New British Type 83 Destroyer to enter concept phase next year

and a working laser system?

or effing great laser. FFBNW sharks 😀

If Mk41 for strike, the i would like to se at least 64 Cells for long range AAW, plus 24-32 for CAMM (perfect would be 24 std Mk41 quad packed 🙂
48 strike
64 SM-6 / SM-3
24 (96) CAMM
these are supposed to protect whole fleet no point only having enough weapons for 1 big attack an then have to return to port to re-load?
Add the t-26 CAMM and you have lots of short-medium Anti missile missiles, face it all these long range AShM are going to be launched well outside even SM-6 range but at least you can start hitting them at 100 miles and ramp up the fire rates as threats gets nearer.
Min 10 ships, 2 per CSG, 1 per LRG, 4 in refit/avail for other tasking (NATO/ US exchange etc)

That will all be old long in the tooth stuff by the time steel will be cut for these ships.

I was going to be a little bit greedy and ask for 8 and a double hangar each!

Are you saying Adm Radakin speaks out of both sides of his mouth? Shame on you 😀

I spoke about this in the type 32 thread I don’t think a big empty hull is the prime result of this phase it would be a pointless exercise I think though yes size will be a factor whatever the conclusions. It will presume the likelihood of any given weapon, sensor systems and various combinations and likely timelines and build representative CAD models for the various solutions, adapt, modify and change them as new information becomes available. Thus a number of internal infrastructures will be devised which will dictate that external hull structure. With all that information held digitally it is then a matter of when concrete decisions on those weapons and sensors will be (initially at least) made and a final compromise digital model created retaining as much flexibility as possible no doubt to make further changes as and when necessary as the digital model is turned into final precise engineering models that will be used to produce the ships. At that point one presumes that inbuilt flexibility can accommodate whatever in-build phase changes might come about as those weapons/sensors come to fruition.

All starts to become as much like alchemy as a strict design and production process I suspect, certainly requires a surfeit of lateral thinking along the way no doubt. This concept stage is far from being linear no doubt and tends to be like starting in the middle and trying to tie down how far you move outwards from there and in what directions and as you progress you start to firm up and create the overall boundary but as you thereafter push it in one direction to incorporate something it inevitably pulls the opposing boundary back inwards and enforces the inevitable compromises. I think an example of this (and yes I know there were other factors and cost considerations but it shows the problem) can be seen in that the QE could have had cats and traps (it has the under deck space designed in after all) many wanted it too and a study to change to it happened, but the timeline wouldn’t allow electro magnetic versions to be ready so the present technological compromise inevitably came about.

I have said it before, but if this going to be a replacement for the T45’s, have a credible ASW capability AND room for growth/upgrades, it’s going to need to have a displacement in the region of 12k tonnes – or be about the size of HMS Belfast, for contextual comparison.

A light cruiser in all but name.

Bae would very much like to design a new T83. Keeps their precious design capability in work.

Sweeney is an ex-MP for a good reason.

The multi mission bay on T26 could hold 48 or more mk41 vls. The main problem would be fitting a long range radar unless we put everything onto a single mast which appears to be what the French and Italians are doing.

The European model though is a strange one, design and build warships with cutting edge sensors but the bare minimum or offensive weaponry. UK, Germany, Italy and France are all guilt of it.

Yes I think the one predictable aspect will be about size too many unpredictable aspects to incorporate try to compromise that.

I totally agree!

To deal with sea skimmers, which I suggest are still the ship’s primary threat, you need to place the radar as high as possible, so you can extend the radar horizon. This is what the T45 has done with it Sampson radar. By placing it some 40m above sea level (ASL), the ship’s radar horizon is significantly further than say an Arliegh Burkes with its fixed four panel SPY radar. Therefore it can detect sea skimming threats earlier, enabling it to respond earlier.

If we look at the T45 as the foundation for the T83 and look at just their radar, we can immediately see a number of ways to improve the ship’s situational awareness. Until the SPY-6 dual frequency radar comes into service, the Sampson is still king of the hill in regards to target acquisition and tracking. Having two active electronic scanned array (ASEA) placed back to back that mechanically rotate at 30rpm, means that the ship can near enough see 240 degrees of the horizon at any one time. However, it also means that there are two 60 degree blind spots also constantly rotating, which then require predictive tracking software when the threat is in the blind spot. To eliminate the blind spot you really need a third or even better a fourth array. This is because when the beam is at the maximum left or right of the field of view, the effective radiated power is less due to the way electronic beamforming works. Some weight saving would be found by removing the mechanical rotation mechanism countered by having the third array. To fill in the blind spot above the ship, BAe proposed to have an array lying flat facing upwards on top of the angled arrays, this was dropped as a cost saving measure. However, there is perhaps another way to fill in the dead zone above the ship. This would be to use a mechanical tilting mechanism, to oscillate the arrays up and down. Electronically scanned arrays generally have a field of view in elevation of +/- 45 degrees. The Sampson’s array is tilted back by about 20 to 30 degrees, giving a max elevation view of about 65 to 75 degrees. Leaving a dead zone cone above the ship of between 50 or 30 degrees. By using the tilting mechanism the arrays could be tilted further back to fill in the dead zone. The question would be could the mast cope with the additional weight and can the additional top weight be mitigated to maintain the ship’s balance.

Sampson has not had a front end upgrade since it came into service. The backend has been updated and the software is constantly upgraded. This means it still uses the older generation TRMs that use Gallium-Arsenide (GaAs) components. These can be replaced with the newer components based on Gallium-Nitride (GaN). A GaN component can generate a lot more power and handle the heat better. But more importantly they generate significantly less internal noise. Therefore the receiver can be made a lot more sensitive which alone will extend the detection range. If the transmitter side of the TRM also uses GaN, then the effective radiated power will also significantly increase further extending the possible detection range.

The second primary radar is the BAe/Thales S1850M which is a development of the Thales SMART-L radar. Thales have improved this radar based on the findings of the S1850M, first was the extended long range mode, then the improved ballistic missile tracking. Thales have now developed it from a passive electronically scanned array (PESA) to a AESA radar, the SMART-L EWC (which is now called SMART-L MM/N BMD). This offers a number of significant advantages in not only multibeam transmitting and electronic counter-countermeasures, but also much faster beam scanning. With a published range of 480km for air defence and 2000km for ballistic missile tracking. This would seem like an obvious candidate for an upgrade. However, I would propose that the T83 gets four of these radars and fixes them to the ship’s structure as per SPY. This would mean that the ship can constantly and simultaneously scan the sky, leaving only directly above the ship as a dead zone, which would be covered by the enhanced Sampson. By having the SMART_L EWC radar, a T83 will be much better at handling exoatmospheric and ballistic targets, especially when backed up with the improved Sampson.

For an air defence ship it is crucial that it has two primary radars. This is because it will have battle damage redundancy if one radar is lost. But also for countering electronic countermeasures, as your opponent will need to use two very high power jammers operating on two widely separate radar bands to be effective. But it also makes it harder for a stealthy threat with a low radar cross section (RCS) to evade detection, as it also has to counter two widely separated radar frequencies.

However, the above only improves on the T45s current capabilities, it does not take it to the next level, which would set the T83 apart. Yes the combination of the Improved Sampson and SMART-L MM/N BMD radar will give the ship unparalleled ballistic missile and hypersonic glide vehicle detection and tracking. But to take it to the next level, the ship needs its own organic airborne early warning (AEW). A manned VTOL aircraft although desirable is not really required, as an unmanned radar equipped UAV could do the job for longer and have all the signal processing done remotely on the ship. It would need a very high bandwidth data-link, something even a quad stacked Link-16 wouldn’t be able to cope with. The benefits that an organic UAV could provide a destroyer cannot be undervalued. For starters it will significantly extend the ship’s radar horizon. Which means for air defence specifically, it could engage threats significantly further from the ship. Both supersonic sea skimmers and hypersonic cruise missiles will be detected significantly earlier, thus allowing the ship more time to respond. It will also allow a much greater chance for detecting stealthy anti-ship missiles. If the UAV’s radar is a high frequency X-band, it can also be used for detecting a sub’s periscope/snorkel. It also means the ship can operate without the need for the carrier based AEW. But when in consort with the carrier, the ship’s organic AEW will provide an additional layer of coverage.

Unfortunately the best candidate has been shelved, which would have been the Bell V-247 Vigilant tilt-rotor UAV designed for the now cancelled USMC MUX program, as it was supposed to have had a time on station of 11 to 15 hours and be capable of cruising at 25,000ft whilst carrying a 600lbs payload. What was more attractive is that the aircraft being a much like the Osprey could fold up and take up the same space as a Wildcat. This UAV could make it feasible for a ship carrying two, to have 24 hour coverage. If the ship is carrying two such aircraft, it will still need space for a manned helicopter. Thus, the ship would require a bloody large hangar/mission bay to house them all. But compared to a helicopter based UAV. The Vigilant would provide a significant step change in capability. Not only does it have better endurance and cruise height, but also can carry a decent payload. Therefore, it could be fitted with a decent radar or a number of radars if we considered Leonardo’s Osprey AESA radar.

A helicopter based UAV is better then nothing! But it will never have the range, endurance or service ceiling a tilt-rotor would provide. Depending on the size of the UAV and its powerplant will decide the type and power of radar it can carry.

The above proposals of a the Improved Sampson and four panel SMART-L radar will mean the ship needs to generate a lot of power. So could we be looking at two MT30s along with four diesel gensets? But also if we consider the space required to house two large VTOL UAVs plus at least one manned helicopter. The hangar requirements are also going to be large, perhaps on par with the T26s hangar and mission bay combined? Therefore the ship is going to have to be much larger than the current T45 if it going to take advantages of the above proposals.

The weapon fit is whole other discussion!

The only thing that needs to be certain is that should have a huge amounts of power to supply whatever containers will have deployed in it.

Someone’s been paying attention!!

Now there is a revolutionary idea……there’s a good few few going cheap in India……

Maybe we can buy a dozen container ships and use them as picket ships to absorb incoming missiles. Just surround our carriers with six of them and job done!

Entropy has been increasing in West. We are now worse than the Soviets in many domains.

It doesn’t but before you can start to design the ship you need to fully define the mission you want it to do. Then define how it will do it, what missile or other systems will be needed. Will these be existing ones, modifications of existing ones or will new systems need to be developed. Once all this is sorted out then you can start to design the package to put it all in.

Because $$$$$$$$
That’s all.

It doesn’t always.

It takes a year or so to get a concept, 4 or 5 years to sign a contract, a couple more years messing about changing our minds about the design, ramping up the costs (I hope the days of doing this are numbered), 2 or 3 years between steel cut and first ship launched/floated out, 2 more years fitting out and sea trials to handover. Maybe eighteen months to two years working up and naval trials before Initial Operational Capability.

So maybe 15 or 16 years for the first complex warship of a class. Most of that is not the build.

Further procurement/design delays will come about if we decide to go with NATO or a European partner and then one or another party bails out. Or if we deliberately delay the build to suit annual budgets. (The faster you build, the cheaper they are in total, but the slower you build, the cheaper they are per annum.)

The Type 45s were first hoped to be a common NATO frigate, then a partnership with France/Italy (Horizon project, 1992/93). HMS Daring hit a rushed IOC end of July 2010, so not quite 18 years. From steel cut to handover was a little over five and a half years of that. HMS Norfolk (first type 23) took 4 years between keel laid and handover.

Further ships can come pretty frequently after if the budget is there. The Darings were built at a rate of more than one a year, as were the Type 23. The speed of delivery of the Type 31s is normal and only appears fast compared to the glacial Type 26.

If the money for a speedy second batch of the Type 26 is found and the concept work for Type 83 not delayed too much, we might actually hit IOC for the first type 83 in 2035, the out of service date for HMS Daring.

In this case simply because they are Conceptualising further ahead which seems eminently sensible to me if you want any chance of getting it right. Of course you could concept, design and build a ship in 5 years if you like but it will be expensive and rubbish 95% of the time and nothing to boast about. With the ever changing goal posts in weaponry happening presently the more study and planning you put into it the better, haven’t we always criticised short term investment over a good long term evolving plan. More of it and I rather think most of British Industry wouldn’t have gone down the pan as we painfully watched.

Hopefully it goes better than the Type 82 project did. I’m not keen on the 1:1 replacement of the Darings, ideally it’d be 9-12 ships on par with the Burkes VLS magazine, so 96 and maybe space for a couple dozen more in future refits. Not much point building a tiny handful of 12-15k ton monsters with 128+ cells.

Just read about China building replica US ships in desert test range. They’ve even put one on rails to test AShBMs on moving targets. We’re going to need to up our game and quickly.

Absolutely spot on! As you well know, the cva001 etc intended for the type82s to act as escorts and as independent cruisers. It’s really a matter of going back to the future. I imagine when QE or POW is deployed, and in fact as Radakin has stated, he wants both carriers to have air wings, Canada and Australia will take up the slack of type26s, while we seek to deploy in Europe and the North Atlantic. I foresee a great deal more integration between these three countries. I imagine we will see a British carrier in the Far East and North Atlantic with CANZUK escorts. Add AUKUS and Japan/SK into the mix and we have a very potent fleet.

What is it with this constant call for “ground attack” I wish people would engage their brains before posting. Aircraft do ground attack, drones do ground attack, submarines do ground attack, what is it with this Second World War notion that ships should still be doing ground attack.

now that would be a weapon system for the 21c. Black hole generator, instant mutual assured destruction, the definition of mad.

I agree. However, If ship launched AShM are off agenda why doesn’t the RN look at the MARTE ER / Merlin or (RAF) Eurofighter combination. 100km+ range of the missile plus the legs of the Merlin provide a reasonable reach for both AShM and Land attack capability while RN awaits its future star wars solution. Missile already integrated into naval helicopters and Italian Eurofighters and if integrated into RAF would provide capability over North Sea / North East Atlantic etc

Including extra defensive armament on both carriers with Dragonfire, 40mm and or CAMM.

I would scrap the idea for the Type 31 and just build Type 32s. The Type 31s would be useful for escorting SSBNs out to sea, or sanitizing local waters, but it is lightly armed.

I hope the UK builds can have some room for increase too and benefiting from shared knowledge with the RCN and RAN T26s. Is the T32 necessary, would some extra 2-3 T26s do the trick or is that too expensive an option?

standard MOD approach -do more with less!

If only one breaks down somewhere three is just not enough. I like to see even two more T26s so the RN remains very strong in ASW, ASuW and LA.

Only just been decommissioned hasn’t it from a training hulk. So could have checked it out before cutting it up… or while do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system_of_the_Royal_Navy

I don’t disagree that maybe using extra type 26 hulls focused on AAW with a low number of a dedicated type 83 focused just on escorting either carrier or amphibious groups.

we do need more AAW hulls so as you say 3-4 high ended with ABM capability. I’m not sure about the land attack on the high end AAWs as they will be shackled to what the are protecting. Then add In the 4-6 AAW batch Type 26.

What I suspect will happen is that optimistically they go for an all Type 26 AAW version and use savings to increase numbers to say hulls the pragmatist in me thinks we will end up with 6 AAW versions of the T26 hull.

I wonder if the land attack and AsuW will be focused on the T31 ( it would make sense ) as these ships will be doing a lot of single deployment.

I can see the Type 32 becoming a very focused sensor platform, mother ship with ASW assets as well as maritime patrol assets.

In other words, a faster horse

Hi Ron, I agree on the size, but would contend that the ship would need at least one but probably two boat bays, plus a very large hangar. The reason for this is that she will not always be escorting a carrier. It could be an small amphib group, a supply ship convoy or be tasked with patrolling the Gulf. Unfortunately the RN will not have the funding to have a two pairs of T83 dedicated to just guarding the carriers. They will have to be used for other tasking.

As I replied to CR above. I think it is vitally important that the next air defence destroyer/cruiser gets its own organic airborne early warning (AEW). Yes we can improve on S1850M and Sampson. But these are expanding on the existing T45’s capabilities and not introducing a step change that takes it to a new level. As neither are effective at extending the ship’s radar horizon. In the future, time will be the crucial factor in deciding an anti-ship engagement, especially when dealing with a swarm of missiles, with the greatest threat still being sea skimmers. If the ship has its own organic AEW, then it gives the ship more time to respond to the threat, especially as will be able to engage these threats from beyond the horizon.

There are a number of ways to have organic AEW, manned VTOL, unmanned VTOL and aerostat. Using an aerostat will preclude the ship from having a manned VTOL, as the cable will be nearly invisible to a pilot. A tethered quadcopter is a non-starter, unless you make it the size of a manned helicopter. As it needs large diameter props just to lift the tether let alone the payload. It also means that you can pretty much guarantee pinpointing the ship’s location. Today, we can get away with not using a manned aircraft for AEW, as the majority of signal processing can be done remotely, so long as you use a very high bandwidth datalink much like the F35’s MADL. However, helicopters are inefficient as they try to beat the air to death staying aloft, so have a smaller payload, shorter endurance and a low operating ceiling. The best compromise is a unmanned tilt-rotor. These by having a fixed wing are more fuel efficient and can fly much higher for further. Height brings several advantages, it allows the radar to see further, but also allows the aircraft to fly further/longer as its generating less drag, due to the thinner air. By flying away from the ship its also not pin pointing it position. I would also go so far as to say that the ship needs at least two AEW UAVs to give it a possible 24/7 coverage. But the ship still needs a manned helicopter for anti-piracy, anti-ship, anti-sub, land attack, SAR, medivac, pick ups and drop offs etc.

When operating with a carrier, the ship’s organic AEW would be added to the carrier’s radar umbrella, thus extending the coverage further.

I sort of agree with the gun disposition, but would enhance it further by having a foreword and aft 57mm weapon system. This would then give the ship a 360 degree coverage by a weapon with twice the effective range of the 40s, plus they would also be using the guided ORKA (One Round Kills All) round. With the 57’s ORKA round you won’t need something like a ship based Trophy APS.

With regards to air defence missiles. Hopefully by 2030, the Twister program would have come into service. This a endo-atmospheric multi-use missile that is being designed to counter ballistic missile, re-entry vehicles, hypersonic glide vehicles, hypersonic cruise missile and pretty much anything else that flies. What it does not counter though is exoatmospheric threats. There has been very little released lately on the development of the Aster 30 Block 2 BMD, which was going to be similar in capability as the SM3. Now, if MBDA could design a vertical launch version of Meteor as a replacement for Aster, we could push out the engagement range to something close to the effective detection range of the ship’s AEW platform.

I think Gunbuster is probably best placed to answer this. But I do know that the ships suffered a lot of fatigue cracks, so spent a lot of time being repaired, so must have also cost a bit to maintain.

The Falklands War brought up many issues regarding Warship Construction,be it Aluminium Superstructures,Wiring materials and Water/Fire Mains routing,these have since been rectified.

No! A semi-submersible is Not for your main AAW escort for carriers. Your AAW needs radar mounted high.
SS is ok for a arsenal vessel setup for land attack incl HSM’s, and ASM’s for ASuW.

t26 varient. sizewise the t26 could esily pass as a modern destroyer