River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

shark bait given the change in tensions between Belize and guatemala a frigate or destroyer might be a better option if we start deploying troops. to provide NGFS. Helicopter, ELINT and Radar. Same sorts of things less NGFS in the US anti narcotics operations. and support of our dependencies and former colonies.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

I'm not convinced we should be deploying, infact we should stay well away, but in that instance surely a bay class would be better than a T23.

Regardless, if we did have an escort available for an extra task I would start to ask serious question about what would provide the best return to the property of the UK. Would it be an escort in the Caribbean? or in Singapore? I feel like it would be the latter, with the pacific rim tension our 5 eyes relationship would be much more beneficial than the Cayman islands. (Sorry @Caribbean)

But that's only conceptual. In reality we don't have the escots, so it makes perfect sense to make good use of the unwanted rivers forces upon the Navy. It's how to make the best out of two bad situational.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

shark bait deploying RFA's as "Plastic" frigates shows how bad things are in the fleet. IF the Navy hadn't offered up RFA's to replace frigates (and there was some questions on legalities i seam to remember) then successive government's would have been forced to invest in the fleet. It has goten ministers of the hook and let the Admirals offer up warships to pay for the carrier program. And allowed the Navy budget to be stripped out and that has had knock on effect on other parts of the fleet.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

shark bait wrote:(Sorry @Caribbean)
No problem - I kind of agree with you. The situation with Belize and Guatemala aside (positioning a couple of thousand UK, US and Canadian troops there on training exercises will quiet Guatemala down, I think), the majority of RN work in the Caribbean region is policing and HADR and a T23 is overqualified for the former and not well suited to the latter. I also agree that the RFAs are somewhat overqualified as well and would be better used elsewhere - my personal view is that an OPV with helicopter and some fast boats would be totally adequate for the policing side and a shallow-draught commercial freighter with on-board cranes and a couple of large work boats or an LCVP would be better suited to the latter role. There would also be a clear distinction between the naval and civilian components
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

marktigger wrote:correct but look at the result of the "threatened" withdrawal of Endurance the political message is all important. I think there is a case for the OPV's to be used internationally however I think they should be as part of a group and have a proper warship on station to. Given the current state of the Argentine navy I think Clyde is credible however Gapping the commitment should be occasional not the norm same with replacing the WIGS with an opv.
The opv's are needed closer to home as people smugglers are now looking at targeting other areas of the countries coastline.
What you are really saying in my view is that we need more Patrol Ships, I can't argue with that...

The reason why we do not have enough is because we've always gone for "high-end or nothing" rather than a larger balanced fleet. A relatively modest investment (under £1bn if managed correctly) on top of the 5 vessels already announced would give a fleet of upto 12 OPVs (say half upgraded with hangar/medium gun /radar) to give a global presence and fully protect UK waters (alongside a larger P2000 role). It should then leave budget for 10 full fat T26s to act as CBG escorts or as individual reaction units.

You could base an OPV in Singapore, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, periodic CBG and SSN visits would be much more effective.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote:shark bait deploying RFA's as "Plastic" frigates shows how bad things are in the fleet.
I don't think that's too bad either. If you look at the capabilities we need in the area it is helicopter support, fast boat support, and stores capabilities. An RFA can deliver those capabilities just as well as a frigate at a fraction of a cost.

The Royal Navy needs some novel solutions to stretch its resources further and sending the cheaper assets on these kind of missions does make sense. I would advocate more auxiliaries for these type of missions, an RFA Argus or HMNZS Canterbury type are very well suited to these kind of patrols, especially if loaded with a LCVP, CB90 and Wild Cat.

A river supported by an auxiliary is more than enough for the Caribbean.

Why waste a precious billion pound escort on the task when a 100 million pound auxiliary will to the job just as competently?
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

Repulse wrote:
What you are really saying in my view is that we need more Patrol Ships, I can't argue with that...

The reason why we do not have enough is because we've always gone for "high-end or nothing" rather than a larger balanced fleet. A relatively modest investment (under £1bn if managed correctly) on top of the 5 vessels already announced would give a fleet of upto 12 OPVs (say half upgraded with hangar/medium gun /radar) to give a global presence and fully protect UK waters (alongside a larger P2000 role). It should then leave budget for 10 full fat T26s to act as CBG escorts or as individual reaction units.

