Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

[Ron5]

Not seeing the images from either of you guys. Am I alone in that?

IDK why, try using this: https://sites.google.com/view/ipersonal ... ource/home

Thank you so much

[Ron5]

You'd have to assume that Sylver is on the way out, taking Aster with it. CAMM / CAMM-MR / SM-6?

I’ve got a feeling this may be exactly how it’s going to go.

I would be very happy with that personally. Covers all current threats and even some land attack with RIM-174B.

If we find ourselves in a situation where we genuinely start needing SM-3, then we probably won't be too concerned about the price.

Don’t think sm6 are that cheap either about $6m each. Though sm3 is at least twice that. Stocks will be important but we have ignored ground based air defence for far too long.

Could always ask MBDA pretty please to design & build a new missile. Isn't there some program designed to encourage such things?

[tomuk]

You'd have to assume that Sylver is on the way out, taking Aster with it. CAMM / CAMM-MR / SM-6?

I’ve got a feeling this may be exactly how it’s going to go.

I would be very happy with that personally. Covers all current threats and even some land attack with RIM-174B.

If we find ourselves in a situation where we genuinely start needing SM-3, then we probably won't be too concerned about the price.

Don’t think sm6 are that cheap either about $6m each. Though sm3 is at least twice that. Stocks will be important but we have ignored ground based air defence for far too long.

Could always ask MBDA pretty please to design & build a new missile. Isn't there some program designed to encourage such things?

They are. MBDA Germany are license building Patriots, MBDA France are building Aquila 'son of Aster' for longer range ABM.

[tomuk]

Not seeing the images from either of you guys. Am I alone in that?

IDK why, try using this: https://sites.google.com/view/ipersonal ... ource/home

Ok. Now I can finally see them the ships look nothing like T26. Very much line T45 bow, bridge, funnels. And radar looks nothing like current CEAFAR installs.

[Jensy]

Ok. Now I can finally see them the ships look nothing like T26. Very much line T45 bow, bridge, funnels. And radar looks nothing like current CEAFAR installs.

The ship that looks like Type 26 is the one on the bottom left that has the distinct shape of a Hunter Class. Albeit at such a low resolution I can't even see if there's a forward main gun.

The other three are based on that BAE concept design that been going around since last Spring. Again at such low resolution it's impossible to make clear what their fit is.

[tomuk]

Ok. Now I can finally see them the ships look nothing like T26. Very much line T45 bow, bridge, funnels. And radar looks nothing like current CEAFAR installs.

The ship that looks like Type 26 is the one on the bottom left that has the distinct shape of a Hunter Class. Albeit at such a low resolution I can't even see if there's a forward main gun.

The other three are based on that BAE concept design that been going around since last Spring. Again at such low resolution it's impossible to make clear what their fit is.

The one bottom left dos look T26 ish but as you say very low resolution. The 'main' escort with the radar beam looks more T45 or ASF.
The whole thing is so low resolution to be meaningless though apart from it sort of hints at a networked set of ships fitting in with current buzzwords.

[Jensy]

The one bottom left dos look T26 ish but as you say very low resolution. The 'main' escort with the radar beam looks more T45 or ASF.
The whole thing is so low resolution to be meaningless though apart from it sort of hints at a networked set of ships fitting in with current buzzwords.

So this is the image from a BAE presentation to the Aussies last year:



Still not exactly a detailed image but seems to be a similar design to the above.

[new guy]

The bottom left platform is a hunter class, as evidenced by the CEFAR radar. It isn't the +64 VLS variant as the MMB can still be seen.
The other 4 combatants are the BAE Cruiser we have seen since last year. This is just evidencial that the BAE power-point leak earlier was legitimate.

What I find more important is that it links to a normal radar portfolio page, except the URL has FADS in it. Which means BAE is advertising for FADS. What this indicates is far more interesting than the BAE Cruiser pics in the advert.




https://sites.google.com/view/ipersonal ... ource/home


look below ⬇
https://www.baesystems.com/en/productfa ... paign=fads

[tomuk]

The one bottom left dos look T26 ish but as you say very low resolution. The 'main' escort with the radar beam looks more T45 or ASF.
The whole thing is so low resolution to be meaningless though apart from it sort of hints at a networked set of ships fitting in with current buzzwords.

So this is the image from a BAE presentation to the Aussies last year:



Still not exactly a detailed image but seems to be a similar design to the above.

Looks not T26 based more t45 with twin funnels. Although radar all on foremast not split between from and rear superstructure like other more recent designs from the Germans and Italians.

Actually putting my specs on looks like one of the two bands of the radar array is split.

[new guy]

The one bottom left dos look T26 ish but as you say very low resolution. The 'main' escort with the radar beam looks more T45 or ASF.
The whole thing is so low resolution to be meaningless though apart from it sort of hints at a networked set of ships fitting in with current buzzwords.

