In a recent written question to the Ministry of Defence (MOD), John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, sought information on the scheduled in-service dates for the Type 83 Destroyer.
This statement from the MOD clarifies that the FADS programme is still in its early stages, with the Type 83, a part of this broader system, expected to enter service towards the end of the 2030s.
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the in-service date is for the (a) Type 83 and (b) Future Air Dominance System.”
James Cartlidge, the Minister of State at the MOD, provided a succinct response, outlining the current status and expected service entry for these defence initiatives:
“The Future Air Dominance System (FADS) programme is in the pre-concept phase. The Type 83 warship is one component of the overall FADS system, and under current plans, the First of Class platform is planned to be in service in the late 2030s.”
A concept image, potentially showing Britain’s new Type 83 Destroyer, emerged during a presentation at a naval conference.
The presentation, aimed at shedding light on the current and future advancements in warship design with respect to fire safety and damage control, contained a slide showing a potential concept image for the Type 83 Destroyer.
The following is my attempt at enhancing the image.
The Type 83 Destroyer project was officially unveiled in March 2021 through the publication of the United Kingdom government’s defence command paper titled, ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’. Within this paper, the Type 83 Destroyer was referenced in association with the government’s shipbuilding strategy for 2030, outlining planned sustained investments in naval development.
As of now, the Ministry of Defence has not made public any concrete design details pertaining to the Type 83 Destroyer, though it is anticipated that the ship will proceed into the conceptualisation phase soon.
We will only need two of these….. as they will surely be far more capable than the 6 T45’s…… 🙄
Lol, nah there so good we’ll only need half of one🤭🤭
An old phrase comes to mind.
“We want 8 and we won’t wait”
We will be waiting a long long time.
Correction – a very, very long time!
There FIFY
The problem will be that T83 will be so eye waveringly expensive that there will be a huge range of studies to find cheaper options. Which will involve kicking the can down the road. This will result in T83 being delayed until T45 needs very expensive life extension works. T45 is suffering because of the high miles put on the hulls during the T23 EOL T26 IOC debacle.
This results in T26 and T31 being worked to death.
Any of that sound at all familiar?
Sadly I would say you are very right. I think the only way to get a ship on time is if they go for a more modest platform and not some utterly exquisite monster.
But will it be good enough?
The cost isn’t the hull but the systems.
So I would say move fast, break things, build a really big hull.
Yep steel is cheap and and space inside is free, infact the additional space can save money as you don’t need bepoke kit designed to fit in a crampted space so more off the shelf kit can be used. Also space means maintenance is easier therefore quicker again saves money longer term.
But we’re limited by the build halls at BAe and Babcock unless they build outside again, which costs more.
There is room to extend the build sheds?
I agree that having more space also means that updating the shop is easier and you are not stuck with obsolete bits ‘because they fit’.
Even stuff as simple as automated valves or pumps can be an issue with obsolescence.
Hi SB, You ask an interesting questions so I had a look on google earth and a few other pictures to make sure I was looking at the right sheds. There is plenty of room in front of the shed and a bit behind them but there are two issues that I can identify. First, the sheds are squeezed in between one of the big dry docks and another newish looking building so whilst you might be able to increase the length of the shed you are going to be limited on how much extra width you can add. So… Read more »
I *think* you would add to the front of the sheds.
As the ships will be wheeled out onto a barge – I *guess* and then launched from there by sinking the barge.
I don’t think the front hard stand is needed.
How much beam do you need?
“How much beam do you need?” No idea mate. My point refers to the suggestion that the T83 is likely to be a large ship. My understanding is that that idea is based on three points that have been made over the years, 1) steel is cheap and space is free, 2) the 80 series of type of numbers is intended to large general purpose ships, 3) the main weapon system of these ships is very likely to be a large missile system. The first two suggest a ‘desire’ to build big for many reasons that others have mentioned here… Read more »
If beam becomes an enormous issue, I suppose you would be limited to only building one in the shed and doing another the old-fashioned way assembling blocks on the hard. It might limit build speed, but that or a smaller, less capable ship would be the choice of the MoD.
Remember the RN are updating Sea Viper system(PAAMS), so it will be carried forward with a silo of Aster 30 block 1 NT.
Remember the Sea Viper system is proving itself well in the Red Sea!
Mk 41 silo be used mainly for ASuW.
The new shed as far as I am aware can build a hull 170 meters long inside and side by side. That sounds long enough to me.
I’d hoped for 600 feet and three funnels! Everyone loved the old County class as they had unheard of space and accomodation. Truely world cruisers at 10,000 tons. If we get 6 we’d always need 8. 8 is the magic number for efficiency of numbers. Why cant the MOD see this?
I agree totally the Royal Navy in my opinion needs 30 escorts ideally.
5 T 31, 5 T 32 or 31 beach 2 and 12 T 26. with 8 T 83 also 10 SSN,s. This would be a balance force. but It is extremely unlikely unless the government of the next 15 year’s starts to smell the cordite
Yes it would be just a big a task, with issues, discussed on other threads!
