Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Dobbo wrote:
Ron5 wrote: Just helos's and ASROC doesn't confer ASW capability. Ship requires sonars to know where to send helo's and where to aim ASROC.

Ignore Nick's financials, they're rubbish.
Cheers Ron - I’d assume the ship would have a similar bow mounted sonar to the T45 - would that cover the point you are making? In the alternate the networked capability with the T26 and or Helos with dipping sonar?

I think we can all agree that a de-facto Cruiser is not going to be cheap, and the key issues are likely to be whether the RN can get the capabilities they want in the numbers they need (and I cannot fathom how Hull numbers numbers can realistically drop below 6) with the budget available - which is necessarily going to be very large.
A tail too I think.

Plus a stonking laser.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
NickC wrote:T26 would not be my choice of hull for an AAW destroyer as its optimised for quiet ASW mission making it expensive platform, nice to have but not required for AAW ships.
So you think that designing a new hull form would be cheaper?
Designing a new hull form is cheap. Dirt cheap.

BTW, the T26 cannot be stretched, it's at its L/D limit. In simple terms, if stretched, longitudinal strength would be lost and the ship would get too floppy.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

The major reason for the T45's high cost (633 million per), was the PAAMS system which compromised about one third of the cost.

One Gordon Brown, village idiot, cancelled the program after 6 ships on the basis of cost. He used, and told parliament, much higher costs including ship and PAAMS R& D costs which, obviously, had already been spent and wouldn't be saved.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:cancelled the program after 6 ships on the basis of cost. He used, and told parliament, much higher costs including ship and PAAMS R& D costs which, obviously, had already been spent and wouldn't be saved.
You are quite right here.

And then, the T23 replacement (T26) got quite expensive
... the reasons are subject, shall I say :D , to a discussion that continues
Ron5 wrote:BTW, the T26 cannot be stretched, it's at its L/D limit. In simple terms, if stretched, longitudinal strength would be lost and the ship would get too floppy.
So, other than those three (and of course; the last of the three is still just speculation, err, subject to discussion, as to which avenue to follow).

So the only one that (so far) has not busted the cost envelope, seems to be the T31
... the one you were 'dead against' for many years.

Pls explain; so that we (the Admiralty... oops, they don't have a design team anymore) can get the next design "right".
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I think there is no problem designing a new hull. T31 has its hull-design origin in early 2000s (Absalon). T26 has its origin around 2016 and now. By 2040, it will be 40 years or 25 years old design. It is not much different from building a frigate with a hull based on T22 NOW, or building T42 (around 1980) based on the hull design of WWII destroyers.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

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

Post by Dobbo »

Ron5 wrote:The major reason for the T45's high cost (633 million per), was the PAAMS system which compromised about one third of the cost.

One Gordon Brown, village idiot, cancelled the program after 6 ships on the basis of cost. He used, and told parliament, much higher costs including ship and PAAMS R& D costs which, obviously, had already been spent and wouldn't be saved.
Do you think a T83 using a (hypothetically upgraded) PAAMS incorporating BMD capability, son of Sampson etc would face the same cost issues as developing PAAMS in the first place?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Dobbo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:The major reason for the T45's high cost (633 million per), was the PAAMS system which compromised about one third of the cost.

One Gordon Brown, village idiot, cancelled the program after 6 ships on the basis of cost. He used, and told parliament, much higher costs including ship and PAAMS R& D costs which, obviously, had already been spent and wouldn't be saved.
Do you think a T83 using a (hypothetically upgraded) PAAMS incorporating BMD capability, son of Sampson etc would face the same cost issues as developing PAAMS in the first place?
No because a) it wouldn't involve paying rip off French prices (I'm assuming the T83 would go Mk 41 instead of Sylver) and b) the ship would not require the second S1850M radar because son of Sampson wouldn't need it.

