In March 2021 the UK Ministry of Defence released the command paper ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, where it made mention to investment in future naval platforms.
Over the last two years, more information on what this meant has slowly been revealed, with the announcement that the UK was developing the replacement for the 6 Daring-class (Type 45) destroyers, tentatively dubbed the Type 83.
The Type 83 designation suggests the ships will be much larger than the Type 45s they are intended to replace, possibly in the 10,000-ton category and fulfilling a much more multi-purpose task, as opposed to the Type 45’s anti-air warfare specialism.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
Events over the last few weeks (writing in early December 2023) have shown that the threat to international shipping by the likes of Iran-backed groups such as the Houthis in Yemen has not gone away, and coupled with an expansionist China and regular threats from the likes of Russia and piracy the warships of the future will face a range of threats, whether they be deployed to protect commercial shipping or as escorts to the UK’s carrier strike groups.
A recent BAE Systems concept image for the possible design sees the Type 83 potentially armed with up to 128 cells for Vertical Launch missiles, effectively making them comparable with a modern Ticonderoga-class cruiser.
Britain’s new warship – A Type 83 Destroyer concept surfaces
We’ve seen a few of the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (which have 90 to 96 VLS cells) in combat action in the last few weeks after the Houthis launched UAVs and missiles towards Israel, US Navy assets and now also commercial shipping. Some of these anti-air “engagements” have lasted up to 9 hours. At the moment, two Type 45 Destroyers are either in the region or en-route to the area, comprising HMS Diamond (D34) and HMS Duncan (D37).
In their present fit, they carry up to 48 Aster anti-air missiles in their VLS, or half of what a US destroyer carries. Under current plans all 6 ships will be refitted to add a 24-cell VLS for the Sea Ceptor missile, bringing the total to 72.
Given it’s unlikely we will see more than six Type 83s built, the MoD is going to need to ensure that these ships are potent – meaning a large anti-air capability for fleet defence and to deal with the growing threat of UAVs from Iran-backed groups, and to ensure these ships can provide the necessary protection to our own or allied carrier strike groups in the seas near China – which is developing an increasingly potent carrier-killing missile capability.
In an ideal world, the Type 83 will have over 100 VLS cells, with capacity for anti-air, anti-ship and land-attack missiles. The US faces a similar requirement, following cancellation of their proposed CG(X) project and an upgrading to their planned DDG(X) programme – formerly known as the Large Surface Combatant (LSC) initiative. The DDG(X) design currently proposed will feature 128 VLS cells, along with 2x 21-cell RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launchers in a hull estimated to displace 13,500-tons.
The US isn’t the only nation to recognise the need for a large surface combatant with a large payload either. Italy has proposed a 2-ship class of 11,000-ton DDX-class destroyers, with proposals for the design featuring between 64 and 128 VLS cells itself. South Korea has proposed a ‘Joint Strike Ship’ which would feature a variety of different missile launcher types for a total of 99 VLS on a 10,000-ton hull. Even Australia has had proposals from BAE Systems for a modified Hunter-class frigate design, adding a further 64 VLS cells to the current design, bringing that up to 96 cells.
But this isn’t all just theoretical… China has already built the Type 055 “Destroyer”, an 11,000-ton ship with 112 VLS cells, a cruiser, really. It’s believed that eight of these are already in service, and a further eight are planned.
In a world where the risk of conflict with China, or even just the threat of UAV attacks in the Persian Gulf, is elevated, a warship with a large multi-mission missile complement is becoming a necessity – and ships without such a capability may have to travel in groups for better protection or risk being restricted to second-line duties in less-intensive combat areas. The UK defence budget is not going to allow for the production of more warships without major funding from somewhere – and current government priorities suggest that’s unlikely, so finding the balance of quality and quantity is critical for the future fleet.
The Type 83 is going to need to be a high-end, well-armed cruiser-size ship with long-range. Air defence capabilities to replace the Type 45 destroyers is a must. Land-attack/anti-ship capabilities to complement the Type 26 Frigates will also be necessary, especially in a world where our F-35 purchase is unlikely to be as high as once planned meaning the navy could once again be a major player in offensive strike capabilities (as the US and French navies have been in recent years).
We cut the Type 45 programme down from 12 ships to just 6. We cut the Type 26 programme down from 13 ships to just 8. Let’s make sure that if the Type 83 ends up facing cuts, we still get a decent platform out of it – no more ‘fitted for but not with’.
The number of VLS tubes are not the be all and end all. Its the weapon systems that you have as a whole that count…Radar, ESM, Data Links, Missiles etc
USN uses a lot of SM2 Standards in its AAW missile outfits. Normal practise for the Semi Active radar homer is to fire a two-shot salvo at a target to ensure you have a high Kill Probability. The RN did exactly the same with Sea Dart and Sea Wolf back in the day
T45 uses Sea Viper active homers, and they normally only need one missile per target because an active homer has a far higher KP. Get it close enough to the target via the data link and when it goes active the target is in the no escape basket for the homing head and will be toast.
Noting that …the current AAW 48 missile outfit on a T45 doesn’t look so bad, does it especially if you take some of the 90 tubes on an AB will be out of the equation as they carry SM3 (ABM) , SM6(Active AAW and Anti Surface) or Tomahawk (ASM or Land Attack) and ASROC (ASW).
The Sea Ceptor fit which is also an active homer will be a massive upgrade in capability, 48 long range vipers and 24 Ceptors which also have an anti-surface capability
Fit to Receive isnt a bad thing. A lot of kit, both visible on the upper deck and more importantly below decks isn’t needed most of the time. Sailing around in low threat areas doesn’t need you to be fitted with all of the optional extras. Having them fitted is a maintenance and logistics burden that is only justifiable in high threat areas. The RN isn’t the only nation doing FTR by the way. look at the ABs based out of Rota compared to the CONUS units. Completely different weapons fit on the upper deck and below decks the stuff fitted for ops Room, Comms etc is also different vastly different.
Active radar versions of SM2 (& ESSM) do exist. It will however take a while for existing stocks to wind down & new versions acquired. Eventually they will both be active or dual mode seeker. One supposed advantage to semi-active is against aircraft where the planes EW system may be able to swamp or confuse the smaller radar & limited processing power in the missile, whereas doing the same to the often massive radar & processing power of a major warship is quite a bit harder. How likely that is, you may like to comment on.
I wonder what something like a P8 or especially E7 could do to an AIM-120 if it turned its full attention to it. Or one of those annoying Chinese fighter jets in the SCS.
Electronic Warfare is a very dark arts subject. But to explain some of the electronic cloak and dagger processes. For semi-active radar homing (SARH) missiles to home-in on the target, the target needs to be constantly illuminated. by radar This is done by a separate tracking and illuminating radar all the way to impact or close enough for the proximity fuze to activate. Arleigh Burkes use the SPG-62 radar. The pre-SPY-6 ships have three of these and can be identified by the smallish parabolic dish. These transmit a constant wave (CW) waveform.
