Royal Navy Type 83 Destroyer (Type 45 replacement)

[Reuben James]

I'd like it to be bigger, but the FAWCS is the only option we've seen apart from the BAE cruiser which would have been approximately 12kt and 170m, I recall, so I chose that. Looking back now the family resemblance to FAWCS is clear, especially in the forwards VLS silo. One major change I can see is that the previous twin funnels have been combined into one, which saves some length.
View attachment 800375View attachment 800376
IMO we should keep some space clear in the design for a future large-diameter ballistic/hypersonic weapon to follow on from Nightfall. I'm desperately hoping a strategic conventional deterrence is part of the DIP but it's all in my head at the moment.

The current iterations looks to be a little wider as well, though that might be perspective.

 

[Phoenix_jz]

Seems to be the way the RN are going as well. Smaller platforms, therefore cheaper platforms (at least, that's the plan).

It is certainly one way of going about things, though I am curious to see how popular of a choice it will be among the major navies. The driving trends of acquiring more power and cooling capacity to operate increasingly more capable radar arrays, electronic attack systems, and DEW's (whether lasers or HPM) seem to be contributing heavily to increasing sizes. Smaller ships will be forced to accept more compromises to deliver similar capabilities and have less growth room, as well as less flexibility in electric power allocation. There are certainly arguments in both directions.


WRT these comments:

Aster-30 Block 1 is the current plan. That's for short-range BMs.

If we're discussing the mid-to-late '30s (and area air defence), I'm reasonably confident the loadout will have moved on.

At present, what the RN is actually on contract for execution is Sea Viper Evolution (SVE) Capability 1 - which is a modification of their MLU contract for their Aster 30(N) Block 0's, to be upgraded to Aster 30(N) Block 1 as part of their MLU refurbishments. This will provide a more robust terminal phase interception capability against short-range ballistic missiles (nominally expressed as those with a range of as much as 600 km, but in reality these figures are more expressions of expected velocities), integrated into the PAAMS(S) air warfare system.

They are also on contract for an assessment phase for Sea Viper Evolution Capability 2, which studies the integration of Aster 30 Block 1NT into PAAMS(S) and more substantial modifications to the SAMPSON MFR and PAAMS(S). This latter contract was a two-year contract that should have been completed late in 2025. According to OCCAR, they were working on "Follow-on development activities for integration of Aster 30 B1NT on Sea Viper," and intended in 2026 and beyond to pursue follow-on of development and qualification of Aster 30 B1NT for Sea Viper (i.e. PAAMS(S) ). It is not guaranteed that the RN opts to execute on SVE Cap 2, but it seems quite likely as it is really going to be necessary for the threat environment of the 2030s.

Aster 30 B1NT would provide a much more robust capability against SRBMs and expands interception capability into the lower end of MRBMs. It also has much better optimized flight performance and better batteries, so its effective range against air-breathing threats is actually notably expanded versus Aster 30 Block 0 & 1. That said, it does not seem to be expected to effectively covering the entire range of MRBM threats, and the effective defended area against hypersonic glide vehicles and cruise missiles will be substantially limited (as is the case of any missiles in its class).

Any capability beyond this - whether a glide phase interceptor, extended-range SAM, or exo-atmospheric interceptor - would require much more more substantial interventions on the ships, as they cannot be accommodated in Sylver A50 VLS, and the space reserved for strike length cells will now be taken up by 24x CAMM cells. That will likely have to wait until Type 83/FADS (which will likely just carry Mk.41 and seek to integrate Aster 30 B1NT into that system).

 

[Mallard]

I do think there’s some truth to smaller is cheaper. It’s a little counterintuitive given the push towards larger platforms (steel is cheap), but the logic is that the smaller platforms can share a greater deal of commonality, eg. a single platform with ASW, AAW and export variants, leveraging common systems, propulsion system etc. Plus you get the benefit of larger production runs.

To some extent you see that with the various T26 derivatives, though it’s not exactly small (but still far less than 10,000 tons). That’s also how you go from 4 Horizon DDGs to 24x FREMMs sharing the same propulsion system, same sonars etc. Plus with scalable modern flat panel radars and common software libraries it’s more valuable to have a larger number of platforms with a large degree of combat system commonality, since once you’ve paid the upfront R&D cost, the cost of each incremental system is quite low.

