River Class (OPV) (RN)

[marktigger]

pity we hadn't bought Beckett's...

Is that to replace Eithne? or Ciara & Orla?

Such a shame you moved away from that naming tradition

[shark bait]

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.

I don't doubt that, I do have my doubts about mobilizing and increasing the Royal Navy patrol boat presence.

We have a RHIB come across the channel and people start freaking out and wanting to deploy the navy on mass to lock down the channel. That is an unreasonable response to the current situation.

The area we are concerned with right now is the stretch close to continental Europe, and is not a particularly intense threat. A suitable measured response to the increased pressure on our maritime border with continental Europe is a modest increase to the border force with some more cutters about the same size as the current ones.

There is no need for weeks of endurance in the channel, a couple of days will do, the most important feature is speed to respond to intelligence in a timely manner.

There is no need for a military response to the current situation, a well trained civilian force is more than capable of boarding, searching and detaining. Deploying the military to counter ad-hoc smuggling operations is a disproportionate use of force. The scale of the military is not effective to counter the ad-hoc nature of the threat, smaller specialist units will be much more effective.

That means we do not need additional rivers. 5 will be plenty, possibly;

• Mediterranean
• Caribbean
• Falklands
• UK
• Maintenance

So lets assume the border force has a modest increase to suitably manage the channel, and our busiest ports.

The next job would be to remove fisheries protection from the Royal Navy, it is yet another distraction and drain on resource they should do without. The department for Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs should be more than capable of operating the same service with civilians, just like the Scottish do, and more efficiently since military people are very expensive.

That means there will be one or two river left in the UK is free from coastal patrols, free from fisheries protection and it can focus on its intended role, offshore patrols, and hoping it is in the correct place to perform operations like in the video above.

Those rivers along with about 5 escorts training in British waters and many aircraft offer a large 'reserve capability' to respond to any major threats in UK waters beyond the capabilities of the Border Force.

More off shore patrol vessels for the Navy is not the way to go in an already strained navy. A modest increase to the border force presence in the channel a reasonable response to the current pressures.

[marktigger]

no shark bait the rivers need to be EEZ only and the international commitments need to be met by either a frigate or destroyer.
There is more to the fisheries protection force than just checking compliance with fisheries law. there is an element of Sovereignty patrol, keeping the navy in the public eye, maritime & UK law enforcement, anti terrorism, rescue and disaster relief/coordination, force protection. In the absence of a paramilitary coastguard it is a better solution for us.
The Use of these vessels overseas shows how badly under resourced the Navy is. The whole idea of us being able to do any sort of power projection with the numbers and quality of the vessels we have is frankly laughable. And diverting resources into a paramilitary coastguard/borderguard would remove resources from the navy.

getting 5 rivers to patrol home waters is a good start but the resources need to be there to have a minimum fleet of 19 frigates to cover the international missions HMG want supporting. And thats before we start trying to put together a carrier battle group. Until we can do that we can cover the standing tasks properly we need to put power projection on the back burner.

[shark bait]

no shark bait the rivers need to be EEZ only and the international commitments need to be met by either a frigate or destroyer.

Why?

[marktigger]

no shark bait the rivers need to be EEZ only and the international commitments need to be met by either a frigate or destroyer.

Why?

because we need to properly patrol this

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... c_Zone.pdf

[Galloglass]

no shark bait the rivers need to be EEZ only and the international commitments need to be met by either a frigate or destroyer.

Why?

because we need to properly patrol this

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... c_Zone.pdf

I'm inclined to agree Mark there is a lot of Atlantic out there and the weather is not getting any nicer. Regarding the "talk"about more Becketts it would be to replace the Peacocks as they cannot really patrol the Atlantic EEZ. The LE Eithne is to soldier on for another10 years after refitting and upgrading. Talk is cheap though and paper never refuses ink.

PS....The tradition of naming Irish vessels after Irish women from ancient history may well come back but I like the "artists" theme too. Perhaps some day we might have Irish kings "LE Brian Ború" or politicians "LE Countess Markievicz" (first woman elected to Westminster)

[marktigger]

be a shame to see the peacocks go they are nice little ships. I'm sure the Philipines would like them to add to their sisters. But Becketts would be good basis for patrol vessels for Falklands and Caribbean to support a Frigate for the Royal navy.