The radar warning receiver (RWR) on an aircraft is particularly tuned to look for CW, as that usually means you are locked onto and a missile is on its way. However, an aircraft, unlike most anti-ship missiles can recognize that it has been locked on to and can start jinking and trying to break the lock by turning 90 degrees to the radar which minimizes the doppler signature (called notching). Or if they are lucky and have active and passive electronic countermeasures, in the form of RF jammers and chaff. That can generate either false targets, white noise spikes or an opaque wall that RF can’t see through (depending on the radar).
As the radar is looking for specific doppler patterns to maintain the lock. If the aircraft breaks the lock, they are safe for a bit, until the radar reacquires them when they no longer fly tangentially to the radar. Further, when the aircraft is jinking around, it will vary the amount of reflected RF that the seeker in the SARH missile sees. It may reduce to such an extent the missile no longer sees the reflection. However, by firing two missiles at the target, that are some distance apart. Then there is a greater chance that at least one of the missiles will see more reflection to home-in to. This is the reason that SARH missile are fired in pairs. It is also how the Tornado in Gulf War 1 was shot down by Patriot, due to the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) cock up! The pilot managed to evade one of the missiles, but got hit by the second.
Missiles like Aster, use an active radar homer (ARH) for its seeker. In this case it does not need the target to be constantly illuminated. But instead requires a search radar to keep track of its movements. The Combat Management System (CMS) works out a point of intercept based on the target’s predicted path and fires the missile towards that point. The Aster, will not be using its ARH at this stage, instead relying on its data-link back to the ship, for navigation updates towards the constantly updated predicted intercept point. When the CMS determines that the Target is within the Aster’s ARH envelop, based on the search radar’s data. It will tell Aster to go active.
Aster’s radar operates in the Ku band (as published by MBDA). This has a very small wavelength of 2.5cm to 1.67cm. Therefore, its antenna cross sectional area can be better proportioned to match the power output and receiver sensitivity, whilst still fitting in the relatively small diameter of the missile. Which means that it stands a much better chance of not only finding a stealthy target but locking on to it. On top of this, the ship’s CMS is still measuring target’s location relative the intercept point and the Aster’s relative location. If it decides Aster is not matching where it thinks the intercept should be. It will send corrections to Aster via the data-link. This is one of the reasons why only one missile is allocated to the target. As it has a significantly higher percentage of a kill (pk). It is also one of the reasons why a slowish Mach 3 missile can intercept a target that is much faster. As you “just” need to triangulate the intercept point based on both missile’s and target’s speeds.
At the moment Iskander-M is I believe, the only missile that deploys countermeasure, when it has detected it has been locked on to. It deploys both infrared and RF decoys, to try to confuse surface to air missile (SAM) systems. However, if the SAM system’s radar has decent doppler signal processing. It can using a moving target algorithm to deduce which is the true Iskander and what are decoys, based on the rate of change. Iskander will have a greater kinetic speed average. Whilst decoys will start slowing down after release. Which is why some aircraft use towed RF decoys, as they are trying to fool this particular algorithm.
A lot of radar guided missiles also have a “home on jam” capability, AMRAAM is a good example. The issue an aircraft would have is deducing where the “non-emitting” missile is approaching from? It could use an active radar based missile approach warning system (MAWS). But again, some missiles will be looking for that radar frequency. There are also UV/IR based MAWS. That can give a rough indication of where the missile is and how fast its approaching. But it isn’t as precise as a radar version. To blind or even burn out the missile’s radar seeker. You would need a very tight beam that is highly directional that can pump a serious amount of power. Using an active antenna array is going to be best for packaging as well as directional control. However, not all missiles approach from beneath the aircraft. Depending on range between the SAM system and the aircraft, a lot will be coming from above. Therefore you will need a number of antenna arrays to cover the full hemisphere of the aircraft for protection. It can be done, but its going to be pretty expensive. At the moment expendable active RF decoys and towed decoys are a cheaper, but just as effective option
The issue an E7 may have using a tight beam against a missile’s radar seeker. Is how effective is the missile’s RF filtering? The radar receiver, will be looking for a specific frequency that its transmitter has emitted. It will try to filter out all other frequencies. However, if the E7s MESA is transmitting directly at it. Who knows? There may be a good chance that it will overload this filtering. But it will need a lot of testing and I am pretty sure no-one will release that kind of information.
Good post thank you.
The battle between target and missile is a fascinating.
Newer aircraft hopefully have a much better change of successfully not being hit with missiles due to the cost, complexity and smaller numbers of aircraft countries operate.
The best way for the aircraft not to be attacked, is to not be seen in the first place. Which is where aircraft like the F35 have the advantage over say a Typhoon. But it also helps to use predominantly stand-off weapons, that can be launched beyond your enemy’s engagement envelop, i.e. Firing Meteor from an F35. Where the combination of the aircraft’s stealth and the missile’s long range, is beyond the detection capabilities of your foe.
A good example of how important electronic warfare has become. Is the upgrade path for Typhoon and its Praetorian defensive aids system (DAS). Leonardo are leading the EuroDASS development of Praetorian 2. The legacy Praetorian is very good and in some respects better than Rafale’s Spectra. As the radar warning receiver (RWR) can still operate when the jammer is operating. Plus Typhoon has a towed active RF decoy, along with the expendable RF Britecloud decoy/jammers.
Neither Thales or Leonardo will give an in-depth description of the upgrades that have been done to their systems. But you can safely assume, that Praetorian in particular, will have a widened effective bandwidth. Thereby allowing it to detect missiles that use active radars operating in the Ku and Ka bands. It is known that Praetorian’s electronic countermeasures can form a protective bubble around the aircraft, using the same techniques that Britecloud uses. It is likely that Praetorian 2 takes this a stage further, by upping the power output, to increase the diameter of the bubble. But also including more directional jammer control, by using active antenna array beam forming.
Presently, Typhoon uses an active RF missile approach warning system (MAWS). Although it transmits at a relatively low power output, it will still be detected. The next stage would be to make this an active electronically scanned array (AESA) based radar system. Which would allow it to use low probability of intercept (LPI) waveform techniques as well as a broader bandwidth for random frequency hopping. Thereby making it much harder to detect. But giving it a much better resolution of finding and tracking an incoming missile or two. Which will be more effective for directed countermeasures.
However, not mentioned by Leonardo (so far!). Is that Typhoon’s Praetorian should include a distributed Infrared detection system, like the F35’s AAQ-37 DAS. Thereby giving the aircraft full hemispherical passive missile detection capability. As well as expanding the lock on after launch capabilities, for the weapons carried by Typhoon. It can also be used for infrared search and track functions. Which would massively increase the pilot’s situational awareness. The system could be linked to the active RF MAWS. Where it activates the RF MAWS, if it detects a missile launch and the missile is closing with the aircraft. Which would then mean the missile threat can be better targeted by both active and passive countermeasures.
