Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Locked
Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

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

Post by Dobbo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Jul 2022, 17:28
Dobbo wrote: 22 Jul 2022, 10:53 Personally the T83 programme is a test of what the country wants the RN to be over the next 20-30 years.

It it wishes to credibly and independently send a task force to take on and expect to defeat a Chinese or (to a lesser extent) Russian force, the T83 needs to be akin to a cruiser in all but name and delivered in sufficient numbers (in my view at least 8). This does not mean the country would do this independently, just that it has the ability to do so.

This means a large and capable ship which is fitted with and not fitted for but not with.

The AAW suite must be capable of engaging and defeating swarm attacks, a variety of hypersonic threats, and ballistic missiles. This is in addition to the traditional AAW role.

Further, the ship must be capable of shooting at other warships and at targets on land (this should be fine if the VLS takes relevant missiles in inventory) and it must have a credible ASW capability.

This is a big investment, as together the QEC, T26, T83 and SSN(R) form the high end fighting and power projection capability, and none of these systems are cheap.
I agree with 99% of what you said. But there is no way that RN will acquire 8 such large cruiser-sized ships. I hope for 6 but fear it may be just 4.
I agree on numbers - but if the fleet is to expand I think the number of T83 and SSN(R) needs to exceed the numbers of T45 and Astute.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

Dobbo Wrote:-
I agree on numbers - but if the fleet is to expand I think the number of T83 and SSN(R) needs to exceed the numbers of T45 and Astute.
It would need to be a c. 70% increase in numbers of both for me! :mrgreen:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Scimitar54 wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 05:35 Dobbo Wrote:-
I agree on numbers - but if the fleet is to expand I think the number of T83 and SSN(R) needs to exceed the numbers of T45 and Astute.
It would need to be a c. 70% increase in numbers of both for me! :mrgreen:
Guys, lets move to escort thread. It is nothing to do with T83 news....

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

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

Post by Dobbo »

“The Type 83 destroyer will replace the Type 45 destroyers and will be a key part of the Future Air Dominance System (FADS) that will provide area air defence and offensive strike options to the Carrier Strike Group from the mid-2030s.”

Quote from the link below. Suggests the T83 will cover offensive (presumably deep) strike capability.

https://committees.parliament.uk/public ... 9/default/
These users liked the author Dobbo for the post (total 3):
Repulsedonald_of_tokyoserge750

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

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

Post by Dobbo »

Random thought - previously nuclear powered surface ships have been determined to be too expensive (most recently the decision that the QEC class were to be conventionally powered).

I’m a world where AUKUS and SMR are being pushed, meaning possible economies of scale, and nuclear power generally seems back in vogue, and directed energy weapons may be necessary for a counter hypersonic capability, what odds on a nuclear powered T83?

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

Dobbo wrote: 01 May 2023, 10:35 Random thought - previously nuclear powered surface ships have been determined to be too expensive (most recently the decision that the QEC class were to be conventionally powered).

I’m a world where AUKUS and SMR are being pushed, meaning possible economies of scale, and nuclear power generally seems back in vogue, and directed energy weapons may be necessary for a counter hypersonic capability, what odds on a nuclear powered T83?
Good thought. While I admit I have a bias about nuclear in surface ships, For this to happen there would need to be a very large commonality between SSN(R), existence of SMR (looking less and less likely as hype dies down) on a large scale. A common SSN(R) with 12 of those and 12 T83 would be VERY appealing. I would rather just have A large, 30,000T common MRSS/T83 hull with very big tanks for extra endurance / MRSS roles and future sustainable / eco fuels having lower density. Then learn from South korea with their arsenal ships and japan with their BMD destroyers.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by serge750 »

If the money was there for building & decomissioning - I wouldn't mind a few Kirov style battle/command cruisers with gas turbines for sprinting & a sub nuke reactor for a lot of the "hotel" power demands including future weapon power requirements & a full load of AAM/SSM/ASW missiles+ sensors including BMD - F-load of dosh though......😱 & maybe the RN could only afford one !!!!
These users liked the author serge750 for the post:
Ron5

