That's the same for nearly all long-term British projects. It's also why our defence industry is in a right state atm because we don't have stable long-term funding. Just because there isn't funding this far out, isn't a sign it will be cancelled. (No idea where all this pessimism is coming from.) But there's no way the government won't replace the Type 45. But they will probably leave it till too late to allocate funding, not allocate enough funding, causing problems, having reduced capability and then we still won't have enough for the job (just like T45, remembering we had 14 Type 42 destroyers).
If the UK and Australia would work together building these, both countries would be better off. Aukus shouldn't just be for submarines. Thus giving the UK a southern Hemisphere port for refit and systems repairs/upgrades
As a Brit I’d like to see that. Britain can build great ships and has access to cutting edge technologies from our world class universities but everything comes down to money and political will. Plus, we done ourselves no favours when we closed down a lot of shipyards across the U.K. We could bring a lot of those old ship yards back into commission because a lot of those old shipyards have been repurposed for other roles but could with investment make ships again. Harland and Wolfe in Belfast built the Titanic but could build naval ships and shipyards in northern England and not just Scotland. But it would be good to see Australia and also Canada and New Zealand maybe collaborating as well. The Royal CANZUK Navy would be the best navy on earth. Combining our strengths and weaknesses to build the best of everything.
If that's the proposed T83 they're not even approved or at a definite design stage and may not materialise at all. Tbh, we'd be better advised for now to implement a credible, significant life extension prog. for the 6 (also to be FULLY armed, NOT left as FFBNW paper tigers) T45s, build an additional 2 x T26 variants to join them, also optimised for the AA/M role and also with upgraded PAAMS as the principle AA/M system and then initiate a full, serious T83 prog to provide 8 x yet more capable replacements from c2044 on.
The Type 83 is likely to have 3 core roles. 1) Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) - defence against aircraft, hypersonic and conventional anti-ship missiles. 2) Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) defence for the fleet, and potentially to provide an umbrella over land areas, including the UK mainland. ABM missiles may also have some anti-satellite capability. 3) Land-Attack Cruise Missiles (LACM) to bolster the UK’s current inadequate ability to attack targets ashore at long range.
About time . We need ground to air . Am I right we have no missile defence system. Not ground artileri type anyway . If that is the right way to say it. You sound interesting to me
Depends. When Gordon Brown, finally agreed to build the Carriers he insisted that they were assembled in the Rosyth Naval Dockyard in his constituency. Both, Vickers - Barrow-in-Furness, and Cammell Laird - Birkenhead, yards would have been better choices. The highest part of the Carrier, is only 10 foot from the lowest part of the Forth Bridge.
@@nathanielwhite8769what on earth are you basing your view on? It was the Tory party of 2010 that reduced defence spending by a greater amount than any other government! Please check facts.
WTF are you talking about. Both QE class carriers are fully built and operational. EQ did have some propeller shaft issues in the first month of operation but were quickly repaired. Any new class of ship is guaranteed to have issues to fix. The way the UK fleet operates it's carrier fleet means that one ship is out serving it's purpose while the other is in harbour undergoing maintenance, training, crew holidays and refuelling. So we will always have some navy ships in harbour. That does not mean we are not using them. The Type 45 are very capable vessels. While their development was intentionally delayed by David Cameron for political squabbling, the ships are able to perform their tasks as intended. They are also among the first NATO large warships to incorporate stealth characteristics that most western warships are now incorporating to follow after.
@@amandarhodes4072 I think they mean most of the rest of the fleet. Of our submarines, only 1 of the SSNs has been to sea in the past 3 months, most are awaiting to be drydocked, which we don't have enough nuclear capable dry docks atm. The T45 have been mostly alongside for the past few years thanks to the engine issues because they don't like the hot water of the Red Sea. Then they'll be back in dry dock shortly after to have more weapons fitted... Why they can't do this while they're cutting them open to replace the diesels, I don't know. And the T23 are getting old and requiring more and more maintenance too. Basically, we need to drastically increase the investment in our sustainment infrastructure. Drydock space etc. Else these ships are going to waste, queueing up to be fixed.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 No shortage of drydock space really, the RN just have to farm their ships out to private companies that have the dry docks required.
Well, just to play Devils advocate. It was, in fact, Gordon Brown's Labour government that commissioned the Royal Navy's two super-carriers. HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
Well, Gordon Brown also systematically raided and destroyed the pension pots. One of his most idiotic decision ever made. and then he likewise sold 395 tons of gold bullion reserve by the BoE. When it comes economy, he is truly a disaster, His folly says a lot. Lest, you forget those government funded PFI's..
He did that to keep his seat in parliament after he bailed out the banks and almost bankrupted the UK. The two Ships were "nailed" together in his constituency in Scotland. They have not proved to be very reliable, just like "boom & Bust Gordon The Gold Seller'...
@@mattmatt7305 It was also the Conservatives who cut defence expenditure 2010-24, David Cameron wanted to cancel the second aircraft carrier. Don't give me this excrement that the Tories are the patriots in favour of a string defence
@@FranzBieberkopf sdsr 2010 the Conservative defence review ordered by Cameron decimated the military especially the navy making 5000 sailors redundant even to this day because of this Navy cannot crew all their ships it's why several have been mothballed or decommissioned early
Just build them the Type 83 destroyers the UK would be happy to have at least 8 to 10 destroyers and 12 to 14 Frigates for future of the Royal Navy. It makes sense.
If it ever gets built it will have a Mandatory Rain Garden, Inside You’ll Find Low Pedestrian Zones LPZ. Where you can Only walk within your inhabitant colour zone. Up on Deck it’ll be fitted Broom Sticks to scare the enemy .
Any new ship being built that does not have at least 4 Phalanx defence systems will be an easy target for a drone swarm. Additional longer range guns with burst ammunitions like the Bofors 40mm or 57mm guns
Remember the Bismarck, the most feared battleship in the world when WW2 broke out. Disabled and turned into a practice target by a Fairey Swordfish cloth biplane armed with one torpedo. Airpower beats everything. Big ships are prime targets. Swordfish sank a greater tonnage of Axis shipping than any other Allied aircraft during the war.
