River Class (OPV) (RN)

[Repulse]

Disgusting, have they not heard putting guns on OPVs is a bad idea, waste of money, absolutely not needed, blah, blah, blah

[donald_of_tokyo]

No problem. Every organization has its own policy.

Japan Coast Guard Hida-class PL 95x12.5m, 30+ knots, with 1x 40mm gun and 1x 20mm gun, with flight deck. We have 3 of them.


Iwami-class PL, 92x11 m, 21+ knots, with 1x 30mm gun, no flight deck. 6 of them.


Kunigami-class PL, 96.6x11.5 m, 25+ knots, 1x 20 or 30mm gun, with flight deck. 20 of them and more.


Although the actual number are not known, all of them are relatively short-ranged, probably far less than River B2. All built to merchant ship standard in not-warship-builder and thus very cheap (good). They are pretty much well-suited for Japan coast guards tasks.

Looking at River B2, it has long range and endurance, with so-so hull standard, good (as an OPV) level CMS, normal armament, so-so speed, and optimized for very long sea-going days. If the priority differs, their equipment shall differ. The point is, River B2 is very much stressing on sea-going days. Why?, is very interesting to know (may be because in their origin, they were designed to replace "many" island class with "a few" River B1s?).

[Jensy]

The spaces each side of the crane look like they could fit a Wildcat.

I have pushing this around over the last few days and it seems that a Wildcat is 3.05 meters wide and a Bae Pacific 950 is 3 meters wide looking at the pictures of a Pac 950 carried on the waist of Tamar when on the Thames a wildcat would fit but it could not be work on or be fitted with the weapons wing plus it would be so tight that when moving it the tail would have to go out over the side of the ship when turning it.

That weapons wing is rather annoying for shipboard operations. I'd suspect its additional width prevents two Wildcats sharing a hangar on T/23/31/45, with only the Type 26s mission bay still permitting multiple helicopters (up to three).

From your examination it sounds somewhere between risky and impossible to do the side hangars (I'd expect it will give us a German-style list as well). No sense ruining the platform for the rare occasion there's a need.

As it happens we're not exactly drowning in excess naval helicopters. If we need future small platforms with hangars and maintenance facilities then they would probably be better off built from scratch, as Batch 1 replacements or else as part of the MHpC programme (with a reduced emphasis on the 'p').

[Tempest414]

Looking at River B2, it has long range and endurance, with so-so hull standard, good (as an OPV) level CMS, normal armament, so-so speed, and optimized for very long sea-going days. If the priority differs, their equipment shall differ. The point is, River B2 is very much stressing on sea-going days. Why?, is very interesting to know (may be because in their origin, they were designed to replace "many" island class with "a few" River B1s?).

I would agree however what we are now asking from the B2's requires them to be changed to meet this requirement the trick is how we do this without effecting the efficient crew and days at sea. We are starting to see some of the kit coming on line like unmanned Bae Pac 950 and small UAV's for me what is needed now is at the first major refit is the 30mm replaced with 40mm with 3P plus a AW Hero sized UAV with radar both of these allow the ships command to track identify stop and have eyes on targets of interest. Also it was interesting to see on HMS Tamar the man portable Hero 120 loitering weapon which has a 40km strike capability which could be carried and operated from the B2's

[Aethulwulf]

The Hero 120 is more likely to be operated by RM, some of whom may also be present on a OPV.

[Tempest414]

The Hero 120 is more likely to be operated by RM, some of whom may also be present on a OPV.

Being man portable and easy to deploy I can't see why it can't be carried and deployed from the B2's but you are right it is more likely to be used by the RM. However 2 or 4 of these on fixed launchers could useful

[abc123]

Disgusting, have they not heard putting guns on OPVs is a bad idea, waste of money, absolutely not needed, blah, blah, blah

And that's a POLICE ship...

[Caribbean]

Disgusting, have they not heard putting guns on OPVs is a bad idea, waste of money, absolutely not needed, blah, blah, blah

Is that the Lurssen 90m OPV? If so, it can also have a hangar (not sure if this particular one has, however - probably not, if it's a police vessel)

[ArmChairCivvy]

the funnel is set to one side, the helo deck is visible, but hangar probs limited to Camcopter & its brethren

[Ron5]

Regarding River B2 hangars, I had quite forgotten this article ...

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/enhanc ... h-ii-opvs/

Which seems to show a permanent, non-telescoping hangar, is too much for the length. As @Poiuytrewq indicated.

Bae/Bofors 57mm with wing DS-30's looks nice tho

[Jake1992]

With all this talk of upgrading the RB2s I honestly not sure why they were chose in the first place. Don’t get me wrong as a EEZ dedicated OPV there spot on and I understand a near complete and ready design was needed to go asap but it seems there were better options to add greater use for the RN.

I would of gone with a slightly modified Khareef class, it’s effectively a RB3 in design it offers the much talked about hanger and a crane could of been added to one side like on the Holland class or even over a reinforced hanger.
As for cost do we really believe the RB2 honestly would cost £125m odd each ? And we saw that 3 Khareefs cost roughly that each.

[Tempest414]

With all this talk of upgrading the RB2s I honestly not sure why they were chose in the first place. Don’t get me wrong as a EEZ dedicated OPV there spot on and I understand a near complete and ready design was needed to go asap but it seems there were better options to add greater use for the RN.

I would of gone with a slightly modified Khareef class, it’s effectively a RB3 in design it offers the much talked about hanger and a crane could of been added to one side like on the Holland class or even over a reinforced hanger.
As for cost do we really believe the RB2 honestly would cost £125m odd each ? And we saw that 3 Khareefs cost roughly that each.

Khareef class cost about 134 million each so could of got 4 out of 635 million at a cost 154 million each however they do have some draw backs first the crew on each ship is about 100 second they have 1000 nm less range third their at sea days would be half that of a B2. For me we should have got more for the money and had BAE not been fat dumb and happy and had done some basic work I think we could of got a 100 meter B2 with a hangar and 57mm same core crew same radar and CMS

[Jake1992]

With all this talk of upgrading the RB2s I honestly not sure why they were chose in the first place. Don’t get me wrong as a EEZ dedicated OPV there spot on and I understand a near complete and ready design was needed to go asap but it seems there were better options to add greater use for the RN.

I would of gone with a slightly modified Khareef class, it’s effectively a RB3 in design it offers the much talked about hanger and a crane could of been added to one side like on the Holland class or even over a reinforced hanger.
As for cost do we really believe the RB2 honestly would cost £125m odd each ? And we saw that 3 Khareefs cost roughly that each.

Khareef class cost about 134 million each so could of got 4 out of 635 million at a cost 154 million each however they do have some draw backs first the crew on each ship is about 100 second they have 1000 nm less range third their at sea days would be half that of a B2. For me we should have got more for the money and had BAE not been fat dumb and happy and had done some basic work I think we could of got a 100 meter B2 with a hangar and 57mm same core crew same radar and CMS

Surely the crew level is so high due to the weapon systems they carry which would not be on a uk OPV variant, a 1000 less miles in range yes but still not basin that area to be fair and what would it if took in redesign to increase endurance to 30 odd days ?

[Repulse]

At least 40% of the cost of the B2 Rivers was to do with the minimum spend guarantee to BAE to keep ship building skills - the real price would have been somewhere @£80mn.

I’m all for a B3 MHPC version with a hangar and mission bay - and also adding a larger gun to the B2s. In the past I’ve also been critical of not putting a hangar on the B2s, but actually I now realise that it is not essential when operating within range of a land base, in fact it is probably counter productive. If within land range of UK bases like the UK, Falklands, Caribbean, Gibraltar/Cyprus/Med or even the Gulf then they are perfectly fine.

In fact when you look at what they are up to at the moment, they are worth every penny IMO.

[serge750]

I do like the idea of the batch 3 extended rivers with permanent hanger & bigger gun but think the politicians would of called it a proper frigate, but as said before does it need helicopter facilities close to land,

It would of been good to have maybe 2 of the b3 type ( the latter ones as it would of needed design work ) for farther away deployments i.e Falklands as the weather can be really bad etc.

In hindsight I would of prefererd a couple of these instead of the 5 x T31 if we could of had another couple of T26

[donald_of_tokyo]

When T26 delayed around 2013, RN was forced to order River B2. If RN had a "plan-B" by then, it could have been 3 or 4 larger OPVs with a helicopter hangar, which shall work "along with" River B1/1.5s.

These arguments are all "too late", but, we should learn from the past for future.

RN do not have any plan to build OPV in Clyde for now. But, if things go bad, MOD might delay T26 batch-2 contract/build by ~2 years, to postpone one T26 cost = £0.8-1B into future. But, as Clyde needs to keep their worker, it is not for free. In TOBA case, it was ~£220M per year. So, another order of £440M shall be placed (yes, this will leave only £0.36-0.56B saved).

Not saying this will happen or not, but, having a plan-B is very important.

Anyway, what about future "plan-B"? In other words, what if Clyde are forced to build something to replace 3 River B1 with £440M around 2025? I PERSONALLY think, all the discussion here could be resulted on this case study.

