Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

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) operate a helicopter on an organic basis; and (iv) Naval gunfire support.

Anything over and above that should be the vessels specialism - which in broad terms are likely to be: (i) Area-AAW; (ii) ABM; (iii) Land Attack; (iv) specialist ASW; (v) specialist ASuW.

If the RN is going to continue to reduce Hull numbers (hopefully not) the ships that remain have to be able to do more - and at an affordable cost.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

Lord Jim wrote: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 capacity. Anything else will likely add to cost and reduce the number we can afford. With Mk41 though the T-26 could act as additional magazines if we network the fleet.
Agreed - the T83 has to deliver area AAW and ABM to the top end of the capability scale and anything else above that is a bonus - if it is a large ship (I expect it will be well over 10k displacement) and has lots of Mk41s then adding land attack should be reasonably straightforward.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

dmereifield wrote: Yup, if the T83 ends up being high end ASW, ASuW, AAW and ABM as folks are suggesting we'll end up with only 3 or 4. Just make them high end AAW/ABM with loads of silos
What a sensible comment :thumbup:
Lord Jim wrote:With Mk41 though the T-26 could act as additional magazines if we network the fleet.
We will need to get to that kind of config , exactly bcz
Dobbo wrote:If the RN is going to continue to reduce Hull numbers (hopefully not)
even with the hull numbers constant (ehhm, from the late twenties onwards), we will need to have the TF able to depend on the specialist capabilities of each ship:
- the carrier will reduce the need for land attack
- the AAW escort will make it possible to increase the missile load on the other escorts to deal with saturation attacks
- the ASW specialist will relieve the load on the carrier to keep a 'flying frigate' airborne 24 x 7 (which makes for 4 airframes; there's the AEW and the VertRep as well ... and may be some LitM to compete for the space of 'Carrier Strike')
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

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.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Plus ASW, plus ASuW, minus land attack
Could they end up being the same missile? It's at least plausible.

If meaningful ASW is a requirement surely the T26 has got to be the starting point until it is clear the hull dimensions are involved are insufficient?

Personally I think the class of 4 cruiser sized vessels would be a monumental mistake, RN needs more hulls to allow for attrition in a conflict and so further streamlining should be avoided above all else or one lost vessel could result in a conflict lost.

Perhaps the Hunter class will showcase the possibilities and provide a clear route forward but spiral developing the T26 in much the same the way the USN has constantly improved the AB's makes complete sense IMO.
There's a majority in the USN that think "spirally" developing the AB's for so long was a monumental mistake.

IOW how would you like to drive a car that's been "spirally" developed for 30 years or more? As opposed to driving one designed in the last 5.

PS I think "incrementally" might be a better word. "Spirally" is really about a software development approach that is quite different.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Plus ASW, plus ASuW, minus land attack
Could they end up being the same missile? It's at least plausible.

If meaningful ASW is a requirement surely the T26 has got to be the starting point until it is clear the hull dimensions are involved are insufficient?

Personally I think the class of 4 cruiser sized vessels would be a monumental mistake, RN needs more hulls to allow for attrition in a conflict and so further streamlining should be avoided above all else or one lost vessel could result in a conflict lost.

Perhaps the Hunter class will showcase the possibilities and provide a clear route forward but spiral developing the T26 in much the same the way the USN has constantly improved the AB's makes complete sense IMO.
Yup, if the T83 ends up being high end ASW, ASuW, AAW and ABM as folks are suggesting we'll end up with only 3 or 4. Just make them high end AAW/ABM with loads of silos, ASM and their 2 ASW, then maybe we can afford 6...
Then they would be called the Type 46. But they were not.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:we have seen how the choice of the multi-mission T26 FFBNW and old gen radar costs ballooned to over £1 billion each for the first three ships after the earlier aspirations for a build cost of between £250 and £350 million and as a result numbers cut from thirteen to eight.

Would break out PAAMS or Aegis
NickC wrote: UK BAE upgraded T45 CMS only looks viable if choice is the Aster, US missile pick would expect to lead to Aegis
That is clear, and therefore
Ron5 wrote:1. Home grown AA system

2. 100% yes, fitted for and equipped with, ABM

3. Home grown radar(s), but what form or shape? And how many?

4. > t45, Mk 41's, no Sylvers

5. Plus ASW, plus ASuW, minus land attack

6. Lots of helo's, manned and unmanned, big flight deck for concurrency

7. Lasers not rail-guns, rail-guns are all but dead.

8. US & UK missiles, not French
You will really have to work the list backwards, from Point 8
- and then determine everything else that comes with the design

And, btw, we will need to get ABM on our ships earlier
... so that points 'which way' :?:
Only if you swallow Nigel's usual blend of misinformation and UK military bashing.

