UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby marktigger » 01 May 2015, 10:39

the current and future opv fleet including the Falkland Islands Patrol Vessel

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 4660
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby SKB » 01 May 2015, 10:45

Image
^ River Class (Batch 1)
HMS Tyne (P281), HMS Severn (P282), HMS Mersey (P283)


Introduction
The River class is a class of offshore patrol vessels built primarily for the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom. A total of eight are planned: four for the Royal Navy replaced the seven ships of the Island class and the two Castle class patrol vessels. HTMS Krabi was a variation on the River design built in Thailand for the Royal Thai Navy. Three more were ordered for the Royal Navy in 2013, stretched to include a Merlin-capable flightdeck.

In the Royal Navy, the River class are primarily used with the Fishery Protection Squadron and EEZ patrol. The fourth Royal Navy vessel (HMS Clyde (P257) features several modifications allowing her to undertake duties in the South Atlantic and the Falkland Islands.


Batch 1
The ships are significantly larger than the Island-class vessels and have a large open deck aft allowing them to be fitted with equipment for a specific role, which can include fire-fighting, disaster relief and anti-pollution work. For this purpose, a 25 tonne capacity crane is fitted. In addition, the deck is strong enough for the transport of various tracked and wheeled light vehicles, or an LCVP.

Initially the three ships were not owned by the Royal Navy. They were constructed under an arrangement with the shipbuilder, Vosper Thornycroft (VT), under which the Royal Navy leased the vessels from the shipbuilder for a period of ten years. VT were responsible for all maintenance and support for the ships during the charter period. At the end of this, the Navy could then either return the ships, renew the lease or purchase them outright. In September 2012, it was announced by the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond that the Ministry of Defence had purchased the vessels for £39 million.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image
^ HMS Clyde (P257), a "Batch 1.5" variant

"Batch 1.5"
A modified fourth vessel for the Royal Navy, HMS Clyde, was constructed at Portsmouth Dockyard and replaced the two vessels of the Castle-class patrol vessel for duties in the Falkland Islands. This ship displaces 1,850 tonnes and has a 30mm gun, as well as a deck strengthened for aircraft operations.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image
^ HTMS Krabi (551) of the Royal Thai Navy

Royal Thai Navy
HTMS Krabi is a modified River class vessel built for the Royal Thai Navy. The ship was built in Thailand but with design, technology transfer and support provided by BAE Systems.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image
^ Amazonas Class Corvette of the Brazilian Navy

Brazilian Navy
Three vessels of the Amazonas-class corvette based on the River class were built by BAE in the United Kingdom. They were originally intended to be exported for use by the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force, however the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago cancelled the order in September 2010. In December 2011 it was reported that the Brazilian Navy were interested in buying the vessels, and possibly up to five additional vessels of the same design. The sale, for £133 million (compared to an original £150m), was then confirmed on 2 January 2012.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image
^ Batch 2 design

Batch 2 (Forth, Medway and Trent)
On 6 November 2013 it was announced that the Royal Navy had signed an Agreement in Principle to build three new offshore patrol vessels, based on the River-class design, at a fixed price of £348 million including spares and support. In August 2014, BAE Systems signed the contract to build the ships on the Clyde in Scotland. The Ministry of Defence stated that the Batch 2 ships are capable of being used for constabulary duties such as "counter-terrorism, counter-piracy and anti-smuggling operations". According to BAE Systems, the vessels are designed to deploy globally, conducting anti-piracy, counter-terrorism and anti-smuggling tasks currently conducted by frigates and destroyers. Steel was cut on 10 October 2014 and they are expected to enter service starting 2017, with the last being delivered by the end of 2018.

The Batch 2 ships are fundamentally different in appearance and capabilities from the preceding Batch 1. Notable differences include the 90.5 metres (296 ft 11 in) long hull, a top speed of 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph), Merlin-capable flight deck, a displacement of around 2,000 tonnes and greatly expanded capacity for accommodating troops. The Batch 2 ships also have a different (full width) superstructure, and a fundamentally different above-water hullform shape (greater bow flare, different & less-pronounced forward knuckle line compared to the Batch 1 ships, lack of the distinctive fwd & aft bulwarks of the Batch 1 vessels). The class is also fitted with the Kelvin Hughes SharpEye integrated radar system for navigation, the Terma Scanter 4100 2D radar for air and surface surveillance, and a BAE CMS-1 Combat Management System. The Batch 2 ships therefore arguably represent a distinctly separate class to the preceding Batch 1.

