It is a cruiser and nothing else but. Remember the Fletcher class Destroyer? A very capable Second World War design. 2400 tons. The US Army once called a light tank an armored gun. Politics. At 17,000 tons, it's a cruiser. (For God's sake, don't tell that to your Parliament!) God Bless the Royal Navy! From the Sunshine State!
There are no such things as cruisers any more. Cruiser simply means a ship capable of sailing over the ocean on its own, and later meant such a ship but not large enough to be called a battleship. All modern destroyers have this capability. American and Russian 'cruisers' are just called that for intimidation factor. American 'cruisers' are smaller than their latest destroyers and barely bigger than thier mainline Burke destroyers. Russia/USSR loved the word 'cruiser' so much at one point they were calling anything bigger than a corvette a cruiser. Now they just use the term for a ship with a primary anti ship missile loadout, such as the Slava and Kirov classes (even more ironically, the USA use an even more obsolete term for the Kirovs, they call them 'battlecruisers'). Ticos, Kirovs, Slavas, and the projected T83s, are all destroyers. Ships get heavier and heavier, that has always happened. At 17000 tons, it is heavier than most BATTLESHIPS in 1900......
@@Debbiebabe69 you are right with World War Two type ships it was easy. As destroyers got larger, the term seems to cover everything. Besides, that's an Armored Gun, not a Tank. Zumwalt is over 600 feet long, and weighs how much? Look at the size frigates are now. We used to call those destroyer escorts. Terminology evolves. Ship design evolves. Destroyers that look just like aircraft carriers. I just hope Congress and Parliament will fund our navies sufficiently.
When it comes to military expenditure, we just seem to print the money and worry about the effects later. The Dreadnought SSBN project is well underway, with each Dreadnought likely to be triple the cost of the Type 83 (7.75 Billion per Dreadnought).
Type 83 is really a Light Cruiser not a Destroyer the Type 83 should be reclassified as Type 84 Light Cruiser and to go along side the Type 84 we should design and build 14 Type 48 Destroyers
The classical way to get around politicians: undersell it as something else. The Spanish F-100 is a frigate at just over 9K tonnes but for all intents and purposes it fills an AA destroyer role. Also lower manpower requirements lets you get away with it.
i think that we should build anywhere between 8-12 of them. they should be armed with 48 sea viper replacement and 48 mk41. that combined with 8 type 26 and 8 (i think another 3 is required) type 31s would put us in a great position.
As the AI voice mentioned the ship weighs 216 tons. I don’t think that classify the destroyer as something gigantic. More like a fishing trawler. Hope you get your facts straight.
200 tons? Ha ha ha You're going to need to correct that number. Large motor yachts weigh in at 200 or so tons. The ship you are trying to describe will weigh many thousands of tons, possibly in the range of 8,000 to 10,000 tons.
My thoughts on this are that, Type 83 should be a full Cruiser in size and displacement, it should have at least 128 Mk.41 Strike Length VLS Cells for maximum flexibility in weapons options and real persistence in any high end saturation attack scenarios. Probably more significantly it should also have an evolution of the Sampson Radar using larger high powered fixed planar arrays high mounted, including a full Zenith array to provide both optimal IA/BMD Defence and retain the tracking ability for high performance sea skimming threats. CEC capability along with inherent acoustic hygiene measures built into the hull and machinery of the vessel wouldn’t go a miss either. My overall thinking on this, is that it should be able to hold its own in most, if not all high end threat scenarios.
Yes, absolutely. Though what you say in your excellent closing remark is, unfortuately, the single biggest reason our repugnant metro-establishment will ensure no such ships are ever built
Every plaine,ship , tank, vehicle in the UK military are very modern and close to up to date as they can be. Not even the us has 50% of any area up to date. I'm confident the UK has the most uptown date modern military in the world. Us still use 1000s A10s F16 F15s F18s along side their 500 F22 and F35s including 50 year old destroyers. The oldest UK has is 00 model frigates and eurofighters. Hell usa still uses the old British harriers jet. Just imagine the state Russia and China are in if the yanks cant keep equipment up to date
@@dragzgaming The US doesn't have 50 year old destroyers, they have Cruisers, Ticonderoga Class from the 70's and 80's now being retired. The Arleigh-Burke class Destroyer is from 80's-present and currently still being built (Flight IIIA) and constantly upgraded with the latest equipment, older vessels of the class are either refitted or put into reserve.
