River Class (OPV) (RN)

[RetroSicotte]

I should pop over to the docks and see if I can spot anything. I only live 5 minutes away. They usually have the doors open during the day in summer.

[Repulse]

I should pop over to the docks and see if I can spot anything. I only live 5 minutes away. They usually have the doors open during the day in summer.

Thanks

[marktigger]

when the 5 new rivers begin comming on stream should the batch 1's pass to the border Agency

[Galloglass]

Hi Mark.....I think they should go to Scotland into the Marine Scotland fleet. OPVs are a bit OTT for policing daytripping migrants from France in such a narrow channel. (Perhaps a swap for some of the Scottish smaller patrol boats?)

[Pseudo]

Perhaps a swap for some of the Scottish smaller patrol boats?

I think that they'd be better off selling them to Marine Scotland for £7.5m a piece and buying four new customs cutters from Damen Stan.

[marktigger]

what about the coast of the South west and west Coasts? they are some of our most vulnerable.

[shark bait]

Why would Scotland buy them ? They have three newer vessels.

They should be sold on the international market to who ever wants them to try and recover the cost of the new ones.

If the border force has the crew, it would be nice to see the proceeds spend on some new cutter's, but nothing as big as the rivers.

[marktigger]

the coasts rund devon and cornwall need vessels that can work in higher sea states

[rec]

The batch 1s should be kept, and extra man power allowed, since the UK needs additional patrol vessels for the channel.

[shark bait]

Nope, the Royal Navy really doesn't need the burden.

The Royal Navy has the core capabilities of carrier strike, amphibious strike, and nuclear strike to maintain.

They will all be capabilities that will be world leading, certainly in quality, but not always in scale. To maintain the high standard the UK demands, under tight financial conditions we need laser focus on delivering those core capabilities.

Everything else is a distraction.

Fisheries protection, and immigration should not be the responsibility of the military. Civilian organisations can, and do, perform marine and border protection just as well as the military, without distracting them from delivering their core capabilities.

Expand the border force, that will be great, but don't place additional organisational burden on a Navy that is already operating close to tipping point.

[marktigger]

then the 5 rivers being built and the 3 rivers already in use should all be transfared to the Borders agency along with their associated funding ?

[shark bait]

No, too big for the border force, they need more cutters, and possibly a fix wing presence.

The new rivers should be deployed as guard ships to make the best out of a bad situation.

[donald_of_tokyo]

How about, using the 4 Rivers as a MHC batch-0 (tier-off the Clyde's helli-deck), and replace the 5 remaining Sandowns (in addition to the 2 RN are to lose after SDSR16)? RN will lose 1 MCMVs, but the larger "modifiled-River class MCM vessel" may be able to "stand alone". If yes, it can free-up the "Bay" in the gulf.

# 1 Hunt class (HMS Hunt) could be recalled, if 1 MCMV is needed = 4 MCM-USV-based River cannot replace 5 Sandowns.

It will all depend on the "soon to come" MCM-USV trial results. HMS Forth is coming next year, followed by the 2 sisters within 1 year. But, if the "sells" program take a time, and MVM-SUV trial come to conclusion within FY2018, then there will be a hope?

[Repulse]

Surely the most important role of the RN is to protect our maritime boarders? Why on earth should be left to civilian operations?

[shark bait]

Surely the most important role of the RN is to protect our maritime boarders? Why on earth should be left to civilian operations?

No, its power projection through carrier strike, nuclear strike and amphibious strike.

The Army don't patrol the channel tunnel, and the RAF regiment don't patrol our airports, why do you think the navy should be patrolling our beaches?

Immigration control, anti-smuggling and environmental protection are the responsibility of law enforcement organisations not the military. Border protection, especially within Europe, is not a military role, perhaps thats why the border force is 'civilian' organization.

Similarly Scottish fisheries are civilian and search and rescue is civilian because they don't need to be military. Our highly trained military people cost a lot, and they are in short supply, that's why lots of things are getting farmed out to civilian organisations.

[marktigger]

No Shark Bait the primary role of the UK armed forces is the protection of the United Kingdom power projection and ALL other missions are secondary to this!


there is no reason that the Army, Royal Marines or RAF Regiment can't be used to protect Airports, Sea Ports or the channel tunnel or any other infrastructure. They excercise for this role in acting as aid to civil Power. The Household Div have in the past featured in defence exercises round Heathrow.

[Pseudo]

No Shark Bait the primary role of the UK armed forces is the protection of the United Kingdom power projection and ALL other missions are secondary to this!

No, it's the primary role of government to protect the United Kingdom and it's citizenry. The government has a number of tools which it can use to fulfil this role, one of which are the armed forces, but they also include the security services, police and border agency. The role of the armed services and other services and agencies is essentially to fulfil the role that the government requires of them as long as it is legal to do so.