Batch 2 are also the first Royal Navy ships fitted with the BAE Systems Shared Infrastructure operating system. BAE describes Shared Infrastructure as "a state-of-the-art system that will revolutionise the way ships operate by using virtual technologies to host and integrate the sensors, weapons and management systems that complex warships require. Replacing multiple large consoles dedicated to specific tasks with a single hardware solution, reduces the amount of spares required to be carried onboard and will significantly decrease through-life costs."

The class has been criticised in Parliamentary evidence for: lacking a helicopter hangar (even a telescopic hangar), something that will limit utility of the helicopter deck by preventing embarkation of a helicopter for anything other than very short periods; lacking a medium calibre gun (such as 76 mm); and poor value for money. It is argued that because of the lacking features (which could have been incorporated for the price) the vessels will not be as capable in the ocean-going patrol capacity as claimed.

The Batch 2 ships for the Royal Navy include some 29 modifications and enhancements over the Amazonas-class corvette built by BAE Systems for the Brazilian Navy. The Royal Navy ships are built to more stringent naval standards, with features such as magazine protection, improved hull integrity and fire safety modifications, as well as greater redundancy.

HMS Forth was christened at a ceremony at the BAE Systems Scotstoun shipyard in Glasgow, on the 9th March 2017.


2015 SDSR (Tamar and Spey)
The Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 announced a further purchase of two new Batch 2 ships at an undisclosed date in the future, and a total fleet of 'up to six' offshore patrol vessels. Expectation at the time was that this would encompass the three Batch 2 ships announced in 2013, the two additional Batch 2 ships announced in the 2015 defence review, and the modified Batch 1 ship, Clyde. The three Batch 1 ships without flight decks would be withdrawn in favour of the newer ships. The defence review also suggested that the ships could be used to increase the Royal Navy’s ability to defend UK interests at home and abroad.

During a Defence Select Committee in July 2016, the First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Philip Andrew Jones indicated that the option for a fleet of 'up to six' offshore patrol vessels had been reduced to five, with Clyde being replaced by one of the new Batch 2 ships. The First Sea Lord also elaborated on the potential uses for the Batch 2 ships overseas, including the possibility of forward basing an extra ship at the Falklands Islands, or forward basing it elsewhere. A £287m order, for two new ships and support for all five Batch 2 ships, was announced on 8 December 2016. HM Ships Tamar and Spey will join the fleet in 2019.


Ships In Class

Batch 1
1. HMS Tyne (P281) Launched 27th April 2002. Commissioned 4th July 2003.
2. HMS Severn (P282) Launched 4th December 2002. Commissioned 31st July 2003. Decommissioned 27th October 2017.
3. HMS Mersey (P283) Launched 14th June 2003. Commissioned 28th November 2003.

'Clyde' Variant (Based on Batch 1)
4. HMS Clyde (P257) Launched 14th June 2006. Commissioned 30th January 2007.

Batch 2 (Based on BAE 'Amazonas' class corvette)
5. HMS Forth (P222) Launched 20th August 2016. Undergoing sea trials 2017.
6. HMS Medway (P223) Launched 23rd August 2017. Undergoing fitting out 2017.
7. HMS Trent (P224) Expected 2019
8. HMS Tamar (P233) Expected 2021
9. HMS Spey (P226) Expected 2021


Specifications
Type: Offshore Patrol Vessel
Displacement:
1,700 tonnes (Batch 1)
1,847 to 2,000 tonnes (Clyde)
~2,000 tonnes (Batch 2)
Length:
79.5 metres (Batch 1)
81.5 metres (Clyde)
90.5 metres (Batch 2)
Beam: 13.6 metres
Draught: 3.8 metres
Installed power: 4,125 kW (5,532 hp) at 1,000 rpm
Propulsion: 2 × Ruston 12RK 270 diesel engines, 280kW bow thruster, 185kW stern thruster
Speed:
20 kn (37 km/h) (Batch 1)
21 kn (39 km/h) (Clyde)
24 kn (44 km/h) (Batch 2)
Range:
7,800 nautical miles (14,400 km) at 12 knots (22 km/h)
5,500 nmi (Clyde, Batch 2)
Endurance:
21 days (Batch 1, Clyde)
35 days (Batch 2)
Boats and landing craft carried: 2 × rigid inflatable boats
Troops: Accommodation for 20 extra personnel
Crew Complement:
30 (Batch 1)
36 (Clyde)
Sensors and processing systems: Air/surface surveillance radar
Armament:
1 × Oerlikon 20 mm cannon
1 × 30mm DS30B gun (Clyde, Batch 2)
2 × Miniguns (Clyde)
2-5 × General purpose machine guns
Aviation facilities:
Lynx-capable flight deck (Batch 1)
Merlin-capable flight deck (Clyde, Batch2)

A BAE video of the River class OPV variants

jonas
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby jonas » 01 May 2015, 16:24

