Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Locked
wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 Jan 2022, 10:57 The simple fact is all RN ships are under armed from the B2's all the way up to the carriers
Unfortunately the MoD has too often gone for the phrase that I hate to see "Fitted For But Not With". The reason I want the maximum number of VLS launchers to be fitted, is because if this is not done in production phase, this usually requires dedicated refit time and thus impinges on ship availability.

Especially if RN moves towards Mk41 VLS, then have a huge potential choice of what missiles could fit to cover potential AAW/ASW/AsuW/Land Attack missions. Once the VLS launchers are actually fitted, it is a lot quicker to simply add new missiles when in dock, even if having to us allied stocks of the same mssiles in emergency.

I realise that missile costs will mount up and that certain missile types might only be able to be allocated on an as needed basis. It might be that if say a Type 31 GP Frigate was being deployed to Operation Kipion in the Persian Gulf, then may not need the very expensive long ranged AAW and ASM mssiles. But alternatively might then to choose to max out on LMM Martlett for anti-fast boat and CAMM for short ranged anti air missile and drones.

Lucis1019
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 16 Jan 2022, 13:19
France

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

Post by Lucis1019 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 10 Nov 2021, 16:19
Defiance wrote: while Mk57 is a bit bigger, the USN don't think it'll be big enough to hold future hypersonic weapons they expect to bring into service.
BAE has an answer to this... but it is hidden 'under water'
u really sure BAE still have any new vls solution? They used to have some idea back into the days of MBDA CVS-401 Perseus Missile Concept 10 years ago. Not sure now they still retain the capability to design and build a new one.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lucis1019 wrote: 03 Apr 2022, 16:02 u really sure BAE still have any new vls solution?

BAE are in a key role for the Common Launcher Module (pretty big!) for enhanced Virginia/ our Dreadnoughts, and their emerging USN equivalents
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
Jensy
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

The USN is looking at replacing the two Naval Guns on its Zumwalt class cruisers as well as all the below deck paraphernalia, and installing a number of modules similar to what is being fitted to the Virginia class SSN to that they can launch everything from Tomahawks to oversized hypersonic missiles. For the T-83 I would be happy with 100+ MK41 VLS cells, and leave Hypersonics to the Successor SSN.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

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

Post by Dobbo »

As part of the effort to increase lethality of the surface fleet the ability to deliver offensive hypersonics is likely to be a requirement over the life of the T83, T26 and T31/32.

Appreciating that we don’t yet know what FCASW looks like, I assume at least some hypersonics will fit in the MK41. If that is the case, I’d hope all surface ships could deploy these weapons.

If you need a silo akin to an SSBN to deploy them, I’m not sure this is likely on any of the surface fleet or SSN fleet. But, it shows the need to flexibility and probably size for the T83.

Lucis1019
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 16 Jan 2022, 13:19
France

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

Post by Lucis1019 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 23 May 2022, 09:32
Lucis1019 wrote: 03 Apr 2022, 16:02 u really sure BAE still have any new vls solution?

BAE are in a key role for the Common Launcher Module (pretty big!) for enhanced Virginia/ our Dreadnoughts, and their emerging USN equivalents
OK, CLM is a quad vls for Trident Nuke. I C your point, but to install it on surface combatant will waste a lot of space. I just thought there could be something like the huge square VLS in CVS 401 Perseus lanuching video, but don't think such design still exist.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

As said (upstream) Mk57s turning out to be too small and for the surface units (read T83) we don't have the USN Zumwalts looking for a role... so subsurface for (if) any hypersonics
- not that we would have enough surface combatants anyway for forming a separate 'surface strike group'
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post (total 2):
Lord JimDobbo
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: 120
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

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

Post by Dobbo »

I’d be disappointed if hypersonics were SSN only - for me, the greatest capability gap the RN has had for the past 20 years is the inability to launch cruise missiles from the surface fleet.

Quite aside from cost and limited numbers of SSNs, it also means that the U.K. government cannot wave the big stick of deploying a couple of surface ships in a region in order the threaten strikes over a wide geographic area.

