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.
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.
CEAFAR on a British ship?
It’s possible. Back in 2018, I reported that during a visit to Australia, Harriet Baldwin (then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement) announced the intention to look at the feasibility of fitting the Australian CEAFAR radar on future British warships.
Alongside then Australian Defence Minister Pyne, Baldwin announced the intention to look at the feasibility of fitting the Australian radar on future British warships. The pair announced that a capability study to fit CEA Technologies CEAFAR radar to British ships would start in 2019 at the second Australia/UK Defence Industry Dialogue in Adelaide.
CEAFAR is an active phased array radar with a microwave tile-based design. The combination of the microwave tile and the Digital Beam Forming backend provides a modular, programmable and scalable solution, say the manufacturer.
Pyne said CEA Technologies designed and manufactured this advanced phased array radar for the eight Anzac Class Frigates as part of their Anti-Ship Missile Defence Upgrade Programme. The government has also stipulated that its Future Frigates will also be fitted with the CEA radar. You can see it below on the ‘Hunter’ variant of Type 26 purchased by Australia.
Australian Minister for Defence Industry Christopher Pyne MP said the announcement was an important follow up to last week’s dialogue and showed the continuing strengthening of defence industry ties between the two countries:
“Australia and the United Kingdom have much that can be gained from increasing cooperation around defence industry. A great outcome of last week’s dialogue, announced today, is the possibility of the cutting edge Australian CEA radars being used for the future UK Warships. Canberra’s CEA Technologies designs and manufactures advanced phased array radars for our Navy’s eight Anzac Class Frigates as part of their Anti-Ship Missile Defence Upgrade Program and the recently announced Long Range Air Search Radar replacement.
The Turnbull Government has also mandated that Australia’s future frigates will have a CEA radar as one of its core capabilities. I’m excited by the possibility of sharing this great capability with one of our closest and oldest allies and the landmark export opportunity this presents for Australia’s burgeoning defence industry.“
Is it official?
No, not at all. BAE and the Ministry of Defence haven’t commented on this and while the reveal of a potential Type 83 Destroyer concept image may have been unintentional, it has undoubtedly captured the imagination of naval enthusiasts.
Remember, the Type 83 destroyer programme is still in the pre-concept phase.
Looks impressive and as you say T26 in style. The problem as always is are we going to get six or even four at some mind boggling price in fifteen or twenty years time or ten or twelve which is what we need. Time as always will tell.😏
On what planet do we need 10-12 of these?
This is a heavy dirty theatre control destroyer.
Two is what you need for a CSG so you have redundancy.
So a class of eight might make sense,
Otherwise what are you cutting to make the cloth for these monsters?
Do we even need 8? A class of 6 would seem enough, as long as they are not being used for general purpose missions that the T45s get tasked with.
Grow the navy through T31s and SSNs. The former can do all the drug busting, flag waving, operate in the med and Gulf.
If we do end up going for large cruiser type vessels for T83 then they will be expensive that’s for sure.
IT HAS BEEN PROVEN 6 DESTROYERS IS NOT ENOUGH..
we will need a bare minimum 8 12 in an ideal scenario.. price don’t care.. these destroyers will be like our WW2 Battleships.
Hang on didn’t WW2 show Battleships were rapidly becoming, if not already obsolete with only Vanguard escaping the cancellations and cull.
Not really. Battleships continued to have an important role throughout WW2, with both the UK and the US continuing to build them right through the conflict: (HMS Anson entered service June 42, HMS Howe entered service August 42, Lions where still under contruction in 45, Vanguard entered service 46, USS Wisconsin entered service 1944). And the loss rates for Battleships/cruisers at sea is 5 lost to air attack (Renown, Prince of Wales, Musashi, Yamato and Roma, with Roma) and 5 lost to Battleships in combat (Hood, Yamashiro, Kirishima, Scharnhorst, Bismark). Carriers never replaced Battleships in the short bombardment role, and… Read more »
The Battleship Renown was not lost it was the Repluse along with the Prince of Wales 👍
Fair cop, I always get the two of the mixed up.
HMS vanguard was our last Battleship although she just miss the war ,your right a nation like ours should of kept one of these ships plenty in the USA 🇬🇧
How has it been proved and by whom? We certainly don’t have enough escorts for all their tasks, but why do we need so many destroyers? The balance of the fleet would be skewed.
By the admiralty.. even the Government . Balance won’t be affected.. when the QE or PoW there will be 2 destroyers on duty. We have 2 light helicopter carriers with at least 1 destroyer escorting. Also we will be having a bigger Navy. As it cannot sink any lower no pun intended. The type 83 as the type 45 now will also do solo patrols. As I said 8 is bare minimum 6 dosnt work. Type 26 will be minimum 8 type 31 and 32 will be minimum 6 each. All having roles to play for each scenario. Basically when… Read more »
The U.S has a fleet of 71 A.Burkes, and the fleet is not considered as skewed.
True but this comes into the Destroyer/Frigate definitional debate, A.Burkes are generic all round Surface Escorts, and preform ASW as well as AAW.
Agree. Thank god. The navy needs to grow. 30+ escort class warships, 12 SSNs by the mid to late 2030s. Otherwise we will fail when tested by a rampant China and her allies hell bent on over turning the world order to their dictatorship driven whims. So 12 type 26s (put the order up as unit price has come down) 10-12 type 83s, 12 Aukus SSNs, 10 type 31s, 5 type 32s. Job done. Fantasy fleet… Doubt it we can deliver this force level. Just takes political will. The navy should be our premiere contribution towards NATO and supporting our… Read more »
I agree there is alot of water to cover.
The Navy had a cast-iron case for 12 x T45s, only reduced by bean-counters. So why are you surprised that Navy want 10-12 successors. Rule of 3 means that probably 4 would be available for new tasks out of a fleet of 12 – ie two per carrier group.