I suppose the key is finding that good enough sweet spot and not looking for perfection…type 31 shows you can find that ground. Also the reality of AAW is a bit different and keeps changing… 1) the fleet itself is different, once the RNs escort fleet had profundity poor air warfare capabilities and needed lots of specialist AAW hulls even to provide protection against moderate threats…I forgot the exact numbers but if you looked at the escort fleet of the 1980s a very large percentage of the frigates could not even defend themselves against low end threats..where as the modern… Read more »
The solution is bound to involve a large, high power, high mounted radar!
That is a given.
So once you know how high and how heavy ship – then design can get going.
As you know I’ve long argued that distributed missile firing and control is the way forwards.
That said the T83 needs a decent number of tubes to deal with systems being jammed.
Indeed and the reality of the tubes is they are low in the hull anyway so less of an issue…as you say agree the sensor and then maybe even see if you have an off the shelf hull that could be used….as long as it fits the sensor and has growth for a missile farm who really cares if it’s a new or old hull.
These things are pretty iterative anyway.
I’d say that the potential T83 hull is well known from studies done in the 1960’s.
Really a small committee’s needed to do the high level design and make decisions on power plant etc
T45 is still so good and ahead of its time I really can’t see why T83 can’t just simply be a renewed version of T45. No one in the USN is complaining that they are replacing Burkes with flight III Burkes. Every time you let defence contractors away with building something “cutting edge” for cutting edge sake you end up with way less for way more. A renewed T45 incorporating an upgraded radar with 5 arrays including un upward facing array for ABM and an enlarged space for 96 Mk41 launchers and job done. No need to mess around with… Read more »
“ A renewed T45 incorporating an upgraded radar with 5 arrays including un upward facing array for ABM and an enlarged space for 96 Mk41 launchers and job done.” Hmme so a radar 2.5x the weight of SAMPSON? That will need one biiiiig old ship. Might look a lot like a Tide or a shrunk QEC….. The 96 VLS slots isn’t a lot more than T45 will have with A30 (48), Sea Ceptorb(24) & NSM (8)…..that is 80 shots. So I’d actually think it might be 48 SYLVER and 48 Mk41 and some soft launch and some AShM canisters. The… Read more »
An upward facing flat panel would be on top of the superstructure and not on the mast so it would need far less ballast. I don’t think I’d go for an upward facing panel at all, but something like four panels in a square canted at 45 degrees. Not quite as efficient when looking upward if the ship is tilted, but not far off. However would also be able to scan horizontally and do a volume search job, partly replacing the S1850M.
Errrrr well I think you’d have a few issues making it work coherently with the other plates. It would be fine if you were using it as a separate radar and then combining the 4D picture. But to try and synthesise a single radar out of that would combine the problems of a rotating head and flat panel system into one system. The issue is the coherence between the rotating plates and the the fixed plate(s) when crossing between them. Whilst it can, undoubtedly, be done it is a massive amount more complex than it needs to be and the… Read more »
I meant as a separate non-rotating radar with four AESA panals. Image fusion is well understood these days.
I was talking about beam steering between the top plates and the rotating plates?
Hence why i am suggesting that they would operate as tape separate systems with the images fused post processing.
It’s more Aster and CAMM silos that are needed on T45, with BMD capability. T45 PAAMS is proving itself in the Red Sea. Mk. 41 is ok for ASuW, so maybe 32 needed.
The solution I think should also involve a reloading at sea capability. Then it doesn’t matter quite so much if the ship only has say 64 big tubes and 64 smaller ones.
It needs a good air defence gun as well. A 57mm or two could easily add 2000 rounds of defence.
If the Hypervelocity Projectile gets going from BAE, and I think it should, that would turn a 5″ into quite a reasonable missile defence weapon, notwithstanding the potential for NGFS (unlikely, but still… )
In that case, we could follow the Italian route and have a 57mm on each beam to fire MAD-FIRES or similar. Apparently the fire rate is not enough for proper CIWS role, so either 40mm or Dragonfire evolution might be needed for faster targets.
Lok at the fleet in the Falklands, most of the Frigates could only stop a missile with their hulls.
The T42 was so ineffective it had to be escorted by a type 22 for close in support.
Up until the T22 it was very much a fleet built on a budget.
Many less ships today but T45 and T23 are premier vessels as good if not better in their specific roles than any other vessel on the planet.
T26 will continue this and T31 armed with Sea Ceptor and Mk41 is no joke either.
I find it very disappointing that people on the thread want to replace PAAMS with Mk. 41 AAW which missiles will cost a fortune in FMS tax!
PAAMS is proving itself in the Red Sea as an excellent Area Air Defence system!
So why change a system if it works?
There’s no need to replace PAAMS with AEGIS. It’s the launchers that need rationalizing. Having a mix of Sylver and Mk41 is poor for logistics and maintenance. The Navy should settle on Mk41, but still keep Aster. Half of the integration work has already been done. Just needs someone to stump up the cash to finish it.
Having just Mk41 would give the Navy better control on costs, but also more weapon options.