[shark bait]

No Shark Bait the primary role of the UK armed forces is the protection of the United Kingdom power projection and ALL other missions are secondary to this!

The military exists to counter other militaries and protect the united kingdom.

Law enforcement agencies exist to counter civilian criminal, such as people traffickers and arms smugglers.

The problem being its very hard for an organisation who focuses on stealth fighters and nuclear submarine to care about fishing quotas or checking passports. Those tasks are best kept in a separate organisational structure that can better mobilise it's resources to counter the lower intensity work, exactly the reason why why have a separate border force now.

The border force is the correct response to smuggling and trafficking, the scale may need adjusting though.

The Royal Navy do not need the additional burden, and certainly don't need to keep the old rivers.

[marktigger]

No Shark Bait the primary role of the UK armed forces is the protection of the United Kingdom power projection and ALL other missions are secondary to this!

No, it's the primary role of government to protect the United Kingdom and it's citizenry. The government has a number of tools which it can use to fulfil this role, one of which are the armed forces, but they also include the security services, police and border agency. The role of the armed services and other services and agencies is essentially to fulfil the role that the government requires of them as long as it is legal to do so.

yes so at the end of the day the most basic mission of the UK armed forces is the Protection of the UK! Just like in Napoleonic times! Just like in 1940!

No Shark Bait the primary role of the UK armed forces is the protection of the United Kingdom power projection and ALL other missions are secondary to this!

The military exists to counter other militaries and protect the united kingdom.

Law enforcement agencies exist to counter civilian criminal, such as people traffickers and arms smugglers.

The problem being its very hard for an organisation who focuses on stealth fighters and nuclear submarine to care about fishing quotas or checking passports. Those tasks are best kept in a separate organisational structure that can better mobilise it's resources to counter the lower intensity work, exactly the reason why why have a separate border force now.

The border force is the correct response to smuggling and trafficking, the scale may need adjusting though.

The Royal Navy do not need the additional burden, and certainly don't need to keep the old rivers.

And fisheries protection vessels can interdict other things as can maritime patrol aircraft or state of the art surveillance platforms. SSK(N)'s and Nimrods tracked ships like the "Eksund" smuggling weapons to the IRA. The Household cavalry and Guards provide military contigency protection for Heathrow and other sensitive targets. Aid to Civil power is part of the military mission set as much as fighting in some far of land. The Royal Navy used to provide 9 dedicated OPV's and additional MCMV's in the fisheries protection role they also operated 4 vessels in the NIPS carrying out a range of duties and the Nimrod fleet provided the Tapestry patrols of UK EEZ observing terrorist targets and monitoring fishing activities. All on top of playing its role in the cold war. But many of these roles were seen as irrelevant and not "AFgan" centric.

[Pseudo]

No, it's the primary role of government to protect the United Kingdom and it's citizenry. The government has a number of tools which it can use to fulfil this role, one of which are the armed forces, but they also include the security services, police and border agency. The role of the armed services and other services and agencies is essentially to fulfil the role that the government requires of them as long as it is legal to do so.

yes so at the end of the day the most basic mission of the UK armed forces is the Protection of the UK! Just like in Napoleonic times! Just like in 1940!

Though it's not their job to patrol the borders or monitor potential terrorists. Not unless the government decides it is, anyway.

[shark bait]

Yes the military should be there as a contingency, to step in in exceptional circumstances.

For routine activities there is no good reason to use military resources for those roles, they are far to valuable, and the equivalent resources will spread further in the hands of civil law enforcement.

[marktigger]

what there needs to be is a more joined up approach like multi agency vessels operated by the navy but with other agencies providing specialists and funding

[shark bait]

Why do the Navy need to be the operators?

Why can't the department for the environment and the home office manage a fleet of cutter's by them self?

By value a fleet of cutter's is peanuts to the Navy, they will never invest the energy to do a really good job.

[marktigger]

unless the Border agency can recruit sufficient crews and I wonder how many navy and RFA would take the chance and leave to go to the BA?

I also suspect arming them would be easier and i would suggest that it could become a necessity even if its only .5 or 7.62mm Machine guns

[Galloglass]

Sharkbait: "The Royal Navy do not need the additional burden, and certainly don't need to keep the old rivers."

The Rivers can maintain standing patrols for days with the ability to launch ribs when necessary....very versatile in my opinion for border patrol but many seem to see them as too "un-warlike" for the RN. Each to his own I suppose. The rumour machine in Ireland seem to think the INS is considering ordering another OPV "similar to" the Beckett class (they might be tempted by your Mk1 Rivers at the right price)