Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Locked
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 21:30
Digger22 wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 21:06 …why not use the T45 hull for the replacement.
Why not?

However, an adapted T26 that retains the superior ASW capability is still top of the list if RN can pull it off.

IMO a T26 based AAW optimised T83 would change everything for RN especially if 8 were built. That would allow the T83’s to concentrate on the CSG exclusively providing both the AAW and ASW required. RN could then use the T26’s for a multitude of other taskings and not constantly be tied to the CSG and TAPS alone.

Eight of each looks about right.

8x T83 (T26 based combined AAW/ASW)
8x T26
8x T31 GP
8x OPV

Excellent symmetry and affordable.
I'm not sure symmetry is a requirement and I would argue that 8 of everything isn't affordable either.

As to reusing the T45 hull and I assume propulsion I think that ship has sailed. It was an effort and compromise to fit all the high tech IEP tech into a hull the size of the T45 and if you went with IEP today there have been advances in DC electrical technology which arguably makes the AC based T45 system obsolete. There would need to be an awful lot of rework just to bring it up to date.

As to reusing T26 if you were happy to give up the Mk45 gun and automated magazine, Integrated mission bay and Chinnook sized flight deck to allow fitment of a second missile silo and a large AAW capable radar then it is feasible to produce a T26 sized AAW destroyer.

If you want a 12,000t Type 055 cruiser then starting with a blank piece of paper would be better.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

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

Post by Mercator »

tomuk wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 04:30
Mercator wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 00:12
Jensy wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 19:39 Not familiar with the source but it looks more than a copy & paste defence blog.

Real or fake, it will likely have as much bearing on a completed Type 83 as RV Triton does on HMS Glasgow.
the source is a reasonably respectable online 'daily brief'. They sometimes include opinion pieces that are mostly crap, but the other two or three big mags suffer from the same shallow pool of talent. The usual daily output is respectable, however. The major firms do advertise with them.

I don't doubt that this was briefed by BAE Australia. They have to be scrambling to secure the Hunter class long-term and a bit of chum in the water like this won't hurt them any more than the trouble they already find themselves in.
I assume the author Stephen Kuper is the same Stephen Kuper who is assistant advisor to Melissa Price MP (Liberal) the former Minister for Defence Industry under Scott Morrison?
possibly. It wouldn't matter though. Just about every political journalist in Australia takes a turn as the PR guy for a member at some point. It's an unremarkable rite of passage for Australian parliamentary and senior political journalists. The side they work for doesn't generally imply their politics and they eventually return to normal journalism, for the most part. The former job title honestly doesn't imply much apart from knowledge of how government works. In other words, experience, and possibly some good sources, which is why they do it that way in Australia.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

I’ve pushed a common AAW/ASuW/ASW platform in the past, and IMO there is definitely a chance things will go this way as ASW unmanned systems take over TAS (very much like what we are seeing today in the MCM/Survey areas).

A quietened hull is as much about being invisible to subs as it is about hunting them - this seems to be often forgotten in our discussions. Starting with a T26 hull makes a lot of sense.

One thing though is actually I think the T83 actually has a distinct role. The T26 is our offensive CSG escort, but we need an air defence / long range ground attack cruiser. Perhaps by calling it a Cruiser will focus minds that it needs to be more that a T26 with better AAW capabilities.

My fantasy fleet - we need 5 T83 Cruisers and 10 T26 Destroyers, and keep the 5 T31s for regional NATO duties.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
serge750
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

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

Post by mrclark303 »

Repulse wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 07:34 I’ve pushed a common AAW/ASuW/ASW platform in the past, and IMO there is definitely a chance things will go this way as ASW unmanned systems take over TAS (very much like what we are seeing today in the MCM/Survey areas).

A quietened hull is as much about being invisible to subs as it is about hunting them - this seems to be often forgotten in our discussions. Starting with a T26 hull makes a lot of sense.

One thing though is actually I think the T83 actually has a distinct role. The T26 is our offensive CSG escort, but we need an air defence / long range ground attack cruiser. Perhaps by calling it a Cruiser will focus minds that it needs to be more that a T26 with better AAW capabilities.