I did not suggest replacing PAAMs with Mk 41, mk41 is on all our future frigates and there is nothing to stop integrating any missile you want into those silos..there is nothing to stop aster missiles being integrated into MK41 silos and the frigates acting as arsenal ships for PAAMs…the simple reality is the RN will have a fleet that contains well north of 300 mk41 silos..any serious development of a more integrated air defence system based around a further type83 will need to utilise those…it does not mean abandoning PAAMs but PAAMs is the T45 and the type 45… Read more »
imo Mk57 should be the standard – as its a modified Mk41 with greater placement options and slightly larger in an overall smaller space I believe.
don’t know why we haven’t gone with this really
Could you have one forward and aft to cover your bases so to speak. A type 83 is too valuable to be in the gun line.
Mk57 silos would be fwd and mid – in T26 they could take over the mission bay for instance.
reduce the deck to merlin size (from chinook and you have more space in centre.
as for guns I would put 2-4 CTA40 or similar to standardise across the whole force (I don’t agree with buying small amount of boors)
put the 5in guns on the T31’s
That would be very good if Aster missiles could eventually be launched from Mk. 41 silos.
I believe they have already been certified
Are you aware of any test firings of Aster missiles from Mk.41 yet?
It’s been certified on EXLS which is a mk41 3 cell system.
i am waiting on link getting approval from MBDA website
Is it the platforms? The t26 are very expensive and yet most of their kit is being lifted from the t23. Extra weapons and sensors are talked about but not part of the massive current cost.
Quiet is expensive.
The 5” gun is new and very expensive
Mk41 VLS is new.
I’d be surprised if much is transferred from T23 -> T26 other than a refurbished Artisan…..maybe the 30mm mounts with 40mm barrels.
The sonar will need to be upgraded and refurbished.
But I think the first T26’s will have brand new kit that was never fitted to the T23’s.
“The 5” gun is new and very expensive”
You mean new to the RN but decades old with the USN? Albeit the latest version of it.
I just wish we’d standardise on one type & calibre of medium gun across all escorts, like we did since WW2 with the 4.5″, rather than having 57mm on our T31s & 5″ on the T26, when the 5″ would be far better suited to the T31. I still think 57mm is too small for an escort MG.
I hope some planning/preperation is going on to up build times if we need to!
T26 are not expensive (for what they are) and most kit is not being lifted from T23 although some is
current price is £840m per unit – order 10 more from the new factory and you are probably down in the £600m range
With small armed forces, don’t you need very high quality equipment?
If instead you had a lot of modest platforms, you could not crew them and they may not be able to fully do the job.
It’s more that it’s better to have the modern reliable modest platform, than not have the platform at all…if you cannot deliver the exquisite platform before your old ship rots out from under your feet your, to put it bluntly likely a bit screwed as your enemy is not going to politely wait for you to get around to finishing the perfect platform… Also when I say modest I don’t mean rubbish I mean something that can to the job…using a heart attack as an example..the gold standard save your life treatment is primary angioplasty..but for that you need a… Read more »
If that worked, the government would just cut more. It would become, to extend your analogy, “take a couple of asprin, and if you aren’t dead in the morning make an appointment through an ICS.”
80% of 80% is 64%. We need an acceptable minimum too.
There is a balance to be struck, thats for sure. In my own field – the army – there have been examples of this sort of thing. CVR(T) Scimitar was deemed to be rotting from under the crewmens feet (even though Ukraine is finding them very useful in arduous combat), so Scimitar was withdrawn from British service in April 2023, but gold plated Ajax was not yet ready – so we have a fairly absurd situation of fielding some ‘passed over’ Warrior IFVs in a recce role in the interim.
In WW2 we had a lot of moderate, good enough ships. The Germans had a few over engineered ships. We won or saw them off in every combat except the Denmark Straits.
True. The issue today will be manning those extra moderate ships – the RN can’t fully man the handful of ‘high quality’ ships that they have today.
Or an enhanced Type 26 class variant with more VLS missiles for anti ship and land attack missiles. Or a beefer Type 31 thar looked like the version built for Indonesia and Poland, which looked more the Ivar Huitfeld. Or they could just buy the older Flight I and Flight 2 Arleigh Burke class destroyers when they are going to be essentially replaced by the DDG (X) or even a bigger Arleigh Burke class destroyers, dubbed the Flight IV. The US Marine Corps are already deploying a squadron of F-35B fighters on the Queen Elizabeth carrier to help trained the… Read more »
And there is the issue. T45 are currently scheduled to start going OOS from the mid 30’s, so, unless we already plan to extend their service life, we are going to be left with another capability gap from around 2035 onwards.
Of course the simplest solution would be to get the T83 into service before we start retiring T45s. Just a random idea, probably won’t catch on!!
Already far too late if the MOD take their usual relaxed attitute to time. It’s likely to take 1.5 years to start the ball rolling (because of the election), plus two in concept, plus one to get initial designs, plus 2 for competition and selection, plus 4 for detail designs, plus 1.5 for price negotiations and contract signing, plus 9 years to get into service. A total of 20 years! Unless the government make this a priority I wouldn’t expect to see the first T83 in service until 2044. Of course the T45s will be extended. An interesting question is… Read more »
That may or may not be the case mate, and if true then we are in trouble – again. Agree that we could probably extend, indeed will more than likely have to extend T45 service life to beyond 2038, but we dont really need to design a new class of ship. The quickest way to get a new AAW vessel would be to join one of the programmes already in motion, be it the US/Italy/Japan or indeed SK. Then build said design in our yards and fit it with whatever kit we deem suitable. Thats basically what we did with… Read more »
Yes. I’d also add the Netherlands to that list, even if most would think their design is likely to be less than exquisite. The De Zeven Provincien class is pretty good and their partnership with Germany on the replacement may not be going quite as well as they would like. If the radar and ABM are seen as important, Thales Netherlands are certainly a company to reckon with.