PS Did Sampson have a son? daughter?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: building a frigate with a hull based on T22 NOW, or building T42 (around 1980)
Nothing wrong with the first one (do we need command frigates; could we call them cruisers ;) ) but you and I and most of the folks around here know how the 'chop&change' went with T42
- it wasn't 3 strikes and out
- but they were finally made into 'real ships' in the third batch

Lesson n:o1... keep the Treasury far away from ship (hull) designs

But as for T83 (back to the 'topic' :o ). We might need a 'command frigate' if the BMD update for the AAW destroyers (as suggested by the new member ETH; but without any link) were to go ahead from 2024
- the RN has not 'published' any sensor-shooter doctrine for the future surface fleet

But it all boils down to time lines: what capabilities can dovetail with which others?
- the Treasury is back in the game here: build a capability that is
A. needed/ a 'must', but
B. does not break the bank (as we have already done that and have a 'war debt' to repay)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

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

Post by ETH »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:But as for T83 (back to the 'topic' :o ). We might need a 'command frigate' if the BMD update for the AAW destroyers (as suggested by the new member ETH; but without any link) were to go ahead from 2024
I have an image but cannot seem to figure out how to attach it.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

ETH wrote:I have an image but cannot seem to figure out how to attach it.
In the edit window, click the Img button and paste the image address/link between the 2 sets of brackets which have appeared.

Alternatively, you can upload it as an attachment as long as the memory size is small enough (try smaller jpeg image if too big). However uploaded image space is finite.

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

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

Post by ETH »

SKB wrote:
ETH wrote:I have an image but cannot seem to figure out how to attach it.
In the edit window, click the Img button and paste the image address/link between the 2 sets of brackets which have appeared.

Alternatively, you can upload it as an attachment as long as the memory size is small enough (try smaller jpeg image if too big). However uploaded image space is finite.
Thanks, I get an error saying ‘the board attachment quota has been reached’. Does this mean the image I am trying to upload is too large or is there a certain collective limit for all users?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

The T-83 needs to dovetail into the end of production of the T-26 in order to keep the workforce in place and the planned drum beat for new warships ongoing. The production of the the T-31 and then T-32 elsewhere should do the same, with both combining for the T-83 and eventually the successor to the other three ship classes.

If the T-83 is to be aimed purely at the AAW capability then the T-31 would be a very good place to start, as it has plenty of space for BVLS be they Mk41, Mk56, Sylver or a combination. BMD is a must in order to work with NATOs other ship based BMD capability, as is having joined u networks to allow both Royal Navy and other NATO vessels to co-ordinate their actions and responses.

Sampson should be a valid Radar system for along time to come, it is still state of the art now isn't it? Moving forward an upgrade Sampson, or a "Panel" type system using technology derived from Sampson will probably be the radar used on the T-83 and possibly other future escorts if the latter route is taken.

PAAMS is a very good system with plenty of growth left in it. Sticking with it will probably be related to costs of developing improved versions as against adopting a US made systems such as the SM-3 and SM-6. Sea Ceptor is a must as its use as a point defence weapon as the Canadian navy intends provides another layer of defence especially if networked with other ships.

The Vessels should also have a decent AShM capability ideally with FC/ASW, which should slao provide a land attack capability, though this will not be of high importance for the T-83. ASW capability would come from a hull mounted Sonar, data from other ships with tails and prosecuted by either Torpedoes delivered by the T83s Wildcat or by the ASROC-VL type system loaded into a number of its VLS.

The main gun should be a dual purpose weapon like the Bofors 57mm as fitted to the T-31, as these vessels will not be engaged in shore bombardment, hopefully. This would also be fair effective against small and medium Naval targets when not conducting operations in high threat areas, but those such as the Gulf. The 5 inch system should be left to the T-26 and possibly the T-32.

The aviation facilities would be able to handle a single Merlin but would ideally be for two Wildcats of one Wildcat and a Rotary UAV.

Close in weapons like Phalanx should also be fitted, with systems that are do not require desk penetration preferred. At least two DS-30 guns with LMM should be installed as well being able to be controlled either remotely of manually if required.

By the time the T-83 enters service Lasers, at least lower powered ones able to defeat UAV and small water craft could already be in service. It would make sense for the T)823 being designed for these from the outset, having the power generation capacity and the infrastructure in place to fit such weapons when the Navy sees fit to.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

ETH wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:But as for T83 (back to the 'topic' :o ). We might need a 'command frigate' if the BMD update for the AAW destroyers (as suggested by the new member ETH; but without any link) were to go ahead from 2024
I have an image but cannot seem to figure out how to attach it.
Most of us have given up on posting images from our computers. Used to work eons ago but these days...

Best bet is to try and find an online copy of your image using an image search tool like Google and then point to the online version (if there is one).

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

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

Post by ETH »

Lord Jim wrote:The T-83 needs to dovetail into the end of production of the T-26 in order to keep the workforce in place and the planned drum beat for new warships ongoing. The production of the the T-31 and then T-32 elsewhere should do the same, with both combining for the T-83 and eventually the successor to the other three ship classes.
I agree with you there. Even if the ship classes themselves are completely different consistent ship orders are needed to keep yards afloat and the workforce skilled and plentiful.
Lord Jim wrote:If the T-83 is to be aimed purely at the AAW capability then the T-31 would be a very good place to start, as it has plenty of space for BVLS be they Mk41, Mk56, Sylver or a combination. BMD is a must in order to work with NATOs other ship based BMD capability, as is having joined u networks to allow both Royal Navy and other NATO vessels to co-ordinate their actions and responses.
My understanding is that a Type 45 replacement will almost inevitably be larger than the class it replaces. If I recall correctly the Arrowhead 140 design has space for no more than 32 Mk41 VLS, a substantial downgrade in capacity. BMD is something that we should develop well before the Type 45 goes out of service, there are avenues for upgrades available for both sensors and effectors. The Type 45 was also slated to receive the Cooperative Engagement Capability that you speak of (one of the 'justifications' for reducing the number of hulls ordered) however was cancelled on cost grounds.
Lord Jim wrote:Sampson should be a valid Radar system for along time to come, it is still state of the art now isn't it? Moving forward an upgrade Sampson, or a "Panel" type system using technology derived from Sampson will probably be the radar used on the T-83 and possibly other future escorts if the latter route is taken.
SAMPSON does use panels, just not fixed to the superstructure. The advantage of SAMPSON is that it is placed much higher up than equivalent systems (SPY/1 for example). Whether this approach is continued for the Type 83 is probably not something that will be definite for a while. As a system it is getting older by the day and should not be placed on a pedestal, upgrades will be needed to stay relevant. Currently, BAE's plan is to upgrade it ~2027.
Lord Jim wrote:PAAMS is a very good system with plenty of growth left in it. Sticking with it will probably be related to costs of developing improved versions as against adopting a US made systems such as the SM-3 and SM-6. Sea Ceptor is a must as its use as a point defence weapon as the Canadian navy intends provides another layer of defence especially if networked with other ships.
Whilst later versions of Aster are available, it will be an old system come the 2040s without continuous development. The proposed 'block 2' BMD variant has seen worryingly little input from MBDA on the state of the program, whereas SM3 exists today and has the support of the US behind it.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

ETH.
Everything you have said is along the same lines I was following with a few minor changes. When I stated that the T-31 or possibly the T032 could form the basis for the T-83 I must admit I was thinking more along the lines of then parental design rather than the Arrowhead 140. But the more I think about it IT would be more a case of removing everything above the main deck which may point to the idea of a totally fresh design as I don't think the savings would be that great and as you pointed out there would be limitation imposed from the very start using an existing hull design.

I know Sampson sort of uses plates, two back to back in a novel approach, and that it in being high up does give it certain advantages, but the latest generation of AESA radars with usually four plates on the superstructure are at least a generation ahead and very flexible in size and power. So the choice using present options would be a new generation Sampson style or an Aegis Style Radar configuration, though what will appear in the next decade or so is anyone's guess.

I agree PAAMS is in need of development but there are moves afoot within Europe to develop a non US based BMD capability, currently called "Twister" , both on land and at see, and using European Missiles and radars for this. Phase one would be be an improved PAMMS followed by a new missile using the Sylver launch system as well as being compatible with the land based SAMP-T launchers. So we would have to make a choice, follow a European route or go shopping across the Pond and get them both to throw in a CEC for good measure.

NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Lord Jim wrote:
Sampson should be a valid Radar system for along time to come, it is still state of the art now isn't it? Moving forward an upgrade Sampson, or a "Panel" type system using technology derived from Sampson will probably be the radar used on the T-83 and possibly other future escorts if the latter route is taken..
I'm sure the Sampson has adequate capabilities as an effective radar for TBM, but wouldn't class it as a current state of the art radar.

