Home Sea Type 83 Destroyer project status update

Type 83 Destroyer project status update

26
Type 83 Destroyer project status update

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has clarified that the Type 83 destroyer programme is still in the pre-concept phase and no budget has been allocated for its procurement.

This information was revealed during a written question answered on 16 June 2023.

John Healey, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, raised the question to the Secretary of State for Defence, seeking details on the expected procurement and whole life costs of the Type 83 destroyer programme. “To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the expected (a) procurement cost and (b) whole life cost of the Type 83 destroyer programme,” Healey inquired.

James Cartlidge, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, provided the response. He explained that the programme is yet to reach a level where a budget can be allocated.

“The Type 83/Future Air Dominance System programme remains in the pre-concept phase and has not yet reached the level of maturity for budget allocation,” Cartlidge said.

He further clarified the intentions of the department, stating, “It is the intent of the Department that the programme and procurement strategy will be decided following the concept phase. The concept phase will determine the procurement and whole life costs of the programme.”

Regarding the funds allocated so far, Cartlidge revealed that a small amount has been allocated to workforce-related funding. “It is difficult to delineate precise costs, particularly as Type 83 is pre-concept, but workforce-related funding estimated to be less than £1 million has been allocated to the Type 83/FADs programme to date,” he disclosed.

As it stands, the Type 83 destroyer programme is in its infancy, and the Ministry of Defence is working through the initial concept phase before any substantial budget allocations or procurement strategies can be determined.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

26 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve
Steve
9 months ago

It should be pretty easy to guess when they will arrive. Take the longest out of service date of the t45 and add 5 or 6 years.

Back_Aftie
Back_Aftie
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve

i suppose it depends if treasury/MOD want to save money, i know its uncommen for them. T45 is now hitting the maintenance/obsolesence tipping point. items no longer available = massive amounts of money for continual redesigns to install replacement equipment. its sorta like this:- upto 10 years old, standard maintenance and the odd redesign item. 10-15 years old, increasing amounts of redesign items. over 15 , you may as well buy another ship because the refit would cost more and still not solve all the problems. dont forget a large amount of the equipmet installed was purchased and built pre… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B
9 months ago
Reply to  Back_Aftie

We are spending a lot of time & money on T45 putting right teething issues and getting a solid platform. Should we end up with six reliable destroyers we should look to work them to death & perhaps add more if we need new hulls. Personally I would like them to spend a little time and effort of the T83 design to ensure it includes emerging technologies in the quantities needed.

Back_Aftie
Back_Aftie
9 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

We are spending a lot of time & money on T45 putting right teething issues and getting a solid platform. “not enough” Should we end up with six reliable destroyers we should look to work them to death & perhaps add more if we need new hulls. “because not enough, not 6 reliable” and definatly not at the same time. Personally I would like them to spend a little time and effort of the T83 design to ensure it includes emerging technologies in the quantities needed. “use prop system from QE with smaller diesels, use upgraded sampson for radar, fit… Read more »

Jon
Jon
9 months ago

At first I thought it would have been better to have asked when will the Type 83 enter concept phase and for how long is that expected to last, but having some up-front idea of how much money we are prepared to spend isn’t a bad idea. We keep making the mistake of coming up with exquisite requirements first, then scramble around trying to buy half the number we need because it’s all we can afford. Perhaps it’s time that even in the concept phase, we try thinking about overall budget and whether we’d be better served with more, cheaper… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B
9 months ago
Reply to  Jon

That is where we were going with the T31 – start with what we can afford and look to the Henry Fords of this world to build something useful. Yet to see how that turns out.

Jim
Jim
9 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

Agree, nothing wrong with upgraded versions of the systems we have. Start simple and work out way up from there, get numbers then add capability.

Look at the mess in the US with zumwalt.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
9 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

T31 was the latest most upgradable hull that RN could afford.

So now the Mk41 upgrade and the AShM upgrade and in the works.

It isn’t quite the same with AAW where you need the VLS and top end radar from the get-go and they have to work with the CMS.

But you can go down T31 route with hull form and defensive aids.

T31 would have been better with ARTISAN but that would have meant paying to integrate it into the Thales TACTICOS CMS which would have meant risk money rather than fixed price.

