In a recent report, experts discuss the need for the Royal Navy to enhance its destroyer fleet to keep pace with evolving threats and technological advancements.

The report, ‘A More Lethal Royal Navy: Sharpening Britain’s Naval Power‘ by William Freer and Dr. Emma Salisbury, highlights significant upgrades needed for the current Type 45 destroyers and the accelerated development of the future Type 83 class.

The Royal Navy’s six Type 45 class destroyers are considered among the most advanced in the world. However, the report criticises past decisions that limited their combat capability. “For the sake of saving costs, their combat capability was crippled by building them ‘for but not with’ additional weapons,” the report notes. Originally planned for twelve vessels, the number was reduced to eight and then six.

In light of growing threats, the UK government has decided to fund improvements. “The headline changes will be the addition of a further 24 cells for Sea Ceptor missiles (taking total cells to 72), the replacement of eight Harpoon surface-to-surface missiles with eight of the more modern Naval Strike Missiles, and improved Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capabilities.” These upgrades are praised for amplifying the destroyers’ offensive and defensive firepower.

The Future Type 83 Destroyers

The Type 45 class will eventually be replaced by the Type 83 class, part of the Future Air Dominance system, which is still in its concept phase. The report stresses the urgency of this transition, particularly with the planned retirement of HMS Daring, the first Type 45 destroyer, before 2040.

“The procurement process for the Type 83 should begin in earnest,” it states, highlighting that the Type 45 class took over ten years to enter service from the signing of the contract.

Two key factors will shape the future destroyers: space and power generation. “Space, primarily for large numbers of VLS [Vertical Launch System] cells; and power generation, as all the systems on board demand a great deal of energy.” The demand for power is expected to grow, especially with the introduction of Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs).

The report also highlights the potential of DEWs. “DEWs do as they say: they direct highly focused energy towards a target, and can come in various forms, including high-energy lasers (HEL), high-powered radiofrequency (HPRF), or microwave (HPM) systems.” These weapons are cost-effective solutions to drone swarms and other threats, though they require substantial power and are limited by line-of-sight engagement and weather conditions.

Recommendations

Type 45 Upgrades

The report recommends a review of the Type 45 class destroyer’s upgrade programme. “Undertake a review into the Type 45 class destroyer’s upgrade programme to ascertain whether it is possible for any of the warships to receive Mk41 VLS in place of the Sea Ceptor cells.” This change could amplify armament and allow for a greater number and variety of missiles.

Accelerate Type 83 Programme

The report urges the acceleration of the Type 83 programme. “The requirements should be drawn up as soon as possible to ensure the warships can enter service before HMS Daring retires. Contract award for Type 83 class destroyer cannot come soon enough to ensure a smooth transition.” Key requirements should include amplified offensive and defensive capabilities with 100+ VLS cells and the ability to host novel systems like DEWs.

Collaborative Development

The report also suggests that the UK collaborate with the US on developing the next generation Integrated Full Electric Propulsion (IFEP) system. “The US Navy’s Zumwalt class, like the Type 45 class, also has an IFEP system and the two allies should collaborate on the next generation IFEP system.”

Expansion of Escort Fleet

Finally, the report calls for the procurement of eight Type 83 class destroyers, aiming for an overall goal of returning the escort fleet to a 32 hull force. “This represents a like-for-like replacement of Type 45, plus two.”

Avatar photo
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

68 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Fraser
Fraser (@guest_828686)
17 days ago

The problem with the type 45 is it cost a billion pounds in the 2000s. 4 times more, taking account of inflation, than the previous generation type 42. That’s why we only got 6 of them. There is no point coming up with super expensive designs and then screaming about how few of them you have. If you opt for extravagant designs your not going to get many, it’s a choice.

