)
10 months ago

If history is repeated RN gets a fetish with lasers, abandon all other “old” weapons and then come another Falklands and the lasers disappoint…

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735197)
10 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

👍 on that one Alex can’t see a Laser doing an NGS , when it’s Cloudy foggy or raining as it does quite often down South

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735228)
10 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

The smoke screen may see a revival.

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735248)
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

👍and then we’re have the Wrath of Saint Greta too contend with Frank

Oleg Olkha
Oleg Olkha (@guest_735200)
10 months ago

Thats a long time... Lasers power up to 100 kW </span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); color: rgb(32, 33, 36);">instead of 2 x Typhoon Mk 25 gun. INS SAAR-6 “Victory”, full displacement 2200 t. There iis no time to wait! Regards. https://www.idf.il/media/pngofjyw/pic-12.jpg

dave
dave (@guest_735203)
10 months ago

I love the graphic on this!! looks like something from a power rangers episode!

Bloke down the pub
Bloke down the pub (@guest_735207)
10 months ago

This appears to tie in with potential developments with XV Patrick Blackett for carrying podded radar, SAMs and even UAS mounted AEW. Distributing the overall capability.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_735209)
10 months ago

Photon torpedos & cloaking too! Dream on.

We’re incapable of putting conventional escorts to sea with basic fit-outs of conventional weapons & systems, so I’m not getting too enthused about lasers.

Looks like a decent ship though the bow looks classic RN too short, needing stretching. How many will we get? The missile farms look decent size, so maybe capable of considerable land strike so long as they’re not left idle due to FFBNW appropriate missiles.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_735214)
10 months ago

We do have to remember that direct energy weapons are still very low end effect for a high end cost ( theoretically savings are to be had with use as firing a directed energy weapon is cheap as chips..vs using a round..but the research and capital costs are more). We are not at the point a directed energy weapon can act as a close in weapon system or primary air defence system. The energy delivery is just not their..so it’s going to be ancillary system for UAV and small boats..one of the things it has going is you could also… Read more »

Expat
Expat (@guest_735254)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I’m being pedantic, but lasers are a stream of photon particles travelling at the light speed 😀 .

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_735279)
10 months ago
Reply to  Expat

Well yes and no as light is both an energy wave and a particle all at the same time….double slit experiment and all that….bugger know why..to add confusion although light is made of something ( photons) it actually has no mass at all ( it’s mass less), again no idea how this works…so if you fire a stream of photons even at the speed of light they have no mass so have no kinetic energy. but protons and neutrons etc do have mass ( 1 amu each) so if you do fire then at the speed of light they hit… Read more »

Jon
Jon (@guest_735314)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Photons have no rest mass, that’s true, but they do have momentum and all their energy is effectively kinetic. [For those that care: E= hc/λ = hf. You can’t use E=½mv², you derive from E = pc]

The momentum of a photon is small but real, which is how light sails work and photon drives/rockets.

Expat
Expat (@guest_735732)
10 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Was also going to reply with the light sails point. But yeah protons are interesting and referencing the double slit experiment took me back 🙂

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_735737)
10 months ago
Reply to  Expat

Yes, it’s a bit mind blowing TBH, I’ve never really understood how something without mass can still have energy…and something with mass travelling at the speed of light becomes an infinite mass. Physics = we really don’t have a clue and we may all be holograms anyway.

Last edited 10 months ago by Jonathan
George Amery
George Amery (@guest_735219)
10 months ago

Hi folks hope all is well.
Always great to see the future of our military having a vision of the future and development of new technologies.
As a side note, it appears the head of the army is to step down because he has concerns about further cuts.
Cheers,
George

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_735235)
10 months ago
Reply to  George Amery

Always on the cards since Radakin got the top job.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_735224)
10 months ago

Serious Post this time. Why build such a large ship if its key enabler is its ability to network with other systems ? Surely if it was slightly smaller and had fewer VLS that releases funds to increase load outs on other ships ! I always thought the idea was that each ship provides its sensor info to other ships via datalinks and they then have a clearer picture. if you have a key node in the network with overall Command and Control (Flagship) they can use their distributed weapons more effectively. This looks like putting all the eggs in… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_735280)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Careful now, serious questions on a Friday afternoon…? I think this part of the quote from the minister is telling: “Our Royal Navy is building its Future Air Dominance System. Likely to comprise the new Type 83 Class platforms – which will one day replace Type 45 – these are more than just ships. They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a “system of systems.” It’s obviously been carefully crafted to be as light on actual content, while sounding like it’s providing concrete details. But the way that he describes “Type 83 class platforms” implies, to me at least, a… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_735317)
10 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