You could base an OPV in Singapore, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, periodic CBG and SSN visits would be much more effective.

if you read the threads on the Type 26 and the hostility in the type 31 thread to any sort of general purpose frigate I think you see the problem. There is a mindset wanting bespoke single role highly specalised vessels which are now so unbalanced that you need to deploy 2 vessels to cover the spectrum required. We need "general purpose patrol" frigates which are balanced enough to protect themselves against a limited threat (something the river is to small to do) and provides a "Credible" presence (something else an OPV doesn't). we need a force of 24+ escorts and using RFA's and OPV's ( both of which are next to useless protecting a carrier group or task group.) lets politicians off the hook. the OPV's should be Home waters (Including falklands & Gibraltar) only. If it is now the view the RFA is there to fulfill some of the overseas commitments then its time to disband it and incorporate it fully into the Navy.
For what you envisage the River is the wrong vessel and we should be looking at something more like the the Irish Eithne class, the Spannish BAM class or New Zealand Protector class. Possibly crossed with the Irish Samuel Beckett class.. And more of the Damen patrol boats the border service uses already.

what the fleet needs is 24+ escorts 7 EEZ OPV's and 8-12 coastal patrol craft. (Whether the patrol fleet needs to be operated by the navy is also a debate we need to have.)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote: I don't think that's too bad either. If you look at the capabilities we need in the area it is helicopter support, fast boat support, and stores capabilities. An RFA can deliver those capabilities just as well as a frigate at a fraction of a cost.

The Royal Navy needs some novel solutions to stretch its resources further and sending the cheaper assets on these kind of missions does make sense. I would advocate more auxiliaries for these type of missions, an RFA Argus or HMNZS Canterbury type are very well suited to these kind of patrols, especially if loaded with a LCVP, CB90 and Wild Cat.

A river supported by an auxiliary is more than enough for the Caribbean.

Why waste a precious billion pound escort on the task when a 100 million pound auxiliary will to the job just as competently?

Then its time to disband the RFA and incorporate it fully into the Royal Navy.

We need general purpose frigates along side the type 26 & type 45 to give the fleet some Balance!

I would agree we need some smaller Auxiliary vessels to support commitments like WIGS & FIGS like the soon to be retired Rover class tankers. There is an obsession (as with the escort fleet) with having specialised vessels that can only be used effectively as part of a large carrier battle group (Like the USN doctrine). We had an opportunity to become more general purpose with the Fort Victoria class and if it had been fitted out fully the ability to protect itself which could contribute to battle group.

Argus is actually now a specialised vessel with PCRS could you mobilise PCRS remotely if you had argus deployed in the west indies and needed its medical capabilities for a deployed force of east africa? It would need to be storred and crewed in the UK then deployed. Same goes for the Bays if you need to deploy a landing force.


how far do you go in using Auxiliaries?and what do you define as Auxilaries? how soon will it be before a govt minister denies that falklands have no cover because a Point class is making a freight delivery? or Gibraltar has a presence because SD victoria is on exercise in it waters?

The Canterbury would be a good light support vessel for a variety of roles but in support of not lieu of a "Proper" warship

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote:Then its time to disband the RFA and incorporate it fully into the Royal Navy.
What would the benefit of that be?
marktigger wrote:We need general purpose frigates along side the type 26 & type 45 to give the fleet some Balance!
I don't think there are any major hostilities towards any sort of general purpose frigate, in fact I think there is a general recognition that we do need a flexible 'something' to "give the fleet some Balance"

The type 31 presents a very interesting opportunity, but on here none of us can agree what form that opportunity should be. I am a firm believer a corvette or beefy river class is an opportunity well and truly wasted.
marktigger wrote:I would agree we need some smaller Auxiliary vessels to support commitments like WIGS & FIGS like the soon to be retired Rover class tankers. There is an obsession (as with the escort fleet) with having specialised vessels that can only be used effectively as part of a large carrier battle group (Like the USN doctrine).
That is a good obsession to follow. Many nations can generate patrol frigates. Only 3 can generate and sustain a proper strike carrier group. Which best protects the UK's interests, being one of the ordinary? or one of the extraordinary?

