The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has provided an update on the Future Air Dominance System (FADS), with market engagement continuing to progress as part of its efforts to develop advanced capabilities for air and maritime defence.
Following the initial market engagement event in December 2024, the MoD is now moving forward with the next phase, including the second Market Engagement Event (MEE2), which will take place on January 28, 29, and 30, 2025.
This phase focuses on further refining the FADS programme and gathering feedback from industry partners on current market capabilities and potential solutions. The MoD has emphasised the importance of these engagements, noting that the development of FADS will provide integrated air and missile defence (IAMD) and long-range precision strike capabilities across air, land, and maritime domains.
The system is expected to replace the Type 45 Destroyers and will be a key part of the UK’s future fleet, ensuring air defence for the Carrier Strike Group and Littoral Strike Group.
The FADS programme follows a “system of systems” approach, centred around six core themes: SENSE, DECIDE, EFFECT, CONNECT, HOST, and ENABLE. As the MoD continues to advance the programme, the market engagement events provide an opportunity for suppliers to contribute their expertise and inform the next steps in the development of this cutting-edge system.
The upcoming MEE2 sessions will allow further interaction between the MoD and industry stakeholders, helping to refine the programme and ensure the successful development of FADS and its associated platforms, including the Type 83 Destroyer.
A concept image emerged in 2023, potentially showing Britain’s new Type 83 Destroyer, the image 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.
In February 2022, the Ministry of Defence verified that the Type 83 Destroyer is being engineered to counter the emerging threat posed by hypersonic missiles. Additionally, as pointed out above, it is contemplated that the vessel will be integrated into a broader defence framework known as the ‘Future Air Dominance System’. The Type 83 Destroyers are expected to come into service in the latter part of the 2030s, replacing the existing Type 45 Destroyers.
Back to the image, though not high resolution, it provides a tantalising glimpse into what the Type 83 Destroyer might entail. The ship’s sleek design is immediately apparent, with a distinctive hull that prioritises stealth and speed and is somewhat reminiscent of Type 26 Frigate and Type 45 Destroyer. Its streamlined superstructure is suggestive of advanced radar and sensory technology integration. Of note is CEAFAR.
The concept reveals a ship comparable in size to the Chinese Type 055 Destroyer (which is around 12,000 tonnes) and armed with a five-inch main gun, Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems, two 30 or 40mm guns and additional unidentified close-in weapons systems, plus a significant missile payload. The missile payload seems to be divided into two sets of Mk 41 vertical launch system cells, each holding an estimated 64 VLS, resulting in potentially 128 missile cells per ship.
Is the image official?
No, not at all. BAE and the Ministry of Defence haven’t commented on this and while the reveal of a potential Type 83 Destroyer concept image may have been unintentional, it has undoubtedly captured the imagination of naval enthusiasts.
Remember, the Type 83 destroyer programme is still in the pre-concept phase.
This is bonkers. We cut T26 from 13 to 8 solely on the grounds of cost, then made up the difference with a much cheaper T31, with limited sensors and weapons and a simple propulsion system. Neither has of course been evaluated in service. To replace T45 with something much larger with an increased weapons fit will obviously cost much more. With the continuing pressure on the budget, dreaming up something like this is absurd and navy leadership needs to be challenged on the whole project. Their collective lack of realism has delivered 2 oversized, over budget carriers we can’t… Read more »
We’re talking about a ship replacement in 20 years, it’s going to need new tech.
And you’re wrong about the carriers as usual.
We can’t afford more frigates, do you not see all the other naval programs going on.
When new tech is available, a platform to deploy it will be needed but not necessarily something completely new, much larger and unaffordable in the numbers we need. I am clearly right about the carriers- £7b to build, £9b for 48 F35 to support expeditionary warfare that we can’t really do because we can’t afford to maintain and crew the LPDs it would need. Most independent commentators agree that the RN is a hollowed out, unbalanced force. Italy’s proposed DDX will be 10/11000 tons to carry more existing missiles. The Dutch are trying to enhance their AAW ships with support… Read more »
It is not simple to retrofit new radars, especially fixed arrays onto an existing design, and we shouldn’t build any more ships using Aster as its defences if we’re trying to consolidate on Mk41. Carrier cost was inflated by political delays and a demolished shipbuilding industry, you really think a single wonder ship or smaller alternative would’ve been vastly cheaper? And you’re complaining about the cost of F35, the only viable carrier fighter out there currently, no one’s gonna invest in last gen. Why do you think we’ll be going beyond what the Italians have done, there is zero concrete… Read more »
If replacing the T45 Air Defence capability, the only European solution currently is, and in an evolved form, will be Aster, otherwise simply buy American. Is the UK going to develop its own Area Defence Missile into the future? Is it going to maintain a UK Radar capability by way of an evolved Type 1045? If not buy American. Either option will be a struggle given current funding constraints.