Sadly it has been modelled, that to defeat the air defence systems of something like the T45. You basically need to make it expend its magazine of missiles. Therefore, to make life more difficult for your adversary, you up the number of missiles your ship carries. Bit chicken and egg. Thus you need a larger ship to house the increased number of missiles. The other issue is that as demand for longer range weapons increases, therefore the size of these weapon increases, as does the space/volume they occupy. Take for instance the SM3 missile. It has to be housed in… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_735282)
10 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Don’t know that much about DMO but I think it’s about expanding the use of autonomous and more flexible vessels but not sure there is any intent to reduce the general size of their destroyers et al, it’s more in addition to those core vessels surely even if overall numbers might be dis used in light of this policy potentially if they prove effective. But as a Pacific and generally Ocean scale navy just don’t see their capital ships reducing in size any time soon. If they did then they might reduce to the size we already operate or are… Read more »

Geoffi
Geoffi (@guest_735231)
10 months ago

That‘s more like it.
No doubt the whole concept will be undermined by the bean-counters, removing hulls and capability from the program.

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers (@guest_735239)
10 months ago

Again, looking very light/vague on projecting force. If the purpose of the RN is simply to stay afloat and defend itself, this would be easier to achieve by means of GBAD around Portsmouth.

Expat
Expat (@guest_735257)
10 months ago
Reply to  Luke Rogers

It”ll have mission bay with writing desk so we can draft some very strongly worded letters.

Ron
Ron (@guest_735242)
10 months ago

My concern is cost. The concept as in the main photo looks good, but how many will the RN get.

To be honest I would accept three or four of these on the condition that we would also get six-eight AAW T26s Batch 2s or T46s. I would prefer the AAW T26 version with the same radar suite as the T83. If the radar suite from the T83 is to big then possibly we could use the Canadian version of the T26 but with an added Mk41 Tactical block forward in place of the 24 Sea Ceptor farm.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_735252)
10 months ago

At the moment this is all conjecture and supposition. Until the government and MOD have placed orders for 10-12 ships I will not believe or get excited about the program.
Seems obvious to me that the next generation of destroyer will have direct energy weaponry.

SteveM
SteveM (@guest_735315)
10 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Even if they order 10-12 it will be in batches so not guarantee that batch 2 will done in the numbers stated!

John Hampson
John Hampson (@guest_735266)
10 months ago

These things will need some very clever people to think up so spectacular breakthroughs,
But even if all the sci-fi advances have been achieved the final result will not be a laser as the headline suggests. The energy of laser beams is dissipated by salt, spray, rain and fog. To overcome this, the weapon has to employ microwaves or packets of plasma.

Chris.
Chris. (@guest_735272)
10 months ago

Laser weapons LOL. The only way a Laser weapon is guaranteed to work is if it is fired in a vacuum to a target in a vacuum. Take a Green laser pointer and fire it in the rain/fog/ dust storm, and see what happens.
https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-05-14/reasons-doubt-laser-missile-defense#:~:text=As%20a%20laser%20travels%20to,concern%20in%20high%2Dpower%20laser

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_735289)
10 months ago
Reply to  Chris.

One has to take into consideration the nature of the ACA of course and the fact it seemed in that article to be leaning towards the concept of ballistic missile defence, a very narrow use definition. Even if one looks purely from an engineering and technology pov such negativity has also traditionally been applied to new developing technologies, I have alluded before to Griffiths who pretty much defined the concept of a turbine jet engine early last century, yet holding back the progress of the pure jet engine of the type Whittle developed because for 20 years he argued it… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_735318)
10 months ago
Reply to  Chris.

That really isn’t a good example, as the pointer will have a dot size around 1 to 2mm. Thereby, it will suffer worse dispersion than something like Dragonfire. Which will have an initial beam size of around 10cm in diameter which is then focused down on to the target. So its dispersion wont be as bad. Plus it will have at least 50kW of oomph behind it instead of 10mW. So water droplets will be vaporized as it passes through..

Chris.
Chris. (@guest_735328)
10 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

DaveyB, If you have access to a THEL or similar! Feel free to prove me wrong. We have had the ability to destroy things with Lasers for decades.Why do you think no country has deployed them? In a lab or in perfect conditions they can be very effective. But combat never takes place in perfect conditions.

