Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

[SouthernOne]

Hunter class a "shambles". Why? Yes its running behind the originally promised schedule (as do most if not all large defence programs), but seems to be progressing at the same pace as the Canadian CSC program which is also using the BEA GCS hull as the basis for a full spectrum warship. Had the BAE GCS design been more mature (ie already constructed with sea trials finalised) when it was selected for these programs, both would probably be more advanced, but that's a separate issue, as is BAE's lack of experience with AEGIS and CMS330.

The Italian Navy's FREMM variant is also a well rounded ship using a hull "optimised" for ASW, as will be the USN Constellation class.

Tomuk has answered you better than I could. I was referring almost entirely to the integration of CEAFAR, which seems to have been poorly planned.

I must say some local Australian media/interest groups appear determined to portray it in a negative light, for whatever motivations...

As for the FREMM derivatives, from what has been seen in competitions Type 26 ASW is on a different level. Sufficiently so that mature defence ministries are willing to take a punt on it, over the 15 year older Franco-Italian design. The US competition was structured in such a way that Type 26 simply couldn't compete. Constellation is about a similar to either original FREMM as a Spruance is to a Ticonderoga Class.

Aegis might not be something the UK uses but the US division of BAE has a pretty extensive exposure from their work for the AEGIS Technical Representative organisation. knowledge and skills that I'm sure could be leveraged locally in Osborne as other global primes do.

CEAFAR (a version of) has already been integrated into the much smaller ANZAC class frigates, so I suspect it's not really the drama it's often portrayed as. Similarly the work undertaken by SAAB Aus on the CEAFAR-AEGIS interface doesn't seem to get many mentions when project delays are discussed (publicly).

Im not sure criticism of the Hunter class in Aus is really that heated, if compared to UK reports on the Type 26 though.

[Jensy]

CEAFAR (a version of) has already been integrated into the much smaller ANZAC class frigates, so I suspect it's not really the drama it's often portrayed as. Similarly the work undertaken by SAAB Aus on the CEAFAR-AEGIS interface doesn't seem to get many mentions when project delays are discussed (publicly).

Im not sure criticism of the Hunter class in Aus is really that heated, if compared to UK reports on the Type 26 though.

Maybe you can help me with this. Is the ANZAC CEAFAR array the same spec as the Hunter one? The integrated mast seems to be massively larger. I've read conflicting reports of it being a V2.0 or having additional panels.

Most of the negative reporting seems to come from a small number of sources, where the overlap between industry/government/media is about the thickness of a cigarette paper: https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/la ... 907-p5e2qr

I have no idea if this can be taken as a reliable or neutral publication?

[SouthernOne]

CEAFAR (a version of) has already been integrated into the much smaller ANZAC class frigates, so I suspect it's not really the drama it's often portrayed as. Similarly the work undertaken by SAAB Aus on the CEAFAR-AEGIS interface doesn't seem to get many mentions when project delays are discussed (publicly).

Im not sure criticism of the Hunter class in Aus is really that heated, if compared to UK reports on the Type 26 though.

Maybe you can help me with this. Is the ANZAC CEAFAR array the same spec as the Hunter one? The integrated mast seems to be massively larger. I've read conflicting reports of it being a V2.0 or having additional panels.

Most of the negative reporting seems to come from a small number of sources, where the overlap between industry/government/media is about the thickness of a cigarette paper: https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/la ... 907-p5e2qr

I have no idea if this can be taken as a reliable or neutral publication?

In it's early days there was certainly a lot of publicity around the scalability of CEAFAR, but not so much today probably because modular designs using T/R "tiles" or "bricks" are now more common.

It's probably true to say that any delays in any program don't make long term capability planning easier...

[Poiuytrewq]

If FADS is going to be as revolutionary as it sounds how basic could the T83 become?

Are the beam dimensions and/or propulsion systems of the T45, T26 or T31 suitable?

Could the T83 and T32 use the same hull?

Obviously as the hull dimensions start to enlarge damage control becomes more difficult with modest crew allocations. Therefore are modestly sized destroyers networked together becoming preferable to AAW cruisers?

With hypersonic missiles, is a wider AAW shield now required? If so, are more numerous and networked joint AAW/ASW escorts the way forward?

Is the addition of 32x Mk41 cells to the T31 just one element of the distributed FADS system?

Lots of questions but RN could lose another decade with feasibility studies unless decisiveness becomes the main concern.

[Jensy]

If FADS is going to be as revolutionary as it sounds how basic could the T83 become?

Are the beam dimensions and/or propulsion systems of the T45, T26 or T31 suitable?

Could the T83 and T32 use the same hull?

Obviously as the hull dimensions start to enlarge damage control becomes more difficult with modest crew allocations. Therefore are modestly sized destroyers networked together becoming preferable to AAW cruisers?

With hypersonic missiles, is a wider AAW shield now required? If so, are more numerous and networked joint AAW/ASW escorts the way forward?

Is the addition of 32x Mk41 cells to the T31 just one element of the distributed FADS system?

Lots of questions but RN could lose another decade with feasibility studies unless decisiveness becomes the main concern.

Been thinking along similar lines as you are!

I've felt Type 32 and 83 should be combined (at a minimum to a common hull) since Bozza first rattled on about the former in the Commons. How exactly that is shaped I'm not sure, but as SW1 points out above: every brand new design means less ships delivered overall. We don't need three different classes of frigate in roughly the same size bracket. No one does.

As to Type 31, I see no reason that hull couldn't, maybe with a modest stretch, carry all the VLS cells we could afford to fill. Could potentially increase numbers well beyond six, if the price and crew requirement was right.

Only question mark is the main radar array (as above)...

[shark bait]

What is this supposed to mean? No ships have DC generators, and all IEP ships convert from AC to DC and back to AC again to make it work.

The new German F126 frigate class designed by Damen will use the ABB Onboard DC Grid system which will allow the diesels to run at variable speed for optimal fuel consumption of its four MTU Series 4000 gensets. Another plus for DC it also eliminates the bulky main switchboards and drive transformers.

Damen have a great reputation and are a very successful navy shipbuilder in effect saying DC is the better option than AC.

[SW1]

If FADS is going to be as revolutionary as it sounds how basic could the T83 become?

Are the beam dimensions and/or propulsion systems of the T45, T26 or T31 suitable?

Could the T83 and T32 use the same hull?

Obviously as the hull dimensions start to enlarge damage control becomes more difficult with modest crew allocations. Therefore are modestly sized destroyers networked together becoming preferable to AAW cruisers?

With hypersonic missiles, is a wider AAW shield now required? If so, are more numerous and networked joint AAW/ASW escorts the way forward?

Is the addition of 32x Mk41 cells to the T31 just one element of the distributed FADS system?

Lots of questions but RN could lose another decade with feasibility studies unless decisiveness becomes the main concern.

Been thinking along similar lines as you are!

I've felt Type 32 and 83 should be combined (at a minimum to a common hull) since Bozza first rattled on about the former in the Commons. How exactly that is shaped I'm not sure, but as SW1 points out above: every brand new design means less ships delivered overall. We don't need three different classes of frigate in roughly the same size bracket. No one does.

As to Type 31, I see no reason that hull couldn't, maybe with a modest stretch, carry all the VLS cells we could afford to fill. Could potentially increase numbers well beyond six, if the price and crew requirement was right.

Only question mark is the main radar array (as above)...

If you take even the cost of the weapons of a future ship. Camm/camm er, A future camm mr and then a ballistic/hypersonic missile interceptor the costs of the payload will be high. The ballistic missile interceptors prob in the range of 10 million a missile

You could have 8 ballistic missile interceptors, 32 camm mr missile and 32 camm/er in a single 32 cell system. That is considerable cost per ship and for weapons stocks and significantly more than any gone before.

You could potentially house that in every escort in the proposed future fleet the sensor and air warfare specialists might not be on every ship but the weapons could be.

[Tempest414]

Could we see a AAW radar ship with say just 16 ABM's on it with the inner ring carried by other escorts

[Poiuytrewq]

You could potentially house that in every escort in the proposed future fleet the sensor and air warfare specialists might not be on every ship but the weapons could be.

Therefore it’s seems illogical to plan a class of RN super cruiser with 192x Mk41 cells, each of which would require an investment similar to a CVF.

RN cannot afford that. In fact most nations can’t.

More SSN’s would be a more formidable use of the money.

[Poiuytrewq]

Could we see a AAW radar ship with say just 16 ABM's on it with the inner ring carried by other escorts

What about a ring even further out?

This is where the MALE drones could be crucial IMO.

Having 24/7 OTH ISTAR is of paramount importance for the CSG. Much more useful than a crowsnest type system alone.

RN needs to start a procurement program for a universal naval MALE drone capable of AAW/ASW and ASuW which is CVF and LHD capable costing no more than about £10m each. Integrate LMM/Brimstone/Sea Venom and StingRay.

Lots of work ongoing with drones but is it in the right direction? Integrating MALE drones into FADS could make a massive difference to the outcome.

[Jensy]

Therefore it’s seems illogical to plan a class of RN super cruiser with 192x Mk41 cells, each of which would require an investment similar to a CVF.

RN cannot afford that. In fact most nations can’t.

The discussion here has made me think of the original Fort II Class/Type 23 operating concept, albeit altered for AAW over ASW. Also how the early Thales QEC design had Sampson instead of Artisan.

On a more radical level, could we look to fit the main sensor suite to whatever HVU (be it a carrier or large amphib) that we're trying to escort in the first place? Plenty of space, very stable and able to have a radar fitted higher than a smaller escort.

In effect rationalise Type 32, Type 83 and MRSS into two classes: the capital ship and the escort, which could be based on either Type 26, Type 31, a mixture of the two, or something more novel and lean-crewed.

Not going into fag-packet calculations on cost, but I could see there being crew numbers from the 45s and the Albions (in theory) for something like, for example:

2 x LHDs with with c.400 crew per ship
4 x Type 26 with c.180 crew per ship [maybe increase the Mk.41 VLS farm to 32]
5 x Type 31 with c.100 crew per ship

[new guy]

Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run.

I generally agree this should the the starting objective for the project, but shouldn't cling on to the idea too tightly if the size a power requirements start to diverge.

This could work if the lean 'arsenal ship' concept plays out, but if the direction heads for a traditional cruiser/destroyer design it'll probably need a clean sheet.

I’d make it really simple if you want another clean sheet then numbers reduce by 50% every time you want it. Should focus the mind on “requirements”.

yeah right.

[tomuk]

What is this supposed to mean? No ships have DC generators, and all IEP ships convert from AC to DC and back to AC again to make it work.

The new German F126 frigate class designed by Damen will use the ABB Onboard DC Grid system which will allow the diesels to run at variable speed for optimal fuel consumption of its four MTU Series 4000 gensets. Another plus for DC it also eliminates the bulky main switchboards and drive transformers.

Damen have a great reputation and are a very successful navy shipbuilder in effect saying DC is the better option than AC.

Further to NickC the wiki article does a suprisingly good job of outlining the benefits. They follow two general routes. Firstly can optimise generator speeds to obtain best fuel economy as no need for synchronisation. This independence of power source also allows easy addition of batteries and fuel cells in a distributed fashion. Electrical equipment can also be sized smaller or removed completely, no big transformers or chokes, freeing up weight and space for other uses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_distri ... ropulsion)

[new guy]

The second image I have ever seen of BAE "T83 cruiser design"

Its in one of the google adds of the latest Navy lookout articles





Also, when clicking on the add, it goes to a normal radar portfolio page, except...

[new guy]

The second image I have ever seen of BAE "T83 cruiser design"

Its in one of the google adds of the latest Navy lookout articles

You've got a good eye!

At the very least this confirms the previous images of this design featured in an Aussie PowerPoint.

The closest 'Type 26' looks like it's got CEAFAR installed too.

Currently on tablet and the best resolution I'm getting is this:



or this:

[new guy]

The second image I have ever seen of BAE "T83 cruiser design"

Its in one of the google adds of the latest Navy lookout articles

You've got a good eye!

At the very least this confirms the previous images of this design featured in an Aussie PowerPoint.

The closest 'Type 26' looks like it's got CEAFAR installed too.

Currently on tablet and the best resolution I'm getting is this:



or this:

Best I got:



To me, this is more an indication that BAE is in anticipation of T83/FADS , proven by the fact it is already doing FADS-centred advertising.Of course, It may also be true that the above design is there leading design as it may be there only design, but naturally it will all change when the MOD actually get in contact with them and KUR and just what exactly T83 will be is outlined. The bigger thing to take away from this is that BAE thinks it is now time to start advertising it; We already know that MP's who are on the defence committee read Navy Lookout, as they used it in a source multiple times during meetings. Many people look at advertising and the low rates of people that say buy a product from say an apple you tube add ( The biggest advertisers on youtube btw) and think what is the point? Often advertising is targeted more as a way to maintain brand presence, on a sub conscious or not so sub conscious level influence them through a similar method. Realistically though, this is the lowest level of whatever BAE is planning for T83/FADS influence.
I read this more as a sign then anything about the platform.

