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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
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?
Nah, still not buying it. Stick it back on the shelf. Reviews were crap too.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote: 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.
I don't understand the love for Sylver. An dead end, expensive french system that fires a tiny handful of expensive french missiles. They are only bought because the french insist they are part of the Aster package.

Thank goodness the RN agrees with me.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:I think ASW is taken care of, in the form of the T26
Complacent much? :D

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2545
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:but forget the ASW aspects
Why?
We can't afford it by the looks of things, not without dropping 2-3 hulls. Hope to be wrong, but to my mind it's not a worthy trade off

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:but forget the ASW aspects
Why?
We can't afford it by the looks of things, not without dropping 2-3 hulls. Hope to be wrong, but to my mind it's not a worthy trade off
ASW ain't cheap.

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

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

Post by tomuk »

What a load of nonsense in this thread. There are no known specs for the ships yet they have been written off already as to expensive and a waste as we will only end up with three. :crazy:

What is wrong with a modestly 'stretched' (possibly widened ) T45 about 10,000t with room for two missile silos fore and midships. Fitted with the MT30 T26 drivetrain (possibly a second MT30) with son of Sampson and SMART-L. Would that really break the bank?

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 »

For a change, buying capability; instead of the policy of staying on the bleeding edge at any price and then only building a couple of templates as a basis for "future, follow-on purchases" that will then not materialise:

[quote="tomuk"]a modestly 'stretched' (possibly widened ) T45 about 10,000t with room for two missile silos fore and midships. Fitted with the MT30 T26 drivetrain (possibly a second MT30) with son of Sampson and SMART-L. Would that really break the bank?[quote]
- on the deal we could even let the admiral onboard :D . Even though the thought has been borrowed from USN cruisers, which house the air warfare commander (and staff) for the whole Carrier TF
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
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:Type 8x were defined as being multi-purpose (which is not the same as general purpose) which implies ASW as well as AA.
One could hardly think of two types more different than T81 and T82;
"TRIBAL Class (Type 81)
general purpose frigate
The original design of these relatively small general purpose frigates went through a number of revisions before the ships themselves arrived on the scene. In RN parlance of the time, they were called "Sloops" to avoid the connotations that the term "frigate" carried as being a single purpose design. They carried one-half of the COSAG plant installed in the COUNTY class, and therefore acted as prototypes for this powerplant. Small ships, without much room for upgrade, all were paid-off starting in 1979"

Rather than rationalising (after the fact) one could consider the designations (8x) collectively as a 'bucket'. If nothing else fits ;)
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
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

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

Post by Pseudo »

dmereifield wrote:
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
My conception of the ship is as a replacement for both T45 and T26. I tend to think that onboard ASW will be more or less limited to command and control functions with offboard systems doing most of the work. So I wouldn't be unsurprised if the Type 83 was supposed to be a class of thirteen with maybe 48 full-size VLS cells in addition to 48 Sea Ceptor cells, a big mission bay, a large hangar and whatever high performance radar that they come up with between now and the late 2030's.

Though really, I suspect that whatever we think that the T83 is now is something very different from what will eventually hit the water.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

Would it be a stretch of the hope to suggest the type 83 if based on the type 26 hull may have similar abilities and capabilities to Canadas future frigate which also has a towed array and spy-7 radar and everything else they could fit , after all if the Canadians have gone to the expense of upgrading the design it should be cheaper to adopt in the R.N , the spy-7 does have an ABM capability

imperialman
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16

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

Post by imperialman »

Seems one of those automated defence Youtube channels has pinched Suricatas video. Would advise the owner of the footage to report 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 »

tomuk wrote:What a load of nonsense in this thread. There are no known specs for the ships yet they have been written off already as to expensive and a waste as we will only end up with three. :crazy:

What is wrong with a modestly 'stretched' (possibly widened ) T45 about 10,000t with room for two missile silos fore and midships. Fitted with the MT30 T26 drivetrain (possibly a second MT30) with son of Sampson and SMART-L. Would that really break the bank?
That wouldn't be called a Type 83 :D

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

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

Post by SKB »

Suricata designed his T83 as a fantasy videogame combatant, not AS an actual T83. He designed this one back in 2011!
This just makes the automated channels look even more stupid, worthless and click-baity as they already are.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:For a change, buying capability; instead of the policy of staying on the bleeding edge at any price and then only building a couple of templates as a basis for "future, follow-on purchases" that will then not materialise:
tomuk wrote:a modestly 'stretched' (possibly widened ) T45 about 10,000t with room for two missile silos fore and midships. Fitted with the MT30 T26 drivetrain (possibly a second MT30) with son of Sampson and SMART-L. Would that really break the bank?
- on the deal we could even let the admiral onboard :D . Even though the thought has been borrowed from USN cruisers, which house the air warfare commander (and staff) for the whole Carrier TF
Where do you think the UK CSG inner defense commander sits?

