The Type 83 Destroyer project, the replacement for the Type 45, will enter concept phase next year.

Kevin Jones, MP for North Durham, asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the concept and assessment phase for the Type 83 destroyer will formally begin.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement”, responded:

“On current plans, Navy Command intends to formally commence the concept phase for Type 83 in early 2022 with the assessment phase to follow in due course.”

The Royal Navy are now looking at concept designs for the upcoming Type 83 Destroyer.

More information on the Type 83 came to light at a formal meeting of the Defence Committee with the topic of ‘The Navy: purpose and procurement’.

Glynn Phillips, Group Managing Director Maritime and Land UK at BAE Systems, said at the meeting:

“In terms of starting conceptual options early, we are, along with Navy and Defence, already looking at concept designs for the replacement of the Astute programme. The Navy are going through the concept designs for the Type 83, which will ultimately replace the Type 45.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded to a written Parliamentary question recently and said:

“The Type 83 will replace our Type 45 destroyers when they go out of service in the late 2030s. We anticipate the concept phase for Type 83 to begin in the next few years with the assessment phase following.”

Also, there are no concept images of Type 83 so our terrible mockup above will have to do for now.

Surprise announcement

The Defence Command Paper, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, surprised many by stating that the UK will develop a new destroyer type, the Type 83.

The white paper states:

“The concept and assessment phase for our new Type 83 destroyer which will begin to replace our Type 45 destroyers in the late 2030s.”

What might the Type 83 Destroyer look like?

The Type 45 Destroyer replacement is just an early concept at this stage but a variant of the Type 26 Frigate has been officially being considered for the job.

Last year the UK Defence Journal spoke to Paul Sweeney, former MP for Glasgow North East and former shipbuilder and we were told that consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26, a variant that could function as a future replacement for the Type 45 Destroyer fleet – the programme now referred to as Type 83.

HMS Daring, the first Type 45 Destroyer, was launched in 2006.

For a little bit of context, Paul Sweeney is a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Glasgow region. More importantly for the purposes of a discussion on shipbuilding, he was formerly employed by BAE in Glasgow. Paul has worked with the APPG for Shipbuilding which published the results of inquiry into the Government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy, taking evidence from a range of maritime security stakeholders and industry.

It is understood that the Ministry of Defence have an aspiration is to achieve continuous shipbuilding with the Type 26 programme in Glasgow beyond the current planned number of eight vessels.

Sweeney told me after attending the steel cutting ceremony for the future HMS Cardiff:

“It is clear that we now have a unique opportunity to create a truly international naval shipbuilding alliance with Canada and Australia with Type 26 (both countries have purchased the design) – and consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26 as an eventual replacement for Type 45 – known currently as T4X. The aspiration is to achieve continuous shipbuilding with the Type 26 programme in Glasgow beyond the current planned number of eight vessels.”

We’ll publish more about the Type 83 as it becomes available.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
139 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
eclipse
eclipse
18 days ago

32-48Mk.41, 48 Aster, 24 CAMM 👍

andy reeves
andy reeves
21 hours ago
Reply to  eclipse

and a working laser system?

eclipse
eclipse
18 days ago

32-48 Mk.41, 48 Aster 30, 24+ CAMM 👍

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

or effing great laser. FFBNW sharks 😀

Steve M
Steve M
17 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

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… Read more »

Last edited 17 days ago by Steve M
Geoffi
Geoffi
17 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

Anything else ?

Some furry dice for the bridge, perhaps ?

Steve M
Steve M
17 days ago
Reply to  Geoffi

Good idea maybe pine scent tree in Flyco

andy reeves
andy reeves
21 hours ago
Reply to  Geoffi

one of those smelly tree things you put on the rear view mirror

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
17 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

Cost estimate? 😆

Steve M
Steve M
17 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

depends what value you put on the lives of all the 2000+ sailors in the CSG or the 4-5000 sailors and Commando’s in LRG and National prestige?