[Caribbean]

because we need to properly patrol this

I would tend to agree that the B1 and the in-build B2 Rivers are basically EEZ patrol vessels and should be used for that. My hope is that the two, yet-to-be-ordered ships are a bit more Khareef than Amazonas (i.e. they have a hangar, but the same sensor and weapon fit as the other B2s), which would make them more useful in the Caribbean/ FI/ Med. (but not overqualified for use in the UK EEZ). Better ships boats and boat handling would also be helpful. A small freighter chartered through (say) Serco could address the lack of space for HADR stores over winter in the Caribbean, when the RFA are deployed elsewhere.

[shark bait]

because we need to properly patrol this

That doesn't really answer my question, which was why international commitments can only be met by either a frigate or destroyer?

That is simply not true. Permanently deploying a frigate or destroyer to the Caribbean, Mediterranean, or Falklands is a huge waste of our most valuable assets.

The Rivers are best used as a guard ship, since we are adding two extra rivers it makes sense to add two extra tasks, possibly in the Med and Caribbean.

Some other observations;

• There is a whole lot of Atlantic out there, and most of it is uninteresting.
• It the stretch between us an continental Europe that coming under increasing pressure.
• Rockall is pretty pretty safe!
• The majority of the EZZ is empty and best covered by aircraft.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I would tend to agree that the B1 and the in-build B2 Rivers are basically EEZ patrol vessels and should be used for that. My hope is that the two, yet-to-be-ordered ships are a bit more Khareef than Amazonas (i.e. they have a hangar, but the same sensor and weapon fit as the other B2s), which would make them more useful in the Caribbean/ FI/ Med. (but not overqualified for use in the UK EEZ). ...

Khareef's flight deck is only 20-21m long, and cannot handle Merlin. It is "smaller" than those on River B2s, which is 23-24 m long (numbers by "measuring" the photos).

Since River B.2 is already in RN standard, I think adding 5-10 m of hull at the middle of River B.2s will be much "cheaper" than modifying the Khareef design to land Merlin, hold a "Wildcat capable" hangar, as well as cope with RN standard. With longer hull, top speed will slightly improve even with the same propulsion. With added space, its already good endurance and range will be further improved.

With they say "no money to start T26 for at least 2 years", if it is true, may be we need to order 3 not 2 of Batch 3 Rivers.

Then, (sorry) again, I propose to build 3 "patrol frigates" version of enlarged River B.2, with 1x 3inch gun, 1x 20mm CIWS, 2x 30mm SeaHawk sigma (with 3 LMM and 4 StarStreak each), a Wildcat (with LMM) capable foxed hangar (or Merlin capable retractable hangar), and a Merlin capable flight deck. Replace 3 T23 GPs with them.

Currently 2 escorts are "sleeping" for manpower crisis, and I'm afraid the issue will not be solved in near future. Thus, manpower for the 3 Patrol frigates each manned by 60 crews can be provide by a single T23.

By "reducing" the "T31 Batch.1" fighting capability, as well as man power, build and operating costs, I hope the "T31 Batch.2" will be 2 T26 GP itself.

Not that pessimistic.

6 T45, 10 T26 (with 8 CAPTAS4) and 3 Patrol frigates and 3 OPVs. Not bad, actually.

P.S. 3in gun is a logistic nightmare? I do not think so. It is the cheapest, most commonly used shell. Can be easily bought worldwide. Patrol Frigates do not need thousands of rounds of 3 inch shells. If needed, ask Japan, Norway, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy in particular, for surplus shells. In other words, Logistic is a problem, but not a big problem.

[Galloglass]

Hi Sharkbait......"There is a whole lot of Atlantic out there, and most of it is uninteresting."

Afraid I couldn't agree less. The seas and seabeds are the future and if you don't police it you'll loose it. Should you guys "Brexit" and have to negotiate the EU out of your waters I hope you work closely with Ireland and we may squeeze something out of Brussels to our mutual benefit.

eez.jpeg

Ireland was really scalped by the deal done on Fisheries when we joined the EEC. ( Ireland was “granted” a mere 4% of the whitefish quotas. 88% of all fish caught in our Exclusive Economic Zone is taken by foreign vessels. This is calculated at € 1.16 billion per annum)

[shark bait]

The seas and seabeds are the future and if you don't police it you'll loose

I'm sorry, who's going to be taking what from us?

