The Type 83 Destroyer project, the replacement for the Type 45, will enter the concept phase next year.

Kevin Jones, MP for North Durham, asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the concept and assessment phase for the Type 83 destroyer will formally begin.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement”, responded:

“On current plans, Navy Command intends to formally commence the concept phase for Type 83 in early 2022 with the assessment phase to follow in due course.”

The Royal Navy is now looking at concept designs for the upcoming Type 83 Destroyer.

More information on the Type 83 came to light at a formal meeting of the Defence Committee with the topic of ‘The Navy: purpose and procurement’.

Glynn Phillips, Group Managing Director Maritime and Land UK at BAE Systems, said at the meeting:

“In terms of starting conceptual options early, we are, along with Navy and Defence, already looking at concept designs for the replacement of the Astute programme. The Navy are going through the concept designs for the Type 83, which will ultimately replace the Type 45.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded to a written Parliamentary question recently and said:

“The Type 83 will replace our Type 45 destroyers when they go out of service in the late 2030s. We anticipate the concept phase for Type 83 to begin in the next few years with the assessment phase following.”

Also, there are no concept images of Type 83 so our terrible mockup above will have to do for now.

Surprise announcement

The Defence Command Paper, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, surprised many by stating that the UK will develop a new destroyer type, the Type 83.

The white paper states:

“The concept and assessment phase for our new Type 83 destroyer which will begin to replace our Type 45 destroyers in the late 2030s.”

What might the Type 83 Destroyer look like?

The Type 45 Destroyer replacement is just an early concept at this stage but a variant of the Type 26 Frigate has been officially being considered for the job.

Last year the UK Defence Journal spoke to Paul Sweeney, former MP for Glasgow North East and former shipbuilder and we were told that consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26, a variant that could function as a future replacement for the Type 45 Destroyer fleet – the programme now referred to as Type 83.

HMS Daring, the first Type 45 Destroyer, was launched in 2006.

For a little bit of context, Paul Sweeney is a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Glasgow region. More importantly for the purposes of a discussion on shipbuilding, he was formerly employed by BAE in Glasgow. Paul has worked with the APPG for Shipbuilding which published the results of inquiry into the Government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy, taking evidence from a range of maritime security stakeholders and industry.

It is understood that the Ministry of Defence have an aspiration is to achieve continuous shipbuilding with the Type 26 programme in Glasgow beyond the current planned number of eight vessels.

Sweeney told me after attending the steel cutting ceremony for the future HMS Cardiff:

“It is clear that we now have a unique opportunity to create a truly international naval shipbuilding alliance with Canada and Australia with Type 26 (both countries have purchased the design) – and consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26 as an eventual replacement for Type 45 – known currently as T4X. The aspiration is to achieve continuous shipbuilding with the Type 26 programme in Glasgow beyond the current planned number of eight vessels.”

We’ll publish more about the Type 83 as it becomes available.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

127 COMMENTS

  2. Well that’s earlier than I expected, which could be good news if they get on with it.

    The risk is with the first ship not required to enter service for at least 15 to 20 years there will be a tendency to faff around with the requirements every time some clever so and so comes along with promises of a must have gucci supa widget… Remember how long it took to develop the Global Combat Ship into the T26, early to mid 1990’s that started and we are still waiting for an actual ship.

    Please MoD / RN make yer minds up and get on with it. Pretty please.

    Cheers CR

    • How much of that was the navy making its mind up and delays due to Govt wanting to save money and dragging its ongoing feet esp as new Govts came to power. I suspect t the latter inevitably meant considerable redesign work to prevent the original concepts becoming obsolete by completion. Hopefully now that we see exports as crucial ingredients those ‘political’ savings will be seen as a disadvantage over advantage financially. We will see I guess.

      • A cycle of both.

        Y1

        “Yes, 1SL we will take a main gate decision next year have the design ready”

        “Certainly Minister.”

        Y2 – new minister

        “Minister we have the design ready as your predecessor requested”

        “Priorities have changed 1SL, sorry.”

        “We should continues with the development work, Minister?”

        “Sorry 1SL budgets are tight this year”

        Y3 – another new minister

        “1SL hadn’t we better get on with main gate on that new class of ships”

        ” Very good idea Minister the existing ones are costing more and more to run”

        “So 1SL when can we get them to Contract?”

        “Ah Minister, your predecessor paused the deign work.”

        “Oh No 1SL, best get on with this urgently”

        “I would be delighted to Minister”

        This can be looped and repeated with any number of iterations of these three main stages.

        All of which effortlessly build in cost increase and lack of design focus potentially over decades. As well of course the increase in running costs of the existing fleet.

      • The Typhoon replacement was meant to be a drone, but as it turns out, the Tempest will be piloted after all. So perhaps high-end autonomous platforms are progressing slower than we expect.

        • I believe the Tempest is currently being described as optionally manned, in part probably to make it more appealing to potential partners; such as India and Japan. It could be sent off on autonomous, drone-like strike missions, though.

          • The reality is that when the day comes in the future it may be robots and drones battlingeach other with humans lined up at consoles!! Gigantic Space Invaders. We are rapidly advancing to a very different and very strange new world.