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
17 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

But we have to be realistic about available budgets. We can all do fantasy fleets, but Sombody had to pay for it all.

andy reeves
andy reeves
21 hours ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

always have,always will.

andy reeves
andy reeves
21 hours ago
Reply to  Steve M

researching my family tree i’ve found a third great grandfatherthomas allen a (leading stoker) who died on the queen mary at jutland his widow recieved£2/2 shillings/0dand a thankyou letter! i’d hope our sailors are worth more nowadays.

Deep32
Deep32
17 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Evening Robert, totally left field, any idea about hourly operating costs of Typhoon, or indeed where to find them? Been looking around, not a lot of joy!!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
16 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

Hi mate. My honest answer is, I don’t know!. Those figures are hard to come by. My educated guess would be it’s at the top end of the cost range 30-40K. Would be interesting to see the figures. I have seen F22 is around 68K. But not sure how accurate that figure is. But most Internet sources put at that kind of cost range.

Deep32
Deep32
16 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Cheers mate, agree they are difficult to come by. Saw a FOI to that effect, with the RAF sidestepping the issue by saying they didn’t use those parameters to measure costs!!!!!
I have read recently that Typhoon operating costs are now on a par with late modal F16’s, but no figures are mentioned, and keeping the jury out on that comment.
Agree with you, believe it’s at the higher end of any scale.

Paul T
Paul T
16 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Not Typhoon costs admittedly but gives a comparison.

Deep32
Deep32
16 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Cheers. Good read, not sure if Typhoon matches the figures of the F16, we seem a tad shy in the realise of figures dept!

Meirion x
Meirion x
11 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

You cannot quad pack CAMM! It has Not been done.

Jonathan
Jonathan
17 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

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

Steve M
Steve M
17 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Probaly so we better makesure huge power surplus for the phaser banks and numersous photon torpedo launchers 🤣🤣

Jonathan
Jonathan
17 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

ummmm yes….but … I was thinking newer missiles, we do sort of get news ones every couple of decades…..although directed energy weapons of all types are the near future so it’s not as funny as all that, all thought we are a long way from any particle beam weapons like phasers even if the theory is there already there, remember we have particle accelerators they are just not at a point of being weaponised as yet ( in the same way lasers were not 20 years ago). But a weaponised accelerator is the present holly grail, with Giga joules energy… Read more »

Steve M
Steve M
17 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Oh I agree, that those types of weapons will be the future, but for ships i think only in defensive capability within LoS, not sure unless we put Nuclear power onboard will the ship be able to generate enough electrical power to run everything and fire repeat/rapid shots when sea skimmers will only be engaeable in the last 10-15miles max which won’t give you much time to react against potentially numerous hypersonic missiles. The capability to start reducing the incoming volume at 10x the distance has got to be part of layered defence. I don’t see them being useful (unless… Read more »

Last edited 17 days ago by Steve M
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
17 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I hope we will have the capability to reverse polarity it always seems to work when there’s a problem in science fiction movies and saved Captain Kirks life a fair few times.

Jonathan
Jonathan
17 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

But to reverse your polarity you need shields and the type 32 will only be FFBNW shields.

Gareth
Gareth
18 days ago

Can we have more than 6 of them please, and fully fitted out. No more “for but not with” BS…one can dream….

Last edited 18 days ago by Gareth
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  Gareth

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

John Clark
John Clark
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I would think 9 should be the number Quentin, to allow an active fleet of 5 operational at all times and 6 on occasion.

The current fleet of 6 T45’s (design issues aside) allow for 3 to be active and that’s clearly not sufficient.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
17 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Or sadly only one for much of the time the Carrier Group was active in recent months

RobW
RobW
18 days ago

They are saying late 30s for this to become operational. Given Radakin’s comments about the Type 32 and flexible designs, I’d assume the concept phase is just going to be a big empty hull or technology will have moved on somewhat by the time it is built/in service. It just seems like an extraordinary long lead time, especially after his comparison between the T26 and T31.

