Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Defiance
Donator
Posts: 736
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by Defiance »

SKB wrote:T83, perhaps the first RN destroyer to be built with frickin' laser beams?! :mrgreen:
By the way, whatever happened to Dragonfire?
Latest article i've seen about it came out 15th March :)

https://www.c4isrnet.com/global/europe/ ... acy-boost/

I guess i'm just a sceptical WRT Type 83 numbers. I don't find it difficult to imagine a largely forward deployed fleet of minor combatants and a core of high capability combatants scaled mainly to provide escorts to the carrier group but I might just be being pessimistic

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

I still think the way to go is to continue the production of Type-26 based warships, changing the load out as we go. Batch 1 (3) is in production but we could change the Batch 2 (5) to more equate to the load out of the Australian or Canadian variants, deleting the Mushrooms and increasing the number of Mk41 VLS. A Future Batch 3 (4) could replace most of said Mk41s with Sylver VLS as weapons such as Sea Ceptor and the planned FC/ASW will be able to be launched from this system. This would greatly increase the fleets AAW capabilities and provide a stepping stone to the Type-82. With the Type-32 replacing the Type-31 1:1 which could then be sold, the fleet would grow to 22 vessels possible dropping to 20 if say only four Type-82 are built. But with the modernisation of the Batch 1 Type 26 around this time we would have 20 very capable warships in service.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 275
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

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

Post by Cooper »

When you have China putting AAW platforms in the water with 100+ VLS, It's not hard to see who & what will be what influences the design of the new class.

..They're going to have to be a lot bigger than 7,500t, that's for sure.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1218
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by RichardIC »

I think maybe we should lock this thread until just prior to SDSR 2030 (or whenever), cos absolutely nothing is going to happen until then.

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

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

Post by Defiance »

May as well have that discussion here (as fluffy as it is) rather than cross-pollinating with the Type 45 threads, the speculation will happen regardless

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 »

RichardIC wrote:...absolutely nothing is going to happen until then.
The Type 83 is a complete distraction at present as it won't be commissioned until the mid to late 2030's.... In other words about 3 to 4 SDSR's away. Lots will change.

The T32 has a much more pressing time scale as the first steel needs to be cut around 2027/2028 to keep the drumbeat going. In UK shipbuilding terms thats pretty ambitious and the design will need to be finalised by 2024/2025 to allow contracts to be signed around 2026/2027.

In other words the T32 is only 1 SDSR away from a confirmed order. Much more likely to proceed as planned.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

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?!
The Type 45's are bigger than Bristol.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1230
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

LJ
A commitment to 24 Escorts by 2030 has been made, after complaints that “19 is not enough”. We are dropping to 17, on the way to achieving 24 (which is also insufficient). Yet here you are countenancing a reduction in the number to be available yet again. I hear you say “but we won’t have the crews”; Without unnecessary “Double Crewing”, we would be able to crew additional ships, enabling more ships to be operational in the event of conflict.
The phrase eggs and baskets covers it rather well. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

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

Post by Pseudo »

Ron5 wrote:What do we think is the significance of Type 83 vs Type 46??
It sounds to me like it's likely to be a single class of thirteen multirole destroyers intended to replace both the Type 45 and Type 26.

But it's nothing more than a paper ship, I'm treating it more or less as the Type 26 at the Future Surface Combatant stage of development. Basically there are a lot of announcements in this review and to me it all smacks a bit of Russia's tendency to announce lots of ambitious projects that never go much further than the announcement in order to provide a bit of a shiny distraction from dwindling resources and shrinking relative capabilities.

Clive F
Member
Posts: 158
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

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

Post by Clive F »

Question: why does a ship designed and almost entirely used to escort a carrier have to be GP (8x series) to dedicated AAW (4x series)?

Clive F
Member
Posts: 158
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

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

Post by Clive F »

Should have proof read, and not a 4x series

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2327
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

Clive F wrote:Question: why does a ship designed and almost entirely used to escort a carrier have to be GP (8x series) to dedicated AAW (4x series)?
Perhaps because it is planned to be equally good at AAW and ASW? It's a good question. I suspect that the answer will be interesting.

Personal speculation, based on nothing but guesswork and today's wind direction, is that we are seeing the re-emergence of the plan for the CVA-01 escort ship (i.e. HMS Bristol), just as we seem to now be getting the C1/C3/C3 frigate plan in the guise of the T26/T31/T32.

IF that is correct (big IF, I agree), then I would anticipate a large (12 - 15k tonnes plus), relatively quiet, design focussed on both ASW and AAW/BMD (only token land attack, possibly via multi-purpose anti-ship missiles), capable of hosting two large ASW helicopters/ multiple offboard ASW systems, multiple smaller guns (76/57/40mm) and excellent sensor systems, EW and decoys. I suspect that, because they will be expensive, that we are unlikely to get more than four, but six would be nice.

Any shortfall in destroyer numbers could then be covered by developing the existing AAW capabilities of the T31 hull.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:
Clive F wrote:Question: why does a ship designed and almost entirely used to escort a carrier have to be GP (8x series) to dedicated AAW (4x series)?
Perhaps because it is planned to be equally good at AAW and ASW? It's a good question. I suspect that the answer will be interesting.

Personal speculation, based on nothing but guesswork and today's wind direction, is that we are seeing the re-emergence of the plan for the CVA-01 escort ship (i.e. HMS Bristol), just as we seem to now be getting the C1/C3/C3 frigate plan in the guise of the T26/T31/T32.