I think there is need for some perspective. The UK has a medium sized EEZ, of which there is no direct military threat to. There may be snooping subs, but that is something the rivers are not equipped to deal with.

What there is are small ad-hoc smuggling and illegal fishing operations, which a large establishment like the royal navy who focus on operating aircraft carriers is not well structured to counter these threats.

Organisations exist for dealing with these threats, and they should continue to do so. Its not the Royal navys business, its a distraction and resource leach

[marktigger]

shark bait if we can't patrol it every one will take out of it! because we can't enforce the rules also the EU will Put pressure on for us to loose it to them if we can't enforce it.
I know you feel that the navy should be out across the world projecting power (what ever that means) But unless we have resources lthen we can't afford it. As an island nation we are very vulnerable to blockade so we need to be able to produce things like food one food source is the seas. If our fisheries are hoovered up by all comers we loose that strategic asset.


donald why do you keep banging on about 76mm as far as the requirement of the royal navy are concerned and this policy is well documented the gun is for Naval gunfire support of land forces. 76mm isn't sufficient to do this and given that any frigate sized vessel is likely

[shark bait]

What evidence is there to suggest the EU will take our EZZ?

What the hell are the river class going to do to stop a naval blockade?

This is becoming detached from reality now.

There is no threat of a naval blockade. If there was a river class is going to do nothing to counter that threat. The only thing more river class will do is reduce the resources available to proper assets that can counter such a threat. The best way to do that is through aircraft, and subs, which we are pretty well equipped with.

Anything more than the bare minimum spent on patrol boats is too much. What the Royal Navy needs to best protect the interests of the UK are credible war fighting capabilities, the river class does absolutely nothing to build a credible war fighting capability.

[rec]

We are not well equipped with aircraft or subs, and a fleet of SSKS would be very useful to boost numbers and give the submarine branch a much needed boost. (obvioulsy need to increase manpower).

On the Rivers keep the batch 1s and base all 3 plus Clyde at Portsmouth and their primary task is to support Border force etc in the channel, of the 5 batch 2 , modify the last 2 to have a hanger and wildcat plus the much maligned 3 inch gun and forward base one in the Falklands one in the caribbena. And yes allow the RN an increase in manpower. The remaining 3 batch 2s can be used for fisher protection around the whole UK.

With all Rivers beef the armament up.

[marktigger]

rec SSK's are useful to patrol an EEZ in what way? I know the canadians have tried to use theirs in that role. we havent the money for them except we cancel type 26 & 31 or trident or scrap the amphibious fleet

put the 3 river 1's at portsmouth to cover the south and east split the 5 batch 2 between Plymouth and Faslane to cover the west and north

[shark bait]

On the Rivers keep the batch 1s and base all 3 plus Clyde at Portsmouth and their primary task is to support Border force etc in the channel

put the 3 river 1's at portsmouth to cover the south and east split the 5 batch 2 between Plymouth and Faslane to cover the west and north

The rivers are not the right platform for patrolling the channel.

The threat is from small unorginized ad-hoc criminal groups, across a small area of water. A large centralized system is never going to create the coverage needed to successfully counter such a threat.

A localised system comprised of smaller more numerous platforms is a much better response to the threat. It can create the coverage needed, at a level of force proportional to the threat.

With all Rivers beef the armament up.

for what purpose? to counter whom? this guy?



This is the kind of pressures being put on our maritime borders, why is a corvette the correct response?

These suggestions are so detached from what is actually happening. The pressure is coming from small criminal groups, and Russian submarines, neither of with the river class is equipped to counter.

[marktigger]

the river 1 are all we have and they are suitable for the western end of the channel and the North sea. the River 2's are suitable for the western channel, North sea and Atlantic.
the only service that has the resources you describe currently is a charity manned by volunteers who are signed up to save life at sea so non starter using the RNLI

[rec]

rec SSK's are useful to patrol an EEZ in what way? I know the canadians have tried to use theirs in that role. we havent the money for them except we cancel type 26 & 31 or trident or scrap the amphibious fleet

put the 3 river 1's at portsmouth to cover the south and east split the 5 batch 2 between Plymouth and Faslane to cover the west and north

I think that the whole maritme secuirty environment is in need of extra resourvces, so I would want to see the \RN and others argue the case for addtional funding, to provide SSKS and maintain all 9 Rivers. The SSKs would be there to monitor the Russians, patrol in the north sea , Give the opportunity to free upour few SSNS for a more glovbal role, and generally raise the morale in the submarine branch and provide first commands for submarines. Beef up the Rivers armament because they might have to deal with Terroists at some point. If nothing else keeping the batch 1 rivers would allow the RNR to particpate in UK EEZ patrol?

[marktigger]

I understand your desire to increase SSK but at the expense of what? trident? astutes? the submarine service isn't exactly overmanned to provide additional crews. personally I'd bin trident and invest in the surface fleet. And without extra funding scale back our Global ambitions to what we can actually cover for the resources allocated.
Anyway are they the Airforce seam to think they can do it all with 9 P8s or more likely 3 when you take in maintenance, training and deployments.
To deal with terrorists threat the river is fairly well armed only thing it lacks is helicopter hanger.

[rec]

I understand your desire to increase SSK but at the expense of what? trident? astutes? the submarine service isn't exactly overmanned to provide additional crews. personally I'd bin trident and invest in the surface fleet. And without extra funding scale back our Global ambitions to what we can actually cover for the resources allocated.
Anyway are they the Airforce seam to think they can do it all with 9 P8s or more likely 3 when you take in maintenance, training and deployments.
To deal with terrorists threat the river is fairly well armed only thing it lacks is helicopter hanger.

I too would bin trident, and reinevest in SSN,SSK and surface fleet.

[shark bait]

the river 1 are all we have and they are suitable for the western end of the channel and the North sea. the River 2's are suitable for the western channel, North sea and Atlantic.
the only service that has the resources you describe currently is a charity manned by volunteers who are signed up to save life at sea so non starter using the RNLI

The correct resources not being in place is not a justification to waste resources on an incorrect solution.

There is little justification for 30 days endurance and 5,000 mile range when it is operating is and out of its home port regularly and in a small channel of water. There are much more efficient ways of achieving the same effect.

The border force is in the process of building that service. They are establishing hubs in Falmouth, on the Humber, and in the Thames from which they will operate two 20m patrol vessels. This is a good start, along with the 42m cutters based out of Portsmouth the most vulnerable art of our coast, that which faces continental Europe, will be better protected, on a scale much more appropriate than large Royal Navy vessels.

That is a good start, it probably needs to go a little further and also base some larger cutters out of those new hubs. That would then make a response on the appropriate scale to give coverage, and make use of local knowledge, at a level of force proportional to the threat.

We could then say they proportion of the coast will have good coverage, and then use the long range, high endurance B2 rivers to monitor the quiter 80% of our coast line.

That is the most efficient use of resources, using smaller craft to efficiently cover the small areas where high intensity patrols are needed, and then bigger craft to cover the remainder.

[cpu121]

no shark bait the rivers need to be EEZ only and the international commitments need to be met by either a frigate or destroyer.

Why?

because we need to properly patrol this

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... c_Zone.pdf

The UK EEZ is actually rather larger than that:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive ... ed_Kingdom

[marktigger]

how many of our overseas territories operate a coastguard or water police?

[Caribbean]

how many of our overseas territories operate a coastguard or water police?

It depends on size. Some are too small to operate anything much (Pitcairn, with a population of 51, for instance), but most operate a dual use rescue/ marine police element - usually two or three small inshore launches. The bigger ones may also have helicopters (again usually a Police, rather than a patrol or SAR asset).

Here in Cayman there is a debate on at the moment (following the loss of 5 lives in a boating accident some months ago) over whether to set up a proper SAR organisation, but the cost (and possibly lack of opportunities for local bigwigs to line their own pockets) is likely to mean that nothing much gets done. If we are lucky, we may get some life boats operated on the RNLI model, but I am not that hopeful. The Police tried hard at the time, but their largest launch was damaged bottoming out trying to get through the reefs and the only instrument rated pilot available had already exceeded his permissible hours investigating another (false) distress flare earlier in the evening.