We do seem to like re inventing the wheel every time we go for a big ticket programme!
There are imo, several countries/companies that we could go into partnership with to deliver something like a T83, and it would be a pretty good asset too, not necessarily the most expensive either. Interesting to see what we decide wrt the T83, will it be a standalone unit, or a asset hub directing ‘arsenal’ type vessels?
Detailed design can be reduced down to 2 years with new tech. The French can get their FREMM AAW fitted out within 18 months before delivered!
BAES: How many ships do you want?
MOD after checking the budget: Four
BAES: You think we’re going to invest in new tech and train hundreds of people on new procedures for just four ships? Will you pay extra?
MOD: then we could only afford three.
BAES: three in eighteen years or four in twenty?
MOD: give us a couple of years to decide….
Hi Mr Deep, check the article on T45 in the Navy Lookout: When will the Type 45 destroyers leave Royal Navy service? | Navy Lookout
You need to go sit on the stair and have serious talk with yourself young man! Ideas like that ferment rebellion.
Nothing like a bit of civil insurrection to get the ball rolling!🤣🤣
I wonder if an air defence version based on the T26 could fill the gap between T45 & T83? Something 10,000t+ as T83 is proposed seems overly ambitious for our resources & may end up limiting us to just 2 or 3 when we need 8+ air defence DDGs, preferably at least a dozen.
Better still, if we remain at so few escorts, make them all, all round capable like the USN has with their ABs.
An AAW version of T31 is easier and cheaper. The Iver Huitfeldt is primarily AAW after all.
I don’t think so as having “an alternative” available, even if it is significantly less capable, will be an excuse for the MoD to cancel T83 or at least limit the numbers. Better to work fast and get a design through before asking the Treasury for a budget, then complain vociferously if they refuse to fund the project.
Evening Frank, not sure a AAW version of the T26 is a viable option, you only need look towards AUS and see the trouble they are in with what they are trying to get out of their ‘Hunter’ class. I think a dedicated AAW vessel needs to be big for two reasons. One is the height of the main radar, which requires a vessel with a greater beam/length for stability, and the other is for the number of vls tubes required going forward. (Quad packing notwithstanding). Indeed it is the issue of numbers of tubes that is causing great concern… Read more »
T83 may never happen, By this time next year we’ll have a new government and new stratgy in place. I think we’ll see a shift away from carrier strike and therefore the need for escorts. We’re more likely to see T83 funding used for mulitpurpose frigiates with airdefence capabilies.
Having invested substantially in carrier strike, why would we move away from that?
How would we deliver air power distant from land air bases? Yes, I know we have got AAR tankers, but could we do sustained combat air ops using more than a pair or a 4-ship of F-35s at distance from the UK without the carriers?
We are ‘Global Britain’ after all, and everyone keeps reminding us about the Chinese threat.
Quite.
But in MOD world rails wag dogs.
If it was – this is threat -> we need this to deal with the threat -> this costs that much -> budgets
Then I would agree.
But this is set a budget, have most of it taken by nuclear, CASD, submarines, pensions and legacy issues.
Then try and fund capital projects that are required out of the relatively tiny amount left.
I am not sure which of my points you are critiquing! I support carriers and the associated escorts – and said that we tend to have small numbers of expensive, high capability equipment – small numbers because the manpower cap is so taut. I do agree that budget setting is not driven by firstly analysis of threat and then provision of the correct number of effective counter-equipments. If it was there would be no equipment black hole – but then we would have arrived at a defence budget that was in the 5-6% area, which Sunak and Hint think is… Read more »
Surprising that 5-6% was exactly what the UK spent in the 1980s when it also faced multiple threats in a multipolar world….sadly I think it’s unlikely the political classes of this present generation will wake up and smell the coffee until their big loud talk and small stick has backed us into a world of pain….they have been breed on the hubris of the “end of history” and the economics of the peace dividend…a deadly cocktail for a multi polar world in which the west is not very popular and at the same time seen as weak..we either need to… Read more »
Thanks. Sadly some things are inevitable with modern (ie post WW2) British government – a. reduced manpower and platform count in the 3 armed services.[eg. the army (manpower and platform numbers) has been cut once or twice every single decade since the end of the Korean War in 1953]….and … b. the increase by %GDP of spending on the social areas – Health, Social Care, Benefits, Education. This is surely no coincidence! It used to be said about military expeditionary warfare (and other things) that ‘failure was not an option’, but now failure is almost inevitable. Some say we failed… Read more »
Hunt!
👍Exactly!
The T83 is the escort fleet!
Compared to what Andy? Don’t think I have de-prioritised the escort fleet.
