River Class (OPV) (RN)

[marktigger]

The Lynx that has been carried previously by frigates, destroyers and RFA's has proved useful in counter narcotics, Disaster relief, aeromedical evacuation surface search. So its a loss of capability. Has the river got enough space for the disaster relief packs and suficient crew to provide disaster relief parties?

[shark bait]

I agree, carrying a, wild cat would be a massive capability boost for the platform. I wonder if it would have any special forces uses, perhaps they could fund it from the mystery boost in their budget . Mind you for £130 million a piece the MOD should have had BAE include the hangar.

Space for 6 containers, and an embarked crew of 50, so not useless at disaster relief, but hardly enough to make a big impact. Thats the new bigger rivers BTW, I don't know about the current ones. We have assets much better suited to aid work.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The original contract price for the Samuel Beckett class was €98M [$147.71M] for two PV90s" - and that's w/o the guns as they all came off the previous (decommissoned) ships. The publication estimates that a representative unit price would be 7m euros higher.

So even if we compare euros and pounds 1:1 we still pay double (both existing designs) for ships produced in the same country.

[donald_of_tokyo]

So even if we compare euros and pounds 1:1 we still pay double (both existing designs) for ships produced in the same country.

I remember the Amazonas (River B.2 base hull) was ordered with 52MGBP/unit (155MGBP/3 units) in 2009 originally. Not much different from Samuel Beckett's ~50MEuro/unit at 2010.

The 3 new B.2 Rivers ordered at 2014 are surely expensive, 348MGBP/3 units = 116 MGBP/unit. It will be related to TOBA, or be caused by addition of CMS-1. Surely both, but I do not know which was the dominant cause. This year, the 2 additional River B.2 will be ordered (My the hanger be with them). We will know then.

Gabriele-san's blog (http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... tions.html) has nice summary.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Whooa! Gabby has written a book; will have to read that. From the very beginning:

" it is increasingly looking evident that Govan shipbuilding will cease as well, with 200 million pounds invested in improving Scotstoun to make it a one-location "frigate factory" hopefully able to build ships at far more competitive prices. "
- operative word "hopefully"
- without achieving enough of parallel build(s) it won't happen (I of course hope that it will)

[rec]

They are certainly over priced and underarmed , and no match for a Holland class as an OPV.
Surely to keep skills, a replacement for Dilligence or Argus would have been a more useful bet.

[shark bait]

The armament on the rivers is fine. Anything bigger would be a waste.

They are however undeniably overpriced, but there is much hidden in that cost, besides the actual cost of the ships, which cost £65MGBP. It is much more strategic & political purchase, than a purchase for any particular requirement, which inflates the figure.

Its also much cheaper on the annual MOD budget in the short term than paying for T26's, I suggest that may be a deliberate move to free up funds for the new bits from the SDSR.

[bobp]

Having just read Gabbies blog post re the Rivers, I am confused now, maybe its my old age, and a lack of grey matter. So I will ask the question just how many rivers are we going to end up with? Is it three Batch 1 plus three Batch 2, or Six Batch 2 with the three Batch 1 being sold after only 14 years of service.

[shark bait]

We are building 5 new rivers, of which we will keep all of these. 3 of these are in construction now, 2 more where a surprise extra in the SDSR.

The three oldest rivers will definitely go, Bangladesh are reportedly interest in a purchase.

HMS Clyde, which is a river 1.5, the only one of her type, may or may not be kept. Her lease runs out in 2018, so I guess the decision will be made a little before then. So long term we will have 5 or 6 rivers, depending on the Clyde decision.

The situation is confusing, if it were me, I would scrap off the river association and just call these new ships a brand new class.

[marktigger]

yes it gets very confusing given there were the river class mine sweepers then the Batch 1 and 1.5 OPV's

[bobp]

Thanks Shark Bait and MarkTigger its a little clearer now. HMS Clyde I know has been quite busy this year in the South Atlantic. I suspect the high cost is due to keeping people employed at the Shipyards, until the T26 starts.

[shark bait]

That is very much the reason!

HMS Clyde has been busy, I would like to see her and her association with the Falklands continue past 2018.

Does anyone have details on how she is crewed? It must be different to the rest?

[bobp]

I was wondering when HMS Clyde will need some maintenance, she must have done a few miles. The crew gets swapped every six months with a crew from one of the other Rivers.

[donald_of_tokyo]

A "Fantasy" Exercise for 99m OPV design.

reference for B.2 River design/issues/costs: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... tions.html

What if the 2 additional OPV be built under 99m OPV design, 2700t FL with Wildcat hanger and Merlin capable flight deck?

cost:
The Amazonas-class (90m OPV, 2200t FL) was built with 52MGBP/unit ordered at 2009. B.2 Rivers are 116MGBP/unit at 2013, but may include cost related to TOBA and adding CMS-1. With no evidence, let's assume 33MGBP (in total 100MGBP for 3 ships) was TOBA.