        • I believe the Tempest is currently being described as optionally manned, in part probably to make it more appealing to potential partners; such as India and Japan. It could be sent off on autonomous, drone-like strike missions, though.

    • CR they must have come up with a concept to get to this stage. At the very least a one page document indicating weapons, range, tasking, defences, purpose, budget etc.and the RN / Government must have agreed this.

      The next stage is normally where they mess it all up and add loads of detail which constrains the suppliers, increases the cost etc. instead of simply asking potential suppliers for designs to meet the top line requirements. We might then have a revolution with the designers designing and the bookkeepers doing whatever it is they do best 😀

    • Good Morning CR. To put a personal perspective on that timeline, odds are that in 20 years time I will be compost!! Whatever happened to Liberty ships at a dozen a week!!!

    • Early concept phase. I wouldn’t expect them to enter service before the 2040s. I would expect close to a decade of tenders and retenders and the usual delaying tactics used by the government so they can juice out as much news without actually spending anything.

  3. Just had a closer look at George’s mock up….Oooo I do hope we actually get that many missile tubes 🙂 May be swap out the Phalanx for a Dragon Fire.

    Cheers CR

    • It seems to be either 8 or 12 per module with 7 modules. So that’s 72-108. 72 is what the Type 45s will have shortly. Ideally we would need 72-96 Mk.41 VLS and Sea Ceptor.

      • In service in the early 2040’s it will be interesting to see what the AAW and sensor outfit looks like. This is having to do the Area Defence role I assume.

      • Shouldn’t we be thinking of longer VLS than the Mk.41? Both the Russians and Chinese use much longer VLS so they can use the latest hypersonic missiles etc that, as well as speed, have range.

        • I believe our FC/ASW will be designed to fit in Mk.41. Since that will be our primary missile, which will likely be hypersonic, I don’t see why we need a bigger missile silo. Perhaps Type 83 needs something bigger than FC/ASW though. The Russians have a number of dangerous new cruise missiles in the Avangard, Kinzhal, Zircon and Burevestnik. I don’t know much about Chinese missiles but I assume it’s a similar lineup. Saying that they don’t work will not help if even one of them does in fact end up working. Meanwhile, we (the entire West – including the US) seem to be making do with missiles at least a generation behind, and the ones in development are already outclassed. Putin recently spoke about the fact that Russia has complete military parity with the US and is undoubtedly the leader in missile technology, and while most of that is likely bollocks, it is foolish to take chances

    • I do not think Dragon Fire has the punch to take our a missile currently. The technology is not that mature. However by the time we get the T83 we may have a son of Dragon Fire that can do the job. I think we should replace Phalanx across the RN with 40 and 57 mounts as per the T31. Phalanx is getting old and is lacking a longer range punch…

      • Isn’t Dragonfire a program rather than set in concrete. I’m sure it will itself determine what is achievable both as an initial fit but also what develops therefrom over time which will no doubt then lead to new programs taking whatever’s proven by it, other programs and new ideas to upgrade performance and further weaponry. Bit like how the Typhoon/Tornado in the war created a base design somewhat limited and indeed problematical, that developed extensively through the Tempest to the dramatically different Fury that was a world away in performance and capability.

        • Ashanti armies from the 17th century onwards were armed with muskets initially supplied by Europeans and by the 19th Century, manufactured by themselves. In the last Anglo-Ashanti war of 1899-1901 they had began acquiring and even manufacturing repeating rifles. Spears were never a major part of the armaments of an Ashanti army. Bows with arrows and cutlasses were the preferred weapons of Ashanti infantry when they did not have firearms.

  4. Remember the T82 Destroyer? HMS Bristol was designed as an area air defence destroyer which could act independently as a cruiser east of Suez. They were then abandoned when we lost the carrier capability.

    Well guess what the carriers are back and so will be the T82 concept in the form of T83. 6 (hopefully 8) large air defence cruisers / destroyers with plenty of missile silos so that they can protect the carriers but also act independently with ground attack capability is what the RN are looking at.

  5. I personally think it is time to breakaway from the monohulled vessels as they are getting far to big with all the power generation and kit they have to try and cram into one hull. With a trimaran design you could have the power generation and crew quarters in the central hull with weapon systems in the outer hulls also with a multi hull design it can carry a lot more weight so the outer hulls could be armoured so you can carry on the fight when there is incoming not only that you have a much larger carrying capacity and helideck. So if we have time let us develop a show stopper and not just carry on making the same mistakes.