If the Bismarck had surface to air missiles and computer guided weapons it would have been a different story. We cant live in the past, that's why russia is doing so badly😂
Even if we didn't say anything it would be pretty obvious that we are going to build new ships, our current ones will have to be decommissioned at some point.
We dont, we put out requests for bids on projects but yt channels like this assume a lot. Look at russia, they put out a lot of bs about its weapons and the world believed them😂 Now the truth has been exposed and countries like Armenia are not buying russian any more. Propaganda and gaslighting
Well, the Type 45's will need to be replaced in the not too distance future so these will be absolutely vital to our defence. It seems that within NATO, our specific role is to be naval and aviation, hence why the land forces size has been gradually reducing over the years...
Doubtful. The new destroyer will likely be wider to provide stability for a tall mast and heavy radar. That's not to say some of the design elements from T26 won't be reused. I think it's also likely that the T83 will go back to the IEP, rather than the CODLOG of the T26 because they'll want the extra power for systems, sensors, energy weapons etc.
We haven’t even designed it so I doubt anyone is worried as we almost certainly will not build it but instead pretend something under armed and smaller will do! ( Oh and the American ships are cruisers!)
The trouble is not having enough dry docks. They're all alongside WAITING for dry dock space, not in dry docks themselves. If we spent more money building/replacing/upgrading drydocks asap then they wouldn't be queueing up, waiting for maintenance/overhaul/upgrades. There is a very slow, long-term plan to upgrade the infrastructure at various naval bases, but it isn't being allocated the funding to get it done in a timely manner.
Even if this Class ever gets passed the design phase, let alone actually funded for construction, arbitrary design dimension figures shouldn’t be presumed in advance, as the exact design of this new class will be carefully worked out according to the inherent capabilities and capacities required of its core mission sets.
Bigger is inherently better; more stable, more comfortable, harder to sink or damage, better able to carry weapons, a better sensor platform, faster ( especially in non-placid see states ); and able to carry some armor protection. Britain has a history of building needlessly small warships that "look" inexpensive; the Type 23 was built deliberately with an undersized hull, which of course is the first and most essential, and cheapest, part of the ship.
@ Yes, absolutely, I do hope that given the increasingly unstable strategic situation the UK is heading towards that finally for once at least in the RN’s proud history it can be rewarded with an Air & Ballistic Missile Defence Surface Combatant (Preferably a generously Sized Cruiser) without compromise in any the the key warship parameters, Sea Keeping at most importantly Firepower, RADAR Performance and Interoperability in terms of Co-Operative Engagement Capability with our Allies! Cheers.
Traditional warships over 10,000 tonnes are Cruisers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cruiser#Washington_Treaty This will be the first Cruiser class in the Royal Navy since HMS Blake C99, decommissioned in December 1979. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Blake_(C99) Although HMS Invincible, was known as a Through-Deck Cruiser, to stop the then Labour Government having to admit a mistake, in the retirement of the conventional Aircraft Carriers & cancellation of the CVA-01 (HMS Queen Elizabeth) class.
Ssshhhhh calling it a Destroyer instead of a cruiser helps trick the people controlling the budget into paying for them and even then they'll kick up a fuss aint no way theyd authorise the purchase if they thought they were paying for a high end cruiser.
There are a number of similar ship types planned for in the future by U.S, Japan and others. Can't see how it's the most feared warship on earth unless they're talking about cost.
Unfortunately, the way I feel things are going at this rate with Starmer’s Regime in Westminster, the UK’s Defence Budget as a whole is going to be Rapped, in terms of the current Equipment procurement programmes in motion or that are currently funded.
Listen to this and yiud think we were going to build a floating platform for american arms systems. Aegis was never a match for SAMPSON active electronically scanned array multi-function air tracking radar. We are more than caoable of providing our own radar thanks and the BAE Systems, the Mk 45 Mod 4 main gun is probably the best out there right now. The verical launch tubes are just that, it what goes in them that counts.
Believe it when I see it . Regardless of what party in power , this country thinks defence can be done on the cheap . We need value for money but we need a defence strategy that is defence led and not treasury led😊
This will never happen, under Labour the defence budget will be further cut. The R.N. needs to grow rapidly and building these monsters will take too long and require too many personal. What is required are more smaller ships such as corvettes, which would allow a larger navy in a shorter space of time.
no such thing exists, but of course that will not get in the way of abject Brit deludedness. Rule Britania, when you cant even rule your own deludedness. How typically nonsense Brit, indeed.
You clearly don't understand how the Royal navy deploys our carriers. With the previous generation of carriers the Invincible class we had 3 of them in service. We would always operate with one at sea, one at a state or readiness preparing to set sail to take over from the first. And the third undergoing maintenance, refuelling, crew holidays and training after having just returned back to harbour from being out at sea. In a state of emergency the 2nd carrier could be deployed early but we would always have one in harbour at any time of the year. This goes for our nuclear submarine deterrent also. With the QE class carriers we only have two carriers so we always have one in harbour and one out at sea with a few days where both were in harbour for handover of equipment and rotation of crew between the two ships. So we would never have both serving at once as when they both had run out of supplies we would have no carriers active patrolling our coasts until both were refuelled and sent back out. Better to rotate the two carriers than to use both at once. We could send both in an emergency situation but generally have no need.
This is LA LA land! The total reliance on the US for defence by Europe, has made European countries weak individually! This vessel will never be built, as we always go for the cheapest option!
Liebour not even bothered about stopping the channel boats & letting in the enemy through the back door ! So this will no doubt will be scrapped ! According to Liebour we are skint !..but they will just have enough in the kitty to give themselves a pay rise !
Honestly I'm underwhelmed. Oh the design seems adequate as is but the new systems and the long timeframe make it likely it will be over budget, delayed and thus likely it will even shrink further from three shops to one. Maybe even none as government policies change.
The RN abandonned the "cruiser" name post WW2 as a political measure. It was easier to get funding for a ship labelled a "destroyer" than if it were labelled a "cruiser" due to the association with cruisers and the empire (at a time when the empire was breaking up). The US is the only one that really uses the cruiser name, and that's because they have more extensive command facilities on board.