Thomas
Thomas (@guest_828695)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

The reason they were more expensive is cause the research and design phase has to be paid for with in the 6 destroyers price . If it was 12 then the hull price would be less just like the type 26 is now coming down in price . War is not cheap . You either spend big or stay out of it 🙄

Fraser
Fraser (@guest_828709)
17 days ago
Reply to  Thomas

Your right, they are choosing a design where the budget will cover design but not build. The answer is go with a different design, if you can’t afford it you can’t afford it. The type 26 frigate is falling into the same trap, after paying for development the navy has nothing left to build the thing. The navy knows its budget, if it can’t afford to design and build a warship then it shouldn’t blindly pursue it anyway. The same with the new 83 destroyer, don’t go for a design you can’t afford to design and build, especially after learning… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_828731)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

So build shit ships instead that will be incapable of what’s required?

grizzler
grizzler (@guest_828735)
17 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

I don’t think hes saying that is he ? but ultimately any ship has got ot better than no ship surely – same as any hardware quantity has a quality of it’s own. & the point about economies of scale is relevant as is designing & building a ship that has export potential. Ultimately of course we also need the manufacturing infrastrcuture to accomodate any accclerated build program. I think its a diffiicult balancing act but what definately doesn’t help is kicking this increasing dented can down the road crossing our fingers any confrontation stays decades off- thats a highly… Read more »

Fraser
Fraser (@guest_828742)
17 days ago
Reply to  grizzler

That’s my point, the key is to not look for the best design but the most minimus design that meets your key criteria. For example the meko frigate from germany were exported by the frozen. The anzac class was 3600 tonnes vs the 7000 tonne type 26. It had a 6000 nm range, a large helicopter hanger, 32 vls missiles, a towed sonar and anti ship missiles. A type 26 has a range of 7000 nm, a large helicopter hanger for 2 helicopters, 32 vls missiles, and anti ship missiles. As you can guess the meko was a huge export… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_828754)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

There will be nearly 30 T26 built, but also the T26 could carry upto 144 vls missiles in just the British version.

Fraser
Fraser (@guest_828763)
17 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

If they are built, the Australian and Canadian ship numbers are rapidly shrinking as they rapidly blow thier budget. That being said why not 2 or 3 mekos instead of 1 type 26. Less missile per but again your eggs are spread across more baskets, instead of all in one.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_828765)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

Well for one the T26 is not just an ASW platform, it’s going to fulfill alot of our strike capability as well, which Meko cannot with its capacity.
Also doesn’t have options like the mission bay, or the ability to bring heavily upgraded. Meko is a cheap ship but very limited.

Fraser
Fraser (@guest_828774)
17 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

Yeah but we can’t afford the upgrades, comes back to the same issue. All this space for extra systems but we have no money left for them because have already blown the money on the ships. Like the type 45, built only 6, no money left for anti ship missiles, which the meko did have.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_828778)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

The T45 had harpoon and is getting NSM as an interim. We may not have chosen to install mk41 but we are installing addition sea ceptor cells and upgrading the radars and missiles. So no I think that’s immaculate what you said. Said upgrades are done over the life span of the vessel not all immediately upon construction, if you make such a small vessel like meko or a better example, if we’d chosen the small T31 proposals we wouldn’t have had the option of adding Mk41. The MOD has a yearly budget, a ship purchase 10 years ago doesn’t… Read more »

Last edited 17 days ago by Hugo
Fraser
Fraser (@guest_828916)
17 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

Look this budgeting over decades kind of works in peace time, kind of, but in war time when you need to rapidly expand and replace losses it falls apart. No one, let alone our selves, have build capacity to rapidly build 7000 and 10000 ton hulls. I could see us serialising radar arrays, missiles, even light helicopter production(especially if drones). But a quietened 7000 ton t26 Hull. The model works, kind of, as long as there is no war that lasts longer than a month, after that it collapses and you are forced to adapt. In ww2 we ultimately pursed… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_828946)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

We couldnt drop building warship hulls, while those suggestions of containerized equipment might help relieve some pressure especially via say Atlantic convoys, with the huge threat of modern submarines and anti ship systems no they cannot afford to have a fighting fleet of civilian tubs.

Meirion x
Meirion x (@guest_828852)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

The extra capacity for future growth is Not required in the near term, but later on in its life, and when new warpon systems, and tech, have been developed. Not everything is required straight away.

Last edited 17 days ago by Meirion x
Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_828801)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

The T31 in build and the whole A140 variants offer huge flexibility that we don’t need the Meko as well. A few more T31s for the RN for patrolling international shipping lanes and especially bottlenecks would be useful, reasonablly affordable and relieve other ships.