Perhaps to this is mitigated to some degree if the FCASW can be deployed across the T83, T26, T31/32, but I’d be disappointed if the surface fleet were unable to deploy an advanced weapon of that nature if one found its way into inventory.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Dobbo wrote: 30 May 2022, 09:56 I’d be disappointed if the surface fleet were unable to deploy an advanced weapon of that nature if one found its way into inventory.
Me, too, but let's consider that
1. we are all invested in having the carriers (in the first place) as strike platforms
2. the above mentioned dimensional and volume problems for an applicable VLS (above surface, not counting CML)
.... so, 3. let's let the USN solve them first, and then if thereis a missile that would fit with our operational rqrmnt
... all we are missing 4. is a surface combatant that is big enough. How long has it taken the USN (OK, they did give in, for the USMC Zumwalt rqrmnt) to figure out where to go (up!) from the Burkes

The "8" classification is somewhat obscure as to what the primary purpose of any such class would be (aside from HMS Bristol, a class 'of one')
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
Dobbo
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)

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

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

What about the Tribal Class, a class “of seven”?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 30 May 2022, 12:53 somewhat obscure as to what the primary purpose of any such class would be (aside from HMS Bristol, a class 'of one'
Scimitar54 wrote: 30 May 2022, 13:42

What about the Tribal Class, a class “of seven”?
Exactly the point I tried to make (there was an exchange of a couple of dozen msgs on this... before the News Only kicked in
- the both quoted cases being precedents arising from the RN history
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)

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

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

The commonality is that both were Multi-Purpose Vessels. Maybe giving us a clue as to T83! :mrgreen:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

From what I have been able to read, long range Hypersonics are going to be big, the Virginia class SSN may be able to carry around Six as with the Zumwalt DDGs, IF we tried to install such weapons on say the T-83, they would take up the space of say at least forty eight MK41 VLS cells. I know which I would prefer to have.

Future Escorts are also going to have to carry at least double the number of AShMs current seen as adequate, so we are looking at sixteen pus. I cannot see the Royal Navy's planned Escorts carry that amount as it stand, due to the likely cost of FC/ASW, The only way I can see would be a mixed load our of way six to eight FC/ASW which would be for high value targets, and another eight to tem cheaper AShMs such as NSM for lower priority targets that will still need to be prosecuted effectively.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 31 May 2022, 05:58 such as NSM for lower priority targets that will still need to be prosecuted effectively.
For anything important they would probs be launched in pairs as there is programming available to make them approach simultaneously from different directions... ie. do 'a Moskva'.

As for where to put additional box launchers we could pick up ideas from LCS upgrades.
- though we are BY NOW straying into the general future escorts discussion
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)

SomeoneAh
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2022, 21:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by SomeoneAh »

abc123 wrote: 11 Nov 2021, 06:01 How many Mk41 tubes can be put on T26? If we drop CAMM mushrooms that is...
i have seen a photo before from FB group, someone suggest that if Type 83 are focus on AAW then the mission bay is no longer need, so he suggest to use the space originally for the mission bay and put 8 set of mk41 and replace the forward mushroom with mk41, he assume the type 26 hull can take 112 mk41 vls, which it is a perfect number of VLS for AAW.
Image
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 »

SomeoneAh wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 13:41
abc123 wrote: 11 Nov 2021, 06:01 How many Mk41 tubes can be put on T26? If we drop CAMM mushrooms that is...
i have seen a photo before from FB group, someone suggest that if Type 83 are focus on AAW then the mission bay is no longer need, so he suggest to use the space originally for the mission bay and put 8 set of mk41 and replace the forward mushroom with mk41, he assume the type 26 hull can take 112 mk41 vls, which it is a perfect number of VLS for AAW.
Image
Interesting figure, but impossible, I think.

Forward section: You can see the 3-stories Mk.41 VLS section, right before the bridge. At the bottom, the section is already almost the full-width of the hull. So, the "forward muchroom" area, if replaced with Mk.41, will be able to provide 16 not 24-cells at most.
Image

Mission bay section: It is only 5 m high, so the Mk.41 VLS will be tactical length, not strike (which itself if OK). However, the critical point is the location of the VLS is way too high. Mk.41 VLS filled with ammo is VERY heavy. The arrangement in the figure will surely cause sever top-weight issue. In addition, Type-26 needs more weight at the top, Sampson class radar, at least. Another top heavy issue.

Anyway, if this level of heavy punch is needed, simply widen the hull, and make it longer. I see no big problem in designing a new, AAW oriented hull. Anyway, without such investment, UK will simply lose the capability to DESIGN a good warship.

