Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

For me we could Type 45 close to this if we added the 16 Mk-41 cell ( = 64 cells total ) and 8 NSM this could give us if we swapped CAMM for Aster 15 a load out of 24 x Aster 30NT , 96 CAMM and 8 NSM plus what ever you wanted in the 16 MK-41's

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

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

Post by NickC »

Dobbo wrote: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!
Extremely simplistic back of the envelope cost calculation for six ships and capabilities on your 14,000t destroyer

If you took the USN BMD 10,000t Arleigh Burkes Flight IIIs destroyers as a baseline ~$2 billion each, 96 Mk41 VLS cells, your spec of a 14,000t ship based on cost per ton metric would be plus 40%, ~ $2.8 billion / £2 billion each with ~ 128 Mk41s, six ships £12 billion with 768 MK 41VLS cells.

At the other extreme you could update the 6,600t Iver Huitfeldt class with the SMART-L MM/N etc, 32 Mk41 VLS cells; 24 Mk 56 VLS cells: 8-16 Harpoon deck launchers, ~ $350 million each ten years ago, assume UK cost now ~ £600? million based on £400 million for the T31, the £12 billion would buy 20 ships with 640 Mk41 VLS cells; 480 Mk56 VLS cells (equivalent to additional ~198 Mk41s); 160 to 320 deck launchers.

Note on ABMs cost, SM-6 Block I endo-atmospheric missile $4.3 million ea., SM-3 Block IB exo-atmospheric $36.4 million ea., if procuring say SM-6 for 20% of your 768 Mk 41s and SM-3s for 10%, cost additional ~£2.5 billion.

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

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

Post by Dobbo »

Cheers - all noted re the calculations being very rough but I think it is a fairly realistic yardstick on cost if the RN wanted to do it properly - and it is certainly not cheap (but there are no carriers to fund in this cycle of shipbuilding so there is a chance).

I’m sure there could be trade offs, hopefully the importance of maritime power projection remains in view in the 2020s and 2030s when these decisions are taken.

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:Cheers - all noted re the calculations being very rough but I think it is a fairly realistic yardstick on cost if the RN wanted to do it properly - and it is certainly not cheap (but there are no carriers to fund in this cycle of shipbuilding so there is a chance).

I’m sure there could be trade offs, hopefully the importance of maritime power projection remains in view in the 2020s and 2030s when these decisions are taken.
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.

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 »

Using the BMD Arleigh Burkes Flight IIIs as a yard stick would be a good place to start, though a bit more tonnage from the start may help as the former are pushing the AB hull etc. to its limit. By the time we order these it should be known how far the Aster 30 BMD capability has been taken and this will help in deciding where we go. The same could be said for FC/ASW, and whether it could be used as a replacement for TLAM. The big decision is going to be do we stick with European Solutions or look to the USA?

Sylver can take CAAM, or at least CAAM-ER quad packed as this is what the Italian Navy is doing with the Light and Light+ variants of its PPA Frigates, so hopefully CAAM will also fit.

There is the Italian alternative to ASROC if we want a stand off ASW capability, but I am also pretty sure we will want a tail of some sort on the class as well. I do not see the need for a Two Merlin sized hanger, maybe one plus a UAV, and there will probably be little room for any type of Mission Bay, so operating unmanned water craft will not really happen.

What I would like to see is it equipped with the Son of Sampson, fourteen eight cell Sylver Strike length VLS, eight forward and six either amidships of towards the stern, giving 112 cells in to total. This would be the core of the Ship and its role with everything else secondary.

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 »

NickC wrote:At the other extreme you could update the 6,600t Iver Huitfeldt class with the SMART-L MM/N etc, 32 Mk41 VLS cells; 24 Mk 56 VLS
SeaPowerMag for April (of last year) has a mapping of the Danish upgrade route to ABM capability https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUdmC4MXkAI ... name=large
- whether it covers missile costs separately; don't know as I don't have a subscription
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)

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

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

Post by Dobbo »

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.

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:Using the BMD Arleigh Burkes Flight IIIs as a yard stick would be a good place to start, though a bit more tonnage from the start may help as the former are pushing the AB hull etc. to its limit. By the time we order these it should be known how far the Aster 30 BMD capability has been taken and this will help in deciding where we go. The same could be said for FC/ASW, and whether it could be used as a replacement for TLAM. The big decision is going to be do we stick with European Solutions or look to the USA?

Sylver can take CAAM, or at least CAAM-ER quad packed as this is what the Italian Navy is doing with the Light and Light+ variants of its PPA Frigates, so hopefully CAAM will also fit.