Last edited 17 days ago by Quentin D63
Peter Lever
Peter Lever (@guest_828856)
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I agree – the Type 31 is only under-rated because it lacks extra kit yet is big enough for extras. Choose a role either as anti-submarine or ant-air and fit the extra kit.

Dern
Dern (@guest_828794)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

On the other hand, Type 26 has sold 29 from 2014 onwards, so it’s actually got a pretty good sales record compared to Meko.
The issue is if you don’t keep design skills in house you loose them, and then you end up with an inability to make the next generation of ships, but keep sticking more and more stuff onto an increasingly overburdened hull.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_828832)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

The Anzacs are a late 70s design and have a lot of issues. The new radars add a lot of top weight that is countered by lead ballast being added into the hull, reducing their performance and increasing hull strain. The containerised modules are not great. There where big issues with certain systems in the modules that normal ships have fitted as standard. They are small and the scope for upgrades in them just isn’t there. The RAN has upgraded them beyond what anyone could imagine but it’s not cheap and it’s not cost effective for what they have. CEFAR… Read more »

Meirion x
Meirion x (@guest_828849)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

The RAN is retiring 2 Anzac class frigates, due to a difficulty of upgrading any further a confined cramped small frigate. The same problem applies to our old T23s’
The T26 frigate has been built to its present size, to allow for future growth.

Last edited 17 days ago by Meirion x
Deep32
Deep32 (@guest_828752)
17 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

Alternatively jump onto one of the current DDX designs going around – USA, Japan, Italy and S Korea are all in the process of selecting new large DD designs.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_828762)
17 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

Unfortunately once again a case of hugely differing requirements and budgets. US programs too expensive and may potentially be cancelled, Italy is focusing on European system and slyver vls. And seems like in general no ones able to cooperate on shipbuilding with the far East nations. Though who knows, will have to wait a few years for more info.

Deep32
Deep32 (@guest_828838)
17 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

Sorry, my fault not being clear enough. Buy the design then build and equip as required.
All are large 10k + hulls with ample room for 100+ vls tubes, helo/drone deck and a variety of guns.
Install propulsion system of choice, add sensor/equipment/missiles systems as required and you have your T45 replacement.
Not as simple as that granted, but you get the gist as any of those designs should fit the bill. All we would be doing is adding another design from scratch. Perhaps that would be the MODs preffered way, but it adds years when other options are available.

Dern
Dern (@guest_829118)
16 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

I’m going to defervto gunbuster here, but if you are going to change the propulsion system, vls system, sensors, and guns you might as well make your own design *cough* constellation class *cough*

Deep32
Deep32 (@guest_829125)
16 days ago
Reply to  Dern

My point is that there are options available, especially if we need to have a design that you can start building in the early 30s. It’s all about choices is it not. WRT the Constallation class, the US have screwed up greatly, they are assessed to have altered some 80% of the original design!! Why go with it in that case? We bought of the shelf with T31, and have changed many items to suit, arguably it’s a success or will be, certainly better than the US attempt. Having a different propulsion/sensor/weapons fit isn’t that big an issue if done… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_829147)
16 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

The USN is hamstrung by shipbuilding being enshrined in law. The Jones Act has royaly rodgered them on the connies.
It also didn’t help buying a design that is metric from the smallest bolt upwards and then converting it to feet and inches, adding 30 ft, deleting a sonar, altering the propulsion system wholesale, adding electrical systems and altering the power supply layout, altering the whole of the upper deck etc…

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_829146)
16 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

No real need.
Unlike the USN and NAVSEA the UK design houses and Nav Arcs have been doing OK with designs.
The Zumwalt, LCS, Connie have been disastrous for the USN.
Luckily Pork Barrel politics isn’t an issue for the UK.

