The Royal Navy are now looking at concept designs for the upcoming Type 83 Destroyer, the warship that will replace the Type 45 Destroyers.

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
231 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago

I don’t think it is a terrible mockup, it is quite respectable one.

Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

It’s a lovely mock-up…. But Where are the triple 16 inch gun turrets? Lol…

The Big Man
The Big Man
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew

Obviously FFBNW! 😉 

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew

7th Gen Stealth gun turrets… Thats why you cannot see them…

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

True but just not related to anything remotely concrete really.

Adrian
Adrian
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

It looks identical to stock images used for the Australian export model T26 ‘Hunter Class’, but with T83 photoshopped onto the hull.
Since they’re considering it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Adrian
andy reeves
andy reeves
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian

I’ve no doubt that the t26 suitably fitted could be classed as a destroyer in its own right already

Dern
Dern
1 month ago

You’ve typoed Type 82 instead of Type 83 in the first line George, just FYI.

Nate M
Nate M
1 month ago
Reply to  George Allison

Hang on you said that a variation of the type 26 is considered for the job. Does that mean it would be a proper destroyer in terms of tonnage and weapons systems?

The Big Man
The Big Man
1 month ago
Reply to  Nate M

What is a proper destroyer in terms of tonnage? The Type 42 started at 3,500 tonnes.
We can’t keep getting bigger with every iteration. A T26 based ship makes sense apart from the hull cost is very high as it is an ASW design.

Nate M
Nate M
1 month ago
Reply to  The Big Man

So it will be a aaw frigate? Not destroyer

The Big Man
The Big Man
1 month ago
Reply to  Nate M

I thought the RN designated type by primary use. So ASW = frigate, AAW = destroyer. Nothing to do with tonnage.

Nate M
Nate M
1 month ago
Reply to  The Big Man

oh i was just asking. because i think tonnage matters internationally. example of this is the Zumwalt’s which are said to be cursers by tonnage. even though the USA claims they are destroyers

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Nate M

It doesn’t. Tonnage of ship types has always been variable, and usually increases as the years go on. “Cruiser by tonnage” can mean anything from 1,000t’s for old protected cruisers through to 15,000t for heavy cruisers, that’s a pretty big margin. Internationally it’s becomes even more complicated since language doesn’t translate precisely. All French surface escort ships for example are “Frigates” regardless of role or tonnage (same for German surface escorts). Even the US doesn’t have strict guidelines of what is a “Frigate” and what is a “Destroyer,” it’s more “We have two classes of ships, one’s bigger than the… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Don’t forget the Ticonderogas, which are cruisers that are now smaller than a destroyer. US designations have had a few such oddities.

The U.K. has had some oddities as well, the Type82 being a classic case.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

IIRC the Ticonderogas where originally meant to be classed as Guided Missile Destroyers, and it was only after budget cuts that they where reclassified as Cruisers.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  The Big Man

Little bit, although with the Type 31’s the distinction is getting blurry and becoming more “What was the type of ship it’s replacing called?” in the RN. (Type 31’s are not ASW assets).

David Nicholls
David Nicholls
1 month ago
Reply to  Nate M

Type 8x indicates a general purpose ship. Type 82 was both AAW (Sea Dart) and ASW (Ikara). The change from Type 4x to Type 8x would imply the addition of AAW to the current T26 ASW capability. With the removal of the need for target designators for each channel of fire (as with Sea Dart, Sea Wolf era) means the surveillance radar, computer control and missile silos are what is missing. So a T26 with Sampson and the Mk41s full of SAMs would meet the need?

Nate M
Nate M
1 month ago
Reply to  David Nicholls

ya but its a frigate hull. 2030 going forward a frigate hull can’t simply do the job of a destroyer it would be too small.

CAM
CAM
1 month ago
Reply to  Nate M

Well they could leave some of it similar to the T26 but change things like increase the hull size and put things on that an AAW Destroyer would need. Sampson radar etc

andy reeves
andy reeves
1 month ago
Reply to  Nate M

big nasty frigate

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  The Big Man

Yes we can. Destroyers have litterally been getting bigger and bigger since there have been Destroyers. The originals only displaced 200t!

Andy P
Andy P
1 month ago
Reply to  Nate M

Does it matter whether you call it a frigate or a destroyer (or a sloop/cruiser/blah blah blah) ? It is what it is. We used to have ‘through deck cruisers and some weirdos thought they were small aircraft carriers….. go figure.

Geoffi
Geoffi
1 month ago

Is it me, or has the UK Government FINALLY woken up to the fact we are an island nation and need a proper Navy to support our interests ? Everything seems to have a greater sense of urgency about it than a couple of years ago.

Andy G
Andy G
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoffi

I think it’s more likely they realized there is money to be made in all this.

DJ
DJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoffi

I think leaving the EU has brought a lot of minds into sharper focus, rather than having the luxury of delegating so many decisions to Brussels.

Jeremy Bateman
Jeremy Bateman
1 month ago
Reply to  DJ

No defence decisions have been made by Brussels. Big EU countries have retained different defence and procurement decisions.

DJ
DJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bateman

Sure. I was talking generically rather than specifically. Should have made that clear.
It’ll be interesting though, to see how the EU Army and other military decisions pan out in years to come.

Evan
Evan
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoffi

Though barely a merchant fleet to maintain freedom of the seas for!
Poking sticks in the Russian belly and pompously posturing in the China Sea for our US overlords doesn’t quite add up to a role.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoffi

I’d wish in the mean time to muscle up the T45s with some extra silos and ASMs as the late 30s is a very long way off. The Italian’s have already designed and will be building a large destroyer DDX at the end of this decade! Who’s ahead, who’s behind…

geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoffi

Good Morning Geoffi. Are you the man who used to be known as Geoff and has now added the’i’ to distinguish the two of us? If sohope you are well and thanks. Cheers geoff

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoffi

Naval mugging in international waters is obviously a growing trend, as last week’s escapade in the Black Sea clearly demonstrated. I’m sure both Russia and China intend to make any NATO ships in what they claim is their waters as uncomfortable as possible in the future. The critical phase will be when merchant shipping gets the same treatment, hence the urgency to increase the size of most Western navies, especially the RN. I’ve banged on about Global Britain for some time and now it appears to be official UK policy. That being the case, short and long-term naval ship planning… Read more »

CAM
CAM
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoffi

Yes but now also hope that we will get more than 6 destroyers to replace the T45 and that the T32 won’t be purely made for autonomous missions only.

Peter S
Peter S
1 month ago

The timescales of these projects is astonishing. Imagine any country in say 1918 planning its equipment purchases for 1939.
With the pace of technological change, is it really possible to look so far ahead? Aiming for a smooth construction programme that retains key skills and avoids redundancy and rehiring costs is very sensible. But looking 20 rather than 10 years ahead seems a stretch.

Geoffrey Roach
Geoffrey Roach
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

It’s the same for everyone Peter. As soon as something is written down it’s out of date.

Order of the Ditch
Order of the Ditch
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

QEs were conceived in the late 90s and not becoming operational until 2018. So that was a 20 year project. In peace time modern defence projects, particularly at the high end can be time consuming.
As new technologies emerge they do need time to mature before coming reliable enough to be put into production and deployed.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago

Lots of US ship designs are fundamentally 40 years old they just keep updating the basic design in batches.

