River Class (OPV) (RN)

[marktigger]

agree shark bait if you make the OPV have on paper a capability politicians will believe they don't need to build a credible escort force and at some point a vessel will be left exposed or asked to do something its not meant to and we could have another HMS Cornwall Boarding crew incident and loose an OPV not 2 RIBs or at worst we'll have an OPV sunk with heavy loss of life!

Yes use the OPV's forward deployed but have a credible back up to provide support in terms of a Frigate or Destroyer.

the OPV's can't support wildcat they can lilly pad one from a larger vessel.

[donald_of_tokyo]

the OPV's can't support wildcat they can lilly pad one from a larger vessel.

Why not place a retractable hangar? Accommodate a Wildcat, or two or three UAVs. There are so many OPV in the world with a hangar. So having a hangar does not mean it looks like a frigate. Having a 76 mm gun will be a bit danger. LMM can be used to counter fast boat. If you say so, it may not look like a "real SSM to fight".

My point is that, with 30mm SeaHawk with LMM, with Wildcat with LMM, many mini-guns, RN has one of the best "close defense firepower against pirates/small boats" in the world. And this is the job OPVs can do.

[marktigger]

yeap and what happen donald when a minister thinks it can take on a MEKO 140 or A69 without support?

[donald_of_tokyo]

yeap and what happen donald when a minister thinks it can take on a MEKO 140 or A69 without support?

I have 2 answers.

- minister won't think so. MOD/RN shall say "they can't". It is their duty. Minister cannot override it, because it is true.
- MEKO140 or A69 belongs to Navy. If they attack Rivers, it is a "declare of war". You can shoot a dozen of tomahawks to Argentina navy base, sink tens of Merchant vessels, just a few days after the attack (using SSN). A months later, CVTF may come to do much more lethal attack, e.g. you can sink ALL Argentina Navy vessel, eliminate them.

Then, do you think Rivers in Falkland will be attacked?

To say the truth, in 2010s or so, RN sent T42 DD as APT-S. You all know that even Argentina Airforce of that day can easily sink it, if they really think about it. T42 will shoot down 2 A4s, but remaining 10 A4s on attack will sink it the next moment.

[marktigger]

note the 4.5 in mk8 tracking with the sea dart also note how the launcher is back in the load position before the smoke clears

[shark bait]

the OPV's can't support wildcat they can lilly pad one from a larger vessel.

No but with support of an auxiliary or frigate they can operate one. If we are forward being these there will also be shore facilities available.

Why not place a retractable hangar? Accommodate a Wildcat, or two or three UAVs

Would have been nice, probably too late now.

[Repulse]

or we go somewhere in the middle an effective Light GP frigate

Which costs alot more money and cannot do the job anyway.

A patrol sloop with decent speed / endurance and stealth could hide and run until the cavalry arrives, but equally keeps the enemy on their toes. HMS Endurance did something similar in the Falklands.

[marktigger]

did the argentines see Endurance as a serious risk? 2x20mm 2x wasp with AS12? later with lynx & sea skua i can see

[Engaging Strategy]

- minister won't think so. MOD/RN shall say "they can't". It is their duty. Minister cannot override it, because it is true.

Ministers do stupid things and overrule the military all the time. Often they think they know best when they simply don't. One grey hull doesn't look all that different from another to the average politician and all of them believe the RN to be some sort of ultimate unbeatable force.

- MEKO140 or A69 belongs to Navy. If they attack Rivers, it is a "declare of war". You can shoot a dozen of tomahawks to Argentina navy base, sink tens of Merchant vessels, just a few days after the attack (using SSN). A months later, CVTF may come to do much more lethal attack, e.g. you can sink ALL Argentina Navy vessel, eliminate them.

I'm sure all of that' will console the families of the 50 or so RN personnel who won't be coming home, because they were placed in a high threat area in a ship that couldn't defend itself.

To say the truth, in 2010s or so, RN sent T42 DD as APT-S. You all know that even Argentina Airforce of that day can easily sink it, if they really think about it. T42 will shoot down 2 A4s, but remaining 10 A4s on attack will sink it the next moment.

Er, no. After the Falklands the '42s got a lot better. The Batch 3s (the ones we were operating up to 2010) had much better missiles and sensors than the ships that went south in '82. They also had two Phalanx CIWS on the ship's beam. I wouldn't want to be an A4 pilot trying to conduct a successful attack with unguided dumb bombs in the face of fire from that thing.

[marktigger]

be interesting if the navy had had miniguns in 82 as well.
I do wonder will they eventually follow the canadians/Australians/New Zealand and others and add the .50 Browning. I'd also say on the patrol vessels if on anti piracy/narcotics the AGL could be an interesting force multiplyer

[donald_of_tokyo]

Ministers do stupid things and overrule the military all the time. Often they think they know best when they simply don't. One grey hull doesn't look all that different from another to the average politician and all of them believe the RN to be some sort of ultimate unbeatable force.

No. Stupid minister do stupid things. That is because he is stupid, not because he is minister. Even if you have proper fleet, stupid minister will send your CVF to SSK field without proper escort of T26s, and CVF would be sunk. No difference.

To say the truth, in 2010s or so, RN sent T42 DD as APT-S. You all know that even Argentina Airforce of that day can easily sink it, if they really think about it. T42 will shoot down 2 A4s, but remaining 10 A4s on attack will sink it the next moment.

Er, no. After the Falklands the '42s got a lot better. The Batch 3s (the ones we were operating up to 2010) had much better missiles and sensors than the ships that went south in '82. They also had two Phalanx CIWS on the ship's beam. I wouldn't want to be an A4 pilot trying to conduct a successful attack with unguided dumb bombs in the face of fire from that thing.

I do not agree. With SeaHarriers, many escorts, RN struggled to win the falkland war. Yes, equipments has improved, but at least for T42, it is not a quantum leap. I see no possibility a single T42 can survive Argentina Airforce's attack. How about T23? No, either. So RN is sending assets who cannot survive the attack.

This is common worldwide, it is not a problem.

In reality, UK intelligence will detect the Argentine's "will" to attack your T42, and T42 can depart to avoid it (she need to steam only a few 100 km to get out of Argentina airforce's range.) If there are a few days left, RAF can send a dozen of Typhoon to support her. In either case, your T42 is safe. Not because it has strong AAW capability. (On the contrary, T45 will be sitting in the theater, and will shoot down every incoming A-4 in a minute. Big big difference in AAW capability).

[marktigger]

yes donald if the rules of engagement let it. if ministers impose "Weapons tight" then allot of the advantages of systems like Type 45 and CMM are negated

[donald_of_tokyo]

River B.2 length: Using available photos and figures like this
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aLoXfiMZMXA/V ... 2Bplan.jpg
I measure the length of the vessel.

From stern to top of the flight deck = 23m
From top of the flight deck to top of the funnel = end of the forecastle deck = 19m
From top of the funnel to the top of the superstructure on the bow = 27m
Bow = 21m

For reference, Wildcat is 13.5m long (folded), and I guess we need 14.5 m of hangar.
14.5 m from top of the flight deck is right at the middle of the funnel, while the total funnel length is 8m. In other words, from top of the flight deck to tail of the funnel, it is 11m.

Thus,
1: Rearrange the funnel, to have a length halved, you can have a fixed Wildcat hanger
2: add 3.5 m of hull, right after the engine room (~funnel), then you can have a fixed Wildcat hanger
In the latter case, you can also get increased range and endurance, since space for tanks and storage will increase by 3.5 m (length) x 13.6 m (width) x 3.8 m (draft) (x shape fudge) ~ 150t.

Is this a "really difficult" issue? All compartment design can be re-used. Shaft design may change (longer shaft). After super structure (only made of a 15t crane and store rooms) shall be redesigned. If in option 1, funned needs redesign, while in option 2, the 3.5 m long hull shall be properly designed and equipped.

The 3rd option is
3: Mount a retractable hangar, which is 11m in short, and extend for only 3.5m to make it 14.5m. In this case, even when this hangar be elongated, the flight deck could be used for another Wildcat (but not Merlin).

This level of designing may be a good exercise for young engineer = not difficult, I guess.

[Ron5]

be interesting if the navy had had miniguns in 82 as well.
I do wonder will they eventually follow the canadians/Australians/New Zealand and others and add the .50 Browning. I'd also say on the patrol vessels if on anti piracy/narcotics the AGL could be an interesting force multiplyer

Wildcat carry them already and there was a trial of a shipboard M2 on, I think, a minehunter. Don't know if that was followed up with an order.

[marktigger]

River B.2 length: Using available photos and figures like this
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aLoXfiMZMXA/V ... 2Bplan.jpg
I measure the length of the vessel.

From stern to top of the flight deck = 23m
From top of the flight deck to top of the funnel = end of the forecastle deck = 19m
From top of the funnel to the top of the superstructure on the bow = 27m
Bow = 21m

For reference, Wildcat is 13.5m long (folded), and I guess we need 14.5 m of hangar.
14.5 m from top of the flight deck is right at the middle of the funnel, while the total funnel length is 8m. In other words, from top of the flight deck to tail of the funnel, it is 11m.

Thus,
1: Rearrange the funnel, to have a length halved, you can have a fixed Wildcat hanger
2: add 3.5 m of hull, right after the engine room (~funnel), then you can have a fixed Wildcat hanger
In the latter case, you can also get increased range and endurance, since space for tanks and storage will increase by 3.5 m (length) x 13.6 m (width) x 3.8 m (draft) (x shape fudge) ~ 150t.

Is this a "really difficult" issue? All compartment design can be re-used. Shaft design may change (longer shaft). After super structure (only made of a 15t crane and store rooms) shall be redesigned. If in option 1, funned needs redesign, while in option 2, the 3.5 m long hull shall be properly designed and equipped.

The 3rd option is
3: Mount a retractable hangar, which is 11m in short, and extend for only 3.5m to make it 14.5m. In this case, even when this hangar be elongated, the flight deck could be used for another Wildcat (but not Merlin).

This level of designing may be a good exercise for young engineer = not difficult, I guess.

how would that effect stabilty in all weather conditions? does it make the vessel less stable? how does it effect the displacement? how does it effect the air flow over the deck does it create a more turbulent area over the flight deck?

[Repulse]

The batch 2s are in build so the best we can hope for is a retractable hangar, though as these will be mainly EEZ vessels to replace the batch 1s there is no pressing need. The design for the Batch 3s is actually simpler, use the Al Khreef design, even with Batch 2 kit if we must, but still holding out for that 57mm gun, Artisan and 2 x 30mm Sigma mounts.

[Caribbean]

still holding out for that 57mm gun, Artisan and 2 x 30mm Sigma mounts

Artisan might be a bit OTT (though the sales material says that it is configurable, which I take to mean that you vary the computing power on the back end, rather than play around with the antenna). Unless you want CAMM as well

That said, and thinking out loud, maybe a couple or three Khareef-derived OPVs could help cover what seems to be an emerging manning/ engineering issue in the short term. Maybe lease some bigger guns initially and remove them once we start getting some T31/T26 in the water?

[PAUL MARSAY]

batch 3 OPV,s can do the forward deployed roles , OPVin this role means Ocean patrol vessel not offshore and in peacetime and in anything other than full on peer warfare is more useful than a full on warship.These should operate as part of a task force .

[PAUL MARSAY]

this probably makes them light frigates but not lighter frigates , if we could get 3 for the price of 1 type 26 I would be happy , quantity has its own quality .

[Tinman]

Ministers do stupid things and overrule the military all the time. Often they think they know best when they simply don't. One grey hull doesn't look all that different from another to the average politician and all of them believe the RN to be some sort of ultimate unbeatable force.

No. Stupid minister do stupid things. That is because he is stupid, not because he is minister. Even if you have proper fleet, stupid minister will send your CVF to SSK field without proper escort of T26s, and CVF would be sunk. No difference.

To say the truth, in 2010s or so, RN sent T42 DD as APT-S. You all know that even Argentina Airforce of that day can easily sink it, if they really think about it. T42 will shoot down 2 A4s, but remaining 10 A4s on attack will sink it the next moment.

Er, no. After the Falklands the '42s got a lot better. The Batch 3s (the ones we were operating up to 2010) had much better missiles and sensors than the ships that went south in '82. They also had two Phalanx CIWS on the ship's beam. I wouldn't want to be an A4 pilot trying to conduct a successful attack with unguided dumb bombs in the face of fire from that thing.

I do not agree. With SeaHarriers, many escorts, RN struggled to win the falkland war. Yes, equipments has improved, but at least for T42, it is not a quantum leap. I see no possibility a single T42 can survive Argentina Airforce's attack. How about T23? No, either. So RN is sending assets who cannot survive the attack.

This is common worldwide, it is not a problem.

In reality, UK intelligence will detect the Argentine's "will" to attack your T42, and T42 can depart to avoid it (she need to steam only a few 100 km to get out of Argentina airforce's range.) If there are a few days left, RAF can send a dozen of Typhoon to support her. In either case, your T42 is safe. Not because it has strong AAW capability. (On the contrary, T45 will be sitting in the theater, and will shoot down every incoming A-4 in a minute. Big big difference in AAW capability).

Donald are you really suggesting that a T42 circa 2010 would be malted by the Argentinian Airforce?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald are you really suggesting that a T42 circa 2010 would be malted by the Argentinian Airforce?

May be... What I "thought" is, 12x A4, and a few SuperEtendar can beat a single T42. They will lose 4-8 aircrafts, but they can sink T42, I guess.

What I am not sure is, if Argentine can provide that air attack at 2010. Looking at Wikipedia, it is clear NOW they cannot provide it. All 22x A4s are grounded, and superetendar is only partially operational.

# In this case, a River with Phalanx can do the job.

[donald_of_tokyo]

how would that effect stabilty in all weather conditions? does it make the vessel less stable? how does it effect the displacement? how does it effect the air flow over the deck does it create a more turbulent area over the flight deck?

Oh, good point. This is why I opt for the option-2, install a hull (in this case 3.5m long) at the middle. Center of the hull is providing majority of the float, so with ~150t increase there, it will provide enough stability and good center of gravity (COG). "Exhaust and turbulent area" is another issue, but can be relatively easily handled. A simple smoke wind tunnel test (in an university?) will be enough. The ship mock-up will be quite cheap even compared to the manpower cost of the team made 2-3 engineers.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The batch 2s are in build so the best we can hope for is a retractable hangar, though as these will be mainly EEZ vessels to replace the batch 1s there is no pressing need. The design for the Batch 3s is actually simpler, use the Al Khreef design, even with Batch 2 kit if we must, but still holding out for that 57mm gun, Artisan and 2 x 30mm Sigma mounts.

Khareef's flight deck is as short as 20m. It cannot handle Merlin. I doubt their hangar can handle Wildcat, either. They are designed to handle Lynx, with folding tail. Do anybody know if their hanger can accommodate a Wildcat?

Also there was many upgrades in internal design, from Amazonas to River Batch.2. It is also based on 3D virtual-reality design scheme, newly introduced from River B.2s. I am not sure, having Khareef modified to RN standard is cheaper than just enlarging the River Batch.2s.

On armaments, I guess 57mm and 76mm gun themselves are not expensive. Especially in the latter case, there are more than 100 mounts worldwide, and thousands of ammunitions as well. However, I'm afraid they will be the "top-rank cut-out candidate" in any future lack of budget. Actually, 30mm gun with LMM is not that bad, I guess. On top of the hanger, you can also have a Phalanx.

Added with 2 mini-guns, this will provide you with "close-in-firepower" as good as T23/26/45. Phalanx will also provide minimum anti-ASM capability. To out range a boat with RPGs, LMM range of 8km may work. In addition, Wildcat armed with LMM can out range anything.

A corvette without gun, something like Type-14 frigate, not bad. Her main power projection resides in Wildcat, which is armed for anti-surface/land attack at the highest level in the world as a naval helicopter, another peculiarity of RN.

[marktigger]

57mm is over kill for an EEZ vessel the 30mm DS 30 is sufficient

[Ron5]

I'd like to see a retractable hangar working in the South Atlantic. That would be a good trick.