Royal Navy Type 83 Destroyer (Type 45 replacement)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seen nothing about an Arrowhead 160 anywhere other than that article.
What international reference design could they use?
Batch 1 Sejong the Great?
 
DWG said:
OTOH they're emphasizing man-in-the-loop override of FTEWA, and you're not getting that on a fully automated vessel.
Click to expand...
Yes but there's a significant difference between a crew of 250 to a crew of 80 for example and exactly how many be needed on the high end of a Type 91 is not clear.
 
zen said:
Yes but there's a significant difference between a crew of 250 to a crew of 80 for example and exactly how many be needed on the high end of a Type 91 is not clear.
Click to expand...
At some point you're setting the standards around damage control and operating the ship, not just AAW needs. I mean, it really sounds more like they're moving to something closer to Aegis or Patriot's TEWA architecture / automation, which would (to me) imply that your benefit is reduced workload and better decision-making by watch standers, not hugely reduced crewing. But I also am not terribly familiar with how Sea Viper / T45 does it. Maybe it's quite a bit more manual and you can lose a handful of CIC crew.

Given the issues the Danes had with Iver Huitvelt crewing, though, I'm quite skeptical about these very lean crewing concepts the RN keeps talking about. It all seems like a lot of expense and risk that could end up baked into the design, vs trying to solve the staffing issues.
 
zen said:
So



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?
Click to expand...
Is Babcock's involvement pretty much a formality at this point. Given BAE are developing the radar systems for the Type 83, are Babcock likely to be picked?

Interesting that neither major British supplier are offering a fully new design.
 
Yellow Palace said:
The requirements haven't been fully defined, and the procurement hasn't been started. What Babcock and BAE Systems are trying to do right now is influence the requirement in a direction that suits them.
Click to expand...

More likely showing their capability to compete for the order..
 
Would also some Treasury/RN forethought in adapting what is sometimes called tick-tock development cycles; where you split a product into two chunks and alternate which half you iterate on every subsequent release. Intel used it when they were on top of their CPU game to great effect, and you see it in automotive, where a new car may have carry over engines from a previous generation until they are replaced at the mid life facelift.

Arguably this already happened with T26 carrying over the highly effective combat systems from the T23 MLU/Lifex. T83 would therefore be a new combat system on a largely proven hull and propulsion package. How much appetite is there across government for a “new everything” build like T45?
 
bobthemonkey said:
Would also some Treasury/RN forethought in adapting what is sometimes called tick-tock development cycles; where you split a product into two chunks and alternate which half you iterate on every subsequent release. Intel used it when they were on top of their CPU game to great effect, and you see it in automotive, where a new car may have carry over engines from a previous generation until they are replaced at the mid life facelift.

Arguably this already happened with T26 carrying over the highly effective combat systems from the T23 MLU/Lifex. T83 would therefore be a new combat system on a largely proven hull and propulsion package. How much appetite is there across government for a “new everything” build like T45?
Click to expand...
I think that sort of approach would be admirable in a AFV procurement (alternating new hulls and turrets) or even UCAVs (combat systems/airframes) and minehunters, but in a system where we alternate building AAW ships and ASW ships it would just cause problems for whatever comes second in the hull cycle in that the hull is always optimised for the first role.
By the time we build T83 the T26 hull and propulsion will indeed have been proven... in the ASW role.
 
Some material of the potential 'Type 91' arsenal ship to complement the Type 83 as part of the Future Air Dominance System (FADS). FADS itself is part of a system-of-systems-based approach to air and sea control that also includes Type 92 ASW USVs and Type 92 ASW UUVs.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-wants-a-missile-carrying-drone-warship-the-type-91/
Links within the article:

https://www.navalnews.com/event-new...bitions-for-fads-programme-type-83-destroyer/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-signals-progress-on-drone-sub-hunting-fleet-for-atlantic/
The Type 91 concept remains in a pre-concept phase, but would provide “resilience in depth” by offering additional missile capacity in support of more complex platforms like Type 83.

The vessel would be uncrewed and equipped with a deep magazine of missile launchers. It would not operate independently, but rather as part of a force-wide network linking sensors, effectors and decision-making systems across the fleet.

Recently, we reported that The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is pursuing “a deployable and persistent wide area ASW search capability” built around the new Type 92 Sloop – an uncrewed surface vessel – and the Type 93, a drone submarine, according to an industry notice. Imagery associated with the programme suggests the aim is to monitor the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) gap.

document1.jpg

(According the the graphic, the Dreadnought-class SSBNs and other vessels will be patrolling northern Canada [Edit: Greenland!], so it's not just polar bears that you'd have to worry about.)
 
Last edited:
Rhinocrates said:
According the the graphic, the Dreadnought-class SSBNs and other vessels will be patrolling northern Canada, so it's not just polar bears that you'd have to worry about.)
Click to expand...
Appears to currently be patrolling the middle of Greenland, according to the graphic.
 
Rhinocrates said:
Some material of the potential 'Type 91' arsenal ship to complement the Type 83 as part of the Future Air Dominance System (FADS). FADS itself is part of a system-of-systems-based approach to air and sea control that also includes Type 92 ASW USVs and Type 92 ASW UUVs.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-wants-a-missile-carrying-drone-warship-the-type-91/
Links within the article:

https://www.navalnews.com/event-new...bitions-for-fads-programme-type-83-destroyer/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-signals-progress-on-drone-sub-hunting-fleet-for-atlantic/
The Type 91 concept remains in a pre-concept phase, but would provide “resilience in depth” by offering additional missile capacity in support of more complex platforms like Type 83.

The vessel would be uncrewed and equipped with a deep magazine of missile launchers. It would not operate independently, but rather as part of a force-wide network linking sensors, effectors and decision-making systems across the fleet.

Recently, we reported that The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is pursuing “a deployable and persistent wide area ASW search capability” built around the new Type 92 Sloop – an uncrewed surface vessel – and the Type 93, a drone submarine, according to an industry notice. Imagery associated with the programme suggests the aim is to monitor the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) gap.

View attachment 773969

(According the the graphic, the Dreadnought-class SSBNs and other vessels will be patrolling northern Canada, so it's not just polar bears that you'd have to worry about.)
Click to expand...
As others pointed out, unless they were within rapid response distance of another vessel, they'd be sitting ducks for submarines and, in littoral scenarios, for fast attack craft and helicopter assaults. If these carry large loads of missiles, they'd be a soft and expensive target.

They'd need some force protection capability, but at that point, you're looking at minimally crewed vessels rather than drones. Unless we go full Ukraine and just let them fend for themselves.
 
One of the things that struct me about this, is that a 'missile barge' has the capacity to return to port and reload, without removing critical sensor and network systems from the area of operations.
Nor does that degrade magazines aboard those high value Frigates and Destroyers.
They would use up the barges magazines first.

Historically we have solid evidence of SSNs running out of T-LAM and powering back to appropriate ports for reloading. During I vaguely recall Iraq or similar.

And we have evidence from the Ukrainian War, that magazine depth can never be deep enough.
 
Rhinocrates said:
Some material of the potential 'Type 91' arsenal ship to complement the Type 83 as part of the Future Air Dominance System (FADS). FADS itself is part of a system-of-systems-based approach to air and sea control that also includes Type 92 ASW USVs and Type 92 ASW UUVs.

The Type 91 concept remains in a pre-concept phase, but would provide “resilience in depth” by offering additional missile capacity in support of more complex platforms like Type 83.

The vessel would be uncrewed and equipped with a deep magazine of missile launchers. It would not operate independently, but rather as part of a force-wide network linking sensors, effectors and decision-making systems across the fleet.

Recently, we reported that The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is pursuing “a deployable and persistent wide area ASW search capability” built around the new Type 92 Sloop – an uncrewed surface vessel – and the Type 93, a drone submarine, according to an industry notice. Imagery associated with the programme suggests the aim is to monitor the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) gap.

View attachment 773969

(According the the graphic, the Dreadnought-class SSBNs and other vessels will be patrolling northern Canada, so it's not just polar bears that you'd have to worry about.)
Click to expand...

So which Greenland or Icelandic bases are they going to be using to support this fleet of USV? Keflavik? Stykissholmur (of Red Storm Rising fame)?, Akuyreyi?...or all the way to Reykjavik? Is the Icelandic Government supportive? Otherwise its a long chug back to the UK from the sector north-west of Iceland....

Keflavik would look like the best place....particularly in time of war it might have some protection.
 