The problem with T-26 for the role you envisage is that as has been revealed during I believe the Canadian version there is only 1 to 2% growth potential for future weapons and sensors thus restricting future upgradability without substantial additional buoyancy modifications. That would create most seriously problems for example CEAFAR as the Australians discovered, so a substantial redesign of the T-26 would be required to remotely fill this role even as we see technology now let alone for what might develop by the time these ships are being laid down. As such a new design is probably a… Read more »
You sound like a politician with no military experience. Plain and simple, the UK has to spend more in defence and quickly. The carriers only cost what they cost due to political intervention, same with the F-35s, buy less over a longer period, pay more, it’s quite simple. With China and Russia being themselves and the orange teletubby returning to the White House/McDonalds on Pennsylvania Avenue, a much more unstable world is tumbling towards a global conflict. The UK has 2 carriers, a handful of frigates and destroyers with some 1st class and 3rd class frigates in build and sweet… Read more »
I would be all in favour of an increased defence budget, spent carefully on equipment we need. But any increase is unlikely to be large enough to grow our forces significantly, so looking at other affordable options isn’t politics, it’s common sense. The availability of the T45 has been very low for years but should improve once PIP is finished. If we need to augment current AAW capability, up-arming the T31 isn’t just an option but already decided. Fitting mk 41 will not only give it land strike capability but also an increased AAW missile load. The original plan for… Read more »
Priority needs to be given to upgrading and up arming the T45s and why they didn’t go for 2x MK41s insteadd of a 24 CAMM farm seems a wasted opportunity there. 2-3 Tier 2 AAW capable T31s eith CAMM/CAMM-MR (as with the Polish variant) should be quite doable and affordable tagging onto the current production line and all prior to T83. Even better if the T83 could be brought forward.
Priority needs to be given to upgrading and up arming the T45s and why they didn’t go for 2x MK41s insteadd of a 24 CAMM farm seems a wasted opportunity there. 2-3 Tier 2 AAW capable T31s eith CAMM/CAMM-MR (as with the Polish variant) should be quite doable and affordable tagging onto the current production line and all prior to T83. Even better if the T83 could be brought forward.
I would agree with Peter that it has to be affordable, so we can aquire enough of them, 8 or 9.
If we go for 12,000 ton plus, highly sophisticated surface combatant, it’s going to end up being 4 units and cost 3 billion each!
We need to be sensible…..
And what is sensible exactly, because it’s sounding more like incapable of dealing with the modern threats we face.
… and that’s the problem isn’t it, what balance between good enough (that might not be or soon won’t be) and gold plated and serious room for capability upgrades over its life we go for. The first risks limited, perhaps increasingly obsolete ships in larger numbers, that could potentially end up as inadequate platforms, the other high capability very complex ships that can be further upgraded and relied upon to compete with whatever the enemy have but in far fewer numbers. Need to find the sweet spot but no easy answer I fear.
RAN Hunter class is already wider & longer than T26. BAE already has a mission bay replacement option (does a dedicated AAW destroyer need a mission bay?). Hunter already has the CEA radar. The basics are already there. Does it need modifications? Likely. Perhaps a slightly larger hull? I think so. But BAE seem confident on 96/64/48 cell mk41 versions of the Hunter class as being obtainable. Missing is the laser option, which I think realistically requires a second turbine. Not sure of the source of the graphic, but I would point out that no ship designer / builder anywhere… Read more »
Hunter is a disaster in the making why do you think they cancelled several of them.