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  RobW

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

Paul42
Paul42
17 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

What makes you think he’s talking out of his mouth?

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  Paul42

😀😀😀

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
17 days ago
Reply to  RobW

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… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
18 days ago

All I can say is that I hope Paul Sweeney is wrong about T83 being a variant of the T26. From BAES prespective it would obviously be a good option, so no surprise they are talking it up. However, the T45 is bigger than the T26 for a good reaon. Long range SAM’s are big and you need quite a few of them to defend against mass attacks that a peer enemy might mount against you. Also, as demonstrated by the recent annoucement that the T45 will get CAMM integrated over the next few years, you need short range weapons… Read more »

SwindonSteve
SwindonSteve
17 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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.

Last edited 17 days ago by SwindonSteve
Dan
Dan
17 days ago
Reply to  SwindonSteve

I believe the US Navy is aiming at something about that size for its large surface combatant that is expected to replace the Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas.

Paul
Paul
17 days ago
Reply to  Dan

Preliminary design for the DDG(X) starts next year as well. It will be interesting to follow both programs over the coming years.

Moonstone
Moonstone
17 days ago
Reply to  SwindonSteve

Sorry but this is nonsense.The Australian ‘Hunter’ class variant of the T26 is I understand rated in Australian as a warship that almost matches the RAN’s specialist ‘Hobart’ class destroyers in its AAW capability while also being a first class ASW frigate.

If you really envision the RN one day fielding a AAW destroyer of 15,000t then I surgest you consider the expensive failure of the (15,000t) USN ‘Zumwalt’ destroyer program to see where such an ambition is likely to end up – if the US can’t afford such a grandiose ship then I quite sure we can’t either.

Paul T
Paul T
17 days ago
Reply to  Moonstone

Yet the Marina Militare can ( DDX ).

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Yes, I wonder it the Type 83 deign group will look at the Italian DDX. Asters and LAMs, big hangar, radar. All designed and ready to go by the end of this decade! How about 2 of a British version for the RN and in this decade? I hope they can get the Type 83 done sooner so the RN can beef up its AAW/Land Attack ability before the T45s go out of service.

Paul T
Paul T
16 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Hopefully the DDX will be looked at to gain some pointers as to what will constitute the Type 83,but i think the MOD/RN are probably looking further ahead in generational capability,maybe not a full generation but half a generation if that makes sense – with the Ships supposed to be coming online in the late 2030’s onwards and serving 25 – 30 years Technology will advance exponentially in that timeframe.

Fedaykin
Fedaykin
17 days ago
Reply to  Moonstone

The problems with the Zumwalt class are not due to it being a 15,000t vessel. The issues are primarily due to a gun system that has no ammunition and doesn’t offer significant benefits over more affordable missile based solutions for accurate fire or the MK45 MOD 4 for that matter. Also lack of experience within the US shipbuilding industry of actually developing new vessels is the other main issue with the class.

Paul42
Paul42
17 days ago
Reply to  Moonstone

Yes, but the Zumwalts are in a different and much more expensive league…..

David Steeper
17 days ago
Reply to  Paul42

Yes but the Zumwalts are not expensive because of there size.

John G
John G
2 minutes ago
Reply to  David Steeper

There we only three built out of 30. R&D is included in the cost. They are replacing the useless guns with CPS modules.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
17 days ago
Reply to  Moonstone

I very much sympathise with that view but most of the problem with the Zumwalt design is that the US decided that the future was very one dimensional ie stealth and railguns and thus created a one dimensional inflexible vision of the future that proved inaccurate. I do thinks it needs to be bigger than a T26 but no where near that size either but very very flexible.