Bryan Jones
Bryan Jones (@guest_735377)
10 months ago

Type 83 Destroyer -early BAE concept image. My observations from the above image: Estimated overall length of 180 metres x 25 metre beam. 16 x Mk 41 tactical or short length VLS (quad packed sea captor missiles?) 24xMk 41 strike length VLS. Phased array mounted on the large tall pyramid structure, 2 panels mounted on the rear faces of the rear stack.to cover blind spots and one horizontal panel forward of the rear stack to detect plunging missile attack. 64x Mk41 strike length silos (allowance for deeper penetration for hypersonic missiles?) Extra wide mission bay and hanger for unmanned autonomous… Read more »

Sean
Sean (@guest_735456)
10 months ago

So no laser weapons or railguns 🤷🤷

Tom
Tom (@guest_735476)
10 months ago

Developing and deploying lasers in space is Britain’s top priority. Anything else is just faffing around, whilst wasting precious time, and taxpayers money.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_735498)
10 months ago

Lasers… Current cutting edge laser technology is limited to around 5 km against slow drone/cruise missile sized targets and that’s dependent on atmospherics, power generation and cooling. One effort is a load of industrial lasers bolted together in a slab ( hence the name) …simple but hardly cutting edge. Others use adjustable optics to focus the power better. Bigger more powerful lasers for say supersonic missiles or for ABM would need to be on a whole other scale such as Free Electron lasers reaching out 20-30km which need an LPD sized vessel to house the cyclotron and the 20 tefal… Read more »

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735527)
10 months ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

“Dazzling ” lasers as seem above some Council estate’s when a police helicopter is looking for suspects .So give the upperdeck WDP crew hand held Pointer laser pens Gunbuster

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_735950)
10 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

They used laser pens out here during the troubles against helos. Not a great move. The next thing that happened was an armoured car turned up, the heavy mob leapt out tear gassed , rubber bulleted or just plain old shot you. Luckily its been quiet here for probably 7 years now with very little in the way of incidents. You still get the odd incident , usually during school break time ( That tells you a lot!). The lot on the other side of the Gulf have mostly stayed out of the way after they lost a load of… Read more »

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_735955)
10 months ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Gunbuster, At least you have the weather for them, and a police/security Force that does what its paid too do , Back in blighty we seem too have gone full on “Woke” I’m waiting for a knock on the door as I got someone’s Pronouns wrong

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_736287)
10 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

The regular Plod here are really good. Polite, helpful and very tolerant. However the High top boot wearing lot in dark blue armoured cars…not so much if you piss them off.

During the troubles me and mates and wives found ourselves driving into a full on riot. Tear gas, petrol bombs, baton rounds, bricks burning tyres in the street. However when everyone from both sides saw we where westerners with ladies in our SUV Expedition. They all stopped, opened a way in the barricades waved us through, closed the barricades and then carried on rioting …absolutely surreal!

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_736297)
10 months ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Thanks Gunbuster , bet that’s not in Amy travel guide book for things too see and do, and there was me thinking ladies couldn’t alter anything that men do out there Great dit though back in blighty at the moment “Just stop Oil” can only throw Jigsaw pieces or powder hardly buttock clenching when caught up in one of their protests would love too see them try it on out the Gulf

David Smile
David Smile (@guest_735701)
10 months ago

The UK government and our allies should buy up all the
ACME giant mirrors, prevent our enemies getting any defensive capability against our Lasers

Luke Allison
Luke Allison (@guest_736637)
10 months ago

The type 26 hull is not the answer, going to be seriously overweight at 12-13000 tons. Big fan of keeping a gun based ciws but phalanx is quite outdated, millennium gun is a great system for anti missile work and against asyememetric threats. A 76mm main gun (or three) would probably also be wiser, is achieving 40km range against land targets and DART is a great system against missiles , mk 45 is only used becauae of BAE and commonality with us warships, useless against missiles and not even the best 127mm gun on the market in terms of range,… Read more »

Val
Val (@guest_738776)
10 months ago

I know Battleships had a Q minship main battery with X and Y aft as with Iron Dukes. I3 fast Battleship or Battlecruiser design iintroduced just over one hundred years ago gained board approval but due to size was to big at this time. But anything like this Type 83 is I3. Weapons forward and missiles with propulsion aft, but in this case, some machinery forward of that midship main battery. Any weapons aft are from airborne craft from the flight deck, but essentially I3, or G3 and N3.

Alastair Mellor
Alastair Mellor (@guest_741776)
10 months ago

I had a minor part in a laser based communications system in the 80s. Worked fine in the lab and early on in the field trials, that is until it rained and all those rain drops scattered the laser to the point where the system didn’t work. I do hope the developers of this system have remembered that there is an awful lot of water in the air around a warship, spray, rain, fog, low cloud, sometimes all at once.