Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

[Poiuytrewq]

Very interesting, especially this part.

In this sense, the RN is not seeking a replacement for Type 45 as such, but an upgrade to its capabilities.

Intriguing.

LIFEX for T45? Not a problem due to light use of the T45’s.

Govan would need a third batch of T26 to maintain the drum beat.

[Caribbean]

Or a mix of additional T26 & new-build T45 hulls, perhaps? Minimal re-design to accomodate new systems, remove obsolescence or make it quieter etc, but essentially the same design?

[SW1]

Very interesting, especially this part.

In this sense, the RN is not seeking a replacement for Type 45 as such, but an upgrade to its capabilities.

Intriguing.

LIFEX for T45? Not a problem due to light use of the T45’s.

Govan would need a third batch of T26 to maintain the drum beat.

They never learn…..

You do not lifex old ships.

[Caribbean]

New hulls, same design - T45 B2?

[mrclark303]

Very interesting, especially this part.

In this sense, the RN is not seeking a replacement for Type 45 as such, but an upgrade to its capabilities.

Intriguing.

LIFEX for T45? Not a problem due to light use of the T45’s.

Govan would need a third batch of T26 to maintain the drum beat.

It's blatantly obvious to us the RN require a third batch of T26 to take the ASW fleet to 12....

As you say mate, T45 have so far spent a proportion of their lives tied up alongside, they could easily carry on for decades yet if progressively modified and upgraded.

The trouble is the RN needs 9 AAW escorts. Perhaps the the most cost effective solution to T83, is an AAW version of T26, a fleet of 9, with ship 4 taking over from the first of the T45's.

[Poiuytrewq]

Or a mix of additional T26 & new-build T45 hulls, perhaps? Minimal re-design to accomodate new systems, remove obsolescence or make it quieter etc, but essentially the same design?

Why not? If the T45 works for FADS why reinvent the wheel?

There would need to be a clear benefit to change the design which the article certainly doesn’t elude too.

It also brings into question the logic of replacing the T45 with a class of cruisers. It seems RN is more interested in a highly networked fleet or at least highly networked AAW destroyers to confront threat of hypersonic weapons.

[Poiuytrewq]

T45 have so far spent a proportion of their lives tied up alongside, they could easily carry on for decades yet if progressively modified and upgraded.

Normally I would be highly resistant to such a move but it actually helps the Govan drum beat if 30 years is the target rather than 25years.

From a drumbeat perspective it really doesn’t matter what design is built but RN know the T45, it’s an excellent design and it would be cheaper to build than the T26 with comparable weapons and sensors.

The reason it supposedly wasn’t an option was due to the lack of potential power generation for directed energy weapons. Is RN moving on from that now?

As an aside, to reach 12x T26 and 9x T45/T83 the Govan drum beat would need to increase from 25 years to around 32 years. The Treasury would just love that.

RN would also have to find the crew which could be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

The T31 isn’t the only way to grow the fleet.

[SW1]

T45 have so far spent a proportion of their lives tied up alongside, they could easily carry on for decades yet if progressively modified and upgraded.

Normally I would be highly resistant to such a move but it actually helps the Govan drum beat if 30 years is the target rather than 25years.

From a drumbeat perspective it really doesn’t matter what design is built but RN know the T45, it’s an excellent design and it would be cheaper to build than the T26 with comparable weapons and sensors.

The reason it supposedly wasn’t an option was due to the lack of potential power generation for directed energy weapons. Is RN moving on from that now?

As an aside, to reach 12x T26 and 9x T45/T83 the Govan drum beat would need to increase from 25 years to around 32 years. The Treasury would just love that.

RN would also have to find the crew which could be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

The T31 isn’t the only way to grow the fleet.

The type 45 was last built 15 years ago it will be more than 25 years when the start the next one do all the sub systems that went into it still exist does all the tooling that supports it’s build? Would there be anyone left who actually built the last one? I don’t think given its issue you can class the type 45 as an excellent design it’s been poor.
If you want to be sensible to continue to build what is in production if not then just continue the downward cycle.

There is zero budget to build 21 billion pound plus escorts that’s for the birds quite frankly.

[shark bait]

Surely this is just putting the payload before the platform? The focus is on delivering an effect, not replacing a lump of metal.

New vehicles may be requited to deliver FADS, but it is ‘system of systems’, not a direct destroyer replacement program. Sounds to me like they're trying to structure the project to be free of legacy constraints and bring in a next generation distributed system.