@@stephennelmes4557 the type 22 was designed for anti submarine warfare, seawolf was its point defense system, at the time of it’s design the primary task for the RN was to close the Greenland/Iceland/UK gap to Russian North fleet submarines. It was never seen to be a general purpose frigate. The batch 3, with the Mk8 gun, was the result of the Falklands, firstly to replace the lost type 21’s and 42’s, and the realisation that more than anti submarine was required. Goalkeeper was not purchased for any ship until after 1982.
@@paulhill1665 Yes, mate, I know. I spent 25 years in the Royal Navy 79 -04, and did 3 years on Brave as a radar operator carrying out 2 × three month towed array patrols in the GIUK gap. My point was the weapons were shit. Seawolf GWS 25 only had a range of 3.5 NM and you only got 12 missiles ready to fire. 2 missiles were to be fired at any one target to increase the likelihood of a hit. 1 from aft, 1 from fwd. That meant after 6 engagements they had to be reloaded manually. Exocet MM38, only 4 missiles. Range 22.5 NM. Pathetic. I read a report in 1988 in the Ops room on Brave concerning Exocet missile firings. Of the 10 missiles fired during trials 3 had faulty altimeters and ditched on their way to the target. 2 failed to launch, and only 5 hit the target. 22.5 nautical miles is spitting distance when the Soviets could launch from 160 NM. And for the passive sonar to be effective the ship had to be away from the main force so you'd have little in the way of decent surface to air missile cover. The first batch 2s went to sea with Bofors 40/60. 😂😂
@@paulhill1665😂😂 I worked with Seacat in conjunction with the PO ( G ) in the Ops room on the Arethusa. It was said by many to be our primary ASW weapon 😂😂. I believe the Brave was sunk north of Scotland by a Spearfish and two harpoons. Shame. Good looking ships, just crap weapons.
Minimum order is supposedly 6. But you can bet that the Treasury gets involved, and they are equipped with the bare minimum. "Do you really need 2 Phalanx CIWS systems per vessel ?" " You want both NSM & Tomahawk Missiles !" "Do you really need Torpedo Tubes ?, can't the Helicopter drop one ?" etc, etc, etc
@@madsteve9 You may be right, kind of like the Type 31 was for a time. However, the war in Ukraine seems to have justified the addition of BGM-109 and Spear 5 to it. Hopefully it's made the powers that be realise we need capable naval assets. The Royal Navy has an important role to play in protecting all of Europe. I say that, but apparently Starmer is floating the idea of reducing planned F-35 acquisitions.
@@madsteve9 Ironically , they wont have that much resistance this time around The Type-45 performed very well in the red sea however the critics pointed that the US Arleigh Burke showed clear superiority over the Type-45 The Type-45 Aster missiles limited its range to just 75 miles while the US Burkes were engaged targets hundreds miles away with SM-6s and SM-3s The crux was that Burkes could fire on targets on land with Tomahawks within minutes whereas RN had to rely on the RAF to strike back offensively which would take hours Lastly, the Type-45 payload was just 48 missiles and the planned additional of 24 Sea Ceptors is still short of the Burke 90 to 96 payload. The US also had Ticonderoga class cruisers with its massive 122 payload deployed to the Red Sea. Critics noted how much more firepower the US able to deploy while the RN on the other hand The US only problem was replenishment of missiles but that was negated with use of F-18s from carriers taking over as well existence of the AIM-174 So the RN shouldnt encounter too much resistance this time around
@@verdebusterAP Comparing the two destroyers is not a fair comparison. The Type 45 is primarily an anti aircraft missile platform. Where as the US Burkes are multi role destroyers. So they naturally have a different design in mind from the beginning. Doctrine determines the design of a warship and the US and UK have very different ideas around how to use our warships. For one the Burke is inferior in terms of detectability. The Burk is not a stealth ship where as the Type 45 clearly is. Accredited to having a radar cross section of that of a vessel half it's actual size. Burkes are also intended to be able to fight on their own where as the Type 45 is intended to operate as a taskforce so no one vessel has to be able to fill any role on it's own but can collectively. Type 45 specialises in destroying aircraft and intentionally leaves ground and land attack roles to other ships.
One has to wonder if there will be a change in the trend, I doubt it will just keep getting bigger and bigger for ever, there are probably also downsides to the growing size of ships.
M0D AND R0YAL NAVY NEED T0 WATCH THIS BECAUSE THEY D0N'T KN0W AB0UT ALL THESE CLAIMS. IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE TYPE 83 WILL REPLACE THE TYPE 45 BUT WITH A SH0RTAGE 0F F-35B AIRCRAFT, N0T EN0UGH F0R 0NE CARRIER, WILL THEY BE NEEDED?
No way they will even get the sailors to staff it let alone build it. No one will fight for this stupid country anymore its lost. Our Vets sleep on the street and our old people freeze to death without food.
you will laugh when I tell you that we will see conscription return in our lifetimes, but I have a hunch that's what will happen. When it comes down to it, the elites will think their need to supply the staff for the military will trump our individual right to choose our volition freely.
There will be no one to crew it look at what's happening to working class people who make up most of the military in the UK I do t know a single person who would join up now
At the rate technology is evolving it won’t be long before the U.K. navy and military will be autonomous. Cambridge university in England leads the world in R&D research into a.i.
It is a moving window, early 20th century destroyers were 1,000 to 2,000 tons, WW II it was 1,500 to 3,000, cold war it was 6,000 to 10,000. Now slightly above 10,000 tons ships fill the role of destroyers. It's definitely close enough to existing destroyers: Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers (U.S. Navy): have a displacement of around 8,300 to 9,700 tons, depending on the variant.
Naval gun fire support with a 5" gun ??? Not a chance. 5" gun has a range of 15 miles. No one in their right mind is going to put a 10,000 ton ship costing several billion pounds 15 milles miles, within visual range, from a shore battery. And that's assuming you are shelling the beach and not 5 miles inland. It's not going to happen. The last time we carried out NGS was the Falklands 82, and things have changed. The Russians can't counter Ukrainian sea drones launched from 100+ miles away. A bigger problem is, like the Kirov of the Soviet era, you have all your eggs in one basket. It's going to be a missile / drone magnet 🧲. And, if theres only going to be 3 or 4 of them, you'll only have 2 available at any one time. That's 1 per carrier. A better solution would be to arm the carriers ( like every other carrier in the world) with Aster 30 missiles and have more lighter hulls akin to the Arleigh Burke class with more missiles.