    • Hi Steven,

      The problem with Trimaran hull forms is that they tend to generate significant role accelerations in heavy seas. However, BMT have come up with a new hull form that tackles this issue, the pentamaran.

      https://www.bmt.org/news/2020/bmt-launches-the-next-generation-hull-form-the-pentamaran/

      Otherwise I largely agree with your assessment that a multi-hull form would offer significant payload advanges, to least of which would be the possibility of raising the radar to push our the radar horizon. Also a really big mission bay is likely to a must as well…

      Cheers CR

      • I just think that the Monohulled design is getting too big with all the kit they are trying to put into them also it is hard to visualize a modern frigate or destroyer being able to take any sort of kinetic engagement and still be able to stay on station. With a multi hulled vessel you can have the central hull for the crew and power generation and have armour fitted to the outer hulls there by protecting the vessels vital parts so at least it can still generate power and of coarse protect the crew. I also think that we should be looking at lasers for a point defence system as a beam of energy is far cheaper that 1000’s of rounds or missile and will take up less room. The USS Ponce has been a test bed for lasers for some time and has had a number of results in taking out small boats and drones they have also been able to lock onto and engage rounds as small as 20mm but more work is needed as the energy leaves aren’t there yet to bring down the rounds but I believe it is only a matter of time. Also they (USN) are looking into a bigger version to take out ICBMs and satellites. If you could put that sort of fire power into a multi hulled vessel which was able to stay on station in a kinetic environment I believe you would have an HMS Dreadnought moment.

        • Yes there are survivability advantages too. The side hulls protect the centre hull. You could put the crew in the centre hull with the CIC. If you used podded propulsion you could avoid large engine rooms etc..

          • There are a number of advantages from construction in smaller yards to lowering kit into the water from between the hulls so as not to compromise the stealth mode also with a much larger flight deck you have the ability to have multiple airframes on board.

        • Thats not how the outer hull parts of a Trimaran or Pentamaran work for a naval vessel.
          They don’t have that much volume.
          They’re great for lots of things (increasing square footage for larger decks, potentially housing some propulsion e.g. azipods under them). But they’re not going to hold many Vl tubes..

          • They could be armoured on the outer side and release Torpedoes and/or drones from the inner side so you do not have to open a large door compromising the stealth mode of the vessel, also if the VL tubes are set into a hull at an angle of 15 to 24 degrees you will fit a lot more in this also helps with an automated gravity fed reloading system.

      • BMT proposed the Pentamaran design for the Global Combat ship that eventual became the Type 26 program, while Vosper Thornyccroft (VT) proposed the Trimaran Cereberus – see link on various designs proposed in the early days of the program

        https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/type-26-global-combat-ship-gcs-history/

        Also the Dreadnought 2050 design proposal of a few years ago proposed an interesting semi-submersible Trimaran vessel

        https://www.ship-technology.com/features/featurewarships-of-the-future-how-will-the-royal-navy-sail-in-2050-4718658/

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8LI4soClB0

        • With the leaps and bound being made in technology I think these types of vessels will be with us long before 2050 I just feel that the UK and especially the RN need to be setting the pace rather that playing catch-up.

    • Yes good Idea, if I recall the RN built a trimaran hull demonstrator. I think it was called Triton. However they never took the project further.

    • That is a good way to build a disaster.

      You start small, with civilian ships, then get bigger civilian ships.
      You don’t invest into amazingly expensive and crucial ship with a new hull type that is such a significant change.

      • I think it was thinking like that which sent the Titanic to the bottom.

        Changes have to be made the current hull form is getting far to big, and without any protection it will not last long in any sort of engagement were there is a surplus of incoming. So I believe that you would be saving money by looking at a multi hulled, armoured vessel.

        • No. Making an evolution of Titanic hull is not akin to make a revolution.

          You can fail basic things with a completely new concept. So you experiment first in real world before committing.

          • The concept of maintain operational ability despite receiving incoming is behind every squaddies training, we insure that our personnel now wear body armour so why don’t our expensive bits of kit use armour any more just look at how effective the Warthog (Thunderbolt ) has been over its illustrious history in a battle environment with armour protection for the pilot and engines and its no nonsense design. If you had an armoured multi hulled vessel there is no reason why spear external hull’s could not be kept in reserve and changed out at an opportune moment.

        • I would not say present hull forms are getting to big, there would be nothing to prevent you building a 100,000 mono hulled destroyer if that’s what you wanted.

          • You are right we have Destroyers the size of HMS Belfast ( the WW2 version) so why not keep adding to the size. Well if you put a T45,T23, T26 or T31 into an environment with a surplus of incoming you are going to lose vessels at a rate that the RN can ill afford. If you have a platform capable of operating in that type of environment and still do the job that it is designed to do you will be ahead of the game. So unless you are going to build a 100,000 ton battle ship (which might be a good idea) you will have to build a vessel capable of carrying armour and with a multi hulled vessel you have that capability in a smaller platform as it spreads the weight over a wider surface area and you have a lot more carrying capacity. Between the ww1 and ww2 there were experiments with water armour that is having a double skinned vessel with pressurised water between the inner and outer hull this seemed to work well against small calibre weapons up to 4.5 inch, it may be time to look into that as well for future designs.

          • how about converting surplus VLCC, fit 1000’s of VLS ,radar / Aerostat Radar on back, ballasted it down would have low freeboard (low RCS?), they are double hulled already couple of T-26 for ASW protection, some CB-90 on davits for small boat protection you could even fit RAS and S-100/ Scan eagle drones

          • You forgot the fitted for but not with a guy topside with a cattle prod to stop any illegal immigrants trying to get a free lift back to Blighty

    • The trimaran idea is an old concept and moreover it was extensively experimented with in the 1990s/2000s for the RN with a real ship RV Triton over a long period of years. Ultimately the idea was rejected.