I recognize we do need some vessels to maintain some low level commitments. But we will soon have 6 river class offshore patrol vessels to do that. Job done.
marktigger wrote:We had an opportunity to become more general purpose with the Fort Victoria class and if it had been fitted out fully the ability to protect itself which could contribute to battle group.
Things usually happen for a reason. Undoing that plan was the right thing to do.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

So we effectively have a 2 tier navy on different terms of service some with more rights than others but being expected to do the same job?

there is hostility to anything that isn't a type 26. or can't do a specialist role in a carrier battle group.

I am a believe that the River is is fine as an EEZ patrol vessel (including the Falklands patrol vessel) though feel the Samuel Beckett, Otago/Wellington or Meteoro would be a better vessel for the role.(especially if you want them to be internationally deployable) And if you look at the UK EEZ it suits the sea conditions they are encountered.

For WIGS, FIGS and Antipiracy ship (going on current operations) we need a frigate about the size of a type 21 or type 23 that can sit in the middle of the OPV and the Type 26/Type 45 combination (which it looks like will be the minimum balanced force we can deploy).

what suits the UK is not trying to emulate the united states!
BTW who is the other one? China? India? because the french haven't rushed head long into single role support vessels and have a more balanced fleet.

the use of "Plastic" frigates shows we need 6-8 Type 31 frigates letting the OPV's go back to EEZ protection and the RFA go back to its proper role supporting deployed Royal Navy ships.

One of the reasons the Fort Victoria didn't receive its full complement of weapons was questions of legal status of up arming those vessels and yet its now acceptable to use them as "plastic" Frigates if the RFA is expected to do this role then give them the capability to properly protect them selves. Size and cost also counted against the Fort Victoria. However they are a more flexible vessel than a dedicated tanker or solid stores ship and it would appear that most other navies of similar size to the royal Navy have gone down this route. And to Be frank what would be wrong in a Carrier or Amphibious group having additional protection being carried out by its Auxiliaries?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

marktigger wrote:I am a believe that the River is is fine as an EEZ patrol vessel (including the Falklands patrol vessel) though feel the Samuel Beckett, Otago/Wellington or Meteoro would be a better vessel for the role.(especially if you want them to be internationally deployable) And if you look at the UK EEZ it suits the sea conditions they are encountered.
So you are proposing to up-armer/add hangar to Rivers?

I think, at least for the task they are deployed now (including FIGS and WIGS), the "almost non-armed patrol vessel = equivalent to coast-guard cutter" is the right vessels to have. This is simply because this is the tasks the "cutters" there is doing. Yes, some of them are armed with 57 or 76 mm guns, but are they using it? I guess there is no report "shooting 76mm guns to smugglers". If there is any report, please let me know. A hanger maybe good, but if 2 River B.3s has it, it is enough, because River operating with land-based air-cover is the right choice. Only if there is not air-cover, they need a helicopter of their own = a hangar.
For WIGS, FIGS and Antipiracy ship (going on current operations) we need a frigate about the size of a type 21 or type 23 that can sit in the middle of the OPV and the Type 26/Type 45 combination (which it looks like will be the minimum balanced force we can deploy).
So what level of light frigate are you thinking of? Floreal-like is OK? If you need SAM, it shall be ANZAC-NZ-mod like? (Or even larger?)

I agree there is a need for "light frigate" to cover APT-S and Kipion, but not WIGS, FIGS and Antipiracy ship.

As I said elsewhere, I think there are 3 ways to go.
1st choice: Have 8x T26s and 5 T31s, ANZAC-NZ-mod like 4000t FL, 5in gun, 24CAMM, a Wildcat. In addition to 5 River B.2/3s.
2nd choice: Have 10x T26s and 3 simple up-armerd Rivers, which is 3-5 m longer, 150-200t heavier, and has a Wildcat hangar, 30mm/LMM mount(s) and a Phalanx. Here I am thinking the up-armered Rivers as "a bit small Floreal, specialized in close-in fight, and have a fully armed Wildcat for long-range attack". In addition to 5 River B.2/3s.

Another idea, I am not a fan of, is to
3rd choice: Have 11x T26 and 5 River B.2/3s.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

what i'm proposing is deploy the rivers as EEZ protection vessels either run by the navy or a redefined coastguard.

a Coastguard that is responsible for UK Maritime law enforcement and Exclusive Economic Zone protection so it would be responsible for Fisheries protection, anti smuggling operations, polution control, rescue coordination and the myriad of other constabulary duties needed within the EEZ. merging the roles of he variety of bodies that do this. Trinity House and the RNLI should continue. For the falklands EEZ the falklands government could subcontract the EEZ protection of its waters and UK govt could add the role of HMS clyde to the UK coastguard. Gibraltar could do the same.
the UK EEZ protection will become more important with the increasing protection of the channel tunnel smugglers will look further a field to land their cargo as they have done in the past.

