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’.

Avatar photo
Jon, who many of you know as 'Defence Geek', is a leading member of the Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) community. He is the co-host of the OSINT Bunker Podcast which is made in collaboration with the UK Defence Journal and is a Co-Founder of the Military Aviation Tracking Alliance group whose work providing news during the Kabul Airlift reached millions of people.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

105 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gunbuster
Gunbuster
2 months ago

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… Read more »

DJ
DJ
2 months ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

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… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago
Reply to  DJ

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… Read more »

ChrisLondon
ChrisLondon
2 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Good post thank you.

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
2 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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.

DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

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).… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by DaveyB
SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago

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

Asker of questions
Asker of questions
2 months ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Not a chance with any of the current possible governments

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 months ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

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… Read more »

Berman W Mo
Berman W Mo
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

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.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
1 month ago
Reply to  Berman W Mo

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.

Cthulhu Arose
Cthulhu Arose
2 months ago

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

Berman W Mo
Berman W Mo
1 month ago
Reply to  Cthulhu Arose

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.

Berman W Mo
Berman W Mo
1 month ago
Reply to  Berman W Mo

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.

Berman W Mo
Berman W Mo
1 month ago
Reply to  Berman W Mo

I forgot the Dutch Navy’s De Zeven Provincen and German Navy’s Sachen class frigates share the same design.

Ian
Ian
2 months ago

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.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian

Correct and we don’t need separate target illumination radars.

Ex_Service
Ex_Service
2 months ago

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… Read more »

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
2 months ago
Reply to  Ex_Service

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… Read more »

Ex_Service
Ex_Service
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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… Read more »

Dave
Dave
10 days ago
Reply to  Ex_Service

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… Read more »

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

In a similar vein I think the politicians have allowed the tail to wag the dog for too long.

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
2 months ago
Reply to  Ex_Service

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

Last edited 2 months ago by monkey spanker
Ex_Service
Ex_Service
2 months ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

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.

Berman W Mo
Berman W Mo
1 month ago
Reply to  Ex_Service

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.

Jonno
Jonno
2 months ago

We want 8 and we wont wait!

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

‘ 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’… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Gavin Gordon
DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago

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… Read more »

Jon
Jon
2 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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.

Eric
Eric
2 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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.

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  Eric

That is what I have read too – Germany does have a soft spot for Colonial Cruisers 😋.

Berman W Mo
Berman W Mo
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Berman W Mo

Cheers for the update. So the F125 is more in keeping with the RN’s T31 being a general purpose frigate.

AlexS
AlexS
2 months ago

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.

Last edited 2 months ago by AlexS
Jon
Jon
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

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?

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

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.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

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

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

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.

Ryan
Ryan
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

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,… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  Ryan

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.

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

The Type 83 will likely be fitted with DEW Weapons during their lifetime, if not at build.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

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.

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

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.

IKnowNothing
IKnowNothing
2 months ago

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?

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

It has been tried but is very awkward to carry out successfully.

Tom
Tom
2 months ago

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.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  Tom

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… Read more »

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 months ago
Reply to  Tom

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

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
2 months ago

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… Read more »

Jon
Jon
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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.

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

You just ruined most folks reason for why the Soviet Union was great and the USA sucked😂😂😂😂😂

Paul.P
Paul.P
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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.

Last edited 2 months ago by Andy reeves
Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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?

Jon
Jon
2 months ago

I want to argue exactly the opposite premise to that in the article. “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’.” 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.… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

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… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

As for the 80% solution, only the fifth missile needs to get through

Jon
Jon
2 months ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Very amusing, and as I’m sure you understand, not what would happen.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

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.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

*halve

DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

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… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Yes, re-use of S1850 is a good idea, in the same way T26 will re-use the T23 towed arrays, using old radar from T45 will be a useful upgrade, especially if panels were… Refreshed? Is that the word people use? Don’t CAMM variants all use the same software? So no CMS changes needed. I thought that was one of the central advantages of CAMM concept. Similarly, CAMM is preferable to Martlet due to increased range. I don’t think there’s room above the hangar for 57mm. There was some debate when armament was announced as to whether 40mm magazine would fit,… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

For some reason numbers didn’t appear
Each paragraph is a point made by DB

DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

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… Read more »

Louis
Louis
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

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… Read more »

Jon
Jon
2 months ago
Reply to  Louis

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… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Jon
SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

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.

Louis
Louis
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

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… Read more »

Peter S
Peter S
2 months ago

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… Read more »

Andrew
Andrew
2 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

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.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

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.

Louis
Louis
2 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

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… Read more »

Peter S
Peter S
2 months ago
Reply to  Louis

Yep. That’s why I assumed the QEs will remain largely unarmed.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
2 months ago
Reply to  Louis

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!

Last edited 2 months ago by Quentin D63
Netking
Netking
2 months ago
Reply to  Louis

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?

Louis
Louis
2 months ago
Reply to  Netking

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?

Netking
Netking
2 months ago
Reply to  Louis

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… Read more »

Louis
Louis
2 months ago
Reply to  Netking

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… Read more »

Netking
Netking
2 months ago
Reply to  Louis

“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.

Last edited 2 months ago by Netking
criss whicker
criss whicker
2 months ago

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?

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  criss whicker

Way too early to say 👍.

Richard Beedall
Richard Beedall
2 months ago

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… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
2 months ago

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… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Jonathan
SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
2 months ago

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… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Others have said the same below.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

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

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
2 months ago

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… Read more »

Martyn B
Martyn B
2 months ago

Have smaller ships with fewer missiles and build at least 10 of them.

Nathan
Nathan
2 months ago
Reply to  Martyn B

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.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 months ago

If we see one in the fleet before 2035 I’ll be amazed

Nathan
Nathan
2 months ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

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.

Val
Val
2 months ago

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!

Andy reeves is overflowing with my complaints
Andy reeves is overflowing with my complaints
2 months ago
Reply to  Val

In the 2030’s T83 will still be in in the back of a a stamp

Glenn Ridsdale
Glenn Ridsdale
2 months ago

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.

Big O
Big O
2 months ago
Reply to  Glenn Ridsdale

SM-2 are being upgraded with new seeker heads, so performance parameter’s are speculative at best

Glenn Ridsdale
Glenn Ridsdale
2 months ago
Reply to  Big O

Interesting. What upgrade is that? I wasn’t aware of one.

Big O
Big O
2 months ago
Reply to  Glenn Ridsdale

Duel mode seeker, active radar and other upgrades.

Glenn Ridsdale
Glenn Ridsdale
2 months ago
Reply to  Big O

You’re not talking about the cancelled Block IVA are you?

Harper (Kenneth John)
Harper (Kenneth John)
2 months ago

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.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
2 months ago

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

Meirion X
Meirion X
2 months ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

T31s upgraded to Iver Huitfeldts?

Andy reeves is overflowing with my complaints
Andy reeves is overflowing with my complaints
2 months ago

More than six are needed

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago

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… Read more »