Maybe politics is at play – MoD make a case for 10-12 and end up with 8.
8 would be a result I think, these will be very powerful ships if this guide is anything to go by. Look more powerful than even South Korean and Japanese equivalents let alone Chinese. Mind you that may change by the time we actually get them.
The “bean counters” are simply there to enlighten you as to financial realities.
Matt, that’s hilarious! Bean counters and their political backers cut things that are really required and have already been through a ‘Business Case’ to confirm the numbers.
That’s why the RN only got 6 T45s not 12, the army originally got 67 Apaches not 99, the navys attack sub fleet was cut from 28 to 7 over time, the MPA fleet got cut from 27 to 9, the E-7 Wedgetail fleet from 5 to 3, the army strength from 120,000 to 73,000 over time.
Wait and see how many of Boris’ 40 new hospitals will get built!
And also to @Luke Rogers, the accountants are here to tell you what you can afford. The politicians set the budget. If you want a navy twice the size, have them increase the defence budget accordingly. Figure out also where the pounds will be dug from – NHS perhaps?
Changing the tax laws and/or implementing them correctly perhaps ?
Taxing big companies the correct ammounts, charging the plethora of small ‘white van men’ the correct ammount, enforcing IR35 correctly across the board, stopping the use of dividends to circumvent tax and NI contributions…need I go on?
Don’t try and conflate those that desire a bigger armed force with those that decry the amount spent on the NHS- which I may add should also be subject to an audit and a pricess reengineering to try and plug that bottonless pit.
Money doesn’t grow on trees.
What?- I know that hence my reply about where the money would come from- by ensuring appropriate tax laws are enforced and correct monies generated.
Yes agreed Jonno, we are borrowing a lot over £25billion in April alone, so nearly a billion a day at the moment, A T26 a day. Debt repayment amounts are now more than the entire defence budget and yet we getting deeper into the debt abyss. clearing even the deficit, never mind the Death Star sized debt pile, is now a fantasy. So those blaming bean counters for some reality is a little simplistic. Chasing Amazon or a white van man for tax not paid ain’t fixing that. So defence will fall victim, as it did when finances were even… Read more »
What do you mean by enforcing IR35 correctly across the board?
The bean counters follow rules as to what can and can’t be counted. For example, manufacturing projects can generate considerable UK income through taxes down the supply chain, but that can’t be supported by government borrowing or netted off against project spend. Altering those rules would bring manufacturing jobs back to the UK and grow our economy, arguably at slightly higher risk.
That’s a choice, limiting what we can do, and it’s the Treasury’s choice not Defence’s.
IT’S a crime
We have to consider the fleet supply train and stop the the madness of selling off the Wave tankers. If the RFA is short of people I suggest that the RNR is grown 50% in size and they are given a role in manning the RFA, especially given the RFA is now uparmed in peacetime. Start with the Waves basing one at Rosyth/Glascow and one in Liverpool/Belfast.
I thought the Wave tankers were in extended readiness rather than being sold off. Aren’t the Tide tankers their replacements anyway?
I think it is a great idea to grown the RNR and task them as you suggest.
Perhaps ask the Ukrainians what the cost of insufficient on hand defence is? The financial reality of losing a war is really something to be seen to be believed.
We long overstayed our welcome there, certainly!
What was it, “The Navy wanted 6, the treasury would pay for 4, so they compromised on 8”
‘We want eight and we wont wait’. Super Dreadnought debate pre 1914. Just as well as events proved.
Poor Cordite handling and our formula and faulty shell design rather than thin armour cost us men.
The Admiralty don’t do very much, having been disbanded in the 1960s. Unless you mean the pub that was recently refurbished and in which I had the pleasure of sinking a couple of pints a few weeks back.
The day to day governance of the RN is done by the Navy Board.
Chaired by, you know who?
NO, wrong. The correct answer is, that the Secretary of State of Defense chairs the Navy Board.
I would say Earth is a good planet, not to sound all at sea! A class of eight would be fine which is after all only two less that ten which was what I said .😏
Look. It’s very simple. These are multi role cruisers in all but name capable of full spectrum of warfare. You’re right 8 would be sufficient if all you need is air defence of a carrier strike force. However…what about BMD, emergency air traffic control or control over a designated region or site. You don’t see the Japanese saying we only need 6 or at most 8 destroyers. The numbers needed are determined by the mission and threat level. Ergo 10-12 should provide some rudimentary UK ABMD, carrier strike force guard ship as well as independent task force commander (NATO duties)… Read more »
Thinking about it, the clever Japanese idea is they can be used for BMD for the homeland. Certainly you can justfy 4-5 for that role for the UK.
I’d start there for at least that number. At the moment we have no home defence against hypersonics and the Chinese have some or are developing some with a World Wide reach.
A fleet of 12 T-83’s would give the U.K the about the same proportion of destroyers as the U.S fleet has of destroyers.
I think we all know it will end up as a 10-12kt monster and 6-8 is the realistic buy.
There are only so many theatres to control. T45 is a theatre control vessel.
It will also have a big crew If it has loads of systems as well as command and control.
For ABM defences other systems are needed.
If you want mass in the fleet then T31/32 is the way forwards.
Tech is moving at an unbelievable pace ATM – AI will help control the battle space but you still need the right *mix* of effectors.
The US fleet has about 8 escorts per carrier currently. Moving to a mix of Burkes and Constellations means each carrier may have 4 Burkes and 6 Constellations. I suppose that means the RN ought to have 8 T45s/T83s and 12 T26s/T31s to match QE and POW. However, the difference is that the T26 doesn’t save on crewing (costs) vs the T45 as much as the Constellation does vs the Burkes. Hence more likely the RN has to field 8 or 9 escorts per carrier, something like 3 T45/T83 and 5 to 6 T26/T31.
