River Class (OPV) (RN)

[shark bait]

Where are you getting these numbers from ?

[RichardIC]

3: take off one of the two anchors from all escorts. I think this will reduce 2 engineers per ship, resulting in freeing 19x2 = 38 engineers.

So, the sole reason for having two engineers per ship is making the anchor go down and making the anchor come back up again?

Sounds like 70s-style demarcation at its very worst.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Where are you getting these numbers from ?

Sorry I should have made it clear. These numbers are based on nothing, just assumption.

What I know is "a large fast-moving electro-hydro and firing stuff" = guns do need maintenances, i.e. there is no "maintenance-free" gun.
And OH Perry had only one anchor just to save money. All the numbers are just assumption.

How much do you expect from these numbers? It is, in other words, the number of crew you need if you ADD/UpArmour some ships.

[Repulse]

We shouldn't have Patrol Ships floating around the UK EEZ for the sake of it. With fewer DDs/FFs the pressure is very clear:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 64491.html

The issue is without increasing RN funds, which will never happen then the FFs / DDs we have are going to be tied up on operations / creating the Maritime Task Group (or CBG as I like to call it), this will be a common situation for all "non high threat" standing commitments.

The T31 could be an answer, but as we've seen as soon as it comprises the already low level number of first rate escorts the requirement gets beefed up so it can do the same role, so what happens is we sink money into pointless design studies. To a degree reluctantly, I accept that more T26s are the way to go given this picture, but we should be aiming for a single ASW / AAW class medium term to get efficiencies and reduce key asset issues, no GP nonsense.

This then leaves the need for more capable platforms elsewhere - nothing fancy, but actually properly armed compared to counterparts elsewhere. An independent LPD+ is part of this as is a flexible MHC design with global reach.

The key part is the OPV (Patrol Ship), which must be globally deployed and forward based. The independent article is perhaps over exaggerating the threat, but the political message is clear to the region which is the real problem. Would it be the same if HMS Clyde has the capability to operate a Wildcat with dipping sonar and had a 57/76mm gun capable of CIWS and basic short ranged ASuW missiles? What if there where two in the south Atlantic with one being operated from Gibraltar? These are not ships you would sail into a fight against an enemy fleet, but we shouldn't discount their ability to deter.

In terms of manning I think all OPVs should have the same rotation manning setup as the Hydrographic fleet - e.g. Two thirds on board at any time the rest on leave.

[marktigger]

isn't that the way most of the minor war vessels are manned the hydrography fleet, MCMV & OPV's ?

[Repulse]

isn't that the way most of the minor war vessels are manned the hydrography fleet, MCMV & OPV's ?

Yes I believe so, but I am expecting / hoping the additional ones are also.

[cockneyjock1974]

I absolutely respect every posters position here without exception........ However!

Some of the responses are just too long to read and it puts me off reading the thread, sorry had to say it!

[shark bait]

How much do you expect from these numbers? It is, in other words, the number of crew you need if you ADD/UpArmour some ships.

I feel like your assumptions are way off, 2 engineers just for an anchor is not right.

[donald_of_tokyo]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 64491.html

Thanks, very interesting article.

Falkland Islands left with no Royal Navy warship protection for first time since 1982 conflict .
...
However a manpower crisis, a need to deploy vessels to monitor Russian naval movements closer to home and a string of engine problems with the Royal Navy’s much-vaunted Type 45 destroyers has meant that no warship has been dispatched to the South Atlantic since a frigate returned from the region in November 2015.
...
Last night a Royal Navy source insisted that HMS Clyde - a small and lightly armed offshore patrol vessel - remained permanently based on the Falkland Islands, but admitted that “operational considerations” and the “current threat level” meant that no major warship was assigned to Atlantic Patrol Tasking (South), the Royal Navy’s long-standing mission to protect the islands.

So APT-S is now "officially gapped".

With T45 refit and T23 modernization, this "shortage of escort number" will continue for coming 2-3 years, maybe. Thus, RN will simply (permanently) gap APT-S.

However, "shortage of escort by its refits" will also relax the manpower crisis. In this case, another idea will be, up-armor HMS Forth by her commission in 2017; replacing the after-crane with a Phalanx CIWS, update the forward 30mm gun with LMM added, and embark ScanEagle. Can she be a "short-releaf of APT-S"? Increased crew can be provided from the escort "confined to port".

If needed, the forward gun can even be replaced with a 76 mm OTO gun, "presented" from US or even Japan (reuse) with surplus ammunitions.

Just as an idea...

[arfah]

The Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are not under any threat other than "words."

