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 afford to fully equip with all the consequent damage to the rest of the surface fleet.
We need a replacement for T45 that is affordable and low risk, using as much as possible of existing designs, sensors and weapons.
We would be better off building additional T 26 to increase ASW capability. For AAW, a T31 based development might be sufficient. Both should be affordable.
Regrettably, I think that navy leaders are even more useless than our politicians and that takes some doing.
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 ships, effectively arsenal ships.
Whatever the RN chooses it has to be affordable.
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 info on T83.
Also the Netherlands are having to buy “arsenal ships” because their radar system cannot use the latest SM2 missiles, it’s out of nessecity more than an enhancement.
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 near necessity to create a competitive anti air destroyer. A cut down good enough might be possible but with little scope for further advancement once built I fear. So big decisions indeed.
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 FA else, while these Labour morons threw the amphibs away without replacement.
Can’t afford it, simply take for the NHS, foreign aid/influence, hell everywhere! If you cannot defend The UK (and her interests), then nothing else will matter ….except for either learning some russian/ chinese (lowercase lack of respect intentional) or lying down on ground and fertilising it. If the UK wants affordability. Build more of the same. Economies of scale. Simple.
Completely laughable. T31 AAW frigate/destroyer. The UK is not Denmark. FADS conceptually addresses the modern naval principles of volume and variety in AAW, or principle, naval platforms moving forward. A T31 with previous generation / hand-me-downs demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and/ or a morbid willingness to send service people to their deaths when stuff (or another s-word) gets real. Also Italian DDX is not using existing missiles, NTs are new
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 it to be forward deployed on its own would put it at far greater risk than if it were used as a second tier escort for a CSG or LSG. Are you seriously suggesting that CAMM armed ships are incapable of AAW self defence?
The cost of the US DDGX is now put at £3b. That isn’t realistic for the UK for the UK to buy in numbers.
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 knows more about CEA radars than BAE. BAE also design & build radars itself. So if the source was BAE then I would give it some credence. If not BAE then I have some scepticism. One thing I am reasonably certain of is that T45 replacement is going to come from BAE.
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 disaster relief in the Caribbean.
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 our operational capability.
This situation reminds me of our time in Afghanistan when we were continually deprived of fast air support. The RAF simply didn’t have enough jets after the withdrawal of the Harriers, then the Tornados went, and if it hadn’t been for American and occasional French fast jets, our losses would have been catastrophic.
It’s frustrating to realise the politicians simply do not care—Blair, Brown, Cameron, May—they all fall short in their commitment to our forces. The thought of facing this reality under Starmer is unthinkable. He could still be the Prime Minister when the Chinese kick-off in 2027.
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 our operational capability”
These are contradictory statements? If the T31 is inferior and dangerous, the Rivers are death traps then. And there’s always been more and less capable vessels/aircraft/vehicles in the armed forces. Would you have complained that having any pilot in a Harrier is worse compared to one in a Phantom or Tornado? Why are some troops inside Warriors when others have to make do with Jackals? And what could a Type 26 do against high performance anti-ship missiles?
Can’t have every ship equally capable against every threat.
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 is just ridiculous. The only real alternative to building a Type 83 that has the ability to tackle futuristic threats like anti ship ballistic missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles and the like is stepping back from the big leagues and accepting that allies are necessary to provide the carriers with proper protection on deployment and we can only contribute to NATO ASW strength and lower risk duties with GP frigates.
The issue is the funding hasn’t been there for decades.
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 be unaffordable at £3b apiece.
Such a cost is a non starter for the RN.
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 Aster if the first missed at sone of the threats. Thereby further depleting her magazone.
Bearing in mind these Operations were not against a peer enemy. But one that used both asymmetric methods of attack along with conventional anti-ship missiles. Plus I believe it’s the first time anti-ship ballistic missiles have been used in a conflict.
If this was a peer conflict. Then there would undoubtedly be a greater number of threats thrown at the ship. Even with the T45s CAMM modifications. Will the modified T45 with 72 surface to air missiles be enough?
There are two lessons from the Red Sea Operations that the USN are actively investigating. The first is replenishment of the Mk41 at sea. As the ship has to be tied alongside a jetty currently to be replenished. This obviously affects the amount of support a ship can provide. Replenishment at sea is now seen as a must by the USN. The second is the cost of engagements using missiles.