So for the RN the smart play would be a T26 AAW derivative with maximum commonality. And for the Marine Nationale it will probably involve a single platform to replace the Horizons and FREMMs from ~2040. In the meantime they can buy more FDIs to work as AAW sensor/shooter platforms collaborating with a Horizon DDG.

I would point out the existing Fremms especially between the French and Italian ones do not share alot in common, certainly not their propulsion systems for example, nor could they agree on a same radar setup.

Stuffing our next AAW ship into the T26 is a fools errand, apart from the highly expensive ASW elements which would drive up the cost of such a ship its also too small and too underpower as it stands to fill the AAW role needed in future.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If by modern you mean gigantic behemoth, yes.

Modern high-capability radars need large ships.

It's why the Constellation ended up as a 7000ton ship.

Well in that case, to you France will never field modern AAW ships ...
How would you classify a 48 VLS ship, escorted by 2 16 VLS USVs ?

Depends on the missile mix.

A ship with 48 cells in a Mk41 is a target, since it's got about 42 cells of SAMs and 6x ASROCs.

 

[Mallard]

Modern high-capability radars need large ships.

It's why the Constellation ended up as a 7000ton ship.




Depends on the missile mix.

A ship with 48 cells in a Mk41 is a target, since it's got about 42 cells of SAMs and 6x ASROCs.

Id hardly say the constellations had a large radar array, capable sure, but not large.

Why do you assume theyre carrying any asrocs, limited in stock and hardly an effective weapon these days.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Id hardly say the constellations had a large radar array, capable sure, but not large.

I think you're misunderstanding.

Even though SPY6v3 doesn't take up a large volume in the ship, getting those arrays up high enough to be effective requires a large ship.

The minimum install for a destroyer is likely SPY6v4 (24RMA antennas), and I expect that SPY6v1 (37RMA antennas) is going to be seen as the threshold capability (ie, bare minimum that the USN will accept).

I have no idea what the RN has for the comparable system to SPY6. I strongly doubt that they'd buy SPY6, simply as a matter of keeping the capabilities as something the UK can build. (And for the record I think this is a really good policy!)

Why do you assume theyre carrying any asrocs, limited in stock and hardly an effective weapon these days.

Because it's one of the very few ASW weapons the USN has at all, and takes up a full missile cell when you're working out loading plans. Also, it's relatively fast to get to the location of a submarine and gives very little warning that someone is about to drop a torpedo on your head. No rotor noise, no 68hz tonal from those bastard P-3s.

They're limited in stock because the USN likely only has about 6 per ship that they have ever bought and more or less only expends them in exercises when a new ship is commissioned.

Literally the only other option the USN has for ASW is an airdropped lightweight torpedo.

Also, I'm using ASROC as a shorthand for "ship-launched antisubmarine weapon", whether it's the US RUM-139 VL-ASROC, K745A1 K-ASROC, Type 07, Ikara, RPK-6/7, SMART, or anything else someone has cooking of similar type and capabilities.

The Japanese Type 07 or Indian SMART would be the preferred systems, with ~30km ranges. RUM-139 kinda sucks, range-wise.

 

[perfectgeneral]

You seem to be overlooking submarines.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You seem to be overlooking submarines.

Subs exist to be overlooked until ships start exploding.

 

[Phoenix_jz]

WRT VL-ASROC on USN ships;

I would bear in mind that the prioritization of what does or does not carry it is going to vary by platform, as certain ships within the USN have more of a need of it than others.

The Flight I and II Arleigh Burke's, in particular, do not have hangars and thus lack any means for engaging submarines other than firing lightweights from their Mk.32 SVTT's, or by employing VL-ASROC. This is less of a pressing concern for Flight IIA Burke's, the incoming Flight III's, and remaining Ticonderoga-class, all of which can hangar two MH-60R's.

 

[Scott Kenny]

WRT VL-ASROC on USN ships;

I would bear in mind that the prioritization of what does or does not carry it is going to vary by platform, as certain ships within the USN have more of a need of it than others.

The Flight I and II Arleigh Burke's, in particular, do not have hangars and thus lack any means for engaging submarines other than firing lightweights from their Mk.32 SVTT's, or by employing VL-ASROC. This is less of a pressing concern for Flight IIA Burke's, the incoming Flight III's, and remaining Ticonderoga-class, all of which can hangar two MH-60R's.

The 2018 missile loadout gives 6x VL-ASROCs to a Tico.

 

[Phoenix_jz]

The 2018 missile loadout gives 6x VL-ASROCs to a Tico.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referencing here?

 

[Titus K]

https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/008652-2026

A report detailing viability for Integration of Mk41 vertical launching system and Aster 30 Missile

Contract value​

• £1,666,666.67 excluding VAT
• £2,000,000 including VAT

Above the relevant threshold

Earliest date the contract will be signed​

12 February 2026

Contract dates (estimated)​

• 16 February 2026 to 12 March 2027
• 1 year, 25 days

Direct award justification​

Single supplier - technical reasons
The Ministry of Defence intends to award a contract to MBDA UK Limited for the commissioning of a report to test the compatibility of Aster missiles with the MK41 missiles launcher system. The contract will be for a duration of 1-year, with an estimated value of £2,000,000. It is considered that this contract can be awarded under section 41 of the Procurement Act 2023 because the direct award justification specified in Paragraph 6 (single supplier - technical reasons) of Schedule 5 applies. MBDA UK Limited is the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for the Aster missile and possesses the technical knowledge to assess the feasibility of integrating new launcher technology with existing systems. MBDA also has contractual rights to use the technical data of Lockheed Martin who is the OEM for the MK41 launcher system. The findings will inform strategic decisions on future capability development and operational flexibility to reduce the need for separate launcher solutions for different missile types. There are no reasonable alternatives.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referencing here?

There was an old internet post from ~2018 that revealed a full Tico weapons loadout.

2018 typical Ticonderoga class VLS load (128 cells):

12x SM6​

3x SM2ER​

56x SM2MR​

12x RIM-162 ESSM (3 cells)​

10x SM3​

32x Tomahawks​

6x VL-ASROCs​

​

(counts to 122 cells, remember that each VLS block has a crane that takes up 3 cells, total of 6 cells down for cranes)​

(8x Harpoons are in individual launchers on the fantail)​

 

[Mallard]

There was an old internet post from ~2018 that revealed a full Tico weapons loadout.

2018 typical Ticonderoga class VLS load (128 cells):

12x SM6​

3x SM2ER​

56x SM2MR​

12x RIM-162 ESSM (3 cells)​

10x SM3​

32x Tomahawks​

6x VL-ASROCs​

​

(counts to 122 cells, remember that each VLS block has a crane that takes up 3 cells, total of 6 cells down for cranes)​

(8x Harpoons are in individual launchers on the fantail)​

3 SM2ER seems like quite an odd one

 

[Mallard]

V

https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/008652-2026

Very intresting, especially the part about no alternatives, that much is obvious with the limitations of slyver

 

[Scott Kenny]

3 SM2ER seems like quite an odd one

Probably planning to fire those first to get rid of the stock of old SM2ERs.

 

[Mallard]

Probably planning to fire those first to get rid of the stock of old SM2ERs.

Expanding on that then, what does the US use now? SM2MR still? And then SM6 replacing 2ER?

 

[Phoenix_jz]

There was an old internet post from ~2018 that revealed a full Tico weapons loadout.

2018 typical Ticonderoga class VLS load (128 cells):

12x SM6​

3x SM2ER​

56x SM2MR​

12x RIM-162 ESSM (3 cells)​

10x SM3​

32x Tomahawks​

6x VL-ASROCs​

​

(counts to 122 cells, remember that each VLS block has a crane that takes up 3 cells, total of 6 cells down for cranes)​

(8x Harpoons are in individual launchers on the fantail)​

Oh, ok, you mean this site?

Bear in mind that this is the author's informed speculation, not pure statement of fact.

In reality, for the USN missile allocations can vary heavily depending on expected area of operation and mission set.

Expanding on that then, what does the US use now? SM2MR still? And then SM6 replacing 2ER?

My understanding is that SM-2ER Block IV has been effectively entirely used up or retired (they only ever procured 100, and only 75 were modified for ABM). It has been replaced by SM-6 in all its roles.

SM-2MR Block IIIA & B (with IIICU starting to come into service) remain the bulk of the USN's available SAMs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Expanding on that then, what does the US use now? SM2MR still? And then SM6 replacing 2ER?

Yes, though the newest version of SM2MR has the SM6 seeker on it.

 

[Mallard]

Oh, ok, you mean this site?

Bear in mind that this is the author's informed speculation, not pure statement of fact.

In reality, for the USN missile allocations can vary heavily depending on expected area of operation and mission set.



My understanding is that SM-2ER has been effectively entirely used up or retired (though only ever procured about 100, and only 75 were modified for ABM). It has been replaced by SM-6 in all its roles.