There's no reason at all to suspect that a US missile capability could not be straightforwardly added to PAAMS and seeing that current US ABM missiles are at least 10 years ahead of anything produced in France, there's every reason to select US not Asters.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

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

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Dobbo wrote: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) operate a helicopter on an organic basis; and (iv) Naval gunfire support.

Anything over and above that should be the vessels specialism - which in broad terms are likely to be: (i) Area-AAW; (ii) ABM; (iii) Land Attack; (iv) specialist ASW; (v) specialist ASuW.

If the RN is going to continue to reduce Hull numbers (hopefully not) the ships that remain have to be able to do more - and at an affordable cost.
Doesn't your last sentence negate everything that went before? Not trying to be a smart ass and I agree that the fewer ships you have, the more multi-purpose they have to be. After all that lead to the Type 23 being a multi-purpose frigate after being initially designed as pure ASW.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:how would you like to drive a car that's been "spirally" developed for 30 years or more? As opposed to driving one designed in the last 5.

PS I think "incrementally" might be a better word. "Spirally" is really about a software development approach that is quite different.
I hear what you say... but still:
A Porsche 911 (of any kind) would be kindly received by me
- though some things were not spirally developed https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... uselang=fr
... did Mustangs run over it, somehow
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

Ron5 wrote:
Dobbo wrote: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) operate a helicopter on an organic basis; and (iv) Naval gunfire support.

Anything over and above that should be the vessels specialism - which in broad terms are likely to be: (i) Area-AAW; (ii) ABM; (iii) Land Attack; (iv) specialist ASW; (v) specialist ASuW.

If the RN is going to continue to reduce Hull numbers (hopefully not) the ships that remain have to be able to do more - and at an affordable cost.
Doesn't your last sentence negate everything that went before? Not trying to be a smart ass and I agree that the fewer ships you have, the more multi-purpose they have to be. After all that lead to the Type 23 being a multi-purpose frigate after being initially designed as pure ASW.
I don’t think so, but perhaps I can illustrate my point with examples by way of clarification (I can see what you’re driving at).

The T23 was a dedicated ASW ship designed in and for a previous era. It could also shoot at other ships and had local air defence, but it’s utility reduced dramatically when not performing ASU. I’d argue that this balance has been got right (or just about right) with the T26 in that it is likely to offer land attack above the T23 capability (which takes some load off the SSNs).

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).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

Ron5 wrote:IOW how would you like to drive a car that's been "spirally" developed for 30 years or more? As opposed to driving one designed in the last 5.
What about the Porsche 911 :D

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:
Ron5 wrote:IOW how would you like to drive a car that's been "spirally" developed for 30 years or more? As opposed to driving one designed in the last 5.
What about the Porsche 911 :D
That car has been designed to keep the same looks over the years but under the covers, it's a brand new car.

Unlike the Arleigh Burkes which under the covers is the same ship with some new systems.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Dobbo wrote: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.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

Well if you remove the Mk8, added a Mk57 and maximised the number of VLS cell forward, the Mk41 now coming is all sizes form one to eight, so you can really cram them in. Also remove the Harpoon launchers to make even more room, with the AShM being installed in the Mk41s, and then add two to four standalone ExLS launchers anywhere they will fit for Sea Ceptor. Add the ABM capability, ensure the engines work and network the ship to others and yes you would have a T46/47/48.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

A rather radical (or super conservative) proposal.

1: I understand T45 hull can carry 80-cells of Sylver A50/A70 mixed VLS, without spending any "future growth margin".

- T45 has an open space left for 16-cell Mk 41 VLS (or 16-cell A70 VLS), between the 48-A50 VLS and the 114 mm gun
- If we rip-off the 114 mm gun, I think we can locate a 16-cell A70 VLS in place.
- locating "good" HMS on its bow sonar section is doable (i.e. replace T2091 (or MFS7000) with T2150)
- rip-off the 8 Harpoon SSM forward the bridge, and locate a single 57 mm gun there.
- In the waist, T45 carries two 30 mm guns and two 20mm CIWS. Keep them.

As such, T45-hull can accommodate 80-cell (48 A50 and 32 A70) VLS in its front, again, without spending any "future growth margin", but simply replacing the current equipments.