The Red Sea Operations alone has cost the US Navy over $1B in missiles (according to Pentagon press releases earlier this year!). I hate to think how much it has now cost the US to include defending Israel against the Iranian attacks, where a large number of SM6 and SM3 were used? Even for the US this is costing too much. Especially when using missiles to engage cheap and slow moving drones. To this end they have taken BAe’s hyper velocity projectile (HVP) off the shelf. Which they had shelved a couple of years ago.
The HVP takes the sabot round initially developed for their rail gun project and fires it from the Mk45 5” weapon system. In previous trials when fired from 5”, 155mm SPG and 203mm howitzer. The guided HVP successfully engaged both drones and cruise missile targets. These targets were engaged at ranges past 20 miles (32km). Therefore for a ship, it would allow the use of the main gun to engage targets as they appeared over the horizon at low level. Plus longer ranges at higher altitudes.
The US and the UK are actively investigating the use of directed RF as a means to counter drones through electromagnetic interference (EMI). Which could be an effective counter especially against small FPV and “home made” drones. It may prove useful against some missiles as well depending on their EMI hardening.
So does a future T83 need 128 VLS cells? I think the answer may be based on the T83 nomenclature rather than the follow on T4X. Perhaps in a similar guise to the T82 HMS Bristol. Where it was specifically an air defence destroyer, but was more rounded than the T45, in that it could also do ASW. With that in mind perhaps the T83 will have some ASW capability, but will also be used for strike. Where like the Arleigh Burke’s at least a quarter of the VLS cells contain land attack missiles.
As a theoretical exercise (and we had the available funds) based on the 128 VLS cells as shown in the drawing, if 32 VLS cells were used for strike. Being a mix of 20 FCASW and 12×4 pack (48) surface launched Spear-3. Giving a total of 68 missiles available for either anti-ship or land attack. This would generate a very heavy strike component for the ship’s capabilities. You would still have 96 VLS cells for SAMs and an ASROC type of weapon. If some of those VLS cells contained some 12 ASROCs leaving you with 84 cells for SAMs.
We know you can quad pack CAAM and CAAM-ER in to a Mk41, or where it can be loaded with two pack of CAAM-MR. This would give you a potent mix out to at least 100km. Aster-30 1NT is an obvious choice for the next layer. But it still does not have the reach of the SM-6, that can engage targets above 100,000ft. Let alone exoatmospheric threats, that the SM-3 can engage.
Therefore for this exercise if we include 12 SM3s, 24 SM6s, 24 Asters. This leaves 24 VLS cells for a mix of quad and dual packed CAAM/ER/MR. Such as 12 dual pack CAAM-MR and 6 quad pack CAAM-ER and 6 quad pack standard CAAM. Thereby giving you 72 CAAM variants along with 60 “long range” missiles for a total of 132 SAMs to engage both endoatmospheric and exoatmospheric threats.
When you combine this with the 68 strike missiles, 12 ASROCs and the 132 SAMs. This would give the ship an extraordinary potent and lethal capability. Admittedly this is purely hypothetical, as nothing has been published so far about the actual ship’s requirements other than it is going to replace the T45. But with the multitude of different threats a ship now faces or is tasked with providing defence for a carrier group. It will need a multilayered approach to its defence and greater thought on how to provide both tactical and strategic offense. I guess a big question is, will it try to mimic the full anti-ballistic capability of an Arliegh Burke? If so it will need both an SM6 and SM3 type of missile.
Both of these missiles are big ticket items, especially the SM3. Where the latest block 2A is approximately $28M each. The latest SM6 is supposedly a smidge under $5M. So 36 of these wouldn’t leave you much change out of $450M. If we now include all the other weapons as I listed, you’d being looking to cough up around $850M per ship. If there’s at least a minimum of 6 ships, that’s quite a cost. Not forgetting there will need to be additional number for replenishment. Is this actually doable or even sustainable?
That’s a question I can’t answer. But if the UK wants to join the full on anti-ballistic missile club. Then it will need a SM6 and SM3 or their equivalent and this capability doesn’t come cheap. It will also I depend on what the RN believe is the main threat and the operational area the ship is expected to operate in. If China is now seen as the main threat. Then the ship will require a greater magazine depth. The other option of having a smaller ship with less weapons, may be a false economy. As you’d need at least two to three ships to provide the equivalent magazine depth. Bringing additional fuel and manpower costs. But having more not ans heavily armed ships does mean you’d have more hulls to do other tasks though.
