The Ministry of Defence has again declined to provide any detail on progress toward the Type 83 destroyer programme, referring a parliamentary question about whether the ship will be ready by 2038 back to a holding answer first given in January.
The written answer, given by Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry Luke Pollard on 22 May in response to a question from James MacCleary MP for Lewes, repeated verbatim the government’s position that “the Type 83 concept is currently under review against the Royal Navy’s Hybrid Navy Strategy” and that “future business case approval remains subject to the Defence Investment Plan.”
The answer did not address whether the programme would be ready by 2038, the year by which the Royal Navy’s six Type 45 destroyers are expected to have left service.
The Type 45, which entered service between 2009 and 2013, provides the Royal Navy’s primary air defence capability and carries the Sea Viper missile system. Without a replacement in service, the Navy would face a significant capability gap in shipborne air defence or be forced to extend the service of the platforms.
The same holding answer has now been given in response to multiple parliamentary questions since January, when the UK Defence Journal first reported that the programme had been placed under Hybrid Navy review. An outline business case had previously been expected in June 2026, but that timeline has not been reconfirmed and the latest answer gives no indication it remains on track.
The programme’s uncertainty is compounded by the continuing absence of the Defence Investment Plan, which was originally due in autumn 2025 and has still not been published. The NAO has identified a £16.9 billion funding gap in the MoD’s 2023-33 Equipment Plan, and reports in March suggested the Type 83 programme could be among those delayed or descoped as part of efforts to find around £10 billion in savings. The MoD described those reports as speculation at the time, however.
The Type 83 is intended to be the centrepiece of the Royal Navy’s Future Air Dominance System, replacing the Type 45 with a next-generation destroyer capable of operating alongside autonomous systems as part of the hybrid fleet. The programme entered its concept phase in March 2025.
It’s not going to happen, ever
It will very likely happen. But it might not be a 10,000 ton very expensive warship.
Actually steel is comparatively cheap. It would be a mistake to try and squeeze it into small hull. The usual will happen they will say they will buy 10 and we will get 5. They will say that drones made the others not required…..
I think 6 would have been a more realistic order. Especially if they are considerably larger than T45. Maybe 8 if they are more T31 size with networked drone warships. I’m only guessing of course.
It really has been shown that just 6 is too few. I think 8 would be a good compromise. But if we have so few we should no penny pinch on their survivability. Not like the carriers that are the only major carrier not to have SAMs for self defence and has a pitiful CIW armament.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,—>>> PayAtHome1.Com
Which location would you place SAM’s on the QE carriers? Just curious as to how to integrate them without stopping flights from the deck if they had to be used.
As I understand it the 3omm guns were never fitted but there platforms are there I would place launch tudes there. As you know Sea Ceptor is a soft launch system so the deck would not be covered in smoke. The tubes could be angles slightly away from the runway reducing FOD risk. Better still the tubes could have doors that ope… i am sure they could devise a tube system or a light launchers to to do the job. Or even park a Sky Sabre launch unit on the front right of the deck and on on the aft right. This would give the carriers a credible self defence capability agains leakers and supersonic threats something Phalanx would struggle with. But they will not do this because it would mean spending money and admitting that the QE class is the most under armed carrier in the world. The argument from the MoD was that our carriers would be surrounded by a ring of destroyers and frigates…. where are they we have five frigates left with only 2 or 3 operational and 3 working destroyers with perhaps 2 good to go…. where is the ring of steel to protect such expensive investments as our carriers.
Cut welfare ..so sick of penny pinching on defense but lavish for the lazy . Just order the damn things on time .we have the ship yards and the experience.. build for god sake build .. we have massive capability gaps already.
2050 and we’ll still be waiting for Glasgow
I agree and to be honest my timeline will be gone before this mob even made a decision ! INFACT FUCKING MARVEL UNIVERSE WILL BE dead by the time we wake up !! EVERY GOVERMENT FROM COLD WAR ONWARDS should be tryed for treason….no1 priority in goverment is national defence !
Some things never change. The article could have been written 30 years ago about other projects.
I’m guessing they are looking into cutting planned hull numbers to fund the proposed unmanned ships. Which obviously will need multiple committees that meet twice a year with the first meeting voting on which biscuits will be provided.
They are probably looking at if building a very large very expensive warship is the way to go in this modern era.
Probably, but if they go big on unmanned I wouldn’t be surprised if they build fewer than 6 ships.
The 1SL said the era of big Expensive Platforms is over,Type 83 will likely be the RN’s equivalent of FRES.
I have my Doubts!….The HMS DRAGON Debacle Showed that Theres No Real Replacment for a Manned Flagwaver in Far off Deployments…!!
Honestly, my suspicion is we will settle on more Type 26’s (Or preferably for the cost T31’s) but modified for the FADS and Drone Command role over the ASW/GP role, and hopefully churn out another 10-12 of them, call them the Type 83 and decentralise a lot of the VLS capability into the uncrewed assets that will work alongside of them.
Let’s have the bloody DIP first. We need something to handle yesterday… Maybe today. Cos I’m staggered that the MOD has such a vast work force but seemingly it’s not actually doing much because there’s no money and no orders and no anything going on.
