• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
961
A GP Type number is suggestive of a more multirole concept, as opposed to AAW Type number designating a AAW focus.

So what besides AAW systems, what beyond the generic (helicopter facilities, a gun, CIWS, etc) do they intend?
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
1,804
As I said when they invented the Type 3xx series, I don't think that we can really read too much into a designation system that is 50 years old and imperfectly used during the last few decades.

Type 45 is heavily optimised for air defence apart from a few Harpoons and an ASW Merlin helicopter. Its likely the RN would want a more multi-role platform, but with Type 26 providing ASW capability and Type 32 offering some kind of littoral strike capability I'm not sure that would really leave Type 83 with much general purpose use, but I suppose it would be seen as an all-rounder. Type 45 had abortive land-attack variant studies and its likely that this time the Type 83 will be capable of cruise-missile strike in addition to its AAW role from the start.

I'd maybe like to see the UK pairing up with Italy's new DDG effort. The late 2030s is not that far away, so its not likely we will see a massive change in the AAW fit unless someone is going to stump up for a new SAM. Do they go Aster again or an Aster/CAMM mix or even do the unthinkable and buy US?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
I'd maybe like to see the UK pairing up with Italy's new DDG effort. The late 2030s is not that far away, so its not likely we will see a massive change in the AAW fit unless someone is going to stump up for a new SAM. Do they go Aster again or an Aster/CAMM mix or even do the unthinkable and buy US?

I'm imaging a nightmare case where they keep ASTER in Sylver VLS for AAW, but also try to add SM-3 in Mk41 launchers for BMD, and somehow expect the same combat system to handle both. :eek:
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
961
Well CAMM/FLAADS uses an open architecture development of PAAMS. So arguably a beefier version of CAMM that able to do the Aster missions is entirely possible and essentially down to things like the rocket, warhead, fusilage being scaled up.
Nothing strictly inhibits this architecture from scaling up into long range SAM and ABM capability.

Similarly Sampson could be replaced with modernised AESA components.

None of which is actually bleeding edge and unaffordable .
 

Thorvic

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
639
Reaction score
108
Probably adapted from the Type 26 design and will follow that in production with new Radar and full VLS capabilities for AAW/Anti-Ship/Anti-Sub and most likely and Attack cruise missiles, Expect equipment bays to deploy unmanned options be they Air, Surface or submarine. Think they will play off the success of the Type 26 design with a evolution of it for the late 2030s.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
Nothing strictly inhibits this architecture from scaling up into long range SAM and ABM capability.

True, but it's clear the willingness to fund this isn't there. ASTER TBMD capability has been discussed for over a decade, and the current architecture can clearly support it, but none of the partners want to foot the bill.
 

Nick Sumner

Live! From the Belly of the Beast!
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
556
Reaction score
187
'Type 83 destroyer'

Dare I ask what happened to types 46 to 82? That's potentially 37 design iterations!
 

Thorvic

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
639
Reaction score
108
Errr you could look up the Type designations?
From my dodgy memory....
Type 40 series are AAW
Type 20 series ASW
Type 60 series Air Direction
Type 80 series GP
ASW is actually 10-30
Not quite sure where the Type 31 & Type 32 come in as could indicate a new 30 series but no idea what ?
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
From Wiki:
Types 11-40, Anti-Submarine Frigates
Types 41-60, Anti-Aircraft Frigates/Destroyers
Types 61-80, Aircraft Direction Frigates
Types 81-99, General Purpose Frigates/Destroyers/Sloops
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
961
My instinct over this Type 31 business is a classic misprint for a modern day Type 81.