      • Yes it is an old concept well over 2000 years old, HMS Triton was sold/given to the American’s and from their assessment/experimentations the Independence class was born. I think its time we started thinking outside the box that the UK seems to have erected around ship design. I am not saying it has to be a Trimaran but a Multi-hulled vessel has more ability to carry a lot more top weight which is one of the limiting factors of a monohulled vessel.

    • Mono-hulled or multi-hulled, it’s still just a single target. Better to have multiple small hulls spread out from the mothership which stays back. Like an insect swarm, you can kill hundreds with no effect on them. You have to go through thousands to get at the Queen, and unlike Bees or Ants, we have can always have multiple Queens.

      • Yes you are right Phil, but why not strap on armour to our queens, that way the queen can still keep up the fight even when most of her swarm has been taken out.

  6. Please can the T83 have an ice hardened hull. Even if it is to the lowest ice hardening standard. Fighting in the Polar regions, or the Baltic in Winter, cannot be ruled out.

        • Ice is going in some places, but it is growing elsewhere. Hence that ship full of virtue signallers getting stuck in the Antarctic ice a few years ago. A tougher hull is also good in a large wave storm & gives you extra protection against a suicide bomb speedboat.

  7. Type 8x is multi-role. Type 4x is AAW. So why is this article talking about an AAW conversion of Type 26? That wouldn’t meet the need of Type 8x. Prob not big enough anyway.

    • Yes a big budget, futuristic cruiser and nobody is chiming in with their vision excuse me requirements. It’s a leap in the dark but I will take a crack. Tethered Airship AEW ‘balloons’; Hangar with anti-sub, transport and ISR drones; Mission Bay for surge drones and boats, fitted with a handling system that can temporarily extend containers on either side of the ship for missile launch; a mix of (108-144) Mk41, Aster, and CAMM VLS (or whatever their successors are); hull sonar (no towed array/AIP); 2x boat bays; traditional 30 and 40mm CIWS guns; and no main gun but lasers fore and aft with capacitor banks.

  8. A general purpose warship is required, that can do any task required by a ship of war, in any area of the globe.

    We could call it Martini … any time any place … oh nevermind.

  10. The objective is presumably to ensure there is a pipeline in place for when Type 26 and Type 31 production is completed – we haven’t seen the refreshed NSS yet, but presumably it will say how many and when.

    But we know any gapping of either Govan or Rosyth will create problems so they need to be able to place orders in good time to ensure the promised ‘drumbeat’ of surface ships is sustained. The same applies to SSN(R), they need to follow the Dreadnoughts on the stocks.

    Rosyth and Scotstoun have capacity to also contribute to FSS and MRSS, although there will be political and capacity requirements to get Harland and Wolff / Appledore and Cammel Laird business too – and both of these companies are better suited to building RFAs and specialist vessels like the National Flagship and MROSS..

  13. Starting to become bemused that we still operate on a replacement schedule rigidly determined by a peacetime Defence Budget of barely 2%. Unless Putin & Xi are joshing with us, that assumption could turn into a massive OOPs. Even Chamberlain knew war was coming and tried to buy time whilst production was ramped in the thirties.
    I know, I’ve just credited Neville favourably against our current politicians, one of whom fancies himself as the new Churchill.
    Strange times.

  14. Early days but the UK has yet to obtain any ABM defences when many others have had them a while & I’d like to see at least the T83s include them.

    • And some ABM Aster 30NGs land based too. Maybe they could even be interchangeable modules or shared stocks with our AAW ships?

      • It is absolutely imperative that we develop ABM capabilities soon. I see two main routes; joining in to the Aster 30 Block 2 BMD programme, or creating our own, Aster- or Meteor-derived ABM missile. All of our threats, meaning Russia, China, Iran and North Korea (I recognise that it is unlikely that some of these will ever launch BMs against us) are further than 1500km against us, and so purchasing 1NG is rather pointless, they would simply use a missile with a higher apogee. Land Ceptor, if we get at least 48 launchers (which I think is 12 batteries) will be very sufficient for our medium range AA needs. However, we also need long range BM defence, probably a similar 48 launchers. Russia has 400-500 S-400s, though geographically we are smaller and hence require less.

    • I don’t know why you say that. The 45s are fantastic ships and there engine issues are being sorted out. It is expected that any ship class will have flaws to iron out, whether it is carriers like QE or GRF or smallest vesses like LCS or Type 45.

      • Flaws to iron out?…these ships have been in the water since 2006 and we are still talking about having their design defects fixed! By the time all 6 ships have been ‘fixed’ they will be less than a decade away from retirement and each ship will have been unavailable for active duty for more than 20% of their planned 30yr service life and will have cost upwards of £1.5Bn each. To me, that’s the very definition of a lemon.

        • A single problem with a ship cannot reduce the entire system to a lemon. Yes, we know there are problems with the inter coolers but they are being fixed. In every other area, they have excelled. They are trusted by all of our NATO allies including the US.