IF that is correct (big IF, I agree), then I would anticipate a large (12 - 15k tonnes plus), relatively quiet, design focussed on both ASW and AAW/BMD (only token land attack, possibly via multi-purpose anti-ship missiles), capable of hosting two large ASW helicopters/ multiple offboard ASW systems, multiple smaller guns (76/57/40mm) and excellent sensor systems, EW and decoys. I suspect that, because they will be expensive, that we are unlikely to get more than four, but six would be nice.

Any shortfall in destroyer numbers could then be covered by developing the existing AAW capabilities of the T31 hull.
Except for the last sentence, this makes a lot of sense to me. Type 8x were defined as being multi-purpose (which is not the same as general purpose) which implies ASW as well as AA. The Type 82's also had the requirement for independent operation (i.e. without the carriers) which implies accommodating an Admiral and his staff for task group coordination as well as long range and persistence. These requirements, as well as the multi-use, drives ship size not the need to escort a carrier per se.

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 »

A good explanation of what gave rise to having the 8x Type classification amongst RN frigates

Type 81: a History of the Tribal Class Frigate Paperback – 1 Jun. 2012
by Patrick Boniface
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A good explanation of what gave rise to having the 8x Type classification amongst RN frigates

Type 81: a History of the Tribal Class Frigate Paperback – 1 Jun. 2012
by Patrick Boniface
I could only find one for sale. Price $141 and $34 shipping. I'm guessing you are the salesman ;)

PS not enjoying your purple tit on a deckchair. Self portrait? :D

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 360
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

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

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Ron5 wrote:
Caribbean wrote:
Except for the last sentence, this makes a lot of sense to me. Type 8x were defined as being multi-purpose (which is not the same as general purpose) which implies ASW as well as AA. The Type 82's also had the requirement for independent operation (i.e. without the carriers) which implies accommodating an Admiral and his staff for task group coordination as well as long range and persistence. These requirements, as well as the multi-use, drives ship size not the need to escort a carrier per se.
Are we remaking the T22B3 once again?

Great if we are, but a bit worried that there are more ASW and AAW escorts behind those few mighty leviathans (2-3?).
**shudders in horror at the prospect of a british Horizon program**

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

HMS Mighty Leviathan :thumbup:

Assuming the class ran to three ships, what would the other names be?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2327
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

jedibeeftrix wrote:t a bit worried that there are more ASW and AAW escorts behind those few mighty leviathans
I think ASW is taken care of, in the form of the T26, but my comment about exploiting the potential behind the T31 hull ws aimed to address a possible shortfall in AAW capabilities. The T31 hull could (for example) accomodate the entire Sea Venom/ Viper suite of sensors, computing power and missiles, which would make it a pretty decent Tier 2 "destroyer"
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

IF the aim is to design and produce a larger far more capable modern T-82 then we are only going to get three or four and these are going to be joined at the mid ships to the Carriers full stop. At present the Carrier Groups seriously lack shipborne firepower and the 24 odd F-35s will be hard pushed to defend the Carrier Group against a concerted attack. In reality we need to T-83 to ab a large missile magazine containing both AAW and AShW missiles in significant numbers. We also need all ships in the Carrier group to the joined by Data Links to allow co operative engagements of any incoming threats. The T-26 would handle the ASW threat mainly but also provide support for the T-83. Likewise any Helicopters carried by the T-83 would co-operate with the T-26 and its helicopter, as well as any from the Carrier.

But we also need to revisit the self protection capabilities of the Carriers themselves, with any improvements being carried at their first overhaul/refit. My suggestion would be for four three cell stand alone ExLS launchers, two on the forward side towards the bow and two on the port side towards the stern. The former would cover the front and right hand arcs with the latter covering the rear and left hand arcs, with over rides available if a heavy attack comes from one direction.

The T-83 will need to be an integrated part of a truly layered defence for the Carrier, something with do not have at present and neither will we have it under current plans.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

HMS Fiery Thunderbolt for the laser ship.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1230
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

HMS Vulcan for the phasers! :lol:

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

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

Post by serge750 »

I would really like to see a super dooper all singing all dancing T83 AAW with 100+ vls etc attached to the carrier group, but i was thinking if we can only afford a max of 3 with only 1 per CVBG and something happens to its ability to do its mission - even just a electrical glitch...

i think 4 would be the minimum, if not i would prefer 6 slightly less well armed T45 like for like replacements, then at least it's more of a chance to have 2 per CVBG

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

serge750 wrote:I would really like to see a super dooper all singing all dancing T83 AAW with 100+ vls etc attached to the carrier group, but i was thinking if we can only afford a max of 3 with only 1 per CVBG and something happens to its ability to do its mission - even just a electrical glitch...

i think 4 would be the minimum, if not i would prefer 6 slightly less well armed T45 like for like replacements, then at least it's more of a chance to have 2 per CVBG
A cut to 3-4 would be yet another painful cut,. and against the stated aims to increase the escort numbers. Besides that, how can 3-4 hulls keep BAE busy until the T26 replacements need to be built? We should be pushing for 6 hulls focused on AAW and land attack, that can hold as many silos as possible, but forget the ASW aspects

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:I could only find one for sale. Price $141 and $34 shipping. I'm guessing you are the salesman ;)

PS not enjoying your purple tit on a deckchair. Self portrait?
The 'truth' offered for where the 8x designation came from was so blindingly (note the sunshades for such occasions) wrong that I had to offer the truth
- it was done in a neutral way (no further comment was pushed around)
- but as you have noted, it will cost you... to get the facts :D right and not be writing your own version for the T-83 history (when there is only a one-liner about what it will actually be!)

Let's carry on with the actual news, and leave the RN history as how folks who know about it have written it, no?
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:but forget the ASW aspects
Why?

Post Reply