John Healey MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, sought clarity on the decommissioning schedule of the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the out of service date is for the Royal Navy’s fleet of Type 45 destroyers.”
James Cartlidge, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence (MOD), responded:
“On current plans, the last Type 45 Destroyer will retire from service by the end of 2038.”
In a recent written question to the Ministry of Defence, we also got a glimpse at the scheduled in-service dates for the Type 83 Destroyer, the replacement for Type 45.
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the in-service date is for the (a) Type 83 and (b) Future Air Dominance System.”
James Cartlidge, the Minister of State at the MOD, provided a succinct response, outlining the current status and expected service entry for these defence initiatives:
“The Future Air Dominance System (FADS) programme is in the pre-concept phase. The Type 83 warship is one component of the overall FADS system, and under current plans, the First of Class platform is planned to be in service in the late 2030s.”
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.
Morning all…. so with these dates, we will have no Destroyers if all the T45’s are withdrawn by 2038 ? That sounds worse than the current T23/26 fiasco.
They did the same with Invincible Class, Sea Harrier, Nimrod, so what’s new!
Yup sadly it’s the trend…
The only reserve ships the RN are at anchor in Southsea boating lake. Ten swan pedalos but due to cuts no navy staff to fill them. So once they can man them the UK will be safe !!!
That’s if you vaguely believe the dates. My money is on them being extended long past that as the first replacement will likely still be in tender process by 2038.
The ships have spent a significant amount of time laid up over the years so it’s entirely possible they will have longer than expected life cycles. The RN seems pretty focused on ensuring continuous build now in all UK yards so hopefully we won’t end up with the same gaps we did before.
The question is what is a t8x series and not a t4x. Unless I have missed it there is a complete lack of detail on what their role will be.
Gap the capability, no one will notice.
Hard to see even the first T83 by 2038, unless many fingers are pulled out.
So it sounds like no lessons will have been learnt from the frigate debacle and the t83s won’t be in service before the t45s are retired . What morons are running our defence procurement .
We don’t really know anything about T83 and the Future Air Dominace System yet. I’d take these dates with a very large pinch of salt. T45 will like still be in service into the 2040s. We don’t know what T83 will look like. Will it be a mulit role AAW Destroyer or a simpler single role vessel with a small crew but carry a very large amount of missiles. The concept hasn’t been decided yet. Navy Lookout has a very good article about T83 and FADS and explains more about what the capability could be. Air and surface platforms all… Read more »
Yeh. T83 will likely be a distributed system rather than a single ship.
Definitely. T83 is just part of the overall capability.
The message seems to be that T83 will be a single class of ship, but it will form the pivot and core for a wider “Future Air Dominance System” that makes use of offloaded sensors and networking. I think not including a minimum of multi-role would be a mistake given the small numbers of escorts at the moment.
We will have to wait and see. I would expect any ‘multi-role’ capability to focus on self defence. One man’s ‘pivot and core’ is another’s expensive single point of failure. T83 might be a ship which itself needs an escort. It will have to integrate a lot of information from a lot of sources. You can see which way the wind is blowing. T26 and T31 will both be fitted with Mk41. In normal times T31 would be deployed as a singleton patrol GP frigate but with future networking and systems it could act as a missile silo for Standard… Read more »
Standard missiles would be a huge mistake for the RN given their stupendous cost and the future availability of ASTER 1NT in mk41. I think the role of T83 will be an expansion of T82 Bristol’s designed role. One or two form the close escort from the carrier and act as missile buses, but they also act as the data processing hub for all of the other ships, AEW and other sensors around, including sonar. Having a ship so large it needs an escort would be silly; the Ticonderogas are perfectly capable of looking after themselves and that is the… Read more »
Back to the future?
Type 83 primary Carrier Air defence , should also have Anti Sub defence as well don’t you think not every threat comes from above
Agreed 👍
I think so, too. Whatever the primary role of the ship, they should be able to defend themselves so hull sonar is a must. It’s an issue with T31 as well, they aren’t sub hunters but only spotting a sub attack when you see the torpedo is a real issue.