[Caribbean]

The type 45 was last built 15 years ago it will be more than 25 years when the start the next one do all the sub systems that went into it still exist does all the tooling that supports it’s build? Would there be anyone left who actually built the last one? I don’t think given its issue you can class the type 45 as an excellent design it’s been poor.

Whether or not there is anyone left who built the originals is completely irrelevant, frankly. Old tooling probably wouldn't be re-used, as production technology has changed substantially.
As for the poor elements of the original build & design, I think they have largely been addressed & fixed. This is a mature design. There will be some subsystems that will be obsolete, true, but I do not see that as an unsurmountable problem
Likely the major obstacle will be whether the original plans can be digitised at reasonable cost

[SW1]

The type 45 was last built 15 years ago it will be more than 25 years when the start the next one do all the sub systems that went into it still exist does all the tooling that supports it’s build? Would there be anyone left who actually built the last one? I don’t think given its issue you can class the type 45 as an excellent design it’s been poor.

Whether or not there is anyone left who built the originals is completely irrelevant, frankly. Old tooling probably wouldn't be re-used, as production technology has changed substantially.
As for the poor elements of the original build & design, I think they have largely been addressed & fixed. This is a mature design. There will be some subsystems that will be obsolete, true, but I do not see that as an unsurmountable problem
Likely the major obstacle will be whether the original plans can be digitised at reasonable cost

So you’re going to take an old design, you need to redesign to remove obsolescence and fix all the issues with the original design. Release new process and tooling engineering because all the old stuff is well old or no longer exists. Do you bring it up to current production/health and safety/environmental standards or grandfather them to.

Then launch it into production with people who have never built it or have no knowledge of it just like as if it was a brand new design. But then claim it’s mature and well known. Sounds to me like the same line of thinking that selected that in production wedgetail

Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run.

[Poiuytrewq]

Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run.

Yes and no.

If the T45 replacement just needs to be a basic hull form with zero regard for acoustic optimisation and a CODAD propulsion system building more T26 will not be the cheapest option.

Without knowing what RN want from a T83, it’s difficult to say for sure what is the most rational way to proceed.

Good news that the cruiser plan appears to be firmly in retreat.

[Poiuytrewq]

Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run.

Yes and no.

If the T45 replacement just needs to be a basic hull form with zero regard for acoustic optimisation and a CODAD propulsion system building more T26 will not be the cheapest option.

Without knowing what RN want from a T83, it’s difficult to say for sure what is the most rational way to proceed.

Good news that the cruiser plan appears to be firmly in retreat.

We have a simple, non ASW-optimised, CODAD, AAW design in build, albeit not specified as such, and it's called Type 31. Babcock even propose a configuration with:

Missiles: Infrastructure to support up to 64 x SAM for local and mid area defence and up to 16 x SAM against ballistic missile threat.
SSM: Up to 8, customer selected, canister launched weapons.

https://www.arrowhead140.com/modular-sy ... fic-roles/

That should be the starting point if we want to take the budget route.

However if we don't design and develop a new class of ship then we likely never will again. At least not without expending vast amounts of time, money and effort, which will probably benefit a foreign company, to regain the capability.

Size seems to concern the treasury and some people here, however one of the biggest cost multipliers of Type 26 is the relative density of systems in the optimised ASW hull form. This was alluded to by Vice Admiral Chris Gardner last year and why he argued the Navy wouldn't want any more even if offered them.

Such issues would apply more so to an AAW variant, with far greater demand for VLS space and top weight (which rules out turning the mission bay into a weapons deck). A single glance at the Hunter Class shambles should be enough to discount this idea.

As for resurrecting Type 45, you immediately constrain all future FAD technology to the space, mass and power requirements of a ship designed in the 1990s. Not to mention I doubt you could pay R-R enough to restart WR-21 production. At which point you're talking about a ship with everything different apart from the external shape of the hull and superstructure.

A big, simple hull is a lot more flexible and doesn't require excessive miniaturisation of systems. It just needs to be fast enough to keep up with the rest of the CSG.

For some maddening reason we always seem to need to reinvent the wheel in this country. Usually as a cynical ploy to push financial outlays into later budgets, at greater overall cost, rather than any true pioneering spirit.

With the 2030s dominated by Dreadnought into AUKUS Class; Merlin replacement; and whatever survives from [Type 32/MRSS/MROSS/OPVs etc.], plus the other two rather forgotten services, there's going to be some serious competition for funds and some very tough decisions.