I've just noticed that at the start of the NN article, Commodore Michael Wood, Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the programme in Navy Command says that:

Elements of FADS are already being developed or de-risked. Examples include work to open up combat management systems under Project RECODE, investments in weapons effectors through Sea Viper Evolution and the Common Anti-air Modular Missile
Click to expand...

That sounds like, contrary to my previous beliefs, they intend to carry Aster-30 Block 1/1NT through into FADS, alongside CAMM. Unless he's refering to simply the CMS architecture related to those effectors, in which case I could be wrong.

That would require integrating Aster into Mk41 though. I'd also mention that given German and Dutch involvement in the Aquila programme, are we likely to see Aquila be Mk41 capable from launch? I'm not sure that the RN are thinking that far in the future, but it is interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen
Reuben James said:
I've just noticed that at the start of the NN article, Commodore Michael Wood, Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the programme in Navy Command says that:



That sounds like, contrary to my previous beliefs, they intend to carry Aster-30 Block 1/1NT through into FADS, alongside CAMM. Unless he's refering to simply the CMS architecture related to those effectors, in which case I could be wrong.

That would require integrating Aster into Mk41 though. I'd also mention that given German and Dutch involvement in the Aquila programme, are we likely to see Aquila be Mk41 capable from launch? I'm not sure that the RN are thinking that far in the future, but it is interesting.
Click to expand...
Scratch that, it's a little less clear on closer inspection. In the article (I'll link it below), it's written like this:
Speaking at the Navy Leaders CNE 2025 conference in Farnborough on 21 May, Commodore Michael Wood, Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the programme in Navy Command, characterised FADS as the navy’s highest priority future capability, and one of the most impactful of the next decade. “I have six projects within the programme,” he told delegates, “but in reality it is a portfolio of various programmes and projects which are moving across defence inside navy, in the air domain and in UK Strategic Command, all trying to deliver sequences of effects…in combination and concert.”

Elements of FADS are already being developed or de-risked. Examples include work to open up combat management systems under Project RECODE, investments in weapons effectors through Sea Viper Evolution and the Common Anti-air Modular Missile, and development of the next-generation StrikeNet communications and data architecture. “Those are moving on apace, and they’re also unlocking and de-risking the programme so that FADS will have a greater chance of success when it comes into service in the mid-2030s,” Commodore Wood said.
Click to expand...

So, the part about Sea Viper Evolution being carried through may not be the words of the officer himself, but rather an inference/assumption made by the article's author. So, back to square one.

I really wish they'd just ask them...These events are open to the public sometimes, maybe I'll have to go and do it myself.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-new...bitions-for-fads-programme-type-83-destroyer/
 
A bit of surprisingly recent history, showing how quickly things have changed. One article isn't worth a new thread, so here's as good a place as any. In the author's opinion, the reason why the UXV never went past a model was that it was a 'bespoke' drone carrier - neither a destroyer nor a carrier, or both - when instead, drones were added to the capacity of existing and planned platforms. For example, 'Project Ark Royal', which includes retrofitting the QE class carriers for additional drones.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-uxv-combatant-the-drone-carrier-that-came-too-soon/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/project-ark-royal-plans-for-angled-decks-and-drones/
 
Rhinocrates said:
A bit of surprisingly recent history, showing how quickly things have changed. One article isn't worth a new thread, so here's as good a place as any. In the author's opinion, the reason why the UXV never went past a model was that it was a 'bespoke' drone carrier - neither a destroyer nor a carrier, or both - when instead, drones were added to the capacity of existing and planned platforms. For example, 'Project Ark Royal', which includes retrofitting the QE class carriers for additional drones.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-uxv-combatant-the-drone-carrier-that-came-too-soon/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/project-ark-royal-plans-for-angled-decks-and-drones/
Click to expand...

When they were still talking about a Type 32 follow-on to the Type 31, there was some talk of it being a drone control ship. But the T32 has pretty much gone silent.
 
TomS said:
But the T32 has pretty much gone silent.
Click to expand...
Still technically in development, though I expect that the upcoming DWP will either cancel it entirely, combine it with the MRSS or replace it with a smaller number of extra Type 31s.
 
1000020630_edited (1).jpeg
I brightened the image of BAE's Air Warfare Command Ship from this NL article to get a better look at the details.