Delay in T26-batch2 order is a nightmare, which MUST NOT HAPPEN. But, the same "must-not-happen" thing took place in 2013. Then, what is the worst-worst is, NOT PREPARING FOR IT, I guess.

[dmereifield]

When T26 delayed around 2013, RN was forced to order River B2. If RN had a "plan-B" by then, it could have been 3 or 4 larger OPVs with a helicopter hangar, which shall work "along with" River B1/1.5s.

These arguments are all "too late", but, we should learn from the past for future.

RN do not have any plan to build OPV in Clyde for now. But, if things go bad, MOD might delay T26 batch-2 contract/build by ~2 years, to postpone one T26 cost = £0.8-1B into future. But, as Clyde needs to keep their worker, it is not for free. In TOBA case, it was ~£220M per year. So, another order of £440M shall be placed (yes, this will leave only £0.36-0.56B saved).

Not saying this will happen or not, but, having a plan-B is very important.

Anyway, what about future "plan-B"? In other words, what if Clyde are forced to build something to replace 3 River B1 with £440M around 2025? I PERSONALLY think, all the discussion here could be resulted on this case study.

Delay in T26-batch2 order is a nightmare, which MUST NOT HAPPEN. But, the same "must-not-happen" thing took place in 2013. Then, what is the worst-worst is, NOT PREPARING FOR IT, I guess.

Very good points. I suppose we'd then be looking at 1) 3 River B2's to replace the River B1's, or 2) 2 uparmed River B3's to replace 2-3 River B2's that will no longer be forward deployed becuase they'll have to take over UK EEZ as the River B1's retire...

Would all depend on what happens at H&W Appledore in the meantime. They're bullish so might they have an order for OPV type ships lined up?

[Tempest414]

Delay in T26-batch2 order is a nightmare, which MUST NOT HAPPEN. But, the same "must-not-happen" thing took place in 2013. Then, what is the worst-worst is, NOT PREPARING FOR IT, I guess.

However we are now in a better place in that BAE have the Leander concept in sizes 99 to 120 meter which in my mind they should keep warm and turning it over to keep it ready

[dmereifield]

Delay in T26-batch2 order is a nightmare, which MUST NOT HAPPEN. But, the same "must-not-happen" thing took place in 2013. Then, what is the worst-worst is, NOT PREPARING FOR IT, I guess.

However we are now in a better place in that BAE have the Leander concept in sizes 99 to 120 meter which in my mind they should keep warm and turning it over to keep it ready

What a mess we'd have made of things if another T26 delay meant that BAE had to knock out a couple of Leanders to keep the yard busy...we'd have 3 classes of Frigates as a result...

[Poiuytrewq]

Which seems to show a permanent, non-telescoping hangar, is too much for the length. As @Poiuytrewq indicated.

They really need to be 103m-105m LOA to ensure they aren't compromised.

I think they would make a nicely balanced vessel, perfect for low threat global patrol but the price has to be in the £100m - £120m region to be a realistic option.

It would be very interesting to know the price difference between a 105m Leander vs an RB3 with identical armament,sensors,propulsion etc.

[SW1]

Or just have a RFA assigned to work with them on their overseas station thus providing persistence, logistics and helicopter maintenance facilities.

[Tempest414]

Or just have a RFA assigned to work with them on their overseas station thus providing persistence, logistics and helicopter maintenance facilities.

That is 2 ships and 2 crew just to get a helicopter in one place

[Tempest414]

What a mess we'd have made of things if another T26 delay meant that BAE had to knock out a couple of Leanders to keep the yard busy...we'd have 3 classes of Frigates as a result...

It would be very interesting to know the price difference between a 105m Leander vs an RB3 with identical armament,sensors,propulsion etc.

Interesting if we set the requirement for a 105 meter ship with a hangar for wildcat ops and a simple armament of say 2 x 40mm or 1 x 57mm and 1 x 40mm with a crew of 75 working 1.5 so 50 at anyone time plus helicopter or mission crew which way BAE would go River or Leander

[SW1]

Or just have a RFA assigned to work with them on their overseas station thus providing persistence, logistics and helicopter maintenance facilities.

That is 2 ships and 2 crew just to get a helicopter in one place

No it gets far more than just as helicopter, instead of trying to get one ship to do it all and the crew of an RFA plus an opv is probably still less than a frigate.

[Tempest414]

No it gets far more than just as helicopter, instead of trying to get one ship to do it all and the crew of an RFA plus an opv is probably still less than a frigate.

yes but the over all cost would be 2 or 3 time as much