SomeoneAh
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2022, 21:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by SomeoneAh »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 16:26
SomeoneAh wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 13:41
abc123 wrote: 11 Nov 2021, 06:01 How many Mk41 tubes can be put on T26? If we drop CAMM mushrooms that is...
i have seen a photo before from FB group, someone suggest that if Type 83 are focus on AAW then the mission bay is no longer need, so he suggest to use the space originally for the mission bay and put 8 set of mk41 and replace the forward mushroom with mk41, he assume the type 26 hull can take 112 mk41 vls, which it is a perfect number of VLS for AAW.
Image
Interesting figure, but impossible, I think.

Forward section: You can see the 3-stories Mk.41 VLS section, right before the bridge. At the bottom, the section is already almost the full-width of the hull. So, the "forward muchroom" area, if replaced with Mk.41, will be able to provide 16 not 24-cells at most.
Image

Mission bay section: It is only 5 m high, so the Mk.41 VLS will be tactical length, not strike (which itself if OK). However, the critical point is the location of the VLS is way too high. Mk.41 VLS filled with ammo is VERY heavy. The arrangement in the figure will surely cause sever top-weight issue. In addition, Type-26 needs more weight at the top, Sampson class radar, at least. Another top heavy issue.

Anyway, if this level of heavy punch is needed, simply widen the hull, and make it longer. I see no big problem in designing a new, AAW oriented hull. Anyway, without such investment, UK will simply lose the capability to DESIGN a good warship.
Indeed, never though about the top heavy problems.
But what i am thinking is using the design of Type 26 to build a new AAW warship will be the most cost effective and the quickest solution, just like the type 31 using a design which is already servicing in some country, it help seed up the process and reduce the chance of delay of building the ship. The type 31 from my point of view is very impressive compare to the type 26 program which already been building for 5 years and many year to design before build and now it has been delay for another 12 month from what i read at the type 26 post, in the other hand the type 31 only require 3 year of building ( if no delay ) and less to design.
So if UK really want a bigger navy which it does i think going for the most cost effective option is the best solution, once you have enough ship then UK can go design a bigger ship, because i am afraid if type 83 program was delay due to any problems, then at the time of 2035 there will be no AAW ship for the UK.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 16:26 if this level of heavy punch is needed, simply widen the hull, and make it longer. I see no big problem in designing a new, AAW oriented hull.
Quite!

Next question: will these be the nxt-gen of AAW/ABM 'cruisers'
... and how many can we afford?

As opposed to upgrading T-45s? Or, perhaps relegating them to some other role (vs. CTF/ MTF protection, when you would need 2 or 3 of the nxt gen) and have, say 1+1 always available to sail

Those who have been readers of these pages for long enough 8-) will remember that the displacement growth 'root cause' was not placed (by me :lol: ) on the 'specialties' of the sub-hunting' but rather on the properties of the hull
... to be the next AAW platform. We will see -will see :wave:
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: 120
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

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

Post by Dobbo »

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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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
Quite. In 2028 all of our T-45s should be fully up to speed, anti-IBM included (though 'all' in that statement is just a logical continuation of the upgrade prgrms that have been announce, and PIP also finally done for all of them). Add to that what Jeremy Quin in the context of a written Parliamentary question said:
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded to a written Parliamentary question recently and said:

“The Type 83 will replace our Type 45 destroyers when they go out of service in the late 2030s. We anticipate the concept phase for Type 83 to begin in the next few years with the assessment phase following.”
- so timing 'fixed' but not "how many"
- in the meanwhile the Mig-31s that have gone through modernisation have been attached to the Northern Fleet. The reason: They can carry the Kinshal at height and speed, which then, as a launch platform, extends the range of the hypersonic weapon. E.g. in anti-ship use
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)

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

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

Post by SW1 »

If I was sending a task force to China I’d just send submarines

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by RichardIC »

The Type 45s are never going to up to speed. They're always going to be compromised by having WR21s as prime movers, partially because of the intercooler-recuperator thingumy which the PIP won't fix but will only help mitigate. And partially because they're the only vessels worldwide powered by them and there were no spares produced so they can't be swapped out when they break.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

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.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Dobbo

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

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.
Surely this all depends on who’s the next PM, Tuss has repetedly said if she wins she’d have defence spending rise to 3% by 2030.

It’s all if’s and all dependent on xyz but it is really the first time in decades we’ve heard such for a potential PM

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

Aye but if its sunak , don't think he up to increase spending on the defence lucky if he actually keeps it a 2% in reality or just looks like 2% by illusion ,bit if a Cameron I think and would love to cut defence spending if he could get away with it ,a total money man

Locked