If however it stays with the Navy then the myriad of bodies loose their funding for vessels but provide seagoing teams to carry out the inspection/enforcement part of the role (a possible employment area for ex royal navy and royal marine)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

Floreal is 93.5M x 14.4m
River II class 90.5m x 13.6m

so the floreal isn't that much bigger than an OPV but is to small for a GP light frigate.

I'd say something between 117-133m x 14-16m with 5in gun, Mk 41VLS & depending on size wildcat but preferably Merlin and a mission bay that can handle mission modules or CB90 to fulfill the gp light frigate role.

with a fleet of:

6 type 45
8 type 26
8 type 31 (but using crewing arrangements like the survey/OPV fleet to cover deployed guardship roles)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

shark bait wrote:A river supported by an auxiliary is more than enough for the Caribbean
While I agree with the two-ship support idea, I'm not sure that the River/Bay combo is ideal for the role. We are just stuck with using what we have. Both the Dutch and the French use the two-ship solution (but forward-based and deployed at the same time), using the more capable Hollands and Floreals (and now A69 avisos), alongside smaller logistics support vessels (I suppose their HADR stores are forward-based as well, so no need for North Atlantic transits for re-supply). They have built/ are building ships that were purpose designed to support their overseas territories, most of which, like ours, are in low-threat areas (the FI, obviously, being the potential exception). The Dutch also have a regional coastguard
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

we need something more capable than the river in this role a sloop being the minimum like the Holland or Floreals but for flexibility a light frigate would be better. something about the size of the type 21 or ANZAC

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote:For WIGS, FIGS and Antipiracy ship (going on current operations) we need a frigate about the size of a type 21 or type 23
What evidence is there to suggest that's true?
marktigger wrote:BTW who is the other one? China? India? because the french haven't rushed head long into single role support vessels and have a more balanced fleet.
Only the French and the Americans can sustain high tempo carrier operations. The Brits will join the club soon, as may china.
As for single role support vessels, its been proven they are more efficient, and we need all the efficiencies we can get.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:For WIGS, FIGS and Antipiracy ship (going on current operations) we need a frigate about the size of a type 21 or type 23
What evidence is there to suggest that's true?

well it appears to have worked very well for the last 30-40 years with a variety of classes of frigates and destroyers having provided the flexibility needed to do this job. The French and Dutch who also have this residual commitment have Sloops. Vessels that are much more flexible than the river class OPV.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:BTW who is the other one? China? India? because the french haven't rushed head long into single role support vessels and have a more balanced fleet.
Only the French and the Americans can sustain high tempo carrier operations. The Brits will join the club soon, as may china.
As for single role support vessels, its been proven they are more efficient, and we need all the efficiencies we can get.
I think the french have less support vessels than we have and are more mixed commodity vessels than the more dedicated single role vessels we are heading for.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by Tinman »

marktigger wrote:
shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:BTW who is the other one? China? India? because the french haven't rushed head long into single role support vessels and have a more balanced fleet.
Only the French and the Americans can sustain high tempo carrier operations. The Brits will join the club soon, as may china.
As for single role support vessels, its been proven they are more efficient, and we need all the efficiencies we can get.
I think the french have less support vessels than we have and are more mixed commodity vessels than the more dedicated single role vessels we are heading for.
The French can't sustain Carrier Ops, as they only have one. We will have two in a couple of years.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

Tinman wrote:The French can't sustain Carrier Ops, as they only have one. We will have two in a couple of years.
True, and that puts them in the number two spot. We will replace them in that spot in a few years time.
marktigger wrote:well it appears to have worked very well for the last 30-40 years with a variety of classes of frigates and destroyers having provided the flexibility needed to do this job.
"Because it's always been done like that" does not constitute as evidence for the way things should be done. Things change.

Considering the current threats in the Caribbean, the resources currently available, and our current commitments to the area a coward deployed river class makes a lot of sense.

