Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

A small bit of good news, a few crumbs to keep Cowes et al going. Although if you read the PR it does involve the consolidation of support contracts and a £50m saving.


SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

new guy wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 17:23 So, many paths:
. T26 with a heavier radar, heavier MK41 load out, and sacrifice of the MMB.
. T31 with heavier load out. I think this is more overlooked than it should be. Arrowhead is already proven to be flexible, has destroyer concepts, and Indonesia has shown its destroyer-like ships. Proven to be cheap.
. +10,000t destroyer, capable
. Lighter, not GP, used for convoys with other assets, e.c.t., see 1st 2.
. Foreign inspiration.
.🇰🇷: Arsenal ship, Massive advanced missile strike.
.🇯🇵: Aegis defence destroyer, Ultimate air defence.
.🇺🇲: DDG(X)
.🇮🇹:DDX
.🇨🇳 T55 and more.
Personally - I'd discount the Arsenal ship - too many imponderables. Although it will probably keep the powerpoint industry in work for the next few years
T26 - by the time it's rebuilt to it will be an all new platform. Probably light on power as well if directed energy is to play a part.
Surely we cannot be going to US radar, that would be the end of a critical sovereign capability.
It likely depends to some extent on what the RAN wants. Some BAE-assisted evolution of CEFAR maybe + 128 mk 41s, + directed energy. 2 x MT30?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SD67 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 18:34 ….discount the Arsenal ship - too many imponderables.
Why not use the T31s as the Arsenal ships?

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 19:28
SD67 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 18:34 ….discount the Arsenal ship - too many imponderables.
Why not use the T31s as the Arsenal ships?
So when they are on carrier escort duty they add 32 silos queued by the T83. Makes sense.

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

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

Post by tomuk »

SD67 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 20:54
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 19:28
SD67 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 18:34 ….discount the Arsenal ship - too many imponderables.
Why not use the T31s as the Arsenal ships?
So when they are on carrier escort duty they add 32 silos queued by the T83. Makes sense.
Everything should just be networked together anything with any sensor should share it's contacts.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SD67 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 20:54
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 19:28
SD67 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 18:34 ….discount the Arsenal ship - too many imponderables.
Why not use the T31s as the Arsenal ships?
So when they are on carrier escort duty they add 32 silos queued by the T83. Makes sense.
Even adding just CAMM to the Goalkeeper T31s would vastly increase the defensive capabilities of the CSG.

If quad packed each T31 could embark 128 CAMM plus perhaps 24 in mushrooms. That’s over 300 CAMM for two T31’s acting as CSG Goalkeepers.

RN needs keep this as simple and as lethal as possible.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 21:07
SD67 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 20:54
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 19:28
SD67 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 18:34 ….discount the Arsenal ship - too many imponderables.
Why not use the T31s as the Arsenal ships?
So when they are on carrier escort duty they add 32 silos queued by the T83. Makes sense.
Even adding just CAMM to the Goalkeeper T31s would vastly increase the defensive capabilities of the CSG.

If quad packed each T31 could embark 128 CAMM plus perhaps 24 in mushrooms. That’s over 300 CAMM for two T31’s acting as CSG Goalkeepers.

RN needs keep this as simple and as lethal as possible.
And as cheap as possible...

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... conference

…our Royal Navy is building its Future Air Dominance System. Likely to comprise the new Type 83 Class platforms – which will one day replace Type 45 – these are more than just ships. They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a “system of systems”.

They will be highly automated. Blending missiles with new technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons. Incorporating both uncrewed systems and complex radar sensing capabilities. Able to raise an umbrella over our fleet, contribute to control of the air over a wider area and allow us to maintain freedom of manoeuvre through increased detection ranges.


As the name suggests, dominance is the name of the game. And dominance will be achieved through faster response times and greater lethality over longer distances.

Sticking with our present capability, we continue investing in our Sea Viper Evolution programme. Ensuring our current crop of world class warships have the air and missile defence systems to protect Maritime Task Groups against increasingly more complex threats, including ballistic missiles.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Frikken' laserzzz :D
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Jensy

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 29 Jun 2023, 07:36 …our Royal Navy is building its Future Air Dominance System. Likely to comprise the new Type 83 Class platforms – which will one day replace Type 45 – these are more than just ships. They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a “system of systems”.

They will be highly automated. Blending missiles with new technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons. Incorporating both uncrewed systems and complex radar sensing capabilities. Able to raise an umbrella over our fleet, contribute to control of the air over a wider area and allow us to maintain freedom of manoeuvre through increased detection ranges.

As the name suggests, dominance is the name of the game. And dominance will be achieved through faster response times and greater lethality over longer distances.

Sticking with our present capability, we continue investing in our Sea Viper Evolution programme. Ensuring our current crop of world class warships have the air and missile defence systems to protect Maritime Task Groups against increasingly more complex threats, including ballistic missiles.