Deep32
Deep32 (@guest_829287)
15 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Hi fella, I don’t doubt our abilities to design a new hull form/ship from scratch. Suspect that is what we will actually do this with the T83, just pointing out as with the T31, there are options, and as ever it’s horses for courses as far as finances are concerned.
They do seem to be rather in a fix with all their Acts and Congressional interventions as it were. You have to wonder how their military ever gets anything done?

geoff
geoff (@guest_828824)
17 days ago
Reply to  Thomas

The critical factor is as you say, the size of the run. In any manufacture there is a large fixed cost so numbers reduce the unit price but if you only have X Pounds to spend then the way to increase the run is to find some other buyers or partners. This has been partly achieved with the Type 26. Another possibility is to reduce the number of hull types? If you could accomodate the Type 26/31/32 around one hull, in theory that would also reduce unit costs. Obviously this would require compromises in design and fitment

Last edited 17 days ago by geoff
Meirion x
Meirion x (@guest_828842)
17 days ago
Reply to  Thomas

👍Exactly!

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_829055)
16 days ago
Reply to  Thomas

Capability is not cheap – as of today we are not at War !.

Last edited 16 days ago by Paul T
Andy M
Andy M (@guest_828713)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

the T45’s did not cost a billion pounds each. They were about £650m. The rest of the money was spent developing the electronics and missile system. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20170207052351/https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/0809295.pdf

Jim
Jim (@guest_828744)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

Better to have fewer but more capable platforms than take a compromised design like the T42.

The T45 didn’t come with everything that we wanted but it came with the very best radar and anti air missiles money can buy and in the early 2000’s no ship needed more than 48 VLS.

They are atleast big enough that we can continue to upgrade and up arm them.

Fraser
Fraser (@guest_828751)
17 days ago
Reply to  Jim

Having something in small quantities is close to pointless. it’s like the old tiger tanks. So few that most of the time they aren’t present, quickly attrited away, too difficult to build to keep up and replace losses. A system isn’t meaningful until its made in meaningful quantities. As it stands with the type 45 either they will be attrited away and be absent, or will be withdrawn to port before they are all lost, and be absent.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_828753)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

We still have more destroyers then every other Euro Navy, if we can get even a few more of the same standard it would be worth it.

Fraser
Fraser (@guest_828768)
17 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

Yeah but the idea is that all navies are doing the same thing and they might be wrong. You might have more ships than the others, but that means there surface fleet will last for 2 months while ours will last 4. Ultimately it will be similar to the russian navy in the black sea against the none existent Ukrainian navy, we will loose a few ships we will have to withdraw the rest, and the cargo ships and convoys will need to do their best on their own.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_828770)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

I’d argue the black sea situation does not represent future naval warfare everywhere

Fraser
Fraser (@guest_828775)
17 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

I do have something to say about this, but I’m tired. Let’s pick up tomorrow where we left off, good debate.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_828859)
17 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

You say that all navies are doing this. In that case, why prepare for a neverending attritional war that doesn’t

Matt Barnes
Matt Barnes (@guest_829907)
13 days ago
Reply to  Fraser

No…the Type 45 programme was 6 Billion. People take the programme cost and divide it by the 6 we ended up with

Coll
Coll (@guest_828687)
17 days ago

Batch 3 Type 26 with astra 30 capability.

Coll
Coll (@guest_828705)
17 days ago
Reply to  Coll

Obviously as a temporary solution

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_828727)
17 days ago
Reply to  Coll

Why waste all of that money on a T26 that has top-end ASW sensors and quietening for a role that needs the ship to move quickly and stay near its escorted ship? A far better solution would be to use the T31 hull and armament. 32 mk41 would be enough for an interim (with quad packing of one silo it is exactly the same as T26) and allows quad packing of CAMM-MR when it turns up. The base Iver Huifeldt design includes a Thales SMART-L AESA radar that has been used to guide SM-3 as an offloaded ABM sensor. It… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_828732)
17 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

At this rate T31s will not be done on schedule

Meirion x
Meirion x (@guest_829011)
16 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

‘ “…(with quad packing of one silo it is exactly the same as T26) and allows quad packing of CAMM-MR when it turns up…” Some misinformation here! A CAMM requires an ExLS module to be installed for CAMM to be cold launched as a pack of three CAMM for each ExLS module. No CAMM, or as a pack of 4, has been launched from standard Mk. 41 hot launched cell. ExLS module is a smaller structure and in length then standard Mk.41 8 cell complex. The issue would be, can the standard Mk. 41 8 cell modules be easy swapped… Read more »