Global Britain is the current vision not the next government. History is littered with new governments cancelling major capabilities. Labour with TSR2 and Tories wanted to can the carriers. In the future well be supportive of our pacific allies with intel and technology but forget carriers deployed globally and if that’s the case they become surplus. Maybe political headache to get shot of them but mothballed extended readinss are options https://www.politico.eu/article/labour-john-healey-defense-uk-military-indo-pacific-aukus/ Carriers take 700 crew, minimum. That’s 7 frigates crewed. Perhaps I’m reading too much into these release by labour but all I’m doing is applying logic. At the end… Read more »
I would be surprised if our carriers don’t continue to be deployed globally.
However, Healey sees our carriers as still being very useful in the Atlantic, Med, Arctic – and releasing more US carriers to do the Indo-Pacific piece.
Well I won’t be voting Labour or Tory as I can stand either of them. Both are vote for decline, Labour’s EU vision is just spreading the 2% over a smaller geography rather than upping defence spending. Tories will continue to spread the 2% thinly. Ask yourself this if we didn’t have carriers and policy was to patrol local waters would support building 2 65000t carriers, assembling a fleet to protect them and purchasing the least capable F35 variant. All the areas mentioned can be covered by investing in other assets. Healey knows he doesn’t need them for his strategy,… Read more »
I will not vote Tory or Labour also. If we were suddenly no longer a global power and so no longer had a Rank 2 bluewater navy, and the only role of our navy was to patrol local waters, then of course we would not have aircraft carriers or T45 destroyers, and might have one or two fewer frigates. I am not sure that we can be absolutely sure that Australia wouldn’t send troops to Europe if Russia invaded westwards or that no-one from Europe, not even a British CSG, would go to the Pacific to aid the Americans in… Read more »
If anything current events make the point that AAW is a real thing.
In any war going towards high end AAW is essential.
AAW is in really always the biggest thing..there are around 450ish military subs in the world…most of those are owned by a small club of nations…there are around 50,000 military aircraft in the world…that’s before you even get onto military drones and the now vast army of anti shipping missiles and the ability of land based forces to attack navel forces in the littoral….even a modest none state actor can now engage a large well equipped navel task group with a credible threat. The nature of ASW threats are that they are limited in nature, deadly but limited…airborne threats are… Read more »
With the above image and the enhanced AAW T26 offered to Australia there must be quite a bit that’s been done by BAE behind the scenes some of which could feed into the T83. You wouldnt be that credible if all you did was just provide nice pictures and models. I’d like to see a British version of the Italian DDX in the mix which could have both Sylver and MK41s and there should be space provision for any other vls iteration, like the mk57(?) that might (or not) be adopted by the RN.
We’re more likely to see more social workers than T83.
Should the current shower wish to retain their self proclaimed ‘party of defence’ moniker, they should order 4*T26 B3. Simples.
I am reasonably confident things will be different this time around unless things drastically change for the better in current geopolitics. Cuts since the 90s were motivated by complacency following the fall of the USSR and the belief that there was no more serious threat to the west that would require a large conventional military.
The pressure to increase the defence budget will become irresistable in the coming years.
The End of History!
Fancies Fukuyama….possibly one of the most damaging figures in modern geopolitical history…”the End of history and the last man” may ironically be the book that in the end causes world war three and conflict between nuclear powers and a real end of history…never was there a more damaging pile of steaming bollox than that book.
👍 Agreed!
Carrier £7bn, CASD £30-40bn, £15 already spent. Also take a look at how much Typhoon has taken from the capital budget over the years.
Eh? T45 have been harbour queens because if their power issues.
However, T26 programme needs ramping up with 4 more added to the fleet.
T83 will see a gap in orders that Big and Expensive will exploit.
Yup but T45 will have to be thrashed to death to make up for the drop in numbers of T23.
An extra 4 T26 would be great but unless there is a gap between T 26 and T83 starting I don’t think it will happen.
Hi Andy yes the article https://www.navylookout.com/adding-firepower-to-the-type-26-frigate/
Shows just how a T26 hull can be used as the new AA vessel.
Never learn do way but that’s the nature of 5 year cycles in Parliament I guess, make it someone else’s problem at least till the problem comes to your door.
Hmmm…the same timeline projected for IOC of SSN (AUKUS). Anyone else foresee a potential budgetary conflict? 🤔😉
Type 26 is supposed to be additional VLS for more air defense as well as anti ship and land attack missiles, e.g. Tomahawk. Type 31 is based on the Danish Navy’s Ivar Huitfeld frigate, which is optimized for sor defense but also with more missiles like anti ship and land attack missiles. The version of the Type 31 that is built for Indonesia and Poland looked beefer like the Ivar Huitfeld since they are also optimized as first tier warship. Since the Royal Navy is looking to put more ships in the water then tying resources into a small number… Read more »
We can’t really make comparisons with Zumwalt. At this stage, Zumwalt was supposed to be a dedicated land attack ship, little more than a monitor with the AGS. With T83 it has been made clear from the start it will be a first-rate AAW ship, with hints of more all-round capability. If the Zumwalt saga happens to the current concepts, it will end up weighing 50,000 tonnes, carrying ICBMs and a squadron of F35.