Going back in time Hms Bristol was built as a platform for the Carriers which were never built Bristols Armaments until the late 80ts was AA seadart, 4.5inch , 2x20mm later 2x twin 30mm 2x 20mm Gambo1s so those were also Surface for Anti Sub , quadrable mortar mk 10 and Ikara homing torpedoes .so if the new type 83s designers want too see what a Carrier defence vessel should be able to conduct just look a type 82 Bristol
Yes, Ikara was the original ASROC, more like a tiny plane than a rocket. T83 should have a similar balance of capability.
Alas we have too wait and see at least a decade and if a new government will go ahead with the Class
We can’t not replace T45 now we have carriers, and there is now a baseline that has to be met. The question now is what form the class will take, which seems to have been sorted quite well by the Right Honourable Commenters here at the UKDJ.
Whitehall would work well if these attributing too this thread were to be employed by the MOD things would get done in time and on budget
From what I gather, some of them already are!
I agree, if you took the 10 most technically able commenters and formed a committee, they’d have the Navy sorted in an afternoon
If you included DM and Graham Moore, the army would be a long way to being fixed as well.
All done by the Afternoon and back in time for Tea 🍵 spot on SB
Sound good to me 👍
an interesting point Tommo, HMS Bristol had her gun armament scaled up post the Falklands combat experience.
FADs will be a distributed system. I think we will see FADs evolve with both T31 and T26 [+any PODs Sea Ceptor] able to be controlled from T45. So the reality is that T83 will be a sensor evolution. T83 will be a great big lump for sure with a very large number of VLS slots. Thing is the VLS slots are not that expensive neither is filling a load of them with CAMM [and it’s derivatives]. So once you have the big lump of a ship it makes sense. You could get 128 missiles onto a T45 with 48… Read more »
Its all a bit Star Wars. Trying to get my head around a gold plated FAD protecting a carrier against hypersonics, ballistic missiles, AShm, surface and air drones, submarines: when the carrier is carrying a dozen F-35B’s and Paveways with a strike radius of a few hundred miles.
By the end of the decade there will be a full weapons load out on F35B.
I don’t see it so negatively.
The Russians can’t match that with anything. Their airforce is virtually non functional and their weapons couldn’t hit the right country never mind a moving target.
The Chinese are the real threat with their various puppets.
Agree that China is the real competition for control of the seas. They continue to build a network of foreign naval bases and ports for their fishing fleet. I’m not sure they have any territorial ambitions beyond Taiwan and the SCS. My feeling is that they want the West to respect Chinese culture but are willing to co-exist with the West..and have a parasitical approach. They are happy to poach western technology which our open culture makes accessible but their very tendency to copy ( consumerism) suggests to me that ultimately they will westernise. On the whole I would rate… Read more »
I think Singapore is another PRC future acquisition target beyond Taiwan, because of it’s Chinese speaking population.
If only 4 FAD’s are built, an even worse situation of only having 6 T45s, and also tasked to defend future croke-point problems, like now in the Red Sea. The RN would need at least 10 FAD’s to be optimal. RN could forward deploy few of them with double crews.
So one converted North Sea trawler and four rowing boats??
Come to think of it, after 5 years of Labour borrow and spending like a teenager with a credit card, on top the ‘vast’ overspending we currently have with the blue flag socialists, forget the trawler and three of rowing boats….
The surviving rowing boat ‘equipped for, but not with’ oars, to be budgeted for in forthcoming SDSR’s.
My sense of things it is that both left and right are retreating from extreme positions; sobering up. Covid, Brexit, mass immigration and Ukraine have reminded us all that for the most part we do not control anything; we can only react to circumstances. Pragmatism and security are the order of the day. The essential political choice is about choosing and managing economic and defence alliances in a world where autocratic regimes are out to destroy western culture.
Spot on Paul, a generous dose of common sense is needed, I sincerely hope you are right…..