The U.K has about 1/5 of the population as the U.S.A. So a fleet of about 14 of one type would make it the same as the U.S fleet of one type.
Also the U.S has a higher proportion of carriers, big and small, as the U.K. has.
Hi SB, I was just wondering with threat levels rising over the coming years the mod might look at 12 if not more?
Yeah fair comment, it’s quite frustrating reading it could end up six I think eight would be great but I just keep getting a sneaky feeling we’re going to need more of everything in the years ahead.
Well hopefully it’ll be second batch of type31 to build us up a bit?
Maybe we need 2 classes? 6 of each. 6 as traditional Destroyers/cruisers and 6 for single function Homeland ABM defence and as specialised escorts for Task groups etc. The later would be considerably cheaper and with big crew savings.
Yeah agree but it’ll probably be less money to make 5 type 31 air defence and 5 with a decent asw I would’ve thought, we just need more than we have at the moment.
I think the future size factor, is to accommodate the generation of energy required for DEW and BMD radar, etc.
I also think some of our BMD vessels need to be stationed up North.
8 is ideal that was the original requirement for type 45, but 2 were CXL, don’t believe we would get 12, would agree buy more type 31 mark II
Yes, eight would probably do it nicely, but if we start with six in our heads we’ll get four. As many here will know you can negotiate a price or quantity down, but rarely up.so start at the top.😉
Right. It happens everywhere. Years back the army wanted 99 Apaches and got 67.
Now fifty and on it goes. Whilst I’m glad we’re getting them, and I would like ten, we should remember that the only reason we’re getting the T31 is because the T26 was proposal was reduced from 13 to eight. Once upon a time we had 16 T23 before Tony Blair sold three
You start with 12 and settle hopefully on 10. 8 is obviously better then 6 but still leaves the night tight for such a powerful and capable warship as the type 83 is intended to be.
Quite right Mr. B🙂
Morning Andy, yes, if they don’t get a bit of a move on with the T83 we’ll probably need an interim class of 3-4 AAW T31s, even AAW T26s, to add some bulk. They keep talking about the mid-late 30s, as T45 replacements, but why wait that long? Why can’t they first be complementary add to the T45s? China is continually muscling up each day, month, year. Wanting more later is already kind of too late. Hope the SSNR program gets into gear soon as too. And sorry for my rant, but still waiting for the carriers to get some… Read more »
Hi getting new type 83s into service before any type 45 retire makes a lot of sense. My view is that the UK needs at least 9 long range air defence vessels to cover the potential of two carrier and two amphibious landing groups. So six in service and three undergoing overhauls of one type or another. While it’s true we might not have the carrier and amphibious groups available we may well have and may need to use them. So vessels 1,2 and 3 of type 83 come into service expanding UK capacity to what it should be then… Read more »
With you Martin. And as said its only a mock up so things to be added. Agree to more shorad, 30-40mm RWS, Dragonfire, maybe both. Hope the T45s get as fully upgraded as possible, AAW focused but prove on other capabilities. The carriers need additional armaments too IMHO. If CSG 25 is going through Suez, Rd Sea again, relations with Russia, China, Iran declining, well they’re all in this neighbourhood. Russian meddling in Sudan, buddies with Iran, China cosying up to Saudi Arabia and will probably check out all the Western armaments the later has after some long lunch. SA… Read more »
*again… region
Nice picture, but much more focused upon fitting out the T45s & T31s to their recently announced potential viz Sea Ceptor & Mk 41 respectively. The ‘intention’ becoming ‘determination’. We’ve got a Cold turning distinctly Warm War in the offing right now.
Funding numbers for anything exquisite, like this, potentially gives the Treasury their usual get out clause over cuts today, jam tomorrow. The international agenda will clarify what comes next, I reckon.
Rgs
Couldn’t agree more Gavin This fitted for nonsense drives me crazy. If a ship is capable of doing XYZ then it should carry that capability, whether it’s aircraft or missiles or whatever.
The world is turning very nasty but we are playing the “plenty of time or no rush” card to the point where we’ll only know if we are wrong when the s..t hits the fan.
How right you are.
👍🙂
Yes, go for a good number and prepare to drop down if needs be; make sure the design is balanced for cost and a sensible delivery date and build and equip for what you want at the beginning.
😟
It’s an awful lot of ship for what appears to be an armament something close to a T26 or T45. I do wonder whether an air defence version of the T26 wouldn’t be more cost effective and quicker. We need ships sooner rather than later.
You could keep all the T45s and refit them for solely Home ABM defence. The havent had much service some of them. They could soldier on through the 40’s. Never throw away a good pair of shoes till they actually fall apart.
So apparently this is what BAE have pitched to the Australians on a retooling of the troubled Hunter class program which originally tendered for a ASW frigate and then Australia added an air defence requirement and now in their latest defence review have also added a strike requirement. Hence the Australian bridge tower lifted right off the Hunter class. BAE has proposed completing the first 3 as T26 with ASW and AA capabilities and then producing the next 6 to an Australian derivative of the their larger Type 83 conceptual/design work.
Correct. The premise of this article is nonsense. This is a BAE effort to brush off the manic attempts by Navantia et al to get back into the Australian warship game.
The likelihood of CEAFAR radar on the type 83 is close to zero, especially as anecdotally, it has been blamed for much of the weight gain of the Hunter class.
Maybe the 9 to 3 reduction in ASW T26s is linked to the RAN possibly getting 6 ASW corvettes? Wonder if an ASW A140/T31 might be an offering there?