We could use all the RIBs on the Kent coast – just outfit them with some radars and a gun and send hundreds of them into contested waters. With our sturdy naval crews, how can we lose?
In a galaxy far far away..
Aah related to my great grandfather who worked at Thames Ironworks who were one of the major instigators of that slogan and the movement behind it, in a vain attempt to save the yard one of the biggest employers in East London. It went out of business in 1912 another year or so and no doubt it would have survived at least a little longer. Forgotten now but had a big impact in Victorian times well beyond ship building and the first place of employment of Barnes Wallis amongst other claims to fame including HMS Warrior of course.
You have to love the terminology, unveiled nearly three years ago and we are now in the “pre concept phase”.
Gobbledygook English for sure, arguably there must have been a concept when the program was unveiled, otherwise was it just the nomenclature of type 83??
You are right. The CADMID cycle does not have a pre-concept phase.
Pre-concept just means we haven’t started the formal concept phase. Pre-CADMID if you like.
Concept is a basic requrements gathering phase, where the great and the good use the phrase “wouldn’t it be a good idea if….” A lot. Eventually somebody jots down some numbers on the back of a napkin and decides it’s too expensive and the whole thing repeats until the DefSec decides it’s gone on long enough and there’s good political capital to be made by moving it forward.
As you see, it involves a level of commitment we just aren’t ready for, hence pre-concept.
So effectively it’s formulating a potential concept over well aged whiskeys and cigars in leather sofas while doing the rounds in whatever are the preferred Gentleman’s clubs these days. Got to keep all those Admirals ex or otherwise in the manner to which they have become accustomed somehow I guess, and how the hell else would they keep in touch with Ministers.
If only. I was PM of a small £120m project at Abbey Wood in 2010-2011. I was a freelance civilian on a short term contract with MoD through an agency, in my first post-army job. I worked on a busy floorplate surrounded by at least 50 or so other people all working on other stuff. My boss was a civil servant with dozens of smallish projects like mine under his purview. I had no staff but co-opted specialists as and when required. Lunching in the very ordinary canteen, I did not go anywhere near a Gentleman’s club – and senior… Read more »
Hi Jon, I think I was attempting to be flippant, ironic or humorous and massively failed! Sure, there is some activity before CONCEPT ie before the CADMID cycle starts, but it shouldn’t be detailed or time-consuming work. CONCEPT of course covers the following activities: Produce a statement of the outputs that users require from the system or equipment, framed as a User Requirements Document (URD). Form the delivery team. Involve industry, usually by holding an ‘Industry Day’ either indoors or in the field. I held mine for the Casualty Locator Beacon in the field at Copehill Down FIBUA village. Identify… Read more »
Plans in the pre-concept phase should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Especially as it shouldn’t still be in the pre-concept phase! We keep getting press claims that it has moved into the concept phase, such as a UKDJ and Navy Lookout articles last June, but all direct quotes from government say pre-concept. back in 2021, UKDJ published an article saying the Type 83 was due to enter concept in 2022, quoting the then Minister of Procurement, Jeremy Quin: “On current plans, Navy Command intends to formally commence the concept phase for Type 83 in early 2022 with… Read more »
Translation from MOD gobbledygook into English.
‘All of the concepts come up with so far as sooooo expensive that they will never get the green light. We will keep kicking the can down the road in the hope that something better and cheaper mysteriously appears.’
In the mean time Italy, US, Spain, Japan and Korea march on with their designs. Can’t the UK speed up a tad?
If as is alluded to, that its going to take at least another 15 odd years before we can get a T83 into service, then the quickest way to proceed would be to jump onto one of the designs you mention above, build it in a UK yard and fit it out with British kit etc. Still call it a T83 if they want to.
First public mention of the T83 project was made in the MoD command paper, Defence in a Competitive Age, published in March 2021. There may well have been in-house discussions and/or Study papers about the Project before then.
The sort of information released since then (and your Nov 2021 quote from Quin) indicates that we are well and truly in the Concept phase of the CADMID cycle.
Is this going to be based on an existing hull platform or another designed from the keel up project?
In the mean time we’re in 2024.Need to sort out the shortages right now in this decade and get the T45 upgrades done! And if needed some additional AAW T26 or T31/A140 types in the interim.
And of course sailors to man them, which is the harder thing to solve.
Get rid of Crapita. That’ll solve the manning crisis.
Well the civil service don’t have a manning crisis the MoD has increased its number of civil servant by 8% or 4000 employees. That’s enough to man 40 T32s. I know where I’d start axing people and use the money to up salaries.
Sorry but AAW T26 needs to die as a concept.
BAE Australia have had a very hard time getting the hull to work for the AAW role. The beam had to eventually be increased to resolve the stability issues caused by the heavy radar arrays.
There isn’t enough room for all the VLS and potential upgrades that a serious AAW platform needs going into the future.
The RN cannot allow the Treasury to believe T26 is good enough. We NEED a clean sheet T83 with next gen radar, sufficient VLS cells, space for weapons like Dragon Fire.
Exactly
I do agree with you but one of the Bae solutions for Australia has potential for over a 100 missiles. Equally at least one of the competitors based on a modified FREMM is overall smaller than T-26.