Joe16
Joe16
17 days ago
Reply to  Moonstone

With respect to AAW, I don’t think that the Hobarts are a particularly good example of the genre to be frank. Hobarts are smaller than the Hunters in terms of displacement, length and beam- meaning their stability as a launch platform is not as good (nor their options for expansion and mid life upgrades) Hobarts use the older AN/SPY-1 radar system linked to SM2 missiles, which use a semi-active guidance system to the target. This is currently being replaced on Arleigh Burkes for more advanced systems using active seeking, and was already superceded by the European navies using Aster before… Read more »

John G
John G
9 hours ago
Reply to  Moonstone

The new planning for the US Navy fleet, is to move away from large VLS capable ships like the Ticonderoga class. The US DDG(x) is looking at 11k-13k tons. I think the Type 26 hull for the Type 83 would be a disaster. I think RN ships are light in the weapons category. I would like to see the Type 83 heavily armed as a previous poster suggested. The US can afford the Zumwalt, but it was designed to do a mission that it cannot perform, in todays environment. So much has changed since the end of the cold war.… Read more »

Paul42
Paul42
17 days ago
Reply to  SwindonSteve

Fully agree….

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
17 days ago
Reply to  SwindonSteve

Size and the steel needed to build it is cheap. Probably two MT30s instead of one for the use of directed energy weapons. A large mission bay, plenty of space for UAVs and missiles. Size and steel is cheap and it is the weapon systems that cost all the money. Now if they go for a nuclear pumped laser (NPL) system for knocking out hypersonic missiles then I would do that – it’s not as expensive as one thinks.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
17 days ago
Reply to  SwindonSteve

Yep, pretty much what I think as a baseline. However, read somewhere recently that the RN is looking at concepts that include networked smaller ships. I am not sure how that would work because if you want to push the radar horizon out from the high value asset (HVA) you are protecting you can do two things. Physically move the radar out from HVA or put it higher. My reading of the networked smaller platforms concept is that weapons and or radars can be pushed forward with a larger command platform closer in. However, that still means your defensive screen… Read more »

Steve M
Steve M
17 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I don’t see what we can’t put AeroSat radar Balloon in hold of 3000T smaller frighter with big winch? They have 200mile range and can operate in upto 65kt winds so all bar worst storms could be used (most ships like to aviod big waves becasue makes the crew go 🤑 and breaks things) so would provide persistant radar coverage, have few UAV AEW which could be used to either provide coverage during storms (high wind) as long as endurance mean can be launch/recovered in calmer weather or for strike escort.

Last edited 17 days ago by Steve M
ChariotRider
ChariotRider
17 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

Hi Steve,

Blimps have been used at see in the past, we’ve all seen photos of the D-day fleet towing blimps to deter low level attacks and more recently they have repeatedly been put forward for AEW as you suggest.

I am not sure of you they have been repeatedly rejected possible their speed (for powered versions) is the issue. For an escort, is does the blimp affect the ship’s ability to manoeuver? I don’t know but if it was a real game changer then perhaps they would already in service?

Cheers CR

Steve M
Steve M
17 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Wouldn’t suggest to put on escort ship. 80/90m ship like a bulk cargo ship would have load of space for decoys/nixie type defences and you could install power for CIWS/dragonfire for defence. could use same hull type as arsenal for missiles have them remotely controlled?

Rob Young
Rob Young
11 days ago
Reply to  SwindonSteve

At around 8-9K tons the T45 fits into the lower end of some WW2 cruisers – bigger than a Dido class for instance.

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
17 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Hi Ron5,

I can see that, they would not want another gapped capability as happened with the SSN programme – they end up taking the flack after all.

Cheers CR

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

👍

BB85
BB85
17 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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.

John G
John G
9 hours ago
Reply to  BB85

I don’t know about that. The Meko A-300 is a design that combines a large weapons loadout and dual island command and control. It is something all of NATO should be thinking about. Build a couple of small lightly manned (I do not believe in unmanned ships) VLS 48 cell ships to go with each MEKO. They can take incoming missiles or torpedoes for the Meko.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
17 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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

Daveyb
Daveyb
17 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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… Read more »

Steve M
Steve M
17 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Hi Davey
If the blind spot could be covered by array laid flat why did it have to put on TOP of the angled arrays? Could it have been mounted flat on the space behind the Sampson Mast (or hangar roof)? then would have less weight impact.