Most navies are tiny and constabulary. Of those that aren’t, most are regional. Only a handful are global, blue-water navies: USN, MN and RN. Neither USN or RN have corvettes, and the French reclassified their avisos (essentially corvettes) as OPVs in the late 2000s and down-gunned them accordingly. There’s a reason regional navies go for corvettes and the globals go for frigates. Unless we want to have a specialist warfleet for home/regional waters, why build corvettes? The flexibility we get when married to the global logistics train we are already commited to makes the marginal cost of frigates well worth… Read more »
Surely the reported top weight issues on the Hunters doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the CEAFAR radar it just means that ideally as in this concept it needs to be put on a bigger ship. The ‘baby: version fitted to the Anzacs seems to work just fine.
Exactly the T-83 won’t have any problems in that regard, it’s going to be bigger than T-45s if it’s going to match let alone out do the best destroyers elsewhere which have around 96 to 105 vertical launch cells. That’s not everything agreed but operating out East it starts to become much more so in that environment.
Very good point. The CEAFARs on the Anzacs do look a bit like a giant drumstick-🎤 though. Those on the T26 could be more powerful and more of them. Silly question, but if they’re that good why not just have fewer, maybe larger CEFAR panels on a rotating setup?
CEFAR instead of mounting 3 or preferably 4 panels, uses 6 or 8 panels. This has both pros and cons. One of the pro’s being that you can maximize the beam strength along the boresight axis over 6 or 8 individual panels. Rather than have a power output drop-off the further away (closer to the array’s edge) from the boresight of a three/four panel set up. One of the cons is that the power output of a singular panel of a 6/8 panel array will be smaller than a four panel array, due to the smaller cross sectional area (CSA)… Read more »
Thanks for your detailed reply DB. 👍
Not qualified to weigh in on the merits of CEAFAR, DavyB has given an overview of the arrays and their differences. It would be great to get a comparative overview of the different modern ship radars and their relative approaches and the merits demerits of each. But I wouldn’t hold my breath!
Navy has also just given BAE a £270m contract for 10 years radar maintenance and upgrades including £50m to develop the next generation RN shipborne radar.
Thanks for the heads up. The interesting bit would seem to be;
“The MoD and BAE Systems are jointly investing a further £50 million to develop the next generation of radar technology which the Royal Navy requires to tackle emerging threats, including ballistic missiles and drones. The MoD will contribute £37.5 million and BAE Systems will invest £12.5 million into research and development. This commitment is designed to ensure that British naval radar technology remains a global market leader.“
The Spanish cheat with massive Gov’t subsidies on everything. They print their own Euros as far as I can tell. The Euro being the scam currency of all time, they get away with it. The French do, in fact everyone does except the wretched Greeks; and we know where that ended up.
I might be wrong here, but I think it’s the other way around. RAN keeping 6 T26s as is but replacing the last 3 with 3 Hobart type AAWs and then getting 6 additional ASW corvettes types. Either way, it’s quite a build up in naval strength on top of the AUKUS subs. Like to see the RAN get a couple of extra diesel subs in the interim to complement the 6 Collins. Maybe joint crew share with NZ?
STRN also seems to have broken a story on a Type 83 design that is only 4,000t and has nothing but VLS cells and a very small crew (50 blokes), not sure I buy it tbh.
Navy Lookout has also done an article on the same type vessel. Looks like a little brother of Zumwalt. Like you say pure vls, no rail or other guns or Dragonfire. No hangar. Bridge design fully enclosed and has restricted view by the look of it. Looks quite boring….lol 😁. Give us a “real” ship not a toy!
STRN is Navy Lookout 😛
Lol…im a bit slow…only just realised, “Save the Royal Navy” 💡 👍
Recently announced to be tested on a T23 or T45 I can’t remember which.
Indeed it was highlighted that it’s moving onto the next stage of developmental testing what about 4 months back?
Isn’t there going to be a truck based version too? Hope the UK is not getting too far behind on this. The Israelis and US seem to be marching ahead with theres.
* theirs..
It’s trundling along quite nicely. Late last year Qinetiq/MBDA publicly announced that they had solved and tested the collimation issues they had. As it’s a fibre laser, which means it integrates a number of separate lasers together. Collimation can be problem when trying to focus the beam on a moving target. The focus and target tracking passed the latest tests. So the next step is probably increasing the output of the laser.
Isn’t this pretty much the idea that South Korea are looking at ie a revised missile ship that the US proposed way back and then rejected, certainly sounds like it. Makes sense for them but it’s no Destroyer or Frigate replacement, more a movable heavy duty defensive platform to counter North Korea should they attack. They seem to see it as a more practical, flexible and cheaper platform than the previous Carrier concept. Sounds like someone is getting ideas having seen it and floated its wider use.
The USN looked at this concept in the early naughties.
Google arsenal ship. They looked at fitting out a San Antonio class LPD hull with Aegis and hundreds of missile silos. Problem was cost. The design was also slow. Max 21 knots, weighed +30,000 tons and required a crew of 500+ sailors to bring those vast numbers of missile silos into battle.
They scrapped the notion and settled on more Arleigh Burke’s, especially after the Zumalt class ended up prohibitively expensive.
A good insight to the Type 055 can be found here.
Time the UK muscled up a bit and not just the T31s. Can an extra MK41 be put onto the T26, maybe sacrificing the 🍄 CAMM or quad pack the CAMMs? T45s, space for 2 MK41s too, no brainer really, use the space, CAMMs down the side or quad pack CAMM. And a 3-5 more T31s.
This is just for starters… Lol. 😆
I do wonder it’s 🇦🇺 iron ore that’s going into all the Chinese naval ships. If we can’t match them then we need to at least be able to sink them!
