Finally !! UK Build New TYPE 83 Super destroyers a10,000 tonne air defence cruiser for a new age

[@russellbenton2987]

Believe it when I see it

[@jammiedodger7040]

We need 14 Type 83’s and it needs to be Multirole.

[@JOHNSARMIENTO-yc5oo]

Atleast 200 type 83

[@edkrach8891]

It needs more VLS cells forward.

[@tomgoff7887]

Let's hope the Type 83 has better luck than the Type 82.

[@robertstark8527]

Can’t see it going ahead if it does probably no more than 4 at most to be built. Need more frigates.

[@nathanielwhite8769]

The RN and MOD should make sure they get the Design and Capabilities Specification right, as an absolute priority over worrying about a fixed arbitrary in-service date and therefore, the inevitable penny pinching, thus the offensive and defensive capabilities being compromised.

[@jamesjacobson3966]

10,000 tons and with a land attack capability? These should be designated as cruisers! As a bonus allow the RN to revive some classic cruiser and capital ship names. Fitted with flagship facilities they would be available to re-establish a significant British presence in the increasingly unstable far east. Currently I believe a pair of OPVs equivalent to a mid sized US coast guard cutters are out there to wave the flag?🙄

[@ENGBriseB]

Get on with it Thank you.

[@moodogco]

I have never read or seen the type 83 being any less than 6 like for like, there's no way they'll build less with everything going on!!!

[@stephenpeat3885]

I believe the type 83 would weight about 14,000 tons.

[@madsteve9]

So definitely a Cruiser then.

[@bennytsai4065]

10k tons is considered to be a cruiser i mean light cruiser

[@noelcahill6707]

Built 14 type 26s and multirole them

[@wyldhowl2821]

Japan is building an air & ballistic missile defense "destroyer" (cruiser really) that will be about 20000 t. Collaborate? Island nations with monarchies should stick together. 🧐

[@Evil.Totoro]

Would be nice, but the Japanese one is based around the SPY-6 radar…. And the UK seems to be allergic to phased array radars.

[@bennytsai4065]

20k ton ship is more like a battlecruiser rather Heavy Cruiser

[@outlawcatcher1]

Drop the hull numbers down to 3-4. Christ, we will be lucky to have one operational, let alone provide adequate coverage for fleet air defence. We need a minimum of 12. HMG cockwombles hard at work degrading our military yet again…

[@lindsaybaker9480]

The RN needs a minimum of 8 ships with an ideal class of 10 ships.

[@iceman7975]

By the time they come into service ,they might be obsolete,or be a much simplified version of the original design ,as i believe happened to the type 42 destroyers because we could not afford the original version. It took the Falklands war to realise that the ships lacked important requirements ,necessary for war. With the Batch 3 versions years later of these destroyers we had something closer to fit for purpose. Ships need to be as multi role as possible ,as you never know what requirements the war of the future will bring. Over reliance on high technological ships is causing fewer ships to be built ,mainly due to cost. Having fewer ,but sophisticated ships is a bad place to be,as unfortunately technology can and has failed in the past at the most crucial moments,hence ships can be lost,and we don't seem to have ships or personnel to replacement in times of war. Our service personnel deserve much better if we expect them to go into harms way. Salute from Gibraltar.

[@leefursman]

By the time they are built the QE will have been scrapped...

[@stephenfarthing3819]

Might one of these be named HMS Bristol?

[@Harldin]

Doubt it, the Type 26 Frigates are getting City names so would expect a different naming convention for the Type 83, County names maybe?

[@tigersilberhannes9153]

Non will ever be, so you can name them anyway you like.

[@Evil.Totoro]

Might be a stupid question, but how are type numbers determined? Seems so random going from 45 to 83, at least in Japan the ships class names are named after the imperial year.

[@paultanton6721]

It's complicated - a Ship number in the 40's denotes a Destroyer (AAW) by role, 20's is a Frigate . (ASW), 30's will now be a Multi role Frigate (GP), 80's denotes a Destroyer but Cruiser sized predominantly AAW but able to perform other roles.

[@Evil.Totoro]

@@paultanton6721 oh that makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I assume type 24 and 25 frigates were concepts that never got off the drawing board then? -Edit- never mind my query just saw a wiki on the designation system and project break downs.

[@bionicgeekgrrl]

Wikipedia has a list of all the types. A number of type numbers were never built, but the number goes up every time.

[@verdebusterAP]

Call me crazy but wont it save time , money and resources if they simple evolve the Type-45 design

[@paultanton4307]

Correct 👍

[@TeionaAbiuta]

That is why Britain will always be Great Britain.God bless Great Britain.

[@12346rossi]

I would just have a barge with 200-300vls and a radar, it won't need phalanx a helicopter or hardly any crew

[@Tony-p5q]

This is why we need reform it's only party who loves this country

[@TheBlebski]

It will be overpriced and under armoured as is the normal in the Royal Navy

[@kenboydart]

And the US Navy mate, why? That is something I cant figure out ........

[@tgsgardenmaintenance4627]

​@kenboydart . Free market capitalism, contract will go to the lowest bidder, and will eventually will go over budget an timescale anyway! On the other hand, the Chinese government tell the shipbuilders what they want, and they get on with it!

[@cliveherbert9476]

There's nothing to see here, move on. They won't start building the Type 83 Destroyer until all the Type 26 Frigates are built, which is about 10yrs away. The T83 design isn't finished yet, so this is all speculation, hearsay & wishful thinking. Those images are of the US & Italian designs that actually Are being built.

[@stephennelmes4557]

Those type 45 destroyers must be crap. That one at 0:50 is being towed back into harbour by a tug. It's probably broken down. And to think we laugh at the Russian Kuznetsov.

[@newton18311]

Your showing your ignorance Ivor

[@madsteve9]

Gordon Brown and an idiot at the M.OD. who was "The Project Manager" who allowed BAE Systems to get away without testing the propulsion system in adverse Temperature conditions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer#Faults

[@madsteve9]

Also, the F*cking about with not fully equipping them with the Vulcan Phalanx system. No Torpedo Tubes for any Anti Submarine Warfare. With Gordon Brown, cutting the order to just 6, Type 45 from the 12 wanted by the Royal Navy, this also pushed up the unit cost, from £500 Million to £1 Billion each. Oh and they are very easy for Submarines to track with sonar, as noise suppression technology was deleted from the build.

[@verdebusterAP]

The Type-45 problem was politics overtook common sense. The 3 engines proposed was the LM-2500, MT-30 and WR-21. They didnt want the LM-2500 as it was US made Their selling point was make in the UK. The MT-30 was still relatively new whereas the WR-21 had been tested but never actually used Called that strike 1 Since the selling point was again make in the UK, they opted for the Sylver VLS instead of the US made MK-41. While the MK-41 is designed to be universal with weapons The Sylver is limited to Asterm MICA annd Crotale missiles. Called the strike 2, 3,4,5,67 The red sea crisis highlighted that while the UK ships performed the air defense missile perfectly, the US ships switched from anti-air to land attack and launched TLAMs against targets hundreds of miles away while the UK ships sat there Lets just say the Type-83 has a lot to get right

[@paultanton4307]

@@madsteve9 The Type 45's were never designed for ASW,the RN still prefers to use specialist Ships for specific roles.The T45 have always deployed with Phalanx CIWS when the mission and threat level dictates.

[@cesiumalloy]

10 Years to build a fucking ship! What a joke the UK has become.