Marcus FARRINGTON
Marcus FARRINGTON
9 months ago

Another low hull number, vanity project methinks…Probably the first £1.5 bn ship that isn’t a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier..And the RN will get 6,perhaps 4 when bean counters finished so 1 or 2 of them at sea for some of the year?…The money would be better spent on doubling/trebling the Type 31s with more Mk41VLS capacity. Conversion of big hulls (enhanced civilian)as BMD/AAW ships with big VLS capacity protected by the extra 31s gives a faster turnaround…More hulls means more availability and better defensive spread.Still gotta crew everything though….

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
9 months ago

Its big enough to be a cruiser. Its been a long time since the RN had a cruiser. You can load a ship that big with all sorts of weaponry and advanced radars and digital wonderfullness. If it ever sees the light of day I will be amazed. After having spent £100 million or so the MoD will scrap it to pay for yet another delay to Ajax. And nobody will be made accountable

marcusfarrington
marcusfarrington
9 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Can it really continue like this for next 25 years?By 2040 maybe 5 x31s,8 x26s,2 x83s,the Darings on their last legs sharing crews and missiles,40 year old LPDs….Upgunning the batch 2 Rivers might be an option,Marines with MANPADS anyone??..What a shambles!!

Meirion X
Meirion X
9 months ago

Unless you have a crystal ball?

Meirion X
Meirion X
9 months ago

The T31 has not even got the space in bow for sonar, only good for a patrol vessel in places like the Gulf.
The RN needs something like the Burke for AAW, and BND, with at least a fleet of 12.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
9 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

“The T31 has not even got the space in bow for sonar”

Eh?

Where did you get that from?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
9 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

That’s interesting jud5 read a US article lambasting continuing with the Burke design which costs considerably more to produce than it claimed South Korean and Japanese equivalents using similar technology but far more efficiently and with greater missile capacity on the latter. It even suggested getting one of those Countries to build their design for the US navy as the US itself doesn’t even gave the capacity to build as many warships as it needs so it could get a superior design quicker and cheaper. So rather go to one of those Countries to build their design than build outdated… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
9 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

If you look on the A140/T31 site you’ll see all the variants on offer. Room for a sonar should not be a problem.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
9 months ago

Meanwhile in the last 6 years China has launched 8 Type 055s and has 8 more planned. We really need to speed up our procuremnt processes.

Peter tattersll
Peter tattersll
9 months ago

I would go for 6 very heavy armed big destroyers . 6 heavy armed frigates with anti sub warfare capabilities .1 helicopter carrier . Obviously the the 2 big Queen Liz carriers .. 3 Swiss knife style troop carriers with capable defence and attack missiles with at least 2 navel attack helicopters sub hunters on every above ship . Also bulked up with 10 high tec 1000 Ton small missile ship’s / Arm all partrol ships with anti ship anti aircraft & mine hunting capabilities .

marcusfarrington
marcusfarrington
9 months ago

Nice list!!!Cost billions,not enough money,not enough personnel,not enough will to deliver it.UKmust divest itself of overseas possessions,being deputy ocean police after Uncle Joe not sustainable.Slipping slowly down the blue water listing….

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
9 months ago

Is there much point in having a navy if it’s not to patrol around the world? Be as well having shore based anti ship missiles and patrol boats.
I think a Navy is needed as one of its jobs is to deter nastiness at sea as that’s where our trade come from.
Problems come when defence inflation runs over 10% each year but GDP only increases 0-3% a year. Can’t get the same amount of stuff as before unfortunately if the budget is less relatively speaking.
Also stupid year on year accounting decisions haven’t helped in the past.

Last edited 9 months ago by Monkey spanker
DJ
DJ
9 months ago

BAE are already showing T83 concepts based off the T26 hull. What MoD wants is of course open to question, but companies are at least not waiting & even concepts like these cost money to produce.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
9 months ago
Reply to  DJ

Well they have the CNC files for the foam for the T26 models so they probably don’t cost that much to knock out.

Deebee
Deebee
9 months ago

Whatever eventually replaces the Type 45s, let’s hope we get more than 6 ships, I won’t be holding my breath though.

Coll
Coll
9 months ago

Looking like a type 26 hull with an extra middle section. I would have thought that might be the case to reduce R&D and retooling. Obviously, this is only a concept.

Last edited 9 months ago by Coll
Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah
4 months ago

One wonders if it is time to think about arsenal ships. Which are multiple missile silos to back up the AD destroyers and counter saturation attacks .

Peter Elliott
Peter Elliott
5 days ago

Industrially, the build needs to start before the last Type 26 leaves Govan. Start there and work backwards to deduce the timeline for design and Business Case.