😂👍And with plans to build a further eight in this class, adding NSM/JSM to Typhoon would make more sense rather than sending our carriers. They have a hefty supply of land based and air launched anti ship missiles too! LINK Fingers crossed! “Kongsberg plans to add its Joint Strike Missile to the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet’s weapons package, the Norway-based missile manufacturer unveiled today at LIMA 2017 exhibition in Langkawi, Malaysia. Preliminary phase has now been launched, Kongsberg said to Air Recognition. A few months after having test fired a JSM from a US Air Force 416th Flight Test Squadron… Read more »
Oh dear, that land based stuff is so limited. Mind you with AI anything above ground or the surface is in for a rough time unless it has a proper shield.
On the topic of VLS, Type 83 should be fitted with both Sylver and Mk41. Sylver is the superior VLS when it comes to AAW: -Sylver uses large springs which open the door very, very quickly. This is important if your role is AAW, as you don’t want to waste even fractions of a second in readying your missile for launch. The down side is that the springs have to be recharged between door openings. Mk41 on the otherhand uses an electric motor, which is considerably slower. The upside is of course that the door can be opened and closed… Read more »
The MK41 needs to lose some weight then!?
We need them for home ABM defence and as task force escorts. Build the T83 first and then the T999s!
HM Treasury would take one look & cut half the missiles. I do think 8x T26 + 8x T31 + 8x T83 = 24 escorts. Me being me, would stretch the last 2 T83 so they could carry 4x helicopters like HMS Tiger & Blake in the 1970s. After all “air is free & steel is cheap, so a bigger hangar & flight deck would not be expensive.
PS just saw the proposed Hanwha Joint Strike ship model at a naval exhibition. If built, it would allow the South Koreans a heavy retaliation capability against NK attack.
If we do commission a ship that size then 6 would be ok wouldn’t it? Put more money into T31 and have 10 of those to get to 24 escorts. Arm them properly of course. Let T83 be a proper destroyer and not act as a GP frigate as our T45s do much of the time.
Depends, as always, on the money. Given a choice, I would pick 8x T83, but if funds are lacking, then 10x T31 is not a bad 2nd option.
Do like the idea of T83 having bigger flight deck giving them ASW capability 🇬🇧
Were are the helo’s coming from? The RN can barely muster those needed for the QE CAG. And yes the RN do need to double up on their Helo numbers, quick fix would be to take on the Wildcats from the Army and give them the radar the naval version has to start with.
Very true we are short on helo’s, just putting idea a cross 🤔
Looks like the Poles will be ordering Merlins shortley. Would love to see the MoD purchase even half a dozen on the back of that order.
Exactly Paul, a silly waste of a good opportunity here. Even half to a doz would be helpful. And convert back the Crows Nest to ASW. Get something else for AEW. If they go with CATOBAR maybe we can get some Hawkeyes or V22 equivalents? And there’s always drones.
To be fair to you the requirement for whatever air assets they decide upon won’t be needed for nearly 20 years, so even the MoD have a reasonable time to sort it should they desire to.
Some would say they’re needed right now as we just don’t have enough. The world is on a knife edge currently with major war posible. Saying we’ve got 10 or 20 years to gear up sounds like Nazi Germany’s Z-plan or British planning at the time too, to me: Caught short by actual events. We need a bigger fleet right now to cover all existing commitments, the treasury has had its hand on the throat of the military too long & we need to both deter aggresion & be ready for it all kicking off. That or bow down to… Read more »
I hope I’m mistaken, but it’s worse than I thought. We were to finish this year with just 16 escorts, abysmally reckless. If I’ve read up right new builds won’t enter service until 2027; meanwhile we’ll lose another T23 next year & in 2025. That’ll leave just 14.
With you Frank. It’s nice and necessary to look into the next decade but what about right now to the next 2-3-5 years? The upgrades to T31 look good and sensible but can add three more. T45 upgrades, some more CAMMs, improved ASW ship and helo capabilities. All could be done relatively quickly. Extra shorad on the Carriers. Thats my list for today and
have a good weekend 🇬🇧 🇦🇺
Where are these numbers coming from? We were to have ended the year with 11 T23s and 6 T45s, but recent announcements suggested that Westminster might not be renewed (yet to be confirmed as far as I know), taking us down to 10+6.
I haven’t heard anything about further decommissioning next year or in 2025. Are you sure you aren’t looking at old sources before the plans were changed two or three years back?
2023 British Warships & Auxiliaries Published by Navy Books & Wiki. 6 T45s plus 12 T23s=18 in 2021. Monmouth withdrawn from service 2021, Montrose in April 2023 leaving us with just 16 comissioned escorts. Argyll due to be OOS this year too(=15), Lancaster in 2024, Iron Duke in 2025. That leaves just 13. If that info is faulty I’m happy to be corrected, hence my opening statement above, “I hope I’m mistaken, but…”. HMS Westminster was due to be OOS 2028, so if she’s going/gone it’s beyond a disgrace. Most of us were shocked & thought 19 was unrealistically too… Read more »
Drones will take over much of the work done by manned helicopters.
Just because you have a hangar for 4, does not mean you have to have 4 on board in peacetime. You would probably sail with 2, the add 2 when you needed them. Tailor the airgroup to the need in hand, whether it is ASW, transport, strike, AEW or intel.
You always need 2 as a minimum plus extra aircrew. My dad was on cruiser in WW2 in South Atlantic looking for German raiders and supply ships. 2 Walrus amphibians. He ended up on duty flying both alternately, 16 hours on 8 hours off(!), when the other pilot couldnt go on due to illness. The realities of war.
As the threat/instability level rises, so defence funding needs to rise- Or we need to kick out those ho neglect what’s vital for the nation & world security.
Drones
But adding such capability makes the costs sore. Keep it to dedicated air dominance Destroyer. This will be part of a system of systems. The Navy lookout article explains it better and in far more detail.