- Let's assume the hull without CMS had costed 60MGBP (incld. RN naval standard application). In other words, all "other costs (including CMS addition)" is 23MGBP.
- "Steel is cheap and air is free" (not exactly) but just scale it with the displacement --> 74MGBP for hull, propulsion, range/enduarane and basic navigation/electronics/housings.
- To reconfigure the flight deck to be Merlin capable, and add Wildcat hanger with arsenal and support systems, add 10MGBP.
- Simply add the "other costs (incl. CMS)" 23MGBP to this will give you 74+10+23 = 107MGBP.

design
This will give you a "River class OPV Batch.3 (fantasy)" (or rather a "Roch-class OPV"):
- 99x14.6m, 2700t FL, 25kt sprint,
- 5500nm+@12kt range with 35days enduarance,
- 42+7 (flight) crew + 30 extra beds.
- with: Merlin capable deck with Wildcat capable hanger, 2x ISO container space, 2x RHIBs
- 2x 30mm Seahawk (bow and hanger top), 2x miniguns, (and LMM & SeaVenum for Wildcat)
- fitted for but not with: LMMs on Seahawks, and a 20mm CIWS on top of the hanger (to replace 2nd 30mm G).

comparison with River B.2
- a bit costy (at least +25%, and possible more), especially in its operation (adding Wildcat has an impact)
- provides "fixed" Wildcat hanger (not retractable) = more reliable and easy for maintenance
- better sea keeping, as good as Type-12 frigates (with similar displacements)
- can be a "base-design" for exportable Corvette (improved Khareef, with less speed and longer range)

and...(a secret aim: please do not take it seriously ....) to be a fall-back plan to add a 5inG and 20mm CIWS to make up two "Floreal-like patrol frigates" to save the day in case RN throw away FLF and shift to build ~2 additional T26GP. (I am FLF lover, but if the T26 cost-over-run is significant and RN cannot afford 5 of them, the designing cost overhead will be too high, and RN "may" abondone FLF itself. (note "may") ).

[shark bait]

Sounds nice, sounds like what the new rivers should have been in the first place. The extra work adding the hangar would have kept BAE busy for longer. At the moment we are paying extra for a slower build to keep people busy.

Not sure why it need to be any bigger TBH. The Spanish and kiwis fitted a hangar on ~90m patrol vessels.

5 inch gun sounds a bit too big. However the rivers do come fitted with a 76mm, which could be nice if shit hit the fan and we we're desperate for a patrol frigate. (im not saying we should do that though)

The problem with only building two vessels to this standard is that you cant maintain any deployment with only 2 vessels. We would be much better off altering all five of the new rivers to have a hangar on the back, and call it a brand new class. The cove class?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Sounds nice, ... Not sure why it need to be any bigger TBH. The Spanish and kiwis fitted a hangar on ~90m patrol vessels. .. 5 inch gun sounds a bit too big.

Thanks. Yes, the secret of the larger hull is hidden in the 5in gun. As large as a Leander (with heavy dual 4.5in gun) or a Lupo-class (2900t FL with large OTO 5in turlet), a 2700t FL OPV can easily handle a 5in gun, while the 2200t version may not.

Another issue is credibility and enduarance. I do not think the 2200t B.2 River with a retractable hanger AND a 3in gun AND a CIWS added can be "credible". One of them is fine, two may be, but not all three, I suppose.

On the other hand, a 2700t FL design (= Leander class size) can handle a 5in gun and a hanger and a CIWS easily = reliably.

The problem with only building two vessels to this standard is that you cant maintain any deployment with only 2 vessels.

Better be 3 of them, I agree. But, if your ship is simple (not fighty), the 3:1 rule can be mitigated to be 2:1. For example, B.1 Rivers are steaming "more than" 270 days a year, 1.5 times longer than an escort. What is more, they are on duty 270 days. Basic training is not included here. With Wildcat, the 99m version may not be available with so high rate, but surely longer than a frigate.

In "patrol-frigate" conversion (with a 5in gun and a CIWS added), again the readiness will decrease, but still it is much simpler than T23/T26/T45s. In addition, their task will be simple (no ASW, less AAW and ASuW), with less need for training. So I suppose only 2 vessels will be able to make 1 standing task to be covered.

# Here what in my mind is replacing both of the FIGS and APT-S with a single "Patrol-Frigate"... I know significant degradation in capability/survivability. But, it is only in case T26 went wrong = no resources left.

We would be much better off altering all five of the new rivers to have a hangar on the back, and call it a brand new class. The cove class?

I agree this is also an option, but I do not think you need a hanger to ALL of them, only 2-3 (~half of the class) is fine. They will seldom use it.