Sounds like, at least as the wind blows today in Whitehall, they are not intended to be general purpose 'cruisers' with high-end land strike, ASW or ASuW capabilities. Which makes some sense if these are set to be provided by Type 26 and Type 31 (with Mk.41).

As such, in role closer to a theoretical 'Type 46' irrespective of their current classification.

I can't help but think "highly automated" sounds worryingly 'exquisite' for a ship that's going to be entering design before the end of the decade. At what point does reducing crew size become more expensive than not?

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

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

When the vessel becomes “at risk of being lost”, due to insufficient crew to ensure adequate damage control whilst still being able to fight and manoeuvre after receiving casualties !

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 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 29 Jun 2023, 19:13 When the vessel becomes “at risk of being lost”, due to insufficient crew to ensure adequate damage control whilst still being able to fight and manoeuvre after receiving casualties !
Automated damage control 😉.

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

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

Robots to shore up bulkheads, put out fires and fight the ship (or lose it) ? AI ??? …… Artificial Insanity !

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

"Shore up the bulkhead please, HAL."
"I'm sorry, Jack. I can't do that."
These users liked the author SKB for the post (total 4):
Ron5mrclark303wargame_insomniacJensy

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

It's not too far fetched. If all the machinery spaces are unmanned, and people are locked out, the compartments can be flooded with fire fighting chemicals to automate the response. With lots of instrumentation allowing for an early intervention its feasible. Like wise flood control needs lots of pumps, power supplies and instrumentation.

It's a big change in philosophy where everything needs to be instrumented, redundant and automated, similar to commercial aviation standards today.
@LandSharkUK

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 »

new guy wrote: 29 Jun 2023, 20:13
Scimitar54 wrote: 29 Jun 2023, 19:13 When the vessel becomes “at risk of being lost”, due to insufficient crew to ensure adequate damage control whilst still being able to fight and manoeuvre after receiving casualties !
Automated damage control 😉.
I mean a system of very reliable pipes, not independent robots, and other automated systems. This will happen eventually: Look at https://www.navylookout.com/munitions-h ... -carriers/

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Jensy wrote: 29 Jun 2023, 17:46
Poiuytrewq wrote: 29 Jun 2023, 07:36 …our Royal Navy is building its Future Air Dominance System. Likely to comprise the new Type 83 Class platforms – which will one day replace Type 45 – these are more than just ships. They are a distributed sensor network. Effectively a “system of systems”.

They will be highly automated. Blending missiles with new technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons. Incorporating both uncrewed systems and complex radar sensing capabilities. Able to raise an umbrella over our fleet, contribute to control of the air over a wider area and allow us to maintain freedom of manoeuvre through increased detection ranges.

As the name suggests, dominance is the name of the game. And dominance will be achieved through faster response times and greater lethality over longer distances.

Sticking with our present capability, we continue investing in our Sea Viper Evolution programme. Ensuring our current crop of world class warships have the air and missile defence systems to protect Maritime Task Groups against increasingly more complex threats, including ballistic missiles.

Sounds like, at least as the wind blows today in Whitehall, they are not intended to be general purpose 'cruisers' with high-end land strike, ASW or ASuW capabilities. Which makes some sense if these are set to be provided by Type 26 and Type 31 (with Mk.41).

As such, in role closer to a theoretical 'Type 46' irrespective of their current classification.

I can't help but think "highly automated" sounds worryingly 'exquisite' for a ship that's going to be entering design before the end of the decade. At what point does reducing crew size become more expensive than not?
When I first read that, I immediately thought it meant that the lasers would be highly automated.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Jensy

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: 30 Jun 2023, 13:27 When I first read that, I immediately thought it meant that the lasers would be highly automated.
They'll need to be. Unless the personnel and retention situation improves, Type 83 will have a crew of ten and a wisecracking robotic ship's cat....

On another forum there's currently a discussion about "Modern Cruisers". The concept seems to be that modern weapons systems are getting bigger, so too must the platform that carries them. Leading to something akin to a 21st Century Kirov Class.

From my perspective, with the potential to quad pack all (CAMM family) AAW missiles bar those for BMD, and take advantage of directed energy systems, we can afford to think differently but hopefully not try to be too revolutionary.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post (total 2):
Ron5serge750

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

Jensy wrote: 30 Jun 2023, 23:48 From my perspective, with the potential to quad pack all (CAMM family) AAW missiles bar those for BMD, and take advantage of directed energy systems, we can afford to think differently but hopefully not try to be too revolutionary.
Directed energy weapons - lasers, don't understand all the hype for them, today where I'm cloud cover is 100% at approx 1,000 feet and as understand lasers don't go throu cloud or rain etc so if attacked in these conditions DEW lasers near useless or am i missing something?

