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.

An Australian Type 26.

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.

George Allison
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

214 COMMENTS

  1. 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 in the closing years of the war especially fast modern battleships became massive floating AA batteries because of the inability of anything else to keep up with carriers and provide as much dakka.

            Yes, in the Pacific, carriers pretty quickly replaced Battleships as the primary strike arm of the IJN and USN (although it should be noted that the Royal Navy came very close to sinking Japanese Carrier fleet that would strike Midway when Warspite just missed them, which might have very much changed the narrative of “obsolete” Battleships).

            TLDNR:
            Battleships had a role throughout the 2nd World War, and outside the Pacific even remained a primary strike force of the Navy.

            As an interest piece:
            The Allies had 40 Fleet Aircraft Carriers, and 65 Battleships (admittedly four of them are Arizona, Oklahoma, Iron Duke, and Centurion whose contributions are debatable in the extreme)
            The Axis had 12 (Plus GZ and Aquila) Aircraft Carriers and 31 Battleships.

          • The Battleship Renown was not lost it was the Repluse along with the Prince of Wales 👍

          • 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 🇬🇧

          • Amazingly we never fully commissioned Vanguard into a war fighting condition. All four of her main gun turrets were never fully manned and never fired a broadside as far as I can tell.
            Did she go to Korea or Suez? No!
            I find her lack of operational use extraordinary and sad.
            All about money and a failure to appreciate what a problem she would have posed to any enemy.

            That said we need 8 type 83s, because there is a rule of 8 that we ignore at our peril.

          • 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 our carriers go out we havnt got the type 45 destroyers to match either being modified repaired etc etc. Even if we had 8 3 possibly 4 will be going under maintenance. Work it out 6 dosnt work.

          • 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 allies.

          • and budget busting expensive and dreadfully slow to get them. by then we’ll be seeing the end of the astutes as we’ll be waiting for the SSNR maybe even the final T266’s. an reconfigured type 26 or an upgraded batch 2 type r5 would 5 the way I’d go.

      • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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 relatively good. Unless it becomes part of the day to day politics thud becoming a vote winner, not sure that will happen despite Ukraine.

          • 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.

          • 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 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.

      • 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) or cruiser duties and defence diplomacy abroad. When you add refit, training, deployments as well as level of threat from peer or near peer opponents then you get to the number needed….which is 10 minimum 12 ideally.

        • 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.

        • 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

      • You need them to control National Air/missile Defence. Looking at the Ukraine war its imperative. The RN is the only Arm of UK defence equipped to do this. Not saying one or other of the other two may not join the party.

    • 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.😉

        • 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.

    • 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 additional defensive armaments. They look great but under dressed!
      King’s birthday long weekend here in parts of 🇦🇺, so thanks to his majesty 👑 for that!

      • 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 vessel 4 replaces the first type 45 retiring and so on till vessel 9 replaces the last type 45.

        What type 83 looks to be lacking is a high capacity fairly short range air defence against a mass drone attack. Lots of sea ceptor missiles would do it but at a high cost.

        An up to 5km light weight but smart missile which can be fired in the hundreds and quickly reloaded.

        To me that’s a gap between the sea ceptor and the 20 mm cannon which while good against one target would fail against a coordinated strike by 50 drones or missiles arriving at once.

        While light weight drones or missiles wouldn’t sink a large vessel they could knock out most of its defenses. Radar, guns and missiles to intercept a next attack with heavier missiles which could sink the vessel.

        • 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 has bought CAMM for its MK41 and I think it will be manufacturing it. Hope there’s guarantees of security of that tech and everything else. CAMM-ER has been sold to Pakistan too. Foreign Policy and Diplomacy needs to be very engaged and targeted in these days of instant communication, seeking real mutual long term benefit for both sides, as current strategic stuff and both-side alliances are coming to a bit of a head in the Middle – East. Hope the UK’s fuel and energy supplies are well protected and good current reserves. Hope the same for AU here too as I think the government is looking into improving onshore storage. I’d like to see the RAN get another tanker, for itself and allies when in the neighbourhood and develop Darwin as a top end naval base.
          Sorry for carrying on a bit. I enjoy reading this site everyday and everyone’s take on things. 🇦🇺 🇬🇧

    • 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.

    • 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.

  2. 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 it.

          As we move away from platform centricity and into the era of systems of systems, we may have to revisit the equation, but I can’t see it happening just yet. We can build T31s as fast as the budget will allow, so I think there’s no advantage in building smaller. The cost of operating yet another class will eat up any theoretical financial benefit.

      • 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) of the array. However, some power can be gained by merging two beams from adjoining panels using sacrificial interference.

