Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
A small bit of good news, a few crumbs to keep Cowes et al going. Although if you read the PR it does involve the consolidation of support contracts and a £50m saving.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Personally - I'd discount the Arsenal ship - too many imponderables. Although it will probably keep the powerpoint industry in work for the next few yearsnew guy wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 17:23 So, many paths:
. T26 with a heavier radar, heavier MK41 load out, and sacrifice of the MMB.
. T31 with heavier load out. I think this is more overlooked than it should be. Arrowhead is already proven to be flexible, has destroyer concepts, and Indonesia has shown its destroyer-like ships. Proven to be cheap.
. +10,000t destroyer, capable
. Lighter, not GP, used for convoys with other assets, e.c.t., see 1st 2.
. Foreign inspiration.
.: Arsenal ship, Massive advanced missile strike.
.: Aegis defence destroyer, Ultimate air defence.
.: DDG(X)
.:DDX
. T55 and more.
T26 - by the time it's rebuilt to it will be an all new platform. Probably light on power as well if directed energy is to play a part.
Surely we cannot be going to US radar, that would be the end of a critical sovereign capability.
It likely depends to some extent on what the RAN wants. Some BAE-assisted evolution of CEFAR maybe + 128 mk 41s, + directed energy. 2 x MT30?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
So when they are on carrier escort duty they add 32 silos queued by the T83. Makes sense.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Everything should just be networked together anything with any sensor should share it's contacts.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Even adding just CAMM to the Goalkeeper T31s would vastly increase the defensive capabilities of the CSG.
If quad packed each T31 could embark 128 CAMM plus perhaps 24 in mushrooms. That’s over 300 CAMM for two T31’s acting as CSG Goalkeepers.
RN needs keep this as simple and as lethal as possible.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
And as cheap as possible...Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑09 Jun 2023, 21:07Even adding just CAMM to the Goalkeeper T31s would vastly increase the defensive capabilities of the CSG.
If quad packed each T31 could embark 128 CAMM plus perhaps 24 in mushrooms. That’s over 300 CAMM for two T31’s acting as CSG Goalkeepers.
RN needs keep this as simple and as lethal as possible.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... conference
…our Royal Navy is building its Future Air Dominance System. Likely to comprise the new Type 83 Class platforms – which will one day replace Type 45 – these are more than just ships. They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a “system of systems”.
They will be highly automated. Blending missiles with new technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons. Incorporating both uncrewed systems and complex radar sensing capabilities. Able to raise an umbrella over our fleet, contribute to control of the air over a wider area and allow us to maintain freedom of manoeuvre through increased detection ranges.
As the name suggests, dominance is the name of the game. And dominance will be achieved through faster response times and greater lethality over longer distances.
Sticking with our present capability, we continue investing in our Sea Viper Evolution programme. Ensuring our current crop of world class warships have the air and missile defence systems to protect Maritime Task Groups against increasingly more complex threats, including ballistic missiles.
They will be highly automated. Blending missiles with new technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons. Incorporating both uncrewed systems and complex radar sensing capabilities. Able to raise an umbrella over our fleet, contribute to control of the air over a wider area and allow us to maintain freedom of manoeuvre through increased detection ranges.
As the name suggests, dominance is the name of the game. And dominance will be achieved through faster response times and greater lethality over longer distances.
Sticking with our present capability, we continue investing in our Sea Viper Evolution programme. Ensuring our current crop of world class warships have the air and missile defence systems to protect Maritime Task Groups against increasingly more complex threats, including ballistic missiles.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑29 Jun 2023, 07:36 …our Royal Navy is building its Future Air Dominance System. Likely to comprise the new Type 83 Class platforms – which will one day replace Type 45 – these are more than just ships. They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a “system of systems”.
They will be highly automated. Blending missiles with new technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons. Incorporating both uncrewed systems and complex radar sensing capabilities. Able to raise an umbrella over our fleet, contribute to control of the air over a wider area and allow us to maintain freedom of manoeuvre through increased detection ranges.
As the name suggests, dominance is the name of the game. And dominance will be achieved through faster response times and greater lethality over longer distances.
Sticking with our present capability, we continue investing in our Sea Viper Evolution programme. Ensuring our current crop of world class warships have the air and missile defence systems to protect Maritime Task Groups against increasingly more complex threats, including ballistic missiles.
Sounds like, at least as the wind blows today in Whitehall, they are not intended to be general purpose 'cruisers' with high-end land strike, ASW or ASuW capabilities. Which makes some sense if these are set to be provided by Type 26 and Type 31 (with Mk.41).
As such, in role closer to a theoretical 'Type 46' irrespective of their current classification.
I can't help but think "highly automated" sounds worryingly 'exquisite' for a ship that's going to be entering design before the end of the decade. At what point does reducing crew size become more expensive than not?
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
When the vessel becomes “at risk of being lost”, due to insufficient crew to ensure adequate damage control whilst still being able to fight and manoeuvre after receiving casualties !
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Automated damage control .Scimitar54 wrote: ↑29 Jun 2023, 19:13 When the vessel becomes “at risk of being lost”, due to insufficient crew to ensure adequate damage control whilst still being able to fight and manoeuvre after receiving casualties !
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Robots to shore up bulkheads, put out fires and fight the ship (or lose it) ? AI ??? …… Artificial Insanity !
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
"Shore up the bulkhead please, HAL."
"I'm sorry, Jack. I can't do that."
"I'm sorry, Jack. I can't do that."
- These users liked the author SKB for the post (total 4):
- Ron5 • mrclark303 • wargame_insomniac • Jensy
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
It's not too far fetched. If all the machinery spaces are unmanned, and people are locked out, the compartments can be flooded with fire fighting chemicals to automate the response. With lots of instrumentation allowing for an early intervention its feasible. Like wise flood control needs lots of pumps, power supplies and instrumentation.
It's a big change in philosophy where everything needs to be instrumented, redundant and automated, similar to commercial aviation standards today.
It's a big change in philosophy where everything needs to be instrumented, redundant and automated, similar to commercial aviation standards today.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
I mean a system of very reliable pipes, not independent robots, and other automated systems. This will happen eventually: Look at https://www.navylookout.com/munitions-h ... -carriers/new guy wrote: ↑29 Jun 2023, 20:13Automated damage control .Scimitar54 wrote: ↑29 Jun 2023, 19:13 When the vessel becomes “at risk of being lost”, due to insufficient crew to ensure adequate damage control whilst still being able to fight and manoeuvre after receiving casualties !
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
When I first read that, I immediately thought it meant that the lasers would be highly automated.Jensy wrote: ↑29 Jun 2023, 17:46Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑29 Jun 2023, 07:36 …our Royal Navy is building its Future Air Dominance System. Likely to comprise the new Type 83 Class platforms – which will one day replace Type 45 – these are more than just ships. They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a “system of systems”.
They will be highly automated. Blending missiles with new technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons. Incorporating both uncrewed systems and complex radar sensing capabilities. Able to raise an umbrella over our fleet, contribute to control of the air over a wider area and allow us to maintain freedom of manoeuvre through increased detection ranges.
As the name suggests, dominance is the name of the game. And dominance will be achieved through faster response times and greater lethality over longer distances.
Sticking with our present capability, we continue investing in our Sea Viper Evolution programme. Ensuring our current crop of world class warships have the air and missile defence systems to protect Maritime Task Groups against increasingly more complex threats, including ballistic missiles.
Sounds like, at least as the wind blows today in Whitehall, they are not intended to be general purpose 'cruisers' with high-end land strike, ASW or ASuW capabilities. Which makes some sense if these are set to be provided by Type 26 and Type 31 (with Mk.41).
As such, in role closer to a theoretical 'Type 46' irrespective of their current classification.
I can't help but think "highly automated" sounds worryingly 'exquisite' for a ship that's going to be entering design before the end of the decade. At what point does reducing crew size become more expensive than not?
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
They'll need to be. Unless the personnel and retention situation improves, Type 83 will have a crew of ten and a wisecracking robotic ship's cat....
On another forum there's currently a discussion about "Modern Cruisers". The concept seems to be that modern weapons systems are getting bigger, so too must the platform that carries them. Leading to something akin to a 21st Century Kirov Class.
From my perspective, with the potential to quad pack all (CAMM family) AAW missiles bar those for BMD, and take advantage of directed energy systems, we can afford to think differently but hopefully not try to be too revolutionary.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Directed energy weapons - lasers, don't understand all the hype for them, today where I'm cloud cover is 100% at approx 1,000 feet and as understand lasers don't go throu cloud or rain etc so if attacked in these conditions DEW lasers near useless or am i missing something?
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
You'll notice that I listed DEWs last, after a variety of missiles suited to different ranges and aerial target types.NickC wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 11:44Directed energy weapons - lasers, don't understand all the hype for them, today where I'm cloud cover is 100% at approx 1,000 feet and as understand lasers don't go throu cloud or rain etc so if attacked in these conditions DEW lasers near useless or am i missing something?
I don't think there is any intention to rely solely on something like DragonFire, or the BAE concept seen at trade shows, at least for a long time. It is an additional layer of protection, when the conditions are right, on top of whatever gun systems are favoured by the time Type 83 is ordered.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Or just to cheaply take-out low threat targets in the right condition. I don't know how much each bullet for a 30-40mm CIWS costs but probably over £10 and you need several to take down a target. DEW advertise to be not 1 penny per shot but 1 penny per destruction of enemy target.Jensy wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 11:59You'll notice that I listed DEWs last, after a variety of missiles suited to different ranges and aerial target types.NickC wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 11:44Directed energy weapons - lasers, don't understand all the hype for them, today where I'm cloud cover is 100% at approx 1,000 feet and as understand lasers don't go throu cloud or rain etc so if attacked in these conditions DEW lasers near useless or am i missing something?
I don't think there is any intention to rely solely on something like DragonFire, or the BAE concept seen at trade shows, at least for a long time. It is an additional layer of protection, when the conditions are right, on top of whatever gun systems are favoured by the time Type 83 is ordered.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
"Lasers are weapons of the future and they allways will remain so."NickC wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 11:44Directed energy weapons - lasers, don't understand all the hype for them, today where I'm cloud cover is 100% at approx 1,000 feet and as understand lasers don't go throu cloud or rain etc so if attacked in these conditions DEW lasers near useless or am i missing something?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Would it not be eminently more sensible that instead of being taken in by the hype of lasers of jam tomorrow and spending tens of £millions of the RN very limited R&D budget on lasers do as the Korean Navy who are taking CIWS very seriously by developing a CIWS-II to serve as the “last line of defence” for their ships to counter future anti-ship threats with a 30mm Gatling gun with a dedicated AESA FCR (based on AESA radar technology developed for their KF-21 Boramae fighter) and an electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) to replace Phalanx .abc123 wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 21:49"Lasers are weapons of the future and they allways will remain so."NickC wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 11:44Directed energy weapons - lasers, don't understand all the hype for them, today where I'm cloud cover is 100% at approx 1,000 feet and as understand lasers don't go throu cloud or rain etc so if attacked in these conditions DEW lasers near useless or am i missing something?
PS NG showing what is possible with the development of the 30mm x 173mm airburst shell which will feature a contact set fuze design with three operational fuze modes: Programmable Airburst, Point Detonation and Point Detonation with Delay, and in development of proximity fuzed round.
This not a cheap option, Korean Navy budgeting $245 million to 2030 for CIWS-II, but it will be operational in all weathers unlike fair weather lasers which will leave ship defenceless in adverse weather conditions if the ship defence missiles fail to take out the anti-ship missile, even Israel with Iron Dome only claim 90% success rate - which has been questioned.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -rok-navy/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
- These users liked the author Ian Hall for the post (total 2):
- donald_of_tokyo • serge750
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
- These users liked the author xav for the post (total 3):
- bobp • Tempest414 • jedibeeftrix