So I don’t mean to nitpick, but the Japanese destroy(cruiser) is actually slated to only be around 12 to 14,000 tons. The reduction in size was due mainly to the need to provide greater maneuverability to the ship. This suggests that the design is probably going to be at modification of the newer anti ballistic class destroyers.
Terminology, or Designation, is down to the Country NOT a fixed concept. HMS Belfast (River Thames I.W.M.) was a Light Cruiser at 10,000 Tons. Modern Frigates are now heavier than many WW2 Destroyers or even Post WW2 such as the Darling Class which at Full Load was shy of 3,900 tons.
I hope the Type 83 is more multi mission, similar to the Burke class destroyers, for me the Type 45 is too specialised and considering we only have a smaller fleet each ship should be able to carry out a variety of missions.
Not giving the Type 83 a decent anti submarine capability / helicopter think is a mistake, unless they always expect it to operate with a dedicated ASW platform. If some unfriendly power decides to go hunting for her, it will not be by air or missile, it will be underwster
The forebear of the Type 83, the Type 82 Guided Missile Destroyer was designed to escort the CVA01 carrier project (all the bells and whistles) which was cancelled in 1966 leaving only HMS Bristol as a tech testbed. It's thought the Type 83 will fulfill the same dedicated escort air defence role, if Labour don't cancel it, and the Frigate lineup will expand to include the Type 32 but only if the RN and Govt can manage to tell the same lie at the same time. Nothing is known about Type 83 besides the MoD statements, there was an image of an unnamed very large warship estimated at 15-20k tons leaked from a BAe Systems powerpoint slide about "onboard safety systems" or something but was similar to their unreleased proposal to fulfill the Type 83 request. I hope that the UK and Japan will work together for innovation and cost saving in the spirit of Tempest program, no USA because if the USN get's involved it will be LCS / Constellation Frigate 3.0 imo.
Rail guns are currently not technologically viable. The heat generated by the massive amount of electromagnetic energy and friction from the sabots limits barrel or rail life to just a few shots. Until this handicap has a solution, rails guns are not viable.
A few days ago I would have completely agreed with this. But a recent article seems to suggest that Japan at least considers their current small style railguns are sufficiently ready and by the time the new Destroyers are deployed, they could have solved many of these issues as Railguns are stated to be part of these new platforms. And considering that this is a joint venture with the US, it means that the US could have a Railgun on its own ships when its new Destroyers enter service (though not the behemoth 60 megajoule one they where developing, but a more moderate 20 megajoule one to begin with)
@@Keemperor40K It is noteworthy that a small rail gun was developed, but I think it is a separate matter whether it is superior to a conventional ship gun.
Its not an addiction, its a necessity because they are bankrupt and if they don't stop the borrowing for social welfare the country will implode. This is across the western world. Socialism has failed because they tried to do it while no one pays taxes. Income taxes have got to be north of 60% if you want socialism to be financially viable. That said, if the government wasn't stealing our money to pay for all the social stuff we wouldn't need the social stuff.
It's an escalator. Each type gets bigger with each class until eventually the top type (battleship, cruiser, someday destroyer) is abandoned and a new type is slotted in at the bottom.
You would think the DDX would be an Aegis System on a much larger LCS Independence Class Catamaran Hull with 9 Gas Turbine Engines (6 for engines and 3 for electricity)
HMS Triton was the first Trimaran Warship built and the experience was so NOT GOOD that it was sold off and last seen with a Private Owner in Australia many years ago. Catamaran even worse than Trimaran. Type 83, BAE Shipbuilding are promoting themselves for their Long Term future NOT for a specific design which has NOT been agreed even in outline. My concerns is that they have NO MONEY actually allocated at all for any Type 83 development at the moment.
Forget big ticket items. Build hundreds of cheaper drones and flood the seas. Use the ships you have as controllers for those drones. Faster, cheaper and able to saturate the area. Mount anti-air systems on some, kamikaze types for some, anti-sub, minelayers etc.
@@wyldhowl2821 I would not be surprised. Despite claims and bragging communists build few things that actually work. Drones are the exception as they have a lot less parts. (Look at how good Ukraine's drones are doing.)
@@jcnamaasshi Drones are being made as "wingman" for our jets. They can be directed and given instructions. Why not for ballistic weapons too. I wish Ukraine would mount anti-air missiles on their boat drones. Whittle away at your enemy. A Chinese proverb states even an elephant can be killed by enough ants.
Вам не кажется,что будущее за беспилотными и небольшими кораблями . Большие неуклюжие корабли это как танки на земле т.е мишень для дронов. Рой маленьких дронов и очень быстрых намного эффективнее будет на мой взгляд.
They aren't destroyers, they are cruisers. They don't want to call them cruisers because cruisers are offensive oriented rather than defensive and the public doesn't want to pay for that. Destroyers are small, lightly armed and most importantly cheap. These ships are large, they are loaded for bear and most definitely anything but cheap. The problem is they are trying to make one ship do everything to reduce cost. That philosophy has never worked as intended.
Q. Do you mean "politically" NOT called a "Cruiser"? The RN Light Aircraft Carriers/Harrier Carriers were called "Through Deck Cruisers" because it was believed that they would NOT be approved with the correct designation BUT all 3 of the 4 originally agreed carried the "R" designation for a RN Aircraft Carrier NOT the "C" for a Cruiser. NOTHING IS CHEAP.
@trevorhart545 yes I mean politically. The ships that are doing a destroyers job today are frigates. And the ones doing cruisers job we call destroyers. A destroyer is defensive while a cruiser is offensive. The second you put asm on a destroyer it becomes a cruiser. True destroyers would be asw/aa oriented with little offensive capability against anything bigger than it.
Call them Destroyers, Frigates (in the pre 1975 US Navy sense), Cruisers, Fast Fleet Escorts or Large Surface Combatants, modern terms are entirely irrelevant. The last proper cruiser built to traditional cruiser standards was Long Beach. Destroyers aren't supposed to be small and cheap, they're supposed to be fleet escorts. In the past that might have meant something small and cheap, but these days the requirements of high seakeeping speed, need to give radars a high radar horizon and LO shaping all drive up size considerably. As for cost, size is not directly correlated with cost, the combat system is main driver of cost, and modern threats require very capable and expensive combat systems. Small and cheap is not possible these days, not since the Second World War. Combat system costs required to deal with even 1950s submarines made single-purpose mobilisation designs like the Dealey class or Type 14s impossible to mass-produce in peacetime, and nuclear submarines made that problem even worse. Nowadays every surface combatant more capable than an OPV or USV requires local AAW capability, and AAW capabilities make up 90% of combat system cost.
@@ADobbin1ASMs don't make a ship a cruiser, especially given how minimal a ship impact they can have, otherwise every FAC would be classed as a cruiser. What makes a ship a cruiser, before they stopped being built, was capability of performing independent operations. This meant long endurance via large stocks of stores, workshops to provide self-maintenance without dependence on a depot ship, certain levels of passive protection and redundancy, and flag facilities. Post War they were also expected to have significant fighter-direction capabilities. This was obviously beginning to break down post war, Long Beach was basically just a fleet escort armed with SAMs (although Talos and Terrier had decent anti-surface capabilities and ASROC plus SQS-23 enabled independent operations in the face of enemy submarines or in the dispersed formations required in the face of nuclear weapons).
@@trevorhart545The Invincibles were called cruisers because they were cruisers, and descended from a long line of helicopter-equipped cruisers from the late 1950s onwards. ASW Helicopters and SAMs offered far greater ability to operate independently in the face of modern threats, plus they required flag facilities to control other surface ships.
What about Italian DDX 180m between 13,000 and 15,00 tons?
So I don’t mean to nitpick, but the Japanese destroy(cruiser) is actually slated to only be around 12 to 14,000 tons. The reduction in size was due mainly to the need to provide greater maneuverability to the ship. This suggests that the design is probably going to be at modification of the newer anti ballistic class destroyers.
Technically the Japanese one is a Cruiser and the Type 83 is a designation for destroyer cruiser.
Terminology, or Designation, is down to the Country NOT a fixed concept. HMS Belfast (River Thames I.W.M.) was a Light Cruiser at 10,000 Tons. Modern Frigates are now heavier than many WW2 Destroyers or even Post WW2 such as the Darling Class which at Full Load was shy of 3,900 tons.
海上保安庁は30000トン級の巡視船建造するらしいけどね
I hope the Type 83 is more multi mission, similar to the Burke class destroyers, for me the Type 45 is too specialised and considering we only have a smaller fleet each ship should be able to carry out a variety of missions.
Not giving the Type 83 a decent anti submarine capability / helicopter think is a mistake, unless they always expect it to operate with a dedicated ASW platform.
If some unfriendly power decides to go hunting for her, it will not be by air or missile, it will be underwster
My understanding is that the Type 83 will complement the Type 26 and type 31
The forebear of the Type 83, the Type 82 Guided Missile Destroyer was designed to escort the CVA01 carrier project (all the bells and whistles) which was cancelled in 1966 leaving only HMS Bristol as a tech testbed. It's thought the Type 83 will fulfill the same dedicated escort air defence role, if Labour don't cancel it, and the Frigate lineup will expand to include the Type 32 but only if the RN and Govt can manage to tell the same lie at the same time.
Nothing is known about Type 83 besides the MoD statements, there was an image of an unnamed very large warship estimated at 15-20k tons leaked from a BAe Systems powerpoint slide about "onboard safety systems" or something but was similar to their unreleased proposal to fulfill the Type 83 request.
I hope that the UK and Japan will work together for innovation and cost saving in the spirit of Tempest program, no USA because if the USN get's involved it will be LCS / Constellation Frigate 3.0 imo.
Drones will fill the gap maybe?
Remember: The maximum weight of a heavy cruiser before WW2 was 10.000 tons
Rail guns are currently not technologically viable. The heat generated by the massive amount of electromagnetic energy and friction from the sabots limits barrel or rail life to just a few shots. Until this handicap has a solution, rails guns are not viable.
A few days ago I would have completely agreed with this.
But a recent article seems to suggest that Japan at least considers their current small style railguns are sufficiently ready and by the time the new Destroyers are deployed, they could have solved many of these issues as Railguns are stated to be part of these new platforms.
And considering that this is a joint venture with the US, it means that the US could have a Railgun on its own ships when its new Destroyers enter service (though not the behemoth 60 megajoule one they where developing, but a more moderate 20 megajoule one to begin with)
@@Keemperor40K It is noteworthy that a small rail gun was developed, but I think it is a separate matter whether it is superior to a conventional ship gun.
It look like copy cat of China Type 055😅
My country 🇬🇧 , is capable of designing world leading technology. Unfortunately, cost cutting is an addiction of any government we care to vote for!
Its not an addiction, its a necessity because they are bankrupt and if they don't stop the borrowing for social welfare the country will implode. This is across the western world. Socialism has failed because they tried to do it while no one pays taxes. Income taxes have got to be north of 60% if you want socialism to be financially viable. That said, if the government wasn't stealing our money to pay for all the social stuff we wouldn't need the social stuff.
20000mt destroyer most needed by AFP at least 6 units.
These ships get bigger and bigger.
It's an escalator. Each type gets bigger with each class until eventually the top type (battleship, cruiser, someday destroyer) is abandoned and a new type is slotted in at the bottom.
055？
You would think the DDX would be an Aegis System on a much larger LCS Independence Class Catamaran Hull with 9 Gas Turbine Engines (6 for engines and 3 for electricity)
what??? catamaran is terrible on large ship. the disadvantage at larger tonnage far outweigh the advantages
HMS Triton was the first Trimaran Warship built and the experience was so NOT GOOD that it was sold off and last seen with a Private Owner in Australia many years ago. Catamaran even worse than Trimaran. Type 83, BAE Shipbuilding are promoting themselves for their Long Term future NOT for a specific design which has NOT been agreed even in outline. My concerns is that they have NO MONEY actually allocated at all for any Type 83 development at the moment.
@@nguquaxanguyen5224 100% Correct.
Forget big ticket items. Build hundreds of cheaper drones and flood the seas. Use the ships you have as controllers for those drones. Faster, cheaper and able to saturate the area. Mount anti-air systems on some, kamikaze types for some, anti-sub, minelayers etc.
Is this idea the basis of China's drone cruiser / drone carrier?
@@wyldhowl2821 I would not be surprised. Despite claims and bragging communists build few things that actually work. Drones are the exception as they have a lot less parts. (Look at how good Ukraine's drones are doing.)
I don't think it works. How can ballistic missiles can be detected and shoot down by drones, how can long range Anti Air can be archived by drones.
@@jcnamaasshi Drones are being made as "wingman" for our jets. They can be directed and given instructions. Why not for ballistic weapons too. I wish Ukraine would mount anti-air missiles on their boat drones. Whittle away at your enemy. A Chinese proverb states even an elephant can be killed by enough ants.
@@richardmeo2503 Nope. anti ballistic rader and missiles are too huge and expensive for drones. It is not supposed to be massed like wingman
this is a cartoon navy
Вам не кажется,что будущее за беспилотными и небольшими кораблями . Большие неуклюжие корабли это как танки на земле т.е мишень для дронов. Рой маленьких дронов и очень быстрых намного эффективнее будет на мой взгляд.
They aren't destroyers, they are cruisers. They don't want to call them cruisers because cruisers are offensive oriented rather than defensive and the public doesn't want to pay for that. Destroyers are small, lightly armed and most importantly cheap. These ships are large, they are loaded for bear and most definitely anything but cheap. The problem is they are trying to make one ship do everything to reduce cost. That philosophy has never worked as intended.
Q. Do you mean "politically" NOT called a "Cruiser"? The RN Light Aircraft Carriers/Harrier Carriers were called "Through Deck Cruisers" because it was believed that they would NOT be approved with the correct designation BUT all 3 of the 4 originally agreed carried the "R" designation for a RN Aircraft Carrier NOT the "C" for a Cruiser. NOTHING IS CHEAP.
@trevorhart545 yes I mean politically. The ships that are doing a destroyers job today are frigates. And the ones doing cruisers job we call destroyers. A destroyer is defensive while a cruiser is offensive. The second you put asm on a destroyer it becomes a cruiser. True destroyers would be asw/aa oriented with little offensive capability against anything bigger than it.
Call them Destroyers, Frigates (in the pre 1975 US Navy sense), Cruisers, Fast Fleet Escorts or Large Surface Combatants, modern terms are entirely irrelevant.
The last proper cruiser built to traditional cruiser standards was Long Beach.
Destroyers aren't supposed to be small and cheap, they're supposed to be fleet escorts. In the past that might have meant something small and cheap, but these days the requirements of high seakeeping speed, need to give radars a high radar horizon and LO shaping all drive up size considerably. As for cost, size is not directly correlated with cost, the combat system is main driver of cost, and modern threats require very capable and expensive combat systems.
Small and cheap is not possible these days, not since the Second World War. Combat system costs required to deal with even 1950s submarines made single-purpose mobilisation designs like the Dealey class or Type 14s impossible to mass-produce in peacetime, and nuclear submarines made that problem even worse.
Nowadays every surface combatant more capable than an OPV or USV requires local AAW capability, and AAW capabilities make up 90% of combat system cost.
@@ADobbin1ASMs don't make a ship a cruiser, especially given how minimal a ship impact they can have, otherwise every FAC would be classed as a cruiser.
What makes a ship a cruiser, before they stopped being built, was capability of performing independent operations. This meant long endurance via large stocks of stores, workshops to provide self-maintenance without dependence on a depot ship, certain levels of passive protection and redundancy, and flag facilities. Post War they were also expected to have significant fighter-direction capabilities.
This was obviously beginning to break down post war, Long Beach was basically just a fleet escort armed with SAMs (although Talos and Terrier had decent anti-surface capabilities and ASROC plus SQS-23 enabled independent operations in the face of enemy submarines or in the dispersed formations required in the face of nuclear weapons).
@@trevorhart545The Invincibles were called cruisers because they were cruisers, and descended from a long line of helicopter-equipped cruisers from the late 1950s onwards. ASW Helicopters and SAMs offered far greater ability to operate independently in the face of modern threats, plus they required flag facilities to control other surface ships.
质疑055，了解055，学习055，不如055😂