Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1699
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

A topic to discuss and track the development of the Type 83 destroyer announced in the Integrated Review:

UK announces new Type 83 Destroyer
The Defence Command Paper released today, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, confirms that the UK will develop a new destroyer type, the Type 83.

The white paper states:

“The concept and assessment phase for our new Type 83 destroyer which will begin to
replace our Type 45 destroyers in the late 2030s.”
Read More: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-anno ... destroyer/

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 736
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by Defiance »

I'm curious about it for sure. Judging from previous vessel class growth she is going to be pretty hefty and hopefully carry a few more shots than the 48 on the Type 45 - chances on it being a Type 26 derivative?

(If it's a discussion thread should we dispense with [News Only] for now as it's caused pointless gripes in the past?)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

What do we think is the significance of Type 83 vs Type 46??

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 736
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by Defiance »

Ron5 wrote:What do we think is the significance of Type 83 vs Type 46??
CVA-01 got reborn as the QEC, same thing with the Type 82/83?

serge750
Member
Posts: 823
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

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

Post by serge750 »

Not going to happen but i would like to see a trimaran concept ...should have loads of room for "mission bays" & more weapons - to be fitted at a later date...maybe :lol: in typical RN/MOD style

https://www.naval-technology.com/wp-con ... 9/tri5.jpg

Well its going to be a long wait till we hear anything concrete

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

Think the type 83 significance is probably just building a modern version of a cruisers ,like the Chinese type 055 , American Ticonderoga class ,or future Italian ddx destroyer, to sail with the carriers , personally I think will be in the 10- 12k ton range ,so not a derivative of a type 26 or type 31 hull

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7177
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

Defiance wrote:CVA-01 got reborn as the QEC, same thing with the Type 82/83?
In this age of cruiser-sized destroyers and destroyer-sized frigates, there should be definite consideration in naming one of the proposed Type 83 as HMS Bristol, after the Type 82 ship and ship-class of the same name.

HMS Bristol (T82) thread: https://www.ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=152

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:What do we think is the significance of Type 83 vs Type 46??
Clean sheet.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7177
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

By coincidence of its T83 name only, here is a totally fictional concept for T83, but it was rendered by former MilitaryPhotos.net forum user and aquaintance SuricataFX, who also created those lovely QE Class flight deck drawings I've often admired.

This T83 concept was first designed by SuricataFX in 2011 and remastered in 2017:


(SuricataFX) 22nd July 2017
Decided to re-render a video I created a few years back. The model was created in about a day in 3DSmax, with the scenes taking a about 2 days to render.

The ship was designed to use as allied ships in computer games instead of always using American and British ships to represent the 'good guys', which can create odd implications when marketing games in various regions around the world.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

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

Post by Phil Sayers »

Hopefully Type 83 doesn't mean they are envisaging a dedicated carrier escort as per the Type 82 or the Horizon class. If so, that could mean only three or four being built.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7177
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

I feel that not using a T4x name is an indication that T83 will be a big beast like T82 was. Almost cruiser sized.
But imagine the irony if only one T83 was to be built, named HMS Bristol, then others cancelled, just like T82?!

serge750
Member
Posts: 823
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

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

Post by serge750 »

SKB wrote:I feel that not using a T4X name is an indication that T83 will be a big beast like T82 was. Almost cruiser sized.
But imagine the irony if only one T83 was to be built, named HMS Bristol, then others cancelled, just like T82?!

BADDYS !!! NO !!! well at least we got the carriers this time :D

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

Phil sayers you are probably right they way things are going ,6 destroyers now, reduced to 3 with the words that they are twice or 3 times as capable as the type 45 ,you know this to be true ,mark my words

serge750
Member
Posts: 823
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

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

Post by serge750 »

I wouldn't be surprised at 4, tied to the carrier, i would say thats not to bad as long as we get more ASW hulls like the T26 with better AAW radar like the australian ones, more ASW frigates with enhanced AAW, bit like the AAW FREMM frigates,

Perhaps they are going for a 2bn pound price tag per ship....

Kirov type battle cruiser anybody :mrgreen:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

serge750 wrote:Not going to happen but i would like to see a trimaran concept ...should have loads of room for "mission bays" & more weapons - to be fitted at a later date...maybe :lol: in typical RN/MOD style

https://www.naval-technology.com/wp-con ... 9/tri5.jpg

Well its going to be a long wait till we hear anything concrete
Wouldn't that be something :clap: :clap: :clap:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

SKB wrote:By coincidence of its T83 name only, here is a totally fictional concept for T83, but it was rendered by former MilitaryPhotos.net forum user and aquaintance SuricataFX, who also created those lovely QE Class flight deck drawings I've often admired.