            As the panels are smaller, they are lighter and can be mounted further up a mast. However a balance must be struck between the panel’s CSA, weight and installation height.

            Being fixed panels they will also have a fixed elevation field of view. Which is normally +/- 45 degrees. So the amount of lean (back) angle the panel is set at determines how far it can look up. Normally this is between 70 and 80 degrees. Thereby making a 30 to 20 dead zone arc directly above the ship.

            The BAe tendering above shows what looks like an AESA panel in front of the aft funnel. Fitted to point up and to close this dead zone above the ship.

        • 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?

  3. 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!

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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 (FLTS) F-16C Fighting Falcon, Kongsberg now eyes integration on the Typhoon fighter aircraft. This weapon can be carried on multiple hard points on Typhoon, providing complete Role-Fit flexibility, explained BAE Systems.”

          • 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 as required.
      -Sylver modules are around 50% lighter.

  4. 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.

      • 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.

          • 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 Putin’s & Xi’s & the CCP, guiviung up on liberty, demnocracy & the rule of law.

          • 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 few when that was proposed. Hence the rapid build of B2 River OPVs & retention of B1 Rivers to enable some very basic coverage of commitments we’d otherwise be incapable of serving.

            Next new build to be comissioned should be T31 HMS Venturer in 2027 & HMS Glasgow in 2027/28, assuming no further slips in build times.

            Then from 2028 we lose an ASW T23 annually while 1 or 2 T31 or T26 commission into service, slowly clawing back escort numbers.

            So as we navigate a time of the greatest threat of major war since the cold war, we have a tiny RN escort force severely compromising our naval muscle. Escorts enable most naval operations other vessels conduct.

        • 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.

      • 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

    • 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 personnel must have the very best. When you look at failed government spending, you can see that our forces budget is not a big ask. I quote the £37 billion thrown away on the broken Test & Trace pantomime. We could build a task force with that sort of money, yet the treasury seem happy to write it off.

      • £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.

  5. 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”.

      • 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.

  6. 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?

    • I think it goes back to HMS Bristol. T4 was for single role AAW Destroyers. T8 is for large, fully armed, multi role types.

        • 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 1966, that was the first tranche, another 4 were planned to replace the first 4 county class.

    • 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 work in all areas).
      Type 12 ASW frigates
      type 12m ASW frigates ( high end)
      type 12i ASW frigate ( the later batches of these came close to the modern concept of a true GP frigate like the T23).
      type 14 second rate ASW frigates ( really small)
      Type 15: rebuilt WW2 destroyers reclassed as ASW frigates.
      Type 16: partially rebuilt WW2 destroyers reclassed as ASW frigates

      Type 2x ( GP frigates focused on ASW, the birth of the modern GP frigate, that can do it all but does ASW best, the outlier here was the T21….which was a patrol frigate 3300 to 7800 tons)
      Type 21: patrol frigate, GP frigate.
      Type 22: ASW frigates ( high end) that became general purpose warships.
      Type 23 ASW frigate that is also a general purpose warship
      Type 26 ASW frigate that is also a general purpose warship

      type 3x it’s a new one….The T 31 is the first…called a GP frigate but starting to look like a focused ASuW combatant

      type 4x air defence ships
      Type 41 air defence frigate, with some ASW capabilities and surface warfare capabilities..really a GP frigate,
      type 42 air defence destroyer…no real ASW capability as such.
      type 43 cancelled air defence destroyer..to replace the 42s, 500 feet long ( probably 6000-7000 tons, double the sea dart launch’s as well as four sea wolf launchers as well as anti ship missiles and some ASW.
      Type 44 cancelled air defence destroyers with increase ASW capability over the type 43.
      type 45 air defence destroyer.

      type 5x who knows…

      type 6x air direction frigates, a defunct type that was essentially a radar picket for carrier battle groups..
      type 61 air direction frigate..it’s all about the radar radar…still had AAW and basic ASW capability.

      type7x who knows….

      type 8x General purpose warships between frigate and cruiser size ( the type 82 was designed as a cruiser replacement therapy as well as carrier escort)
      type 81 second class general purpose frigate, designed as a general purpose escort ( but not as a fleet escort as to slow).
      type 82 destroyer, general purpose escort…outer screen of CVA escort as well as independent cruiser type warship.
      Type 83..it’s a mystery.

  7. 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 a good patch for the RN.

  8. 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

  9. 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 Indians areincorporating the Zircon technology in their collaboration with Russia for the BrahMoss-11-K hypersonic missile.
        .
        With regard to Ukraine. CWIS had nothing to do with the Kinzals the Ukraine shot down. It was missile systems.

        So I am not sure what you mean by your two points.

        As for the statement I have “no source for the 1 in 6”. Firstly I said 1 in 36 chance. I agree I had no source. But I arrived at this by doing some BASIC maths using widely published data. I was however wrong. I estimated the length of a Zircon was 11 meters. I have since found that it is actually 9 meters. This means the Zircon missile will occupy the interception point X for between 0.0053 and 0.0028 of a second ( 5.3 or 2.8 thousandths) The range is for speeds of Mach5 and Mach9. IF there is zero angle between the missile and projectile the two would theoretically intercept. However if the incoming missile trajectory is even a few degrees offset from the direct line of fire then the chances of actually hitting it are much reduced. Making zero allowance for deceleration of the 1100m/s velocity, or bullet length, the 20mm projectile will occupy interception point X for 0.012 of a second (1.2 hundreths). So the chances of the projectile and missile intersecting are 1 in 44 for Mach5 and or 1 in 66 for Mach 9.
        As I mentioned, it is not just me that questions CWIS. The low probability of intercept may be why the US Navy and others have abandoned CWIS for its new vessels.

        • 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 are both innacurate and not hypersonic.
          But you obviously are a true believer, have fun.

          • 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 the time the Type 83 sails direct energy weapons may have been developed.
            So I go back to my orginal point namely, it is surprising that the Type 83 image released shows a Phalanx type CWIS.

    • 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 air, is then point towards the target by the reaction jets. It’s minimum engagement range is easily on par with RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile and RSSM. However, CAMM has a lot more performance, plus a larger warhead than RAM and can engage more targets attacking from different directions nearly simultaneously. So in some respects our ships really don’t need CIWS, as CAMM can do both roles very well.

      However, if the ship is operating on its own and has sustained an attack where either a leaker or debris has damaged the main radar. Then it can’t really use its air defence missiles. A system like Phalanx is self-contained. It has its own search and tracking radar, along with optical back-up. So in a very real sense Phalanx is a last ditch weapon. Plus the sabot rounds are dirt cheap compared to a missile.

      Regardless, if it takes out a supersonic/hypersonic missile and the debris hits the ship, does it matter? The important thing here is that it is only debris hitting the ship and not the main kinetic energy of the missile or that the ship has been penetrated for the warhead to detonate. So the ship remains afloat, still hopefully mission worthy and with a lot less casualties.

      The USN in particular have converted a number of their Phalanx. Where they replace the Gatling gun with a RIM-116 magazine. However, the USN requires a point defence weapon, due to the design of ESSM’s and its hot launch method. Which gives it a much larger minimum engagement range compared to CAMM. This is due to the missile needing to initially follow a ballistic arc towards the target.

    • 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.

  10. 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.

    • 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.

  11. 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 the core of the RN’s AAW capability in so few vessels?

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it’s such a shame there wasn’t a move to a 1st tier of ‘full fat’ combat ships that could handle a wider spectrum of ASW & AAW ops and then a 2nd tier frigate or corvette or whatever you want to call it that was smaller, simpler and could provide depth/breadth to the surface fleet whilst focusing on patrol and constabulary tasks.

    • 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.

  12. 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.

        • 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.

      • 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 to wherever if further afield. That’s actually how all our heavy stuff went to the Gulf for GW1.
          Most of our light stuff is either air transportable or could drive itself to where it’s needed – clearly shipped out if further afield than Europe.
          Not saying we don’t need some form of amphibious capability, I just don’t think we will see a like for like replacement when the LPDs go out of service. Some form of smaller vessel (MROSS?) will probably replace them, something with a smaller capacity and crew?

    • 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.

      • If you abandoned Estate Duty most would never leave. In one way the apocalyptic rate of that tax has, together with two World Wars and incompetence reduced the UK to penury. What happened to all that accumulated wealth?

  13. 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.

  14. The MOD just announced a quarter billion investment in radar tech. If these are going to use Australian radars where is that money going.

      • 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.

  15. 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!

  16. 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

  17. 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 times…

    • 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?

  18. 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 curtains!

    • 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 sh&t sh£w other forces had in procurement, especially the US, maybe they wouldn’t criticise the MOD so much.

  19. It’s not the ships it the weapons we should concentrate and improve , and do so rapidly. Ukraine shows that.

  20. 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!

  21. By the time these are being laid down one would think our laser weaponry would be deployed for air dominance.

  22. 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.

  23. T83? I think a upgraded batch 2 type 45 makes more sense. we won’t get them before around 2050. they’ll cost at least one and a half billion quid each we’ll 5 lucky to get six.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here