It appears all the new main naval radars by western countries use the AESA antennas using transmit/receiver modules made with GaN silicon, eg new GaN radars under development or in production by CEA Tech; Hensoldt; Leonardo; Lockheed Martin; Mitsubishi; Raytheon; Saab; Thales etc. GaN can take substantially more electric power/current enabling it to push out ~5+ or more of RF energy,

LM and Thales with the new GaN radars adding additional tech. Normal radars only transmit one pulse beam, LM with their variants of the GaN SPY-7 radar use dual polarimetric tech which transmits and receives pulses in both a horizontal and vertical orientation and as a result give improved discrimination.

Japan planned to install two BMD Aegis Ashore systems for a cost of $6/7 billion, firing the co-developed Japanese/US SM-3 IIA ABM, the Japanese picked the SPY-7 in preference to the new Raytheon GaN SPY-6, now the standard radar of choice for new USN ships - AB Flight III, Constellation etc, Japanese said the SPY-7 a better radar then the SPY-6, Japanese since cancelled the Aegis Ashore due the threat posed by the SM-3 booster falling on their land or coastal waters and will procure additional Aegis destroyers.

Thales independently developed their Dual Axis multi-beam tech, using simultaneous multi-beams in azimuth as well as elevation for use in their new GaN radars, NS100/200; SM400; SMART-L MM etc.

As far as know there has been no hint RN will be funding an upgrade of Sampson T/R Ms with GaN silicon or with dual-pol or dual axis tech.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

I saw I while ago that BAE were designing a cone or sphere shaped radar being one solid panel that was light enough to be placed up high like a rotating radar to replace Sampsons, its give the benefit of both the 360 cover of a solid panel while also the higher positioning for sea skimmers of a rotating radar.

Does anyone know if anything more has been made of this ?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:I'm sure the Sampson has adequate capabilities as an effective radar for TBM, but wouldn't class it as a current state of the art radar.
Now there's a surprise :yawn:

Software is the key differentiator in radar these days. The bit you can't use in Top Trumps.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Jake1992 wrote:I saw I while ago that BAE were designing a cone or sphere shaped radar being one solid panel that was light enough to be placed up high like a rotating radar to replace Sampsons, its give the benefit of both the 360 cover of a solid panel while also the higher positioning for sea skimmers of a rotating radar.

Does anyone know if anything more has been made of this ?
I saw the same thing. AFAIK no new news.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Dobbo wrote:A good article by Navy Lookout on the Type 83 and likely direction of travel.

https://www.navylookout.com/the-type-83 ... combatant/
A rather disappointing article in my opinion that offers very little to the debate on what the T83's should be or do. Lots of basic errors too. Nice photos tho'.

As for the comments ...

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1699
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

News only thread folks. There might not be a lot of news to discuss at the moment but let’s keep this thread tidy until there is. Use the escort general discussion thread for non-news and speculation: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=701

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

Following on from comments by Vice Admiral Gardner that:
Type 83 will not look anything like a T45
Comment here with video:
http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php ... 25#p132484



Interesting to see the word 'exquisite' thrown about. Suggests that current thinking is very much along the lines of a Tier 1 warship, whatever that might mean by the mid 30s.

Doesn't necessarily translate to the 21st century battlecruiser that some might be hoping for but certainly doesn't sound like a return to Type 42 thinking either.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

The word "Exquisite", leaves me thinking the idea will be to make the T-83 the best AAW/ABM platform it can be, whilst building no fewer then six to avoid reducing the escort fleet.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

"Exquisite Class" (C)2021 SKB :mrgreen:

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

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

Post by Dobbo »

Lord Jim wrote:The word "Exquisite", leaves me thinking the idea will be to make the T-83 the best AAW/ABM platform it can be, whilst building no fewer then six to avoid reducing the escort fleet.
I agree - but that has to be the bare minimum, and ideal you would have at least 8 of those with the ability to embark the future anti ship / land attack missile (which I’m sure will be the plan).

Post Reply