Ships can still keep their dedicated capacities, and these in themselves are very expensive too, but improve on the important secondary capabilities which might be the very things that save them in the first place. A warship’s got to be able to defend itself anywhere any time. It won’t always have buddies around for protection. Even in a CSG, ships can or will be taken out in a conflict leaving other assets particularly vulnerable like the carriers and RFAs.
Like the 3x8s. Not too excessive. Plus add in the 8xRivers OPVs. Wonder if the RN will ever get or need some Artic OPV types like the RCAN Harry Dewolf for far north and south, Falklands & Georgia and Antarctica patrols?
Tiger and Blake! The former hosted Ian Smith and Harold Wilson’s UDI talks. They were dedicated Cruisers prior to the conversion of 2 to Helicopter carriers. The other was Lion. I think Blake was scrapped.
I had a little metal model of HMS Swiftsure which was a Cruiser of a different class. From memory it had a big crane at the stern
Would’ve been excellent to both add heli lift & shore boimbardment with the 6″ guns in Falklands ’82.
Wow Andy-must have been a privelige to serve on a famous ship of the old RN! 500 is a big crew for a relatively small ship. Times have changed with modern technology.
Belfast had over 600!
Lion was scrapped or used for spares quite early on.
I agree. The first battle any of our future ships will face, will be the Battle of the Bean counters. They have a history of wrecking the best laid plans. Our forces, through years of experience at handling threats both existential and emerging, will come up with plans to meet them. The bean counters, with no experience at all, will simply tear them up..If, in the future, their unwanted meddling results in lives and vessels lost, they are long gone and totally unaccountable. This needs to change. If we are to be involved in a global mission, then our service… Read more »
Can’t fight with beans!
£37 BILLION!? Not even close to the spend on Ajax either! I’d forgotten about that. Was that under Boris and the other fella who’ was involved in a review of defence matters and who’s name I can’t remember now? Serious silly buggers.
Is “Type 83” now the official designation of any T45 successor regardless of when or what is built? I’ve seen it referred to as T4X in the past or is this something distinct from that, perhaps implying additional roles for a T83 over some baseline T4X capability?
Yes. It was announced in the 2021 Command Paper to be T83. It was previously referred to as T4X. It is still in the early concept phase so any article is just conjecture at this point. I wouldn’t read anything into the name change, it might just be because it had a nickname they didn’t like “Castlemaine”.
Good to know, thank you. 👍
Well for the RN a fair bit the 4xs escorts have all been dedicated AAW vessels the 8xs have all been AAW and ASW vessels. People seem to have forgotten that….the numbering will not have been picked at random.
Follows on from the Type 82, I suppose. Same job, protect the large carriers.
I hope they go back to the Leander names for these ships. I miss those.
Look at the size of that thing. The Merlin looks small, and that is a big helicopter.
Almost the size of a German Frigate.
I think room for two large helicopters or one and several drones. They tripled the side doors as well from the T45 so possibly some naval drones as well.
How does this Type numbering system work? Why does a T45 get replaced by a T83 and not a T46? Also why do Type 23 frigates get replaced by Types 26 and 31, and not by T24 and T25?
Can’t anyone count sequentially?
Graham. I believe it has sometimes to do with the role the ships will play. I could be wrong though. Wikipedia has this page on Royal Navy type designations
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system_of_the_Royal_Navy
I think it goes back to HMS Bristol. T4 was for single role AAW Destroyers. T8 is for large, fully armed, multi role types.
HMS Bristol was the sole T82. The RN is invoking that for its new multi role T83.
Don’t forget the T81 which was the first general purpose frigate.
I thought the Type 82 was to be only 4 Ships 🤔.
When the new carriers were cancelled in the 60s, so were their escorts the T82. HMS Bristol went ahead as a trial ship for Sea Dart & Ikara.
No each of the 4 carriers when they when to sea were going to have an escort of four type 82s as an outer screen and then an inner screen of 4 type 12m or i…the type 82s were Also going to be the defacto new light cruiser for the RN and be an independent warship and designed for cruising independently in the far east…( all the RNs cruisers were at point of being decommissioned apart from the tigers, which were no longer considered really suitable for cruising east of suez ). So although only for had been ordered in… Read more »
T-24 and T-25 where design concepts that never went anywhere IIRC.
When the idea of a GP Frigate instead of an ASW focused on was raised the choice was brought in to have a different first number, so T-31 was chosen.
T-11 through T-30 are ASW Frigates
31 to 40 are GP Frigates
40 through 80 are AAW Frigates and Destroyers
80+ Are multi-role destroyers and frigates.
Hi Graham numbering is as follows: 1x small ASW frigates…post war to 1960s designs 2x modern GP frigates focuses on ASW 3x it’s new….but the first one is a pretty focused ASuW ship. 4x air defence 6x air direction ( radar picket defunct type). 8x General purpose warships with both focused ASW and AAW. the details…. type 1x ( these are all small ASW frigates ranging from 1500t to 3000 tons, in this group you see the transition from the WW2 frigate concept of a small ASW vessel to a more general purpose warship that focused on ASW can do… Read more »
Thanks Jonathan, that makes sense.
Well at least we have a potential concept. On the positive side the possible RAN requirement might just be spurring on the T83 development on a tad faster. That’s a good thing considering Italy and USA have their next DDG/DDX designs pretty much finalised already. Might it mean the RNs T83 might come sooner than later? Or even a few of these for RN too?
The DDX design is not pretty much finalised, you have no evidence of this. USN design at the moment is a coasters€$?k, try reading the Congressional/GAO reports. The best they could do is ask us or the Italians to design DDX.