There is the Italian alternative to ASROC if we want a stand off ASW capability, but I am also pretty sure we will want a tail of some sort on the class as well. I do not see the need for a Two Merlin sized hanger, maybe one plus a UAV, and there will probably be little room for any type of Mission Bay, so operating unmanned water craft will not really happen.

What I would like to see is it equipped with the Son of Sampson, fourteen eight cell Sylver Strike length VLS, eight forward and six either amidships of towards the stern, giving 112 cells in to total. This would be the core of the Ship and its role with everything else secondary.
Very valid points - I can see the RN being half and half with European and US equipment in using Sampson / Sea Viper (rather developments of it) rather than Aegis, but using MK41 (or a development of that) silos and also Tomahawk and the proposed Anglo-French SSM.

I wonder if this adds to much cost and to get the capabilities and Hull numbers the U.K. needs to bite the bullet and go one way or the other?

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

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

Post by serge750 »

As i hope the T83 will be prioritized to escort the carriers I would be happy with a modernized T45 with the forward 48 Aster vls along with the FFBNW 16 x mk 41 vls, convert the hanger space ( but keep the heli deck ) & replace with another 48 aster vls & if possible another 16 x mk41 vls, lots of room for aster/CAMM (ER?) land attack missiles & ASROC type weapons :D

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1019
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

Well folks the truth is we better have 500 mk 41 and a zillion camm on it cos they probably only going to build one ,our future RN total AAW fleet of one type 83 lol :thumbup:

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

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

Post by Pseudo »

Dobbo wrote: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!
I'm thinking along the same lines as yourself but with 48 cells for CAAM and then 24 tactical length and 24 strike length Mark 41-style cells. That would give the ship the ability to operate as an AAW escort by filling the those cells with Aster-30 or as a multipurpose escort with the tactical cells filled with Aster-30 and the strike cells filled with SSGM's, ASROC and the like.

I'm expecting it to replace both the Type 45 and Type 83 with between ten and thirteen built with them primarily focused on carrier escort duties.

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

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

Post by Jake1992 »

For me the T83 needs to be the equivalent of the Flight 3 ABs at the very minimum as these seems to do for the USN pretty much what is described for the T83. We shouldn’t compare costs though as build cost vary massively across different nations, build cost in the likes of the US and Canada are far higher than here where as in SK and Japan they are far lower.

I still like the idea of a stretched T26 design, adding a 15m odd mid ship plug the allow for extra Mk41s while keeping the mission bay would work nicely IMO.

Something like this based on the T26 -
Length - 165-170m
Beam - 21m
Displacement - 10,000t
Flight deck - Chinook
Hanger - Merlin
Mission Bay - Merlin sized
48 x Mk41 strike length forward ( we’ve seen from the RAN design that width wise 4 x 8 cells can fit and from the RCN design that 2 x 8 cells can fit depth wise in the centre. ) I’d go with 4 at the rear and 2 forward in the central position.
48 x Mk41 strike length mid ship with and extra 16 FFBNW, Id go all strike length to give maximum flexibility.
1 x 5”
2 x 40mm
2 x phalanx
1 x Dragon fire on hanger roof.
Son of Sampsons for the main radar set up.

The idea for the vessel would be a primary role of AAW a secondary role of Anti Surface and a tertiary role of ASW.


I still very much like the idea of the RN developing 2 “families” of designs to fill every role. ie all combat roles from light frigate to heavy destroyer filled by varying designs based of the T26 as its parent design, and all low end roles from OPV to Multi mission sloop to long range patrol filled by varying designs based of the RB2 as the parent design.

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

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

Post by dmereifield »

Pseudo wrote:
Dobbo wrote: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!
I'm thinking along the same lines as yourself but with 48 cells for CAAM and then 24 tactical length and 24 strike length Mark 41-style cells. That would give the ship the ability to operate as an AAW escort by filling the those cells with Aster-30 or as a multipurpose escort with the tactical cells filled with Aster-30 and the strike cells filled with SSGM's, ASROC and the like.

I'm expecting it to replace both the Type 45 and Type 83 with between ten and thirteen built with them primarily focused on carrier escort duties.
I fear even this number of cells, modest though it is compared to escorts of our main ally, China and Russia, seems to be too ambitious.

When you say 10-13 to replace T45 and T83, do you mean T45 and T26? I fear that we won't get 10 hulls if we take everything that makes T45 so expensive, everything that makes T26 so expensive and then add in the additional expensive components we want (e.g. BMD).