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

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

Post by Phil Sayers »

As I understand it, the main rationale for the USN having its old nuclear powered cruisers was so that there were escorts that could keep up with the nuclear powered carriers making sustained high speed transits over considerable distances even if it meant leaving the other escorts behind. In a situation where our carriers are not nuclear powered and cannot achieve such high speeds themselves it seems to me that it would be very expensive to make T-83 nuclear powered and having additional drawbacks with regards things like port access without being able to achieve the main possible benefit of doing so.
These users liked the author Phil Sayers for the post (total 5):
Dobbodonald_of_tokyoserge750Scimitar54wargame_insomniac

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

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

Post by Dobbo »

And that, I think, answers the question pretty conclusively! Thank you!
These users liked the author Dobbo for the post (total 2):
new guyserge750

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by Timmymagic »

Possible BAE Type 83 concept image....obviously aimed at Australia with the CEAFAR

Image

Seen in a BAE presentation on Damage Control, spotted by The Australian.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/marit ... er-concept
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 5):
PoiuytrewqCaribbeandonald_of_tokyowargame_insomniacJensy

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Timmymagic wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 08:50 Possible BAE Type 83 concept image
Thats looks like a £2.5bn cruiser.

If RN want something like that they will need to spread the cost with other nations or 6 will become 3 when development costs reduce hull numbers.

Is this really the best direction of travel for RN?

Would 12x T26 AAW not be better with the amidships mission area reconfigured to include an additional 32 Mk41 plus 48 quad packed CAMM whilst still retaining port/starboard boat houses for three RHIBs. That would give an AAW optimised T26 up to 64x Mk41 plus 48x CAMM.

10 or 12 such vessels, still retaining the full ASW capability remains a better option IMO.

Making these AAW vessels ever larger has to stop somewhere. How much of the AAW tech is actually going to be drone based in 20 to 30 years thus negating the need for 180m class vessels.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by Timmymagic »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 10:18
Timmymagic wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 08:50 Possible BAE Type 83 concept image
Thats looks like a £2.5bn cruiser.

If RN want something like that they will need to spread the cost with other nations or 6 will become 3 when development costs reduce hull numbers.

Is this really the best direction of travel for RN?

Would 12x T26 AAW not be better with the amidships mission area reconfigured to include an additional 32 Mk41 plus 48 quad packed CAMM whilst still retaining port/starboard boat houses for three RHIBs. That would give an AAW optimised T26 up to 64x Mk41 plus 48x CAMM.

10 or 12 such vessels, still retaining the full ASW capability remains a better option IMO.

Making these AAW vessels ever larger has to stop somewhere. How much of the AAW tech is actually going to be drone based in 20 to 30 years thus negating the need for 180m class vessels.
This is T26 based

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

From the article

Meanwhile, BAE Systems Australia has been quietly working away pitching a truly formidable warship proposal in an effort to spare the $45 billion Hunter Class frigate program from seeing major cuts to the ship numbers, proposing a major restructuring of the Hunter Class program to deliver a fleet of heavily armed guided missile destroyers concurrently with the Hunter Class frigates.

As part of the proposal, BAE Systems Australia’s pitch to the government in February was to deliver the first three Hunter Class vessels, before switching to deliver its first new air warfare destroyer, this would then result in a drumbeat seeing “The company would then build, alternately every two years, another frigate and then another destroyer until nine ships in total were built — six frigates and three destroyers — although final numbers and configuration would be up to the government.”

Not to be outdone, BAE Systems UK has been busy working behind the scenes on a truly formidable surface combatant billed as the replacement for the Royal Navy’s Type 45 Daring Class guided missile destroyers, while leveraging the Type 26, Global Combat Ship hull form as a basis for this vessel, with some interesting ramifications for Australia’s own future shipbuilding endeavours.