[tomuk]

As for resurrecting Type 45, you immediately constrain all future FAD technology to the space, mass and power requirements of a ship designed in the 1990s. Not to mention I doubt you could pay R-R enough to restart WR-21 production. At which point you're talking about a ship with everything different apart from the external shape of the hull and superstructure.

The issue with resurrecting T45 isn't the WR21, as MT30 would be a relatively straightforward drop in replacement, it is the IEP electrical gear.
All of this was state of the art if not beyond at the time of construction but things IEP have moved on, to DC rather than AC based systems. It is the obcelense of these components that would stop a new build of T45 and may cause future issues for the existing class.

The size of T45 was driven by the IEP setup as the hull is basically the smallest you can fit the IEP system into, noting that this was compromised as they are missing the small-midrange GTs they should of had based on the Electric Ship concepts. See Zumwalt which is roughly two sets of Electric Ship\T45 equipment in one hull.

If you were going to build an IEP powered AAW destroyer today the inside of the hull would look very much different to T45. Personally I'd be all for another go at an IEP design (DC based) leading on from the lessons learnt from T45 but that might be too risky for MOD\RN. Once bitten, Twice Shy.

[SW1]

Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run.

Yes and no.

If the T45 replacement just needs to be a basic hull form with zero regard for acoustic optimisation and a CODAD propulsion system building more T26 will not be the cheapest option.

Without knowing what RN want from a T83, it’s difficult to say for sure what is the most rational way to proceed.

Good news that the cruiser plan appears to be firmly in retreat.

We have a simple, non ASW-optimised, CODAD, AAW design in build, albeit not specified as such, and it's called Type 31. Babcock even propose a configuration with:

Missiles: Infrastructure to support up to 64 x SAM for local and mid area defence and up to 16 x SAM against ballistic missile threat.
SSM: Up to 8, customer selected, canister launched weapons.

https://www.arrowhead140.com/modular-sy ... fic-roles/

That should be the starting point if we want to take the budget route.

However if we don't design and develop a new class of ship then we likely never will again. At least not without expending vast amounts of time, money and effort, which will probably benefit a foreign company, to regain the capability.

Size seems to concern the treasury and some people here, however one of the biggest cost multipliers of Type 26 is the relative density of systems in the optimised ASW hull form. This was alluded to by Vice Admiral Chris Gardner last year and why he argued the Navy wouldn't want any more even if offered them.

Such issues would apply more so to an AAW variant, with far greater demand for VLS space and top weight (which rules out turning the mission bay into a weapons deck). A single glance at the Hunter Class shambles should be enough to discount this idea.

As for resurrecting Type 45, you immediately constrain all future FAD technology to the space, mass and power requirements of a ship designed in the 1990s. Not to mention I doubt you could pay R-R enough to restart WR-21 production. At which point you're talking about a ship with everything different apart from the external shape of the hull and superstructure.

A big, simple hull is a lot more flexible and doesn't require excessive miniaturisation of systems. It just needs to be fast enough to keep up with the rest of the CSG.

For some maddening reason we always seem to need to reinvent the wheel in this country. Usually as a cynical ploy to push financial outlays into later budgets, at greater overall cost, rather than any true pioneering spirit.

With the 2030s dominated by Dreadnought into AUKUS Class; Merlin replacement; and whatever survives from [Type 32/MRSS/MROSS/OPVs etc.], plus the other two rather forgotten services, there's going to be some serious competition for funds and some very tough decisions.

I would agree with great swaths of this post.

[wargame_insomniac]

The type 45 was last built 15 years ago it will be more than 25 years when the start the next one do all the sub systems that went into it still exist does all the tooling that supports it’s build? Would there be anyone left who actually built the last one? I don’t think given its issue you can class the type 45 as an excellent design it’s been poor.

Whether or not there is anyone left who built the originals is completely irrelevant, frankly. Old tooling probably wouldn't be re-used, as production technology has changed substantially.
As for the poor elements of the original build & design, I think they have largely been addressed & fixed. This is a mature design. There will be some subsystems that will be obsolete, true, but I do not see that as an unsurmountable problem
Likely the major obstacle will be whether the original plans can be digitised at reasonable cost

So you’re going to take an old design, you need to redesign to remove obsolescence and fix all the issues with the original design. Release new process and tooling engineering because all the old stuff is well old or no longer exists. Do you bring it up to current production/health and safety/environmental standards or grandfather them to.

Then launch it into production with people who have never built it or have no knowledge of it just like as if it was a brand new design. But then claim it’s mature and well known. Sounds to me like the same line of thinking that selected that in production wedgetail

Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run.