Being more charitable I'd say they felt a new Type 3x series to denote a different sort of GP Frigate from the 8X series.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,800
It is interesting to see how all major European Navies have ended up (Fr, Ge, It, Nl, Sp) with about 4 air defence ships and 8 or so frigates or similar.
On that basis I would expect the RN to go down a similar path with 4 AD ships replacing 6T45 and 8 Type26/31 replacing 13 T23.
Only China and the US have serious naval muscle with Japan, South Korea and India being rather stronger than the European nations.
France and UK of course have SSBN/SSNs which unlike the aircraft carriers can do some serious damage.
Russia will continue to try and maintain its fleet but unless its economy picks up, it will have a hard time.
Unlike the era of the Cold War navies face an uncertain future.
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61
With the mess that the Defence Review has turned out to be, I'm not sure if even they know themselves!

On the contrary, the Royal Navy plan and future is rather clearly set out. You would have to be rather obtuse not to understand it.
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61
As I said when they invented the Type 3xx series, I don't think that we can really read too much into a designation system that is 50 years old and imperfectly used during the last few decades.

Type 45 is heavily optimised for air defence apart from a few Harpoons and an ASW Merlin helicopter. Its likely the RN would want a more multi-role platform, but with Type 26 providing ASW capability and Type 32 offering some kind of littoral strike capability I'm not sure that would really leave Type 83 with much general purpose use, but I suppose it would be seen as an all-rounder. Type 45 had abortive land-attack variant studies and its likely that this time the Type 83 will be capable of cruise-missile strike in addition to its AAW role from the start.

I'd maybe like to see the UK pairing up with Italy's new DDG effort. The late 2030s is not that far away, so its not likely we will see a massive change in the AAW fit unless someone is going to stump up for a new SAM. Do they go Aster again or an Aster/CAMM mix or even do the unthinkable and buy US?

IMHO Type 8x denotes a multi purpose destroyer like the Type 82 capable of independent deployment. To me, the MoD saying that the class will replace the T45 indicates a first rate AA capability. In addition, a respectable ASW ability can be assumed. Saying the T26 has this covered seems a tad simplistic. Only 8 of them and what if one's not around?

By the way, Merlins do not deploy on T45's and the T32's capabilities have not yet been established.

As for AA in 20 years time, the big unresolved question is whether lasers will take over from missiles or not. Implications for the naval architects will be dramatic.

And why pair with the Italians, they haven't produced a ship on par with T45 yet, so what's to be gained for the UK?
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61
I'd maybe like to see the UK pairing up with Italy's new DDG effort. The late 2030s is not that far away, so its not likely we will see a massive change in the AAW fit unless someone is going to stump up for a new SAM. Do they go Aster again or an Aster/CAMM mix or even do the unthinkable and buy US?

I'm imaging a nightmare case where they keep ASTER in Sylver VLS for AAW, but also try to add SM-3 in Mk41 launchers for BMD, and somehow expect the same combat system to handle both. :eek:

Why would this be so difficult? Mixing and matching VLS manufacturers in a single design is hardly new.
 
Last edited:

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61
Probably adapted from the Type 26 design and will follow that in production with new Radar and full VLS capabilities for AAW/Anti-Ship/Anti-Sub and most likely and Attack cruise missiles, Expect equipment bays to deploy unmanned options be they Air, Surface or submarine. Think they will play off the success of the Type 26 design with a evolution of it for the late 2030s.

The T83 is very likely to need to be larger than the T26 which rules out that design as base. The most likely T83 will be a brand new design but using some T26 systems.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747

I'm imaging a nightmare case where they keep ASTER in Sylver VLS for AAW, but also try to add SM-3 in Mk41 launchers for BMD, and somehow expect the same combat system to handle both. :eek:

Why would this be so difficult? Mixing and matching VLS manufacturers in a single design is hardly new.

I'm trying to think of a Western ship with mixed VLS and literally the only examples I can think of haven't been built yet (Type 26 in several versions). I'm not counting the Korean ships with Mk 41 and K-VLS because K-VLS was made to be literally an enlarged version of Mk 41.