Definitely remember being told this wasn’t possible…
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Caribbean

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Timmymagic wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 10:21 This is T26 based
Which part is the same? At 180m and over 12,000t it looks completely different.

RN needs more destroyers not cruisers.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

It's a rather obvious photoshop. The resulting image doesn't make a lot of naval architectural sense in places.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Jensy

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 10:21 Definitely remember being told this wasn’t possible…
You were told by several, including me & NAB (even though we are poles apart in credibility :D ), that the current T26 design cannot be "stretched".

The same sources also told you that re-utilizing the same "hull form", is something that the great unwashed believes saves umpty 10's of millions when in fact developing a new hull form would cost in the low single millions. The same unwashed that believe that warships are built on production lines and that such lines can be "hot".

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 14:21 It's a rather obvious photoshop. The resulting image doesn't make a lot of naval architectural sense in places.
Photoshop? You can do better work in MS Paint and people do :lol:

Suspect it's a very low res image that's cut from another image (hence the messy dark outline) and been blown up far to much.

EDIT - Just noticed in the article:
Taking a closer look (zoomed in and cleaned up thanks to our amazing design team) we getter a better sense [...]



Not familiar with the source but it looks more than a copy & paste defence blog.

Real or fake, it will likely have as much bearing on a completed Type 83 as RV Triton does on HMS Glasgow.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post (total 2):
PoiuytrewqRon5

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by serge750 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 10:18
Timmymagic wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 08:50 Possible BAE Type 83 concept image
Thats looks like a £2.5bn cruiser.

If RN want something like that they will need to spread the cost with other nations or 6 will become 3 when development costs reduce hull numbers.

Is this really the best direction of travel for RN?

Would 12x T26 AAW not be better with the amidships mission area reconfigured to include an additional 32 Mk41 plus 48 quad packed CAMM whilst still retaining port/starboard boat houses for three RHIBs. That would give an AAW optimised T26 up to 64x Mk41 plus 48x CAMM.

10 or 12 such vessels, still retaining the full ASW capability remains a better option IMO.

Making these AAW vessels ever larger has to stop somewhere. How much of the AAW tech is actually going to be drone based in 20 to 30 years thus negating the need for 180m class vessels.
would the gov fund 10-12 AAW to replace the 6 T45 though....thinking more about the through life costs - nearly double the crew?

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

serge750 wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 19:54
Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 10:18
Timmymagic wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 08:50 Possible BAE Type 83 concept image
Thats looks like a £2.5bn cruiser.

If RN want something like that they will need to spread the cost with other nations or 6 will become 3 when development costs reduce hull numbers.

Is this really the best direction of travel for RN?

Would 12x T26 AAW not be better with the amidships mission area reconfigured to include an additional 32 Mk41 plus 48 quad packed CAMM whilst still retaining port/starboard boat houses for three RHIBs. That would give an AAW optimised T26 up to 64x Mk41 plus 48x CAMM.

10 or 12 such vessels, still retaining the full ASW capability remains a better option IMO.

Making these AAW vessels ever larger has to stop somewhere. How much of the AAW tech is actually going to be drone based in 20 to 30 years thus negating the need for 180m class vessels.
would the gov fund 10-12 AAW to replace the 6 T45 though....thinking more about the through life costs - nearly double the crew?
As for crews, IMO just look at the potential of automation. Who knows what technology will be around in 2035. Just look as extra large USV and UUV. South korea just released a new armed large UUV concept. Look at the ASW USV's and missile caring USV's of the USN. In my personal opinion any armed ship sould still maintain a crew. But look how T31 will have a ~100 crew vs T26 with ~170 and T23 with ~190. Look at the crew differences from USN Carriers to QEC. The crew could be around half the current. But at the rate the RN is going we still won't have enough.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

serge750 wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 19:54 ….would the gov fund 10-12 AAW to replace the 6 T45 though....thinking more about the through life costs - nearly double the crew?
Great question but it’s also worth considering what the crew allocation would be for a 180m, 12,000t AAW destroyer? 250?