Just a Australian solution only!
It’s all so upside down.
If there’s time for it fair enough. And the T45s can still be muscled up with adding in MK41s and maybe the 40mm replacing the 30mm. I would also add the Italian DDX design which is supportive of Aster Syvler vls and could be adapted for MK41s.
👍Agreed!
Why are these politicain bothering asking questions. John Healey will likely be the next defence secretary within the next 12 months he can decide if he want to accelerate, slow down, drop any program once he’s complete his first review. Labour was complaining that the Tories might salt the ground prior to leaving office, well one area this would be welcome is defence procurement and defence spending in general, give all the forces a pay rise and order what they need and make it too hard to cancel. Make sure deals like AUKUS and Tempest are irreversable. Although I doubt… Read more »
I asked him on Twitter about whether he would green light the T83 project upon entering office to avoid a repeat of having to refit T23s during T26 build. Not a peep!
Glasgow is heavily SNP, committing to the future of Govan with T83 builds after T26 is an easy vote winner, why aren’t they jumping on it as a policy commitment in an election year?
Not bright enough?
Because deconstruction is very easy, building things a lot harder. Criticising the Tories is an easy win, especially when they’re intent on coming into government and carrying on exactly the same as the Conservatives.
Every problem we have right now will be the same under Labour. Sluggish growth, unparalleled mass-migration, degradation of our infrastructure.
The Labour party appears fully intent on doing everything the current government is but with a smile.
“Under current plans…” whenever this nonsense is asserted you can bet your bottom dollar that won’t be the reality.
Interesting because according to a recent answer to a question in Parliament the last T45 will retire in 2038, as reported in Navy Lookout. Clearly Air Defence is a capability on can ‘gap’.
“Type 83 Destroyer to enter service in ‘late 2030s’” so expect the first to be in service in 2048!
i like your optimism !
Only a 10 year ‘Gap’ or a 10 year life extension to the Type 45s, that will cost.
Why not build more T26s but outfit them per the proposed T83? Not trying to yank anyone’s chain. Is that even feasible?
Depends what sensor you stick on the top and how high you want it mounted…yes if your willing to compromise a bit..no if you’re not willing to compromise….what will be interesting is the Australian version as that’s a bigger hulled version than the Uk T26 because they have fitted a very heavy sensor that needed a load of power supply…..so essentially the RAN version is likely to be able to take any radar the RN could really want and by the time the T26 is finished the RAN version will be fully matured….so that could be a way to go…make… Read more »
The superstructure of the frigate may require a redesign, for a high end radar.
On another note the US is once again calling for the UK to invest in the RN. It is clear that to meet all the current and future requirements more hulls are needed.
I propose 8 x T26, 8 x T31, 8 x T83. 24 hulls is surely achievable and affordable for a $3tn economy right?
That is pretty much the surface fleet composition that I think is both affordable and “enough” – although I think we might be able to squeeze a couple more T31s into it.
I’d like to see the T31s kept at 5 and have their role focussed on air and surface and batch 2/T32 of 5 focused on surface and sub-surface. They’d be perfect for the mid-low-end work and save the T26/T83 for escorting the big stuff and doing the real fighty stuff.
Which missiles do you have in mind for T31 AAW with Mk. 41? Sm-6 missiles are $4m a shot!
The list I think, which is not exhaustive, would initially start with CAMM-MR. Which can be dual packed in a Mk41 cell. This would give the ship more than local area defence, though not quite as far as an Aster 30. As a general purpose frigate, there needs to be a land attack capability. Eventually that will be fulfilled by FCASW. But in the interim Kongsberg’s JSM, as the NSM can’t fit the Mk41 which has already been tested. This will give the ship both an anti-ship and land attack option. Being able to attack targets at least 150 miles… Read more »
How much work would it take to certify Asters in Mk41s? I wouldn’t have thought it a lot, but I wouldn’t have thought Mk41s would be as expensive as they are, so I probably have a big old knowledge gap in the practicalities of VLS.
From my understanding Mk41 and Aster have completed a fair bit of computer based modeling. Physically it is the interaction of the rocket motor’s efflux through the Mk41 vent system. Does it do anything different to other missiles? I doubt very much it will reach the same temperatures, as a launching SM3, which is a significantly bigger missile. As the missile pops through its environmental seal and passes out of the Mk41 cell, how does it respond to the environment? This could be if there’s wind or say the sea blowing over the hatch. Again it should be no different… Read more »
Interesting. Thanks for that.
The T31 or Arrowhead 140 is based on the Danish Navy Ivar Huithfeld class frigate, which is focus on both air and surface threat. So more of a tier 1 warship than a tier 2 general purpose warship. Ironically, both the Indonesian and Polish Navy of the Arrowhead 140 looks beeferier and look more the Ivar Huithfeld class since they are designed as Tier 1 warship. The Type 26 for the Canadian Navy Surface Combatant is supposed to have 5 air defense variant to replace the now defunct Iroquois destroyers and 10 general purpose variant to replace the Halifax class… Read more »
Sufficient, just, for peacetime in a friendly world. We have a very dangerous China working all out to try to topple & eclipse the USA(& European democracies too), a resurgent neo colonial Russia plus regional aggressors like Iran & N Korea. In an increasingly dangerous world acheiving 24 escorts will be way short of the need.