One promising bit of news is Meloni’s plan for Italy to lead a European initiative to expand its influence in Africa. I think she is right. European intervention to create stability and economic growth in Africa is necessary to address the migration issue which is destabilising Europe. Not saying re-colonisation but notwithstanding genuine climate issues Africa is being destabilised by the asymmetric warfare of Putin and Islamism which is deliberately designed to weaken and undermine the West. China profits from our relative absence.
Hard to see that really. Perhaps it means they only need to put radars on half the ships.
I suppose it might be nice to have some kind of scalable, plug and play, co-operatice architecture that didn’t mandate the presence of say, the (scarce) T83 unless there was a threat that only that vessel could counter. I’m sure there are smart brains working on it. My bedtime zzzx
I honestly don’t know why the question was even asked or an answer like that given…all hot air.
Yep. Exactly.
The lesson is don’t trust the dates.
They are called the Conservative party and yep. Utter morons.
Like the image but realistically need to have 100+ vls tubes otherwise two/three serious attacks and its a WWII ship with 3 guns and no quick reload
It’s just one of many concept designs. It could look nothing like this.
The image seems to have 8x mk41 split between the front and middle blocks, but if you look carefully at the front one there also appear to be 12 larger VLS in front of the mk41 with more spread out, like a giant mushroom farm.
Rather than something like Aster for drones and small aircraft. Is there no small missile system that’s 400-600mm and very short range with a homer/laser painter that the T83/45/26/31 etc can have loaded out to defend against such threats? I’m talking of a homing TOW missile type. Cheaper than anything currently on the market.
Even old 1970s technology can take out the Octocopter/Shahed drone that travels max speed of 185kmh/115mph with no avoidance technology.
Well, Martlet or Brimstone are reasonable anti small drone (less so Brimstone due to less maneuverability) but the gold standard for cost-effectiveness is guns firing airburst proximity fused rounds like the Bofors 40mm. Stick a couple of 40s on like a T31 and a Shahed doesn’t stand a chance.
Spot on, should be standard equipment across the escort fleet….
I’m surprised they didn’t replace the 30mm on the T26 after selecting it for the T31, it’s hardly a budget breaking piece of kit.
VPM’s?
I don’t know why you would, they don’t appear to carry anything more than Tomahawk which would be a waste of space given the number of mk41s. The only other “extra large VLS” I can think of is the Zumwalt’s new tubes, but they’re even bigger than that.
Hi folks hope all is well.
On the subject of our warships. The Telegraph has an article that the navy is withdrawing patrols from the Falklands as a result of too few ships. And at the same time Argentina is acquiring new ships, submarines and fighter jets. Obviously this may be a lot of bluff and will take years to assemble a reasonable force to plan an attack on the Islands again. However, this does give concern.
Cheers
George
Morning George. Withdrew, not withdrawing, the last escort down there was years ago. And that vessel I think was the APS(S) which covered the whole ocean. Now I know that doesn’t really cover the day to day defence of the FI. The BFSAI, British Forces South Atlantic Islands, remain relatively unchanged beyond the withdrawal of 2 Chinooks. Our forces are minimal, and looking at Argentina theirs even more so. There are greater intelligence assets now in the south Atlantic than in 82, if, when, a change is noted in the threat then that can be addressed. So I’m not overly… Read more »
Hi Daniele-do you know if HMS Forth is back on station as the resident patrol ship? Also, if the type 83 only goes into service in 2038, I shall be 89 years old! 🙂 just saying
Morning geoff. I don’t know.
Age is but a number, and I’d expect a man of your quality to reach that landmark with years to spare!
I will second that👍
😉
😂
You’ll be checking her out in your canoe even then!
Nice one Daniele!
Yes. Forth has gone back, and forth. last November. Medway went to Gib for refit and Trent went to the Windies.
Withdrawing a ship and some air assets. No problem. I mean, nothing will come of the UK withdrawing military assets. Or so my friend Leopoldo Galtieri says?
The reason for all the shuffling was because the Falklands and West Indies guard ships were replaced during their absences rather than just withdrawn.
aaah, just like a fine well aged expensive South African red wine. I believe the terms are: “noble, well balanced, great body, and subtlety defined flavour’s, nurtured through well aged maturity. 👌
Many thanks Daniele.
As ever always seek you experts advice on this site. Feel reassured now, so not that bad really.
Cheers
George
Numbers are bad, George. But the threat is overstated, in my view.
For now.
Our escorts are needed elsewhere.
Agreed DM can’t see Arg having a proper offensive force again they seem to be concentrating on defence and with them appearing to want to move away from China as a trading partner, the current President being rather moderate on all fronts, whilst concentrating on financial stability, I personally can see negotiations between Arg and UK on joint use of EEZ and trade in general, In the late 2020s-early 2030s. The Argentinian constitution is a problem when it comes to the government having to claim sovereignty to Falklands.
I think the issue is when the Chinese ‘fishing fleet’ moves in protected by their very aggressive coast guards.
Could that be why NL ran a piece on The Cod Wars?
Just having a little play with the Concept picture, If you use the Merlin as a size guide and allowing for the Angle and perspective, You can get a rough length of 180 metres…… I stress that it’s a rough figure but interestingly this is the same length as the PLAN’s Type 55 and longer than any “Shed”.
And yes I know it’s just a concept/interpretation but I still thought it was interesting.
In addition, if you look at the Merlin and the superstructure in front, fitting in a hangar would be a very tight squeeze. In addition, there are boat bays on either side. I don’t know if it’s just the perspective of the image but we might finally be subscribing to the “specialist carrier escort so no organic heli” doctrine. Of course, you might instead be able to fit a Proteus drone or similar.
You might be right, although it might be perspective but using the merlin again I reckon the hangers probably 2merlins wide and 0.8 of a merlin long, so a merlin should fit in the angle. I just can’t see the RN going off integrated heli’s
Side note can we get Merlin’s added as an SI unit.
You could use the Merlin for a whole range of units. Distance (range and length, two different scales), mass, speed, acceleration, force (hovering).
I’m not sure the RN would want to put in diagonally. I thought that width (due to boat bays) and height were the issue. The length to the funnel seems more than enough. I don’t know why the concept has 6 boat bays, it might have a mission bay for independent ops.
Yeah Merlins for everything.
2boat bays, 2mission bays, 2 weapons bay????
Not sure why a man-role AAW vessel would need sideways-launched weapons. A mission bay would cross the whole deck, so my theory is:
Two boat bays for rescue boats forwards
A mission bay behind the VLS
A boat/mission area linking with the hangar for various unmanned vehicles
I’m thinking angled flank launchers akin to a USN CVA.
Or energy weapons as I can’t see prolonged exposure helping their reliability.
I doubt DEW would be set back into a covered bay. That would limit both reaction times and arcs of fire.
Similarly, there is little point installing missile launchers horizontally when it is more efficient to have them in the existing VLS.
I think it is either a placeholder design or they have some tricks up their sleeves with regards to mission bays.
And about 0.8 of a Merlin high…..I was a bit puzzled how they would do engine gearbox work with that.
Why worry? We will all be speaking Russian by then.
I can’t learn Russian. It would interfere with my Mandarin and Arabic lessons.
😅 I have a prayer mat as well, it could go either way.
😂😂🤣🤣🤣
im sorry a government in 2024 making any definitive statement about the withdrawal of a ship in 2038 is utterly useless and profoundly pointless…it’s like a 20 year old saying they will definitely retire at 55…they have both no idea and no control over what happens in that timeframe…it’s both a pointless question from the opposition and pointless answer from the government…. One should have not asked such a silly question and the other should have answered with the truth…we have not idea..it depends on the situation in the late 2030s….asking what the plan is for the new capability..when it… Read more »
I read this Political statement and just laughed. It’s a total nonsense and anyone who takes any part of it as Gospel is in need of a sit down in a dark room with some serious Meds. I have racked my brains and other than the Tides (slight delay due to COVID) I can’t think of one single In Service or Planned OOS date that has been met since pre WW2 (Maybe Polaris 🤔). And this one is based on fantasy land thinking, assumptions and ignores some unusual facts. The 6 T45 entered service between 2009 and 2013 (pretty damn… Read more »
The point of the question was to ascertain if the build of replacement ships will be done quickly enough to ensure continuity of operational capability.
It was two different questions a different times graham..one was sensible..asking about the progress of the T83..the other nonsense..asking about the an out of service date 14 years hence…( especially considering in all likelihood there will be a Labour government for the next decade at least)….I’m not keen on politicians of any type asking self licking lollipop type questions or crap pointless answers…..vision is lovely but all that truly matters is what you are doing about things now or in the immediate future.
Thanks. When I was serving it was totally common to set OSD dates many years ahead…to enable support planning and also the planning of a successor equipment. No-one thought it was odd or ‘nonsense’. Of course things can change – some equipments are taken out of service significantly before or after a previously stated OSD. The military is unpredictable – as are politicians – especially Cameron in 2010. But you have to have something to plan against. The question and its follow up was surely asked to confirm things are ahappening now with regard to timely equipment replacement. We don’t… Read more »
That is true..when it’s built a bit of kit should have a when it goes out of service date published..that’s a bit different from these very random parliamentary questions that should not need to be asked….basically knowing when your stuff will no longer be fit for purposes should not be a political question that needs to be asked and answered…asking how the plans are going to replace that equipment is a valid question….to my simple mind the T45 should have been build with a specific…”do not use after” date (because the keel fail or some such)…and the government should be… Read more »
Yep, good points. I had not heard that out of date PPE was relabelled. Chilling!
Back to military talk. Many examples of equipment going way beyond its OSD, as replacement is not ready – then dilemmas –
a. do you extend OSD and pour money into supporting an ageing capability or
b. take the old kit out of service and endure a capability gap, or
c. buy an interim (eg. Archer) until the main event is ready, but you might then have less money to spend on the main event kit. None of those options is good!
Indeed that is very true and I suppose when you are in the situations ( for whatever reason..either procurement fuck up or manufacturing issue) you need to get on and do a good risk assessment…and to gap or spend more money should be risk assessed against the geopolitical tensions and geostrategic realities of that time..and I sort of would divide our modern post Cold War age into five distinct timeframes in regards to risk: 1) 1992-1999 post Cold War draw down..creating the peace divided and end of history.. 2) 1999-2008…well we now have the peace divided let’s spend it on… Read more »
All good points. Totally staggering that in Spring last year, we have IR Refresh 23 and associated DCP solely to learn lessons from the Ukraine war, fearing that IR21 is now well out of date – and then decide to spend not a penny more on Defence. Gen Sanders, CGS, warns constantly of a hollowed out force and is slapped down by MoD. A US General and an Admiral say we are not Tier 1 any longer – then the US Sec of the Navy says the same thing but in a politer way. Then a week or so back,… Read more »
Yes it’s bonkers…I cannot truly understand how we have the defence secretary telling the country to effectively prepare for war and yet they are still only at around 2.2% gdp spend on defence….they should be topping that announcement off with a plan to 5% and a crash rearmament and remanning of the armed forces….it’s beyond bonkers really.
We can’t retire T45s until we have T83s ready to replace them 1 for 1. Maybe e should donate walking sticks & frames to keep them going when we delay the builds?
Well we can retire them before the T83 is ready, by choice or simply because they are finished and rotted out…most people forget how destructive the sea is and in the end ships simply fall apart, also the bits are no longer made…once the hull plating has rotted away and the keel becomes compromised to much…essentially the work to rectify that is to much…sort of like the what is happening with the T23s now…it’s not just about rectifying warn out propulsion and equipment, the ship just rots to death.
This government is spent, what it says or promises is utterly irrelevant, it has months left to run….
I would say your right, I hope the next government reads the runes on where the world is going and the likelihood of war…trouble is all modern politicians have been breed on the “end of history and the last man” as well as the peace dividend and simply cannot comprehend defence spending of 5%+ which is what is actually needed if we are to stave off and deter what now seems likely.
You’re right there Jonathan. 3% GDP on defence should have been enacted 2 years ago along with an emergency SDSR. They didn’t, unfortunately Jonathan, Labour don’t appear to have any plans either. 3% GDP would mean finding approximately 12 billion more a year, I am quite sure that could be trimmed from the enormous and ballooning Social security bill that’s hundreds of billions and efficiency savings within government. 5% might well prove necessary, but 3% would fix many of the immediate issues. One billion should go on wages and incentive / bonus schemes to stop the hemorrhage of people leaving… Read more »
Hello John, whilst I thoroughly agree with you, I just don’t see any appetite for this or any sense of urgency. Conservative or Labour, a sad state of affairs.
Morning mate, I think they might well have their hand forced, but they have sold off so much infrastructure.
Building back even modest levels of force structure will be difficult and will mean a good deal of building, extending and refurbishment across all three services.
A happy time for construction companies!
The MOD originally said that the design life of the T23s was 18 years. And that’s been extended by, er, quite a bit. So perhaps the OOS date of 2038 shouldn’t be taken too seriously.
To be honest..I’m a bit more interested in: how can the RN in the present: 1)speed up getting an ABM defence capability 2)speed up getting the first T31 and T26 in the water 3) keep the present t23s going as reducing escort numbers when all indications are we are heading for a major war or three is profundity stupid. 4) speed up the upgrade of the T45 5) ensure we have adequate mine warfare capabilities..( since they accidentally broke some). 6) ensure the amphibious capability is available ( since it’s not at present) 7) ensure it can crew the ships… Read more »
Absolutely this all needs to be done like yesterday really .HMG need to fix all this before thinking about T83 ,sort this mess out first and put the right people and policies in place.Hopefully if T83 comes along they will be fine vessels to fight above and below plus give them land Attack capability .Don’t uncut them like we did with the T45s although there do seem to be coming into there own of late with sharper teeth ,something the government have worke up to .Will be interesting to see what Displacement these ships will be .Could we call them… Read more »
To be honest, the type 26 and 31 are both cruisers…I don’t think the western navies will be calling ships cruisers again for political reasons…it’s all a bit vague anyway..look at the U.S. Leahy class cruiser..it was originally to be designated as a frigate..destroyer and was then designated as a cruiser ( 7,500 tons multi Role warship)..the tico class cruiser and Spruance class destroyers were based on exactly the same hulls. Just had a different weapons fit….the RN does not have cruisers because HMG would never fund a cruiser programme…it’s just building a 7500 ton multi role “global combat ship”……
👍
In RN terms a Cruiser isn’t determined by size nor combat function. A cruiser is a vessel that can Cruise the Worlds Oceans on long term deployment and has an element of being self sufficient regarding refit / maintenance.
In other words it had workshops and engineering stores, plus the ability to manufacture / repair equipment.
Or well wishful thinking 🍺
Righto Jonathan, my pencil is at the ready, just need your name on the ballot and I vote for you, you appear to be a man with a plan I totally agree with.
Great. So no new destroyers for fifteen years and then when tha T45’s are clapped out. How is it that Japan can bring a powerful destroyer class into service in five years and it takes us fifteen?
Less corruption in Japan?
I would like to think incomptence but…..?
Japan doesn’t have nuclear weapons, nuclear submarines and all the infrastructure that’s required to run it. That’s a huge chunk of the budget gone. Also longer term investments in programs.
Just like why HS2 is so expensive. No skills and experience. Spend a fortune building the skills etc then end the program and lose all the investment.
I don’t actually see what the point is here. If they can build a destroyer in five years so should we be able to or are you suggesting we are going to wait ten years for the money to turn up. If so what is the point of even mentioning T 83 now.
Japan is a major shipbuilding nation. Comparing the third largest shipbuilding nation to a country that makes yachts and a few fishing trawlers doesn’t make sense.
The US has a much larger shipbuilding sector, and they have still wasted tens of billions of dollars on trying to replace the Burkes, and they have failed so are still building Burkes and even after 40 years they still cost $2.2b each.
Ever since BAE merged with VT there has been no competition. Babcock is changing that, not in time for T83.
You cannot lead in every sector. Britain is leading GCAP.