But my real comment was about the challenge of having the same combat system direct both ASTER and SM-3. The two families of missiles were designed from different operating principles, and getting one CDS to talk to both simultaneously could be an interesting integration challenge.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
961

The T83 is very likely to need to be larger than the T26 which rules out that design as base. The most likely T83 will be a brand new design but using some T26 sysystems.
Why do you believe this?
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,800
The Type 83 designation invites comparison with the ill-fated Type 82 programme.
This started life as an AD frigate similar to the Type 12.
As the size and cost of CF299/Seadart became apparent the ship grew to a County class successor of 8 then 4 vessels with AD/ASW capability.
Eventually a single role AD design similar but larger than the original AD frigate entered service as the T42. A similar size ASW ship became the T22.
The Type 26 GP frigate seems a reasonable starting point for a class of AD ships.
How many will be affordable depends on whether the AD system chosen is more like Seadart or Standard.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
961
It certainly would cut costs to mount AAW onto a Type 26 hull and propulsion setup. Frankly the Australian Hunter class will have an impressive radar fit. It's potentially possible to achieve the merger of ASW and AAW on such a ship.

While in theory a dedicated AAW could be achieved on the Type 31 as that's It's Danish roots anyway.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
1,804
There are several possibilities:

1) a Type 26 variant - should be easy to do given experience with the Hunter-class but 1x32 Mk 41 or a 1x12 CAAM and 1x24 Mk 41 doesn't feel like enough (even with quad-packed Sea Ceptor) for a proper AAW destroyer. Type 26 has been designed around Mk 41 and Sylver might not fit. Also it probably has more passive ASW features than desired, though given one Admiral quoted by the press claimed the T45 could be heard 100 miles away by submarines this might be weclome. To be pedantic, T26 is a frigate and is never likely to be a true destroyer-scale vessel (however you define such things)

2) a Type 32 variant - we don't know what Type 32 is and from the sketchy mention in the Command Paper and industrial strategy papers it sounds like the design and assessment phase hasn't been completed so it could be a Type 31 variant or something else entirely. But if it has a credible land-attack capability that suggests something with at least 1x Mk 41 VLS. Thinking about it a T26 variant might better fit the T32 role.

3) co-operation with someone else to share any development costs for bespoke radar systems, if desired. Type 31 is not a wholly home-grown design, so there is precedence for the MoD to seek an existing platform to tinker with.

4) a new fresh sheet design. BAE will be looking for design work once T26 out of the way and they can precisely tailor what they want. T45 and T26 were important designs to get right and its no coincidence that they decided to go for a new design. The same is very likely for T83, especially if they are factoring in lasers and other high-tech weapons. The industrial strategy seems to maybe hint at electromagnetic weapons for the future too. Whether the late 2030s will be too soon for these technologies is early to say but doubtless they will factor into the design.

And why pair with the Italians, they haven't produced a ship on par with T45 yet, so what's to be gained for the UK?
The Horizon-class? Practically the same as Type 45 apart from EMPAR rather than Sampson radar and a formidable gun-armament of 3x Super Rapids as a heavy CIWS. Plus they have torpedoes. You could argue the traditional CODOG machinery prevented the Italians suffering embarrassing headlines like we did about the WR-21 engines preventing deployment right where they were needed. Plus they are noisy (not enough attention on acoustic reduction to save money) and what growth capability was designed in has never been, nor ever well be, used. The T45 is a great AAW platform but its not perfect.

By the way, Merlins do not deploy on T45's and the T32's capabilities have not yet been established.
That is true. Although designed to handle Merlin there simply aren't enough of them. Lynx HMA.8 at least had some ASW capability. Wildcat has none and is effectively the surface-strike/anti-ship defence of the CSG.
By the late 2030s T83 will be using the Merlin successor anyway.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
961
Let's be honest here and recognise that Type 26 has potential space and margins for a lot more Ceptor cells or mk41 silos.
All that multirole space could be taken for AAW systems
 

Thorvic

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
639
Reaction score
108
That is true. Although designed to handle Merlin there simply aren't enough of them. Lynx HMA.8 at least had some ASW capability. Wildcat has none and is effectively the surface-strike/anti-ship defence of the CSG.
By the late 2030s T83 will be using the Merlin successor anyway.