I think the way forward to do it without losing too many hulls is to continue with 2 classes, one dedicated to AAW and one dedicated to ASW; each of which being quite limited in their non primary tasks. Either that or we have even fewer tier 1 escorts (say 8, ASW, AAW and BMD capable T83s) and a larger number (say 13 or 14) tier 2/3 GP escorts (e.g. T31/T32).

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

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

Post by serge750 »

inch wrote:Well folks the truth is we better have 500 mk 41 and a zillion camm on it cos they probably only going to build one ,our future RN total AAW fleet of one type 83 lol :thumbup:
Dont say that..."many a true word spoken in jest" :lol:

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:
Pseudo wrote:I'm thinking along the same lines as yourself but with 48 cells for CAAM and then 24 tactical length and 24 strike length Mark 41-style cells. That would give the ship the ability to operate as an AAW escort by filling the those cells with Aster-30 or as a multipurpose escort with the tactical cells filled with Aster-30 and the strike cells filled with SSGM's, ASROC and the like.

I'm expecting it to replace both the Type 45 and Type 83 with between ten and thirteen built with them primarily focused on carrier escort duties.
I fear even this number of cells, modest though it is compared to escorts of our main ally, China and Russia, seems to be too ambitious.

When you say 10-13 to replace T45 and T83, do you mean T45 and T26?
I do.
I fear that we won't get 10 hulls if we take everything that makes T45 so expensive, everything that makes T26 so expensive and then add in the additional expensive components we want (e.g. BMD).

I think the way forward to do it without losing too many hulls is to continue with 2 classes, one dedicated to AAW and one dedicated to ASW; each of which being quite limited in their non primary tasks. Either that or we have even fewer tier 1 escorts (say 8, ASW, AAW and BMD capable T83s) and a larger number (say 13 or 14) tier 2/3 GP escorts (e.g. T31/T32).
I think that we're going to end up with two classes. I think that the offboarding of ASW sensors will more or less mean that ASW that's within aircover range of the UK will be served by cheaper general purpose frigates providing command and control for the offboard ASW sensors and also a launch platform for the ASW attack platform which I expect will still be a helicopter.

That will mean that the big and capable escorts will mostly be tasked with carrier escort duties and very little else, and will more or less be AAW escorts with the ability to deploy and support offboard ASW sensors. That means that when I'm saying ten to thirteen I really mean ten but trying to be diplomatic about it.

I really think that the escort structure that we'll be looking at is a two tiered one once the Type 83 is completed that will maybe look a bit like 10 Type 83's, 5 light general purpose Type-31 frigates, 5 general purpose "mothership" frigates which is what I expect the Type 32 to be, and 5 more general purpose frigates, either a Type 31 successor or a second batch of Type 32's. Although I wouldn't bet on the last one, I could easily see numbers shrinking back down to 20 escorts.

Obviously, this all depends on the technology being there to make a "multipurpose" Type 83 an affordable prospect, but then if it's not then I don't expect that two specialised classes are going to be much more affordable.

S M H
Member
Posts: 421
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by S M H »

I'm hope to be wrong but I think that they will build 3 type 83s. Initial batch only. Supplemented with four type 31 hulls as air defence Frigates /Destroyers. As the full six is costed by the treasury as unaffordable. Claiming that there is a increase in Hull numbers due to the lower cost. There again as with my prediction of the invincible s replacments on invincibles flight deck in 1983 I will be glad if I get it wrong.

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

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

Post by Dobbo »

I think when you are looking at a proposed ship as capable, complex and expensive as the T83 seems likely to be, the options for economising will inevitably be looked at.

For this you either look at capability gaps (eg no BMD) compromises (eg smaller without the ability to carry two helos and a UAV) or a reduction in Hull numbers.

The RN has compromised on Hull numbers for the last 30 odd years and it is difficult to see how this can be compromised further without accepting a reduced role - which the U.K. government is not likely to want at this point in time (but who knows where we will be in 2030).

This will likely be an expensive project, and I hope they don’t cut as many corners as we fear they might.

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

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

Post by NickC »

serge750 wrote:
inch wrote:Well folks the truth is we better have 500 mk 41 and a zillion camm on it cos they probably only going to build one ,our future RN total AAW fleet of one type 83 lol :thumbup:
Dont say that..."many a true word spoken in jest" :lol:
inch has history on his side, only one Type 82 was built.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1233
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

What new weapon systems do you suppose will be Trialled on the Type 83 then? Also which Aircraft Carriers will have been cancelled before having being built? :mrgreen:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

For me I am with Jake on this one start with a Type 26 and take it out to 170 meters and fit it with

ABM radar system
TAS
Keep the mission bay / Hangar set up
1 x 127mm
4 x 57mm
1 x Dragons fire
96 to 112 VLS

and we would end up with a well rounded ship

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

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

Post by Pseudo »

Dobbo wrote:I think when you are looking at a proposed ship as capable, complex and expensive as the T83 seems likely to be, the options for economising will inevitably be looked at.