British ships built in 1912 were being decommissioned in the early 1920s while many in WW2 were 1st WW vintage, there doesn’t seem to be any real set pattern to longevity, circumstances and in particular technical/strategic/political/cost changes seem to dictate the pace or otherwise.

BB85
BB85
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

If they are only hitting the drawing board now the finalised design will take into account the latest and potential future technology. It’s also why we order in batches, for example batch 2 and 3 type 26 might include upgraded radar and sensors not included in batch 1. So the process of continually improving designs is a slow moving one.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  BB85

Absolutely, the fundamental hull design surely only ages slowly it’s the innards that dictate both changes generally and any need as a result to change the bull design to accommodate.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  BB85

Well said.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  BB85

I think the issue is that we have an imminent capability gap against intermediate range ballistic missiles and long range, aircraft launched supersonic AShM which threatens the credibility of the CSG. That’s why USS Sullivans accompanies HMS QE. SM2 outranges Aster 30. What we have to decide is are we going to buy Aster 30 Block 1 NT for current threats and wait for Block 2 BMD or decide now to jump to SM3/6? IIRC there are a couple of Sampson sets going spare after we cut the T45 order from 8 to 6. And Type 26 comes with 24… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Paul.P
Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

It has been implied that the T45s will be getting some Aster 30 Block 1NTs to supplement the standard Aster 30s. When the recent defence paper referred to Aster being upgraded. An MBDA spokesperson has been quoted as saying by IHS Jane’s that the upgrade would enable the Aster 30 B1NT to “engage the whole range of short-range ballistic missiles [SRBMs, of up to 1,000 km range] and some segment of the medium-range ballistic missile [MRBM] domain”. The main element of the B1NT upgrade is the inclusion of a new high-resolution Ka-band (26.5-40 GHz) active radar seeker to replace the existing… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

That’s good technical background. Thx. So regarding status, starting presumably with SAMP/T do you know where are we with respect to naval deployments on say the Fremm/ Freda/ Horizon ships?

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The T45s are supposed to be getting some additional radar, comms and ECM upgrades following the power improvement plan, that also coincides with the introduction of the Aster NTs, though the MoD haven’t given a timeframe yet. They also haven’t said what these upgrades will include. I would hope that the S1850M is going to be replaced with the SMART-L MM AESA radar. This radar is in service with the Dutch navy. It has shown it has substantially better performance than the PESA version. It has also be specifically developed for ABM search and tracking. Where in 2019 it provided… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Again, thx for the info and as you say we can expect good news I think. That said as my old boss used to say I’ve got an itch that I just can’t scratch…the T45 engine and radar refits look lengthy. We only have 6 ships. If it can be done I can see the attraction of putting Sampson and SMART-L MM on the T26 which are in build and putting Standard missiles in the Mk41 vls. Sort of get back to 8 AAW destroyers.

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

Some elements of he IT industry resolved this by banning projects lasting more than 6 months. Needless to say much of he public sector failed to get onboard.

With the RN it might mean far more use of modular designs with plug and play kit.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark B

Going to have to isn’t it the technology changes are just too large and unpredictable to commit to for too Long.

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

True. If you look at the private sector you will see the dominance of tech like the smart phone. New models emerge on an annual basis but little has changed. There is alway something better or diffrrent. On a new warship perhaps we should be focusing on the platform. Make it easy to swap stuff out for a better versions as soon they become available. That way you get smaller projects moving quicker.

The Big Man
The Big Man
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

Look at the F35. It has its concept roots dating back to the mid 80’s and 90’s and we still only have a handful here in 2021.
Stuff takes so long.

Vladimir WarHawk
Vladimir WarHawk
1 month ago
Reply to  The Big Man

And that’s what the Chinese and other potential adversaries are partially pinning their hopes on. They have the wealth, numbers and expertise stolen from all over the world to develop new systems in the blink of an eye.

Evan
Evan
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

The Royal Navy was thinking about ships and naval gun designs unlikely to be on the slips until the 1930s in 1918. The King George V class was heavily derived from research and ship design thinking stretching back to late First War, though their design process began in 1928, 12 years before first launch. They are not talking of fixing a design now, just assessing the potential options and balance of capability in designs that will be useful some 20 odd years hence. Given modern missile and aircraft development lead times of 20 years plus there is some good indication… Read more »

Order of the Ditch
Order of the Ditch
1 month ago

I seriously hope Type 83 isn’t based on T26. Nothing wrong with Type 26 of course, it will be a fantastic ASW vessel but I am not convinced the hull dimensions are sufficient for a top tier AAA destroyer coming into service beyond 2030. We really need to look at the latest Korean and Chinese designs. A Type 55 destroyer has 112 VLS. Saturation attack is something that the RN must take seriously as a threat, especially considering we have so few destroyers. An uplift to 8 vessels would be nice, although unlikely. I personally would like to see a… Read more »

hmslion
hmslion
1 month ago

agree with much of your points, with some exceptions:

-Increase displacement to 17,500 t (estimated dimensions to be 216m long by 24m wide, with draft under keel of 6m (8m under forward sonar bulge).
-Increase VLS capacity to 128 cells using 2x 64 cell Mk 41 modules as per on USN Ticonderoga-class. One 64 cell module to be full (Strike) length for TLAM/long range AA/ABM capability, the other to be short (tactical) range for quad-packed Sea Ceptor to provide mass short range AA capacity)
-Provide additional deep-strike VLS volume for long range Hyper sonic missile capacity.

Trevor
Trevor
1 month ago
Reply to  hmslion

A new AAW destroyer design would want to put the radar as high as sensibly possibe (like T45) to extend detection range for sea skimming targets, so imo the L/B ratio will finish up closer to the 7.2 (for both T26 & T45) rather than your 9.0 in order to give a more stable platform.

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
1 month ago
Reply to  hmslion

But, with such a large and costy design, how many RN can afford? As detailed designing usually cost more than a single unit cost, if the planned number is smaller, the actual delivered number will get even smaller. I think RN shall stick to “a bit smaller than US DDGs”, so that at least 6 hulls can be built even if the government decides to cut the budget to “a bit less than 2% GDP” (as was only in a few years ago). If the budget is more, just build 8 of them. For sure, building 8 hull will cost… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago

It depends on the contract. If the same is done as per the QE class and the T26s, we should be ok! The contract was written so that if the ships were cancelled the Government would hit a massive financial penalty. Which was probably the only reason saving both carriers from Cameron’s Government. It truly is a numbers game. The 6 T45s has shown that they are too few to meet all the tasks. So fingers crossed they at least go for 8 or 9. In a future conflict, the ship that survives being attacked will be the one who… Read more »

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

It does NOT depend on the contract.

If budget is lowered, and T83 contract cannot be changed, we will just see the government of the day selling one CVF, simply because there is no other choice.

Money is clearly an issue. Asking more is OK, but by doing it what are we risking?

Last edited 1 month ago by donald_of_tokyo
Nate M
Nate M
1 month ago

anger labour demonstrator?