So this is the image from a BAE presentation to the Aussies last year:



Still not exactly a detailed image but seems to be a similar design to the above.

Looks not T26 based more t45 with twin funnels. Although radar all on foremast not split between from and rear superstructure like other more recent designs from the Germans and Italians.

Actually putting my specs on looks like one of the two bands of the radar array is split.

It's a new hull form. May look T45 hull-ish in proportion, but not much else. The concept above is quite irrelevant though.

[Ron5]

Seem to be missing some posts here. Any clue what happened?

[tomuk]

And what does any of this have to do with T83 News Only?

[The Armchair Soldier]

And what does any of this have to do with T83 News Only?

Indeed. Non-news and speculative posts have been deleted.

Everything speculative goes here: viewtopic.php?t=701

And yes, posts will be deleted and not moved, so go off-topic at your own peril.

[new guy]

Or just remove "news only" from the thread title. Maybe change to "Future AAW" to match the "Future ASW" title.

[new guy]

Or just remove "news only" from the thread title. Maybe change to "Future AAW" to match the "Future ASW" title.

I agree, this is a forum for discourse. On the other-hand, I seen how it is appropriate for news only channels to exist, but when you say you want to discuss something relating to say FADS , the Type 83 destroyer forum looks far more appealing then the Future escorts& whatnot thread.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Or just remove "news only" from the thread title. Maybe change to "Future AAW" to match the "Future ASW" title.

I'd rather keep this topic so that news isn't buried under endless speculative posts but I'd be fine with a "Future AAW" topic if someone wished to create one.

[Garlath]

Found this via Google - seems quite a current look at what the RN are thinking on the 'small' end:

https://cdn.asp.events/CLIENT_Defence__ ... h.pptx.pdf

The focus on the land strike element seems rather prescient in light of recent strikes on Yemen and the discussions on this forum about relative merits of strike from ship Vs air.

[tomuk]

Others like to suggest T83 will be some AAW and ASW champion, a 12,000t cruiser.
FADS 'reality' a 4,000t extreme single role radar\missile silo ship with minimal crew in armoured citadel (with a requirement for another class of ships to carry out )

[new guy]

Hear me out, FFBNW.

[tomuk]

Hear me out, FFBNW.

On a 4000t hull? Will it be like some of those ferries and cruise ships where they go back to the shipyard and have a big section added to the hull?

[new guy]

Hear me out, FFBNW.

On a 4000t hull? Will it be like some of those ferries and cruise ships where they go back to the shipyard and have a big section added to the hull?

No, no 4,000 tonne hull. Size isn't even that major of a cost factor; See corvette vs arrowhead 140.
I struggle to see how even a 4,000 tonne hull could for-fill this single-role purpose when you could argue T45 is single purpose and yet it is 8,000 tonnes.

[tomuk]

Hear me out, FFBNW.

On a 4000t hull? Will it be like some of those ferries and cruise ships where they go back to the shipyard and have a big section added to the hull?

No, no 4,000 tonne hull. Size isn't even that major of a cost factor; See corvette vs arrowhead 140.
I struggle to see how even a 4,000 tonne hull could for-fill this single-role purpose when you could argue T45 is single purpose and yet it is 8,000 tonnes.

I know this whole FADS thing is load of cobblers.

[Garlath]

It seems quite clear to me that they haven't really decided what the T45 replacement should look like.

Seems fair to me that they look all over the trade space at this point, but given most of the cost for an aaw ship is the radar/missiles/cs, they are unlikely to make it much cheaper by making it smaller (steel/air cheap/free heard it all :p ) and will make it much more vulnerable and less useful.

Basically - the shoulder of the cost-capability curve for a ship that is good at aaw would seem to me to be quite high up!

[tomuk]

It seems quite clear to me that they haven't really decided what the T45 replacement should look like.

Seems fair to me that they look all over the trade space at this point, but given most of the cost for an aaw ship is the radar/missiles/cs, they are unlikely to make it much cheaper by making it smaller (steel/air cheap/free heard it all :p ) and will make it much more vulnerable and less useful.

Basically - the shoulder of the cost-capability curve for a ship that is good at aaw would seem to me to be quite high up!

The reality is there is little\no funds to start work on T83 properly so in the meantime we have staff officers ruunning around making pointless PowerPoints either stating the obvious - it should be part of a wider networked battlespace, see CEC aerials on Duncan or unworkable ship concepts.

[RichardIC]

STAFF NOTICE:
I'm going to lock this topic for now as there's too much speculation going on but I suppose that's to be expected for a ship that is still in its concept phase.

If you have something relevant to post, feel free to PM me and I will unlock the topic.

Until then, you can discuss the ship in the Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion topic or create a new topic to discuss AAW more generally.