That radar system is interesting. There appears to be four large panels (assuming the arrangement is mirrored), with an extra platform at the top of the mast with eight smaller panels, and a further set of very small panels facing directly forward. I'm not very well-educated on the topic of radars, but in my mind, this looks to be a way of getting both the powerful large panels seen on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer or Type 055 and the smaller, high-mounted panels for extending the systems range against sea-skimming objects. The flat space on top could hold an upwards facing panel as well.

With the much smaller gun as compared to the Type 26 frigates (57mm instead of 127mm), would that allow for the forward missile banks found on the Type 26 to be extended forwards? I know the RAN has had some trouble fitting a 32-cell system in that space, so perhaps this would assist in doing that on the FAWCS?

Has the bridge been redesigned? The windows no longer seem to be offset.

There doesn't seem to be a mission bay as fitted to the Type 26 frigates - perhaps the space has been converted for additional VLS cells, as was proposed on the Hunter-class frigates.
 
Very newest BAE imagery on T83/ Future Air Warfare Command Ship, courtesy of a Telegraph article on T91:
1757351679052.png
It looks pretty much like the one above but in better light, and with a much simplified radar mast.
 
Different panels for different tasks.
The small ones each side of the high medium sized panels, likely be datalinks.
 
SailorBoy said:
Very newest BAE imagery on T83/ Future Air Warfare Command Ship, courtesy of a Telegraph article on T91:
View attachment 784025
It looks pretty much like the one above but in better light, and with a much simplified radar mast.
Click to expand...
That's definitely a bank of strike-length VLS forward of the bridge - I'm assuming either a block of either 32 or 48 Mk41. There's a second bank of around the same size amidships - given we know it's at least 72, I'd guess to 48-cell complexes for a total of 96, plus a pair of 40mm guns on the rear and a pair of DEW forward and aft.

Decent fit, nothing crazy. Radar looks impressive though.

Edit - Telegraph article says up to 128 cells, so it could be two sets of 64 fore and aft.
 
Last edited:
zen said:
Different panels for different tasks.
The small ones each side of the high medium sized panels, likely be datalinks.
Click to expand...
Yup, huge panels for volume air search and BMD, and then the small ones up top for horizon search and high res targeting.
It's strange how far the top ones are leaned back, that can't be good for range against sea skimmers. Maybe they want to lean more heavily on E/O sensors and AEW Proteus?
 
Reuben James said:
That's definitely a bank of strike-length VLS forward of the bridge - I'm assuming either a block of either 32 or 48 Mk41. There's a second bank of around the same size amidships - given we know it's at least 72, I'd guess to 48-cell complexes for a total of 96, plus a pair of 40mm guns on the rear and a pair of DEW forward and aft.

Decent fit, nothing crazy. Radar looks impressive though.
Click to expand...
If anything the midships one looks bigger, the front looks around 32. Maybe 32+48 for 80, maybe plus some CAMM?
 
SailorBoy said:
Very newest BAE imagery on T83/ Future Air Warfare Command Ship, courtesy of a Telegraph article on T91:
View attachment 784025
It looks pretty much like the one above but in better light, and with a much simplified radar mast.
Click to expand...
I presume that's Dragonfire superfiring over the 57mm, and on the hangar roof, huge arcs for both the forward mounts, though the aft Dragonfire is likely limited by the mast/aerial farm forward of it to only a bit over 180 deg. Plus 40mm Bofors Mk 4 on the aft hangar corners, sponsoned out so they'll have close to 270 degree arcs.
 
SailorBoy said:
Yup, huge panels for volume air search and BMD, and then the small ones up top for horizon search and high res targeting.
It's strange how far the top ones are leaned back, that can't be good for range against sea skimmers.
Click to expand...
That's similar to what we've seen with some of the latest CEAFAR installations. I suspect the high angle threat is growing.
 
DWG said:
I presume that's Dragonfire superfiring over the 57mm, and on the hangar roof, huge arcs for both the forward mounts, though the aft Dragonfire is likely limited by the mast/aerial farm forward of it to only a bit over 180 deg. Plus 40mm Bofors Mk 4 on the aft hangar corners, sponsoned out so they'll have close to 270 degree arcs.
Click to expand...
Interesting that they seem to trust the 57mm for missile defence duties, though I assume it's more than adequate for that role.
 
SailorBoy said:
If anything the midships one looks bigger, the front looks around 32. Maybe 32+48 for 80, maybe plus some CAMM?
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if they held onto the individual CAMM launchers, but it's possible. They don't seem to be present on the image though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom