Royal Navy Type 83 Destroyer (Type 45 replacement)

[zen]

Quick point to make.
The technology of CAMM soft launch is not limited, but the product currently is limited by in production cells.

Nothing stopping a higher capability cell being built, based on the technology.

Arguably this should be done, both to liberate CAMM-MR and a potential CAMM-LR, but also to open up the potential addition of other missiles in the future.

 

[Yellow Palace]

A question for the Brits in the forum: Why exactly does Treasury get to say how much money a project can cost, or saying "you can't have a ship that big"? Why isn't Treasury in charge of figuring out how to pay for what HMGov needs to do the job?

The Treasury is the second power base in the British form of government, after the Cabinet Office, which does the Prime Ministers bidding.

In a broader sense, this comes about because there are, broadly, three 'financial' functions in government:

1. Controlling government expenditure
2. Managing taxation and public debt
3. Stimulating economic growth

In most countries, these are divided between two or three ministries. In the UK, all three fall with the Treasury, which consolidates a lot of power in once place.

 

[TorpedoJ]

Quick point to make.
The technology of CAMM soft launch is not limited, but the product currently is limited by in production cells.

Nothing stopping a higher capability cell being built, based on the technology.

Arguably this should be done, both to liberate CAMM-MR and a potential CAMM-LR, but also to open up the potential addition of other missiles in the future.

Is there a theoretical maximum weight for CAMM-style soft launch?
I understand that S400 uses a form of cold launch, but without tipover jets. Would we ever reach a point where the tail-mounted reaction jets become too heavy for the tipover and affect the performance of the missile?
Is there anything that could be done at that point to allow for further expansion while retaining the low-impact soft launch?

 

[Ron5]

How's that actually going....have they actually fired a missile at sea...or from an ExLS mounted inside a Mk.41....

Nope. MMSC seems to be an even bigger disaster area than Constellation...which incidentally its slowing down...

Not the point. You were indulging in some paranoid theory that Lockheed would discriminate against non-US missiles being integrated into the Mk 41.

There is no evidence to support that view and at least one piece of evidence against it.

 

[Ainen]

Not the point. You were indulging in some paranoid theory that Lockheed would discriminate against non-US missiles being integrated into the Mk 41.

There is no evidence to support that view and at least one piece of evidence against it.

Well, yes, but eventually it went nowhere. The moment Lockheed became responsible for fcs integration, camm in mk.41 was displaced by RAM.

Hard to tell if this pairing actually works, and whether situation may repeat itself.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In a broader sense, this comes about because there are, broadly, three 'financial' functions in government:

1. Controlling government expenditure
2. Managing taxation and public debt
3. Stimulating economic growth

In most countries, these are divided between two or three ministries. In the UK, all three fall with the Treasury, which consolidates a lot of power in once place.

Ah. That explains a lot.

Still means I do not like how the country is set up, but now I understand why HMTreasury has such disproportionate power.

Why doesn't Parliament control government expenditure, though? (Remember, I'm American, so I'm used to Congress holding the purse strings)

Is there a theoretical maximum weight for CAMM-style soft launch?
I understand that S400 uses a form of cold launch, but without tipover jets. Would we ever reach a point where the tail-mounted reaction jets become too heavy for the tipover and affect the performance of the missile?
Is there anything that could be done at that point to allow for further expansion while retaining the low-impact soft launch?

Trident IIs are cold-launched, and they're something like 130,000lbs plus are coming up through some distance of water.

Though IIRC the Trident II uses some flavor of vectored thrust on the 1st stage main engines directly to get pointed in the right direction.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In a broader sense, this comes about because there are, broadly, three 'financial' functions in government:

1. Controlling government expenditure
2. Managing taxation and public debt
3. Stimulating economic growth

In most countries, these are divided between two or three ministries. In the UK, all three fall with the Treasury, which consolidates a lot of power in once place.

I should add that those 3 functions are often in conflict with each other, so it tends to make sense to split them into separate organizations.

Simple example: jobs programs or investing in infrastructure or shipbuilding industries to stimulate economic growth, but then you have lots more expenditures.​

 

[whatismoo]

Aster 30 ticks all the boxes that SM-6 does. The Offensive Counter Air/Strike role will be filled by FC/ASW/SPEAR-5.

It's pretty obvious given current global events that Britain is not going to adopt American missiles, so PAC-3 MSE and SM-6 are not viable choices, especially when MBDA has potential options like Aster 30 Block 1 NT, CAMM MR and AQUILA under development.

Aster 30 is significantly shorter range against slower moving targets and lacks the large warhead for dual use of SM-6? It's quite good, but you'd want like 'Aster-45' I would imagine...

 

[whatismoo]

In defence of the USMIC (please don't bully me), CAMM has already been integrated onto the ExLS, and that didn't take especially long, not was it incredibly costly.

But, you raise a good point and a real concern. If the glacial pace of integrating European weapons into the F-35 is anything to go by, this could be a major issue. However, if balanced by a purchase of American missiles, it might encourage more rapid work.

My impression was that the slow pace of Euro missile integration was more due to European end users not wanting to pay for the integration costs until relatively recently? I may be wrong.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Why doesn't Parliament control government expenditure, though? (Remember, I'm American, so I'm used to Congress holding the purse strings)

The relationship between the executive and the legislature is much closer than in the US system. In theory the budget can be rejected, but that hasn't happened since 1909, and that caused a constitutional crisis.

The UK's constitution is a complex matter, though, and this isn't really the place to discuss it!

Though IIRC the Trident II uses some flavor of vectored thrust on the 1st stage main engines directly to get pointed in the right direction.

The novelty with CAMM is that there are direct side-firing thrusters which mean that the missile pitches over before lighting the main engine. That means the engine plume doesn't impinge on the ship.

 

[Reuben James]

Aster 30 is significantly shorter range against slower moving targets and lacks the large warhead for dual use of SM-6? It's quite good, but you'd want like 'Aster-45' I would imagine...

Aster-30 and SM-6 offer similar defended areas against ballistics, given both a terminal phase interceptors. To cover a significantly wider area, defence in the midcourse is required (SM-3). Against ABTs, the SM-6 offers improved range, but only if it can be linked with forward placed assets for guidance.

As to the larger dual-purpose warhead, the RN doesn't use its MR-SAMs for ASuW. That's the role of the FC/ASW or NSM, not Aster-30. Therefore, a large warhead is not required.

 

[TorpedoJ]

Trident IIs are cold-launched, and they're something like 130,000lbs plus are coming up through some distance of water.

Though IIRC the Trident II uses some flavor of vectored thrust on the 1st stage main engines directly to get pointed in the right direction.

That's not the same, though, is it?
I meant whether the specific combination of gas piston and turnover jets would continue being useful into Aster- or SM-2-sized missiles.

 

[whatismoo]

Aster-30 and SM-6 offer similar defended areas against ballistics, given both a terminal phase interceptors. To cover a significantly wider area, defence in the midcourse is required (SM-3). Against ABTs, the SM-6 offers improved range, but only if it can be linked with forward placed assets for guidance.

As to the larger dual-purpose warhead, the RN doesn't use its MR-SAMs for ASuW. That's the role of the FC/ASW or NSM, not Aster-30. Therefore, a large warhead is not required.

For sure, and both A30 and RIM-174 are great missiles, it's just that they're optimized in different directions. Frankly, I think the RN would be pretty well off with ARH PAC-2 and PAC-3, but that'd also be a somewhat wild amount of diversity in the fleet.

 

[Ainen]

As to the larger dual-purpose warhead, the RN doesn't use its MR-SAMs for ASuW. That's the role of the FC/ASW or NSM, not Aster-30. Therefore, a large warhead is not required.

That's because they don't have anything suitable yet, though?
Type 83（together with similar recent Italian and Indian plans) seems to be precisely to be that delayed step upwards towards the high league.

 

[DWG]

Why doesn't Parliament control government expenditure, though? (Remember, I'm American, so I'm used to Congress holding the purse strings)

Because we prefer to have professionals handling the technical stuff*, not political appointees. The US system of politically appointed amateurs everywhere seems as absurd to us as ours seems to you. Parliament has Select Committees to hold ministers and senior civil servants' feet to the fire if problems arise, so there is oversight, but there's no one demanding orders go to the local defence contractor in his constituency in exchange for his vote in the way you seem to see in the US. It often seems like much of the way the US system works would be grounds for an investigation by the National Crime Agency over here.

* And finance at the nation-state level is definitely technical.

 

[DWG]

The 57mm gun also seems to be a bit misplaced, so far procurement plans call for 5 Type 31 but 8 Type 26, so surely it would make more sense from a procurement point of view to go with the 127mm gun?

The question isn't which is the cheaper buy, but what the requirement is. If you want something capable of shore bombardment, then clearly you need 127mm, but if you just need the odd bit of barge-busting while being focused on AAW/Point Defence, then 57mm may be the better bet.

Not only will it be shared with more platforms (ours and foreign)

Lots of 57mm Mk3s about.

 

[DWG]

WRT Mk41, is it a product, or a standard?

If it's a product, then there's an owner who needs to agree to any integration work, and be paid for it.

If it's a standard, then all you need to do integration is a Mk 41 and someone who knows how to read a standard document.

Oh, and a budget in both cases

 

[Reuben James]

That's because they don't have anything suitable yet, though?
Type 83（together with similar recent Italian and Indian plans) seems to be precisely to be that delayed step upwards towards the high league.

Not really, it's more that there are other missiles for that light-to-medium anti-ship role. There's no direct equivalent, because RN doctrine has evolved to focus moreso upon preserving the fairly small quantities of MR-SAMs specifically for AAW duties.

 

[Reuben James]

For sure, and both A30 and RIM-174 are great missiles, it's just that they're optimized in different directions. Frankly, I think the RN would be pretty well off with ARH PAC-2 and PAC-3, but that'd also be a somewhat wild amount of diversity in the fleet.

I think that the RN would be better off with equivalents of those missiles, if not those specific missiles. A four layer system would be my preference - an inner layer of CAMM or CAMM-ER, then a multi-packed, dense layer of CAMM-MR for terminal phase BMD and ABTs, then a switch to American SM-6, SM-3 and GPI in the final tier.

All the pieces for that are already there, save a development of CAMM-MR to give Aster or PAC-3 capability. That should be doable, however. Whilst it might seem preferable to have just SM-6 and no CAMM-MR, SM-6 is very expensive, and space-inefficient. A PAC-3 equivalent and SM-6 would complement each other nicely, and preserve a degree of British independence.

 

[Reuben James]

The question isn't which is the cheaper buy, but what the requirement is. If you want something capable of shore bombardment, then clearly you need 127mm, but if you just need the odd bit of barge-busting while being focused on AAW/Point Defence, then 57mm may be the better bet.


Lots of 57mm Mk3s about.

I would be confident in the 57mm being chosen. Alongside the Mk41 VLS, it's the only other specific system directly referenced by NL in their article, and it also appears on BAE's Future Air Warfare Command Ship.

I think there are also some guided rounds available for the 57mm, which may prove useful for the Type 83.

 

[DWG]

I would be confident in the 57mm being chosen. Alongside the Mk41 VLS, it's the only other specific system directly referenced by NL in their article,

Given Type 31 uses 57mm Mk 3, you don't need any kind of inside information to predict Type 83 will use it too.

And while there are guided rounds available (ORKA, Mk 332) I suspect 3P will cover most targets.

 

[Ainen]

Not really, it's more that there are other missiles for that light-to-medium anti-ship role. There's no direct equivalent, because RN doctrine has evolved to focus moreso upon preserving the fairly small quantities of MR-SAMs specifically for AAW duties.

It's the same all over the world - now, 1st tier navies can afford to use large stocks of heavy SAMs. They aren't light-to-medium (their ability to hit small surface targets is in fact under question mark), they're against larger and/or ground targets.
Problem isn't as much in SAM or even destroyer sensor suites (nothing overly special in the end), it's in information environment allowing proper, reliable and high-enough resolution synthetic battlespace picture under the horizon (which is darn expensive rich boy capability). No reason to carry lots of heavy (dual-purpose) SAMs if you won't get to use their range reliably anyway.
For surface strike, when it becomes a thing, it's better to use fewer dedicated weapons in this case.

This leads others either make their doctrines cheaper, intending to live off US grid (Far East so far), or intend to match it eventually by themselves (apparently, Europe, though scepticism is rampant). I wonder where UK is in this scheme.

So, for now, UK is building more or less Gorhskov (man, though frigate is also a match)-styled ships(type 26, 31). Original type 45 went for frigate-level AD capability, in higher numbers, more befitting a dedicated AD combatant. But that was the type 45.
But type 83 very specifically seems to mean that for a carrier navy this isn't seen as enough. High numbers of Mk.41s don't have too many justifications. I.e. heavy multipurpose load of SM-6, supported with some cells carrying SM-3(potentially). Alternative land strike loads for some missions.
Just very little point in installing it and to do otherwise. i.e. it's a sign of change, most certainly not a sign of keeping doing the same thing.

 

[whatismoo]

I think that the RN would be better off with equivalents of those missiles, if not those specific missiles. A four layer system would be my preference - an inner layer of CAMM or CAMM-ER, then a multi-packed, dense layer of CAMM-MR for terminal phase BMD and ABTs, then a switch to American SM-6, SM-3 and GPI in the final tier.

All the pieces for that are already there, save a development of CAMM-MR to give Aster or PAC-3 capability. That should be doable, however. Whilst it might seem preferable to have just SM-6 and no CAMM-MR, SM-6 is very expensive, and space-inefficient. A PAC-3 equivalent and SM-6 would complement each other nicely, and preserve a degree of British independence.

In a vacuum I would agree, but I don't think the UK has the time or budget to get that over the line before the Russians do something sporty. The flip side is that the UK was (IIRC, I can't remember the thread title here) looking quite closely at Patriot in the 80s/early 90s.

CAMM-Family (CAMM-FAM?) backed up by Standard would be good, but what would really make it ideal would be UK production lines for them, just to insulate against various issues.

 

[Reuben James]

Original type 45 went for frigate-level AD capability, in higher numbers, more befitting a dedicated AD combatant. But that was the type 45.
But type 83 very specifically seems to mean that for a carrier navy this isn't seen as enough. High numbers of Mk.41s don't have too many justifications. I.e. heavy multipurpose load of SM-6, supported with some cells carrying SM-3(potentially). Alternative land strike loads for some missions.
Just very little point in installing it and to do otherwise. i.e. it's a sign of change, most certainly not a sign of keeping doing the same thing.

I'm not sure what you mean 'original Type 45'. Do you mean the design for the Type 45 prior to disengagement from the Horizon programme, or the following British design as commissioned?

If you meant the second, I would dispute that they offer a 'frigate level air defence capability' given their well-regarded radar and sensor suite and complement of world-class MR-SAMs. They also have flag facilities for air warfare task group coordination, which certain variants of the AB destroyers actually lack.

The only aspect that might be seen as 'frigate level' is their capacity, which does lack in comparison to other modern designs.

I highly doubt that there will be 'heavy loads of SM-6', given that the SM-6 is both slow to be produced and very expensive. Even the USN does not field SM-6 in large numbers on a single vessel, with the rest of the missile complement being SM-2 predominantly. The RN, which is and is likely to remain comparatively poor when placed alongside the USN, is unlikely to be filling the greater part of 70-128 cells per ship with just SM-6.

I expect SM-6 to be present, but alongside a cheaper missile, most likely the CAMM-MR in my view.

 

[Reuben James]

In a vacuum I would agree, but I don't think the UK has the time or budget to get that over the line before the Russians do something sporty. The flip side is that the UK was (IIRC, I can't remember the thread title here) looking quite closely at Patriot in the 80s/early 90s.

CAMM-Family (CAMM-FAM?) backed up by Standard would be good, but what would really make it ideal would be UK production lines for them, just to insulate against various issues.

You make a valid point, and as always, the Treasury is the worst enemy of the navy. That said, it's not as though Patriot is a bad option - it's a very capable system, and one that might interest the British Army as well if considered for the RN.

I do hope that should Standard missiles be chosen for the Type 83, the UK government pushes for a British production line. After all, there are plenty of European customers who use the Standard series as well.

 

[TomS]

Given Type 31 uses 57mm Mk 3, you don't need any kind of inside information to predict Type 83 will use it too.

And while there are guided rounds available (ORKA, Mk 332) I suspect 3P will cover most targets.

Ironically, though, the RN seems to be committing to 57mm at the same moment that the USN is revisiting the use of 5-inch HVP-type rounds for AAW and even missile defense.

 

[DWG]

Ironically, though, the RN seems to be committing to 57mm at the same moment that the USN is revisiting the use of 5-inch HVP-type rounds for AAW and even missile defense.

OTOH a 127mm + magazine has a much higher volumatic impact on the ship than a 57mm + magazine and, given the focus on drones and drone swarms at the moment, the ability to have 10 57mm rounds for the weight of one 127mm is going to be a a powerful argument.

 

[Ron5]

Well, yes, but eventually it went nowhere. The moment Lockheed became responsible for fcs integration, camm in mk.41 was displaced by RAM.

Hard to tell if this pairing actually works, and whether situation may repeat itself.

Not sure how integrating another missile "displaces" the first.

Anyhoo, hasn't both Canada & Sweden bought Lockheed's ExLs for use with CAMM? Or has that changed?

 

[Reuben James]

Not sure how integrating another missile "displaces" the first.

Anyhoo, hasn't both Canada & Sweden bought Lockheed's ExLs for use with CAMM? Or has that changed?

Canada has switched CAMM for RAM. It's unknown if those RAM will be fired from ExLS or from the specific RAM launcher.

Sweden is using ExLS with CAMM on their Visby-class corvettes.

 

[DWG]

The flip side is that the UK was (IIRC, I can't remember the thread title here) looking quite closely at Patriot in the 80s/early 90s.

The requirement you're thinking of is probably MSAM, and there were a whole bunch of proposals, not just Patriot.

 

[Reuben James]

The requirement you're thinking of is probably MSAM, and there were a whole bunch of proposals, not just Patriot.

Was land-based Sea Dart also considered? I remember seeing some paintings and models of something similar.

 

[DWG]

Was land-based Sea Dart also considered? I remember seeing some paintings and models of something similar.

Land-based Sea Dart was earlier, first as a Bloodhound/Thunderbird replacement, and then, as Guardian IIRC, for the Falklands air defence requirement. It may still have been knocking around in the MSAM era, but BAe had spicier proposals such as Wolverine by then, so I don't know if it would have been their bid for MSAM.

 

[Reuben James]

Land-based Sea Dart was earlier, first as a Bloodhound/Thunderbird replacement, and then, as Guardian IIRC, for the Falklands air defence requirement. It may still have been knocking around in the MSAM era, but BAe had spicier proposals such as Wolverine by then, so I don't know if it would have been their bid for MSAM.

Ah, that makes sense.

Wolverine, that was the terminal phase ballistic missiles defence concept with the flechettes, right? I would've loved to see that come to fruition.

 

[whatismoo]

The requirement you're thinking of is probably MSAM, and there were a whole bunch of proposals, not just Patriot.

It was! IIRC Patriot was one of the front runners, paired with a hughes 10 or 11" diameter motor AMRAAM?

 

[DWG]

paired with a hughes 10 or 11" diameter motor AMRAAM?

AIUI, ASAM-1 was a separate proposal. See https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/aim-120-amraam-development-projects.127/

 

[DJK]

I think one has to consider that while people tend to say Type 26 is the successor to Type 23, it seems far more like it succeeds the Type 22.

And unfortunately for us, this means elements of the ship are likely to remain very 'black' for a long time. All I can suggest is take a look at those aerials and remember how capable Type 22 was for electronic signals interception.
If you're looking for where the genuine gold plating is coming from, look there.

Strictly bar the lack of ASW focus the Type 31 is much more a Type 23 successor.

As for the 5" gun......RN has been trying to get one since the 50's, and one that is compatible with USN USN ammunition.....
Because the stocks of 4.5" barrels will run out eventually as will existing stocks of 4.5" ammunition.

It certainly is no bad thing to have a flight deck that doesn't limit the kind of helicopter that can land on her.

But USN is now moving toward a fleet filled with 57mm guns, but seems to have too much inertia to delete the 5" from the fltIII burke. The 5" rate of fire I think is still very slow, and the main gun on a big ship now is mostly air defence.

 

[Forest Green]

Royal Navy details ambitions for FADS programme, Type 83 destroyer​

https://www.navalnews.com/event-new...bitions-for-fads-programme-type-83-destroyer/

 

[zen]

So

UK industry is already scoping candidate Type 83 platform solutions:

BAE Systems has shown a Global Air Warfare Command Ship concept that evolves from the Type 26 frigate and Global Combat Ship derivatives for Australia and Canada;

while Babcock is studying an enlarged Type 31 derivative known as Arrowhead 160.

Plus Type 91 'missile barge' still not much defined.

Intriguingly, Denmark is currently looking at the option to cut the Ivar Huitfeldt-class and replace with new build.
Could they be brought into FADS?

 

[bobthemonkey]

The Danish plan has them keep the IH hulls, with a reduced sensor fit, as long range patrol vessels.

While I doubt the budget or economies of scale allow, one could imagine a high/medium/low mix of
4x cruiser scale T83s at the high end 6x mid tier AH140 based AAW ‘patrol’ ships, with a focus on being kept on station for area defence, including an increased home waters presence and the low being an indeterminate number of missile barges.

 

[zen]

I have a suspicion the missile barge is a subject of major debate.

On the one extreme it literally would be just additional VLS. Minimal crew and basic systems with robust datalinks.

On the other end it's likely a fully automated AAW ship. Eating into the justifications for a crewed FADS.