If you look up DDG(X) and DDX and click “images” you can clearly see both US and Italian designs have progressed and are quite evolved. Of course we don’t know exactly where they’re at with all this, that’s their business. I’m more interested as to where the UK is at with the T83 and as of only a few days ago we have seen this from BAE. So something now has obviously been going on in a back shed somewhere at BAE. And right know the upgrade of T45s are taking priority along with T31 & T26. It’s looking like… Read more »
A a concept image it’s representative of nothing.
What the how come there’s a replacement already for them when type 23 are yet still yet to be replaced lol no wonder the retention rate is so bad instead of spending more billions on ships that you can’t fill anyway and spend billions on the personnel instead that be a better investment
The Type 83 is still at the concept stage – they won’t be appearing anytime soon.
It is interesting that the ship is shown with Phalanx type CWIS. I have posted before about this and had some replies vigorously supporting CWIS.
But the fact remains Phalanx only has something like a 1 in 36 chance of hitting a hyposonic missile like a Zircon. And even if it does hit the vessel would be be hit from stem to stern with debris.
To those would disgree I ask one question. Why is the US, Germany, Canada, Australia and more not using a CWIS in the future vessels?
Perhaps you need to better inform yourself about said Zircon, try reading up on latest articles from Ukraine war and less of Chinese/Russian fantasy weapons. We both know that you have no source for your 1 in 6.
Not exactly sure what your point about Zicron is. It is not a fantasy weapon. Zircon is a hypersonic missile, reported to travel at Mach 9 with a range of 270 nm at cruise missile height. I am not aware that any of the reports of the test firing from the Admiral Gorshkov are disputed. Nor have I heard any denials that Zircon is currently being fitted to the Kirov class , such as the Admiral Nakhimov and will also be fitted to numerous other surface and submarine classes. If the above is dimissed as Russian propaganda consider this. The… Read more »
So apart from in comic books and Hollywood films, nobody has yet produced a hypersonic missile at sea level. Let me repeat that, nobody has produced a hypersonic weapon at sea level. Secondly, informed media (FT) reports that the last Chinese hypersonic missile test missed its target by 20 nautical miles. This equates with the laws of physics as it is difficult to manoeuvre AND be accurate at hypersonic speeds and almost impossible to do this at sea level. Thirdly, Russian missile action in the past year have given the West proof that Russian propaganda is just that. There missiles… Read more »
First, by the time the Type 83 may actually sail it is almost certain that there will be no dispute if hypersonic cruise missiles exist or not.So the discussion on what the Zicon or Brahmos-11 is capable CURRENTLY capable of is somewhat irrelevant. Second. Yes I had NO source I just did some basic calculations. You have failed to address theese simple probability calculations, which may not be 100% accurate but are close enough to suggest they probably contribute to the US, Canadian and German navies decision to abandon CWIS on their new vessels.. Third. It is possible that by… Read more »
Where do you get the figure of a 1 in 36 chance from? Other NATO Navies are using a combination of ESSM and RIM116. For local air defence and point defence respectively. Some like the Italians, have binned their fast 40s CIWS, instead using the 76mm gun in combination with the guided DART munition. Which pushes out the engagement range considerably. The advantage the RN have is that CAMM being soft launched, along with the reaction jets fitted in the tail. Gives it a very low minimum range point defence capability, as the missile after being lobbed up into the… Read more »
The RAN here does look like having Phalanx on its T26s and currently has them on its 3xHobart’s, Choules (x-Bay) vessel and it’s two new tankers.
But have they fixed the other yet that they keep towing back from sea !?.
A response to the Chinese type 055? the concept drawing looks very similar
I’m a fan of that idea. Another three T45s, stretched to fit extra VLS capacity at the rear. Each CSG escort should have at least 64 area defence missiles to protect the group. The planned Sea Ceptor expansion can only handle low altitude self defence at best. Three stretched variants should at least provide one per CSG deployment.
Bit late for that T45s will have 72!
There’s currently space for 2 Mk41s behind the gun and in front of the Aster silo which is not being used. Maybe the gym underneath is more important? 2x2x6 CAMM silos could go down the sides easily and all above deck mountings. Could easily have 8×8 VLS + 24 CAMM + NSM + upgraded Wildcat without any stretching or new build.
The concept image looks rather similar to the more advance US, South Korean and Italian plans for their next generation destroyers. Makes sense in many ways – effectively a next step on from the T45. Larger hull for more VLS, high/large radar and no doubt lots of power for future direct energy weapons. Problem is if of course the probably hefty price-tag which we saw from introducing new and highly specialized systems onto relatively few platforms with it’s predecessor. If we can only afford 6, or worse 4 then is it misguided to put such an amount of money and… Read more »
Nobody has ‘full fat’ ships so to speak.
The closest would be Aussie T26 or French AAW FREMM.
French AAW FREMM was always the worse option, and Australian T26 has lots of issues.
Treasury wont pay.Radakin sensibly blagged some MK41 VLS for the 31s and he probably accept some of the 32s turning into extra 31s.Best he could hope for is 2 or 3 more 26 hulls sans ASW but fitted as AAW/VLS strike.Bet the trade off is no replacement for Albion and Bulwark and they push on for 10 more years.The T45s will have to push on as well.Still not enough personnel though!!The Yanks should gift us MK41s to increase the Coalition VLS capacity!!
Italy needs to replace its San Giorgio class Amphibs. They are looking for something bigger. Perhaps a joint project? Italy & UK?
The US generally only ever gives Israel free stuff…the simple fact is the U.S. voters don’t really like us as much as Israel.
They like RoI, so maybe they could give them stuff so they can pull their weight.
The problem is the Rol don’t really like their armed forces very much and don’t really want them to have anything…even if it’s free.
T45s don’t need replacing for another 15 years, there’s no rush.
Low mileage ships. So build the dedicated T999 ABM ships for task groups and Home ABM defence as seen on Navy Lookout.
Given the new role for our Royals, we are now a ‘raiding force’, rightly or wrongly, do we think that we need to replace Albion/Bulwark on a like Vis like basis? If we do, why? As the Royals are effectively out of the massed beach landing game!
I don’t believe that they will ever loose the capabilities to conduct such landings, and rightly so, but it doesn’t currently look like it’s a capability we need.
We’re an island nation. Significant amphibious capability is essential. Albion/Bulwark type LPDs or LPHs are essential for both capacity & as command ships for amphibious ops.
Some may say we can use helis to land troops. We could, but we have dreadfully few helis. Helis can’t land heavy equipment & are a very expensive way of landing guns/trucks/stores, plus relatively vulnerable.
Evening Frank, being an Island nation doesn’t mean we automatically need a amphibious capability. That is determined by what range of capabilities we need to deliver the requirements HMG sets the MOD. It doesn’t look like we intend to land a fully equipped brigade on a beach anymore. There are other ways of supporting our allies and obligations to NATO now. I would imagine that our ‘heavy’ equipment would now be transported by rail via the ditch that is the channel should it be required in Europe, or by the ‘Point’ class vessels to a friendly port for onward transportation… Read more »
We live on an island/islands. Significant RN amphibious capability is essential & either LPD command ships like Albion/Bulwark or LPH are essential.
We’re not short of money as a nation, we just allow our overlords to continue to allow massive amounts of wealth to disappear offshore on tax terms most of us could only dream of.
Yes please . Let’s get 12 of these ships pronto.
Ideally T83 should be fitted with a rotating Sampson v2 and AN/SPY-7 panels.
The RN should take the safe option and build on the T26 by using the Mission Bay to house additional VLS (MK41 and Sylver), and incorporating a second MT30 GT.
It’s a bad idea using T26. Australia tried to modify it and look what’s happened.
The Canadian T26 is better, but very expensive.
The MOD just announced a quarter billion investment in radar tech. If these are going to use Australian radars where is that money going.
There not. People have taken 1+1 to mean 5. This was a purely Aussie Defence pitch.
True, although I won’t be surprised if it was the case. Very few defence procurement decisions seem to be made on what is best for the military and most are made on what is best polictically at the moment.
In the 2030s we may be living in a peaceful world similar to the early 2000s if we can survive the next few years.
By the 2030s China will be in a severe decline, Russia a 3rd world country and Iran under new managemen.
The worry is now. What will China, Russia and Iran do over the next few years faced with economic collapse, regime change etc.
None will go down peacefully and all of them are currently lying about the state of their economies!
its about time that we ships of this type in our navy if we are still planning to be a force around the world 8 to 12 would be ideal these would be more than capable to defend our carrier force and free up other frigates duties around the world and not leave us thin on the ground
So the Navy might have these by the mid to late 2030’s. By 2038, HMS Duncan will be 25 years old, that’s if ‘she’ survives future savage cuts to the defence budgets of the upcoming years. is 25 years a decent amount of time for a warship such as this to last? Who knows, maybe by that time the ‘space corps’, or space cadets or whoever they are, may have their very own HM space Ship Enterprise, that can do all manner of exciting things from a geostationary orbit. No more need for Destroyers, Carriers etc and so forth. Exciting… Read more »
Morning, you are correct that the T45s will be some 25yo by then, but bizarrely they haven’t been worked that hard due to their propulsion issues which have seen them tied up alongside for long periods.
I would imagine that given their condition they will last a while longer with the right maintenance.
Tom, bit simplistic to just look at “years” just as the 23s have been used a lot, the 45s have been used very little. Hopefully when the 31s start rolling out the 45s will be used less for nonsense like drugs interdiction and reserved for their proper purpose, CSG and international exercise with other CSG.
Also task force(non carrier) air defence plus UK ABMD until we get a land based system(assuming T45s get ADM upgrades)(.
If we can’t be bothered to fund a decent army, navy or air force currently, how do you expect us to suddenly attain a space force?
There already is a UK space force.
We are Decades away from this!
Let’s be honest here folks, the reason we don’t get much of anything no more is for the reason that the MoD waste billions. They were told firmly by the Treasury to get their house in order, then to expect more funding. The type 45 issue is the testament of that. I’m no follower of DC and the 2010 review, but his govt did take the difficult decisions. The state was far too fat for its own good. Let us hope that the generals and planners iron out their wastage issues and give us the kit we need, else it’s… Read more »
To be fair most of the commentators are stuck in a groove of comments that applied 10 years ago. Recent procurements have been good to excellent. Even the worst current example Ajax, is a fixed price contract. So it will be late but will be delivered to spec and LM will probably make a huge loss. If that’s the worst that can happen, happy days. As someone that has worked in global project management, people with no experience are often quick to underestimate the complexity and criticise based on things that happened a generation ago. If they knew what a… Read more »
It’s not the ships it the weapons we should concentrate and improve , and do so rapidly. Ukraine shows that.
Why do we need this? Space is the future. A satellite or satellite’s in orbit can move quicker to any location/place/map ref or trouble spot far quicker than any ship.
Armed satellites will be quicker, cheaper and more effective than any ship. Lasers on satellite’s… or has it been done already?
Where would the energy of 100s’ of KWs’, required to power the DEW come from?
Then is the issue of Laser energy to penetrate the atmosphere!
By the time these are being laid down one would think our laser weaponry would be deployed for air dominance.
We’ll order 6 but it is more likely that only 4 will get built given recent history of naval orders being cut from initial orders. Till we are willing to pay higher taxes and close the tax loopholes the rich use we will never get the fleet we need.