UK Defence Forum

SKB wrote:"Exquisite Class" (C)2021 SKB

Exquisite, Excelsior, Enterprise, Executor, Endeavour, Electra.

Plus Elimination and Endurance for a class of 8 !,

Dobbo wrote:at least 8

I would tend to argee - with requirement to protect 2 CSGs, perhaps one Army Amphibious (Logistics) Group and supporting the defence of mainland UK then 8 would be the bare minimum.

Question would be, if ASW warfare becomes more of the territory of offboard XLUUVs supported by the SSNs, then will the Type 83 become the only "Exquisite" class. Assuming the T83 would come with a larger T26 mission bay, then could we end up with a T83 Batch II replacement, and ultimately a tier one fleet of around 12 ships? Something ThinkDefence raised 10 years ago

KiwiMuzz wrote:

SKB wrote:"Exquisite Class" (C)2021 SKB

Exquisite, Excelsior, Enterprise, Executor, Endeavour, Electra.

Exquisite, Gorgeous, Brilliant, Sparkly, Dandy, Awesome, Fabulous, Superb, Glorious, Dainty

Ron5 wrote:

KiwiMuzz wrote:

SKB wrote:"Exquisite Class" (C)2021 SKB

Exquisite, Excelsior, Enterprise, Executor, Endeavour, Electra.

Exquisite, Gorgeous, Brilliant, Sparkly, Dandy, Awesome, Fabulous, Superb, Glorious, Dainty

Inspirational

Ron5 wrote:

KiwiMuzz wrote:

SKB wrote:"Exquisite Class" (C)2021 SKB

Exquisite, Excelsior, Enterprise, Executor, Endeavour, Electra.

Exquisite, Gorgeous, Brilliant, Sparkly, Dandy, Awesome, Fabulous, Superb, Glorious, Dainty

We are after 12 so I add:

Lovely, Bling

Repulse wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

KiwiMuzz wrote:

SKB wrote:"Exquisite Class" (C)2021 SKB

Exquisite, Excelsior, Enterprise, Executor, Endeavour, Electra.

Exquisite, Gorgeous, Brilliant, Sparkly, Dandy, Awesome, Fabulous, Superb, Glorious, Dainty

We are after 12 so I add:

Lovely, Bling

"Dazzle" for a bakers dozen.

Ron5 wrote:

That's a bit early, isn't it???

dmereifield wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

That's a bit early, isn't it???

Concept work for the type 23 replacement program started in 1994 as seen here https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/type-26- ... s-history/

Soooo if it follows similar timelines of an “exquisite” ship probably at bit late if your looking at the mid 2030s….

SW1 wrote:Concept work for the type 23 replacement program started in 1994

and from 2022 ( er, counting from one in water by 2027)
... ASW took a third of a century. Counting from '22 with a qrtr of a century, makes it for ' mid -century' !?

Blimey, things are slow in defence....

dmereifield wrote:Blimey, things are slow in defence....

The MoD are amateurs compared to the DFT. Crossrail was first mooted when Thatcher was PM.. meanwhile, airport development is in a league of its own.


With Types 83 and 32 concurrently in concept development, from next year, I wonder if it's worth looking at potential areas of overlap, if not sharing elements of a common a hull design? Stopping short of combining the two into a single class.

From last weeks Defence Select Committee hearing, I'd wager any hope of Type 26 being the basis for either is out the window.

Type 32 and 83 seem to share a requirement for large, spacious and flexible hulls, with modest demand for ASW optimisation. An imperfect comparison might be the Spruance/ Ticonderoga Classes, which developed into a first rate ASW destroyer and AAW cruiser.

Jensy wrote:any hope of Type 26 being the basis for either is out the window.

The 'specialists' as in T45 and T26 seem to be step too far, for a navy the size of the RN.

Jensy wrote: comparison might be the Spruance/ Ticonderoga Classes, which developed into a first rate ASW destroyer and AAW cruiser.

I'd rather look for the utility of our thru-deck cruisers bequeathing a very nice hull for HMS Ocean, where the rest was built using commercial stds, and for a v different purpose, too.
- Aegis had to 'go to sea' plenty quick in the hottest part of the Cold War and the Spruance hull was 'there' - whereas the top-heavy Aegis had to be compensated for by using aluminium in the superstructure... that part of the (otherwise) good story has not been too good

dmereifield wrote:Blimey, things are slow in defence....

except for the bad guys

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I'd rather look for the utility of our thru-deck cruisers bequeathing a very nice hull for HMS Ocean, where the rest was built using commercial stds, and for a v different purpose, too.

Unfortunately Oceans build quality due to the commercial standards was abysmal and had to be very expensively (partially) fixed.

PS Reusing hull form isn't terribly exciting and saves very little. Best story I heard about form reuse was that the CVA01 aircraft carrier re-used the WW1's HMS Furious hull form. Don't know if that's absolutely true tho.

What I think we need with the Type-83 is a UK version of the Arleigh Burke class, using modern design and construction methods to reduce the design and build costs and reduce the cre4w to less than that of the T-25 it is replacing.

Lord Jim wrote:What I think we need with the Type-83 is a UK version of the Arleigh Burke class, using modern design and construction methods to reduce the design and build costs and reduce the cre4w to less than that of the T-25 it is replacing.

Well the T45 could of been that if fitted with enough VLS, the only real difference of VLS numbers and what’s in them.

For me what’s needed if for the T83 to be a larger version of the T26 with 96 plus Mk41s.
When I say T26 I mean things such as the mission bay and large flight deck, at the moment these things seem like gold platting add ons but as unmanned develops they will come in to there own.

As it seems more and more weapons are being developed that are compatible with the Mk41, as this seems to be becoming the international standard for all western sources navies, with a couple of major and a few minor exceptions, I would say 96 is the minimum number of Mk41 VLS cells that should be installed on the T-83. As Mk41 cells now come in 1s, 2s, 4s, and traditional 8s, you can squeeze them into almost any space that has the depth for the type of Mk41 you wish to use.

One things people have not really mentioned on here recently is the issue that if the T-45 replacement moves ot the MK41 the Aster-30 SAMs will be redundant. Depending on their remaining shelf life, that could be a good time to look at obtaining a large area/BMD GBAD system, namely SAMP-T, assuming it will still be in production then. If not we can try to sell them to those navies still using the missile.

I do think that it is going to require both the Government at the time and the MoD to fully appreciate the need for such Warships and that six should be seen as the minimum number required for the T-83 to be anything like the platform it needs to be. BMD has to be a core capability of any design chosen for the T-83 and this means the appropriate radar and IR sensors are essential. One of the weaknesses of the USN is that it lack sufficient high angle IR sensor to track high speed, high altitude targets that are difficult to lock on to with radar. Most current or soon to be deployed hyper sonic anti-ship weapons attack from a very high angle and the atmospheric disturbances caused by the re entry vehicle can make radar far less effective.

Finally the radars and other sensors on the platforms need to be able to manage take control of all weapons within a task group as well as the platform also being able to use tracking data form the Ships, aircraft and submarines as well. This will enable it to develop a full 360 degree sphere and allocate the appropriate response to any hostile threat. Of coarse being able to integrate with allied platforms is a must as well.

All of this means this class of ships is going to be expensive, which is why all the powers that be must be on board. They will be the Royal Navy's prime conventional deterrent, a vital role if this country is to have a truly global role.

Mk41 might be old hat when Type 83 comes around in 20 years.

I recall reading a while back that 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.

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'

Defiance wrote:Mk41 might be old hat when Type 83 comes around in 20 years.

I recall reading a while back that 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.

My understanding both the Mk41 and 57 too small to take the hypersonic missile with its 30"+ diameter being jointly developed for the US Army and USN, USN using a variant of the Trident VLS 87" tube which can fit 3 of the new missiles or 7 Tomahawks as used in the four Ohio SSGN variant and the newer Virginia subs and presume what will be fitted to the three Zumwalts in 2024?

NickC wrote:used in the four Ohio SSGN variant and the newer Virginia subs and presume what will be fitted to the three Zumwalts in 2024?

didn't know that the SSGN tubes were applicable... also, the Zumwalts are still under budgetary consideration... so not many tubes to go with!

How many Mk41 tubes can be put on T26? If we drop CAMM mushrooms that is...

abc123 wrote:How many Mk41 tubes can be put on T26? If we drop CAMM mushrooms that is...

The RAN design has shown that the forward position can have 4 set of 8 wide ( where we currently have 3 ) and the RCN design has shown it can have 2 sets of 8 deep ( forward set where we currently have CAMM ) based on this I would say at least 48 in the forward possition but since Mk41 can now come in 2 cell sets I wouldn’t be surprised if more could fit there.