2: Then, spending the "growth margin", what can be done?

- If T83 is to escort CV or LRG, I think it does NOT need Chinook-capable flight deck. So, let's enlarge the hangar super structure, extending 5 m aft, to accommodate 48 CAMM.
- As SSM will be needed, let's add 8 I-SSM missile somewhere in the middle. If it is NSSM, it will be easy (not so heavy).

---------
Now, we have a ship with
- 80 VLS for Aster (or alike) missiles
- 48 cells of CAMM
- one 57 mm gun, two 30 mm guns, two 20 mm CIWS (or its replacement)
- 8 I-SSM
- one Merlin-capable hangar
- one large hull (bow) sonar
packed in the similar-sized hull with T45. 2nd-tier ASW, basic-ASuW, and good AAW capabilities.

With this smallish example, RN may be able to "propose" 8 hulls, and "at least materialize" 6 hulls, as T45 replacement?

I think this ship is exactly the 21st-century version of T42.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

Now we just need to make sure we get at least six or ideally eight to pair up with the T-26. T-31 and T-32 pairings for escorting RFA and Amphibious units. That the Royal Navy organised for the 2030s and onwards. Happy days (I hope).

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

Ron5 wrote:
Dobbo wrote: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 - to my mind the land attack and ASuW makes the GP numbering valid, but I am no authority on the subject.

What would be the additional capabilities you would like to see to justify the GP numbering?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: I understand T45 hull can carry 80-cells of Sylver A50/A70 mixed VLS, without spending any "future growth margin".

- T45 has an open space left for 16-cell Mk 41 VLS (or 16-cell A70 VLS), between the 48-A50 VLS and the 114 mm gun
- If we rip-off the 114 mm gun, I think we can locate a 16-cell A70 VLS in place.
- locating "good" HMS on its bow sonar section is doable (i.e. replace T2091 (or MFS7000) with T2150)
- rip-off the 8 Harpoon SSM forward the bridge, and locate a single 57 mm gun there.
- In the waist, T45 carries two 30 mm guns and two 20mm CIWS. Keep them.

As such, T45-hull can accommodate 80-cell (48 A50 and 32 A70) VLS in its front, again, without spending any "future growth margin", but simply replacing the current equipments.
For me

Fit the 16 extra cells up front
fit NSM where the Harpoon is now
Replace the 114mm , 30mm and Phalanx with 3 x 57mm
Fit 5 x 3 cell EXLS behind the funnel

this would allow for 64 cells up front plus 15 mid ship = 79

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Scimitar54 »

This is the Type 83 thread, not the Type 45! :crazy:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I am talking about T83, of course. Just imagining a ship with a size similar to T45.

Actually, it will be a bit larger. But, 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.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: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 great point - the cycle of what the RN needs and U.K. industry can economically produce is very relevant.

We have seen the problems on Astute with the skills gap - Barrow needs a tempo of 8-10 SSN and 4 SSBN over a 35 year cycle. The same principle applies to the surface fleet but is more complicated to manage.

I’d say a fleet of 2 Carriers, 6-8 Destroyers and 13-18 Frigates is very achievable (I have not considered the amphibious fleet or MCM or RFA) but it needs long term commitment from government to retain these skills.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

Scimitar54 wrote:This is the Type 83 thread, not the Type 45!
One should inform the other by upgrading type 45 to allow easier tec transfer to Type 83. Type 83 really needs to be a straight forward development of type 45 albeit in a new say 170 x 24 meter hull with say 80 to 100 VLS anything other than this will kill it and the RN

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Dobbo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Dobbo wrote: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 - to my mind the land attack and ASuW makes the GP numbering valid, but I am no authority on the subject.

What would be the additional capabilities you would like to see to justify the GP numbering?
ASW

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by JohnM »

I think everyone's reading too much into the T83 designation... I believe this is more of a placeholder designation than anything else, since they won't start defining what the ship will be for another few good years... having said that, and considering the RN will have just finished accepting a specialized (and expensive) ASW asset in the form of the T26, it doesn't make any sense to me that T83 (or whatever it ends up being called) has a ASW focus, even if a secondary one. The main tasks will definitely be AAW and ABM and I can see a case for Land Attack, when operating independently or as LRG escort, i.e., in situations where a CV isn't present. Adding ASW will only increase costs and decrease numbers, as many have pointed out here. Aviation facilities should be plentiful, but not for ASW Merlins, rather for medium and long range UAVs for AEW and long range missile fire control... my two cents...

Post Reply