Paul42
Paul42
1 month ago
Reply to  hmslion

I’ll second that……

Last edited 1 month ago by Paul42
hmslion
hmslion
1 month ago
Reply to  hmslion

In regards to the logic behind the size of the hull/number of VLS cells: If the Type 83’s have a similar life span compared to the Type 42’s/expected life of the Type 45’s, then they’ll still be in service in the mid/late 2060’s. They’ll need to be competitive with whatever is in service then with our potential adversaries, so they’ll need to have the spare volume/displacement to be able to receive new equipment/weapon systems (similar logic behind the QE carriers. They’re expected to remain in service for up to half a century, and are expected to receive several refits/upgrades in… Read more »

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  hmslion

So that would cost about 3Bn each. Sorry, but that’s totally unrealistic.

hmslion
hmslion
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Well the thing is that is the direction other navies are going in. The Chinese Type 055 is at 13,000t with 112 vls. The Korean Sejong the Great is not too far behind in terms of displacement and carries 128 vls. The Americans DDG(X) is looking like it’s going to be closer in size and firepower to the Ticonderoga than to the Arleigh Burke. And that’s before we get to the Russian Lider.
The Type 83 is going to need to be competitive not just with the Type 055 and the Lider, but also with whatever comes after them.

Nate M
Nate M
1 month ago
Reply to  hmslion

damn might as well call em dreadnaughts by that point!

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago

The T55 has 112VLS because 70 of them will probably miss the target 😄

Andy G
Andy G
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

What makes you think that?

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy G

Because I’d eat my hat if the weapon technology is anything close to the capability of Sea Viper and Sampson radar.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

What will need to be looked at size wise is what can be built in the current facilities and how much would it cost to upgrade etc. If it is a type 26 variant the frigate factory BAE would of built if 13 had been ordered would have come in handy. I don’t know what ship sizes Hoban can build

Pete
Pete
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

When you hack many of the design elements from the west it’s highly likely the end result will be effective without necessarily being the best.

Netking
Netking
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Underestimating an adversary with the human and economic resources of China is potentially a catastrophic mistake. This is a country that put a rover on mars on it’s first try. Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that they will always be playing catch up when it comes to these things.

Nate M
Nate M
1 month ago
Reply to  Netking

Well said. But internal politics of China may lead to its downfall. I highly doubt that the Chinese citizens are gonna keep their mouth shut for very long. Maybe in 50-60 years or so China will at war with it self.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  Netking

They can put a rover on Mars, but they still can’t build a decent jet engine. Much of it’s technology is still borrowed from Russia design.

Netking
Netking
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Let’s see how long that continues. The much hyped development of WS-15 engine appears almost complete. We’ll know in a few years if they still can’t make a decent jet engine.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Netking

We will see. But even the Russians still cannot design and build fighter engines of the quality of Western jet engines. Certainly nothing that matches the superb EJ200 or P&W F119.

Nick C
Nick C
1 month ago

Thinking about numbers, the T45’s were supposed to number at least 8, then the budgets and lack of political will kicked in. I seem to recall that long lead items for numbers 7& 8 were ordered, I wonder if they are sitting in a warehouse somewhere? Its also worth remembering that the T42’s numbered 14, with two sunk in the Falklands. At that time we only had one potential adversary, the Soviet Union, now we have multiple threats. I would like as much as anyone to see some cruiser sized ships, but they can still only be in one place… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick C

Thing is though steel and air are cheap. It the subsequent systems that cost. Hopefully the planners and designers will remember this and build a larger ship that has scope for further development.

Trevor Holcroft
Trevor Holcroft
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Yes… looking at T32 this seems to be the RNs idea.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

I would go further adding volume saves costs long term. More space around components shortens maintenance time as access is easier and your not tied down to one component that the space was design for, which allows for an alternative or or more modern equivalent to be fitted even if its shape is somewhat different.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick C

They’ve been dealing with the French in recent years that’s why we’re not persona non grata over there nowaday.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick C

I’d like to see those 2 more T45s built to bolster the fleet and could help manage the upgrade of the rest of the MLU of the class.

Nick C
Nick C
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick C

Modi is a well known nationalist, and seems to win elections on the back of it. I appreciate that some in India still look back and object to the Raj, much as many look back to it with nostalgia! However, if it comes to any form of confrontation in the East I would much rather have them on side, after all they do have form when it comes to facing down the Chinese.

Nate M
Nate M
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick C

No lime seriously hate Britain. I heard one if them out and even say britian will I dians footstool in the future. And a pupet of USA. but nevertheless we need them for any confrontation in the east as much as it worries me.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Nate M

Sounds like a troll. Just because he says he’s something doesn’t mean he his. There’s a building in St. Petersburg full of people claiming to be every nationality under the sun.

Nate M
Nate M
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I mean there was atleast 100 other comments praising him for it.

Nick C
Nick C
1 month ago
Reply to  Nate M

Nate, could I suggest that you read what you have written before you press send. I have no idea what it is you are trying to say?

Jeremy Bateman
Jeremy Bateman
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick C

The T31s are a step towards that. However good a warship is, they all share one feature: they can only be in 1 place at 1 time! (& a lot of those places will be maintenance, refit, training…) So we need more than the 6, 8, 5 of the most recent designs. (And the more of 1 type you build, the more economic the later ships are).
Size is also good, cos it allows expansion with more weapons, stores, crew comfort (= retention). Best eg is the Spruances vs T42s.

CAM
CAM
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick C

I 100% agree with you on that one

farouk
farouk
1 month ago

Interesting you should mention dragon fire., last week the Israelis showed off a laser mounted on a Cessna which shot down a nbr of flying drones., I wonder what progress will be made in this field over the next 10 to 15 years.
Israel Tested An Airborne Laser To Shoot Down Drones
The Israeli airborne laser prototype achieved a 100% success rate against target drones over the sea at different altitudes and ranges above one kilometer.
https://theaviationist.com/2021/06/24/israel-airborne-laser-for-drones/

Last edited 1 month ago by farouk
Nate M
Nate M
1 month ago

personally i would like 120 vls for future asters, 16 launchers for anti ship weapons and the dragon fire could act as a close range air defence or long range depending on the situation. plus think 100/120 of then should be perminantly reserved for anti air purposes and the rest 20 for maybe land attack/ asw missiles or more anti ship weapons weapons.

the_marquis
the_marquis
1 month ago

Given the numbering, and the concept design being based on the excellent ASW hullform of the T26, could it be that the T83 might be a true multirole combatant? One that has the AAW capability of T45 but the ASW capability of T26, and which, over a long production run, could eventually replace both ship types? Is there any value in an idea to have 18-24 dual role ships that can function as either AAW or ASW? Or is it overkill? Such a ship would be more costly to design, build and maintain than a single T45 or T23/26, but… Read more »

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 month ago
Reply to  the_marquis

I couldn’t agree more and have often stated that the RN could have circa 10 hull-forms with a bit of thought. QEC class – 2 T26 ASW class – 15 (replaces T23) T26 AAW class – 15 (replaces T45’s) Aegir Class – 15 (replaces Albions, Waves, Forts, Argus, Bays and Tides) Astute Class – 10 (replaces and uplifts SSN fleet) Successor Class – 4 (replaces Vanguard) New 120m Global Mission Class – 15 (replaces Rivers, Echo) New 60m Multi Mission Class – 15 (replaces hunts/sandowns) New 30m OPV Class – 15 (replaces P Fleet) Specialist – 4 This would give… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Nice “ship shopping” list here but I don’t know if we’ll ever get up to 15s of anything again. For this decade I’d like to see an extra T26, up-missiled T45s plus one more Astute.

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

we have to launch at least 3 ships per year to remain at our current size, the rest is deciding which ships, admittedly I have increased the fleet slightly and I think the 2 x T26 classes will merge into one, but this is not a particularly fantasy fleet scenario, this is how do we replace our fleet over a 30 year period. one of the problem we have had from my perspective is this lack of drumbeat, here we at least know what the hull types are going to be and the rest is a schedule, but it will… Read more »

Trevor Holcroft
Trevor Holcroft
1 month ago
Reply to  the_marquis

No

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago

Two points:

1. Ex-MP Paul Sweeney seems to be the only source for the story that the MoD is actively looking at a modified Type 26 for the Type 83. His motivation is obvious: drumming up work for his ex-constituents on the Clyde.

2. Whatever the Bae dude said at the parliamentary hearing, the first stage in the MoD process is to create a requirements statement for the T83. It will be a long while before any kind of design is conceptualized by them. Doesn’t stop Bae or Babcocks from dreaming but that’s all lit is right now.

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron5

I agree, it in his interest to have the T83 based on the T26, even if the hull isn’t really suited as a “destroyer”.

Andy P
Andy P
1 month ago

I accept I’m being greedy but I’d be keen on having theT4X’s to replace the 45’s And the T83 (or whatever) to be larger ‘cruisers’ to ride shotgun on the carriers. They would be available for other ops too of course, maybe 3 with one always ‘about’ for the primary role if required. Maybe take a few shakes of the magic money tree to shake the coins lose though.

Last edited 1 month ago by Andy P
Andy G
Andy G
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy P

I’m with you there Andy, we could have 4 of each.

JohnG
JohnG
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy P

Completely agree with your sentiment, being even greedier, I would like to see 6 t8xs to be built in the next 10 years or so to operate alongside the t45s. Currently, if we assign 2 t45s to a carrier that leaves us with 2 for routine duties. I think it’s fine for the t45s to be used this way (historically they have been used to supported our allies ships) whilst also breaking off hither and yon for local missions when the csg is in safer areas, but in doing that we are essentially left with the t31s and perhaps 1x… Read more »

Andy G
Andy G
1 month ago

Finally, after decades of strategy over many governments will we see a proper competition for the build of our high end escorts.

Babcock will fiercely compete for this contract and they are arguably in the better position given all their recent and current experience.

There is now no possibility of BAE gouging us again, apart from the Astute replacement of course.

We will hopefully get a great deal on these new destroyers, no doubt we will be looking for more export success, possibly even a build coalition with some other countries.

Andy G
Andy G
1 month ago

If we assume that these are to be exportable then there is probably some cost limitations on these things.

Indonesia are buying FREMM frigates, so they and others that may be like them (in 2040) are able to spend significantly but not astronomically.

To keep costs down the hull could be based on a slightly enlarged (160m) Arrowhead or Type 26 design.

With 160m there is room for 2 VLS, fitted for but not with of course, the client can configure it however they like.

I’d love to see 2 hangers.

Mac
Mac
1 month ago

Going to have to be (at least) in the 10,000t+, 96+ VLS, category if they want them to be taken seriously by the Russians & Chinese.

Andy G
Andy G
1 month ago

Here is a list of countries by GDP in 2040, there are many countries that will be able to afford a few of these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal)#Long_term_GDP_estimates

I would re-run the Type 31 program, I’d say you have $5B, to make 4 destroyers in the next 10 years including a factory. Then we export that along with tech transfer.

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy G

Why not these country just design and build their escorts by themselves? Exporting design can be foreseen, if MOD/HMG strategically invest on it and UK keeping the skill high. But, building is almost hopeless for these “strong” economies. Build-export is much more feasible against smaller echonomy, such as Oman or alike.

Last edited 1 month ago by donald_of_tokyo
BB85
BB85
1 month ago

The real money is in the weapons systems, radars, engines, sonar and other sensors. Most countries will want to build the hull themselves unless they have no ship building facilities worth talking about.

Trevor Holcroft
Trevor Holcroft
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy G

Hmmm

Would the factory be in England? Where would Mr Sweeney like it?

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago

Hi Trevor,

Sunderland might be an option, check Google images of Sunderland docks. There’s a whole bunch of laid up North Sea Oil support ships tied up to give you rough scale.

Cheers CR

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago

Lots of interesting ideas but I think we have to be careful. One of the reasons CVAO1 was cancelled back in the sixties was the Cruiser lobby in the RN were pushing hard for a replacement of the ex WW2 cruisers that were being retired. The price tag for both classes were skyrocketing and the Treasury and politicians just pulled the plug and we ended up with neither. Its not the size i’m concerned with it’s the all singing all dancing design your talking about. A ship with Type 45 AAW and Type 26 ASW would be eye wateringly expensive.… Read more »

DJ
DJ
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

The best indication will be the Australian & Canadian T26’s. These are to have destroyer grade radars & CMS with a reasonable missile load out of 32 mk41 cells, with the Canadians adding 6 ExLS cells. All this without touching the multi mission bay. Turn the multi mission bay into boat bays & add 32 tactical length mk41 & you have already exceeded current T45. There could also be room for more upfront than 32.

Rob
Rob
1 month ago

I reckon the T83 might not be based on the T26. Remember the T82 was a large destroyer (some say light cruiser) designed to accompany the cancelled carriers of the 1970’s. Now because they’ve chosen T83 for the new destroyer I reckon they intend it to do a similar role. It may well be very large, have plenty of SAMs and a land attack capability intended to act as a force multiplier to the CSG. If it was a simple replacement for T45 they’d call it T46 would they not? Can we hope for 6 large, well armed T83s? A… Read more »

Ron
Ron
1 month ago

To start thinking about the T83 until the requirements of the ship is written down is a pointless exercise. The reason I say this is as follows. A AAW DDG is diffrent to a DDG that is ASW capabile, to start with the stern and underwater hull profile is diffrent. Then comes the next question radar suite, for what will it be used for, area anti air defence or ballistic missile defence. If the T83s are to be carrier escorts do they need large helicopter hangers and a 5 inch gun or for that matter boat bays for RIBS. Then… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

If they are then they will have given the Treasury a very large stick with which to go after the Carriers

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

Designing two types cost a lot. Detail design usually cost much more than a single unit cost. If 6 T45 are to be replace with 2 classes, I do not see the hull number is getting more than 4. So, 2 plus 2 at most. Very inefficient.

If two types are really needed, one of them must be of “non-UK” origin, exacly as what UK is now doing with T26 (UK origin) and T31 (Danish).

Last edited 1 month ago by donald_of_tokyo
PaulW
PaulW
1 month ago

Why not just stretch the T45 and add a rear VLS for another 64 tubes. Then spend some cash on Son-of-Sampson. Maybe a bit of enhanced ASW capability. Up-rate the power generation for some lasers and stuff. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the T83. Could even order some in the next five years or so. Sorted.

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 month ago
Reply to  PaulW

I think the reality is that we don’t need more tubes (72 should be enough – although more would be great) its getting the right tubes (ones that can be quad packed) I do believe we should probably go for an AB style do it all ship (which T26 can be) as one of the compromises needed to get scale and commonality. If that means adding a middle section with more VLS fine, but I suspect we won’t be able to fill them or want them. making the 48 sea captor VLS ER and quad packable is a good first… Read more »

PaulW
PaulW
1 month ago
Reply to  Pacman27

i was thinking of cheap options, which HMG Mk1 tend to go for. See if RN could get more bang for its bucks. And sooner rather than later; as ambitiously stuff has a bad habit of getting cancelled by HMG Mk1a.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Hi Pacman27, Quadpacked tubes. I have been saying that is the way to go for ages. CAMM, CAMM ER and possible SPEAR 3 can all be quadpacked. (MBDA have proposed quadpacking SPEAR 3 but it has not yet been done, I believe). Having a suitable VLS would provide great flexibility. Even a 12 tube VLS based on ExLS could provide say 12x SPEAR 3 and 36x CAMM or CAMM ER. Got to be the way to go. (ExLS VLS has one control box per 3 tubes, so you have to load out with the same weapon is any given set… Read more »

Rogbob
Rogbob
1 month ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I don’t get the quad pack obsession. As T26 shows, its easier to have simple cold launch tubes near the bridge and with minimum deck penetration. The problem isnt space for tubes, its cost of tubes and missiles. The problem for the RN is less tubes and more missiles. Having more tubes is pointless as it can’t fill the ones it has (ask anyone on Westminster what they thought about being off Libya with <10 Sea Wolf!) AIUI the USN has a similar issue, far more tubes than weapons. It would be interesting to know what, if anything, is in… Read more »

Netking
Netking
1 month ago
Reply to  Rogbob

AIUI the USN has a similar issue, far more tubes than weapons.”

Do you have a link or a source for this? Never heard of this being an issue in the USN and I would bet this would be absolutely scandalous to the military and the public if it was.

Rogbob
Rogbob
1 month ago
Reply to  Netking

AFAIK its common knowledge although hardly plastered across their website.

Doesn’t seem controversial, look at the cost of missiles and the procurement numbers and consider how many are in storage vs having life used up at sea.

Hardly scandal material tbh, it’s just the reality of actual military logistics.

Netking
Netking
1 month ago
Reply to  Rogbob

Thank you for the response. I asked because I’ve never heard about such a situation. I agree its something that shouldn’t be controversial but I think many people would be surprised about how the general US populace views the military. The concept of ffbnw would likely get people dragged in front of congress. Not saying that all the those tubes are filled on all vls equipped surface combatants but I’m fairly certain that the majority of the tubes on forward deployed boats are armed and ready to go. Just an illustration of the number of weapons we’re dealing with, 2020’s… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Netking
Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago
Reply to  Netking

Would tend to agree with Rogbob over this…. We are in a peacetime situation, why would you be deploying ships fully armed with every tube filled and every inch of space filled with munitions? I’d have always assumed that normally deployed warships would be risked assessed, and an appropriate number of munitions deployed…. Which too me means, enough to complete the mission, defend themselves if an anti ship missile ended up getting fired at them, but not enough to wage war against the Chinese/Russians and vaporise every inch of the country.. if we were moving into a period of increased… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I agree, but you do have to have the extra capacity to take on weapons when you need them. So even if the tubes are quad packed with air for most of the time, at least you have the option to pull in somewhere and swap out the air for something that goes wosh bang :).

Cheers CR

Netking
Netking
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew

On that point I agree. I was responding to the suggestion that the usn didn’t have enough weapons to fill those tubes. perhaps I misunderstood the point that Rogbob was making.

Keep in mind that the forward deployed usn ships routinely patrol some of the most contested waters and have been attacked before. For any of these ships to be in that environment and not armed to adequately defend themselves or if called upon to go on the offensive and strike targets would be a major issue in the us militarily and politically.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  Rogbob

Quad packed fresh air probably. 😄

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Rogbob

Hi Rogbob, I am aware of the shorage of missiles, which is clearly not good. I would hope that ships deploying into areas of tension are properly loaded out with SAM’s at least. Apparently, the CSG Wildcats have been equipped with pre-IOC Sea Venom and Martlet, so I take it from that significant effort has been made to equip the CSG effectively. As for quad packing that is an added capability that can be made use of when needed. There are also other advantages of using standard VLS such as the ExLS. For me a standard VLS system comes with… Read more »

IanH
IanH
1 month ago
Reply to  PaulW

Agree why reinvent the wheel, main issue with T45 is the gas turbine power issues not the hull which would still be more modern the the US boats

Jamie
Jamie
1 month ago
Reply to  PaulW

I had a similar thought too, Replace the helicopter deck and add a VLS farm in it’s place, T45 was designed to accompany the QEC so A) doesn’t need it’s own helicopter and B) In a shooting war 48 cells won’t last long if we’re sailing in the SCS and it gets hot.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago
Reply to  Jamie

So… Why did the Flight 1 AB’s that didn’t have a hanger but had Harpoon fitted aft instead, have the Harpoon removed and a Hangar fitted? Because the most valuable asset you can have on a ship is the Helo. Without a Helo you cannot do OTH targeting when acting as a singleton. A Helo gives you additional situational awareness, ASuW, ASW, SAR, Transport all things that additional tubes don’t give you. Drones may take some of this load which will remove the need for a big Hangar and deck. However the move back to RM raiding means aviation capability… Read more »

Jamie
Jamie
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

I understand those are needed capability’s as a singleton, But modifying two T45s as I suggest and have them follow the QECs about as a permanent escort, Almost like a Tico to a USCSG.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago
Reply to  PaulW

If you stretch a ship you do it Fwd of the machinery spaces not aft of them.
Stretching a ship aft would mean huge and complex changes to the biggest spaces containing gensets, engines, motors and most importantly the shafting.
Mk 41 VLS and Sylver takes up a huge amount of internal space on the center line.
A Mk 57 peripheral vls system would be a better choice

Locking Nut
Locking Nut
1 month ago

I’m wondering what, if any, significance there is to the choice of ‘Type 83’ (rather than 46/47).

83 implies a successor to Bristol’s “high end large escort destroyer” concept. Which may tie in to what some here have already said re. a need to upsize. Altho that’s negated by the suggestion of using the T26 as a starting point.

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  Locking Nut

I thought it was a statement that it is not a destroyer and not a frigate. Others speculated that it might be more of a multi-role vessel.

If we could produce a ship the was a ‘jack of all trades’ it might well be a attractive proposition?

Rogbob
Rogbob
1 month ago
Reply to  Locking Nut

Or it implies a return to the T81 2nd rate all rounder that preceded T82…

Springer
Springer
1 month ago

Hang on, I just nipped down to the local bus stop and happened to find some secret documents with a concept drawing, think they are using a stretched T26:

Type83.jpg
Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  Springer

 😀 

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark B

But where are the 200 VLS tubes and the double hanger for F35’s.

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

 😀  You only get one VLS tube but you could fire 208 different weapons although you would only have storage for 3. The F35s would be replaced by the F35H variant which you can launch by hand and store under your bunk.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark B

 😀 

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark B

You didn’t include the old Harrier Skyhook concept reworked for F35!

Lusty
Lusty
1 month ago
Reply to  Springer

 😍 

Leslie Leveson
Leslie Leveson
1 month ago

It is good to see the Royal Navy going to receive the latest type 83 destroyers as the Russian Bear is flexing its claws under Commander Razputin who is out to show its dominence on the high seas.The neccessary need for modern technology is ever present and this new type wil required to guard and protect.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

Would it not be worth considering the Arrowhead as a starting point for the design. It is a beamy hull which would be good for radar top weight and Its parent, the Iver Huitfeld class carries 32 Mk41 tubes and 24 Mk56 tubes. It’s affordable and could be produced in larger numbers rather than go for a smaller number of larger vessels. It has been said that quantity has a quality all of its own.

Matt
Matt
1 month ago

Afternoon all. Some very interesting comments above guys. We must bear in mind what the role of this ship is supposed to be. To me the ’83’ screams, a successor to the ‘role’ of the 82, not the 45. So a dedicated multi-role carrier escort and nothing else. I wouldn’t expect it to act alone ever. Carrier Strike Group and Littoral Response Group are where the RN is heading. So I’d expect an 83 to be dedicated specifically to Carrier and Amphib escort operations. Which makes me think we’ll get no more than 6. The ‘forward deployed’ and ‘policing’ vessels… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago

There is a lot of talk about a modified version of the T26 for the T83 Destroyer project combines ASW and AAW into a single multirole platform. Whilst I believe that there is some merit in looking at such an option I am concerned that the experiences of the RAN and RCN suggest that the T26 hull’s size may be a significant constraint and risk. Back in April the Navy Lookout did a piece on the T83 and suggested a different set of missions for the T83, Air Defence, ABM defence and Land (Surface) Attack which got me thinking. I… Read more »

Andy P
Andy P
1 month ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I think you’ve summed it up CR, great post. ‘Proper’ ASW escorts are a different beast to the rest of the assorted escorts, whether AAW or ‘general’, the UK used to concentrate quite heavily on ASW frigates and even then it was hard work to find the submarines when they’re trying to hide. Having been on the other end of it, we’ve had to put a ‘stick’ or two up to let either MPA’s or skimmers know where we are so they could get training in. I know (from surface dwellers) that the kit has got better but submarines generally… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy P

Thanks Andy, I think “specialist vessels that can do a bit of the other stuff”, is the right way to go. The crewing issues that you highlight had not occured to me, but is obvious now that you mention it. I would also assume that if you have a fully multi functional platform you will need an equally fully functional CIC with sufficient workstations to enable the ship to be fought on all fronts simultaneously, so more expense that would likely rarely be used to its fullest extent. Also, the RN has a reputation for having some of the best… Read more »

Trevor Holcroft
Trevor Holcroft
1 month ago

I’m sorry but to me this is a terrible article, akin to a Friday car at Longbrige or Cowley in years past. There is no new News here. Sweeny is a SNP politician who peddles the shipyards as his political pawns. Where does any official suggestion come from for the idea that the T83 can be built on the T26? The parliamentary answer says that the concept/ development of T83 will start in a few years. Despite this the headline blatantly jumps the gun. I doubt anybody has any idea what the T83 shape will look like, what it’s weapons… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Trevor Holcroft
John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago

My take on this, while I absolutely agree that an ideal Air warfare Destroyer would have extensive land attack and a minimum of 90 plus SAM’s, such a beast would be 10,000 tons plus and simply be too expensive…. The number required is clearly more than 6. 6 ships were decided upon during the height of the war on terror, as cost cutting option from 12 to 8 to 6, mostly because governments of the day had forgot about peer warfare and concentration was on angry bearded young men in the desert…. Well the war on terror has been brushed… Read more »

Peter S
Peter S
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

I think you’re right about land attack. Given the range and guidance systems of Tomahawk, missiles could easily be launched from a fairly low cost arsenal ship well out of harm’s way.
I am concerned about how few ASW frigates we have. Type31 will have little or no capability,T32 is unknown. But I agree that trying to conduct effective ASW with anything other than a bespoke platform is probably pointless.

Peter S
Peter S
1 month ago

Paul Sweeney is aLabour MSP( former MP)and a vocal opponent of the SNP and Scottish independence.

TrevorH
TrevorH
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

I stand corrected, thank you, although the principle of defending work on the Clyde as opposed to say the Mersey or Humber still stands.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  TrevorH

Agreed but it means he comes with a lot less political baggage. Aka see how the english … are ripping scotland off whenever there’s a journo around. Speaking for myself it means I’d listen to what he has to say rather than muttering a few expletives and moving on.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Listen to what he says then remind yourself he is a politician who lost an election and get out the salt. Pinches of it.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago

@Trevor Agree 100%

I assume Sweeney is soft of voice and high in charisma for this site to be hanging on his every word to the determent of factual reporting.

Mark Ayew
Mark Ayew
1 month ago

Great article. Would like the to see the UK e pand it’s naval Fleet

Expat
Expat
1 month ago

The RN has no platform to launch hypersonic strike from. Idon’t think we have hull capable of housing the hypersonic launch tubs as they’re larger than Mk41 VLS. So the next hulls to be designed, either the T31 or T83 will need to be of the appropriate size to house something like the MAC tubes the US has. Unless RN has no intention of having the capability but will leave us some way behind China and Russia.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Hi Expat,

As I understand it the UK and French are still trying to agree what type of missile the next generation strike missile will be. The UK favouring supersonic longer range, the French wanting hypersonic and accepting the shorter range (with in the size limitations). I believe there is the possibility that the missile might have a selectable flight profile to meet both requirements, but I am not sure how expensive that would and traditionally going from supersonic to hypersonic involves very different propulsion technology.

Cheers CR

Rob N
Rob N
1 month ago

Little concerned that article like the above are mostly rehash of earlier articles…

I do not think there is anything new in this one….

George Allison
Admin
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

You’re concerned, why? Are you paying for this content?

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  George Allison

I would. Despite my occasional criticism, this has developed into a “must read” site.

Rob N
Rob N
1 month ago
Reply to  George Allison

No I just feel that a new article should have mostly new content. Otherwise it is just padding the output with old stuff…

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

Well it may not be shiny and new but it’s definitely got a conversation going.

Rob N
Rob N
1 month ago

I doubt the T26 hull form could support a enlarged VLS farm. I have also seen suggestions the hull cannot easily be lengthened.

So T83 may be a new ship. Not like the art above. I think a new hull would be a better choice as it could be more easily future proofed and tailored to a more capable destroyer role.

DJ
DJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

I understand that BAE indicated to Australia that T26 can go to 64 cells. Not sure where or what you may loose if you do. Both Australia & Canada are fitting 32 strike length mk41 upfront.

farouk
farouk
1 month ago

I have to ask how would modern anti ship missiles have fared against WW2 era armoured ships For example the cruiser HMS Sussex had an extra layer of armour fitted along her side which proved invaluable in 1945 when a kamikaze  aircraft crashed into its side and just left an imprint:


farouk
farouk
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Damn pressed the wrong button

RYJLgvyylI99-Upg5FM0rPnKlXN1h1D03uamhdqNMT0.jpg
TrevorH
TrevorH
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Remarkable. it reminds me of that anonymous artist guy who paints stuff in unlikely places.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  TrevorH

Banksy

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

To use a boxing metaphor they’d have an iron jaw. But they wouldn’t stand a chance of destroying or jamming anything that came their way. They’d take a bit longer to sink

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

I would assume the last thing that went through that Kamikaze pilots mind was the prop as it slammed into the side and peeled off into the sea like an old roadrunner cartoon….

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Not very well, in fact missiles, more than aircraft, where the real deathknell of the Battleship. Images like the one you’ve posted are of the ships armoured belt (not an extra layer of armour but integral to the design), which sat over the vital areas of the ship on the side of the hull (usually protecting a citadel and magazines, but not the rest of the ship) and then a thinner layer of armour on top to protect from long range shells coming down, and some torpedo defence below the water line. Missiles don’t necessarily follow a ballistic arc, so,… Read more »

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Here for example is the armour scheme of the King George V Battleships, you can see the actual belt is about 15inches thick (closer to 17 inches if you include internal armour), but the top protection is only about 6-7inches of armour.

KGV-Armor_Scheme.jpg
Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

What it looks like from the outside.

King_George_V_class_battleship_1945.jpg
Rob N
Rob N
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

If you were after WW2 era ships today you would probably use LGB 20000 pounders. After all that is what killed the battleship. Also modern cruise missiles have bunker busting warheads that might defeat such armour (e.g. Storm shadow).

Johan
Johan
1 month ago

Take the Type 26 Bow and stern and Engine Sections and add an Extension, money saved on only changing center sections of a hull, and then design super structures to complete tasks.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Johan

They’d have to be careful with stability ranges. It could be done but if problems arose they’d probably be very big ones.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Not stability. Hull strength is the issue.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago
Reply to  Johan

So… What about the shaft line?
You have just added say a 25m insert aft which means a 25m longer shaft. Is the extra shaft kength internal? External? Where will the shaft bearings go? additional A frames?
What about the flexing of the extra Hull length affecting the shaft line alignment?

Don’t add length aft add it midships to fwd as was done on T42 and T22 it’s far easier.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  Johan

@Johan Can’t be done. The t26 is at its length to depth limit. Lengthening as described would leave the ship too weak because of the over extension of the hull girder. The ship would not then be able to handle longitudinal stresses imposed by the sea and enemy action. Think of a roof beam in a house. If the builder has to make it longer, he uses thicker material. A 2 by 4 grows to a 2 by 8, to a 2 by 12 etc. as the width it has to span increases. Or a bookcase, the longer the shelf,… Read more »

Jamie
Jamie
1 month ago

Fantasy Type-83 look from a Twitter account called @hmslion2

Length: 216m
Width: 24m
Draft: 6m under keel/8m under sonar bulge
Speed: 30+ Knots
Range: 10000 Nautical Miles
Armament: 2x Strike Length Mk 41 64-cell VLS blocks forward (for land attack/anti-surface/anti-ballistic/long range anti-air missiles), 1x Tactical Length Mk 41 64-cell VLS block aft (for short range anti-air missiles), 16x vls tubes for long range Hyper-sonic Missiles, 1x Mark 45 62-calibre 5 inch mount, 2x Bofors 57 mm L, 4x Phalanx CWIS, 2x 30mm DS30M Mark 2

We need a beast to escort the carriers and this or something similar would fit the bill!

TYPE84.png
geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  Jamie

Displacement Jamie?

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

You would struggle to keep her below 10,000 tons…..

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

That’s an impressive illustration, the scale of the 5″ mount, shows just how big it is.

Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

Never mind displacement, what about cost? I think we could afford one to replace six type 45’s!

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Jamie

That doesn’t look too different to the Italian DDX Design – possible opportunity for collaboration perhaps ?.

T.S
T.S
1 month ago

I see considerations for the T83 as including anti drone swarm weaponry, do we include land attack or add that elsewhere in the fleet and hypersonic attack and defence weaponry. The size of these missiles is much larger than current types and will require a much larger hull and cells. Is see the critical point as being whether the T83 will be purely carrier protection or more of a lonr wolf type ship in deciding its form and load out. Maybe we need to think more outside the box for a ship due in 20 years time? For a pure… Read more »

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  T.S

Interesting ideas.

David Bevan
David Bevan
1 month ago

It would be a mistake to base an AAW warship on an ASW hull. AAW doesn’t require a ship to be super quiet it instead requires that they have to be large. This is because: 1.It will need to accommodate a large number of missile silos. These are needed because the likelihood of swarm missile attacks have increased and our ability to replenish missile silos at sea is non-existent. 48 silos isn’t going to cut it anymore if it ever did. 2.Ship needs to be able to detect an incoming hypersonic attack early. Consequently ship will needs to have a… Read more »

Nicholas
Nicholas
1 month ago

I think I would be more confortable if we concentrated most of our resourses on arming the ships we will/do have. I know the numbers of ships is important but at the moment we are heading for a fleet with plenty of excellent senors and defensive aids but lacking in offensive capability.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  Nicholas

Aren’t you forgetting the F-35’s on the carriers?

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron5

The best AAW and land attack weapon in the world.

Nicholas
Nicholas
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron5

What happens when a ship is not in the company of a carrier?

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Nicholas

Don’t think we’d ever send a single ship into a serious threat situation. So it would always have back up RN or friendly.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  Nicholas

The strategy of the RN is focused on carrier groups. That’s a change from the recent past.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron5

Would you not say the jury’s still out on that capability? Currently only 2x AAM and PWMk4, at BLK 4 we get Meteor and Spear 3 integrated, still a little light for long range strike! Perhaps we will purchase a Heavy strike missile, or, it might just get left to TLAM units for that capability (SSN and poss T26), until FC/ASM comes along, who knows!

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

Not at all. A couple of PW IV’s will take care of pretty much any target.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron5

Might well be true if your target set plays in the sand or in caves, in which case a F35 or even a Typhoon is overkill, but against a more sophisticated opponent, having to get to the tgt area to release them might not be so simple. A few options on that front would prove useful I would imagine.

Marked
Marked
1 month ago

Make sure there’s plenty of empty space for everything it will be ffbnw….

Paul
Paul
1 month ago

As a non-military person,(although a taxpayer, which gives me skin in this game) I am puzzled by the ideas which seem to want rehashed versions of the RN’s present designs. It is well publicised that the future lies in UAVs for such as: AEW, sonar buoy distribution, surveillance, launch of anti submarine weapons including torpedoes, logistics delivery etc. Furthermore, the RN has already indicated that at least some element of catapult launch and arrested recovery is likely to be required, even if this is designed for relatively light aircraft. Rather than looking at rehashing T26 would it not be more… Read more »

andy reeves
andy reeves
1 month ago

I HOPE they will be fitted with and not fitted for

Steve
Steve
1 month ago

My assumption is the RN has realised at last that each generation they get a cut, and so the best option is to go for more flexible platforms, rather than role specific ones. It seems a highly sensible approach to me.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

That has been true since the Falklands war.

Ron5
Ron5
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron5

Meaning that the RN has acquired multi-purpose ships since the Falklands showed the wisdom of so doing.

