With regards the above IMO much will depend on whether the Hunter frigate programme is a success. Assuming that it is then there are plenty of areas (including T83 / Hobart replacement) where there could be considerable mutual benefit in future joint programmes. That said, there is also plenty of s...

Forgive me if this is the wrong place for this topic - it straddles a number of issues, this feels the most relevant, but happy for it to be moved if a more appropriate location is found. Given the Oz-U.K.-US pact, to what extent do we believe this opens the door to deeper cooperation between the U....

A quick point I’d like to make is the numbers mix between T45 / T83, T26, T31 and T32. Unless I’ve got this wrong (happy to stand corrected) as things stand it is anticipated that the RN will have 8x T26, and 5x of each of T31 and T32. The current issues with the T45 (and the poor availability from ...

Isn’t a lot of what the T32 might be (and what it needs to be) subject to what the T83 ends up being, and how many of them the RN ends up having? For example, if T83 is an all singing all dancing 15,000 ton cruiser with ABM, AAW, ASW, ASuW and space for a couple of helicopters and UAV and UUVs you c...

I don’t think the argument in favour of having a common Hull between T26 and T83 (or whatever or ends up becoming) is especially persuasive. As far as I can tell the only good arguments are industrial and financial (ie we have a line set up and can keep building with minor changes and at lower cost)...

On the discussions around the parallels between T26, T31, T32 and the old C1, C2 and C3 concepts, are we not forgetting the purpose of the lesser equipped warships? In other words, the T31 is intended to offer a relatively cheap means of having an established presence in places like the Caribbean - ...

if RN make T83 an all-dancing cruiser, there will be only 3 or 4 hulls built, and it could be the last complex escort to be built in UK, because UK will lose its building capability, because of lack of work flow (this is very serious issue in late 2030s, very serious). This is my point. This is a g...

Extrapolating that to T83 over T45, you are likely looking at ABM, Land Attack and perhaps a better ASuW capabilities (so that it could operate on its own more effectively if required). Sounds like a Type 46 i.e. same but updated capabilities as the Type 45. Not a Type 83. A perfectly fair comment ...

My philosophy would be that every major surface combatant (e.g. destroyers and frigates) should have the necessary hardware to deliver the following core capabilities: (i) defend itself from air attack (i.e. CAAM, CIWS); (ii) shoot SSMs at other ships (i.e. Harpoon and it’s replacement); (iii) oper...

Didn't South Korea and Japan get a decent slice of tech transfer and workload for selecting SM for their ABM requirement?

Fair points - my view is that something like the T83 should be capable of a degree of power projection in its own right when operating away from the CSG.

Perhaps something as simple as MK41 will be a major facilitator of a flexible weapons fit out.

Unless we have money to burn, the T-83 needs to be first and foremost an AAW platform with at least double the VLS of the T-45. IF these are Mk41 then we will probably be spoilt for choice as to what goes in them and the Sylver is not far behind. BMD is the next requirement followed by aviation cap...

My philosophy would be that every major surface combatant (e.g. destroyers and frigates) should have the necessary hardware to deliver the following core capabilities: (i) defend itself from air attack (i.e. CAAM, CIWS); (ii) shoot SSMs at other ships (i.e. Harpoon and it’s replacement); (iii) opera...

I can’t comment on any errors, agree that it adds little by way of offering an opinion on what options should be taken (other than the T26 Hull is the wrong option), but I think it offers a good overview of what the options are and therefore how significant the project is going to be. Examples of th...

A good article by Navy Lookout on the Type 83 and likely direction of travel.

https://www.navylookout.com/the-type-83 ... combatant/

The major reason for the T45's high cost (633 million per), was the PAAMS system which compromised about one third of the cost. One Gordon Brown, village idiot, cancelled the program after 6 ships on the basis of cost. He used, and told parliament, much higher costs including ship and PAAMS R& ...

I think when you are looking at a proposed ship as capable, complex and expensive as the T83 seems likely to be, the options for economising will inevitably be looked at. For this you either look at capability gaps (eg no BMD) compromises (eg smaller without the ability to carry two helos and a UAV)...

Using the BMD Arleigh Burkes Flight IIIs as a yard stick would be a good place to start, though a bit more tonnage from the start may help as the former are pushing the AB hull etc. to its limit. By the time we order these it should be known how far the Aster 30 BMD capability has been taken and th...

Just helos's and ASROC doesn't confer ASW capability. Ship requires sonars to know where to send helo's and where to aim ASROC. Ignore Nick's financials, they're rubbish. Cheers Ron - I’d assume the ship would have a similar bow mounted sonar to the T45 - would that cover the point you are making? ...

Cheers - all noted re the calculations being very rough but I think it is a fairly realistic yardstick on cost if the RN wanted to do it properly - and it is certainly not cheap (but there are no carriers to fund in this cycle of shipbuilding so there is a chance). I’m sure there could be trade offs...

Thinking about what the T83 might look like presumably has to take into account the additional capabilities the RN likely wants from it. This may end up looking quite similar to the original capability for the T45, which is primarily designed for area air defence but with capability to attack surfac...