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 system, which would seem ambitious!
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 coast.
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 Standard Missile is approaching 60 years old and is generally inferior to most individual European systems. Home-grown systems will likely be the most expensive of all the options, and the most risky, though perhaps have the highest payoff if successful. None of the options are economically appealing.
Personally, I think that the best option is to stick with European systems, but pay to have them integrated into Mk41. Buying into upcoming European air defence projects (Aquila long-range interceptor, TWISTER air defence software and systems) will give us both a secure future system and influence over the project to ensure that it can be fitted to our warships.
As to warship numbers? Six ships at least seem to be non-negotiable, but the government will be adverse to backing six 12,000 tonne cruisers. Perhaps a combination of the five Type 31s operating CAMM-MR and six destroyers similar in size to an Arleigh Burke-class, making strong use of multi-packed CAMMs/CAMM-ER, as well as Aster-30 B1NT and Aquila/Future European long-range SAM/ABM, across 80+ Mk41 VLS.
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 a major issue for the Navy; however, it might be a problem for keeping in-house skills, and there would be knock-on effects. I’d also want T83s (or more T26s) to continue in build until the next designed frigate is ready. This kind of certainty (absent BAE or Babcock really taking the Mickey) would give us lower unit costs and a better chance of an export industry.
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 to sell, and I think that will be true for some time. Building while not fully outfitting T26 hulls requires a lower up-front outlay than building a fully-specced ship, and generates a higher UK tax return as a proportion of that outlay. If someone wants to buy them, they can specify the level of fit out and pay accordingly. We could also build and have a low-spec fit out for emergency GP use. I know the Treasury doesn’t like risk of any kind, but the Treasury is dead wrong. Risk is how you grow an economy and refusing to take any risks is what stagnates growth.
Here’s another alternative. How about we train more sailors over the next twelve years and just operate and crew the extras? How about we spend less time worrying about what we can’t do now and spend more time fixing the systemic problem? which isn’t that not enough young people want to join up, it’s that we fail to recruit those that do, and fail to retain enough of those that have.
Having an extra couple of ultra-quiet hulls in the pipeline gives a level of flexibility we sorely lack. If the OPV story tells us anything it’s that the Navy can use extra ships they haven’t specified or asked for. How much better could they use more ships they really want?
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.
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 the fourth Type 26 delivered around in 2031 if lucky?
While even more Type 23 Frigates will be decommissioned by then too, as for the first few of the Type 31 GPF’s will not be delivered or fully operational until after 2030, or 2031 and into 2032 again too.
While the Type 45 Destroyers are equally getting older too, what is needed now are four or five new Batch Two TYPE 45 Destroyers, ordered now for delivery in as soon as possible.
With these Batch Two Type 45 Destroyers, upgraded and modernised with newer weapons and sensors plus propulsion system, maybe housed in a lengthened and wider hull too.
Maybe called a Type 64 Destroyers and basically a halfway warship, on the way towards the Cruiser in all but name, the new Type 83 Future Air Dominance Destroyer program.
The Royal Navy needs new Warships now, not in the middle of 2030’s ten years late, that the point here.
It like the RAF, British Army and Fleet Air Arm /Royal Marines and UK Special Forces, need the replace Assault Utility Transport Helicopter, to replace the retiring Pump HC.2’s, plus retiring Dauphin ll AS365N3 or the retired Bell 212 or Bell Griffin 412 helicoptettoo.
Which the MoD cannot give a firm commitment to buying all the 44 new Medium Lift Support Helicopters, from Leonardo (Westland Agusta) Helicopters AW.149 Military Twin-engine Transport Helicopters?
Or the Labour Government will commit to buying another batch of 48 Lockheed Martin Lighting ll F-35B’s stealth fighters for the RAF and FAA, or buy 24 new Typhoon FRG.4’s fighter bombers for the RAF too.
While Germany, Spain and Italian Air Forces, have all ordered more new Typhoon fighters, around 72 new Typhoons these three European allies have ordered, but Labour Government again will not commit similarly?
We have not even got into the argument of the British MoD and Defence Secretary, agreeing to increase the number of Challenger 3 Main Battle Tanks order, from around 140 to 200 or 220 Challenge 3 upgrade conversions?