It’s going to under perform compared to it’s original requirements and its upgrade margins be nill
Absolutely, John, you are spot on. Just look at the dwindling numbers with each new generation. Based on current trends, the T83 will consist of just three units, not five. Following that, we’ll be left with a single destroyer. After that, we find ourselves in a position reminiscent of Elizabeth I confronting the Spanish Armada—merely watching as the enemy fleet sails past. The same applies to the T26. I wouldn’t waste resources on building the T31. It would be far more advantageous to invest in a few batch 3 Rivers, especially if their only role will be drug enforcement and… Read more »
How is a theoretical batch 3 river a better option than T31, for one T31 has the option to be upgraded at least, and Rivers are currently deployed in several places where a frigate really should be, we won’t and can’t afford enough T26 to cover those positions
“One undeniable truth is that no sailor should have to face the reality of being assigned to the inferior and therefore more dangerous T31 instead of the capable T26, which can actually defend itself. The flawed rationale behind the T31 is clear, but let’s be honest: an enemy missile or torpedo won’t distinguish between the vessels based on capability. They will only see the White Ensign. Dead is dead. If we had prioritised funding more wisely, we could have acquired a few batch 3 Rivers and used the remaining budget to secure an additional one or two T26s, significantly enhancing… Read more »
Additional T26, yes. Preferably 12. Replace the T45 with T31 AAW, no. They should remain decently capable GP frigates for duties like around the ME and so on, areas that need a bit more oomph that what a River has. Look at the trend worldwide. The PLAN Type 055. The USN DDGX. The Italian DDX. Japan’s Maya class and South Korea’s Sejong the Great class. All are bigger, heavier, longer, wider and more powerful than their predecessors. Better radars, more missiles, of more types. Pretending that a mid weight frigate has the capability to match what are essentially cruisers now… Read more »
What is ridiculous is the apparent inability of the RN to grasp how over specifying has contributed to the collapse in numbers. As to the idea that a 6000/7000t ship would be overmatched by 11/12000t “cruisers”, when was the last surface to surface naval combat? The key role of modern destroyers is AAW protection of a carrier strike group. The anti ship capability of the carrier’s aircraft would put either type out of action. We might be better increasing the SSN fleet than splashing money on even more expensive large surface escorts, which, interestingly, even the USN is worrying will… Read more »
So you want to give up on the surface fleet entirely? SSNs cannot do half of what the surface fleet can, even if they’re a key asset
Didn’t say that. But increasing SSNs at the expense of additional surface escorts might be a better use of resources. AUKUS will probably do just that.
Submarines despite attempts to do so can’t operate in an anti air capacity which is required for all manner of takes including our own forces at home and operating elsewhere as well as effectively defending carriers and themselves. This Country relies on merchant shipping to survive so a high quality of air defence is vital and will continue to be. The exact specification can be debated but you can’t simply say that such ships aren’t a necessity and in reasonable numbers.
people in government and the MOD forget that 85 percent of the nations imports and exports are by se to allow your navy to decline to the level of a armed coastguardshows that it’s not just the treasury’sfault, it everyone from number 10 down.
SSN’s can help protect agains surface vessels or submarines. They are of little use against airborne threats. Much of the world’s trade travels by sea. As shown by the Red Sea debacle, submarines are of next to no use unless they have land attack missiles & a known target to hit, in which case a T31 with Tomahawk or NSM would be way cheaper (in this example).
if they ever get to build them then we are looking into the 2040’s before the navy gets even one of them
people in government and the MOD forget that 85 percent of the nations imports and exports are by se to allow your navy to decline to the level of a armed coastguard shows that it’s not just the treasury’s fault, it everyone from number 10 down.the navy must get more than six of them I’ll not accept that the T26 Couldn’t have been reconfigured and redesigned as a destroyer or even a cruiser. frigate that big? no.
the unfortunate type 22 class had all the required needs to be designated as destroyer yes, it would have needed a far better systems fit, but we had plenty of them. they were a fabulous design and popular with crews. broadsword and brilliant were more than good in 1982. losing them and seeing the six STILL operating with Romania, Brazil and Chile shows the longevity they could have offered. THEY seemed like vanish overnight.😡😡
Eh, their missile systems would be completely out of service now, retrofitting one of our current systems would be difficult
there are only 4 in service now
If you consider the Operations in the Red Sea to protect shipping against the Houthis attacks. There are a number of clear lessons. The first is the depth of your ship’s magazine. It quickly showed that HMS Diamond, although successfully defended herself and some merchantmen. By taking out nine drones and a ballistic missile. She had to go back to Gib for Aster replenishment. The magazine count of 48 Aster’s seemed insufficient to mount a continuous patrol. The RN have not stated if the ship had a full magazine to begin with, or if she had to fire a second… Read more »
Navalised TWISTER and Aquila counter-hypersonic weapons are also under development from a European perspective. For a 2030s destroyer, SM-6 may be outdated compared to these.