[SD67]

BAE do seem to be cracking on. I'm wondering if some of the redesign work they have been doing on Hunter leads directly into T83/FADS - increasing the Beam for example.

I think the 165metre estimate may be bang on the money. Stretch a T26-derived hull just enough to squeeze in another MT30, without going back to square one. If it's a 200 metre cruiser well be lucky to get 3

A joint RN/RAN program would make a great deal of sense. Big question - do they standardise on CEAFAR? Upside - Australia gets some quid pro quo out of AUKUS. Downsides - effectively the end of UK Naval radar design?

You'd have to assume that Sylver is on the way out, taking Aster with it. CAMM / CAMM-MR / SM-6?
Do we need a main gun? Or all Bofors like T31 as an "inner layer".
Many questions

[shark bait]

Stretch a T26-derived hull just enough to squeeze in another MT30, without going back to square one

No such thing. Ships are built around their propulsion, there's no way adding another MT30 happens without going back to square 1.

[SW1]

You'd have to assume that Sylver is on the way out, taking Aster with it. CAMM / CAMM-MR / SM-6?

I’ve got a feeling this may be exactly how it’s going to go.

[Jensy]

You'd have to assume that Sylver is on the way out, taking Aster with it. CAMM / CAMM-MR / SM-6?

I’ve got a feeling this may be exactly how it’s going to go.

I would be very happy with that personally. Covers all current threats and even some land attack with RIM-174B.

If we find ourselves in a situation where we genuinely start needing SM-3, then we probably won't be too concerned about the price.

[SW1]

You'd have to assume that Sylver is on the way out, taking Aster with it. CAMM / CAMM-MR / SM-6?

I’ve got a feeling this may be exactly how it’s going to go.

I would be very happy with that personally. Covers all current threats and even some land attack with RIM-174B.

If we find ourselves in a situation where we genuinely start needing SM-3, then we probably won't be too concerned about the price.

Don’t think sm6 are that cheap either about $6m each. Though sm3 is at least twice that. Stocks will be important but we have ignored ground based air defence for far too long.

[SD67]

Stretch a T26-derived hull just enough to squeeze in another MT30, without going back to square one

No such thing. Ships are built around their propulsion, there's no way adding another MT30 happens without going back to square 1.

Thanks. I was wondering. The BAE design teams likely need something to keep them busy in any case

[new guy]

Last things you want to worry about is displacement or length. They are most definitely not synonyms for cost. Well, unless you work for the Treasury where the one eyed are kings.

That kind of thinking leads to T26 and years of delays where some senior num-nutted Adm insisted that no frigate should be more than 6k tons in his opinion. The team spent more time disguising the real displacement than actually designing capability. Confused the hell out of poor @NickC too.

Instead, figure what systems you need to match the capability you require. Figure out the what the systems need and build a ship around them.

By the way, the idea of an escort that can only function when next to a carrier is plain bonkers. Who on earth came up with that nonsense?

The navy just managed to escape the disastrous dumbed down T23 sonar sled idea. Let's not resuscitate a stupid idea. And yes, I'm aware some Navy idiot adm said it was the future. He probably specified length & displacement too.

Here's the pretty FADS picture. Doesn't exactly explain how it works when the CSG & land based systems are not around. Note who shoots down the ballistic missiles.

Also no Tempest or Typhoon in the picture which must piss off @SW1

[Ron5]

The second image I have ever seen of BAE "T83 cruiser design"

Its in one of the google adds of the latest Navy lookout articles

You've got a good eye!

At the very least this confirms the previous images of this design featured in an Aussie PowerPoint.

The closest 'Type 26' looks like it's got CEAFAR installed too.

Currently on tablet and the best resolution I'm getting is this:



or this:

Not seeing the images from either of you guys. Am I alone in that?

[new guy]

Not seeing the images from either of you guys. Am I alone in that?

IDK why, try using this: https://sites.google.com/view/ipersonal ... ource/home