From memory, was n't the T26 the first RN escort class that was trumpeted as being completely computerised in it's design? If so, then by logical inference, the T45 was NOT completely computerised in it's design. Thereby it may be quite inefficient to try to update the T45's design to remove such obsolesences and fix issues with the original design.

Also any thought that RN could afford to build and crew 12*ASW + 9*AAW escorts is pure fantasy. At best it would be one additional batch of one or the other, not both.

And I am personally in favour of adding one more T26 by taking any hypothetical Budget for 5*T32 and using those funds differently to (hopefully) better effect. And even that small additional spending is still contingent on these additional 5*T32 funds actually existing as a tangible budget and not just a mere PR soundbite.

[Poiuytrewq]

Also any thought that RN could afford to build and crew 12*ASW + 9*AAW escorts is pure fantasy. At best it would be one additional batch of one or the other, not both.

It really isn’t. It’s just a question of priorities.

£1.2bn per annum on ships is £36bn over 30yrs unadjusted for inflation.

Again unadjusted, if the T83 cost is comparable in cost to the T26 that would cost around £19bn for 21 Tier One escorts. That would leave a very healthy £17bn for other programmes.

Although there isn’t enough funding to achieve everything that HMG would like to do a £53bn annual defence budget is still a huge amount.

It’s just a case of establishing the priorities.

[tomuk]

From memory, was n't the T26 the first RN escort class that was trumpeted as being completely computerised in it's design?

I believe it was trumpeted as such with videos of digital 'Bob' avatars slipping between bulkheads and pipe ways without banging his head and being able to wield his virtual spanner. However in the recent Australian select committee hearing on the Hunter class the twirling of large 'blueprints' on the Clyde was mentioned.

[SouthernOne]

Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run.

Yes and no.

If the T45 replacement just needs to be a basic hull form with zero regard for acoustic optimisation and a CODAD propulsion system building more T26 will not be the cheapest option.

Without knowing what RN want from a T83, it’s difficult to say for sure what is the most rational way to proceed.

Good news that the cruiser plan appears to be firmly in retreat.

We have a simple, non ASW-optimised, CODAD, AAW design in build, albeit not specified as such, and it's called Type 31. Babcock even propose a configuration with:

Missiles: Infrastructure to support up to 64 x SAM for local and mid area defence and up to 16 x SAM against ballistic missile threat.
SSM: Up to 8, customer selected, canister launched weapons.

https://www.arrowhead140.com/modular-sy ... fic-roles/

That should be the starting point if we want to take the budget route.

However if we don't design and develop a new class of ship then we likely never will again. At least not without expending vast amounts of time, money and effort, which will probably benefit a foreign company, to regain the capability.

Size seems to concern the treasury and some people here, however one of the biggest cost multipliers of Type 26 is the relative density of systems in the optimised ASW hull form. This was alluded to by Vice Admiral Chris Gardner last year and why he argued the Navy wouldn't want any more even if offered them.

Such issues would apply more so to an AAW variant, with far greater demand for VLS space and top weight (which rules out turning the mission bay into a weapons deck). A single glance at the Hunter Class shambles should be enough to discount this idea.

As for resurrecting Type 45, you immediately constrain all future FAD technology to the space, mass and power requirements of a ship designed in the 1990s. Not to mention I doubt you could pay R-R enough to restart WR-21 production. At which point you're talking about a ship with everything different apart from the external shape of the hull and superstructure.

A big, simple hull is a lot more flexible and doesn't require excessive miniaturisation of systems. It just needs to be fast enough to keep up with the rest of the CSG.

For some maddening reason we always seem to need to reinvent the wheel in this country. Usually as a cynical ploy to push financial outlays into later budgets, at greater overall cost, rather than any true pioneering spirit.

With the 2030s dominated by Dreadnought into AUKUS Class; Merlin replacement; and whatever survives from [Type 32/MRSS/MROSS/OPVs etc.], plus the other two rather forgotten services, there's going to be some serious competition for funds and some very tough decisions.

Hunter class a "shambles". Why? Yes its running behind the originally promised schedule (as do most if not all large defence programs), but seems to be progressing at the same pace as the Canadian CSC program which is also using the BEA GCS hull as the basis for a full spectrum warship. Had the BAE GCS design been more mature (ie already constructed with sea trials finalised) when it was selected for these programs, both would probably be more advanced, but that's a separate issue, as is BAE's lack of experience with AEGIS and CMS330.