Actually the Wildcat has been seen test flying with Depth Charges recently so that may not be correct about no ASW capability
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
1,804
Actually the Wildcat has been seen test flying with Depth Charges recently so that may not be correct about no ASW capability
I think Stingray has been carried too, at least for aerodynamic clearance trials. Those old Mk.11 depth charges must be getting long in the tooth though.
Leonardo has been hoping that the MOD will upgrade the type with Thales Flash dipping sonar and associated autopilot (without these its heavily reliant on data from the ship). The initial emphasis seems to have been on the surface-strike capability (which in truth was always the Lynx's forte too), which is fair given the importance of the role.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
Let's be honest here and recognise that Type 26 has potential space and margins for a lot more Ceptor cells or mk41 silos.
All that multirole space could be taken for AAW systems

You don't even have to go that far. There is enough deck area to put a second row of three Mk 41 modules forward of the current set in the Type 26 for a total of 48 cells in lieu of one set of SeaCeptor. (The Canadian ships add one more module, but there is clearly enough room for a full row. With some additional work, it seems probable that 48 Sylver would fit there instead.

So then you do have the issue of radar fit, which possibly could eat up some of the mission deck space, but surely not all of it.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
961
Let's be honest here and recognise that Type 26 has potential space and margins for a lot more Ceptor cells or mk41 silos.
All that multirole space could be taken for AAW systems

You don't even have to go that far. There is enough deck area to put a second row of three Mk 41 modules forward of the current set in the Type 26 for a total of 48 cells in lieu of one set of SeaCeptor. (The Canadian ships add one more module, but there is clearly enough room for a full row. With some additional work, it seems probable that 48 Sylver would fit there instead.

So then you do have the issue of radar fit, which possibly could eat up some of the mission deck space, but surely not all of it.
Well Ceptor cells are simpler, and lighter than a mk41 silo array. So arguably it makes more sense to expand them instead.
One of the reasons I think a CAMM-ER or even CAMM-LR (long range) make more sense then Standards or Asters.

If I had my way we'd be rolling Ceptor out in bulk and fitting it everything that moves.

Though if we're not investing in such developments of CAMM, then it's Sylver silos for Aster missiles for AAW.

Maybe if lasers prove themselves this will all change.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
1,804
We've had a few discussions of CAAM-ER vs Aster family before. Comparing specs seems to indicate similar performance but as ever the raw specs don't tell everything and against high-altitude targets the Aster might just pip it.
I hope that T32 gets one of the proposed strike Ceptor concepts, I think a complete Sea Ceptor family for AAW and strike would be very useful.

I agree that a T26 with two rows of Mk 41 forward and 24-cell CAAMS aft would be a pretty good AAW platform allied with AESA radar. Topweight will ultimately decide how much of the mission bay could be turned over to radar or additional VLS. Plus the need for additional electrical supply, especially if lasers do feature, might mean that the single MT-30 and four MTU Type 20V diesel generators just aren't optimal.
I just have a gut feeling that the RN and BAE are going to favour a fresh design, keeps the design team in work and can be better optimised for the role, although its hard to imagine T83 having more than 48 VLS silos given current Western practice. Also, let's not forger that the basic T26 design will already be 20 years old by the time the first T83s lay down.
 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
610
Reaction score
665
From the reports I've read, the Type 83 is supposed to be a mix between the Type 45 and Type 26, in terms of design at least, however, that will probably change as the years go by. Is this true, or is it just an assumption?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
From the reports I've read, the Type 83 is supposed to be a mix between the Type 45 and Type 26, in terms of design at least, however, that will probably change as the years go by. Is this true, or is it just an assumption?