As an OPV for the UK an excellent choice. As an OPV for export completely let down by a lack of a hangar (forget Brazil) . Unfortunately when you see the offerings of foreign competitors, particularly France, then these vessels have little chance of gaining further export orders.

jonas
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby jonas » 01 May 2015, 16:26

marktigger wrote:the current and future opv fleet including the Falkland Islands Patrol Vessel


As a Falkland islands OPV it is completely restricted by lack of a hangar

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1433
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby The Armchair Soldier » 01 May 2015, 16:34

I was under the impression that these new OPV's were going to replace the current early-batch River-class OPV's already in service, and that the modified Clyde would continue to serve as the Falkland Islands patrol ship? Is that not the case? Terrible waste, if not, but sadly it wouldn't surprise me.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby marktigger » 01 May 2015, 20:57

thats my impression to

jonas
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby jonas » 03 May 2015, 09:12

The Armchair Soldier wrote:I was under the impression that these new OPV's were going to replace the current early-batch River-class OPV's already in service, and that the modified Clyde would continue to serve as the Falkland Islands patrol ship? Is that not the case? Terrible waste, if not, but sadly it wouldn't surprise me.


No decision until the upcoming SDSR, but according to this it look like you are right and the early batch will be going. This is penny pinching in the extreme. Perfectly good ships with a lot of life left in them, but really in the Caribbean you need something with a hangar (or anywhere else for that matter) 'Don't spoil the ship For a ha'porth of tar etc.'
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... royal-navy

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby marktigger » 03 May 2015, 10:46

will be interesting if one is in the med and another in the west indies that leaves one to patrol UK territorial waters.

User avatar
Pseudo
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby Pseudo » 03 May 2015, 11:26

If the batch one River's are to go, I wonder if the SFPA fancy a couple to augment the Jura's?

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1433
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby The Armchair Soldier » 03 May 2015, 20:12

Yeah, it's time to get back on topic, I think.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2367
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby arfah » 03 May 2015, 20:16

The Armchair Soldier wrote:Yeah, it's time to get back on topic, I think.


Thank you
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

User avatar
WhitestElephant
Member
Posts: 391
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby WhitestElephant » 16 May 2015, 16:42

jonas wrote:As an OPV for the UK an excellent choice. As an OPV for export completely let down by a lack of a hangar (forget Brazil) . Unfortunately when you see the offerings of foreign competitors, particularly France, then these vessels have little chance of gaining further export orders.


I think it would be the other way around, with the hangar being more useful for UK OPVs rather than for export customers.

But I do find it strange the Khareef corvette (based on the River design I believe) hasn't found more customers.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)

SDL
Member
Posts: 560
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby SDL » 20 May 2015, 20:42

When are the new OPVs starting construction?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1881
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby Gabriele » 20 May 2015, 21:59

SDL wrote:When are the new OPVs starting construction?


First steel for the first was cut back in October. Costruction underway, but little in terms of images released so far.
First steel cut for the second is this June.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

laurencechris
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 23 May 2015, 21:45

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby laurencechris » 25 May 2015, 12:57

With just a 30mm peashooter these OPVs are limited in their use. A bit more imagination could have featured some harpoon and a slightly bigger gun, maybe a maritime version of starstreak. Without more weaponary if these vessels come up against anything bigger than a skiff then they could be in trouble.

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Location: South Africa

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby Old RN » 25 May 2015, 13:21

Has it been considered to add a few Sea Ceptors (8?) to them. I have the impression that the Sea Ceptor requires virtually no maintenance and has a surface to surface mode IIRC.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby marktigger » 25 May 2015, 13:27

the lightweight multirole missile being bought for the Wildcat is based on starstreak SAM there is a seastreak launcher available so you could have a mixture of the 2 giving surface to surface and surface to air capability.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby shark bait » 25 May 2015, 16:06

laurencechris wrote:With just a 30mm peashooter these OPVs are limited in their use. A bit more imagination could have featured some harpoon and a slightly bigger gun, maybe a maritime version of starstreak. Without more weaponary if these vessels come up against anything bigger than a skiff then they could be in trouble.


Even with some bigger weapons they would still be in trouble of they met anything bigger. They are simply too small to be survivable.
But they are not designed to be , and never will be put up against anything big. Heavily arming them would be a waste of money, money that is desperately needed elsewhere within the navy
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby marktigger » 25 May 2015, 16:09

Irish navy OPV's have the 76mm Oto melara first got them when we sold them 2 hong kong patrol vessels that should have been given to NIPS during Op Banner

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby marktigger » 25 May 2015, 16:12

laurencechris wrote:With just a 30mm peashooter these OPVs are limited in their use. A bit more imagination could have featured some harpoon and a slightly bigger gun, maybe a maritime version of starstreak. Without more weaponary if these vessels come up against anything bigger than a skiff then they could be in trouble.


they are only meant to encounter trawlers but if the patrol fleet get a more world wide role I agree they need more capable ships. Seastreak could be bolted on

User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby Tiny Toy » 25 May 2015, 16:53

Old RN wrote:Has it been considered to add a few Sea Ceptors (8?) to them. I have the impression that the Sea Ceptor requires virtually no maintenance and has a surface to surface mode IIRC.