[Pseudo]

I'm surprised it wasn't gapped earlier. Given the state of Argentine armed forces a River and four Typhoon's seem like a ridiculous amount of overkill.

[WhiteWhale]

I'm surprised it wasn't gapped earlier. Given the state of Argentine armed forces a River and four Typhoon's seem like a ridiculous amount of overkill.

Well, not always four typhoons. Rumour mill has it as usually 2 available due to various niggles with one in particualr being a bit of a hanger queen.

[GibMariner]

While having a credible warship deployed in the South Atlantic is a clear statement of intent, the defence of the Falklands and South Georgia is not the sole purpose of APT-S.

The only good that could come out of gapping it is putting pressure on the government to follow through with its plans to expand the escort flotilla. I'm not holding my breath.

[donald_of_tokyo]

While having a credible warship deployed in the South Atlantic is a clear statement of intent, the defence of the Falklands and South Georgia is not the sole purpose of APT-S.

So what is the purpose? Do it really require an escort?
I think, to "stop" Argentina military to "venture", it was escort. If you think Argentina can do nothing, the other tasks = diplomacy, good will visit will not require an escort. Bays can do it. Tides/Waves can do it. And I propose, River Batch.3 (if with helicopter hangar) can easily do it. Even without hanger, River B.2s (e.g. HMS Forth) can do it. What will be the problem there?

[GibMariner]

So what is the purpose? Do it really require an escort?
I think, to "stop" Argentina military to "venture", it was escort. If you think Argentina can do nothing, the other tasks = diplomacy, good will visit will not require an escort. Bays can do it. Tides/Waves can do it. And I propose, River Batch.3 (if with helicopter hangar) can easily do it. Even without hanger, River B.2s (e.g. HMS Forth) can do it. What will be the problem there?

To name a few, from an outside view: protection of sea lanes; training with allies such as South Africa; defence engagement with traditional British defence export customers such as Chile and Brazil; building up experience of West African navies, coast guards and law enforcement agencies to tackle rising piracy in the region; supporting the British Antarctic Survey.

Underpinning all of this is also the defence of the British Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic, namely Ascension Island, Saint Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the British Antarctic Territory. With the latter 3 territories also claimed entirely or in part by Argentina.

I don't see how anything other than a credible escort can tick all those boxes. We don't have enough Bays or tankers to keep sending them away to every far-flung corner of the earth for roles they're not designed for and taking them away from their core tasks. A River-class OPV is sufficient for the duties now performed by HMS Clyde while the current direct threat from Argentina remains low (and the Falklands are better defended than they were in 1982), but how long will that last?

Do you expect to participate and lead the kind of high-end training which the RN excels at with allies such as South Africa, Chile or Brazil (which might not receive this kind of experience otherwise) with something like the virtually unarmed Bay, tanker or OPV you're suggesting?

There's also China which is encroaching into the South Atlantic as UK influence recedes. China which is constructing or looking to set up aerospace facilities in Argentina and potentially a naval base in Walvis Bay. China which is potentially providing corvettes to the Argentinian Navy. The RN has been effectively the blue water navy in the South Atlantic again since the 80s, when both South Africa and Argentina retreated from the role.

We proved in 1982 that this was our back yard, something which has come as a benefit to the Atlantic Alliance and our relationship with the USA, which is the basis of most of our defence industry and capability. We have heard much about the "pivot to Asia" - do we really want to create a power vacuum in the South Atlantic so China and/or Argentina can fill it?

[shark bait]

Points very well made @GibMariner, its pretty clear the rivers should be limited to local patrols, the clues in the name.

[donald_of_tokyo]

To name a few, from an outside view: protection of sea lanes; training with allies such as South Africa; defence engagement with traditional British defence export customers such as Chile and Brazil; building up experience of West African navies, coast guards and law enforcement agencies to tackle rising piracy in the region; supporting the British Antarctic Survey.

- Are there threats to the sea lanes in south atlantic NOW ? I do not think so.
- "High-end" training with friendly nations do need an escort, but it does not need to be "standing". One-month deployment will be enough.
- West African navies (except Nigeria) are all coast guard (with a few SSMs). Thus, I propose B.2/3 Rivers (in addition to Clyde, FIGS) may work, when an escort is not available.
- BOTs in this area can do with Rivers, I suppose.
So I think these items cannot be the reason for requiring an escort.

... A River-class OPV is sufficient for the duties now performed by HMS Clyde while the current direct threat from Argentina remains low (and the Falklands are better defended than they were in 1982), but how long will that last?

Agree, that's why I say "River B.2/3 as a short relief". China issue is also related, I agree. But, China is also strong in Africa, so it will not be easy to wipe them out from south Atlantic forever. In this case (~10 years from now?), yes, UK will start thinking of being "minor" in south Atlantic or increasing the escort number to fill APT-S with an escort.

Thus, for me, "Argentina's future restructure of its defense force", and, "future presence of China", are the two reason for "future" need for escort as APT-S.

My points are,
- sending an OPV (in addition to FIGS) is better than nothing, in the escort shortage expected with T45 refit.
- but you also need clear rationale (Argentina and China?) for needing an escort there, to keep your escort number of 19.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Points very well made @GibMariner, its pretty clear the rivers should be limited to local patrols, the clues in the name.

Shark bait-san. Rivers are the name used for WWII ASW frigates! (as you know) Not necessary related to rivers (= lands)

[shark bait]

Donald, I was referring to the offshore patrol vessel tag

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald, I was referring to the offshore patrol vessel tag

Oh, sorry for my mis-understanding.

But, we shall not forget that River OPVs are "larger" than River-class frigates of WW2. Trans-atlantic voyage is very easy for them. Actually, Brazilian Amazonas (= River class OPV) has visited South Africa recently. Why not RN's River B.2 can to the same?

Again, please note I am proposing it only as a stop-gap/short-relief. But, if the number of escort were to be cut, "short-relief" will become "permanent"....

[shark bait]

there is 'doing something'.......and then 'doing something worth while'.

Yes the rivers could do that, but in doing so it isn't a valuable addition to the security of the United Kingdom.

Its worth remembering the Navy didn't want new Rivers, they where forced upon them for industrial purposes. As such we're getting 5 new patrol boats that are not wanted or needed. Lets stick them in the guard ship role, have them do a bit of flag flying and call it case closed. I don't understand why we should continue the bad saga and make corvettes out of them.

[bobp]

Yes I have seen some images of some WW2 River class sloops and they seemed to be fairly well armed. The modern day rivers are bigger in tonnage etc and do appear to be lightly armed. But that's what they were designed to be OPV ships to chase the odd smuggler. The WW2 rivers were designed as Convoy escorts for use in war. As Shark Bait said the Navy didn't ask for them they were ordered to keep Bae busy. The only thing they will be good for is Training Sailors and patrolling friendly waters. They are not warships built for combat just think of them as big patrol boats.

[donald_of_tokyo]

@bobp-san and @SharkBait-san. Thanks for response.

Comments from you two are reasonable, I have little objection. My point is as follows:
1: not enough hull, APT-S is gapped. I think it will be gapped for years, because I see no indication the status is getting better within a few years
2: but HMS Forth will come NEXT YEAR
3: other than training with South Atlantic Nations (which can be done with "1-month tour" of an escort), why not a "Large Patrol Boat" can do most of the tasks APT-S does, which is (for me) good will visits (= show the flag) and BOT patrol (= show the flag) and ... what?

These 3 are the main parts. And then, "if someone says its too under-armed":
4: may be RN can up-arm HMS Forth with a single Phalanx and LMM-added 30mm gun, as well as a scan eagle.

In addition, I ask:
5: If APT-S is "low threat show the flag" mission, why not let it to "up-armed 2x River B.3s" forever. By "adding hangar, even replace 30 mm gun with 76 mm (anyway it is cheap), with 2x 30mm+LMM on sides"? I guess this might require hull elongation (such as T22B1-->B2) or hull broadening (Leander B3s).

It is only item 5 proposing a "ugly light-armed patrol corvette", and possibly item 4 "a little (and clearly temporal) up armoring HMS Forth", which is you two are claiming...

The main topic is items 1-3, (and 4), sorry not clear enough.

[shark bait]

Comments from you two are reasonable, I have little objection. My point is as follows:

1,2,3. there are enough hulls. Out of 19 surface combatants we have;

• 2 on kippon
• 5 in maintenance
• 1 training in Norway
• 1 attached to NATO
• 1 fleet ready escort
• 6 active in UK waters
• 3 dormant in UK waters

If APT-S is being gaped it is not because of a lack of hulls, it is because of other issues, which an extra river class wont fix.

4. They could, but a Phalanx won't alter the fundamental limitations of a patrol boat platform.

5. Because we will have a platform that is only good for APTs and nothing else, not the navy we need.



I try to keep this list updated as twitter feeds me info.

[Caribbean]

Out of 19 ships, 8 are "in maintenance" or "dormant" and 6 are "active in UK waters", leaving 5 available to do the majority of the standing tasks and you are saying that APT-S is NOT being gapped for lack of hulls?

Sorry - you just lost any semblance of credibility