My fantasy fleet - we need 5 T83 Cruisers and 10 T26 Destroyers, and keep the 5 T31s for regional NATO duties.
It's a really tricky one, we need to ensure we don't raise the size and the specifications to the point they become unaffordable in the number needed.

I feel we need a fleet of 9 to ensure 5 / 6 are available at all times.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe the way forward would be to design and build 24 x 165m by 22 meter Multi role destroyer's with tier 1 ASW & AAW first 8 would replace the type 45's batch 2 would replace the 8 type 31's we should order and the batch 3 would replace the 8 type 26's set a budget of 22 billion over 28 years

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Can't help but believe that the eventual T83 design will be influenced more by the outcome of direct energy weapons (eg lasers) vs missiles than any other factor. For one thing, if DE wins, the eventual ship can be much smaller.

Got the names picked out: Lion, Tiger, Princess Royal, Hood, Nelson, Rodney, Anson, Royal Oak.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Zero Gravitas

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

9 pages in and still no actual news. Sigh. :roll: :shh:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

SKB wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 13:49 9 pages in and still no actual news. Sigh. :roll: :shh:
And there will be no real news for another 5 years so whoever put news only on this site was dreaming
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
PoiuytrewqRon5

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

Mercator wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 00:12 the source is a reasonably respectable online 'daily brief'. They sometimes include opinion pieces that are mostly crap, but the other two or three big mags suffer from the same shallow pool of talent. The usual daily output is respectable, however. The major firms do advertise with them.

I don't doubt that this was briefed by BAE Australia. They have to be scrambling to secure the Hunter class long-term and a bit of chum in the water like this won't hurt them any more than the trouble they already find themselves in.
The author reached out to me on Twitter this morning saying that all they did was increase the size of the image.

However I still wouldn't want to start reading too much into the design or equipment fit.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
Mercator

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

serge750 wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 21:01 Definitely 3-4 hulls would not be enough, even 4 is asking for trouble, I really do hope that future Government has learned it's lesson & won't shrink the RN any further so at least a 1 for 1 replacement should be the minimum - be interesting to see if they will go for a new version of Sampson radar - probably will
It would be interesting to know how well the Sampson radar stacks up with the latest SPY 6/7 radars, and the advantages / disadvantages of both. Which would serve the future RN better as we move into a time where hypersonic missiles are proliferating at the same time as cheap drone swarms.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Ron5

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Ron5 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 13:36 Can't help but believe that the eventual T83 design will be influenced more by the outcome of direct energy weapons (eg lasers) vs missiles than any other factor. For one thing, if DE wins, the eventual ship can be much smaller.

Got the names picked out: Lion, Tiger, Princess Royal, Hood, Nelson, Rodney, Anson, Royal Oak.
Those names definitely give my nostalgia senses a tingle!
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Ron5

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 18:57
serge750 wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 21:01 Definitely 3-4 hulls would not be enough, even 4 is asking for trouble, I really do hope that future Government has learned it's lesson & won't shrink the RN any further so at least a 1 for 1 replacement should be the minimum - be interesting to see if they will go for a new version of Sampson radar - probably will
It would be interesting to know how well the Sampson radar stacks up with the latest SPY 6/7 radars, and the advantages / disadvantages of both. Which would serve the future RN better as we move into a time where hypersonic missiles are proliferating at the same time as cheap drone swarms.
Would it not be better to work with Australia on cefar they are supposedly buying our ssn and fitting to a similar ship after all.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 19:02
wargame_insomniac wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 18:57
serge750 wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 21:01 Definitely 3-4 hulls would not be enough, even 4 is asking for trouble, I really do hope that future Government has learned it's lesson & won't shrink the RN any further so at least a 1 for 1 replacement should be the minimum - be interesting to see if they will go for a new version of Sampson radar - probably will
It would be interesting to know how well the Sampson radar stacks up with the latest SPY 6/7 radars, and the advantages / disadvantages of both. Which would serve the future RN better as we move into a time where hypersonic missiles are proliferating at the same time as cheap drone swarms.
Would it not be better to work with Australia on cefar they are supposedly buying our ssn and fitting to a similar ship after all.
Yes Australia can supply the GAN modules an we can supply the signal processing.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »


User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

As capabilities become less ship focused, and take a more distributed systems approach, the arsenal ship starts too look much more viable.