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 »

NickC wrote: 02 Jul 2023, 11:44
Jensy wrote: 30 Jun 2023, 23:48 From my perspective, with the potential to quad pack all (CAMM family) AAW missiles bar those for BMD, and take advantage of directed energy systems, we can afford to think differently but hopefully not try to be too revolutionary.
Directed energy weapons - lasers, don't understand all the hype for them, today where I'm cloud cover is 100% at approx 1,000 feet and as understand lasers don't go throu cloud or rain etc so if attacked in these conditions DEW lasers near useless or am i missing something?
You'll notice that I listed DEWs last, after a variety of missiles suited to different ranges and aerial target types.

I don't think there is any intention to rely solely on something like DragonFire, or the BAE concept seen at trade shows, at least for a long time. It is an additional layer of protection, when the conditions are right, on top of whatever gun systems are favoured by the time Type 83 is ordered.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
serge750

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 »

Jensy wrote: 02 Jul 2023, 11:59
NickC wrote: 02 Jul 2023, 11:44
Jensy wrote: 30 Jun 2023, 23:48 From my perspective, with the potential to quad pack all (CAMM family) AAW missiles bar those for BMD, and take advantage of directed energy systems, we can afford to think differently but hopefully not try to be too revolutionary.
Directed energy weapons - lasers, don't understand all the hype for them, today where I'm cloud cover is 100% at approx 1,000 feet and as understand lasers don't go throu cloud or rain etc so if attacked in these conditions DEW lasers near useless or am i missing something?
You'll notice that I listed DEWs last, after a variety of missiles suited to different ranges and aerial target types.

I don't think there is any intention to rely solely on something like DragonFire, or the BAE concept seen at trade shows, at least for a long time. It is an additional layer of protection, when the conditions are right, on top of whatever gun systems are favoured by the time Type 83 is ordered.
Or just to cheaply take-out low threat targets in the right condition. I don't know how much each bullet for a 30-40mm CIWS costs but probably over £10 and you need several to take down a target. DEW advertise to be not 1 penny per shot but 1 penny per destruction of enemy target.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by abc123 »

NickC wrote: 02 Jul 2023, 11:44
Jensy wrote: 30 Jun 2023, 23:48 From my perspective, with the potential to quad pack all (CAMM family) AAW missiles bar those for BMD, and take advantage of directed energy systems, we can afford to think differently but hopefully not try to be too revolutionary.
Directed energy weapons - lasers, don't understand all the hype for them, today where I'm cloud cover is 100% at approx 1,000 feet and as understand lasers don't go throu cloud or rain etc so if attacked in these conditions DEW lasers near useless or am i missing something?
"Lasers are weapons of the future and they allways will remain so." :thumbup:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

abc123 wrote: 02 Jul 2023, 21:49
NickC wrote: 02 Jul 2023, 11:44
Jensy wrote: 30 Jun 2023, 23:48 From my perspective, with the potential to quad pack all (CAMM family) AAW missiles bar those for BMD, and take advantage of directed energy systems, we can afford to think differently but hopefully not try to be too revolutionary.
Directed energy weapons - lasers, don't understand all the hype for them, today where I'm cloud cover is 100% at approx 1,000 feet and as understand lasers don't go throu cloud or rain etc so if attacked in these conditions DEW lasers near useless or am i missing something?
"Lasers are weapons of the future and they allways will remain so." :thumbup:
Would it not be eminently more sensible that instead of being taken in by the hype of lasers of jam tomorrow and spending tens of £millions of the RN very limited R&D budget on lasers do as the Korean Navy who are taking CIWS very seriously by developing a CIWS-II to serve as the “last line of defence” for their ships to counter future anti-ship threats with a 30mm Gatling gun with a dedicated AESA FCR (based on AESA radar technology developed for their KF-21 Boramae fighter) and an electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) to replace Phalanx .

PS NG showing what is possible with the development of the 30mm x 173mm airburst shell which will feature a contact set fuze design with three operational fuze modes: Programmable Airburst, Point Detonation and Point Detonation with Delay, and in development of proximity fuzed round.

This not a cheap option, Korean Navy budgeting $245 million to 2030 for CIWS-II, but it will be operational in all weathers unlike fair weather lasers which will leave ship defenceless in adverse weather conditions if the ship defence missiles fail to take out the anti-ship missile, even Israel with Iron Dome only claim 90% success rate - which has been questioned.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -rok-navy/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
These users liked the author NickC for the post:
abc123

User avatar
Ian Hall
Member
Posts: 490
Joined: 18 Jun 2023, 14:55
United Kingdom

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

Post by Ian Hall »

These users liked the author Ian Hall for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoserge750

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

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

Post by xav »

These users liked the author xav for the post (total 3):
bobpTempest414jedibeeftrix

Locked