Assumption, I'm pretty sure. Probably far too soon to know configuration for sure. They way things currently stand, probably too soon to even know requirements or missions in any detail.
 

Phoenix_jz

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
10
Reaction score
18
In regards to potential cooperation with Italy's DDX program;

Unfortunately the timing simply does not work out, as the two navies are looking to put such ships in service almost a full decade apart. The Marina Militare hopes to have the first DDX delivered in 2028 and the next will probably follow in 2029 or 2030. The Royal Navy wants the Type 83's delivered in time (late 2030s) to replace the Type 45's, which are supposed to be retired from service from 2035 to 2038. While I imagine the DDX is probably indicative of what the Type 83's displacement will end up being, or thereabouts, they're two programs that are simply running on very different schedules. Likewise, they will also find themselves considerably at odds in terms of weapon and sensor fits, with at most commonality in regards to VLS.

If anything, I'd expect more opportunity for cooperation with whatever comes after the DDX. The Horizon/Orizzonte-class will be hitting 21-23 years in service by 2030, and though they'll have gone through their MLU, the question of what to replace them with will be on the horizon - assuming a 30-year life they'll want to have that done in the 2037-39 timeframe, which should overlap with the Type 83.

That said, I also don't see why there would be much of a pressing need to cooperate. The British will have already started design work on the Type 83's by the late 2020s and the Italians will have the DDX to base their work upon. The only situation I can see cooperation on is if there was a joint effort on the development of sensors and networking for the future ships (perhaps as a result of the Tempest program?). Both nations have or will have robust enough shipbuilding to be able to take the cost burdens of 'going it alone' on a future ship design, have their own radar development, combat systems, and weapon systems (overlap in some areas). The same pressures that lead to the cooperative programs like CNGF and Horizon aren't really present anymore.
 

Rhinocrates

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
380
Reaction score
432
Slightly left field, but saves having to start a new thread.

We don't know what the requirements for the Type 4X/83 are yet, but it's likely to take over the 45's air defence role.

Now this popped up:


Since I have a very pressing deadline for an assignment that is completely unrelated to this, suddenly it became very interesting to me and provoked some speculation.

Now, 'Vixen' UAV mentioned as a replacement for Crowsnest-equipped Merlins would suggest that the carriers keep the AEW role. However, catapults are mentioned as a probably requirement. Now the Queen Elizabeth class were designed 'for not with' catapults, but modification would mean significant time and money spend on modifications and it may be considered cheaper to instead make it a feature of a new class already on the way, such as the 83.

There's also often floated (sorry about the pun) the need for a dedicated littoral strike vessel, a hospital ship etc etc. I'm not saying that all are going to become actually programmes, but it does indicate that needs are still in flux and there will be competing pressures on the basic concept of the Type 83 that will ensure that it is not simply a linear follow-on to the Type 45.

One possibility is that the Type 83 functions in concert deploying small and medium-sized UAVs with the carriers, which have exclusively manned aircraft or larger UAVs. Its job expands from air defence to AEW and wide situational awareness and control. With a Vixen on patrol, there's less need for that high mast on the current 45s (which has worried some who doubted that the Type 26 hull could provide a stable base for it, as that was mooted for the 4X).

So, a versatile UAV-equiped destroyer-sized vessel, likely made by BAE... perhaps they'll dust of the files for this and use it as a starting point?



That was aimed at littoral warfare, but what it can do depends on what drones it has and only two would need to be carrier escorts, so it might come in land and air focussed versions. The UXV Combatant seems designed to do everything (HMS Galactica?), so these in fact would be simpler.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0575.jpg
    DSCN0575.jpg
    164.4 KB · Views: 24
  • 50edaf78-b08d-4c07-b3b6-2beaf6eb2213.Large.jpg
    50edaf78-b08d-4c07-b3b6-2beaf6eb2213.Large.jpg
    127.1 KB · Views: 23
  • OversizeJPGLarge_latestReleased_bae_cimg_uxv_combatatnt_conc_OversizeJPGLarge.jpg
    OversizeJPGLarge_latestReleased_bae_cimg_uxv_combatatnt_conc_OversizeJPGLarge.jpg
    120.8 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
In the last week or so, there was a RFI related to adding a catapult to a ship in the near term (<5 years). The requested specs would not be enough to operate F-35C, so the logical assumption is that it is to support an AEW UAS. And based on timing, the platform is probably the QE2s.

 
Last edited:

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61

The T83 is very likely to need to be larger than the T26 which rules out that design as base. The most likely T83 will be a brand new design but using some T26 sysystems.
Why do you believe this?

Due to the need for more electrical generation capability for both sensors and DEW. Make sense?
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61
It certainly would cut costs to mount AAW onto a Type 26 hull and propulsion setup. Frankly the Australian Hunter class will have an impressive radar fit. It's potentially possible to achieve the merger of ASW and AAW on such a ship.

While in theory a dedicated AAW could be achieved on the Type 31 as that's It's Danish roots anyway.

Which costs do you believe would be saved by retaining the T26 hull? Especially considering that hull design is very compromised and incapable of being stretched?

Systems, like propulsion, I agree should be reused unless there's been a significant improvement over time. Certainly technology insertion. Hull forms? No - no significant savings, insures making different contents harder to fit.
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61
There are several possibilities:

1) a Type 26 variant - should be easy to do given experience with the Hunter-class but 1x32 Mk 41 or a 1x12 CAAM and 1x24 Mk 41 doesn't feel like enough (even with quad-packed Sea Ceptor) for a proper AAW destroyer. Type 26 has been designed around Mk 41 and Sylver might not fit. Also it probably has more passive ASW features than desired, though given one Admiral quoted by the press claimed the T45 could be heard 100 miles away by submarines this might be weclome. To be pedantic, T26 is a frigate and is never likely to be a true destroyer-scale vessel (however you define such things)

2) a Type 32 variant - we don't know what Type 32 is and from the sketchy mention in the Command Paper and industrial strategy papers it sounds like the design and assessment phase hasn't been completed so it could be a Type 31 variant or something else entirely. But if it has a credible land-attack capability that suggests something with at least 1x Mk 41 VLS. Thinking about it a T26 variant might better fit the T32 role.

3) co-operation with someone else to share any development costs for bespoke radar systems, if desired. Type 31 is not a wholly home-grown design, so there is precedence for the MoD to seek an existing platform to tinker with.

4) a new fresh sheet design. BAE will be looking for design work once T26 out of the way and they can precisely tailor what they want. T45 and T26 were important designs to get right and its no coincidence that they decided to go for a new design. The same is very likely for T83, especially if they are factoring in lasers and other high-tech weapons. The industrial strategy seems to maybe hint at electromagnetic weapons for the future too. Whether the late 2030s will be too soon for these technologies is early to say but doubtless they will factor into the design.

And why pair with the Italians, they haven't produced a ship on par with T45 yet, so what's to be gained for the UK?
The Horizon-class? Practically the same as Type 45 apart from EMPAR rather than Sampson radar and a formidable gun-armament of 3x Super Rapids as a heavy CIWS. Plus they have torpedoes. You could argue the traditional CODOG machinery prevented the Italians suffering embarrassing headlines like we did about the WR-21 engines preventing deployment right where they were needed. Plus they are noisy (not enough attention on acoustic reduction to save money) and what growth capability was designed in has never been, nor ever well be, used. The T45 is a great AAW platform but its not perfect.

By the way, Merlins do not deploy on T45's and the T32's capabilities have not yet been established.
That is true. Although designed to handle Merlin there simply aren't enough of them. Lynx HMA.8 at least had some ASW capability. Wildcat has none and is effectively the surface-strike/anti-ship defence of the CSG.
By the late 2030s T83 will be using the Merlin successor anyway.