Great read Davey! I enjoyed that. Really highligthing the short comings and quite frankly really stupidness of not putting 2x mk41s onto the T45s and a wasted opportunity for a significant upload.
Happy New Year to you and everyone here on the 🇬🇧 DJ! Regards and all the best for 2025 from 🇦🇺
i think they are counting on the trump min defence spend to boost numbers….. so maybe not so daft,but your totally correct we are stuffed if we need to do a falklands again any time soon
shame it’ll be 2035 before we see one.
Interesting that they’re pivoting towards the MK41 rather than sylver. I’ve always thought that the Sylvwr was a better launcher intrinsically, but the Mk41 is more established and has more already developed weapons available (although not many that the UK currently uaes), the most obvious one would be tomahawk, but sylver can launch stormshadow/MdCN which the UK has lots o that would of course require some joined up thinking and cooperation across two services which means it won’t happen. Presumably it would mean a move away from Sea Viper/PAAMS, which seems a shame, are they planning another whole new SAM… Read more »
A replacement for Storm Shadow is well into development and the Ukraine Forces are making excellent use of the current inventory now it has been let off the leash ( finally)
What missile defence. System they fit it will need to be able to grow to acccomodate future threats like hypersonic and Ballastic missiles as well as considerable reserve electrical power for directed energy.
a sea launch system for the shadow is needed.
Off the top of my head, isn’t the range of SS too short to want to use thst close to shore? You risk land and air based anti ship system systems if you’re coming in that close. If the next version of SS could have the legs that the German Taurus has, or we would be better off using the US TLAM D at 700 nmi. I dont know enough about the subject to be able to pass judgement on whats best, but I do know you wouldn’t want to be in a T31 only 170 nmi off a hostile… Read more »
TR is wrong in listing Storm Shadow as being Sylver compatible. McDN is, but it’s not a Storm Shadow/SCALP with a booster. That’s where they started, but not where they ended up. McDN is non stealth with a 1,000-1,400km range (depending if it is submarine or ship launched).
Well there are two European Led studies into future SAM/BMD needs underway ( HYDIS and EU HYDEF ) ,the choice will depend on what becomes of them.
It would be good if the mk41 could launch Sylver based missiles too. Is there much in it dimension wise between the two?
Will the UK FCASW be made mk41 compatible then? On this T83 concept there could a mix of mk41/Sylver mix?
They’ll aim to make it mk41 compatible and drop slyver entirely
The French have already been making efforts to make at least some of their missiles Mk41 compatible they know that with Mk41 becoming the World standard they will lose orders if they don’t as much as they resent it.
The Sylver A70 has a depth of 7m, whilst the strike length Mk41 has a depth of 7.6m. Both have a similar canister width. In essence the Mk41 due to it being longer can take weapons that are 7m long, whereas the Sylver can’t. Therefore the MK41 will give you more weapon type options.
Well let’s hope this is pushed through at pace . I’m no expert 🙂 but I guess a more modular approach to ship design that can upgrade modules quickly like different weapons or bay areas . And at least 9 built which can mean at least 3 working at any one time
Ha ha ha. We’d be lucky to get 2.
by 2050😁
Nine? Six would be nice. Maybe four, with two additional AAW configured Type 31s. My personal hope is for six ships with around 80 Mk41 and a great radar. A 10,000 ton cruiser being imagined by some is absurd, especially since these are the same people lamenting low ship numbers. Give us a ship of slightly larger size than the Type 45, with maximum of 100 VLS cells and make good use of quad-packed CAMM and dual-packed CAMM-MR, then top up the rest with a long-range terminal phase anti-ballistic SAM like SM-6 or a European equivalent.
Only two T31s?
For the cost of 6 first class ships, we could have a T82 style specialist carrier escort (4?) working with a class of 4-5 T31 derivatives.
The AH140 hull itself is very cheap, the fitout could be tailored into the budget quite easily.
The issue with the Type 83 is that no matter which direction we go in, there will be problems. One of the most overlooked in my opinion is the missile and air defence system. We have a choice of three: American, European or home-grown. The European systems will struggle as the RN looks to move towards Mk41 on both the Type 31 and Type 26 – whilst Aster-30 is likely the best medium-range SAM available now, it cannot be fired from the Mk41. American systems, whilst guaranteed support, are likely to see an overhaul soon. The original airframe for the… Read more »
Aster has been modeled to the Mk41, it has yet to be installed or fired. MBDA (FR) who are the co-designer with MBDA (IT). As part of the PAAMS system, the Sylver VLS designed by the French DCNS was chosen as an alternate to the US Mk41. However it was quickly realized that by doing so, it has restricted sales of Aster. Therefore Aster is being cleared to be fired from the Mk41, as it’s used by more Nations ships.