Some of the Arleigh Burkes are near enough to 10,000 tons that you might as well just call them 10,000 tons as well they arent "lighter hulls" by any means
@@Kakarot64.Yeah, true. I was thinking more of the weapon fit and cost of the ships and not the ships displacement. It's better to have more less expensive ships that can specialise in one thing, like Anti Air Warfare, but can still carry out secondary rolls, than have fewer more expensive ships for the same cost. Even the best ship in the world can't be in two places a once.
@@stephennelmes4557 The Burkes benefited from economy of scale so many of them were made that it reduced the per unit cost as things like parts bulk purchasing, tooling up the production lines for the class, the workforce getting more efficient due to working on the same class for so long (with upgrades added as time goes on) and the r&d costs for developing the class were spread across so many Hulls the T45's by comparison only ended up with 6 units so these costs weren't spread out very far which helped to contribute to the high per unit cost.
@@Kakarot64.We should have bought ABs instead of building the T45s. The ABs have a much larger crew but also far more firepower. We could also have had 12 ships we wanted instead of the 6 we've got. There are arguments for building under licence but again tooling has to be taken into consideration. We built AH64 D Apache Longbow under licence and what a debacle that was. The book " Lions,donkeys and dinosaurs", waste and blundering in the British military, covered the purchase in one of its sections. Thankfully we are now looking to ditch the much maligned SA80 rifle and buying an American weapon from Knights armaments.
India has made it damn difficult for the UK to build them, now that we are virtually unable to make virgin steel here thanks to TATA closing Port Talbots blast furnaces
I see no reason for these ships to be so large, unless the aim is to have them be more multi-role vessels than the Type 45. Every other nation's destroyers are capable ASW vessels and primarily AAW ships. The old argument that "oh, they don't need to ASW because we have the T26 for that in a Carrier Strike Group" doesn't hold water. It's only because "that's how we've always done it" combined with extreme penny-pinching. Firstly, no other nation seems to think that is a good idea, why they seem to think the RN has some magical insite that nobody else can grasp, is a mystery. Secondly, escorting a carrier represents less than half the missions these ships are used for, so unless you send a T26 to escort the T45 when deployed apart from a CSG, they are entirely vulnerable to underwater threats... e.g. While escorting merchant shipping in the Gulf of Aden and the Bab al-Mandab strait from the Houthis. Thirdly, underwater drones and semi-submursibles are already proving their worth and are rapidly developing. So are we going to skimp on the relatively minor cost of equipping them for ASW (as well as AAW), an extra 2-3% procurement cost, and then make our largest and most capable surface combattents vulnerable to cheap underwater drones? It would be a rediculous penny-pinching exercise, considering the UK claims to field few gold-plated ships in exchange for many mediocre ones.
Amazing. A nation that is barely able to feed it's growing army of poor and homeless wants to spend moar and moar on its military hardware and on Ukraine😂
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Still on the drawing board. No budget yet and no confirmation this class will be built.
They'll cancel it like getting rid of toilet paper 🧻🤣
heard something called type 055? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
That's the same for nearly all long-term British projects. It's also why our defence industry is in a right state atm because we don't have stable long-term funding.
Just because there isn't funding this far out, isn't a sign it will be cancelled. (No idea where all this pessimism is coming from.)
But there's no way the government won't replace the Type 45. But they will probably leave it till too late to allocate funding, not allocate enough funding, causing problems, having reduced capability and then we still won't have enough for the job (just like T45, remembering we had 14 Type 42 destroyers).
If the UK and Australia would work together building these, both countries would be better off. Aukus shouldn't just be for submarines. Thus giving the UK a southern Hemisphere port for refit and systems repairs/upgrades
As a Brit I’d like to see that. Britain can build great ships and has access to cutting edge technologies from our world class universities but everything comes down to money and political will. Plus, we done ourselves no favours when we closed down a lot of shipyards across the U.K. We could bring a lot of those old ship yards back into commission because a lot of those old shipyards have been repurposed for other roles but could with investment make ships again. Harland and Wolfe in Belfast built the Titanic but could build naval ships and shipyards in northern England and not just Scotland. But it would be good to see Australia and also Canada and New Zealand maybe collaborating as well. The Royal CANZUK Navy would be the best navy on earth. Combining our strengths and weaknesses to build the best of everything.
@@lg_believe333 common history, language, ideology, geopolitical language. All of the Commonwealth countries have so much to offer and ties.
@@lg_believe333 Harland and Wolff in Belfast has 3 navy ships on its books already
Canada as well. That would bring the class to +/- 25- 30 units
If that's the proposed T83 they're not even approved or at a definite design stage and may not materialise at all. Tbh, we'd be better advised for now to implement a credible, significant life extension prog. for the 6 (also to be FULLY armed, NOT left as FFBNW paper tigers) T45s, build an additional 2 x T26 variants to join them, also optimised for the AA/M role and also with upgraded PAAMS as the principle AA/M system and then initiate a full, serious T83 prog to provide 8 x yet more capable replacements from c2044 on.
The Type 83 is likely to have 3 core roles. 1) Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) - defence against aircraft, hypersonic and conventional anti-ship missiles. 2) Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) defence for the fleet, and potentially to provide an umbrella over land areas, including the UK mainland. ABM missiles may also have some anti-satellite capability. 3) Land-Attack Cruise Missiles (LACM) to bolster the UK’s current inadequate ability to attack targets ashore at long range.
About time . We need ground to air . Am I right we have no missile defence system. Not ground artileri type anyway . If that is the right way to say it. You sound interesting to me
Pre concept phase ….says it all
Since we have a Labour government in power this class of ships will never get off the drawing board.
Depends. When Gordon Brown, finally agreed to build the Carriers he insisted that they were assembled in the Rosyth Naval Dockyard in his constituency.
Both, Vickers - Barrow-in-Furness, and Cammell Laird - Birkenhead, yards would have been better choices.
The highest part of the Carrier, is only 10 foot from the lowest part of the Forth Bridge.
Sadly, I fear you will be absolutely spot on, as Labour couldn’t give a S**t about our country, let alone our sovereign defence!😞
@@nathanielwhite8769what on earth are you basing your view on? It was the Tory party of 2010 that reduced defence spending by a greater amount than any other government! Please check facts.
