We need 12 destroys and 24 frigates

@Drew Peacock frigates should have some armour but I do Believe destroys should have a lot more Armour and should start put anti ship guns on ships and it may even be time to get some battlecruisers i think we should get 2 battlecruisers with rail guys and missiles they would be use in Britain’s Carrier strikegroups and they would be designed to do bombardment,anti submarine,anti air ,anti ship and I think key feature of a battlecruiser it would be able to Control unmanned frigates

@Drew Peacock 12 destroys is returning it back to the original number and the 24 frigates would very for different jobs but I do Believe 20 destroys is too much and the max should be 12 as I think there should be 3 class of Frigate type 26 really Advance and quite a bit of armour type 31 a cheap and Fast frigate with no extra armour and then type 32 as a mothership for drones but I think they should reclassify the type 26 to a heavy frigate

This is what my ideal Royal Navy would look like 12 heavy destroys 16 heavy frigates 10 light frigates 2 Aircraft carriers 2 battlecruisers 11 submarines 1 amphibious ship 4 support ships

Originally, the Type 45 were to replace the Type 42 on a like for like basis, however Labour's John Reid cut this to 8 and then Jim Murphy (also Labour) cut this to 6. Which did make Scots do a double take in the 2014 Indy campaign when Murphy said how strong the Union's commitment to Clyde shipbuilding was! Nonetheless, the increase in the River class OPV is welcomed, and commitments to retain the current number of frigates with a mixture of Type 26 and Type 31s. (It should be noted that design chosen for the 31s, will not be Clyde built, only assembled).

Can't see either Canada or Australia having any Budget left for Destroyers once their Type 26 based Frigates are Built.

@@paultanton4307 actually, my country (canada) is supposed to be building them in increments in such a manner that we won't bleed ourselves dry like last time.

I can't see the NZ government buying into this, our politicians lack the political will to do so, let alone make any decisions. They prefer popularity over commonsense.

@@tinman3586 barring Ron Mark, it's been her, and all of the rest of the female politicians and most male politicians as well that are too weak to make a decision

The Italian DDX will be a similar ship, so I think that a joint program would be great

John Knott, possibly the worst Defence Minister the UK as ever had. Their were lost of Air and Naval Bases that could have been closed with not 1 Royal Navy Ship being cut.

How can the uk afford 40 ships and 3 carriers if our economy is so shit

@@commodorce6431 I am not aware of the academic term 'shit'. describing the UK economy but we do spend far less on defence than we used to do when I was younger. Meanwhile the health expenditure has risen to £180 Billion per annum providing a far worse service than I used to enjoy. The money is there, the political will is not.

You sir, are correct.

Germany? I thought this was a British destroyer? Edit: I’m sorry I read from as of Also gutentag from America

We probably won't ever get this

that's actually a fan made design from 10 years ago

Are better the spanish f110 frigates kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qp-GlNx32srYqYU.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a9ajqdyX076RpH0.html

@@a10thunder46 WITHOUT the Help of USA during WW II 1939-1945 - all lBritish celts would be speak German language , now...!!! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a66jmtVllpqpiGw.html

What a pity it is complete and utter bullshit.

@@marcbiff2192 And you know this how ?

Either you work in MOD procurement or you are a jaded ex-Matelot like me!

Like the Astute Class Submarine ? , We will build 7 ? Oh we have . We will build 2 Carriers ? got them too , hmmmmm fail to see your logic MR McKee ...............lol

@@colinbrown4719 well the astute replacement program planned for 7 vessels of which 5 got commissioned as of the 21st apr, the mighty type 82 destroyers planned 8 commissioned 1 the current type 45 destroyer planned 12 commissioned 6, and the prince of Wales was considered for mothballing however we would of still lost a massive percentage of the 2bn (which ended up around 3.2bn by completion of sea trails) price of it and resulted in restructuring and recruitment pushes to ensure the vessel was fully manned

@@colinbrown4719 ..and one carrier will always be in port because we don't have enough crew or planes for 2.

Someone who actually speaks sense, manning them would be the hardest part

Cost-effectiveness

Heard of Jackie Fisher?

May be they just build them as models for Johnson's desk.

It needs more VLS cells fitted into the design.

You know this is a mock up ? Like moaning about ....an imaginary friend

30 yrs we will have a paper tiger !

Monmouth is 28yrs old, Montrose is 27yrs old, they're getting to the end of their working lives.

Their is a Harpoon replacement. The Royal Navy want the NSM that the US Navy has replaced their Harpoons with (A development of the Norwegian Penguin Missile). But the MBDA, the French/British/Germany/Italian firm, working on a Supersonic or Hypersonic with Sea Skimming for the last 30 miles, Missile, the CVS401-Perseus. The French have just ordered an improved MM40 Exocet version, and are awaiting a new Cruise Missile possibly based on Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG.

RAF, would love to kill off the UK Carriers. They already tried to change the F-35 order for the conventional A model, instead of the B, STOVL.

Apache's were already cut to 50.

I want to know when the much heralded rail guns will enter service. Now that beast will be SUPER in every sense of the word.

They actually have a significant gun armament, this thing is more like an updated version of the Tribal (ie, really a light cruiser in disguise)

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 My cousin served on HMS Zulu. As a school boy, I remember enjoying a VIP tour that lasted a full day. Leaving the ship with a big bag of goodies and grin from ear to ear.

I think Admiral Fisher has an answer for that

@@marseldagistani1989 I keeps youtubers in a job churning rubbish out.

The navy shrank expenentially 24 type 42’s to 5 type 45’s is despicable

Nothing, it's a fake ship mad why clickbait KZfaq channels

@@admiralmallard7500 Its not fake, but a concept, to go into service in the 2030s.

Yeah bro ,too strong

I agree the Italians have provern themselves very able.

No the DDX design is a tragedy, and is only 10k tons, this Type 83 is not a destroyer, it's a cruiser.

What is it with Italian defense systems, they are joining us (UK) and Japan believe it or not for the next gen fighter, now combat ships ? How does this work, if at all Italy being a EU country 🤔

​@@aleccap5946well Italy are also NATO members

Not exactly (even close to) the same thing. Lol

The Type 31 Frigate for the RN Essentially is an IH Design with some Modifications .

They were designed for AA and as they were also designed to operate solo often they need a focus on AA. If for example an arleigh Burke operated alone while it has a good offensive firepower just a couple of missiles and its sank. So the type 45 works of its better to have a weaker ship never hit than a stronger one sank fast

The Royal Navy's surface fleet is all built around the idea of Carrier Strike Groups... So the new destroyers and frigates coming into service are designed to primarily be escorts for the carriers, since that's the main means of power projection. Type-45 destroyers being primarily designed for long range air defence, and Type-26 frigates primarily for anti-submarine warfare. They are capable of other roles, but they are specialised ships. The Type-31 and Type-32 frigates in development are designed to be more "jack of all trades" general purpose warships, not as capable as the specialised Type-45 and Type-26, but more versatile. Apparently they are to be modular, to allow different weapon systems to be fitted and removed to alter their capability. The Type-83s when they eventually arrive will also be specialised air-defence destroyers, but designed specifically to counter hypersonic cruise missiles, which is probably the biggest threat to a modern Carrier Strike Group/Carrier Battle Group these days.

They claim to find technical solutions which they fail to do.

Equal standing for mannequins! Mannequins Lives Matter, etc etc. Just struck me that mannequins made from polystyrene float and therefore will not need ships. For gods sake Cedric, don't tell the accountants in the MoD.