Firstly, I would ask how many next-gen AAW destroyers do RN realistically need? I would suggest 8 minimum.

Secondly, can the T26 hull and propulsion give RN what they need for the next-gen AAW destroyer. I suspect the answer is no but that doesn’t necessarily predetermine that the overall cost of the hull should be more than a T26.

Thirdly, what is the T83 budget? I would suggest somewhere around £10bn.

After that there are many other obvious considerations like radar, VLS cell numbers, co-operation with allies etc etc but there are other considerations that are not often discussed. Such as:

- What is a plausible rate of attrition for RN to sustain in a 21st century peer on peer conflict and still be able to fight and win?

- Are smaller and therefore more numerous and dispersed vessels going to be more relevant in 20yrs time than ever larger vessels with endlessly increasing displacements?

- What is RN’s optimal ratio of Destroyers/Frigates and SSNs?

- Is an RN version of the Arleigh Burke class based on the T26 the best direction of travel for RN going forward?

When all of these questions are considered a modest 3-4 hull class of 12,000t destroyers are not RN’s best option IMO.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by serge750 »

Definitely 3-4 hulls would not be enough, even 4 is asking for trouble, I really do hope that future Government has learned it's lesson & won't shrink the RN any further so at least a 1 for 1 replacement should be the minimum - be interesting to see if they will go for a new version of Sampson radar - probably will

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

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

Post by Digger22 »

I agree with more Hull numbers, we only need to look at what happens to ships at the end of their useful lives, or indeed if the design has engineering issues that need costly and time consuming refits to rectify.
At the end of the day, a bigger ship can still only be in one place at a time, and that includes the dry dock.
Here's a radical idea, why not use the T45 hull for the replacement.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Digger22 wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 21:06 …why not use the T45 hull for the replacement.
Why not?

However, an adapted T26 that retains the superior ASW capability is still top of the list if RN can pull it off.

IMO a T26 based AAW optimised T83 would change everything for RN especially if 8 were built. That would allow the T83’s to concentrate on the CSG exclusively providing both the AAW and ASW required. RN could then use the T26’s for a multitude of other taskings and not constantly be tied to the CSG and TAPS alone.

Eight of each looks about right.

8x T83 (T26 based combined AAW/ASW)
8x T26
8x T31 GP
8x OPV

Excellent symmetry and affordable.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

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

Post by Mercator »

Jensy wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 19:39 Not familiar with the source but it looks more than a copy & paste defence blog.

Real or fake, it will likely have as much bearing on a completed Type 83 as RV Triton does on HMS Glasgow.
the source is a reasonably respectable online 'daily brief'. They sometimes include opinion pieces that are mostly crap, but the other two or three big mags suffer from the same shallow pool of talent. The usual daily output is respectable, however. The major firms do advertise with them.

I don't doubt that this was briefed by BAE Australia. They have to be scrambling to secure the Hunter class long-term and a bit of chum in the water like this won't hurt them any more than the trouble they already find themselves in.
These users liked the author Mercator for the post (total 2):
JensyRon5

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

Mercator wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 00:12
Jensy wrote: 07 Jun 2023, 19:39 Not familiar with the source but it looks more than a copy & paste defence blog.

Real or fake, it will likely have as much bearing on a completed Type 83 as RV Triton does on HMS Glasgow.
the source is a reasonably respectable online 'daily brief'. They sometimes include opinion pieces that are mostly crap, but the other two or three big mags suffer from the same shallow pool of talent. The usual daily output is respectable, however. The major firms do advertise with them.

I don't doubt that this was briefed by BAE Australia. They have to be scrambling to secure the Hunter class long-term and a bit of chum in the water like this won't hurt them any more than the trouble they already find themselves in.
I assume the author Stephen Kuper is the same Stephen Kuper who is assistant advisor to Melissa Price MP (Liberal) the former Minister for Defence Industry under Scott Morrison?

Locked