The there the issue of increase the Royal Artillery Air Defence Systems, for Anti-Ballistic Misssiles, or Anti-Hypersonic Missiles and Advanced Cruise Missiles, let alone Anti-Drone systems too.
With only two and half Air Defence Regiments, that not enough to protect some UK Cities maybe not enough to protect London either.
Let alone protect the whole of the UK, England, Wales, Scotland and forget Northern Ireland too. Or to be deployed Air Defence Units to protect the Falkland Islands, or Gibraltar and/or Cyprus Bases too.
As for other british overseas defence commitments, just forget them, we do not have the Air Defence Capabilities to protect a British Army Brigade, or even a whole British Army Division either!
As Military Experts, former Generals and Admirals plus former Air Marshall’s, are saying the UK Defence Spending of GDP, needs to be increased by 1.3 percent over its present GDP Defence Spending of 2.3 percent by 2030!
That a GDP Defence Spending increase per year from 2025 to 2031, of 0.217 percent per year, which would not cover the four new Dreadnought SLBM Nuclear Submarines starting in the first Dreadnought Submarine in 2029, for the Royal Navy.
Or cover the cost to UK Taxpayers, for the new AUKUS – Batch Two Astute Class SSGN Nuclear Submarines for the Royal Naval too, with the first of these AUKUS – Batch Two Astute Class SSGN being delivered around 2035 and the last delivered in 2047, allowing a two year build programme too!
So add the cost of six new Type 83 Future Air Dominance Destroyers, to the UK Defence Budget Spending, UK GDP Defence Spending may have to be increased up to 4 percent or even 4.5 percent by 2040, that is basically doubling UK GDP Defence Spending in 15 years?
Or within the next three Parliament’s or next three Governments, whether Labour or Conservative, or some Coalition Governments too
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 well on Navy Matters, Mr. Beedall’s old site, over twenty years ago. Type 45+, effectively, with an additional section amidships for strike length VLS.
Now, of course, we’re in different territory. Ukraine and the Persian Gulf are petri dishes for modern combat, and you can bet your hairy backside that everything down to a seagull fart is being scrutinised at length here in the West – and elsewhere.
Drones have shown themselves to be a huge, and GROWING force multiplier. The spread of anti-surface ballistic missiles is highly concerning, and, as mentioned in the article, hypersonic systems will spread, and become their own threat.
If you’re at the start of a serious process to see what UK industry can build (and we may well be glad that Harland and Wolff is at least staying in the hands of a NATO ally, going forward), then I would suggest there are several factors to consider:
1: Sheer size. In order to remain on station and combat-ready, ships are simply going to need more weapons in the standard load. That means, as part of the mix (see below), more missile cells, of different types. A lot more. That means a bigger hull, by definition. Aye, the Americans have conducted successful trials with VLS reloads whilst underway in recent weeks, but it’s still not an easy proposition. Otherwise, an enemy can just saturate an opposing force with attritable drones and wait for them to empty their silos before getting really serious with the heavy, expensive, accurate stuff. Current CIWS will only get you through so much.
2: That “mix” mentioned has to include energy weapons, right from the off. We’re at that stage where it’s no longer a daft dream of someone who watches a lot of Star Trek, these things are effective, and real. That means plenty of juice on tap, and again, a hull big enough for a useful combat fit. Without hard details of capability, I would speculate two emitters, maybe, fore and aft.
Then there’s the other non-kinetic bear in the room: advanced EM weapons. The sort of thing that doesn’t just jam the adversary, it literally reaches out and disables them, at the core systems level, at a distance. The Americans already have a very unique-looking Arleigh Burke class recently entered service, which has huge bulges around the bridge area, far bigger than anything connected with even the latest AEGIS systems. They’re not saying a lot, unsurprisingly, but the thought is that this precisely the sort of non-kinetic weapon I mean. Then there’s the work that Leonardo do, here in the UK and elsewhere. If you look at the publicly available info on current and future projects, some kind of non-kinetic effectors are in the pipeline for GCAP. If Tempest can carry it, Type 83 can carry something similar, or better. As can both the forthcoming frigate types, it can be assumed.
As we all know though, in the final analysis, it’s like that old Swedish pop group once sang about: “Money, money, money…..”
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.