SM-2MR Block IIIA & B (with IIICU starting to come into service) remain the bulk of the USN's available SAMs.

Been playing sea power recently and have almost certainly used up all those ERs lol

 

[Scott Kenny]

Oh, ok, you mean this site?

Bear in mind that this is the author's informed speculation, not pure statement of fact.

No, I think it was off Reddit originally... But this blog post does agree with the numbers.

In reality, for the USN missile allocations can vary heavily depending on expected area of operation and mission set.

Agreed. But that gives a pretty decent idea for what was loaded.

 

[Reuben James]

https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/008652-2026

Really interesting, I'd expected it to be on its way, though I had thought we wouldn't see it till the T83s entered service.

I guess, between this and the Artisan-NG, British and Norwegian frigates could have a proficient BMD capability.

I guess this confirms what had been suggested by the FADS programme leader a few months back.

 

[Mallard]

Really interesting, I'd expected it to be on its way, though I had thought we wouldn't see it till the T83s entered service.

I guess, between this and the Artisan-NG, British and Norwegian frigates could have a proficient BMD capability.

I guess this confirms what had been suggested by the FADS programme leader a few months back.

I still think it’s unlikely to see it on T26, for one the class will be carrying most of our strike missiles and maybe even some kind of ASW missile so not much space for it

 

[Reuben James]

I still think it’s unlikely to see it on T26, for one the class will be carrying most of our strike missiles and maybe even some kind of ASW missile so not much space for it

Hmm, I'm unsure. I get what you're saying, but then again, how many ASW missiles would be carried in general? As others mentioned above, the USN doesn't load up their ships with large amounts of VL-ASROC. I think 4-6 on a Type 26 isn't unreasonable, given the focus will always be on using the helicopter or drone to deliver a torpedo at significantly longer ranges.

From that point, you could have an equal split of cruise missiles to interceptors, or you could weight your selection either way depending on the scenario. If the frigate deploys with the CSG, then you can afford to cut down on interceptors given you know there'll be a dedicated AAW platform there. If the frigates is deploying alone in the North Atlantic, you could sacrifice some cruise missiles for better ASW coverage and air defence.

If the GP frigates get the Mk41 as well, they can take on the role of a cruise missile shooter in the Middle East, for example.

 

[Mallard]

Hmm, I'm unsure. I get what you're saying, but then again, how many ASW missiles would be carried in general? As others mentioned above, the USN doesn't load up their ships with large amounts of VL-ASROC. I think 4-6 on a Type 26 isn't unreasonable, given the focus will always be on using the helicopter or drone to deliver a torpedo at significantly longer ranges.

From that point, you could have an equal split of cruise missiles to interceptors, or you could weight your selection either way depending on the scenario. If the frigate deploys with the CSG, then you can afford to cut down on interceptors given you know there'll be a dedicated AAW platform there. If the frigates is deploying alone in the North Atlantic, you could sacrifice some cruise missiles for better ASW coverage and air defence.

If the GP frigates get the Mk41 as well, they can take on the role of a cruise missile shooter in the Middle East, for example.

Will have to see when Artisan NG comes in, before the last T26 is in service?

 

[Reuben James]

Will have to see when Artisan NG comes in, before the last T26 is in service?

Somehow I doubt it'll see service with the RN that quickly. The Norwegians might take precedence, given they don't have a dedicated AAW combatant.

If we consider the current plan for the Type 31 and their Mk41, the RN seems to prefer delivery over capability, using insertion periods after delivery for upgrading the ships. I think they'd do something similar with the newer radar.

I'm also really unsure as to how long it'll take them to integrate Aster. I don't think there's something comparable outside of the Japanese ASW missile.

 

[Reuben James]

Another point I want to make is that this is a small vote of confidence both in the performance of Aster and in the Type 83 and FADS as a whole.

 

[Mallard]

Somehow I doubt it'll see service with the RN that quickly. The Norwegians might take precedence, given they don't have a dedicated AAW combatant.

If we consider the current plan for the Type 31 and their Mk41, the RN seems to prefer delivery over capability, using insertion periods after delivery for upgrading the ships. I think they'd do something similar with the newer radar.

I'm also really unsure as to how long it'll take them to integrate Aster. I don't think there's something comparable outside of the Japanese ASW missile.