When it comes to shipbuilding, Japan is up there with China and South Korea.Their method has been constant funding, incremental updates and distributed manufacturing at local shipyards. It has currently consolidated into a duopoly, but still better than having only a single source.
When it comes to the UK, I think it’s better to mimic the South Koreans than the Japanese. Better alignment in naval and shipbuilding strategy.
So the UK will either have a period with no air defence coverage for the navy, or they are lying?
Only talking about decommissioning , nothing about more tanks, fighters or ships , leaving Britain unarmed , thanks to the traitors.
OSD are generally meaningless, I’d bet 2038 has been the date since the type 45 project started and doesn’t take into account the significant project slippage, rather like Typhoons OSD being 2030 until it was extended to 2040 in 2019 (just about when the last UK T3 came off the production line) and we all know Typhoon will be around longer than 2040.
Oh dear. I can see all the type 45s having a LIFEX and being held onto well into the 2040s.
This far they haven’t had very taxing careers or got many sea miles under their belts.
I think it’s likely we will not learn the mistakes from the past and build adequate hull numbers of the type 83s. The RN needs at least 10. Especially if the class is to have a BMD role for the UK homeland.
Be happy if they build at least 6.
I would argue for a minimum of 9, to ensure 5 are available for tasking 24/7.
That’s 2 for a carrier group and three to ride shotgun on other operations.
9 would be ideal, if the rule of 3 applies I think just one extra Type 26 wouldn’t be a bad idea either 👍.
The snag is, the rule of 3 ignores longer term refits for older vessels. Which puts them out of use for months or years.
RoT applies mainly to newer vessels, of short maintenance periods only. It more like the rule of 4 applies to the present Sub fleet! So maybe the ‘Rule of 3.5’ as a compose!
When they enter service the Type 26 and Type 83 will in effect be ‘new’.
The “take it out of service” bug has started to get out of hand in the MOD.
Was 2038 the original date, or have they taken the years out of service when the wheels were broken?
I know they have a habit of shrinking each batch, but “ The Type 83 warship” is now singular rather than plural!
(Of course, I jest in the observation, but don’t bet on it)
2038 is probably 25 + the date of the last ship commissioning. Given all the refits they are having they will be in fairly good shape by then.
Looking at the smoke stack arrangement in the Type 83 image, is it safe to assume that the engine layout is closer to the Type 31 than the Type 26?
If it has the same/similar arrangement as the QE, that’s a lot of power.
There is no definitive information regarding the Type 83 yet so any specifics regarding Propulsion etc cannot be deduced, at the moment the images released are likely just for PR. But going forward with the introduction of DEW Weapons power generation will be very important, the likely arrangement will be closer to the QE’s and Type 45’s rather than the Type 31 which is Diesel only.
Everyone knows Type 45’s will be LIFE Ex’d well into the 2030s. I’m going for 2037 for the first one to leave service. That’ll be 30 years since Daring’s launch. It has a 3 in it, so will be deemed acceptable
I don’t think it was a silly question from Kevin Jones. Its aim I think was to ascertain the big unknown – the planned construction schedule for the five Batch 2 T26s. Until.these are built and enter service, there will be no budget for the T83, no space in the Govan yard and no spare workforce to construct them. We know that the three Batch 1 T26s are planned to be in service by 2029 or 30. That leaves the 5 batch 2 ships to be built at one a year or maybe, given the high price tag, one per… Read more »
Keep them all, we need to expand the navy, it’s pretty obvious by now to everyone. If we don’t have the crews then look at why and fix it. For the last 50 years every single year, sometimes twice a year, our forces have been hacked back, why would you join when you are facing the axe withing 2 years? Then if you dare fire back when the enemy is shooting at you, bombing and mortaring you and trying to kill you then you will end up in court, left to dry by the politicians who put you in harms… Read more »
Interesting, but would still like to know more about it. Loved the article!:-)https://www.google.com
Well how long until their replacement is built, tested, broken, fixed, and how many i bet not 6. 10 years plus at least before they even build a type 85, what a joke the navy has become.