Thank you so muchnew guy wrote: ↑06 Jan 2024, 14:38IDK why, try using this: https://sites.google.com/view/ipersonal ... ource/home
Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Could always ask MBDA pretty please to design & build a new missile. Isn't there some program designed to encourage such things?SW1 wrote: ↑05 Jan 2024, 22:48Don’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.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
They are. MBDA Germany are license building Patriots, MBDA France are building Aquila 'son of Aster' for longer range ABM.Ron5 wrote: ↑06 Jan 2024, 16:26Could always ask MBDA pretty please to design & build a new missile. Isn't there some program designed to encourage such things?SW1 wrote: ↑05 Jan 2024, 22:48Don’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.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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.new guy wrote: ↑06 Jan 2024, 14:38IDK why, try using this: https://sites.google.com/view/ipersonal ... ource/home
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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.Jensy wrote: ↑06 Jan 2024, 22:02The 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 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.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
So this is the image from a BAE presentation to the Aussies last year:tomuk wrote: ↑06 Jan 2024, 22:36 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.
Still not exactly a detailed image but seems to be a similar design to the above.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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
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
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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.Jensy wrote: ↑06 Jan 2024, 22:49So this is the image from a BAE presentation to the Aussies last year:tomuk wrote: ↑06 Jan 2024, 22:36 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.
Still not exactly a detailed image but seems to be a similar design to the above.
Actually putting my specs on looks like one of the two bands of the radar array is split.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
It's a new hull form. May look T45 hull-ish in proportion, but not much else. The concept above is quite irrelevant though.tomuk wrote: ↑07 Jan 2024, 01:39Looks 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.Jensy wrote: ↑06 Jan 2024, 22:49So this is the image from a BAE presentation to the Aussies last year:tomuk wrote: ↑06 Jan 2024, 22:36 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.
Still not exactly a detailed image but seems to be a similar design to the above.
Actually putting my specs on looks like one of the two bands of the radar array is split.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [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.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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.
- These users liked the author The Armchair Soldier for the post:
- donald_of_tokyo
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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.
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.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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 )
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 )
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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?
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
I know this whole FADS thing is load of cobblers.
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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!
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!
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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.Garlath wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 06:46 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 Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
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.
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.
- These users liked the author The Armchair Soldier for the post (total 4):
- RichardIC • new guy • jimthelad • SKB