We most definitely have the ability to build such a ship, but unfortunately politics will get in the way as usual! Probably end up being a patrol boat with a couple of MANPAD's! 😂
People haven't realized that VLS is the original modular weapon system. Depending on the load out in the cells, the ship is tailored to any current mission. AA, ASW, Surface action, the VLS can support it. Asking any one on any VLS ship "What is your VLS setup" is actually asking what they are doing on the next cruise. The ships need to move self defense to the CIWS, RAM, and Lasers so they can put more heavy punch into the VLS going forward. Make the ships more like running back protecting the ball, where the VLS is the ball and the self protection is retaining the firepower to get it where needed. From the graphics shown, that might be exactly what the new destroyer is getting designed to do.
"UK's Mega Big Ship That Will Surprise Earthlings..." That ship is scheduled to show up in a decade and a half, without any schedule delays, and you're already announcing it... so I don't see what's going to be a surprise when it finally shows up!?
Bro, Why did you put in the Video the Image of the Kirov Cruiser, Type-26 Frigate and the future Italian DDX Destroyer amd other nonsense things🤓? You have put everything except the only available image available on the web of Type-83😭
Did I hear that right 216 tonnes, obviously benefitting from so kinda ultra lightweight alloy we've never heard of. Irl probably more like 12000. but where on earth did they get a figure like 216, sounds more like the ships compliment of sailors.
@John S yeah, man. I am actually well aware of this. I was just having a little joke. But thanks for the clarification. My brother was on the preceding class, HMS Bristol, the type 82 destroyer. He told me it was an incredible ship. Thanks again. Have a good day man.
Up to 12 ships Type 83 are coming for the Royal Navy. The plan is to complette 18 Destroyers upgrading the Type 45 ships to continuing in service. Long live to the United Kingdom!
After closely following the Russian invasion of Ukraine..... and seeing how cheap missiles can damage or obliterate much much much more expensive armored vehicles .... I am starting to think maybe we should start looking into cheaper and smaller with greater numbers of "throw away" AI controlled unmanned Naval vessels that are designed to travel into dangerous waters.... Like in the South China Sea.... !! At least we don't have to worry about the crews !! Maybe we already have them !! 🙂🙃🙂😎
If this ever happens I’ll eat my hat. No money - the navy wants to ditch an aircraft carrier already, and no enough personnel. This is all pie in the sky
When (or if) they sort out the engine reliability problems. They are actually very capable vessels. With good upgrade potential, within limits. I still think that given the fully integrated nature of modern fleet defence. A dedicated missile arsenal ship jam packed with VLS cells, either manned or unmanned. Would be a very valuable asset. A "buddy" or "loyal wingman" concept. It's only function being to add several hundred VLS cells to the available defensive/offensive missile count.
@@gusgone4527 I think your concept is a little wayward but I cannot help that. The engine reliability has been exaggerated but the casing point is, apart from last year, when did a t45 not finish a deployment due to the intercooler issue? Answer that and that will go some way to proving that point Gus. Jam packed with VLS is ideal if we had the required weapons but we don't. Instead, we have a bunch of short-range defense weapons when the best form of defense is to attack the threat at long range before it becomes that threat is not a capability we have. The Russian and Chinese aircraft can strike a ship from 600 to 2000 nm away. My point was these ships are not designed to go running around the ocean for no reason and our Nato commitments are all met. navies spend more time alongside now but thats the way it is.
My money is on a Labour Government cancelling the ship mid-way in construction, and replacing it with a type 84 row boat, with a sailor up the pointy end with a shotgun with 3 rounds of second hand BB's
0:14 ... 216 Tonnes? is a very small destroyer. That's just a Fish Trawler size. That figure is very incorrect🤔 Compared to a Type 45 destroyer, which has Displacement 7,350 to 8,500 tonnes (8,400 long tons; 9,400 short tons), according to Wikipedia
Of course BAE Systems are saying get discussions under way ASAP because they know that if under the next SNP Leadership if Scotland gets Independence no RN Ships or any MOD procurement will take place North of the border in Scotland 🏴!!!!!!!!
And they could be crewed by the thousands crossing the channel in small boats ! Think about it .... they have already proved their seamanship knowledge & their love of being at sea ... drag them off the beaches, slap a Royal Navy uniform on them, draft them to these ships .... "What recruitment crises ??"
Be like the Bristol build one only,,,,we’re be sitting about 23 largest economy by late 2030s if not sooner we have no industrial capacity now and have become a service lead economy sadly…
Given the UK's history of under equipping offensive and defensive capabilities I don't hold any hope of this being any good. Chances are they'll spend all the money on advances radar systems, and then equip it with fuck all missiles lol
@@davidturnbull310 read up on it. The UK have a fantastic record of building large warships and aircraft carriers but don't equip them with fuck all planes or missiles as a way of cost cutting. The justification being they only want to pay for aircraft etc that serves the current requirements, which is all great and dandy until a real war breaks out, then the UKs huge new aircraft carriers will struggle to equip them with even 12 planes each. And the destroyers as advanced as they are have the bite of a chicken. There currently retro fitting the carriers for more missiles, but they'll take years
@@davidturnbull310 load the ships, you can't magically put in more silos on the destroyers without a huge retrofit. Which to be fair there doing now but that's going to take years to do. And you can't magically put planes on the carriers without first owning them. The UK owns a grand total of 30 f35 planes. One of which they broke and a least half a dozen with have been gutted to use replace parts on other planes (another great UK cost cutting measure instead of just buying replacement parts). At best we would be able to deploy 24 planes at short notice. So 12 planes per carrier. So carriers are designed to operate with 24 f35b planes each, in normal operation and can carry up to 36 each in extreme conditions, such a war time. They currently can only operate with 12 each. Not unless the UK buy more planes. It's just the crap government we have. Spend billions on destroyers and carriers and don't fit them out with adaquate planes and missiles. Like the president of Russia said in response to being asked about the UKs two new carriers 'there very large and easy targets'. Our force is fine now, but should a break out tomorrow, agai , you can't magic done the retro fit of the destroyers additional missile silos and you can magic more planes for you carriers that you don't physically own. Useless
Shouldn’t the RN be aiming at more but smaller, well armed ships? Just a couple of these juggernauts will be very expensive, big targets and having but a few will mean not a lot of availability. Sounds like pre WW2 ever increasing size battleships all over again.
The type 83 should number 10 ships or at least the minimum be 8. It will probably be around 12,000 tons like other destroyers that are planned by the USN for example.
My thoughts are that MOSTLY warships as they are, are now obsolete, the role is sea denial and ability to decimate the enemy vessels and to support ground landings. These no longer require megolith ships. Smaller but more technically advanced weapons systems makes a lot more sense. You can have more of them, make them faster, move into to more shallow water positions and g ene rally all way roung a better concept, opnly NO one is actually looking at building a GOOD ONE..they should.
They take ages to construct (even longer now the skills to build a Battleship have long since died out) plus with kinetic energy penetrator rounds demonstrating armour is pointless, they would end up being swarmed with guided bombs/missiles that are like the MOAB bunker busters and they'd be sunk relatively quickly today. They may build a Battlecruiser with some twin mounted heavy shore bombardment guns like what Zumwalt was supposed to have but using Excalibur 155mm rounds and a couple of hundred VLS silos to act in a dual role, but they won't have slabs of armour like the battle wagons if old, just layered Kevlar etc that's designed to stop fragments penetrating too deeply, oh and they'll be covered in a multitude of CIWS.
No, unless ships left over from WW1 count. Germany still had two pre-dreadnought battleships, Greece had one, Spain had two small (17k ton) dreadnoughts. The smallest interwar battleships were the Dunkerque class at 26k tons. The USS Des Moines and Alaska cruiser classes completed during WW2 were over 17k tons.