Furthermore I would predict, that there is likely to be an inclusion of an infrared transmitter with the towed decoy. Advance infrared missile technology is now using moving target algorithms. That can be used to determine if the heat source it is tracking, matches the original heat source velocity. It can use this to ignore flares. As a flare immediately slows down following deployment. So it is thought, by placing the IR decoy with the towed RF decoy. The towed decoy is travelling at the same speed as the aircraft. Thereby making it harder for the missile to ignore the decoy.
This does mean that the decoy will be targeted and thereby used up. So is more of a last chance solution. Where systems like directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) will become more prevalent, as it has a greater stand-off range to effectively decoy the missile. DIRCMs are now using lasers as the light source. This doesn’t mean that the laser burns out the missile’s seeker. But instead either tries to blind it or feed it false targets for it to follow, that are steered away from the aircraft. There will be a point where the laser does becomes powerful enough, where it may start to damage the seeker. But I don’t believe we are there yet. The Su57 has a form of DIRCM, will we see something similar fitted to Typhoon, especially as a flare’s effectives is significantly decreasing?
The upgrade to Praetorian is incredibly expensive, but is planned in to the aircraft’s life cycle. It is sadly what is required for a non-stealthy aircraft to survive in a modern air denial environment.
Hurrah, the case for the Cruiser. Now we have carriers a Tico equivalent to form the centre of a CSG is a good idea, with a 2nd Tier AA based on T31 to act as an outer cordon and to escort LRGs. So therefore, given the cost of advanced cruisers, we should have 4-6 T83s and have 6 or so T31 AA that will be available more often due to simplicity, to cover different roles
Not a chance with any of the current possible governments
I served on the Blake, the last cruiser the RN operated. A ship of that size is not like a destroyer even though many appear to be of that impression ..ucb high crewing NEEDS an d operating costs a commitment to at least a ix ship class will be needed if only to cover the need to protect the carrier in a CSG. At the moment we are deploying the CSG with two T 45 I’ve got a poor feeling about the type 83 project if things go to rags in the way that the type 26 and Type 31 have gone it will be in the.late 2030’beforre one appears in the fleet inventory. The UK must wise up to the fact that the current process is not good enough.
Or the Royal Navy can just buy modified Flight I and Flight 2 Arleigh Burke destroyer when they are eventually replaced by the DDG (x) or a bigger Flight IV variant of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. It would be more cost effective since it had already proven its worth and versatility.
However, the British parliament would never go for it since it is not built in Great Britain.
Hello, this is a bit of an old thread, there’s a newer article on T83.
I don’t think old ABs are worth buying. They wouldn’t be far off the oldest active major warships on earth by the time of their decommissioning and the tech on board would be ancient.
In addition, complex life extensions and upgrades, notwithstanding modifying the ships to work with British systems, would lead to higher through-life costs than just building new ships.
So you have 3 or 4 friendly countries that want similarly sized ships, that carry a similar complement of offensive munitions. Surely a collaborative approach is called for here? Even if just the bare bones of the hulls are the same, you would still achieve some economies of scale, which would go a long way towards closing the funding gap
The Arleigh Burke design is used by Japan and the United States. The Navatia F-100 design is used by Australia, Spain, and Norway. The French/Italian FREMM is used by Egypt, France, Italy, and Morocco. Since the US Navy’s Constellation class frigate is based on the Italian FREMM design but built in the United States, one can argue that they used this design as well. These ships are even built by an American division of the same builder. Fracanteri.
Not to mentioned the Type 26 frigate by Australia, Great Britain, and Canada. The Type 31, which is based on the Danish Navy’s Ivar Huithfeld, used by Great Britain, Indonesia, and Poland. The French Belterra class frigate is also used by Greece. Last by not least are the various version of both the Damen and MEKOs ships used by nations around the world.
I forgot the Dutch Navy’s De Zeven Provincen and German Navy’s Sachen class frigates share the same design.
If I recall correctly- those Aegis ships seek to put two missiles on every incoming target, while PAAMS does not. This has a bearing on how many VLS tubes are required.
Correct and we don’t need separate target illumination radars.
Given the present and emerging threats, it is logical more VLS cells are being fitted to the Type 45s and proposed for the Type 83s. It is also logical to use a system such as the Mk-41, allowing missiles such as Sea Ceptor (or replacement at the time of build) to be quad-packed; further adding to the lethality of the class – especially with drone or FAC swarms – quantity is necessary in this day in age – FFBNW is a flawed dated concept.
It would also make sense to return to (at least) the original 12 destroyers the RN had up to the ill-conceived ‘Peace Dividend’ a little while ago. The availability with just 6 units, while potentially fielding 2 deployed carrier groups, let alone any independent missions, is plain to see.
The problem though is, the MoD.
…Bloated.
…Inefficient.
…not delivering on the tenants it was created to deliver across the services. It should be replaced with the services themselves deciding how, what when to deliver military effect for the nation. The money saved for these 60k+ pers of wasted space would pay the so called defence blackhole in a little over half a decade. Sorry, I know, I started dreaming…
Interesting idea but MOD was introduced because to put it mildly the 3 services either started to play nicely or else.
Each service were setting their own requirements and ended up ordering completely different equipment with very little commonality or attempt to harmonise. And if you look at the USA they aren’t much better, because they still do it that way.
Hence DH Sea Vixen and Gloster Javelin. And that’s just a very minor example.
Are you aware that at the start of WW2 there was only 1 single calibre of ammunition common to all 3 services ? And by the end of WW2 that had risen to 3 and the 2 extra ones weren’t British designs.
They were the 303, 20mm Oerlikon and 40mm Bofors. The latter 2 weren’t even adopted deliberately but by accident. The navy adopted the 20mm and the Army needed something between 303 and 40mm so they pinched it. The complete reverse happened with the 40mm, the Navy needed something better and cheaper than the 40mm 2lb Pom Pom so someone bolted sone Army issue Bofors guns onboard ships.
If you want a laugh try listing all the various calibres of ammunition used by the RN during WW2. It’s scarey and must have been a logistical nightmare.
At least we do have some sort of sense now (sometimes), but they still need to be forced into it.
Just consider this both the RN and Army are introducing new 40mm guns but neither can use the ammunition of the other.☹️
Squinting and stretching logic (and history) as far as I can, it is difficult to see how the various ammunition calibres, typically used for AA gunnery justifies any argument for the MoD’s existence. I won’t delve into the history of the calibres vs the threat they were expected to neutralise, least I fall asleep myself.
Thank you for not mentioning (too much) medium calibre ammunition from the period of WWI thru WWII…as I might have felt more compelled to comment on the 4″ 4.5″, 4.7″, 4.7″ (!) and 5.25″ weapons more throughly.
And the Sea Vixen and Javelin… {peas and carrots}… really?
Rhetorical.
🤣🤣🤣
The theory of centralised procurement is correct, it should maximise efficiency through commonality and volume, especially now we have very little in terms of manufacturing diversity.