Indeed, or yet to see if there’s any push back from USA companies

 

[zen]

Another point I want to make is that this is a small vote of confidence both in the performance of Aster and in the Type 83 and FADS as a whole.

Implications for RNs views on Sylver Silo System.

 

[Reuben James]

Implications for RNs views on Sylver Silo System.

Yeah, this bit in particular is relevant:

The findings will inform strategic decisions on future capability development and operational flexibility to reduce the need for separate launcher solutions for different missile types. There are no reasonable alternatives.

That last sentence seems to be fairly damning of the failings of Sylver.

 

[Mallard]

Yeah, this bit in particular is relevant:


That last sentence seems to be fairly damning of the failings of Sylver.

It’s interesting seeings as Slyver NG is supposedly in the works, but clearly not anytime soon

 

[Titus K]

Another point I want to make is that this is a small vote of confidence both in the performance of Aster and in the Type 83 and FADS as a whole.

Also good news for the FuAD program. We know the dutch are interrested in Aster and they already participate in the MBDA lead Hydis2 ...
Also the UK recently became an observer state for Hydis2
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/occar_paris-uk-observer-activity-7387437603672932352-S4DJ

 

[TomS]

Yeah, this bit in particular is relevant:


That last sentence seems to be fairly damning of the failings of Sylver.

No, that's not what it means. That sentence is part of the sole-source justification (as opposed to running a competition). It just means that no company other than MBDA is able to reasonably do the work outlined in the solicitation.

 

[Mallard]

No, that's not what it means. That sentence is part of the sole-source justification (as opposed to running a competition). It just means that no company other than MBDA is able to reasonably do the work outlined in the solicitation.

Fair, but Slyver is still hardly selling itself for the future.

 

[Reuben James]

No, that's not what it means. That sentence is part of the sole-source justification (as opposed to running a competition). It just means that no company other than MBDA is able to reasonably do the work outlined in the solicitation.

Ah, I misread it. Apologies.

 

[TorpedoJ]

No, that's not what it means. That sentence is part of the sole-source justification (as opposed to running a competition). It just means that no company other than MBDA is able to reasonably do the work outlined in the solicitation.

I'm not sure, because a decision to conduct open bidding to supply interceptors and VLS for T83 would constitute a 'reasonable alternative' in that regard. They are justifying not having a competitive contract award by saying they would never do anything different anyway.
That said, this is just the compatibility test so best not to read too much in.

 

[TomS]

They are justifying not having a competitive contract award by saying they would never do anything different anyway.

You're reading this like a statement of policy, but it's just a contract for a very specific study. They are just saying "no one but MBDA can do a feasibility study of putting ASTER in Mk 41 cells, because only they have access to the necessary technical information from their own company and Lockheed Martin." There's no implication here about what alternatives might exist, whether they actually want to put ASTER in Mk 41 or anything else.

 

[zen]

All sorts of things might be moving under the surface here.

It's been assumed Aster is compatible and yonks ago claims were made by the company.

But if it's not, in detailed analysis.....

Then that would justify ditching Aster, which might be a goal here......or driving a commitment to either double down on Sylver (which means mk41 is ditched), seek an alternative such as K-VLS....or do something ourselves.

Which all circles back to not funding Sea Dart mkII with VLS back in the 70's.

There is probably some examination of the real prospects of Aster Blk2 and Aquila.

And maybe a theoretical CAMM-LR.

 

[Mallard]

All sorts of things might be moving under the surface here.

It's been assumed Aster is compatible and yonks ago claims were made by the company.

But if it's not, in detailed analysis.....

Then that would justify ditching Aster, which might be a goal here......or driving a commitment to either double down on Sylver (which means mk41 is ditched), seek an alternative such as K-VLS....or do something ourselves.

Which all circles back to not funding Sea Dart mkII with VLS back in the 70's.

There is probably some examination of the real prospects of Aster Blk2 and Aquila.

And maybe a theoretical CAMM-LR.

Camm MR is already practically a different missile, at that point call it something else. Also making a new missile would still involve intergrating it into MK41

 

[DWG]

I still think it’s unlikely to see it on T26, for one the class will be carrying most of our strike missiles and maybe even some kind of ASW missile so not much space for it

But how many strike missiles will we want? Remember our total procurement of Tomahawk to date, for use by Astute, is probably just over 200, with somewhere around half probably used. IIRC we've only ordered 24+39 upgrades to Block V to date.

There was a request for information for VL ASW weapons a couple of years back, but that may be for the unmanned ASW sloops.