Mysterious Type 83 Destroyer : UK's Mega Big Ship That Will Surprise Earthlings (17,500 tons)

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 พ.ย. 2022
  • Here's the UK type 83 warship, a giant warship weighing 17,500 tons, 216 meters long, 24 meters wide.
    NOTE: I apologize for misrepresenting the number about the weight of this ship at the beginning of the video
    Thanks for watching, please like, share, and subscribe
  • วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี

ความคิดเห็น • 247

  • @christhorpejunction8982
    @christhorpejunction8982 ปีที่แล้ว +99

    If it displaces 216 tonnes it’d be tiny….

    • @chriswilde7246
      @chriswilde7246 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      Lol.....I had to listen to that part twice; I thought I heard it wrong..🙄

    • @thecurlew7403
      @thecurlew7403 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Whos putting these prapagander videos up mega ships in uk now means mega problems get a life its a joke.

    • @beckismith520
      @beckismith520 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      It's made of superlight materials which are also Ultra dense, so basically it's going to have a.20 inch armour scheme that can not be defeated by current hypersonic missiles or ninjas. 🙂

    • @thecurlew7403
      @thecurlew7403 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@beckismith520 And if this breaks down who will fix it uk is really done it will be a defence force small they need the money to bring in more migrants to top hotels.

    • @mikebronicki8264
      @mikebronicki8264 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      That was a typo that any "voice talent" should have caught.

  • @daleeasternbrat816
    @daleeasternbrat816 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    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!

    • @Debbiebabe69
      @Debbiebabe69 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      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......

    • @daleeasternbrat816
      @daleeasternbrat816 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@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.

  • @nicholaskarnani3182
    @nicholaskarnani3182 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    What we need is more ships,in evrey department,in big numbers,at least 29 of each.

    • @aaronthebest5519
      @aaronthebest5519 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      29? You got to be joking? What do you propose we cut to afford that?

    • @JckSwan
      @JckSwan 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      29 aircraft carriers might be overkill, but we do need to expand the fleet a bit. Oh well, we can all dream.

  • @nathanielwhite8769
    @nathanielwhite8769 ปีที่แล้ว +33

    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.

    • @squirepraggerstope3591
      @squirepraggerstope3591 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      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

    • @dragzgaming
      @dragzgaming ปีที่แล้ว +1

      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

    • @dc-4ever201
      @dc-4ever201 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      ​​@@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.

    • @danielwatson6000
      @danielwatson6000 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Agree

    • @ppo2424
      @ppo2424 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Just because it is old does not men it is no good.@@dragzgaming

  • @CompositesNG
    @CompositesNG ปีที่แล้ว

    Great video, just subscribed

  • @watchthe1369
    @watchthe1369 หลายเดือนก่อน

    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.

  • @king_goose
    @king_goose ปีที่แล้ว +11

    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.

    • @michaelwan4268
      @michaelwan4268 ปีที่แล้ว

      Unfortunately under Indian's leadership....there will be no chance...

    • @TP-ie3hj
      @TP-ie3hj ปีที่แล้ว

      a great position as in broke! You dont even boss brown people around anymore whats the need? scary slavs...

    • @Withnail1969
      @Withnail1969 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      We could not possibly afford to build 8 to 12 of these. The UK is broke.

    • @michaelwan4268
      @michaelwan4268 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Withnail1969 with Inidan's leader ship, for sure.....

    • @billymac8134
      @billymac8134 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Your right, it'll be less than the type 45s for sure maybe 2 or 3 tops@@Withnail1969

  • @jammiedodger7040
    @jammiedodger7040 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    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

    • @pablom-f8762
      @pablom-f8762 ปีที่แล้ว

      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.

    • @1701_FyldeFlyer
      @1701_FyldeFlyer ปีที่แล้ว +1

      More a heavy cruiser than light.

    • @jammiedodger7040
      @jammiedodger7040 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@1701_FyldeFlyer Doesn’t have the fire power to be classed a Heavy Cruiser and does not really have the tonnage ever

    • @daleeasternbrat816
      @daleeasternbrat816 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      By the standards of history, I am not sure 17,000 tons ....... It's kind of big for a Destroyer. It's kind of big for a light cruiser.

    • @advanceaustralia4861
      @advanceaustralia4861 ปีที่แล้ว

      Type 83 is a battlecruiser.

  • @c.philipmckenzie
    @c.philipmckenzie 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Great stuff. Now if we can just find some folks to operate the thing.

  • @laymanutama987
    @laymanutama987 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I am not a military guy but I am sure such a vessel will certainly sink the Bank of England if the Navy decides to build one.......

  • @libertadbansag9229
    @libertadbansag9229 ปีที่แล้ว

    Another ... "BEST OF THE BEST !!"♡

  • @raywhitehead730
    @raywhitehead730 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    As far as I Know, no money , that's zero money, has been allocated for this concept. December, 2022.

  • @Maryevans-jx4st
    @Maryevans-jx4st ปีที่แล้ว +3

    the new sheds in scotland to build these ships will only be 176 meters long !

  • @Blacksheep1968
    @Blacksheep1968 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Lmao. My very first thought was Type 82 all over again...the government will never spend that much 💰

    • @1951woodygeo
      @1951woodygeo ปีที่แล้ว +1

      They are going to build it it has already begun the process .

  • @Quareat
    @Quareat ปีที่แล้ว +6

    A giant at 216 tonnes? Is it a Trireme?

  • @fjm1235
    @fjm1235 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    At that displacement it's a cruiser.

  • @attorneyboyet9742
    @attorneyboyet9742 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    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.

  • @peterfeltham5612
    @peterfeltham5612 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    God 216 tons
    .....the Easter Islanders must be terrified.

  • @roberttarring8621
    @roberttarring8621 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    It’s made out of carbon composite and filed with high pressure helium

    • @pablom-f8762
      @pablom-f8762 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Alvin and the Chipmunks in a yellow submarine. Luv it.

    • @roberttarring8621
      @roberttarring8621 ปีที่แล้ว

      Chipmunks contribute to the extreme weight reduction 😂😂😂

    • @thecurlew7403
      @thecurlew7403 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Well at least the antiship weapon will be a giant Pin easy to construct.

  • @decentdave4223
    @decentdave4223 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    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.

    • @johns70
      @johns70 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I think they just took the length and the AI misread it. It says right after “216m long”…

    • @decentdave4223
      @decentdave4223 ปีที่แล้ว

      @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.

  • @Paulo-ov4yo
    @Paulo-ov4yo ปีที่แล้ว +2

    With our government we have hardly anything with all the cut backs. Shameful

  • @Serviteur_du_saint_empire
    @Serviteur_du_saint_empire 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Plus vue un aussi grand et beau vaisseaux de ligne depuis la belle époque des cuirassée .👍🏻

  • @grahamepigney8565
    @grahamepigney8565 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    So far just pure speculation in the range of 10,000 to 17,000 tons. How much will one cost and where will the UK get the money from?

    • @jamesknight3070
      @jamesknight3070 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      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).

  • @jerromedrakejr9332
    @jerromedrakejr9332 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    "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!?

  • @CarnageXAddy388z
    @CarnageXAddy388z ปีที่แล้ว +2

    In no way it would displace around 17,000 tonnes..... I bet it would displace around 12,000 tonnes with length around 180-190m

  • @sensibledriver933
    @sensibledriver933 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The type of ship we need to compete with the 055's the UK government will never fund.

  • @loddon82
    @loddon82 ปีที่แล้ว

    Nice, but I'll believe it when I see it

  • @zippy350
    @zippy350 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Light Cruiser sounds much scarier 😁

  • @trevortrevortsr2
    @trevortrevortsr2 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    No we need dedicated smaller drone ships

  • @aztecacalendario
    @aztecacalendario 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Should concentrate on anti submarine too.

  • @skipper409
    @skipper409 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    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

  • @stokerboiler
    @stokerboiler ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The UK will need ships like this as the US withdraws from being the top cop on the world's trade routes.

  • @lindsaybaker9480
    @lindsaybaker9480 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    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.

  • @jeanninetartanpion9446
    @jeanninetartanpion9446 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Why is a Kirov class cruiser shown when it is never mentioned?

  • @Texaca
    @Texaca 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    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

  • @anitawhite9694
    @anitawhite9694 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Welcome to the party!! Thank you.

  • @stupitdog9686
    @stupitdog9686 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    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 ??"

  • @frankschmidt5932
    @frankschmidt5932 ปีที่แล้ว

    Hurraaaaaaa the RN is back in Business.

  • @ALWH1314
    @ALWH1314 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Why is it a destroyer? This is bigger than cruiser, a battle ship, and who UK needs to fight with this big ship.

  • @oudloek
    @oudloek 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    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.

  • @Tangeriine
    @Tangeriine 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    nice

  • @robertwacay9827
    @robertwacay9827 ปีที่แล้ว

    This type 83 is the best

  • @1701_FyldeFlyer
    @1701_FyldeFlyer ปีที่แล้ว

    At 17,500 tons, these will be heavy cruisers rather than destroyers,

    • @crusher8017
      @crusher8017 ปีที่แล้ว

      It is not only weight but capability. Yes its tonnage indicates cruiser size but the lack of VLS cells makes it a light destroyer.

  • @tgsgardenmaintenance4627
    @tgsgardenmaintenance4627 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    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! 😂

  • @bobbymac1947
    @bobbymac1947 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    US needs a new Montana class battleship.

    • @paulgregory7328
      @paulgregory7328 ปีที่แล้ว

      Would be harder to sink than these modern warships

    • @dc-4ever201
      @dc-4ever201 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      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.

  • @matthewhurd1994
    @matthewhurd1994 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    A video about a Bristish warship with a Russian cruiser as the thumbnail. Hmmmmmmm......

  • @simplyphil.photography164
    @simplyphil.photography164 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    If we need these now, not tomorrow, why are we not opening other yards and work a 24 hour system, another 7 years is to long to wait.

  • @glastonbury4304
    @glastonbury4304 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Type 83 is planned to weigh 216 tonnes as its made of cardboard due to defence cutbacks 🤷‍♂️

    • @alanbinks6106
      @alanbinks6106 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      But what if the front falls off?

    • @2bingtim
      @2bingtim 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      FFBNW cardboard.

  • @user-pb6yq3ik4p
    @user-pb6yq3ik4p ปีที่แล้ว

    Uk need 12 type 83 destroyers

  • @williammorrissey3069
    @williammorrissey3069 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    As long as it sails and not spend its life like the aircraft carriers in and out of the garage 😂😂😂😂😂

  • @danielwatson6000
    @danielwatson6000 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Battle cruisers with stealth technologies

  • @sterrissar
    @sterrissar ปีที่แล้ว +2

    why the pictures of the Russian cruiser

  • @seancorrigan
    @seancorrigan ปีที่แล้ว +7

    With the amount of time the Type 45s have spent alongside there should be years left in them beyond the 2030s

    • @gusgone4527
      @gusgone4527 ปีที่แล้ว

      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.

    • @Highendaudio1
      @Highendaudio1 ปีที่แล้ว

      What do you want them to go to sea to do then? Those days are gone and no one is replacing them in 2030.

    • @gusgone4527
      @gusgone4527 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Highendaudio1 What days are over?
      Explain.

    • @Highendaudio1
      @Highendaudio1 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@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.

    • @Debbiebabe69
      @Debbiebabe69 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@Highendaudio1 No-one can 'strike a ship from 600 to 2000 nm away.' Even US supercarriers are pretty much invisible to radar outside 50 miles....

  • @tahu1349
    @tahu1349 ปีที่แล้ว

    After budget cuts, the uk navy will have 25 dingys and 25 plastic yellow rubber ducks..

  • @franzmenzies5268
    @franzmenzies5268 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Oh, earthlings.... are they from Mars then....

  • @s3p4kner
    @s3p4kner ปีที่แล้ว

    The new defence cuts announced will sink this ship before it get's off the drawing board.

  • @CriscCiaddu
    @CriscCiaddu ปีที่แล้ว +1

    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😭

  • @tominmtnvw
    @tominmtnvw ปีที่แล้ว +2

    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.

  • @HenriHattar
    @HenriHattar 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    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.

    • @MBunn-uf1we
      @MBunn-uf1we 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      the trend has been towards larger and more capable vessels. largely because of the power generation needed for all the new hardware and sensors.

    • @HenriHattar
      @HenriHattar 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The trend is not needed with new age tech.@@MBunn-uf1we

  • @raytunstallify
    @raytunstallify 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    It will be interesting how they solve the recruitment problem, maybe we will see return of the "Press Gangs".

  • @user-cx3ke7sd7q
    @user-cx3ke7sd7q 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    the philippine Navy need that powerfull destroyer ship👍👍👍

  • @sparkiegaz3613
    @sparkiegaz3613 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    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…

  • @markwoods4574
    @markwoods4574 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    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 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿!!!!!!!!

    • @capmultser
      @capmultser ปีที่แล้ว

      Like that is going to happen. SNPs are to busy lining their pockets with England's taxpayers money to think about Breaking up the UK.

    • @teddypicker8799
      @teddypicker8799 ปีที่แล้ว

      Scotland won't leave though 43% want to remain right now

  • @jeremythebeer8609
    @jeremythebeer8609 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Canada needs to get in on a few of these. Just so we can join NATO or Five Eyes roles.

    • @2bingtim
      @2bingtim 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Canada is & has always been a member of NATO.

  • @OleBrumHonning
    @OleBrumHonning 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Will this destroyer in size be as big as some om the battleships from ww2?

    • @Wick9876
      @Wick9876 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      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.

    • @Debbiebabe69
      @Debbiebabe69 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Pre-dreadnought battleships tipped the scales at around 15,000 tons, so at 17k this ship would be heavier than them.

  • @andron2348
    @andron2348 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    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

    • @alunrees5130
      @alunrees5130 ปีที่แล้ว

      No that's too expensive

  • @samhawkes6597
    @samhawkes6597 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    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
      @davidturnbull310 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Oh, a maritine expert. Ok, Captain birds eye, you know everything but nothing.

    • @samhawkes6597
      @samhawkes6597 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@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
      @davidturnbull310 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      If a war breaks out, watch the UK load the ships quickly. I guarantee it.

    • @samhawkes6597
      @samhawkes6597 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@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

    • @davidturnbull310
      @davidturnbull310 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@samhawkes6597 Did it many times during most wars. Not all about money as you think. Allies help.

  • @1313hyme
    @1313hyme ปีที่แล้ว +1

    OMG! The deck is already covered with bloody color. Where are those bloody painters? I gotta congratulate them for choosing the right color 😁!

    • @davec5153
      @davec5153 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Thats a Russian cruiser.

    • @olanrewajuihenacho178
      @olanrewajuihenacho178 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@davec5153 Russian red lead deck paint 😢

    • @DjDizzyWales
      @DjDizzyWales ปีที่แล้ว

      I don't know why they use red paint tho, maybe it's for the Russian Air force to stop friendly fire

    • @ecobrain
      @ecobrain ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I've got no clue what the purpose was to repeatedly inserting stills of the seriously outdated Russian cruiser "Piotr Veliki" into this video. What does that veteran warship have to do with the subject UK Type 83??

  • @leeruffle6542
    @leeruffle6542 ปีที่แล้ว

    216 tons having a laugh, put the number 12 in front of it

  • @RichieWellock
    @RichieWellock ปีที่แล้ว

    216 tonnes 😆 turned off video then

  • @ApplyWithCaution
    @ApplyWithCaution ปีที่แล้ว

    ... at that weight she's a cruiser, not a destroyer ...

    • @crusher8017
      @crusher8017 ปีที่แล้ว

      It is not only weight but capability. Yes its tonnage indicates cruiser size but the lack of VLS cells makes it a light destroyer.

  • @richardcleveland8549
    @richardcleveland8549 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    " 216 tonnes" ???????????????????????????????????????????? A rowboat with Enfield rifles??

  • @davec5153
    @davec5153 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    216 tons?

  • @ENGBriseB
    @ENGBriseB 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Get on with it then !

  • @daveelliott5855
    @daveelliott5855 ปีที่แล้ว

    216 tonnes must be made of recycled paper 🤣

  • @danielwatson6000
    @danielwatson6000 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    216 tons its drone type ship

  • @dont_give_a_flying_f
    @dont_give_a_flying_f 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Needs many many wrapons. British ships are incredibly under armed.

  • @grantsapain
    @grantsapain ปีที่แล้ว

    Yeah, they'll have a whole one of them...

    • @Durgesuth
      @Durgesuth ปีที่แล้ว

      Doubt that…

    • @grantsapain
      @grantsapain ปีที่แล้ว

      @@DurgesuthHow many aircraft carriers does the royal navy have? The British military is half the size of what it was in the 80's, when Britain couldn't even take the Falklands without US assistance. In these challenfing economic time, is Britain going to increase the size of the military, or shrink it?

    • @franzmenzies5268
      @franzmenzies5268 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      In what way did the US assist the RN in the Falklands pray tell...t'was an all British affair as I recall.

    • @grantsapain
      @grantsapain 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@franzmenzies5268 Yeah, that's what you Brits want to believe. As reported by the British publication the Economist, the US repositioned an intelligence satellite, & provided intelligence from other means besides satellites. The US also provided 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel, hundreds of sidewinder missiles, airfied matting, thousands of morter shells, & other equipment & ammunition. The US even offered to lend the UK the USS Guam, a helicopter carrier, if Britain had lost either of it's two carriers in the Falklands 100 ship armada. The magazine concluded that the Falklands campaign "could not have been mounted, let alone won, without American help. The article was published in March of '84...

    • @grantsapain
      @grantsapain 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@karmakazi101 Please. The US has the largest Navy in the world by tonnage,& the Royal Navy isn't even big enough to defend the Kingdom

  • @alunrees5130
    @alunrees5130 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    The UK could only afford 6 T45 destroyers, so does that mean we can only afford 2 or 3 T83 this is so embarrassing

    • @britishpatriot7386
      @britishpatriot7386 9 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      You know nothing do you 😂😂😂

    • @stevenkirk2800
      @stevenkirk2800 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The way that present navy building for the RN it will be lucky to get past the drawing board

  • @johnord684
    @johnord684 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    216 tonnes thats tiny

  • @angelwhite376
    @angelwhite376 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Tnis time will they be able to work in warm waters

  • @gower23
    @gower23 ปีที่แล้ว

    Anti hypersonic missile platform p

  • @BMW-Dan.07
    @BMW-Dan.07 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    4000 tonnes you mean ???

  • @davidsmith2356
    @davidsmith2356 ปีที่แล้ว

    Another surface Target.. They are loaded to the hilt with weapons to protect themselves.

  • @dragzgaming
    @dragzgaming ปีที่แล้ว

    Just put some nuclear reactors in Scotland and some giant propellers and turn our island into the worlds biggest aircraft carrier

  • @4291juneau
    @4291juneau ปีที่แล้ว +1

    216 tons? Not much of a giant.

  • @petermizon4344
    @petermizon4344 ปีที่แล้ว

    UNTILL TORIES CANCEL IT, INFLATION WILL PUSH PRICE UP TOO MUCH

  • @davidcurtiswatts2378
    @davidcurtiswatts2378 ปีที่แล้ว

    Net Zero? For the RN? Are you serious?

    • @davidbrown2571
      @davidbrown2571 ปีที่แล้ว

      Her engines will run on rubber bands ?

  • @russellbenton2987
    @russellbenton2987 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I see flying pigs

  • @zippy350
    @zippy350 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    216 tonnes ? 🤣🤣🤣 what’s it made of ? Gas ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • @lingth
    @lingth 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    In the late 2030s? Who knows maybe they will cancel it due to over budget by then..

  • @gerrylacelle8965
    @gerrylacelle8965 ปีที่แล้ว

    i think china and russia will like this chanel,,,,its gives them valuable information🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • @rebeccalove4058
    @rebeccalove4058 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Why did you show a Russian battle ship.Englands navy doesn’t have red decks all grey

  • @vlahks86
    @vlahks86 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    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 !! 🙂🙃🙂😎

  • @SchindleList
    @SchindleList หลายเดือนก่อน

    Measuring 216 tonnes 😂😂😂😂

  • @dmutant2635
    @dmutant2635 ปีที่แล้ว

    Are Russian or Chinese warships being designed to suit "climate initiatives"? How about India?

  • @patsanters2741
    @patsanters2741 ปีที่แล้ว

    And why an American speaking about this modern British made ship ? And why does Britain allow such And why allow this to be advertized is wrong ..Tell your enemy the type of ship being built is crazy .

  • @willscarlet3620
    @willscarlet3620 ปีที่แล้ว

    Lets hope they are not flammable & have better protection for the crews that sail in them unlike the Falklands war

  • @TheGrowler55
    @TheGrowler55 ปีที่แล้ว

    Rule Britannia from Glasgow 😎🇬🇧

  • @randallgschwind3799
    @randallgschwind3799 ปีที่แล้ว

    Well,!!@ I will be amazed if we get pass 2025!!!!