Anything extra and there isn't the requirement to justify the expenditure, especially in this climate where there is a long list of things that need fixing first.
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

marktigger wrote:We need "general purpose patrol" frigates which are balanced enough to protect themselves against a limited threat (something the river is to small to do) and provides a "Credible" presence (something else an OPV doesn't)
The problem is the mythical GP Patrol Frigate isn't going to be cheap enough to make a difference in numbers. Going for a single high end FF/DD design makes a lot of sense in my view rather than specialist AAW/ASW ships, but to get enough of them to cover 2 CBGs and high end standing commitments means the RN has to be modest with its Patrol Ship aspirations.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

There's no need for a three tier fleet. There are some standing tasks adequate to a River, and the Royal Navy is about to have the Rivers to take care of those.

The rest should be flexible warships fit for actual escorting, which means having decent capability both against air and undersea threats.

Especially since, under current - so damn vague - plans, there is still a future MHC programme too which will develop some kind of ship which might, again, be adequate for constabulary tasks.

It would be very, very, very wise, in a serious "shipbuilding strategy", to reasses the role that the MHC mothership could play, how and when it'll follow, how it fits into the fleet and how it fits into the budget. The last thing the Royal Navy needs is going from having no 2nd Tier at all to having two Low End classes plus extra Rivers.

I'll keep saying it: instead of merging C1 and C2 (as Type 26 tried to do), think about merging C2 and C3.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:well it appears to have worked very well for the last 30-40 years with a variety of classes of frigates and destroyers having provided the flexibility needed to do this job.
"Because it's always been done like that" does not constitute as evidence for the way things should be done. Things change.
Same argument could be used for Vanity/ego project aircraft carriers (we could have goten much smaller cheaper vessels that could carry F35's and merlins from existing shipyards, the Nuclear Deterrent (probably one thing we need to ditch), Buying ships from British shipyards.

Yes things change the labour government railroaded us into having to buy from a Monopoly who have a long track record for over charging and failure to deliver either on spec or to budget or that work without major modification. Instead of there being some options!

do we actually need to deploy anything in the Carribbean at all or of the coast of africa or in the gulf?

What do we need Carrier battle groups for? we have used them once in 1982!

we are not the united states we have neither their budget nor infrastructure to sustain carrier battle groups for prolonged periods even with 2 carriers the biggest factor in future is will we have enough people to deploy CBG's. I suspect not. Our defence planning has been trying to meet the needs of 2 different masters and spheres of influence. yes we can deploy a carrier group but soon not much else we still need to be able to deploy small groups of ships as well to do other missions where they have to act semi independently to act in our national interest!

Look at current events in europe and closer to home an opv is better deployed in UK waters can interdict or deter a small vessel carrying illegal immigrants which may have a jahadi cell their arms and explosives from landing on a remote beach in Cornwall and them travelling to a UK city to create carnage. Or a drug smuggler landing cocaine of the norfolk coast. Or a spannish fisherman fishing in a restricted area. Or a liberian tanker sluicing its tanks out of the islands of scotland will a Carrier battle group do that?
a light frigate deployed in the Carribean has better sea keeping capabilities than an opv so doesn't have to run away as far from hurricanes. Having served in Belize in hurricane season the weather is a huge issue. A Light frigate can also deploy in home waters to support counter terrorism or any of those other missions.

do the OPV's need to be in the royal navy at all?
do we need Carrier Battle groups?
do we need trident?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

Repulse wrote:
marktigger wrote:We need "general purpose patrol" frigates which are balanced enough to protect themselves against a limited threat (something the river is to small to do) and provides a "Credible" presence (something else an OPV doesn't)
The problem is the mythical GP Patrol Frigate isn't going to be cheap enough to make a difference in numbers. Going for a single high end FF/DD design makes a lot of sense in my view rather than specialist AAW/ASW ships, but to get enough of them to cover 2 CBGs and high end standing commitments means the RN has to be modest with its Patrol Ship aspirations.
Then we need to look at whether the vanity project Carrier battle group is the way ahead?

what are we going to be deploying it against?

the last time we could deploy 2 carrier battle groups was when? I would suggest sometime in the 1950's

We need to stop trying to emulate the United states.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

marktigger wrote:do the OPV's need to be in the royal navy at all?do we need Carrier Battle groups?do we need trident?
1. Yes
2. Yes but as part of a multi-national force
3. Yes but the defence budget cant afford them

Post Reply