For this you either look at capability gaps (eg no BMD) compromises (eg smaller without the ability to carry two helos and a UAV) or a reduction in Hull numbers.

The RN has compromised on Hull numbers for the last 30 odd years and it is difficult to see how this can be compromised further without accepting a reduced role - which the U.K. government is not likely to want at this point in time (but who knows where we will be in 2030).

This will likely be an expensive project, and I hope they don’t cut as many corners as we fear they might.
Yeah. If their primary purpose if as carrier escorts then I could maybe see us going down to eight which would see three deployed with each carrier along with one or two Type 3X "mothership" frigates that have the extensive UAV, USV and UUV command and support facilities.

Anthony58
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 14 Feb 2021, 19:23
United Kingdom

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

Post by Anthony58 »

Lockheed Martin ExLS for Sea Ceptor, is logical, cold launch allow flexibility in positioning in the ship, leaving 48 - 64 MK 41 cells for other larger missiles.

A quieter ship, than Type 45, meeting NATO ASW standards, rather than Type 26.

I would suggest that it is built on the Clyde, at a BAE yard or both yards, following from Type 26. We need to be politically disciplined, like France and aim to build 18 destroyer/frigates over a 30 year cycle, with additional frigates being built at Rosyth.

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

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

Post by NickC »

Jake1992 wrote:For me the T83 needs to be the equivalent of the Flight 3 ABs at the very minimum as these seems to do for the USN pretty much what is described for the T83. We shouldn’t compare costs though as build cost vary massively across different nations, build cost in the likes of the US and Canada are far higher than here where as in SK and Japan they are far lower.

I still like the idea of a stretched T26 design, adding a 15m odd mid ship plug the allow for extra Mk41s while keeping the mission bay would work nicely IMO.

Something like this based on the T26 -
Length - 165-170m
Beam - 21m
Displacement - 10,000t
Both the Hunter and CSC looking like they will be near 10,000t ships without any mid ship plug/stretch.

Nov 2020 the RCN released a graphic showing latest CSC specifications quoting 7,800t displacement, Feb 2021 PBO report confirmed this was its light displacement, not standard or full load displacement, former head of Irving shipbuilders told CBC that full load displacement will be ~9,400t, for ref current AB Flight IIAs with 96 Mk41 VLS cells 9,300t FLD, the new AB Flight III variant in build, 9,800t FLD.

Overall total CSC programme cost for the 15 ships ~£45 billion, actual procurement cost of ships ~£34 billion, ~£2.25 billion each, note CSC frigates have no BMD capability.

Don't think any problems in fitting 96 Mk41 VLS in current T26 hull using the space of the ~20 x 12 m mission bay, shortening flight deck etc, 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.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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?

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 am strongly against "large, super-cruiser" like ship. T83 build must cover from ~2040 to ~ 2055, connecting the complex-ship building program between the last T26 delivery and the first T26 decommissioning. So, it is a ~15 years long (or longer) program.

I think this means, we need 6 hulls as really hard limit. This means, we need to propose 8 hulls as default. This means, no "large, super-cruiser" like ship. More T42 like than T82.

T31 was exactly a "21st-centry T21, with large hull, and newest AAW weapon kits (but without ASW)".

Why not T83 as a "21st-centry T42, with large hull, and newest AAW weapon kits, and modest ASW kits".

T42 was the same generation as Kid-class, and was nearly "a half" of Kid DDGs.

A half of AB-III means 48-cell VLS, but yes I prefer 64. 16-cells for BMD (like SM3), 32-cells for long-range SAM (anti-ship ballistic missile defense capable), and 64 CAMM-(blk2) in the remaining 16-cells. Depending on the theater, 16 SM3 can be replaced with long-range SAM, making it 48.

Land attack is OK with canistered SSM secondary task (8 or 16 units), primary land-attack is via carrier strike. A compact TASS and a small hull-sonar is enough. No need for commando-force accommodation (there is a carrier), and a hangar for 1 Merlin is enough (there is a carrier), no big need for USV/UUV deployment (there are a carrier and T32), and smallish main gun is enough (there is a carrier).

Will this make a 6-hull (with optional 2 more) T83? :D

Post Reply