The Italian Navy's FREMM variant is also a well rounded ship using a hull "optimised" for ASW, as will be the USN Constellation class.

[tomuk]

Hunter class a "shambles". Why? Yes its running behind the originally promised schedule (as do most if not all large defence programs), but seems to be progressing at the same pace as the Canadian CSC program which is also using the BEA GCS hull as the basis for a full spectrum warship. Had the BAE GCS design been more mature (ie already constructed with sea trials finalised) when it was selected for these programs, both would probably be more advanced, but that's a separate issue, as is BAE's lack of experience with AEGIS and CMS330.

The maturity of the design is not the issue it has only been picked up as an audit problem by the Australian Audit Office because the DOD set it as a requirement during the procurement process and then decided it wasn't a problem. The Audit Office aren't happy because the proverbial dog seems to have eaten the DODs homework detailing the decisions\changed requirements. The Audit Office aren't expert in ship design they are experts in paperwork, processes and following them correctly.

The real issue in the delay is the level of design change needed to fit CEAFAR, AEGIS and the 'not 9LV' SAAB 'duplicate CMS' tactical interface whose weight, cooling and power demands have all increased over those laid out by DOD in the original tender\contract. In those circumstances having some flexibility in the parent design and being able to incorporate those changes earlier in the design is a bonus. Having a FREMM for example in the water isn't going to make it easier to fit all the radar\CMS gear when you need to redesign the superstructure, lengthen\widen the hull and potentially fit another\uprated DG.

[Jensy]

Hunter class a "shambles". Why? Yes its running behind the originally promised schedule (as do most if not all large defence programs), but seems to be progressing at the same pace as the Canadian CSC program which is also using the BEA GCS hull as the basis for a full spectrum warship. Had the BAE GCS design been more mature (ie already constructed with sea trials finalised) when it was selected for these programs, both would probably be more advanced, but that's a separate issue, as is BAE's lack of experience with AEGIS and CMS330.

The Italian Navy's FREMM variant is also a well rounded ship using a hull "optimised" for ASW, as will be the USN Constellation class.

Tomuk has answered you better than I could. I was referring almost entirely to the integration of CEAFAR, which seems to have been poorly planned.

I must say some local Australian media/interest groups appear determined to portray it in a negative light, for whatever motivations...

As for the FREMM derivatives, from what has been seen in competitions Type 26 ASW is on a different level. Sufficiently so that mature defence ministries are willing to take a punt on it, over the 15 year older Franco-Italian design. The US competition was structured in such a way that Type 26 simply couldn't compete. Constellation is about a similar to either original FREMM as a Spruance is to a Ticonderoga Class.

Aegis might not be something the UK uses but the US division of BAE has a pretty extensive exposure from their work for the AEGIS Technical Representative organisation. knowledge and skills that I'm sure could be leveraged locally in Osborne as other global primes do.

[shark bait]

The issue with resurrecting T45 isn't the WR21, as MT30 would be a relatively straightforward drop in replacement

The MT30 is twice as powerful. Not a drop in.

IEP have moved on, to DC rather than AC based systems

What is this supposed to mean? No ships have DC generators, and all IEP ships convert from AC to DC and back to AC again to make it work.

[shark bait]

Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run.

I generally agree this should the the starting objective for the project, but shouldn't cling on to the idea too tightly if the size a power requirements start to diverge.

This could work if the lean 'arsenal ship' concept plays out, but if the direction heads for a traditional cruiser/destroyer design it'll probably need a clean sheet.

[SW1]

Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run.

I generally agree this should the the starting objective for the project, but shouldn't cling on to the idea too tightly if the size a power requirements start to diverge.

This could work if the lean 'arsenal ship' concept plays out, but if the direction heads for a traditional cruiser/destroyer design it'll probably need a clean sheet.

I’d make it really simple if you want another clean sheet then numbers reduce by 50% every time you want it. Should focus the mind on “requirements”.

[shark bait]

This could work if the lean 'arsenal ship' concept plays out, but if the direction heads for a traditional cruiser/destroyer design it'll probably need a clean sheet.

What I think is going to define the dimensions of Type 83 most will be the weight/mass of the array, and the optimal height vs stability arguments.

Until there's a clear understanding of what the main FAD sensors will be the hull could be based on either in production escort or up to something the size of the new Japanese 190m ASEV 'destroyers'. As you say upthread: "putting the payload before the platform".

Then there's always the potential to collaborate with a country with similar requirements... but that carries its own pitfalls.