This T83 concept was first designed by SuricataFX in 2011 and remastered in 2017:


(SuricataFX) 22nd July 2017
Decided to re-render a video I created a few years back. The model was created in about a day in 3DSmax, with the scenes taking a about 2 days to render.

The ship was designed to use as allied ships in computer games instead of always using American and British ships to represent the 'good guys', which can create odd implications when marketing games in various regions around the world.
Beautiful video. Are there any plan and profile views to match?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Bring back the big cats: Tiger, Lion, Princess Royal etc.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 736
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by Defiance »

inch wrote:Phil sayers you are probably right they way things are going ,6 destroyers now, reduced to 3 with the words that they are twice or 3 times as capable as the type 45 ,you know this to be true ,mark my words
This will be what happens - requirement to produce 1 ship available at all times to support QEC surging to 2 for a peer conflict. Probably means a fleet of 3 is the likely outcome there if I had a crystal ball

Definitely not 1:1 that's for sure!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

If we name the lead ship HMS Bristol then we will only get one plus a few smaller, watered down versions later on.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 547
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

Defiance wrote:
inch wrote:Phil sayers you are probably right they way things are going ,6 destroyers now, reduced to 3 with the words that they are twice or 3 times as capable as the type 45 ,you know this to be true ,mark my words
This will be what happens - requirement to produce 1 ship available at all times to support QEC surging to 2 for a peer conflict. Probably means a fleet of 3 is the likely outcome there if I had a crystal ball

Definitely not 1:1 that's for sure!
Considering the strong AAW heritage of the Type 31, there is some room to move to hi/low mix of lighter 'destroyers' alongside heavier 'cruisers'... doubt that investment will ever be made though.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

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

Post by Phil Sayers »

Defiance wrote:
Definitely not 1:1 that's for sure!
I wouldn't say it is for definite and agree with Jensy above. I think the RN has a genuine choice to make in whether to go for an all singing, all dancing 'cruiser' - in which case there probably would only be three that never leave a carrier's side - or whether to go for a much more modest Type 26 or Type 31 derived 'destroyer' in which case six is a realistic possibility. I suspect that the concept stage will feature both approaches and as to which the RN actually goes for much will turn on the intended fit of the Type 32.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7177
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

T83, perhaps the first RN destroyer to be built with frickin' laser beams?! :mrgreen:
By the way, whatever happened to Dragonfire?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2292
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by Timmymagic »

SKB wrote:By the way, whatever happened to Dragonfire?
Still being developed, it has encountered some delays though.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4171
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

T45 replacement build must continue until T26 replacement. Adding 30 years to "delivery to RN on 2025" (or 28 years to "in service" on 2027), it will be somewhere around 2055.

So, T45 build champaign shall cover from 2036-2050, at least. 13-14 years. Even with slow "2 years drumbeat", it means at least 6 hulls are needed. Of course, we can build 5 to 8 OPVs in place, to "save the day", but the 5 OPVs stands for 2-3 years gap-filling.

Basing on this prospects, I think T83 is a T26-"like" ASW-capable (if not specialist) hull with T45-"like" AAW capability. Just guess, but if its is 4 or 3 "cruisers", it will result in 3 to 4 years drumbeat. Far from efficient, and I think UK must not go this way.

Something like "T42 of 2050s, with larger hull for growth margin" can be an option.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Even with slow "2 years drumbeat", it means at least 6 hulls are needed. Of course, we can build 5 to 8 OPVs in place, to "save the day", but the 5 OPVs stands for 2-3 years gap-filling.
Its clear from the noises made that keeping a steady drumbeat of orders is the desire. T26/T45 derivatives from BAE on the Clyde and T31 derivatives from Babcock at Rosyth. Add in a few OPVs and export orders to keep things ticking along.

T83 will be stretched/broadened T26 with maybe space for a second missile silo say at 10000t a modest Type055.

No offence but despite the Batch 3 Type 42 being gorgeous the weapon system was atrocious and the hull just too small.

I just hope some cash finds it way to Cowes so the son of SAMPSON can be born.

Post Reply