Last LAbour government wanted 9 Destroyers, Tories cut it to 6. LAbour wanted more money for the defence.
@@nathanielwhite8769 you talk as though torys havent gutted our military over the last 14 years
If it's anything like other British forms of transport, water/cold/heat/use.of any kind will make it break down and cause delays.
All 7.62 mm LMG and miniguns have been replaced by 12.7 mm .50-cal HMGs.
All well and good but the question is can we man them
If it's like any of the other ships produced,won't even get out off the Harbour!!!
😂😂😂 So all those ships are imaginary😂 Birds aren't real either.😂
Stupid comment
WTF are you talking about.
Both QE class carriers are fully built and operational. EQ did have some propeller shaft issues in the first month of operation but were quickly repaired. Any new class of ship is guaranteed to have issues to fix.
The way the UK fleet operates it's carrier fleet means that one ship is out serving it's purpose while the other is in harbour undergoing maintenance, training, crew holidays and refuelling. So we will always have some navy ships in harbour. That does not mean we are not using them.
The Type 45 are very capable vessels. While their development was intentionally delayed by David Cameron for political squabbling, the ships are able to perform their tasks as intended. They are also among the first NATO large warships to incorporate stealth characteristics that most western warships are now incorporating to follow after.
@@amandarhodes4072 I think they mean most of the rest of the fleet.
Of our submarines, only 1 of the SSNs has been to sea in the past 3 months, most are awaiting to be drydocked, which we don't have enough nuclear capable dry docks atm.
The T45 have been mostly alongside for the past few years thanks to the engine issues because they don't like the hot water of the Red Sea. Then they'll be back in dry dock shortly after to have more weapons fitted... Why they can't do this while they're cutting them open to replace the diesels, I don't know.
And the T23 are getting old and requiring more and more maintenance too.
Basically, we need to drastically increase the investment in our sustainment infrastructure. Drydock space etc. Else these ships are going to waste, queueing up to be fixed.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 No shortage of drydock space really, the RN just have to farm their ships out to private companies that have the dry docks required.
Well, just to play Devils advocate. It was, in fact, Gordon Brown's Labour government that commissioned the Royal Navy's two super-carriers. HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
Well, Gordon Brown also systematically raided and destroyed the pension pots. One of his most idiotic decision ever made. and then he likewise sold 395 tons of gold bullion reserve by the BoE. When it comes economy, he is truly a disaster, His folly says a lot. Lest, you forget those government funded PFI's..
He did that to keep his seat in parliament after he bailed out the banks and almost bankrupted the UK. The two Ships were "nailed" together in his constituency in Scotland. They have not proved to be very reliable, just like "boom & Bust Gordon The Gold Seller'...
@@josephmccafferty2830 - only because he implemented the cost overrun fix.
@@mattmatt7305 It was also the Conservatives who cut defence expenditure 2010-24,
David Cameron wanted to cancel the second aircraft carrier.
Don't give me this excrement that the Tories are the patriots in favour of a string defence
@@FranzBieberkopf sdsr 2010 the Conservative defence review ordered by Cameron decimated the military especially the navy making 5000 sailors redundant even to this day because of this Navy cannot crew all their ships it's why several have been mothballed or decommissioned early
That's going to be an awesome ship. If it gets built.😅
Just build them the Type 83 destroyers the UK would be happy to have at least 8 to 10 destroyers and 12 to 14 Frigates for future of the Royal Navy. It makes sense.
If it ever gets built it will have a Mandatory Rain Garden, Inside You’ll Find Low Pedestrian Zones LPZ. Where you can Only walk within your inhabitant colour zone.
Up on Deck it’ll be fitted Broom Sticks to scare the enemy .
Any new ship being built that does not have at least 4 Phalanx defence systems will be an easy target for a drone swarm. Additional longer range guns with burst ammunitions like the Bofors 40mm or 57mm guns
I hope they see this before they finish. 😂 thank you for your service
Hope their built better than the last ships we have been supplied they are spending more time being repaired in dock than being at sea
No they aren't.
Remember the Bismarck, the most feared battleship in the world when WW2 broke out. Disabled and turned into a practice target by a Fairey Swordfish cloth biplane armed with one torpedo. Airpower beats everything. Big ships are prime targets. Swordfish sank a greater tonnage of Axis shipping than any other Allied aircraft during the war.
Ships now have guided missiles, both hypersonic and regular. Thats air power😂
If the Bismarck had surface to air missiles and computer guided weapons it would have been a different story. We cant live in the past, that's why russia is doing so badly😂
@@tclanjtopsom4846 You think Russia is doing badly? 😆
@@dirkscott5410 You think it isn't? 😂
At 180m in length I imagine it would displace more than 10,000 tons by time they are done with it. 150m class ships are already pushing 10k.
uk has to decomission healthy ships prematurely because no available personnel...
Why do we advertise to the world what new weaponry we hope to build in future?
Even if we didn't say anything it would be pretty obvious that we are going to build new ships, our current ones will have to be decommissioned at some point.
We dont, we put out requests for bids on projects but yt channels like this assume a lot.
Look at russia, they put out a lot of bs about its weapons and the world believed them😂
Now the truth has been exposed and countries like Armenia are not buying russian any more.
Propaganda and gaslighting
Sounds like the better armed brother of the German F127
Well, the Type 45's will need to be replaced in the not too distance future so these will be absolutely vital to our defence. It seems that within NATO, our specific role is to be naval and aviation, hence why the land forces size has been gradually reducing over the years...
Doesn’t the Chinese navy already have the 13K ton type 55 destroyer? Is it feared yet?
They would only say they have real concern about that 😂😂😂😂
Hope it'll able to sail longer.
It's worth noting that the design for the Type 83 probably won't be chosen until around 2030.
Until then, it is all speculation.
Future UK destroyer - it's Type 26 frigate with the 2-3 extra sections and destroyers set of weapons
Doubtful. The new destroyer will likely be wider to provide stability for a tall mast and heavy radar.
That's not to say some of the design elements from T26 won't be reused.
I think it's also likely that the T83 will go back to the IEP, rather than the CODLOG of the T26 because they'll want the extra power for systems, sensors, energy weapons etc.