@Leigh Garfield All the things you mention simply augment the role of the soldier and cannot replace him. To lay claim to territory, we still need human boots on the ground. When it comes to cost and value, it will be a very long time before affordable mass produced AI's can out perform the flexibility/adaptability, utility of the properly equipped and trained soldier. Just look at the base line processing power and sensor suite we humans are born with. As well as the intuitive ability to imagine, design and build AI's in the first place. Add to the equation that we are self replicating and easy to train. Yet still retain further capabilities. BTW An independent combatant AI, would break the first law of robotics. Asimov would turn in his grave. Have you seen Terminator. Cambridge be damned!

@Leigh Garfield Oh come 2 assault ships HMS Bulwark & Albion are to be taken out of service in 12 yrs time ,they were totally refurbishment a few yrs ago & marine cuts ....... This ain good no more troop cuts !!! We have the need for assault ships !!!! For beech & coastal assault .....

@Leigh Garfield recruit as many new staff for the force but keeping them is the problem,

It's a patrol boat, it is supposed to patrol things not fight an armada.

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 And yet the River class has more tonnage than many classes of WW2 Frigates which would eat it for breakfast. River B1: 1,700t River B2: 2,000t VS WW2 Frigates River: 1,830t Colony: 1,264t Captain: 1,140t Bay: 2,530t Loch: 1,435 5 classes of Frigate used by the UK in WW2 only one of which has tonnage surpassing a Batch 2 River class OPV.

The type 45 issue stems from entering to instal American parts for the engines which compromised them.

@@Gary-bz1rf correct....the Yanks love T45s....

@Drew Peacock I work with them ;)

@Drew Peacock they're one of if not the best modern destroyer.

@Drew Peacock the yanks love the type 45, whenever possible they always ask for one to be in their carrier task groups for the simple reason it is the best AA destroyer in the world. No it doesn't have the offensive power of an arleigh Burke but it has 48 definite hit missiles. The arleigh Burke has 92, but their missiles have to be fired at least 2 at a time to definitely hit. And the type 45 has an absolutely brilliant radar

Thanks:)

Yeah this is such BS I'll believe it when I see it

@@danielmonk7451 Yup !!

Liars

the highest priority is to stop warmongering and profiting financially from war

?

Say that to america and india

Is that similar to the AEGIS system?

@@monsieurcommissaire1628 same thing, I'm just a dunce but you got it 👍🏻lol

Yeah bro we need more ship

It costs money to keep ships afloat and operational.

It should enter service around 2038.

Size and cost aren't the same thing in warships. Steel is 10 to 15% of the cost of a warship.

Gifting doesn't get money. Sell a ship for scrap and you get a few million. But yeah I do agree, I'd prefer to see them sold for much reduced if it's that or scrapping

They'll be sold either to Chile or Brazil or more likely both.

all wrong,the newest type 23s have been upgraded with new radar,missiles ASW radar and defence

Type 45 is stealthy still has bumps, yet is the size of a small fishing ship on radar. Arleigh Burke is stealthy (ish) has bumps. Look

@@jacobkingsford5209 your 30 stone mum is more stealthy than the arleigh burke class lol

@@glennmontgomery1593 the ish was understated. It's stealthier than on old 70's/80's destroyer but no, it's not really stealth against the modern competition

These ships are very very expensive, Philippines wouldn't be able to afford, many billions or trillions of peso each ship

Fingers crossed the RN has.

No ship can take a pounding anymore. The only option is to not be hit in the first place

Cut benefits and we'll do that tenfold...

We are joining the TTCP which will add a few billion. And also 72 trade deals with countries. And talk of CANZAK which I can't see not going ahead

Shocking! British type 45 has 48 VLS! OMG, this is China's old 052C level. 😂😂😂

Why?

@@davidstephen2015 that's the missle/tonnage of the current 🇺🇸 ships. I had an argument with another guy somewhere about the no of missles carried on board the 🇬🇧 T45. I think it's too little at 48.

@@michaelwong4303 I agree that 48 is a bit light but if you had 1 cell per 100 ton, you would have 80/85 cells (8/8,500t). The Type 45 has room for another 16 VLS which would give 64 cells, which I feel is about right. Though if the Type 83 has 80 cells I will be very happy. I predict 64 cells and maybe space for 8 deck launched ASMs for the Type 83 and about 10,000 tonnes.

@@davidstephen2015 um....For a ship that weights 8000 tons it should (by the standard of 🇺🇸 design in the 80's) have 80 cells, or carry at least 80 missles. Otherwise what's the point of building one that weights 8000 tons if you only equip it with 64 missles? Build a 6000 ton ship instead!!

@@michaelwong4303 but the RN is not the US Navy and they have different design philosophies. The Type 45s are built for a AAW and 64 cells, especially with quad packing some is felt sufficient for that role. A Burke class Destroyer with 96 cells will have some devoted to TLAM and ASROC so probably only carries about 64/76 SAMs. The RN can’t afford to have ships like that. If the Type 45 had 80 cells, a good sonar and carried ASROC & TLAM, then the RN wouldn’t get 8 Type 26 Frigates.

Well they have enough power to beat Russia in the north and Black Sea while sending the QE carrier strike group to scare China. So I would say they are doing quite well.

A cruiser would be nice only U.S. China Russia and India have Cruisers . However I think you mean guided missile cruisers battle cruisers are from WW2

@@patricofritz4094 Russia still operates three battle cruisers

@@Battyj Oh yeah those ones still in service

This is the standard displacement for destroyers, cruisers now 12 - 15000.

@@andygass9096 The USN's Zumwalt class is over 15 000 tons displacement, but they're still calling it a destroyer. What's in a name? Is it an attempt to kid the taxpayers that they're only building minor ships?

The weight is not the only factor that determines the classification of a ship. Even more important is the actual armament and capability of the ship. The modern british ships Like Type 23/45 are only good for Air Defence, nothing else. Since they don't have any Land Attack missiles, nor any anti-submarine missiles and no effective anti-ship missiles (the Harpoon are pretty much useless against any modern ship's defense). So they are not true multi role ships. They don't even deserve the classification of a Destroyer, because that would imply that they are multi-role ship, which they are not. The Type 45 is only a large Air Defence frigate, nothing more.a

@@militaryanalysis5028 Thank you for that. It would appear that the suspicion I have, that the taxpayers are being forced to pay more and more for less and less, is well-founded.

@@puffin51 Well, to be fair, at least the British navy still has 6 very powerful and modern Astute-class Hunter-killer submarines, which are some of the best in the world. They have the mission to kill enemy ships, not the Type 45. And the new Q.E. carriers take the mission for Land Attack capability. So there you go. Just because the Type 45 is not a real Multi Role Destroyer like some other ships, doesn't mean that the British navy is useless or underpowered. It is the combination of all ships working together in a formation that define the Power and effectiveness of a Navy.

That would make too much sense - plus you are looking at around 10+ years of Extra Developement between the DDX Entering Service and the T83 Starting Build,lots of Tech will change in that time,you don't want a Ship that is Obsolete before its Hits the Water.

"Super destroyers" (also known as Destroyer Leaders) are a murky area where the lines between Destroyer and light cruiser become blurry.

Categorizing warships these days is almost impossible compared to even 40 years ago. Define Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser ? I couldn't tell you.

@@Belisarius1967 Frigate, large surface warship that specialises in Anti-Submarine Warfare. Destroyer, large surface warship, that specialises in Anti Aircraft Warfare. Cruiser, over 10,000 Tonnes, has a mix of weapon systems, including Land Attack Cruise Missiles. Multiple Helicopters carried and Hangared. Usually has some of the following capabilities Command, Control, Communications, & sometimes Computers (C4), so can operate as as a Flag Ship. With the roles of Battleship & Battlecruiser, combined in a Nuclear Powered Hunter/Killer or Attack Submarine, a Cruiser is considered to be the most heavily armed surface warship.