There is lots going on.All Procurement hasn’t been put on hold.
This is a disaster following on from earlier cutbacks and disasters. The enthusiasm for unmanned is apparent everywhere one looks but it fails when the codes are broken which they will be. The only way forward will be drones with a 3000 mile wire cable! Its an excuse for nothng to move forward. Why not cancel the FSS now.
This is all just an excuse, the ultimate smokescreen and obfuscation if you prefer. If not we should challenge them to reveal DIP Tuesday next week.
The Dip is being delayed by the civil service until after the leadership challenge on the grounds that another leader may well reduce an announced spending plan.
We are all waiting for the DIP to unblock the orders pipeline and provide clarity as to the future defence posture; I surely hope it does (and soon), but I am wondewring whether we are going to be disappointed in a lack of specific actions as opposed to the “aspirations” so beloved of politicians.
I doubt they’d cut hull numbers if we assume they’ll replace T45 on a 1-4-1 basis. Much more likely to ditch it altogether or de-scope.
FLADS is probably one of the best programs to delay to free up funding for GCAP, AUKUS and Trident renewal. There is no need for a 10,000 tonne destroyer any time soon, it’s better to split the program up developing and deploying the type 91 first along side T45 and rolling out the gallium nitride radar for the Type 91 and T26 enhancement. Then simply building an enlarged T26 hull in what ever numbers are needed as the command ship.
We certainly don’t need some multi billion pound program to produce three or four large ships just to keep designers at BAE in a job.
Nothing at all simple about enlarging the T26 let alone sensible.
Yet it’s already been done. The Hunter class is already an enlarged T26.
And had plenty of issues, and didn’t get that much larger.
T45s will be extended in service I’d imagine, given how long some of the class have spent alongside.
I’ve read often here and elsewhere of the importance of design skills and systems vs bashing steel, but it’d still be a high price to pay just for that.
If you recall the Type 26 was reduced from 13 hulls to 8 necause it was too expensive… if numbers are increased it will be a Type 31 derivative… Type 32?
However it has gone very quiet on the increase of escort numbers. We cannot have the situation we have now with the Type 23 where the replacements were not ordered in time and the ships we have left are falling apart.
It is all academic – all the money will be spent on bribing the populous to vote Labour.
It’s taking on average 13 years to BUILD a type 26 frigate. Anyone think we will design (with new capabilities), select and build a destroyer in that time? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.
We don’t need an entire new design and reboot, The manned component of FADS can just be an evolution of T26
FADS radar will need a big heavy ship. I knew there was a reason Fort Victoria was going into refit 🙂
In the light of today’s borrowing figures and the continued low availability of surface escorts, we need an affordable robust platform.
T26 might be the world’s best ASW frigate but we haven’t got one yet.
Ever smaller numbers of exquisite platforms is not the way to go.
Even the USN has been forced to choose a low end design frigate to maintain fleet size.
1 carrier at sea needing 1 maybe 2 air warfare destrohers with mahoosive radars.
Why not make the QEC the radar ship and transmit to the T82/T26s? What ambition do we have for truly independent air warfare destroyer with no counter sub, to sail sail the seas alone?
There is some merit in taking time on this vessel due to the upcoming explosion in drone technology. One option could be to stay the corse and build as planned or reconsider if such warships are going to be still relevent by 2040. Imagin how many drone craft of all sizes and weight could be procured for the cost of a fleet of T 83s. Manning availability and costs will play a significant role in future RN planning and such vessels as this maybe difficult to buy in the required numbers and to train and provide enough crews, based on current dwindeling recuritment numbers.
By that logic we would never buy or build anything as technology is always changing. The last thing we need is for another excuse for the Govt (of any color) to sit on their hands. We know when the type 45’s are going out of service and we need a replacement by then. As things stand we won’t have one. It’s not like we haven’t been down this road before. Just look at the state of the current frigate fleet.
Spartan, normally you would be correct by stating a need to get on with it. However, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room and that is a new era of technology and the birth of robotics and AI. These are fundamental changes that could ultimately bypass the human factor and there will be nothing we can do about it. Large drone warships are already being presented by serious voices in the industry as seen this week. There is merit in the concept of a biplane and such craft help sink the Bismarck but we did recognise that it would be pointless to continue to build them when the mono winged concept was so much more attuned to modern warfighting. The MOD is currently facing difficult choices considering the lengthy time it takes to design and build a fighting vessel. My intuition says order more T26 and T31 plus the T83 but in truth we could be making a choice between a valve powered cathode ray tube TV and a chip powered flat screen. Or a typing pool of a hundred secretaries in the 1950’s or half a dozen laptops doing the same work in 2026.
At some point you still have to pull the trigger. I agree with more frigates and would actually go for more T31’s in the short term with their greater ability to plug and play mission modules and lower price tags. In that vein, the T83 could be designed and built with a view to future upgrades and modules. i.e. extra power capabilities, general purpose silos and/or weapons stations. I know we have mocked it in the past but kind of like the “built for but not with”, BUT with the intent of applying the with when it becomes apparent what is required. The “with” then being designed to be slapped on the pre-purposed placements.