Using standardised kit when sensible, outside of clear specialisation would be appropriate, to allow variable sources of supply
However, whilst the strategic element of that may be in place, the long term vision feels wanting. The Type 45 are big ships and to have no land attack and limited anti surface capabilities just feels wrong, regardless of how good they are at air and ASW
I would like to see the next generation with 2 x 5″ artillery too along with some rapid fire 75mm for example for closer in support along with the usual CIWS.
The T83 looks like will be a big ship. Let’s arm her like one
In a similar vein I think the politicians have allowed the tail to wag the dog for too long.
I’m not sure why so many have such a negative view of the MOD. They undertake So many roles for the forces. If they weren’t around the role they provide would have to be done by each service leading to duplication and the number of service personnel doing desk jobs to increase dramatically.
No large organisation is perfect be it public or private
The negative adjective doesn’t distract from its accuracy unfortunately. Forces wouldn’t and were not historically as inefficient and ineffectual as the MoD on a (subjectively) good day.
You make a valid point that these civies take non-operational billets from those needing such positions; who could apply their operational experience to inform R&D and procurement directly. Thanks.
Mark 41 VLS also allow you to launch Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles from your size, which the Type 45 does not currently have. Hence the proposal to add the Mark 41 VLS. This is the same proposal to add the Mark 41 VLS to the Type 26 frigates.
We want 8 and we wont wait!
‘ The UK defence budget is not going to allow for the production of more warships without major funding from somewhere – and current government priorities suggest that’s unlikely, so finding the balance of quality and quantity is critical for the future fleet.’
I bare in mind that your quote was a chant from 1909, adopted by the general public, as the arms race with ‘just’ Germany developed. Yes, somewhat jingoistic, but nevertheless decidedly at odds with the above wording – at a time when Authoritarianism is well on the way to eclipsing any production targets we in the ‘West’ are likely to match, either now or significantly into the near future, even as a hot war rumbles on in UKR, backed by, you guessed it, the Chinese. An attitude made worse by the realisation that we did react quickly to the Cold War threat just a few decades ago.
I await a similar chant arising from the mouths of the electorate at a date not far ahead, unfortunately. But by then we may well have waited too long for many of the younger members of families, who surround us all, and pay the major cost. Which they will rise to, as always. I wonder where most politicians will be, as always.
A point to note is that the first German Navy F126 frigate has had part of its keel laid. Bearing in mind that this is a frigate, it full displacement is over 10,000t, yet are “only” 166m long. Looking at its spec’s, it is a bit light in the weapons department, in having only 64 Mk41VLS cells, supplement by 2 x RIM-116 launchers containing 21 missiles each. It’s primary air defence missile will be the ESSM Block 2 though. But I guess with ESSM, these can be quad packed in a single MK41 cell. Where the ship will also be using separate cannister launched NSMs. For such a large ship you would expect a longer range air defence missile, along the lines of SM2 or Aster?
What I’ve read elsewhere suggests that F126 will have only 2 x 8 cell blocks of Mk 41 per ship. So up to 64 quad-packed ESSM in 16 cells.
F126 will only get a meagre 16 VLS cells but since ESSM can be quadpacked, as you said, it will be able to carry 64 ESSM. These ships will be woefully underarmed.
That is what I have read too – Germany does have a soft spot for Colonial Cruisers 😋.
A very expensive general purpose general purpose frigate. Not surprisingly, it is designed to replace the F123 Deschutland class general frigate. The difference is the F125 is designed to operate on longer missions of up to 2 years. In return for better crew comfort, it is less armed than even most general purpose frigates in the same class. I think it only has 16 MK VLS. The 64 missiles that you referred to is quad packed ESSM class. The SM-2 and the SM-3s in the German Navy are carried by the Type 124 Brandenburg and Saschen frigates that are Tier 1 air defense ships.
Cheers for the update. So the F125 is more in keeping with the RN’s T31 being a general purpose frigate.
I am afraid that missiles are not enough against drones. We could see a thousand drones against a ship in closed environments like Red Sea or the Gulf.
Ships need to have several guns in 40-76 calibre and a 127 for anti large drones.
Another option is to develop even smaller than CAMM missiles. Say 4 mini missiles in each CAMM cell.
Or put Martlets in a launcher alongside the 30mm. What ever happened to that? Was it a technical failure or a success that wasn’t worth pursuing?
I think it worked fine but as it was “a nice to have” and we barely have a budget for “must haves” it wasn’t funded. personally I thought it was a cracking idea in fact it and a couple of manpads are the only add ons I’d stick on a River Class.
How about Starstreak in one of the Stormer mounts? The HVM is a pretty good option both against missiles as a last-ditch defence and drones. The Martlet missile uses the same launcher for a cheaper option and both missiles have an upgraded range of >7km
Would be able to be reloaded at sea, a very useful feature as would be operated like a gun system
Stormer mount can’t weigh much; it’s carried around by a 12 tonne tank that can reach 50mph. So the mounting won’t be more than 2 tonnes, probably closer to 1. 40mm Bofors weights 2.3 tonnes exl. magazine+ ammo
In the meantime I believe the French have put their Mistral with a 20-30mm RWS. Maybe they need reduce the Marlett to just four and box it with exhaust? I thought i saw that SEA Ancilia decoy mount could also take LMM/Marlet too.
If you’re talking about drone swarms in the hundreds or even thousands then missiles, unless they have large EMP warheads, aren’t ever going to be carried in enough numbers. Issue is guns are only mounted in single turrets now and even a Type 31 design is only going to carry 3 57mm-76mm guns on the centre line and maybe a 40mm or 57mm on each beam. If a reliable twin mount in the 57mm-76mm range can be designed and retrofitted to the Type 31 class then paired with 3P rounds or something similar then you have a solid anti drone, anti FAC, anti missile gun frigate and you can still have the vertical launch cells amidships for more serious threats.
Then though you have the issue of there being so few Western navies having ships capable of being turned into gunboats.
Also, on my opinion single guns, especially against many small targets, will be better than twins. This is because the limiting factor is not rounds on target but the number of targets you can engage, for which twice as many twins are better.
For example, the Phalanx + 30mm combo on T26 is better against drones than twin fast forty (the Italian one)
The T31 has just about the optimal armament, with 3P ammo, against drones and small boats.
The Type 83 will likely be fitted with DEW Weapons during their lifetime, if not at build.
If they ever get it to work, billions have been thrown at the subject all we hear is myth or gossip lots of talk about testing and the systems maybe getting trials on A T 23. But that’s all we hear.seeing as it is our taxes that are stumping up for the thing. I’d have expected by now to have been better informed especially when it has such a massive bearing on future systems and platforms.
The Technology now is not there in terms of capability, but we are talking about 15-20 years away,they will be a different prospect then.
I’d be interested to know if there is any likelihood of being able to reload VLS at sea. I can imagine many reasons why it wouldnt be easy, but for a fleet deployed away from a safe port for some time, there must be a case for finding a way to re-load at sea?
It has been tried but is very awkward to carry out successfully.
Just a few questions…
Why would the UK need ‘Cruisers’?
How and where would the RN use and deploy them?
What current part of the Fleet will be cut, axed or mothballed, to pay for them?
There are many more, but I ask these particular question, as as there are many who comment on this site, know exactly how the minds of non military bean counter accountants work.
I cannot see the RN getting a couple of these ‘Cruiser’ type vessels, without having to lose other ships, to pay for them.
Cruiser is not used in the WW2 sense of a ship supporting destroyers on independent ops
The modern cruiser is a heavily armed, AAW focused escort, though it may also include ASW.
This is because it forms the core escort attached to the carrier. The resto of the escorts can be rotated around but the cruiser is permanently attached to its carrier.
The reason we need these is because to counter MRBMs and Hypersonics an effective top end air defence needs to have huge, heavy radar panels and at least 100 VLS to cover a whole area for days on end. The T83s will replace the T45s hopefully on a 1 for 1 basis so there’s no risk of loosing other ships, thought I personally believe that a 2nd tier AA boat based on T31 will be needed for less intensive roles
Nothing to mothball is there? Buying these things would become the elephant in the room in the same way as the carriers were for all the R&D spent on DEW that if invested in other equipment tanks planes and aircraft might h been a better way to use the budget
Once upon a time NASA spent a fortune designing a pen that worked in zero gravity, the Russians just kept on using Pencils.
So just because China is building a larger VLS carrying cruiser doesn’t mean smaller and cheaper ones aren’t able to do what they need to.
I agree with GB a 10,000 tonne cruiser with over a 100 VLS per ship just isn’t necessary and to be quite frank given this is the U.K. we couldn’t afford 6 so probably 3/4 (maybe).
IMHO we need to take a step back and learn from the T45, T26 and Astute and look at the development costs of 2 purpose built from scratch designs and how that and the piecemeal ordering system effected numbers produced due to costs.
For example the T45 was originally supposed to be a 1 for 1 replacement for the 12 x T42’s. BAe were given the design job and building was originally going to be spread over 2 Yards.
MOD then got the RAND bods in to look at it and they examined it in minute detail (if you ever get hold of a copy read it, because it is a superb bit of work).
Barrow couldn’t be the 2nd yard as originally planned due to the issues with Astute, CL and H&W were no longer suitable so that left Portsmouth or just build them on the Clyde.
Eventually 8 were supposed to be built by BAe on the Clyde but also using some blocks from other yards. Six were ordered with options on 2 more but costs got too high and we ended up with just 6.
However the design & development costs of the brand new ship were £2.4 Billion before a single ship was built. Which when you spread it out over the final oa cost of ships of £1,050 million each means £400 million per ship just to design them and hence an awful lot of fitted for but not with guff.
Same thing happened with the T26 and the less said about Astute the better. Sorry can’t just skip this but if the idiot who gapped the design and production of Nuclear Submarines for 7 years can ever be identified I’d thump him. I can tell you that if they hadn’t done that we could have easily have had 10 and not 7.
Now admittedly in all 3 examples a new design was an absolute must have as their proceeding designs were all maxed out. And in the T42 case they went way too far.
So IMHO the way to go about the T83 is to do 2 simple things.
It may actually make more sense to just add extra T26 onto the existing orders to ensure continuity. And rather than buying any upgraded T31’s or T32s get Rosyth tendering to build blocks for BAe T26 and T26 AAW version. That gives BAe a real incentive to be competitive.
That may not be popular but one thing is certain BAe are building the facility at Govan to build T26 hulls and do so in a cost effective way. And that is reflected in the costs.
The 1st 3 cost est @£4 billion (or £1.33 billion each) next 5 are contracted for
£4.2 billion (or £840 million each).
Simple reason is BAe had only 3 on order to start with, so naturally they plopped the Design costs into those.
Moral is to only design brand new from scratch when you really do need to as it means you can actually buy more.
And quantity has a quality of its own.🤔
PS I would also see what capability could be put into a developed B2 T45 without a hanger nor the space allocated for A/S TTs that were never fitted. And how much that would compare to a new design or developed T26. The T45 is still a fine and spacious ship design with growth room.
At the start of the space race both NASA and the Soviets used pencils. There was a stink when NASA bought some expensive propelling pencils at over $100 a pencil.
The “space pen” that could write upside down and without gravity was created by Fisher, a private company, without any NASA funding. From 1967 onward, Fisher sold the pens to both the US and Soviet space programmes initially at less than $3 a pen, a fraction of the cost of those NASA pencils. But hey: never let truth get in the way of a good story.
You just ruined most folks reason for why the Soviet Union was great and the USA sucked😂😂😂😂😂
Given the state of the UK economy your ideas make a lot of sense. Also, is it feasible to consider designing the T32 ( or second batch of T31) in such a way ( power, radar and VLS) that a T45 (or an AAW T26) + a T32 = a logical T83. i.e. pair vessels up to achieve high end capability for CSG deployment rather than putting all your eggs in one basket.
Batch 2 type 45 would get my vote anytime the design is already there and it’s system configuration would be the issue up for grabs. building them would be a problem especially with the rate of production at the.moment,with the frigates, a backlog could be a problem I’d like to see more of the fitting out process being done as the the main hull is being built.
Good point. I don’t think the question of.longevity has enough attention paid to any Royal navy ship if the carriers are expected to be around for 50 years why can’t anything else?
I want to argue exactly the opposite premise to that in the article.
No! This approach will guarantee the number of destroyers drops to four. As the author points out, we’ve been there before. Exquisite requirements increase costs, which in turn cuts numbers, which drive up prices even more. The “solution” is NOT to make each one as gold-plated as possible because the numbers will get cut anyway. There madness lies. The solution is to cap the cost and see what’s the best we can get for the money.
Let’s do it differently this time. Let’s make sure we have enough platforms to both to drive the unit price down and give us the coverage the Royal Navy needs.
What if these were the choices?
Which would you pick?
I believe we have to say no to the gold plated and yes to the 80% solution, which will come at a fraction of the price. Automate to get the running costs down. Simplify to get the maintenance costs down. Build fast, and if that means borrowing, then borrow; it’ll come out far cheaper in the longer run. If the primary ship is to be a full function 11,000 ton cruiser, let’s leverage cheap steel and free air, and build some extra hulls with down-rated fit-out.
Let’s embrace FFBNW, because when war comes, we can uprate ships a heck of a lot faster than we can build them from scratch.
I’d take the 1.6bn Cruisers, personally
When the balloon goes up we are going to need as much capability as possible on the ground immediately. I’d rather that was condensed into a single world leading platform as a close escort for CSG as a single average cruiser with another hurrying to catch up. Realistically, now we have carriers, the T83s are going to do two things: working up to escort carriers and escorting carriers. So the “can’t be in two places at once” argument matters less and less.
However, I agree that T2 AA is an option, though I’d prefer this were based on T31 so it is more useful to the LRGs
As for the 80% solution, only the fifth missile needs to get through
Very amusing, and as I’m sure you understand, not what would happen.
But it’s such a good line!
You’ve spoiled my fun…
Seriously though, with the Chinese going for carrier killer missiles en masse, you need to aim for 100% coverage. If you double the price, you have the number of missiles that get through.
*halve
I agree, the T31 has the scope to be a much more capable air defence frigate, than it does for ASW. So lets make it so as part of a spiral development upgrade program.
First upgrade: Fit an additional primary L-band radar for long range volume searches. Which would leave the S-band NS100 for target identification, tracking and horizon searches. This would initially be a mechanically rotated single AESA panel radar, to keep the costs down. Or re-use S1850M, if the T45s and carriers get the AESA SMART-L upgrade.
Second upgrade: Integrate the rest of the CAMM family with the CMS. Fitting a mixture of CAMM, CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR in the CAMM and Mk41 VLS farm. Look at fitting Martlet to the two DS30 mounts, but with exhaust deflectors.
Third upgrade: Replace the aft Bofors 40, with a Mk110 57mm. Move both Bofors to amidships on sponsons, that allow a greater field of fire past the funnels. But will give a more balance layered defence. Especially if the Mk110 gets MAD-FIRES.
Fourth upgrade: Fit the Bofors 40s and Mk110 turrets with individual optical sensors. Can also look at installing individual X-band or Ku-band AESA radar panels to the turrets. To reduce the time resource allocation of the NS100 and to give the ship more damage redundancy.
Fifth upgrade: Install an additional Mk41 VLS farm in place of the forward Bofors 40mm. This could be for additional long range CAMM, Aster 30, TLAM, FCASW etc
Sixth upgrade: Replace the single volume search radar, with four L-band fixed panels.
Seventh upgrade: Replace NS100 with either four S-band ASEA panels or a mechanically rotating pair of AESA panels mounted back to back. Including an additional single fixed panel looking directly up.
Eighth upgrade: Replace the two Bofors 40mm mounts with Dragonfire inspired Laser based CIWS, if its available.
This would generate an air defence ship with similar capabilities to an existing T45, up to the Second upgrade. But from the third upgrade, the ship gets better gun based defences. Better resiliency at the fourth upgrade. With significant enhancements from the fifth to eighth. By using a continuous development program, costs can be programmed over the life of the ship and locked into the Navy’s budget.
Overall, methinks this makes a pretty solid base for 2nd Tier AA.
However, the cost of upgrades 5+ seems a bit “Nice to have”, could probably be used giving MRSS and others better defences.
I defer to your greater experience on these matters.
For some reason numbers didn’t appear
Each paragraph is a point made by DB
The RN have said that the T31’s planned life is 20 years. Where they will be replaced and sold on. Which follows the National Shipbuilding Strategy. However, they said a similar thing about the T23 and we are where we are with its maintenance issues, because of the decision not to replace them.
So being a pessimist, I would say the T31s will be in-service longer than expected. So we must include a plan B. Where the ship’s life cycle includes a linear series of upgrades to make sure it keeps up to date. The basic Arrowhead design has the necessary volume to fit additional capabilities. Something the T23 does not.
To that end, the steps I put forward are based on cost and incremental capabilities. One of Babcock’s models of Arrowhead included a SMART-L type radar, mounted on a small mast near the hangar. To me, both the T26 and T31 should include a second primary radar as a matter of necessity!
The amount of resource time that a single radar has to do, whilst conducting a volume search, tracking objects and identifying threats. Takes up a huge amount of processing time. Especially when the radar has to transmit multiple types of waveform over varying distances. For the T31 this gets worse, as the NS100 also has to give up resource time for Mk110 and the Bofors 40s. Before the targets are handed over to the optical turrets. But I’d suspect that the guns would be totally controlled by the radar in really poor weather.
Yes, CAMM will be already be integrated with the ship’s CMS. However the -ER and -MR performance parameters will need integrating. As their performance will be quite different to a standard CAMM.
When Babcock was awarded the T31 contract. BAe showcased a non-deck penetrating Mk110. It sat on a deck mounted magazine, that held additional rounds. I’m trying to remember if it was 120, but I think it was more. The mount minus ammo weighs 7500kg and the ammo weighs 6.5kg per round. So the hangar roof would have to manage 9060kg (240 rounds) plus ancillaries. I would say that is doable for the hangar roof, with a bit of reinforcing.
Although the DS30 + Martlet trials didn’t pan out. I think Martlet is still a viable option. Not as a specific air defence missile, but more for lower tier threats such as fast attack craft. But also as a lower cost option of dealing with drones. Do you really want to waste a CAMM on a cheap drone like a Shahed 136?
The other obvious option for dealing with drones, would be the ship’s gun armament. Especially if the Mk110 gets the guided rounds, such as MAD-FIRES and ALAMO. Not forgetting the programmable fuzed standard HE rounds.
I would say that from the fifth upgrade, we are looking at quite a large financial investment. As we’re increasing the number of Mk41 cells. Along with fitting much better radar. But up to the fifth upgrade would see a quite effective air defence ship, for not a massive increase in cost. Notwithstanding whether a laser based CIWS actually does become viable.
The issue is, where are you getting a 750m destroyer from?
Based on prices of b2 T26, a T26 AAW would cost over a billion each. That doesn’t even adjust for inflation by the time the contract would be signed in a few years.
You are not getting a good cruiser for 750m. These cruisers would be incapable of performing a role like BMD. In that case you have to chose between 4 ships that can do it all, or 8 ships that cannot. Sure, you might have twice the ships in the latter option, but if none can perform BMD you end up with a worse off fleet.
The 530m ship would end up being based on T31.
BMD is down to the radar and the missiles. Smart-L MM is costly, but not that costly, and the missiles aren’t included in the ship cost. Mid-tier AAW like De Zeven Provincien can include BMD so we don’t need a top tier AAW ship to get it either.
I admit I’d be okay with a tier 2 AAW based on the T31s. But I want something being built in the mid 2040s that takes us beyond 4 cruisers. Or are we going to gap again and watch Govan close down because we don’t need any more frigates until 2060?
As for the prices, they were just supposed to be indicative. I’m trying to illustrate a point, not write a binding contract. Yes, even in quantity, they would likely cost more. But if we went for exquisite crusiers, we’d also probably end up paying £2bn a unit not £1.6bn.
I have previously argued for the 4 Cruisers to be built alongside a T31 variant with S1850m (same as smart-L?). These would be able to have all of the roles of a T31 most of the time, but also have the ability to cover an LRG with CAMM-MR or similar (no BMD) and act as an escort cordon for a carrier.
Govan needs to diversify after T83 anyway. T26 replacement will need to start being built ~2047.
BAE has never taken shipbuilding seriously as there was never much money in it compared to their aviation side of the business. They threw away VTs market share in OPVs, Portsmouth was their most modern shipyard (and still is), not including Barrow, but they still closed it right before T26.
An AAW T26 would cost ~1.3 billion by the time a contract would be signed with 2% annual inflation. (Contract for an AAW T26 shouldn’t be signed until the first Aussie T26 is delivered to the RAN to make sure all top weight issues are ironed out).
In 2030 prices, I think a cruiser type could cost up to 2 billion in which case the choice is really between 4 cruisers and 6 AAW T26. To me the choice is clear, one of those allows for future growth, the other doesn’t.
The cruiser could have space for both the multi mission bay and a large armament.
An AAW T26 would only ever have 96 Mk41. The cruiser could have more, or different VLS types.
A reduced spec cruiser (no multi mission bay, less VLS) would cost just as much as an AAW T26 but have enough power for DEW and enough space for future upgrades.
A lower tier AAW vessel is a nice to have but not particularly necessary. A T31 with CAMM-MR would cover most roles other than ABM.
We have built 2 large carriers almost wholly lacking in self defence sensors and weapons. No other navy has taken the risk of leaving their carriers so completely reliant on escorts for protection. If this remains the case, air defence has to be the priority for the Type 83. Land attack, currently the preserve of the SSNs, could be carried out by a relatively simple separate ship and does not need to be added to the T83 design.
With T45 propulsion problems rectified and an upgraded missile capability planned, why waste money and time designing a completely new vessel? Better to have a larger number of T45 batch 2 than a smaller number of a new cruiser sized design that won’t be materially better in its core AAW role than a T45.
If the ambition remains to have a CSG and 2 LSGs, all three will need adequate protection, suggesting a minimum of eight in the class.
I was thinking the same. Build batch 2 T45’s with lessons learnt built in from the start. They may need to be built a bit bigger to accommodate new systems, but surely cheaper than designing a whole new ship? And I suspect cheaper than a modified T26 as a T26 is specially designed and built to be extra quiet in the water. An AAW ship doesn’t need that.
The cost for each. Ship, if it was too high means cutting other things and could trigger the retiring of the actual thing s we have.
The carriers do not need SAM’s onboard.
The option for missiles on carriers with the least amount of debris would be what the USN do with canister launched missiles on sponsons below the deck. I won’t post links here as it will be flagged but there are plenty of videos online where you can see it, debris goes everywhere. For the US in that scenario if launching missiles from the stern, aircraft parked around have to be moved first which includes the ‘junk yard’ where aircraft in maintenance are repaired on deck and 3 and 4 elevators, no aircraft can land until the deck is swept and ideally, flight operations are paused. From the bow launcher, again aircraft parked nearby have to be moved including 1 elevator, flight operations paused, and no launches from 1 or 2 catapults until the flight deck is swept for debris.
Other issues, is the space. The two launchers at the stern take up half the width at the stern. You also have to figure out how to reload them. For QEC that would end up being extra munitions lifts.
VLS would be even worse.
The only missile that wouldn’t cause these issues would be RIM-116. The RN doesn’t use this missile, it’s slow and has a range of just 10km. The RN would be better off waiting for DEW or 40mm.
Yep. That’s why I assumed the QEs will remain largely unarmed.
CAMM too, and if they modified the Starstreak to fire from a RAM type launcher or the SEA Ancilia decoy mount there’s options. Maybe the later also create FOD too? How other navies RUN their carrier ops and cope with FOD I don’t know? A couple of extra 30/40 mm on the Carriers to complement the Phalanx’s might be useful. Dragonfire, even better!
“For the US in that scenario if launching missiles from the stern, aircraft parked around have to be moved first “
Are you really making the claim that for a USN carrier to defend itself using it’s on board SAMs, they have to move their aircraft first before firing?
Obviously if the situation means you can’t, you wouldn’t, but it wouldn’t be ideal.
ESSM isn’t a point defence missile so why should it be on the carrier? Why would you cause all that faff when an escort could easily deal with it?
Firstly, launching missiles from USN carriers is not a new thing and the location of the launchers minimize the possibility of FUD. There are loads of videos on the net showing launches without a FUD issue,
“Why would you cause all that faff when an escort could easily deal with it?”
Do you think a capable adversary is there to play nice so you can “easily deal with it”? Believe it or not, Russian or Chinese war planners are not hapless buffoons just there to shredded by western weapons. Why do you assume escorts can’t be overwhelmed, bypassed, even if only temporarily for leakers to get through their defensive shield? Or in a worst case scenario, the escorts themselves blown up.
The missiles are located where they are because they can’t go anywhere else. FOD from the missiles either goes on the cats or the traps.
In all of these situations you’ve come up with where the escorts are all destroyed, or have destroyed radar or used all their missiles or whatever, the carrier is completely screwed. 3 ESSM launchers are not going to save it and will easily overwhelm it.
If you believe carriers should be able to fight on their own then the US carriers should have far more missiles, including BMD. They should also get sonars and towed array, with ASROC as well.
A CSG has layers to defend itself, ESSM is just a duplication of what’s already onboard the escorts.
“In all of these situations you’ve come up with where the escorts are all destroyed, or have destroyed radar or used all their missiles or whatever, the carrier is completely screwed”
Actually no. If the escorts are destroyed then yes a carrier has existential problems. If leakers get past the escorts then “short range” weapons like essm gives a carrier another layer of defense. Duplication of self protection systems for your Capitol ships is not a bad thing. It’s actually critical as ascm proliferate and become more capable.
any ideas how many ? as 6 type 45s were certainly not, may we hope for at least 10, considering china has 8 with 8 in progress so i read. any ideas?
Way too early to say 👍.
With Hunt failing in the Autumn Statement to recommit to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, the MOD and RN is obviously not going to have the money it had expected and based the latest Equipment Plan upon. Perhaps time to have a re-think. Perhaps build just 4 T83’s as dedicated carrier escorts – as per the T81! You can then also cut out some systems from the design, e.g. the medium cannon and a hanger for manned helo’s, in order to maximise # VLS modules. With the 8 T26 also having a primary carrier escort role’s, a deployed CSG will have a carrier, 1 x T82, 2 x T26, 1 x Tidespring,1 x FSS ship and 1 x Astute. Add on one or two allied escorts and that is a very impressive and capable force. But the workhorse escort will then become the T31, and 5 is obviously not enough. So give up with the T32 (probably a doomed project anyway) and build a few extra T31’s at a good price from a production line well down the learning curve?
I actually think the risk here is about the RN not getting a replacement for T45 at all until 2050…if the RN look for a whole new concept of air defence System and a new 10,000 ton hull just look at how long it will take…. to develop concepts…finalise design, build first in class, fit out first in class, do stage one first in class trails, commission, do stage two first in class trials, have initial operational capability, test new weapon systems..then finally get to first deployment..if the RN MOD and HMG as well as designers and builders are laser focused you are talking 2040-42 in a best case scenario…actually the last two complex high end escort concepts will have both taken around around 30 years from the point we are now to first deployment…yes you may say “but that was political and changing minds”…..so I say “what has changed”..if you think that will not happen again your wildly optimistic…..I think 2040-42 is the most optimistic timeframe for a 10,000+ new concept.. 2050+ is a more realist possibly and worst case, the lifex costs of trying to keep 40year + type 45s and building 1-2 10,000 new generation AAW cruisers takes the entire budget and HMG bins the project at 2 hulls and the RNs escort fleet is down the toilet for a generation.
If we we’re serious looking at a new concept air fleet defence system with 10,000+ ton cruisers as centre pieces to replace the type 45s after 25 years or so….the concept work should have been done last decade, the design done and the order ready for the slips in 2025….
As it is the RN escort fleet is so behind on recapitalisation that for this generation we need to thinking more along the same lines as they did for the type 31 purchase and build something adequate for the budget and timeframes as derisked as possible…use what is available..think adequate for needs and how can we get the hulls in the water, low risk and on time lines…that means concept by 2025..design for 2027 order 2027, long lead items 2027-28..steel cut and on the slips for 2029…floated 2033…fitting, first stage first in class sea trails and commissioned by 37…second sea trails and weapons trials by 38-39.
Do I think the RN should have a 10,000 ton high end AAW escort..yes that would be great do I think trying to get one would doom the RNs AAW escort fleet.. yes I do….get what is needed, don’t hope for what you want ( deluding yourself it’s what is needed) and get nothing.
other nations are focusing pragmatically on good but not outstanding general purpose escort…modest and in budget.
as an example France.. it’s escort fleet is actually moving to what is essentially a mid range set of duel purpose adequate escorts..with area defence spread across a number of…basically adequate ships…the FDI escorts will weigh in at 4500tons..have sea fire S band fixed panel radar, 15 silos for Aster 15/30 ( 16 silos)…it also has a good towed and hull sonar fit…it’s designed to do area AAW as well as ASW and act as a singleton..these follow from the FREMM DA 6000 ton originally ASW vessels…repurposed with an extended AAW fit..32 Aster 15/30…and the original FREMMs were ok AAW vessels not great but ok …as an addition to their ASW role..now I’m not saying we should be as pragmatic as France..4500tons for a do it all escort is giving no margin for growth….but we need a bit of of a pragmatic approach..secure the future escort fleet with modern ( under 25 year old) good solid performers….don’t risk the numbers falling off a cliff to pursue perfect.
I think that, behind the scenes, the RN has already done quite a bit of work on this. It’s well into pre-concept, which is where they define the requirements and try to work out what they need from the ship. It’s not unreasonable to guess that they already have a design in mind; BAE’s concept will have been based off a conversation with MOD
We all hope they get the T83 right, right numbers and right on time but if you want a stronger AAW right now to the next 5 years now there is the doable option to put 2 MK41s or A70s on all the T45s. How useful as a force multiplier would that be? CAMMs can go down the sides, some on the hangar roof, between the masts and even quad packed in the MK41s. Even purchase a pair of AAW T31s if you want something cheaper or upgrade the T26s as proposed for the RAN. There’re a lot of good options, how can they possibly go wrong with this?…. Lol 😁 Even an extra 1-3 T31s in the fleet so plenty to go around to patrol international trade lanes.
Others have said the same below.
The powers that be won’t be go for the to even happen in the projected price.is as he as high I expect that it Will be I think we all need a bigger navy but putting too much into something that we cannot afford is folly if it will ad I’d think be more expensive than perhaps the price of the Type 31’s, I’d go for more frigate and a bigger navy
Hopefully costs stay manageable. A ship can only be in one place at a time so numbers count.
Priorities should be datalinks for other manned/unmanned vessels.
Having sensors to detect above and below the waves.
A variety of weapons able to deal with aircraft, missiles, ships and unmanned threats. Ranging from cheap, large magazine weapons to long range aster type weapon.
Room for 2 helicopters, unmanned aircraft.
Type 83 indicates the ship needs to be multi role. This would be useful if costs can be kept under control and capabilities aren’t lost in one area to be in another. Being able to deploy alone and detect above/below the waves is important.
The type 23 can currently operate above and below the waves so lessons should be taken from that and the 26 program.
Cost will be the deciding factor on how many ships actually get built
Have smaller ships with fewer missiles and build at least 10 of them.
It’s not just number of missiles driving ship size. If you want a radar that gives continuous, full coverage against ballistic and hypersonic missiles, that will be bigger than Samson, with multiple arrays. You will still need some (at least) of these mounted high up to cover sea skimming missiles (and small surface threats?). The missiles to counter ballistic and hypersonic missiles will be bigger too, as will your own anti-ship / land attack missiles. This all drives ship size up.
If we see one in the fleet before 2035 I’ll be amazed
So would everybody else. BAE will be building T26 into the early-mid 2030s. The public out of service dates for T45 and introduction of T83 is 2035 onwards.
We just don’t have the talent and guts to form a government this Country needs and deserves. The unity parties i.e. liblabcongreenplaidsnp party will only harm us. Stop voting for them!
In the 2030’s T83 will still be in in the back of a a stamp
It’s worth bearing in mind that Aster has a much higher kill probability than SM-2. SM-6 might come close, but it’s $5 million a shot! SM-2 is fired in pairs as standard, whereas Aster is launched singly, the expectation being one shot one kill.
SM-2 are being upgraded with new seeker heads, so performance parameter’s are speculative at best
Interesting. What upgrade is that? I wasn’t aware of one.
Duel mode seeker, active radar and other upgrades.
You’re not talking about the cancelled Block IVA are you?
Given how little the Type 45’s have actually been operated could they not be retained in reserve once the Type 83’s arrive. Some will only have been in operation for less than 20 years and should have a dozen years or more. Of course the MOD could refit them and then sell them as they usually do for a loss of course.
Yes, please! Would be nice to see T 45 kept on as sRBM and cruise missile defence for north sea and Baltics while T83 accompany carriers off on far flung deployments
T31s upgraded to Iver Huitfeldts?
More than six are needed
The latest from the Red Sea, is that the task force has shot down over 100 air threats in the last four months. Ranging from suicide drones, anti-ship cruise missiles and anti-ship ballistic missiles. This figure does not include drone boats or manned boats.
If there is a league. The Arliegh Burke destroyer USS Gravely is in the lead, having shot down 19 threats. Followed by the Mason, Laboon and our Diamond with I think 9 interceptions. Not forgetting the Ike’s air group that are on a similar number.
Perhaps more worrying is that the USS Gravely has had to use its Phalanx, to shoot down an anti-ship cruise missile. As the missile got within a mile of the ship! I believe this is the first time that Phalanx has been used to defend a ship from a live threat during combat operations.
It’s inevitable that at some point our two T23s will also have to intercept air threats.