Possibilities 1) & 2) would be reusing (then) 30+ year old designs as a base and attempting to fit new contents into them. For what? A trivial saving in design costs.

Possibility 3) seems rather remote. Previous UK attempts to collaborate on ship design have been notable failures. Repeating the same and hoping for a different outcome wouldn't seem to be wise.

Possibility 4) in addition to the advantages you list, also keeps a UK design capability which has proven to be very useful. See the USN for the consequences of not doing so.

I fear you do not understand the capability of the T45 UK PAAMS if you think the Italian Horizons are at the same level.

The T45's have perfomed ASW in exercise using the ship's sonar (which is a lot better than many are led to believe) and the Wildcats deploying Stingrays.
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61
Slightly left field, but saves having to start a new thread.

We don't know what the requirements for the Type 4X/83 are yet, but it's likely to take over the 45's air defence role.

Now this popped up:


Since I have a very pressing deadline for an assignment that is completely unrelated to this, suddenly it became very interesting to me and provoked some speculation.

Now, 'Vixen' UAV mentioned as a replacement for Crowsnest-equipped Merlins would suggest that the carriers keep the AEW role. However, catapults are mentioned as a probably requirement. Now the Queen Elizabeth class were designed 'for not with' catapults, but modification would mean significant time and money spend on modifications and it may be considered cheaper to instead make it a feature of a new class already on the way, such as the 83.

There's also often floated (sorry about the pun) the need for a dedicated littoral strike vessel, a hospital ship etc etc. I'm not saying that all are going to become actually programmes, but it does indicate that needs are still in flux and there will be competing pressures on the basic concept of the Type 83 that will ensure that it is not simply a linear follow-on to the Type 45.

One possibility is that the Type 83 functions in concert deploying small and medium-sized UAVs with the carriers, which have exclusively manned aircraft or larger UAVs. Its job expands from air defence to AEW and wide situational awareness and control. With a Vixen on patrol, there's less need for that high mast on the current 45s (which has worried some who doubted that the Type 26 hull could provide a stable base for it, as that was mooted for the 4X).

So, a versatile UAV-equiped destroyer-sized vessel, likely made by BAE... perhaps they'll dust of the files for this and use it as a starting point?



That was aimed at littoral warfare, but what it can do depends on what drones it has and only two would need to be carrier escorts, so it might come in land and air focussed versions. The UXV Combatant seems designed to do everything (HMS Galactica?), so these in fact would be simpler.

An interesting line of thought but to me, the big objection is that RN has made a huge investment in making the carriers a large and flexible base for aviation. So why introduce a second aviation class that would undoubtedly be highly compromised based on its small size? In other words, it's the USN question: if you have large efficient flat tops, why do you want small inefficient ones as well?

BTW, as you may be aware, the Bae UVX concept was based on a T45 hull so despite the drawings, the result is rather a tiny carrier more akin to Vosper's Harrier Carrier.
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61
Let's be honest here and recognise that Type 26 has potential space and margins for a lot more Ceptor cells or mk41 silos.
All that multirole space could be taken for AAW systems

You don't even have to go that far. There is enough deck area to put a second row of three Mk 41 modules forward of the current set in the Type 26 for a total of 48 cells in lieu of one set of SeaCeptor. (The Canadian ships add one more module, but there is clearly enough room for a full row. With some additional work, it seems probable that 48 Sylver would fit there instead.

So then you do have the issue of radar fit, which possibly could eat up some of the mission deck space, but surely not all of it.

An American answer (lol), why design a new ship when you can modify the design that's in production? Trouble is that lets whole ship design expertise whither on the vine and results in Zumwalts, LCS & US FREMMs. An outcome to be avoided at all costs.

PS I'm a yank too, so I'm allowed to make this comment :cool:
 

Similar threads

Top