One possible route could be for T83 to be a hybrid hull designed for a multitude of tasks, from a mothership for a variety of surface and subterranean drones to a transformable full-blown destroyer when required. Possibly the best way forward for the RN is maximum flexibility built into every new warship. Both T31 and T26 have begun the trend of flexibility; it just needs to be broadened further.
Where is the energy source for all these drone craft derived from, for energ requires of radar over the horizon? And what of
jamming?
They’ll kick the can.
Billions saved now.
Further on, if they appear they’ll be fewer, augmented by uncrewed or optimally crewed.
Standard HMG.
Moving on. Would be fun if they grandstanded about 12 T83 like they did about “12 SSN” eh…..in decades to come while they won’t be responsible for the order or cancellation.
Drones are the answer to everything.
What do you call male bees? Oh, yes. You are totally right.
T83, from what we’ve heard from BAE, is being conceived as a single, large destroyer (9000t/10000t range), being escorted and augmented by 4-6 LUSVs.
Now, that sounds big. But, modern AAW destroyers are displacing 12,000t to 15,000t for more conventional designs. 10,000t is actually fairly small, for a modern destroyer.
With a planned crew of somewhere around 100 sailors, that’s a massive benefit as well.
Ideally, they drop almost all shipboard sonar requirements, and place that entirely in the LUSVs.
“Ideally, they drop almost all shipboard sonar requirements, and place that entirely in the LUSVs”.
Bit like the T31 then?
No, I would’ve preferred to see T31 have sonar, since it’ll be at best a decade before uncrewed escorts are ready to fully take on the ASW role.
But in the long run, if they need to cut costs somewhere, sonar could be outsourced to a fleet of USVs, that can then be shared between escorts when required.
If money can be found, then yes, equip it with a sonar.
It’ll happen much faster than that. We’ll have autonomous container ships on trial within two to three years. We already have containerised TAS. Automating that won’t be too tough. The trick will be making it ultra-low maintenance. Then there’s ASW UAS’s, and those are already on trial. Hybrid Navy is a priority so it won’t be starved of cash or will. Things will move at a faster pace than we are used to. Whether it’ll be available before we get into a war is anyone’s guess, but autonomous ASW when married to T26s, P-8s, and all the new T9xs, it will come pretty quickly. I just hope it works, because it’s a big old gamble.
Hopefully it’ll be shorter than a decade.
In theory, a drone or two would be able to do the TAS job better than the ship itself, being able to spread out further, essentially acting as a full ASW task group, directed at standoff distance by the T31.
But for that to work, the LUSV will need to match the T31 in terms of performance, sprint speed, range, et cetera. We couldn’t risk losing the ship’s surrogate sensors due to poor planning.
But if it works (and is tested), then I think shipboard sonar will become something of a ‘nice-to-have’ on non-specialist vessels like the T31 and T83. Obviously SSTD should always be fitted though.
I was teasing of course. Tend to agree that on balance T31 should have some sonar capability in addition to its SSTD if it is going to operate as a singleton patrol frigate. At the rate drone technology is progressing I’m not sure it will be 10 years before we see credible USV based VDS.
Hopefully it’ll be sooner. Given their lack of available underwater sensors, the T31 needs surrogate sensor platforms as soon as possible.
I’ve Always Belived that CANADA Will Cut its Order of 15?? T26s.. And look at an Air Defence Destroyer to Balance its fleet ..Possibly 10/5 Split …?
I Think a Export Vessel to Suit their ‘Possible’ Needs is in the Minds of BAE.!..This Would mean a Vessel of Around ~ 9/10000t
160m x 23m x 7.5m…!
Marginally Larger Physically than a T45….! Almost Certainly built in CANADA..!
The Canadian River Class Destroyer is in effect a capable AAW Platform,no real need to change the mix.
Recent Downgrading of the T26 River Class Air Defence Capabilites Would Suggest Otherwise
..! However the Point at Which CANADA Would Have to Make Such A Decision is Probably a Good Dozen Years Away and So we’ll Just have to Sit Around and See…!!
Type 83 never going to happen under this government .
Agreed they will kick everything down the road. Its because they have holed the ship of finance.
Didn’t Starmer promise there would be no delays to the programme? Kind of puts them in a bind.
Not sure why people are no just assuming this won’t happen, as well. They’ve not given any indications that it’ll be cancelled.
it might land up as ‘FITTED FOR BUT NOT WITH’ For Some Systems We’ve Seen in the Past…!!!
Funny isn’t it.
This not the 3rd time this story has been brought up, with nothing new added?
For a Goverment and Prime Minister telling us All to be Ready for War.!..There Not Half Dragging there feet on DIP…!
Just heard Raf Red Arrows cutting their Aircraft from 9 to 7…!!
OT. If Kyiv in Ukraine has just been hit by a Mach10 Oreshnik missile then it must mean the GBAD they have been given can’t defend against it? What does the UK have to combat this? Could sea or land Aster or any CAMM types handle this?
Absolutely no chance !.
This means they won’t arrive before 2040.