Last edited 17 days ago by Steve M
Daveyb
Daveyb
16 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

That was the BAe design proposal. It could in essence be placed anywhere on the ship, with a clear line of sight looking up. But you have to factor in a term called the lever arm figures. This is exact distance and elevation (to 3 decimal points) from the ships centre to the radar’s boresight. This is especially important if the radar is used for weapons guidance. This is a calculation and data stored within the combat management system. The CMS therefore knows where the ship’s weapons and sensors are in relation to the ships centre. It then uses this… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
18 days ago

It is obvious it should be a huge ship, of still undefined genre… oops type, so no superstructure which will be filled with containers.

Yes! i think a huge container ship is what should fit better the RN needs.

AlexS
AlexS
17 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

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.

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Someone’s been paying attention!!

Paul42
Paul42
17 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

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

AlexS
AlexS
17 days ago
Reply to  Paul42

What’s better than a mission bay? an huge mission bay the size of the ship.

Since Radakin says correctly tech is in flux and basically they don’t know what the ship should have, then this is the less worse solution. Build a hull with propulsion with huge amount of energy power.
Let the rest being modular.

david
david
17 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

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!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
17 days ago
Reply to  david

Until they are sunk.

John G
John G
16 minutes ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I have had the same Idea, but use small ships that can deploy some kind of metal sail that can reflect the radar signature of the ship they are trying to protect, but add VLS on those ships to add to fleet firepower. Also it should have sonar to run into the path of torpedoes to protect the primary asset.

John G
John G
8 minutes ago
Reply to  david

I would use the container ships as arsenal ships. Nothing huge like the Emma Maersk. Smaller feeder container ships, with missiles ready to launch. Have the containers vertical or at a 45 degree angle for launch. They usually carry 300-1000 20ft TEUs. With a powerful engine they could take the place of the low/unmanned ships I suggested in another comment.

Last edited 8 minutes ago by John G
Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
18 days ago

Why does it take twenty years to build a warship?

AlexS
AlexS
17 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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

Jonathan
Jonathan
17 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

To be fair almost everything Russia is building now are dusted off soviet programmes, many of which started in the 1970s.

Tim Hirst
Tim Hirst
17 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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.

Hermes
Hermes
17 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Because $$$$$$$$
That’s all.

Jonathan
Jonathan
17 days ago
Reply to  Hermes

What he said.

Hermes
Hermes
17 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Why time > 20y ?
because for time < 20 you need more money

Jon
Jon
17 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
17 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Makes sense.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
17 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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… Read more »

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
16 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Jon and Spyinthesky…thanks guys. I understand what your sayingbut the 45’s will be thirty years old. I just wish ..ha ha…that we could roll classes every twenty years or so moving technological knowledge at the same time.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
17 days ago

The good news is that this is underway … forward thinking at last.

Rob
Rob
17 days ago

The clue is in the T83 listing. This isn’t going to be a follow on T45. This is a follow on T82, a large air defence in all but name cruiser. I reckon 6 large ships with very large silos of anti-air missiles and ground attack missiles to back up the carriers. They will also build in space and energy capability for future directed energy weapons.

Which should tell the designers, get the ruddy engines right!

Ryan Brewis
Ryan Brewis
17 days ago
Reply to  Rob

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.

Expat
Expat
17 days ago
Reply to  Rob

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.

Pete
Pete
17 days ago
Reply to  Expat

Indeed. Interesting read. Look at Google map once you’ve read this. !! Artillery, armour, combat brigade already deployed.

https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/news/east-africa/us-issues-warnings-over-china-plan-military-bases-kenya-3608702

Pete
Pete
17 days ago
Reply to  Pete

They can control Suez traffic !