However I can't imagine any combatant being build without organic helicopter support. The helicopter is too valuable to loose, but the rest of the features seen on the T26 are optional for an AAW destroyer.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 10:16 As capabilities become less ship focused, and take a more distributed systems approach, the arsenal ship starts too look much more viable.

However I can't imagine any combatant being build without organic helicopter support. The helicopter is too valuable to loose, but the rest of the features seen on the T26 are optional for an AAW destroyer.
What is the middle way compromise?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

While I normally advocate for everything to be general purpose, I don't think its necessary because most of the time the future destroyer will be embedded in a group where capabilities are duplicated elsewhere. What is missing in the group is magazine depth, so the destroyer can try and fix that.

I'd opt for the same guns as the T31, plus a hanger for 1 Merlin + UAV and as many VLS as the budget allows? That'll make the destoryer capable of patrolling alone, or adding depth to a carrier group.
These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
serge750
@LandSharkUK

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by jonas »

Bit more info :- T83 and FAD system

https://www.navylookout.com/options-for ... destroyer/

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

SKB wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 13:49 9 pages in and still no actual news. Sigh. :roll: :shh:
So change the title :D

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 10:31 While I normally advocate for everything to be general purpose, I don't think its necessary because most of the time the future destroyer will be embedded in a group where capabilities are duplicated elsewhere. What is missing in the group is magazine depth, so the destroyer can try and fix that.

I'd opt for the same guns as the T31, plus a hanger for 1 Merlin + UAV and as many VLS as the budget allows? That'll make the destoryer capable of patrolling alone, or adding depth to a carrier group.
Lasers!!!
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
serge750

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 08:58 Excellent overview,

https://www.navylookout.com/options-for ... destroyer/
Great article thanks

That Arsenal Ship idea is fascinating. As is the decision - what radar to go for? Surely cannot be a rotator. Maybe a development of CEFAR is spun out of AUKUS?

Another question - if DE weapons are part of the mix where is all the power coming from? (Go on RN drop a PWR3 in there - you know you want one....)
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoserge750

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

jonas wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 10:48 Bit more info :- T83 and FAD system

https://www.navylookout.com/options-for ... destroyer/
Why is the Navy wasting money on this navel gazing I'd rather they spent it on radar development. It smells like the PODs nonsense we haven't got the money for a new AAW destroyer so in the meantime were going to waste money on in reality non innovative innovations.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Jensy

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

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.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

tomuk wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 16:51
jonas wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 10:48 Bit more info :- T83 and FAD system

https://www.navylookout.com/options-for ... destroyer/
Why is the Navy wasting money on this navel gazing I'd rather they spent it on radar development. It smells like the PODs nonsense we haven't got the money for a new AAW destroyer so in the meantime were going to waste money on in reality non innovative innovations.
Just wait. I suspect we're going to expensively go through the full selection of 90s naval fads before settling on something conventional and similar to our allies:

- Multi-hull
- Obscenely high top speed
- Motherships
- Aerostat radar

A pity AVPRO isn't still in business. At least their fantasy concepts were fun...

Image
These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
serge750

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

Jensy wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 17:34
tomuk wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 16:51
jonas wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 10:48 Bit more info :- T83 and FAD system

https://www.navylookout.com/options-for ... destroyer/
Why is the Navy wasting money on this navel gazing I'd rather they spent it on radar development. It smells like the PODs nonsense we haven't got the money for a new AAW destroyer so in the meantime were going to waste money on in reality non innovative innovations.
I suspect we're going to expensively go through the full selection of 90s naval fads
The fact that the programme is called FADS speaks volumes.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
JensySD67

Locked