Pete
Pete
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Would think there is still a place for different classes of ships to excel in different area while maintaining a reasonable capability / flexibility in other areas. The idea of a Type 26 sub hunter with robust anti ship and Local Area air defence capability either working alone or alongside a AAW optimised vessel that has a robust anti ship capability and some anti sub capability (decent bow sonar and a helo with dipping sonar) makes sense to me. Both have a job to do as part of a csg but each can contribute to dealing with the broad spectrum… Read more »

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago

The future destroyer trend seems to be producing larger ships than the previous generation. A ship with a larger volume means you have more space to pack stuff in, but also means that future growth is no longer hampered by size restrictions. It also means that the ship can hold a larger magazine and thereby cope with a greater number of attacks. The South Korean KDX is a good example of this trend, with the first batch based on the multi-role Arleigh Burkes Flight 2s, including their Aegis and SPY-1 radar. The second batch are now going to be stretched… Read more »

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Interesting post mate, lots of ideas to think about. A couple of points that struck me not only with your post, but others too, and that’s the size of the thing – specifically the displacement. There are not that many docks in Devon port/Portsmouth that can comfortably accommodate a T26, never mind something bigger!! I suspect we will need some form of infrastructure build to sort that out-all adds to costs. You mentioned lasers etc, so , additional power requirements will be a big driver when it comes to propulsion/power selection for the ships. The really obvious candidate in this… Read more »

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

Providing electrical power to supply 4 SMART-L MM panels and 3 Sampson 2 arrays, then a pair of 100kW+ lasers plus everything else, is going to place a huge demand on the generators. Will the T26’s MT30 plus the 4 MTU Type 20Vs provide enough power or the T45’s WR21 plus the 3 MTU series 4000 gensets? I would suggest that running the proposed systems would be very close to the max power supply limit. So would a pair of MT30s be the answer, or 4 gensets? Possibly, but as you suggested nuclear could be an option using a RR… Read more »

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

It’s all swings and roundabouts particularly with Nuc power, but once it’s in it gives you what you need! Nothing else seems to fit the bill currently, not sure if it ever will either! Bigger engine and more gensets obviously also work, but as you say fuel…….
Things will be interesting before this comes to fruition.

T.S
T.S
1 month ago

I can’t help bit feel if we had known T83 was to be a large hulled all-rounder multi purpose ship then we may have made different choices with the t31/T26. If we are to build T83 at say 12000 tonnes all singing and dancing and in reasonable numbers, T26 could have and maybe should have been a smaller cheaper ASW specialist? Force structure could have been: T83 x10-12 – AAW, land attack, anti ship, BMD, off board systems and reasonable asw. Protect carrier and used to go to very high risk areas. T31 x 8 – 5-6000 tonne decent mid… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  T.S

Remember, the former Type 22 frigate was simler to size(148m) as the new Type 26 platform. It was used as an ASW platform, the size made for better sea keeping in rough waters. The Type 23 has been a good ASW frigate over the past 30 years, but it’s size has limited it’s potential. A T26 of only 3500T will be even more limited then T23, with less sea keeping qualities.
Forget about Mk 41 VLS!

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Phil
Phil
1 month ago

In order to use the T26 hull for AAW, and free up space for more missiles, might the helicopter go, to be replaced by autonomous drones which might take far less space? As long as “something” in the area has a helicopter, does “every” ship need one? A type 83 with lots of AAW missiles, a clutch of long range surveillance and attack drones, and long range sea/land attack missiles would be a powerful force multiplier in a Carrier Group?

Nathan
Nathan
1 month ago

It does seem as though the RN have truly realised that to cut waste and ensure timely delivery the experience and systems needed to deliver a project have to be in place and well oiled. You can’t allow an industrial base to atrophy as that will bake-in costs and delays from re-learning skills into every project and undermine our ability to deliver project requirements on cost and to programme.

Good job RN.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

The Type 26 hull is not best suited to be an AAW destroyer and long term replacement for T45. But it does have Mk41 VLS. If you fitted a suitable radar to augment Artisan and systems could you fill our ABM capability gap with SM3s? ABM and hypersonics are the near term threat to CSG that we don’t have an answer to at the moment. SM3 is the the best there is. If its possible systems and radarwise putting SM3 in the T26 VLS makes sense. Additional small build of T26 ABM sub class?

Last edited 1 month ago by Paul.P
Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

“Additional small build of T26 ABM sub class?”

You end up with ‘fleets within fleets.’ And they can’t be everywhere.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Quite. But if they don’t need to be everywhere …and IIRC there are a couple of Sampson radars going spare after T45 numbers were cut. The vanilla T26 has 24 Mk41 tubes. The Hunter variant will have 32. It’s an optional insurance maybe to get you through to T83 ISD if you feel doubtful about the Aster Block 2 development.

Anthony Robinson
Anthony Robinson
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

There are no spare Sampson radars!

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

Ah, ok. Thx for that. False memory syndrome 😂

DJ
DJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

You would start by removing Artisan & fit a better main radar as per Australia & Canada. On a T23, Artisan is reasonable. It should not have been on the T26.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  DJ

Yeah, I did think there were in existence two spare Sampson sets but AR corrected me on that. I was trying to think out of the box of a quick way to increase the AAW destroyer fleet from 6 to 8. Both Australia and Canada are going for flat face AESA radars which require significantly more cooling than Artisan ( or Sampson) and result in more top weight. I think the Canadian design is already running into trouble on that score. If my idea is not feasible then so be it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. As I understand it T26… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The Australian Hunter’s with their CEAFAR may have an issue with ABM. In the vertical plane an AESA panel has a field of regard +/-45 degrees perpendicular to the array, i.e. a field of view of 90 degrees. Now to see straight above the array will need to be angled leaning back 45 degrees. But then it would be able to look down at sea level. Of all the imagery produced so far the main mast does not a show the panels angled back at 45 degrees. The Hunters look like the have a relatively shallow angle so that the… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Interesting. Can you tell me why everyone is not using the latest AESA incarnation of the Smart 1850 rotating radar? It looks like its angled at 45 degrees so should be able to scan sea to sky with multiple frequencies and transmit target info to a missile. In what respects is it deficient as the radar for a AAW ship?

Last edited 1 month ago by Paul.P
DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Probably cost. At the moment only the Dutch LCF frigates have been fitted with the SMART-L MM AESA radar. The radar is significantly more powerful than the previous PESA version (and electrical hungry). In several Formidable Shield exercises the radar has been used to provide tracking information for SM3s fired from Arliegh Burke destroyers to intercept exoatmospheric targets. The Dutch are the first European Nation to upgrade their ships for ballistic missile defence. At the moment these ships are only equipped with ESSMs and SM2s. The problem they have is the funding for SM3 and SM6. Italy will be the… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Great survey of what’s developing in this area. It does look like we can expect T45 to get Aster Block 1NT anti IRBM capability in the A50 silos, with some radar upgrade to match. Whether this is MM or some uplift to Sampson will be decided by cost and UK jobs I suspect. In any event we will get a SM6 level capability. I suspect SM3 / Aster Block 2 anti ICBM capability will have to wait for T83 for which the radar is anybody’s guess. Realistically though isn’t the Kh32 type missile more of a likely threat for us… Read more »

Barry Charles Searle
Barry Charles Searle
1 month ago

Just wondering the total of this Type 83 will be confirmed and is the expert total.
My personal total is 12…

AU
AU
1 month ago

Just to clear things up a bit, the Type 26 Hull is more than capable of a larger displacement. The Australian Hunter Class have a planned full load displacement of 10,000 metric tonnes, as per recent Australian Senate Estimates.

Anthony Robinson
Anthony Robinson
1 month ago

The most important driver for the Type 45 design was the location of the Sampson MFR; very much driven by the laws of physics in combatting increasingly faster and higher missile threats. It is difficult to imagine this changing for the Type 83 and I wonder if the Type 26 design would be able to support the requirement (excuse the pun!).

Barry Charles Searle
Barry Charles Searle
10 days ago

I have a question….
The total will be built of the Type 83 Destroyer and also will the VLS Total will be the same as the Arleigh Burke Class and will the Type 83 have same anti-ballistic capability?! Like to see a total of 10 Built.