Pete
Pete
17 days ago
Reply to  Pete

Sorry.. battalion..not brigade

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
17 days ago
Reply to  Expat
Robert Billington
Robert Billington
17 days ago
Reply to  Rob

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… Read more »

simon
simon
17 days ago

Has Radakin stated both carriers are going to have air wings? that is a big change from having one carrier operational and the other in refit?

simon
simon
16 days ago

Thanks for the link, it does seem to be a bit of a change of direction. however F35’s and RFA ships could be an issue

Robert Billington
Robert Billington
16 days ago
Reply to  simon

Hey man, no problem. I was pondering it last night. We will have one CSG for Atlantic and Europe. That’s one LRG here too. Then there’s Gib. Then we get to Duqm, where the other CSG will be and the second LRG, then there’s the 31s and OPVs out there. When we get type 83s which will be essentially a cruiser, so can sail alone or as part of the CSGs. Then there’s the 32s, the 26s, the new subs. I mean, the future vision is quite something! Top it all off with two fleet air arms. Unbelievable. Who but… Read more »

Daveyb
Daveyb
17 days ago

Unfortunately, there is still a lot of bad feeling between South Korea and Japan. They are happy to play nice when dealing with North Korea and China to an extent, but that is as far as their friendship goes. Though if something like AUKUS was proposed I’m pretty certain they’d agree to it.

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
17 days ago
Reply to  Rob

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.

John G
John G
8 hours ago
Reply to  OkamsRazor

I agree ships should not do ground attack with guns. That is one of the things that killed the DDG-1000 project. Missiles are a whole different option. Those can be used for ground attack, but I think they would be better spent defending the fleet they are in. If they are tasked for a ground strike mission that would be be different.

Paul42
Paul42
17 days ago

Uhhhh, I think we need to concentrate on arming the ships we already have before heading off down to another black hole……

Jonathan
Jonathan
17 days ago
Reply to  Paul42

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

pete
pete
17 days ago
Reply to  Paul42

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

Paul T
Paul T
16 days ago
Reply to  pete

Marte ER is not a bad shout – instead of choosing a Weapon’s System that will need integrating with your Platforms and then baulking at the time and cost this takes why not just choose a System that has had the Integration work already completed.

Pete
Pete
16 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Indeed. Was thinking further alternative could …..pending block 4 software of F35b… push ahead with Spear 3 integration on Eurofighter. Won’t sink the biggest warships but would likely achieve mission kills on most for that NE Atlantic environment.

Being a turbojet I’m not sure if there would be any reason S3 couldn’t be integrated on merlin or wildcat. Does it need a minimum launch speed..don’t know…but again if its possible should be considered as a long range complimentary enhancement to Sea Venom.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  Paul42

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

John G
John G
8 hours ago
Reply to  Paul42

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan
17 days ago

It is good that they are working on thinking about the T45s replacement now, as that gives them 10 ish years before steel is cut on the first hull.

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
17 days ago

Please buy more than 6. Please buy more than 6. Please buy more than 6.

David Barry
David Barry
17 days ago

Concept should be easy: it floats and has full power across the spectrum. Check.

Can’t be accused of ffbnw because we won’t arm it, so to future proof it against changes (that’ll shut up those bankers on ukdj, navylookout and arrse).

Robbo
Robbo
17 days ago

The need for plenty of spare power generation capability for directed energy weapons should be a major driver in ship size. The aim of the Canadian Surface Combatant is to replace the Annapolis AAW capability, additional to the Halifax ASW capability, all in one platform, with an all US weapon fit. The RAN are talking about building more than 9 Hunters. Propose we should also consider extending the T26 programme beyond the 8th. The RCNs expectation is for 15 CSCs. If the RAN is to consider Astute for its Nucs, we are going to have to demonstrate that we can… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  Robbo

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?

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
17 days ago

As these will be so much better than the 45s we will only need four.

Klonkie
Klonkie
17 days ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

standard MOD approach -do more with less!

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

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.