Beautiful
Its so powerful I like it
We haven’t even designed it so I doubt anyone is worried as we almost certainly will not build it but instead pretend something under armed and smaller will do! ( Oh and the American ships are cruisers!)
Too many eggs in one basket? Can't afford more than a dozen. Also there is a changing nature of threat to warships, especially close to shores.
Lets see it first. Would´nt surprise me it this was one of the spendings costs Starmer is presenting.
Another ship will spend more time in the dry docks, than on the sea.
The trouble is not having enough dry docks. They're all alongside WAITING for dry dock space, not in dry docks themselves.
If we spent more money building/replacing/upgrading drydocks asap then they wouldn't be queueing up, waiting for maintenance/overhaul/upgrades.
There is a very slow, long-term plan to upgrade the infrastructure at various naval bases, but it isn't being allocated the funding to get it done in a timely manner.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 strange, the largest dry dock in the UK gets little to no use
Even if this Class ever gets passed the design phase, let alone actually funded for construction, arbitrary design dimension figures shouldn’t be presumed in advance, as the exact design of this new class will be carefully worked out according to the inherent capabilities and capacities required of its core mission sets.
Bigger is inherently better; more stable, more comfortable, harder to sink or damage, better able to carry weapons, a better sensor platform, faster ( especially in non-placid see states ); and able to carry some armor protection. Britain has a history of building needlessly small warships that "look" inexpensive; the Type 23 was built deliberately with an undersized hull, which of course is the first and most essential, and cheapest, part of the ship.
@ Yes, absolutely, I do hope that given the increasingly unstable strategic situation the UK is heading towards that finally for once at least in the RN’s proud history it can be rewarded with an Air & Ballistic Missile Defence Surface Combatant (Preferably a generously Sized Cruiser) without compromise in any the the key warship parameters, Sea Keeping at most importantly Firepower, RADAR Performance and Interoperability in terms of Co-Operative Engagement Capability with our Allies! Cheers.
Traditional warships over 10,000 tonnes are Cruisers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cruiser#Washington_Treaty
This will be the first Cruiser class in the Royal Navy since HMS Blake C99, decommissioned in December 1979.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Blake_(C99)
Although HMS Invincible, was known as a Through-Deck Cruiser, to stop the then Labour Government having to admit a mistake, in the retirement of the conventional Aircraft Carriers & cancellation of the CVA-01 (HMS Queen Elizabeth) class.
Ssshhhhh calling it a Destroyer instead of a cruiser helps trick the people controlling the budget into paying for them and even then they'll kick up a fuss aint no way theyd authorise the purchase if they thought they were paying for a high end cruiser.
Impressive.
The Italian Navy is building 2 of these 13,500-ton ships with 96 launch cells per ship, to be in service in 2030.
it seems that if a new missile comes out then they need a new ship to mount it, same for a missile, what happened to these multi adaptable ships?
There are a number of similar ship types planned for in the future by U.S, Japan and others. Can't see how it's the most feared warship on earth unless they're talking about cost.
Most feared that it’ll never exist
Unfortunately, the way I feel things are going at this rate with Starmer’s Regime in Westminster, the UK’s Defence Budget as a whole is going to be Rapped, in terms of the current Equipment procurement programmes in motion or that are currently funded.
With the UK, if it's in pre-conception stage, it means not gonna happen in my life time.
Listen to this and yiud think we were going to build a floating platform for american arms systems. Aegis was never a match for SAMPSON active electronically scanned array multi-function air tracking radar. We are more than caoable of providing our own radar thanks and the BAE Systems, the Mk 45 Mod 4 main gun is probably the best out there right now. The verical launch tubes are just that, it what goes in them that counts.
Believe it when I see it . Regardless of what party in power , this country thinks defence can be done on the cheap . We need value for money but we need a defence strategy that is defence led and not treasury led😊
This will never happen, under Labour the defence budget will be further cut. The R.N. needs to grow rapidly and building these monsters will take too long and require too many personal. What is required are more smaller ships such as corvettes, which would allow a larger navy in a shorter space of time.
Rule Britannia from Glasgow 🇬🇧💙😎
no such thing exists, but of course that will not get in the way of abject Brit deludedness. Rule Britania, when you cant even rule your own deludedness. How typically nonsense Brit, indeed.
Sure. How abt being able to man the 2 new carriers simultaneously?
You clearly don't understand how the Royal navy deploys our carriers.
With the previous generation of carriers the Invincible class we had 3 of them in service. We would always operate with one at sea, one at a state or readiness preparing to set sail to take over from the first. And the third undergoing maintenance, refuelling, crew holidays and training after having just returned back to harbour from being out at sea.
In a state of emergency the 2nd carrier could be deployed early but we would always have one in harbour at any time of the year. This goes for our nuclear submarine deterrent also.
With the QE class carriers we only have two carriers so we always have one in harbour and one out at sea with a few days where both were in harbour for handover of equipment and rotation of crew between the two ships.
So we would never have both serving at once as when they both had run out of supplies we would have no carriers active patrolling our coasts until both were refuelled and sent back out. Better to rotate the two carriers than to use both at once. We could send both in an emergency situation but generally have no need.
Late 2030s. 😂😂😂😂
With the tech we have today if money is on the table, this boat is built in 2 weeks
This is LA LA land! The total reliance on the US for defence by Europe, has made European countries weak individually! This vessel will never be built, as we always go for the cheapest option!
เสร็จรึยังลำนี้..
Liebour not even bothered about stopping the channel boats & letting in the enemy through the back door ! So this will no doubt will be scrapped ! According to Liebour we are skint !..but they will just have enough in the kitty to give themselves a pay rise !
Honestly I'm underwhelmed. Oh the design seems adequate as is but the new systems and the long timeframe make it likely it will be over budget, delayed and thus likely it will even shrink further from three shops to one. Maybe even none as government policies change.
Will the World still be around in the late 2030's?
The British government says it can't afford to stop the old dying in the winter!!! So they shouldn't have the money for this!!!
They would if they stopped the migrants.
surely a warship over 8000 tons is a cruiser, not a destroyer?
Big expensive ship in the era of drone warfare. Expensive targets for cheap munitions.
This isn’t the first Cold War anymore.