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Type 8x were defined as being multi-purpose (which is not the same as general purpose) which implies ASW as well as AA.
One could hardly think of two types more different than T81 and T82;
"TRIBAL Class (Type 81)
general purpose frigate
The original design of these relatively small general purpose frigates went through a number of revisions before the ships themselves arrived on the scene. In RN parlance of the time, they were called "Sloops" to avoid the connotations that the term "frigate" carried as being a single purpose design. They carried one-half of the COSAG plant installed in the COUNTY class, and therefore acted as prototypes for this powerplant. Small ships, without much room for upgrade, all were paid-off starting in 1979"

Rather than rationalising (after the fact) one could consider the designations (8x) collectively as a 'bucket'. If nothing else fits ;)
Or that the T82 redefined the meaning of the T8X designation :D :D

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: Or that the T82 redefined the meaning of the T8X designation :D
So you just confirmed that 8x is a 'bucket' and perhaps it be a 'Play it again, Sam' again... a redefinition... which incidentally would be paraphrasing the meaning of 'bucket'

Looks like you are in a paperback - again - but keep fighting you way out (if you can)
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: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Ron5 wrote: Or that the T82 redefined the meaning of the T8X designation :D :D
Or that the T82 refined the meaning of the T8X designation :D :D

SD67
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

tomuk wrote:What is wrong with a modestly 'stretched' (possibly widened ) T45 about 10,000t with room for two missile silos fore and midships. Fitted with the MT30 T26 drivetrain (possibly a second MT30) with son of Sampson and SMART-L. Would that really break the bank?
My understanding is the T45 design is not fully digitised so it would be tricky to just dust it off and start building it again. T26 was the first fully "CADCAM end to end" ship for the RN.

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

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

Post by NickC »

SD67 wrote:
tomuk wrote:What is wrong with a modestly 'stretched' (possibly widened ) T45 about 10,000t with room for two missile silos fore and midships. Fitted with the MT30 T26 drivetrain (possibly a second MT30) with son of Sampson and SMART-L. Would that really break the bank?
My understanding is the T45 design is not fully digitised so it would be tricky to just dust it off and start building it again. T26 was the first fully "CADCAM end to end" ship for the RN.
You could just as easily speculate it being based on a modestly stretched T31, it would be marginally faster and have a range of approx two to three thousand miles longer than a T26 variant and maybe £100/200 million less expensive per ship which would fund higher numbers, what's not to like :angel:

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 »

This digitised and not digitised might sound like an insurmountable gap, but the the folks who think that must be thinking of the Nimrod, where every individual (plane, wing) were handicrafted in the early days of putting such 'large' airframes together
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)

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

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

Post by tomuk »

SD67 wrote:
tomuk wrote:What is wrong with a modestly 'stretched' (possibly widened ) T45 about 10,000t with room for two missile silos fore and midships. Fitted with the MT30 T26 drivetrain (possibly a second MT30) with son of Sampson and SMART-L. Would that really break the bank?
My understanding is the T45 design is not fully digitised so it would be tricky to just dust it off and start building it again. T26 was the first fully "CADCAM end to end" ship for the RN.
Well as the T83 clearly isn't going to be powered by WR21 and probably not IEP as that's out of favour does it really matter?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

SD67 wrote:My understanding is the T45 design is not fully digitised so it would be tricky to just dust it off and start building it again. T26 was the first fully "CADCAM end to end" ship for the RN.
Physical blueprint to CAD conversion has been a "thing" for many years. Clearly an entire warship conversion to CAD is not something that you would attempt with an off-the-shelf consumer package, but there are companies that specialise in major conversion tasks that should be able to handle it, if you wanted to.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote:
SD67 wrote:
tomuk wrote:What is wrong with a modestly 'stretched' (possibly widened ) T45 about 10,000t with room for two missile silos fore and midships. Fitted with the MT30 T26 drivetrain (possibly a second MT30) with son of Sampson and SMART-L. Would that really break the bank?
My understanding is the T45 design is not fully digitised so it would be tricky to just dust it off and start building it again. T26 was the first fully "CADCAM end to end" ship for the RN.
Well as the T83 clearly isn't going to be powered by WR21 and probably not IEP as that's out of favour does it really matter?
Don't understand the relevance of your comment but anyhow, I'd bet a few that T83 will be IEP. Like the QE's.

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

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

Post by NickC »

FWIW April 4, South Korea announced it will procure additional three Sejong the Great Aegis destroyers to make total of nine, 3 Batch I in commission, 3 Batch II in build, ~11,000 t ships, 138 VLS cells, 80 Mk41s and 48 KVs, budgeting $3.5 billion for the Batch III, ~ £850 million per ship. If understand correctly Batch II conventionally powered by GTs with two DRS 1.7 MW electric motors for slow speeds, no IEP.

South Korean needing ABMs, SM-6s and SM-3s, to counter threat from North Korea.

From <http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210401000823>

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

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

Post by Dobbo »

Thinking about what the T83 might look like presumably has to take into account the additional capabilities the RN likely wants from it. This may end up looking quite similar to the original capability for the T45, which is primarily designed for area air defence but with capability to attack surface and subsurface targets, but for me the headline points are likely to include:

1 - ABM capability (presumed to be incorporated either as part of an upgrade of PAAMS or by adoption of Aegis and SM family).

2 - Additional missile silos capable of hosting a wider variety of munitions. Subject to the status of CAAM at this time (ie can they fit 48 CAAM cells on the ship in leu of Aster 15?) I anticipate a desire for at least 72 silos capable of hosting Aster/SM, Tomahawk, ASROC and the future SSGM. Most of these weapons would be in common with the T26, and would effectively add a land attack function to the ship (the GP element) whilst replacing Harpoon with the new weapon system.

3 - space for hosting two merlin sized helicopters plus UAVs.

4 - CEC (or equivalent) enabling the ships to coordinate with other RN and Allied ships and other networked assets (eg F-35).

This would make the T83 an AAW specialist but with a pretty potent ability to attack surface targets. It would not be a specialist ASuW combatant in the same way as T26 (eg no TAS or any UUVs) but I expect it would be able to hunt for and engage submarines using its helicopters and ASROC. These capabilities would make it well suited to operating with the carrier strike group, But also operate independently projecting power over a wide sphere of influence.

To me, this suggests a ship in the 11-14,000 range, which seems pretty much in line with what most western or western aligned navies are producing at present (eg US, ROK, Japan, Italy). Let’s hope the U.K. can afford at least 6!

Post Reply