        • Mac, whereas I understand your comment the T45 weapons and radar suite are as good if not better than most nations air defence ships. The let down for the T45 is the powerplant and not having the Mk41VLS fitted. Yes I agree the ‘fix’ is taken a long time, not only that but the problem has not really been sorted but worked around. Possibly it would have been better to have ripped out the complete powerplant and replaced it with two MT30s and four DGs. More expensive in the short run but much more reliable.
          My main concern with the T83 is radar suite, we need to start the development now to have them ready in 10-12 years, we also need to know how many will be needed to see if development cost is appropriate for numbers used. I hope to see the first steel cut by 2030-32 but I have this gut feeling it will be more like 2040.

  16. Type 83 needs to be bigger than Type 26 and heavily armed. A key decision will need to be the radar and missile outfits Type 45 has Sampson, but only 7 units ever made? Do we go with an upgraded or variation of Sampson in 15 years time? Or do we go with another outfit?

    • I would lean towards a SAMPSON-derived variation if we are prepared to invest significantly. If not, purchase from the US (though that would be politically unacceptable and hence I believe we will go for SAMPSON). Type 83 needs to be a a better armed Type 45, with FC/ASW, sufficient land attack capability, ABM weapons fitted an no FFBNW nonsense. And, crucially, the ability to defend itself from submarines. The fact of the matter is, that if a war hasn’t started by the time Type 83 is being developed, we should recognise it would start in the next few years. If it is to be taken seriously, it needs 72 Asters, 24 FC/ASW and 24 Sea Ceptor. 120 is the number the Chinese and the US are looking at. The Russians, whether the Lider project ever comes to fruition, want a combination of 100 Kalibr LAMs and Zircon AShMs. Plus 56 long range, BM capable S-500 cells, and 16 shorter range Redut AAMs. If we come up with a destroyer with 48 Aster cells and 16
      FC/ASW, it will flatly be outmatched in a one on one competition, and that’s not good when it is expected that we will have less of them than our rivals.

        • Whatever the deficiencies of the Type 45 are,i wouldn’t have put lack of size as one of them ,plenty big enough for their role,plus enough room for a 3rd DG Set to be installed .

    • I think perhaps it will be the same size or even a little smaller – but with a lot of automation and more of them. Should be an Arleigh Burke like multi-role destroyer, by the type number.

      • Doubt it, Bristol was enormous for its time. It will probably be in the size region of the Type 055. It needs to have very large amounts of power production, for DEW. In addition, it needs to carry the following:

        Ship-mounted torpedoes; no good having a chopper if a submarine gets near while it’s on deck. Type 26 doesn’t really share this problem since it will spot the boat much earlier.
        At least 64-72 Asters; same amount of Aster 30s as Type 45s but 16-24 BMD asters would be good.
        24 enlarged FC/ASW; it needs to be able to carry out land attack and reliably eliminate enemy ships.
        Around 24 Sea Ceptor; same as Type 45.

        I imagine the Type 83 will be a slightly larger, more modern Type 45 with roughly equal Aster 30 and CAMM numbers, but with ABM and land attack capability, and VLS as opposed to canister launched AShMs.

  17. Glad to hear, will be good to get on it!
    If the T83 will be a replacement for the T45, then not sure it’ll be completely multirole- wouldn’t hold out much hope for anything beyond basic ASW capability for starters. I know terms are a bit meaningless, but I’d call a frigate GP or ASW, Destroyer AAD, and a Cruiser the same but with C&C capability to lead a task group and maybe some additional VLS to allow for more surface warfare capability.
    From what I’ve read, T45s already do a fairly good job as a task force leader in coordination etc. (maybe someone else knows better how well they stack up against the other options in this regard), plus it has a respectable / standard number of AAD missiles and AShMs for a NATO destroyer. I’d expect more of the same from a T83, maybe greater command and control stuff and better surface strike loadout- make it more of a “cruiser”?
    That said, I don’t think T26 will cut it. I believe that stretching a hull lengthways isn’t too complex, but making one wider or taller creates a lot of complication. For greater VLS and taller radar and comms masts, you need to do both. Maybe the T83 could offboard some of that capability via USVs, but they’d still need to return to “mother” so the main vessel would still need to be pretty big, unless T83 becomes a system of systems like Project Tempest?
    Hopefully they’ll be considering all the options, including multi-hulled designs. Although I’d rather that they concentrated their money and efforts into the combat systems rather than novel hull layouts- skimping on things like CEC (I know there’s now a workaround) and VLS tubes is more limiting on capability than choosing a more traditional hull in my opinion.

  18. I do feel that this is wasteful, and that we should look to improve the AAW components of the T26 further and extend this class. If that means a Flight 2 design of T26 fine, but ultimately we need to leverage this design as far as possible – not least to ensure we have more ASW capability.

    A T26 with 72 Mk41 VLS and improved Radar would be a step change in capability without a significant increase in cost, especially given work being done on T26 for our Canadian and Australian cousins.

    Perhaps we should look at how to progress radar technology – making it lighter (no expert- so not sure this is doable and perhaps even a large rotary drone for long range that links with Artisan or another more powerful mast based product.

    as I said no expert, but perhaps we need to look at a different way of achieving the desired output.

    16 to 25 T26 should be the target – at which point the price per unit surely must come down to a sweet spot…

    • interesting point – now we seem to have fixed the propulsion problems – is this not the way forward for the whole future fleet?

      Would be interesting to get Gunbusters view on the benefits of this (or not)

    • Being pretty much a “bolt-on” system, Phalanx should be retained, along with the old GAM-B01 20mm and any remaining DS30B 30mm guns for equipping STUFT vessels and minor “combattants”

  21. Needs more flame throwers and dragons on the side far more Crome , “Crome might not get u home” but u will look good in the harbour, and air horns

    • I’m afraid that the Government policy of going Carbon neutral, Flame throwers and their effect on global warning means that unfortunately they want get passed the concept stage Tim but nice try I’ll raise it with Boris at this year’s Christmas Party

  22. Question 1. What will the type 83 be used for. We can all agree they will be the centre of Anti Air defence with an Anti Ballistic Missile capability. However the next part of the question would be does she have an Anti Sub capability or a Land Attack capability. I would go with the land attack.
    Question 2. Are they to operate with the carriers only or will they also act a surface action task group flagships. A surface action task group could be two or more frigates.
    Question 3. What will be our Amphibious Assault capability in 20-30 years time.
    Question 4. Will they need boat bays, I would say no.
    Question 5. Will the Type 83 need anti submarine helicopters?

    By answering these questions size, weapons speed and quantity will be answered.

    So for example if the answer to question 1 is that the new T83 will be a carrier fleet escort with land attack cruise missiles that would mean a missile compliment of Aster 30s, Sea Ceptor, Aster BMD say a total of 72 MK41s, then 8-16 anti ship missiles, and 16-24 land attack missiles in Mk41s/57s, with a 57mm-5inch gun 2-4 40mm guns and two point defence systems would mean the weapons fit. I do not think that the T83 should have a five inch gun, why, if you have an enemy ship that has come within gun range of the carrier your in trouble. The weapons fit would dictate the sensors carried. I would upgrade the SAMPSON to a three-five plane array.

    If the answer to question two is that these ships are for carrier task groups only then we need only four of these ships. However if they are to act as frigate squadron flagships then 6-8 of this type will be needed.

    To question three, if the RN is to have a good Amphibious Assault force for example 1 LHD and two LPDs then one or two of these ships will be needed, this now gives a build of 8-10, 6 for the carrier groups, two for the Amphibious group and two for frigate task groups.

    We could however do a mix of T83s and say a T46 on a four plus eight build. This way we have more hulls giving a more flexible fleet with keeping the cost within reason. The T46 could be based on the T26 but as an Anti Air vessel whilst the T83 could be based on the T45, but not its powertrain, no boat bays, remove the 4.5 inch and replace with 57mm, 10m insertion midships and 1m extra on the beam should give the size needed for a T83 land attack version.

    If the T83 does not have boat bays then the size of the ship can be reduced. If the ship does not need anti submarine helicopters then a smaller hanger could be used for RUAVs or possibly Crowsnest.

    • Alternatively, might be be a modern incarnation of a WW2 type cruiser role. Big/powerful enough to prowl alone or indeed to act as all of the above?
      The main slant will obviously be AAW, but it should be a capable ASW unit with credible land attack capabilities too. What that Involves in terms of drones/mission bays remains to be seen, but in terms of numbers, 8-10 is where we should be aiming given the current rhetoric.

        • Hi Simon, not really my area, but I believe that it was a stealth UCAV type drone in development in the early 2010s.
          Not sure what became of it, but the UK is pressing ahead with these type of drones for both the RN and RAF. I imagine some of the development work may well have found its way into these programmes. Sorry couldn’t be of more help, but some other posters on this site have far more knowledge in this area than me.

    • I agree. If we have three classes of frigate, I don’t know why we can’t have at least two classes of destroyer. Type 45s we’re about £1bn each, the Type 26s £1.25bn. And, to be fair, we might as well call the Type 83 a cruiser. All of this will only happen if there is a budget increase anyway, as even 6 Type 83s would be much more expensive. Though some doubt it, we can progressively see that the Commons are moving closer and closer to allowing a bigger defence budget. Back to the point. We should aim to have 4 larger (Type 055 like) Type 83 cruisers, and another 4-8 Type 26-derived 7-8k tonne Type 46 AAW destroyers. The Type 46s would operate as part of a carrier group only, providing air defence. Armament of the current Type 45 would be sufficient, as AShMs would be provided by the Type 26s. The Type 83 should be almost twice the size, and equal the Chinese 112-cell destroyers. 72 Asters, 24 of them with BMD capability, 24 more cells for an enlarged version of the FC/ASW, and 24 Sea Ceptors. Though, it would probably require less crew than a Type 23.

  24. Just had a light bulb moment to up gun the CSG if it’s too expensive to introduce a interim fleet wide harpoon replacement. As with F35b asking the us marine corp to borrow 2 Batteries of there new mobile NSM platform truck units. There is ample space on the carries to accommodate them and can be moved around the deck or stored below. As the marines who accompany them will take care or them. This means no expensive refits or training and only borrow them when the CSG sails.
    This should be a cheap solution which provides an instant uplift and gives the porcupine fleet a bit of bite. And if any feels like saying it won’t work ask the Us marines how they upgunned the USs America I think when it sailed through the straight of Homuze? They strapped 2 Stryker APC to the deck with there Towe missles and there 30mm guns to provide in close support against fast attack craft.
    Yes we shouldn’t be borrowing kit but I’d sooner do this then have them deployed without anti ship capabilities. It also means then can focus properly on harpoon replacement.

  26. Maybe time to draw on rather than multi-hulled types, to have a single base hull, and just load into the bays, operational pods. then rather than constant design studies, you could just say 10 of those base units.

  28. Joining the comments very late but I needed some time to think. Would I like to see 8-12 of these ships yes but its not possible. So I will try to be real with numbers and concepts.

    I would start with numbers yes we do need 12 dedicated air warfare ships so I would build four T83s dedicated anti air defence escorts for the carriers (two per carrier). Each with a 57mm, 3x 40mm( one forward B postion, two aft corner of hanger), 1 Sea Ram( aft raised half deck between the two 40mm), 2x 30mm+LMM ( port, starboard midships), 64 Aster 30, 32(quad packed) Sea Ceptor ER, 32(quad packed) Sea Ceptor, 16 TLAM and 8 anti ship missiles canaster mounted. That means 12 blocks of 8 Mk41s or Sylver A50s + A70s (six blocks aft of 57mm gun, six blocks midships). Plus two helicopters, no boat bays. This could be done on a stretched T45 hull. As most of the missile fit is European/British design then ten blocks could be Sylver and two blocks MK41.

    The other eight ships would be an anti-air version of the T26 frigate whilst keeping its anti sub capability. Use the same hull and powerplant, change the S1850M to a four plane fixed array into the mainmast, at the top have the upgraded SAMPSON. Replace the forward Sea Ceptor vls for two MK41s giving 5×8 Mk41s, keep the midship Sea Ceptors and have midships 8 anti ship missiles. Again the same gun fitout of a 57mm, 3x 40mm, 2x 30mm with LMM and a SeaRam in the same locations as the T83. Possibly remove the multi mission deck and replace it with a twin helicopter hanger plus RUAVs. That would give them a weapons fit of 8 anti ship missiles, 24 Sea Ceptors, 32 Sea Ceptors ER, 24 Aster 30s/1NT/Block 2 BMD and 8 TLAM. These ships would work on a two for one with the T83s and become the escort groups for the carriers. That means a total air defence of of the two carriers of 224 Asters, 192 Sea Ceptor ERs and 272 Sea Ceptors for air defence plus 64 land attack cruise missiles and 96 anti ship missiles of the carrier escorts if both carrier are at sea with their full T83/T46 escort.

    That would mean that the RN could defend against almost any nation from about 200 miles out. The F35Bs would engage a enemy air attack from 200-100 miles out, Aster takes over at 70-100 miles out, SeaCeptor ER at 40 miles, then Sea Ceptor at 25 miles, Sea RAM at 10 miles then the guns.

    This would do several things at once, as we are developling existing T45/26 designs it would reduce cost, as we are building on existing hulls and powerplants eg RR MT 30s it will reduce costs, as we are building on existing radar systems just upgrading them it will reduce costs. We also need to think about further cost reduction so for example Sylver vs Mk41. My conclusion is this as we will use mostly air defence missiles from MDBA then Sylver is the better fit and has the advantage of costing less whilst taking up less deck space. There is however a question of below deck space. It will also save in the intergration cost of missile to vls system. However both types of ships would need two Mk41s for TLAMs. If we build the T83 based on the T45 then the T45 hull would need to be stretched by about 10 meters midship aft of the funnel. If we build the T46 based on the T26 then we need to upgrade its radar suite along the lines of Canada or Australia and replace the forward Sea Ceptor vls for Mk 41s. Converting the midship mission bay into a helicopter hanger extension should not be a major issiue.

    As these ships would be the escorts for the carriers that would free up the T26 ASW versions to do the job that they are designed for hunt submarines in quiet. For the T26 escorting a carrier battlegroup is a waste of investment, a carrier group will create a lot of noise so all the money in time and design into these ships is wasted escorting a herd of elephants. It would be like the RAF taking a F35 to escort a B52 bomber. The enemy might not see the F35 but it knows something is coming.

    So now down to my idea on how to rebuild the RN, well you can see how I would sort out the anti air ships how I would save costs, and give the carriers a good escort of two anti air cruisers and four anti air destroyers per carrier with ASW capability without reinventing the wheel.

    I have also explained what I would do with the T26s operate in the GIUK Gap, however, are they equipped in the best way. No, the missile fit, radar fit and sonar fit I have no issue with. However, the 5in gun, why, they will never go on the gun line, so they don’t need it. Replace the 5in gun with the 57mm gun of the T31s and give the T31s the 5in. Then replace the 30mm with 40mm guns. The reason is simple the T26 should not be facing a swarm attack by small boats, it is an ASW platform meaning she should be out in the deep blue hunting SSNs. Not inshore or in maritime choke points. Apart from the issue of the main gun the T26 is a good design able to take care of herself and if fully equipped will cause a lot of damage. I just wish they had twin Merlin hangers or a Merlin/Wildcat with dipping sonar combination capability hanger.