This is a non story and should just be ignored. Somewhere in the basement of MOD there are probably a bunch of junior geeks designing the concept parameters for an inter-stellar battlecruiser able to sense divine etc any incoming Cylon fleets. Concepts are the life blood of civil servant idiots the world over.
Really no hurry at the MOD, they started this project over 3 years ago and have now got to the stage of asking for ideas, brilliant.
To be honest I think one of the core requirements should be that that can be delivered quickly and in numbers, preferably 10 of them. Unless the RN is going down a diffuse high low mix of a small number of very large exquisite ships, backed by a larger number of jobing AAW vessels.
If they’re anything like the cost of the T26 we won’t get more than 6
As described here, they will cost far more than T26B2. A number of second tier “jobbing AAWs” is likely and I think sensible. What we really need is for these requirements to actually be a wishlist, and the quantity to be a high priority for a change. I’m a big believer in continuous build, so I’d want a T26 to be built every 15 months that T83 isn’t ready for build, whether we need them or not. You’d better believe that would speed the T83 process. Having a five year gap with only OPVs produced would not appear to be… Read more »
Who’s going to pay for the ships in build that we cannot afford to crew or support
And I very much doubt this will be a 2nd tier AAW project
RB has always been short of sailors in peacetime, mothball any spare ships and get exports going again.
I proposed we should plan to fill any gap before the T83s with T26s. If there’s no gap, there would be no extra ships. A T83 delay would already generate a significant costs to the taxpayer, and whether we end up spending the money on extra T26s, overpriced OPVs or firing & hiring shipbuilders (boom and bust), we’ll pay for it one way or another. I’m saying continuing complex builds without firing shipbuilders is the best way to approach the problem. We could have sold a couple of surplus frigates several times over in recent years, if we’d had any… Read more »
I didn’t say this project would be second tier, just that a second tier would be sensible and likely. The second tier would be a different project in the same way that T31 is different to T26. So we might end up with 5 T83s and 5 T32s. My preference would be upgrading the 5 T31s to full AAW for a second tier, giving the best bang for the buck.
Based on the design life, the current out of service date for the Type 45s is 2038. Given the amount of time they’ve not been at-sea/ operational due to power issue resolution etc, we can expect this to be pushed back easily to the mid-2040s.
https://www.navylookout.com/when-will-the-type-45-destroyers-leave-royal-navy-service/
I suspect we’ll have a lot more pressing things to worry about over the next 15 years and the threat landscape to have changed considerably by then.
Namaste everyone and Merry Christmas plus a Happy New Year too, However, it will not be a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year for the Royal Navy, because they need new Frigates now, not in another 5 years, or another 10 years times! Whether these New Frigates, they are either eight Type 26 Anti-Submarine Frigates, or five Type 31 General Purpose Medium Frigates and/or even another three or five Type 32 General Purpose Light Frigates too. Which at the earliest the first three Type 26 Frigates will not be delivered and become fully operational until 2028, 2029, 2030 respectively and… Read more »
They probably still wont end up with Tomahawks.
I hope not, given the money we are investing in FC/ASW.
As with any weapons system, it depends on where it’s intended to serve, and what it’s intended to do whilst there. Type 45 was born in the era of asymmetrical warfare and the “peace dividend”, where it was obvious that a new AAW vessel was needed to replace old hulls, but if you asked anyone if combat against a real peer adversary was likely, they’d shuffle their feet and start talking hypotheticals. That’s partially why Type 45 wasn’t launched with the sort of silo fit that it should have. The proposition was there, from BAE Systems, and was covered quite… Read more »
If the T83 is around 12,000 tons at what point do we call it a cruiser?
HMS Belfast, moored on the Thames, is 10,500 tons.
Or is the term cruiser still too toxic to use?
The Americans screwed up the classification system for everyone, blame them.
Too toxic.
Suspect the Type 83 will be a class of 2 if ever built!!UK can’t afford the T26s and T31s on order really.MOD be delighted if 2 or 3 of the 26s were diverted to Scandinavia,”We’ll wait for the next ones,post dated cheque still OK?”We sell the LPDs to Chile for £30million… “Ooh,Shall we buy half an F35B with the money??”