Last edited 16 days ago by Meirion x
Che
Che (@guest_828725)
17 days ago

Fastrack the type 83s. Just a case of money i suppose. A hell of a ship though.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_828728)
17 days ago

So we start designing now, pause well the next government thinks about it, cancel the idea and then reinstate at the nd of the parliament but to a new design at twice the price at which time the then government decides they cannot be afforded. The final solution is to cut the new order from six to three and then to ship only at £3 billion, this to be bought from Japan who have already built twenty ships for thie own navy. Unfortunately, this is cancelled by the State Party because all voters over the age of twelve object to… Read more »

RB
RB (@guest_828789)
17 days ago

All completely academic. There is almost zero chance that the new Labour governments promised Defence Review will recommend an increase in the size of the RN. Spending more on the NHS far trumps national security. Big pay rises are in store for Trust CEOs, plus the recruitment of thousands of vitally needed NHS administrators to mange the 200,000+ existing NHS administrators – 39,200 being reported as “manager grade” in Feb 2024 . Sadly no money will then be left for any more doctors or nurses so the government will be under pressure to find another few £billion.

Last edited 17 days ago by RB
RB
RB (@guest_828795)
17 days ago

All completely academic. There is almost zero chance that the new Labour governments promised Defence Review will recommend an increase in the size of the RN. Spending more on the NHS far trumps national security. Big pay rises are in store for Trust CEOs, plus the recruitment of thousands of vitally needed NHS administrators to mange the 200,000+ existing NHS administrators – 39,200 being reported as “manager grade” in Feb 2024 . Sadly no money will then be left for any more doctors or nurses so the government will be under pressure to find another few £billion.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_828815)
17 days ago
Reply to  RB

Hope the UK’s new government is better than all that and not just same old. Give the 🇬🇧 an uplift and not just seek their own comforts.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_828861)
17 days ago
Reply to  RB

Have to wait and see what is in Ms Reeve’s budget. My two penneth ….no tax rate rises but large scale closure of tax reliefs and exemptions. The money raised will have to be used to settle Post Office and Blood scandal compensation, settle junior drs strike, raise the minimum wage for carers and rescue bankrupt local authorities. Everything else will have to wait a while.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_828800)
17 days ago

I’m enjoying what I’m reading here. The possible and sensible look at MK41s/ExLS onto the T45s. Even if just for CAMM. And why not upgrade the sonar suite if it’s not fully functional and fully manned?

Ex_Service
Ex_Service (@guest_828812)
17 days ago

I disagree. 8 Type 83s is not sufficient war fighting, even in a medium scale conflict, such as that experienced in the 1982 Falklands War, let alone a larger conflict with a peer state. In early 1982 the UK had 10 destroyers in commission prior to the conflict. During the conflict, the UK also surveyed the recently decommissioned Counties for bringing back into service (eventually deciding on frigates). In 2024, the UK has no viable reserve or decommissioned fleet of vessels. Even with a continuous national build cycle (yet to materialise) a fleet of 12 (harking back to 1970s fleet… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_828833)
17 days ago
Reply to  Ex_Service

The time from WW2 to the Falklands 40+years… Falklands to now 40+ years… Things have moved on a tad. Hull numbers are not the be all and end all. It’s the systems they carry. A T42 could engage 2 targets at a time using semi active radar homing Sea Dart. You would salvo 2 dart per target to get the pk up to a decent level (And it still wasn’t that great!) Target illumination from 909s gave you 2 fire channels. On a good day against a major ASM strike we may have got in 4-6 engagements, using 8-12 missiles… Read more »

Ex_Service
Ex_Service (@guest_828911)
17 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

The argument of a greater capability any a new warship is an old failed argument. A vessel 2, 3, 4 times more capable than a preceding class of vessel cannot be on 2,3 or 4 different deployments at the same time. Also, any one deployment requires a minimum 3 units to maintain, so 4 deployments in the maxim example above would be supported by 12 vessels and crews, with units training, deploying or returning from said deployments, providing additional opportunities gunboat diplomacy or other mission objectives. One old saying which still holds true in military terms is: quantity has a… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_829148)
16 days ago
Reply to  Ex_Service