    Now to the T31, this is a ship that can undergo the biggest transformation, so let me start. First she would get the 5in gun from the T26. Her secondery guns (40mm) would increase from two to three, one forward B postion and two aft on the corners of the hanger. Mid hanger replacing the current 40mm gun postion would be a SeaRam. Midships I would have three blocks of Sylver A50s and one block of Mk41s plus 8-16 anti ship missiles canister launched. If we build the T45 replacement on time then the T31s would be between 7-10 years old. So the Sylver A50s would come from them. If we keep the S1850M up to date then that could also be transfered over to the T31. That would mean the T31 could have the following fit out a upgraded S1850M, a NS200 (new), 24 Sylver A-50 cells, 8Mk 41 cells (new) and 8-16 anti ship missiles. That could mean 12 Aster 30s, 24 SeaCeptors ER and 24 SeaCeptors. Also with the Thales compact version of CAPTAS-4 (new) the compact version can be containerised with 20% weight reduction and a 50% smaller footprint and a helicopter plus 2/3 RUAVs. I have now taking a patrol frigate current concept to heavy escort frigate with limited cost, mostly using equipement coming from other ships. The space for the upgrades are available within the T31 hull as is the available power. The T31 will never be a T26, however to operate in confined waters or as a convoy escort frigate she will not need to be really silent.

    Some might ask me why SeaRam, well simple, its based on Phalanx which the RN knows, if a fully independent system so no extra equipment is needed, its a point defence system so basically a replacement for Sea Wolf ( Sea Ceptor is an area defence not point defence) and it gives and extra layer of defence.

    That would now give the RN a surface combat fleet of 4 carrier escort anti air cruisers, 8 anti air destroyers with ASW capability, 8 anti sub frigates with anti air and land attack capability, 5 general purpose frigates and 5 muliti role mothership frigates (T32) I would prefer 6-8 of these I will explain later, that gives a total of 32 surface combat vessels. If you want to know my thinking on the T32 then look at the Daman Crossover Combattant.

    Now to go from what is really possible, T83, T46, T26, T31, T32 to wishful thinking. I would replace on a one for one base the P2000 type boats with Hamina type fast attack boats. These boats 2-3 per T31 would patrol choke points, English Channel etc. In times of conflict (Russia) these boats could operate in the Greek Islands, Kattagat, North Sea etc. If it was a situation with China then they could operate in the Malacca Straits, Brunei, Philippines, etc. So it would mean a total of this type of 10-15 boats, 2-3 each attached to a T31 and a MRSS as a surface combat group. I wish we could also build between 2-4 LHDs ranging in size from a Dokdo to a Canberra, two T32s ( Crossover type) per LHD forms a Amphibious assault group, two LHD groups to a carrier group forms an attack group.

    So my surface combat fleet for the RN would be

    2x CVFs

    4x LHDs replacement for Albion, Bulwark, Ocean +1 Each LHDE could have an armoured battle group plus its airsupport going ashore plus an airgroup of say 6 F35Bs, 6 Apache’s, 4 Wildcats and 10 Merlins plus landing craft, 800 troops, 14 MBTs, Artillery, IFVs and APCs.

    4x T83s instead of 6 T45 replacements, T83s based on T45 hull

    8x T46s inplace of the minus two T83s, based on T26 hull

    8x T26s

    5x T31s, upgrades from decommissioned T45s

    8x T32s plus three over planned build, based on Daman Crossover Combattant with possibly a 5 in gun, 42 Mk41 vls cells, 2 merlins and 3 CB90 attack boats with 100 Royal Marines.

    15x Hamina type complete new concept replacement for P2000 manned by RNR

    5x MRSS in the Royal Marine forward deployed role each with 240 Royal Marines/SBS.

    At sea at any one time apart from full scale war would be

    1 CVF

    2x LHD + 1 refit, 1 working up

    2x T83 +1 working up

    4x T46 +1 in refit, 1 working up

    3x T31 + 1 refit, 1 working up

    4x T32 + 2 working up, 1 refit, 1 standby

    9x Hamina type, 3 working up, 3 refit

    3x MRSS + 1 working up, 1 refit

    The final thing that I would do is the following, the Offshore Patrol Vessels Batch 1 and P2000 boats armed not with the 20mm but possibly with a GUA-19B. I would combine these vessels with the Border Control Cutters, Fishery Protection vessels (Scotland) revenue cutters etc into a reformend Coast Guard manned by ex sailors/RNR/student seaman, 1-4 law enforcement officers, 1-4 medical officers, 1-6 special officers eg health and safty, fishery etc. As for the Batch II OPVs I like these boats, but I would give them a bit more punch, for example replace the forward mount with the 40mm turret, port starboard a 30mm with LMM, 2x GAU-19Bs and 2x miniguns and a containerised RUAV like the S-100. It will never be a corvette but with this type of weapons fit she will be able to deal swarm pirate attacks.

    With this type of Coast Guard and the Hamina type boats we would no longer need to use frigate and destroyers to escort unfriendly warships through UK waters.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here