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.
At least 10 hopefully this time
Should be 12 as that was how many T45s the Navy worked out they wanted ‘back in the day’.
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… Read more »
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?”… Read more »
Mid 2030’s……. surely they will just be drone ships by then? 🙂
Might be space ships … 😂
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.
The RAF will never get rid of its aloft pilots.
With Airbourne Carriers just like Captain Scarlet
colonel white and destiny angel showing our ages
Nah , got a video from either Ronco records or Ktel beta max top of the range video equipment along with my Laser 12inch disc player total cost £ 5 19/6d
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.
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… Read more »
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.
Well the US tested a 150MW laser this week which can take UAV missles and planes
Surely Phalanx will be like a Maxim gun in terms of credibility by then…. If not well before.
yes, provided -you’re facing spear armed Zulus and Ashanti’s.
Or ten thousand Watutsi warriors armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and dry Guava half’s.
Good old Blackadder!
And for blowing the bloody doors off ! Oh sorry i’ll get my coat.
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.
I stand corrected branaboy!
Are the radars the wrong way round?
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.
Not sure they would ever have been independent I seem to remember they didn’t have a bakery, it would all be sourced from the Carrier, that never was.
It was so big that fitting more stuff in would have been relatively easy.
Yes I think a minimum of 8, we have seen that 6 are just not enough. Also you have to figure in possible losses in conflict….
it’ll be too late
ahmen to 8 Rob
and like the expected order size it never happened cruisers? i was on the last cruiser the navy had(h.m.s blake) can’t see the R.N ever going back to them. more chance of a battleship.
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… Read more »
Very interesting idea.
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… Read more »
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.
VT also proposed the Sea Wraith over 30 years ago…
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.
The Americans did, it is now called the Independence class. The power issues have now been sorted but my only problem with the design is it is made from Aluminium but if you has a bigger design made of steel with Chobham type armour on the outer hulls you would have a formidable hull that you could do so much with.
Indeed they did Rob.. remember you could see it in Portsmouth in early versions of Google earth !
They did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RV_Triton
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.
There are plenty of multi hull designs out there in the real world Alex
Ooohh. Imagine if you could jettison a severely damaged wing !
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… Read more »
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.
It was sold to Australia, I believe.
Yes she ended up in Australia I do believe that she is working as a ferry at the moment.
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.
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.
By the 2040s there might not be much ice left.
Fake news. Cities were already supposed to be under sea today…
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.
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… Read more »
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.
I remember those adverts 🙂 made me smile – Ta.
CR
HMS BELFAST is tide up alongside in tbe Pool of London… 🙂
That Phalanx there might gives wrong ideas to Royal Navy…
And we can’t see if there’s a Phalanx at the rear either.
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,… Read more »
Fitted for but not with…weapons! See today’s other articles.
This is old news… We have already been informed on this site that T83 will enter concept phases next year.
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.
Right on the button Gavin – well said!
Unfortunately it’s human nature to think it will never happen. It’s the bane of the professional life of people who are there to try and manage catastrophic risk.
Think you have pinpointed the fact that the surreal has become the norm and yet we are still on the brink of actually moving it up to 11… and beyond.
Agreed, but even our shower in Parliament are finally waking up to it.
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… Read more »
The sooner they get the T45 lemons out of the water, the better..
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.
Spot on
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Fully agree. The Type 45s should have been bigger and better from the outset.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Type 83s in the Concept stage, future replacement of the 45s Intercoolers optional?
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)
“Fitted for but not with” would be a likely scenario with the draftsman of BAE whoops my Mouse clicked hee hee
I would like to hope they wont be hanging on to phalanx systems by then !!
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”
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
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… Read more »
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.
What happened to Tarannis? Was there any thoughts on vertical take off. Apologies for my lack of knowledge!
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… Read more »
We need eight and we can’t wait
They shouldn’t be introduced one for one. Rather, three should be brought into service before the first goes.
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… Read more »
will there be a tender invitition contest like the t31?
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.
Just order a future batch of T26 frigates with a big radar and decent vertical launch silos – job done
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),… Read more »