The 3 ships needed for a deployment model hasn’t (Couldn’t) be used by the RN for well over a decade. Ships coming here to the Gulf extended the deployment length to 9 months with a crew break in the middle to help alleviate the issue. It helped. Further work was done under Navy Transformation to see what else could be done. The basing of an FF in theatre, mimicking the successful OP Kipion basing for MCMVs was the result. A lot of discussions and meetings and visits happened first from a lot of Senior RN and UK Staff before that… Read more »

Ex_Service
Ex_Service (@guest_829168)
16 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

The eroding of tried and tested practises (3 vessels for sustaining an ongoing operational requirement) is a result of insufficient units and crews to man them. I know from experience that in these situations a government or admiral can announce mission accomplished, but fail to see the stretched service people voting with their feet out the main gate and as they saying goes, don’t call me sir, I work for a living. I was never fan of those SRs in the career cell, shore stanchions the lot of em (note not ex_RN) and easily circumvented. That was my point in… Read more »

Fraser
Fraser (@guest_829944)
13 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

I agree with old service. Quantity is also important when you start taking casualties. A torpedo hit is a torpedo hit. You need numbers just to absorb losses. Number are also a product of your build capacity, which impacts your capacity to replace losses and expand. At present we are in a situation where our ships need to be almost invincible. We have so many eggs in so few baskets. We are also in a dynamic where we need every angle covered where the enemy attacker needs only one route through. A brutal penalty shoot out where the enemy can… Read more »

Ric
Ric (@guest_828843)
17 days ago

Everyone is missing the point. The report is saying, that in these troubled times, the budget for the Navy needs to increase to afford:- 8 type 83, 10 type 26, 5 type 31 and 9 type 32. If the Government agree to fund, then get the best you can to do the job. If not, then no point in discussing it.

Bob
Bob (@guest_828917)
17 days ago

TLDR Experts conclude “Warmongers” were right after all.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_828921)
17 days ago

More Destroys 🤔 ok then better start sorting recruitment and get more money 💰 in the Defence pot 🇬🇧 🙄

Josh Hayes
Josh Hayes (@guest_829105)
16 days ago

They need to keep updating the 1045 radar as it is world beating.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_829149)
16 days ago
Reply to  Josh Hayes

Yes it is…and Artisan isnt bad either which uses a lot of Sampsons tech. The USN is only now getting an AAW specific AESA system to sea on Flight 3 ABs and starting to refit other units with rotating AESA versions of it. We also need to continue with updating S2087 (Captas4) which again is the DeFacto gold standard for ASW. The USN binned their own version of an active towed array that they tried to develop. Raytheon couldn’t get it to perform anything close to S2087s capabilities so they wrote off 500+mil USD and bought CAPTAS 4 for the… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_829239)
16 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

So is the rotating AESA system for Flight 3 ABs an admission that BAE got it right with Sampson?

Netking
Netking (@guest_829351)
15 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The rotating AESA is not for the ABs but is a much smaller version, SPY-6 (V)2 to be specific that will be used on LPDs and Ford class carriers. The ABs will be using their traditional 4 fixed face version that is 4 times larger than the rotating version. Also these radars are not AAW specific but will also include anti surface threats.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_829377)
15 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Flight 3s have fixed panels. Things lik LSD and Carriers are getting a rotating version based on the modules used on the Fixed panels

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_829461)
14 days ago

This is the result of failure to make Type 26 capable of AAW.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_829564)
14 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Thats like saying the Army Sky Sabre cannot do AAW because it doesn’t have Patriot attached to it.

T26 can do AAW.
It cannot do Fleet Area Defence.
It can take the T45 air picture over link and use it to prosecute targets within its systems capability.

Dave
Dave (@guest_830077)
12 days ago

We need to increase EVERYTHING related to defence. The Polish bought 1000 tanks this year! The russians are taking delivery of twice as many warships as the royal navy has – to ADD to what they already have, we dont have enough aircraft in total to equip one aircraft carrier never mind two and they are shared with the RAF… we are a HUGE nation in terms of GDP but seem to want to spend it on foreign crap, diversity managers and other bullshit NOT on what government is actually FOR – our collective defence!