At what point does a destroyer become a cruiser if it weighs 10k tonnes
The RN abandonned the "cruiser" name post WW2 as a political measure. It was easier to get funding for a ship labelled a "destroyer" than if it were labelled a "cruiser" due to the association with cruisers and the empire (at a time when the empire was breaking up).
The US is the only one that really uses the cruiser name, and that's because they have more extensive command facilities on board.
10000 tonnes? What is it? A lifeboat?
BUT WILL IT STOP RUBBER DINGHYS>
Good for philppine navy
Naval strategy is built strategy, and wishes don’t cut it. 😕
3:40 The Type 22 Broadsword Class Frigates did not have a Gun!
And they were crap 💩. The batch 1+2 were criminally under armed. That's why the Type 22 batch 3 got the 4.5" gun, 8 Harpoon, and a Goalkeeper.
@@stephennelmes4557 the type 22 was designed for anti submarine warfare, seawolf was its point defense system, at the time of it’s design the primary task for the RN was to close the Greenland/Iceland/UK gap to Russian North fleet submarines. It was never seen to be a general purpose frigate. The batch 3, with the Mk8 gun, was the result of the Falklands, firstly to replace the lost type 21’s and 42’s, and the realisation that more than anti submarine was required. Goalkeeper was not purchased for any ship until after 1982.
@@paulhill1665 Yes, mate, I know. I spent 25 years in the Royal Navy 79 -04, and did 3 years on Brave as a radar operator carrying out 2 × three month towed array patrols in the GIUK gap. My point was the weapons were shit. Seawolf GWS 25 only had a range of 3.5 NM and you only got 12 missiles ready to fire. 2 missiles were to be fired at any one target to increase the likelihood of a hit. 1 from aft, 1 from fwd. That meant after 6 engagements they had to be reloaded manually.
Exocet MM38, only 4 missiles. Range 22.5 NM. Pathetic.
I read a report in 1988 in the Ops room on Brave concerning Exocet missile firings. Of the 10 missiles fired during trials 3 had faulty altimeters and ditched on their way to the target. 2 failed to launch, and only 5 hit the target.
22.5 nautical miles is spitting distance when the Soviets could launch from 160 NM. And for the passive sonar to be effective the ship had to be away from the main force so you'd have little in the way of decent surface to air missile cover. The first batch 2s went to sea with Bofors 40/60. 😂😂
Sea wolf was still a step change from Seacat, saw the Brave once, we used her as a practice target.
@@paulhill1665😂😂 I worked with Seacat in conjunction with the PO ( G ) in the Ops room on the Arethusa. It was said by many to be our primary ASW weapon 😂😂.
I believe the Brave was sunk north of Scotland by a Spearfish and two harpoons. Shame. Good looking ships, just crap weapons.
We haven't built it.
Minimum order is supposedly 6.
But you can bet that the Treasury gets involved, and they are equipped with the bare minimum.
"Do you really need 2 Phalanx CIWS systems per vessel ?" " You want both NSM & Tomahawk Missiles !" "Do you really need Torpedo Tubes ?, can't the Helicopter drop one ?" etc, etc, etc
@@madsteve9 You may be right, kind of like the Type 31 was for a time. However, the war in Ukraine seems to have justified the addition of BGM-109 and Spear 5 to it. Hopefully it's made the powers that be realise we need capable naval assets. The Royal Navy has an important role to play in protecting all of Europe.
I say that, but apparently Starmer is floating the idea of reducing planned F-35 acquisitions.
@@madsteve9
Ironically , they wont have that much resistance this time around
The Type-45 performed very well in the red sea however the critics pointed that the US Arleigh Burke showed clear superiority over the Type-45
The Type-45 Aster missiles limited its range to just 75 miles while the US Burkes were engaged targets hundreds miles away with SM-6s and SM-3s
The crux was that Burkes could fire on targets on land with Tomahawks within minutes whereas RN had to rely on the RAF to strike back offensively which would take hours
Lastly, the Type-45 payload was just 48 missiles and the planned additional of 24 Sea Ceptors is still short of the Burke 90 to 96 payload. The US also had Ticonderoga class cruisers with its massive 122 payload deployed to the Red Sea.
Critics noted how much more firepower the US able to deploy while the RN on the other hand
The US only problem was replenishment of missiles but that was negated with use of F-18s from carriers taking over as well existence of the AIM-174
So the RN shouldnt encounter too much resistance this time around
Germany built now the next gen frigates, 11 500tons ! 6 in built now !
@@verdebusterAP Comparing the two destroyers is not a fair comparison. The Type 45 is primarily an anti aircraft missile platform. Where as the US Burkes are multi role destroyers. So they naturally have a different design in mind from the beginning. Doctrine determines the design of a warship and the US and UK have very different ideas around how to use our warships.
For one the Burke is inferior in terms of detectability. The Burk is not a stealth ship where as the Type 45 clearly is. Accredited to having a radar cross section of that of a vessel half it's actual size.
Burkes are also intended to be able to fight on their own where as the Type 45 is intended to operate as a taskforce so no one vessel has to be able to fill any role on it's own but can collectively. Type 45 specialises in destroying aircraft and intentionally leaves ground and land attack roles to other ships.
Yeah , the US DDGX will over 13,000 tons
One has to wonder if there will be a change in the trend, I doubt it will just keep getting bigger and bigger for ever,
there are probably also downsides to the growing size of ships.
@@Emanuel-t5e The obvious downside is fewer hulls of larger sizes. 10 x 6k vessels or 4 x 15k? Depends how man places you need to operate.
M0D AND R0YAL NAVY NEED T0 WATCH THIS BECAUSE THEY D0N'T KN0W AB0UT ALL THESE CLAIMS. IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE TYPE 83 WILL REPLACE THE TYPE 45 BUT WITH A SH0RTAGE 0F F-35B AIRCRAFT, N0T EN0UGH F0R 0NE CARRIER, WILL THEY BE NEEDED?
Directed energy ... why don't you just say it, 'ray guns'?
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩💪👍
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩💪👍
Yeah they made a carrier some time ago and the only people who got scared were the sailors on it
Expensive anti pirate boat. Which will be down graded due to funding cuts and will total 3 in number.
Unless against rubber boats which seem to be THE major threat both in the Red Sea region and the Channel!
No way they will even get the sailors to staff it let alone build it. No one will fight for this stupid country anymore its lost. Our Vets sleep on the street and our old people freeze to death without food.
Why?
...yeah, yeah but no one to man them
you will laugh when I tell you that we will see conscription return in our lifetimes,
but I have a hunch that's what will happen.
When it comes down to it, the elites will think their need to supply the staff for the military will trump our individual right to choose our volition freely.
All that navy power yet thousands of invaders cross the chanel every few months yet Navy does nothing lol
Uk royal navy but has no king 😅
Dont forget China warship
There will be no one to crew it look at what's happening to working class people who make up most of the military in the UK I do t know a single person who would join up now
At the rate technology is evolving it won’t be long before the U.K. navy and military will be autonomous. Cambridge university in England leads the world in R&D research into a.i.
10,000 tons? We call those cruisers, right?
It is a moving window,
early 20th century destroyers were 1,000 to 2,000 tons, WW II it was 1,500 to 3,000, cold war it was 6,000 to 10,000.
Now slightly above 10,000 tons ships fill the role of destroyers.
It's definitely close enough to existing destroyers:
Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers (U.S. Navy): have a displacement of around 8,300 to 9,700 tons, depending on the variant.
clickbait he has no idea
We are unlikely to use expensive inferior US missiles
and the Sejong the Great class would eat it for lunch - because, well, they are already in the water.
and ditto for the Chinese Type 055
Prêt en 2065 🤣
SPY 6 cannot defend against Hypersonics.
Naval gun fire support with a 5" gun ??? Not a chance. 5" gun has a range of 15 miles. No one in their right mind is going to put a 10,000 ton ship costing several billion pounds 15 milles miles, within visual range, from a shore battery. And that's assuming you are shelling the beach and not 5 miles inland. It's not going to happen.
The last time we carried out NGS was the Falklands 82, and things have changed. The Russians can't counter Ukrainian sea drones launched from 100+ miles away.
A bigger problem is, like the Kirov of the Soviet era, you have all your eggs in one basket. It's going to be a missile / drone magnet 🧲. And, if theres only going to be 3 or 4 of them, you'll only have 2 available at any one time. That's 1 per carrier.
A better solution would be to arm the carriers ( like every other carrier in the world) with Aster 30 missiles and have more lighter hulls akin to the Arleigh Burke class with more missiles.
Some of the Arleigh Burkes are near enough to 10,000 tons that you might as well just call them 10,000 tons as well they arent "lighter hulls" by any means
@@Kakarot64.Yeah, true. I was thinking more of the weapon fit and cost of the ships and not the ships displacement. It's better to have more less expensive ships that can specialise in one thing, like Anti Air Warfare, but can still carry out secondary rolls, than have fewer more expensive ships for the same cost. Even the best ship in the world can't be in two places a once.
@@stephennelmes4557
The Burkes benefited from economy of scale so many of them were made that it reduced the per unit cost as things like parts bulk purchasing, tooling up the production lines for the class, the workforce getting more efficient due to working on the same class for so long (with upgrades added as time goes on) and the r&d costs for developing the class were spread across so many Hulls the T45's by comparison only ended up with 6 units so these costs weren't spread out very far which helped to contribute to the high per unit cost.
@@Kakarot64.We should have bought ABs instead of building the T45s. The ABs have a much larger crew but also far more firepower.
We could also have had 12 ships we wanted instead of the 6 we've got.
There are arguments for building under licence but again tooling has to be taken into consideration.
We built AH64 D Apache Longbow under licence and what a debacle that was. The book " Lions,donkeys and dinosaurs", waste and blundering in the British military, covered the purchase in one of its sections.
Thankfully we are now looking to ditch the much maligned SA80 rifle and buying an American weapon from Knights armaments.
"Making It The Most Feared Warship On Earth"? 🤡🤣
This shitty click baits with "most feared" in the title.
india can't make ships like this.
India has made it damn difficult for the UK to build them, now that we are virtually unable to make virgin steel here thanks to TATA closing Port Talbots blast furnaces
Nah, it will be canceled 🙃
If ever built will more than likely spend most of its time in repair yards, alongside the heaps of shite aircraft carriers.
Look at our adversaries as we get infiltrated from within.
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩💪👍
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩💪👍
It’ll be cancelled, to be replaced by row boats under Labiur.
,
We need rid of Labour. What is the best way to try and get them out.?
I see no reason for these ships to be so large, unless the aim is to have them be more multi-role vessels than the Type 45.
Every other nation's destroyers are capable ASW vessels and primarily AAW ships.
The old argument that "oh, they don't need to ASW because we have the T26 for that in a Carrier Strike Group" doesn't hold water. It's only because "that's how we've always done it" combined with extreme penny-pinching.
Firstly, no other nation seems to think that is a good idea, why they seem to think the RN has some magical insite that nobody else can grasp, is a mystery.
Secondly, escorting a carrier represents less than half the missions these ships are used for, so unless you send a T26 to escort the T45 when deployed apart from a CSG, they are entirely vulnerable to underwater threats... e.g. While escorting merchant shipping in the Gulf of Aden and the Bab al-Mandab strait from the Houthis.
Thirdly, underwater drones and semi-submursibles are already proving their worth and are rapidly developing.
So are we going to skimp on the relatively minor cost of equipping them for ASW (as well as AAW), an extra 2-3% procurement cost, and then make our largest and most capable surface combattents vulnerable to cheap underwater drones? It would be a rediculous penny-pinching exercise, considering the UK claims to field few gold-plated ships in exchange for many mediocre ones.
The German Sachsen class is a good example of this, however Germany is still building ASW Frigates for that very same reason..
this title really worths a dislike.
Svejedno Amerikanci i Kinezi su puno jači na moru. Prošla su vaša vremena.
LAME Channel !!!
Fear is good for business.
Preach fear.. Sell hope. ..
Oldest scam on Earth. .
Duh
Amazing. A nation that is barely able to feed it's growing army of poor and homeless wants to spend moar and moar on its military hardware and on Ukraine😂
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩💂
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩💂
Most feared? I'm going with a Nimitz or Ford class carrier which are literally 10x the size of this toy. 🙄