OldSchool
OldSchool
17 days ago

Type 83 is likely quite a way off. One thing that would be nice is to have input from the Aussies re their Hunter class (admittdely some way off too). Their T26 will have more goodies than the Uk’s and will have the CEAFAR & CEAMOUNT onboard so will be somewhat better than Artisan only (Artisan is good however but Aussie combo likely a bit better). This may give idea whether T83 can come out of a T26 program. The other thing is money. This is the big issue what the UK really needs is a bigger and more productive… Read more »

david
david
17 days ago

Do they roll some dice when they pick type numbers? or are they incapable of adding? 😀

colin
colin
17 days ago

Here is the last 82 perhaps they could Copy and Paste
comment image

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
17 days ago
Reply to  colin

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.

lee1
lee1
17 days ago

Where on earth do they pluck the numbers for these ship classes from? Is there a rule or are they just essentially random?

lee1
lee1
16 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

Very interesting. Thanks.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
17 days ago

Slightly off topic but the Astute Class may be the front runner for the Royal Australian Navy

I found this article reporting comments from an Australian admiral to a US Senate committee, suggest that the Astue Class may be the front runner.

Cheers CR

Ron
Ron
17 days ago

Why is this so difficult, lets look at what or how the T83 needs to be equipped. So the first question is what is she to be used for. The T83 will be a carrier escort and surface group flagship. This means that she will need the range and speed of the carrier plus a 10% reserve as she will need to sprint sometimes and manuover around the carrier.. Her main role will be Anti Air, will she have a Anti Ballistic Missile capability, probably. That now means SAMPSON or its future development will be three plane or five plane,… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
17 days ago
Reply to  Ron

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… Read more »

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  Ron

In other words, a faster horse

Daveyb
Daveyb
17 days ago
Reply to  Ron

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… Read more »

DP
DP
17 days ago

I guess modular, open architecture design will be one of the first ideas on the blue print but I hope the ‘lessons of old’ aren’t overlooked as far as core requirements for any future combat ship are concerned. Pardon my ignorance but wasn’t the extensive use of aluminium in ships a contributing factor in the number of fatalities in the Falklands conflict? I dare say some will say ‘we’ll never fight a war like the Falklands again’ but the impact of an anti-ship missile would be the same whether it’s another Falklands, a lesser type ‘skirmish’ or a more symmetrical… Read more »

Daveyb
Daveyb
16 days ago
Reply to  DP

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.

Paul T
Paul T
16 days ago
Reply to  DP

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.

david featch
david featch
16 days ago

Here’s an idea, move the bridge to the very front of the boat and place two 5 inch guns in sponsons one on each side this will allow more space for larger anti-air missiles or anti-missile protection. And isn’t it time we had a retractable hangar for the helicopters?

branaboy
branaboy
16 days ago

I believe the Royal Navy has a design concept for it’s future Cruiser/Destroyer ship to replace the T45. That design I believe is the Dreadnought 2050 Dreadnought 2050: Is This the Battleship of the Future? – The Diplomat I think a approx 12,000 ton semi-sunmersible ship based on this design with a modular combat and weapon system insert features would be more than adequate to meet meets the Royal Navy’s requirements into the latter half of this century. There is no need to have a derivative of the T-45 of T-26 which will be obsolete in both hull-form, combat an… Read more »

Meirion x
Meirion x
14 days ago
Reply to  branaboy

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.

Last edited 14 days ago by Meirion x
Chris
Chris
16 days ago

Has there been any information about the radar going to be used? I would assume improved samson

Brendanf
Brendanf
16 days ago

The Canadian version would be a good version to base a destroyer off of, no?
Spy7 radar
8 Naval strike missiles
24 Sea ceptors
32 mk41 cells
Leonardo LW 64 Vulcano Naval gun.
Bae Autocannons.

andy reeves
andy reeves
21 hours ago

i’d expect a maximum costing requirement to be made as in the tendering of the t31 and to produce a ship capable of being quickly and not a repeat of the long drawn out design process endured during the t26 fiasco

andy reeves
andy reeves
21 hours ago
Reply to  andy reeves

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