Absolutely. But you’re omitting one tiny but essential point. Actually two. We generally tend to elect a bunch of buffoons that don’t have a clue what they’re doing and we appear to have the best agency in the world (MoD) for inept project management and wasting money. Other than that, we’re good to go.
It will be launched in 2039, FFBNW 5 others!
This is ridiculous.
Still plenty of time for them to be cancelled or downgraded to a couple of pedal boats and catapults.
This class should have already been in production for Carrier escort Air defence at least this time we have the Carriers unlike the type82 Bristol build 4 2 for each Carrier group I can dream can’t I
4 T83, leaves very little for a future Red Sea conflict in 2044!
That future date of 44 may possibly the date of the First Steel cut for what the Government will say is the New updated Type 83 and we’re on course too complete construction by 49
That means 2040’s then.
Whatever the Type 83 ends up being/not being the basics should surely be – (1) Affordable,(2) Capable and (3) Available to deploy in numbers with minimal time in Refits etc.Using the Type 31 as a reference i suggest a design which should meet all of those requirements and still have plenty of scope for the RN to add a few enhancements –
Need to add some Bofors 40mm considering the rise of the cheap attack drone
As seen this last few days off Crimea. You also need a decent all round defence against a drone boat swarm. As the recent sinking of a Russian patrol boat graphically showed.
End of the 2030s ! Probably means (if it ever happens early 2040s,and half the number originally planned and way over budget. They will probably chirp on about cutting edge blah blah blah but no one seems to realise with our ship building times those systems planned for it will be superceded by everyone.
More hot air from the Westminster bubble .. I’m sick of hearing all the lies and attempts at smoke and mirrors from that lot .. it’s been done so often nobody believes anything they say now..best way to save the RN is a revolt . Sort the corruption, build some bloody ships ..pay a decent wage and recruit positively from the traditional white young men of this country.
The sixth open call for a coup from the far right loonies using this site for propaganda. Fourth traitor out in the open.
If you back the Westminster traitors then I think you need a good look at yourself.. I love my country and you obviously don’t . Slavish adoration of your masters isn’t a positive my friend . The label of far right on your accusation shows a limited mental capacity..it’s over used and has no meaning.. pray tell what is far right ? I’m waiting your childish description of what you think it is . A traitor is someone who goes against the land of your birth or supports those that do.. you obviously think Westminster is right so by association… Read more »
So it is a coup you are advocating?
Not democracy in the slightest!
We used to build battleships in 3-4 years of upto 50,000 tons ..I know the new ships are more complicated but only in comparison to the ships built 70-80 years ago ..however for their time they were of comparable tech to today’s ..the will to actually get on with it is lacking ..just excuses getting in the way as per usual in this country.
Not really, to take the example of the George Vs, the long-lead items like 14″ barrels and machinery had been delivered before the ships were actually ordered, so the builders had a “head start” on the actual laying down.
The solution to this is extended T26 or T26 with the mission bay removed in favour of a shed load of VLS. We also need to question whether a chinook capable deck is a must have for a country that owns less than 100 and a ship that cannot hanger it. Some specs are absurd. Personally I would like to see us nail the MRSS design, which we need a lot of and if designed properly could be a game changer. For the CSG and LSGs surely the answer is to put the best radar on the tallest ship, backed… Read more »
I would have thought that if the French can work an AA version of their FREMM frigate we could do the same with a T26. Four of these on the end of the A/S t26 build and we’ll have the sort ocf cover needed. News today(?) suggests though that it is unlikely that a carrier will be sent to the Gulf. Not enough F35’s to make it practical. Out of 33 airframes probably only 10 or 12 available.
Many years to design and develop if run by Sir Humphrey Appleby and his mates. If they are not involved half the time and cost.
Fifteen years to design and build a ship? Japan does the same in five.
why don’t we put the best radar we have on our tallest / biggest ships (QEC /Albions) as I am often told height is critical in these things. They are also the most defended assets in our Navy. add CEC to every T26/45/31/83/180!! which can then have Artisan / Sampson 2 and the LRR combo if needed
this would seem to be the most cost effective way of giving us a massive capability increase – or am I missing something?
To bring them into being ,staying ahead is the secret for defence budget, its amazing if you put money by from future budgets bit by bit
Wouldn’t it make far better sense to just build another 6 type 45’s, at least in the short term. We could knock out 2 per year and in 3 years double our destroyer fleet..We’d save a fortune on building ships that we know work and without the 15 year design and evaluation process. And let’s face it, at the end of all of this, we’ll get 4 and they’ll be scaled down and built on the cheap anyway!
As prices increase all countries will be able to afford fewer and fewer planes, aircraft and tanks. Until each country only has one.
Then future wars will simply be one v one and winner takes all
Type 83 Destroyer to enter service in ‘late 2030s’ Can the delivery be speeded up? The Third World War will be over by the late 2030’s
Every major procurement involving equipment that has yet to be designed takes at least 10 years, often longer.