[shark bait]

Another issue is credibility and enduarance. I do not think the 2200t B.2 River with a retractable hanger AND a 3in gun AND a CIWS added can be "credible". One of them is fine, two may be, but not all three, I suppose.

You are quite right, there is only so much you can fit into a small hull. If the design density is too high, the platform will end up being over priced and full of crappy compromises. However I believe the 76 oto is suppose to be a nice product with minimal impact, which it why it is so widespread among the second tier, so perhaps that gun would be manageable.

Here what in my mind is replacing both of the FIGS and APT-S with a single "Patrol-Frigate"... I know significant degradation in capability/survivability.

I actually think APT-S would be perfectly filled by something like a "Patrol-Frigate", river class is not powerful enough, T23 is over powered, something in the middle would work well here. However you do not design your fleet to suite your peace time patrols, but since this is purely conceptual its fine, in which case, ill also put one in Singapore

[Caribbean]

you do not design your fleet to suite your peace time patrols,

The Rivers are, of course, designed exactly for that. They are Fishery protection vessels, intended to work around the coast of the UK, with support available from land-based assets at relatively short notice. Even a 20mm is probably over the top.

It appears that we now intend to deploy the B2 Rivers overseas and into situations where they may be the only asset for many miles and help is a long time coming, yet it seems that we want to pretend that they are still just fishery protection vessels and to equip them as such. The lack of helicopter and of any weapons system with an effective range greater than 2000 m would seem to my untutored eye to make them vulnerable to anyone in possession of even 1950s era Soviet weaponry (and there seems to be quite a lot of kit like that lying around these days and quite a lot of people prepared to use it).

If we are serious about using these ships for some of the tasks suggested, then we really should look at improving the range at which they can stand-off from a target. The ideal would be to add a helicopter, but it's probably too late in the day to add a hangar on the B2s. However, just swapping the 30mm for a 57mm would push the effective range out to 8km plus (and outside the effective range of many of those old Soviet systems). A 76mm would be even better, particularly if used with extended range and guided ammunition, but would cost a bit more.

[ArmChairCivvy]

5 inch gun sounds a bit too big. However the rivers do come fitted with a 76mm, which could be nice if shit hit the fan and we we're desperate for a patrol frigate. (im not saying we should do that though)

The problem with only building two vessels to this standard

I guess you mean somebody else's River-based design; not a new gun intro'ed to the RN?
- if we were to do the latter, we could use this 120mm, with 80 per minute ROF: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSwede ... TAK120.htm
- too big? Nope, they have been used on 600 t vessels

[GibMariner]

[shark bait]

I guess you mean somebody else's River-based design; not a new gun intro'ed to the RN?

yes, the Thai navy have the Oto 76mm fitted to their river. Incidentally their river looks much nicer than ours, I gather we are getting this newer better looking river with the latest order.

What 600t boat has a 120mm gun? that sounds intense!

HTMS Krabi

If we are serious about using these ships for some of the tasks suggested, then we really should look at improving the range at which they can stand-off from a target. The ideal would be to add a helicopter, but it's probably too late in the day to add a hangar on the B2s. However, just swapping the 30mm for a 57mm would push the effective range out to 8km plus (and outside the effective range of many of those old Soviet systems). A 76mm would be even better, particularly if used with extended range and guided ammunition, but would cost a bit more.

I agree we should, UAV's has to be the best method to achieve that, so a hangar would be very valuable. Not sure how valuable the big gun would be though. We are expecting these ships to patrol after all, not fight other ships. A 30mm is fine for warning shots, and upsetting people in boats, so it is reasonable to leave these without a big gun.

Hopefully a man portable LLM system can be developed, much like the star streak system, and can be put on the roof, which would give you a nice mission module should one day we need something a little more flighty. Or better yet, an unmanned vehicle that can launch LLM!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Or better yet, an unmanned vehicle that can launch LLM!

There we go:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... OE-VXX.jpg

[ArmChairCivvy]

What 600t boat has a 120mm gun? that sounds intense!

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/pho ... lid=350934

The other mounts and all spares were sold on, to Indonesia. So Krabi and whatever vessels those guns are are on can do a gun barrel salute when passing each other (and there is no doubt about which one is bigger).

[shark bait]

Thats the exact unmanned LLM launcher I had in mind!

They must seriously have felt it when the gun was fired on that Finnish boat.

[ArmChairCivvy]

They must seriously have felt it when the gun was fired on that Finnish boat

In honesty, they were designed to ambush landing craft and their immediately supporting shipping, using the broken up archipelago features for cover. Hence the 80 ROF/min. Despite a dual feed, only HESH rounds were available, so you would not try to sink a battleship. Good speed though, the 35+ is rumoured to have been more like 40.