Might be a good idea (for targets beyond CAMM minimum range).

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2541
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 25 May 2015, 17:43

Adding any heavy arms on Rivers will make them significantly expensive, not only to purchase, but also to maintain and operate. In other words, they will even kill a single T26.

Your Rivers are simple beautiful OPVs to be used for fishery protection, counter piracy, and anti smuggler operations. Simple it is so its purchase cost is small, its crew (36) as well as its operation cost is quite small, its sea going days are significantly longer then escorts (less need for maintenance), which all make their value higher. Adding arms will "degrade" their value, to my opinion.

For example, Sea Ceptor (CAMMS) on T26s is a 20 km range, local-area air defense missile system. It needs 997 3D radar and hi-level combat management system coupled with data up-link. I am sure it CANNOT be cheap. If you are considering very simple version of CAMMS SAM system, still you need at least a 3D radar and an up-link, with "simpler" CMS. But this is a complete new development. Is this cheap? I'm afraid not.

Harpoon SSM will surely be cheaper than CAMMS, but still significant compared to the River building cost itself. And what is more, it is almost useless. Sinking any vessel without detailed investigation is highly unlikely in any scenarios I can imagine the Rivers will be tasked. Harpoon's fire-and-forget nature will not match the requirement.

In this respect, the 3 inch gun, if you are already operating them, would have been a good choice. But no, the only canons you have is 4.5 inch (or 5 inch in near future) and the Mk.8 system is quite large, requiring huge maintenance load. Thus, you are using the next largest cannons you have, the 30 mm guns. This is quite reasonable for me. You cannot afford "special something" for only 4 (or 7 at most) OPVs designed to be cheap. By being cheap, these vessels are opening the way wide for T26 to come, to my understanding.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby marktigger » 25 May 2015, 19:49

the 4.5 is totally unsuitable for this platform. yeap a 76 Oto Melara would be a logistic nightmare . But a bolt on or containerised HVM/Lmm in a self contained mounting could give the rivers some protection and anti surface vessel capability.

Image

Image

Image

even just the ordinary LML with aimer unit would give capability especially if the LMM rounds can be fired from them. But if those above launchers could fire Surface to Surface or Surface to Air weapons in a modular system that could be bolted onto any naval vessel it could give RNR divisions a real role manning them. The Territorial Army successfuly manned light air defence regts for years.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby marktigger » 30 May 2015, 12:09

would we be better with more capable vessels? Looking at what some other nations are using there are much better designs out there the New Zealand Protector (offshore) vessels Wellington & Otago or the spannish BAM class both heavily influenced by the Irish Eithne class. Other builders offer vessels of similar size/designs like the Damen Sigma or Holland class. Yes they have bigger armament than a patrol vessel requires but would be more flexible in the way they could be deployed given the deployment of River I's to the west indies or HMS Clyde in the Falklands. Having an integral hanger capable of carrying a Wildcat size helicopter or used as a space to store hurricane packs etc would give the class a degree of flexibility. As a supplement to frigates and destroyers or as a relief for a frigate or destroyer needed elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buque_de_ ... %C3%ADtima

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector ... rol_vessel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%89_Eithne_(P31)

the new zealand navy crew theirs in an interesting way adding in personel from Fisheries and emigration departments and other bodies could be a way of spreading some of the manpower difficulties?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2541
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 30 May 2015, 14:42

Dear marktigger

Gabriele was proposing mounting a telescopic hanger to River B.2s. I agree to his idea, it is surely feasible, the only issue will be its costs.

On the other hand, helicopter is NOT needed in many cases, especially when you can expect land-based air cover. So, the first vessel, already built to some extent, could go without such hanger. So here I am just proposing to equip telescopic hanger to the 2nd and 3rd vessels, only. This may not cost a lot, I hope.

As you know, River B.2 is as large as the River class frigate in WW2. Considering its under-armed nature, tall bow, faster speed, I suppose it is much sea worthy than the WW2 frigate. So I think you do not need "new ship". The River B.2s as built will be just enough.

Thus, I think Rivers will be a great help for Royal Navy. For example, with hanger (or may be even without), it can go for Indian ocean, as well as Caribbean ocean to free up an escort and a Bay.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests