River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by Engaging Strategy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:So you are proposing to significantly expand the Border Agency. If it comes true, I am very much agree to it. I am living in a country maintaining one of the largest Coast Guard independent from the Navy.
No, I'm proposing to move all the UK and overseas EEZ patrol tasks to a suitable unified civilian or paramilitary "Coast Guard" organisation, rather than the four plus competing forces we currently have. There is no reason for the RN to be doing this job, it patently doesn't require precious, limited and expensive military manpower and equipment.
But, how about the standing tasks? Kipion, do you really need 2 hi-end escorts there?
Unless Iran disbands their submarine arm, or air force, then the answer is a categorical yes. 1 AAW, 1 ASW platform is the bare minimum we need; and I'd expect that to be reinforced in the event of a crisis.
FRE, do you really need a hi-end escort?
Yes. The Fleet Ready Escort isn't just for mucking about with Russian warships off the coast of Kent, it's the RN's high readiness unit-prepared to go anywhere in the world and fight if needs be. Its role is similar to the Parachute Regiment for the Army, first on the scene rapid response. Therefore the FRE needs to be capable of independent operations at long-range.
TAPS needed. APT-S? Now with only 17 escorts available, APT-S is gapped. So, if further cuts might happen, the next cut will be Kipion, I guess.
APT-S is likely gapped more because of manpower issues than platform numbers, without sufficient people to sustainably deploy a ship there hull numbers are immaterial. We saw the RN hold down all its commitments for years with 19-24 platforms, what changed was the loss of manpower after 2010 that made this more or less unsustainable.
I do not agree here. In WW2, UK would not be able to survive without uninteresting "Flowers" and "Rivers". It is not only the Battleship or Carriers who won the war. It was the fleet as a whole, which was vital.
The WW2 corvettes were nothing like modern OPVs. To match the capability a Flower, River or Castle class sloop in modern terms the Rivers would be carrying a TASS, 4.5" gun and ASROC.
On the other hand, I myself is not much confident about "introducing Patrol Frigates" to save a resource for APT-S and some other parts (virtually). But, if APT-S is vital, I think it can be done with Patrol Frigate, and if true, RN can build it virtually "for free", by deciding now to disband 2 hi-end escorts non active = not working.

If APT-S can be happily gapped, then just disband 2 T23GPs NOW, and by diverting their modernization money, some of the 8 T26s can fill their Mk.41 VLS with something, I guess.
No. This is patently a stupid idea. The last thing we want to do is put even more strain on the remaining Type 23 hulls. Those ships are only going to get more maintenance heavy as they age, this will only be exacerbated by working fewer hulls harder.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5600
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote:HMS Lancaster completed a 9 month deployment on APT(s) and is now in a maintenance period. Not uncommon.
HMS Dauntless completed a gulf deployment, and then took part in the balistic missile test, and is now in a maintenance period. Not uncommon.
If they are going to be sat for 2 years, that is uncommon, and a problem no amount of patrol frigates will fix.
I currently have 4/6 T45's listed as active (only 1 deployed) which has been the norm for the last couple of years. Whatever the recent events, availability in the T45 fleet has not taken a hit.
So you mean, there is no reduction in ship activity? If yes, RN by intention identified APT-S shall be gapped. Interesting.
I agree STANAVFRANT, and FORMED (sorry old name) shall be more important than APT-S. It is also more easy, no need for "9month" long deployment. Anyway, let's see when Lancaster and Dauntless will go into refit.
Engaging Strategy wrote:APT-S is likely gapped more because of manpower issues than platform numbers, without sufficient people to sustainably deploy a ship there hull numbers are immaterial. We saw the RN hold down all its commitments for years with 19-24 platforms, what changed was the loss of manpower after 2010 that made this more or less unsustainable.
Yes, I am talking on similar stand point here. By the way, if there be a Coast Guard, APT-N will be their task? Of course, fishery protection, boader control will be. How about FIGS? That was my comment. What to remain in Navy, and what to go in CG task.
The WW2 corvettes were nothing like modern OPVs. To match the capability a Flower, River or Castle class sloop in modern terms the Rivers would be carrying a TASS, 4.5" gun and ASROC.
I only partly agree. At WW2, it was vital to defeat submarine threats. But, UK cannot provide hundreds of destroyers, here comes "armed whale catcher boat" = corvette. Nowadays, anti-smuggling, HADR, boader control, of course with much reduced number, is needed. RN was tasking frigates on these tasks, but now with much reduced number, it became impossible. That's OPVs stand for. So partly the same. Need for minor warfare vessels.
No. This is patently a stupid idea. The last thing we want to do is put even more strain on the remaining Type 23 hulls. Those ships are only going to get more maintenance heavy as they age, this will only be exacerbated by working fewer hulls harder.
Ah, you are completely right if we assume there WILL be 19 escorts supported. As I noted, all what I proposed here is based on the "pessimistic" assumption that RN in future will have only 6 T45, 8 T26 and try to get 5 T31 but fail... The "T31 but fail" will drain significant amount of resource, and can rip out all TLAM out from 8 T26s, non-CEC supported T45, and so on. Deciding NOW to go for 16+ escort fleet, 6 T45, 10 T26, supplemented by 3 Patrol Frigate can be an option.

Another "me" is still thinking (hoping) a good form on T31 plan will show up. So, all the discussion here is based on "pessimisitc" assumption. We will see some result in the strategic ship building plan "soon".

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:So you mean, there is no reduction in ship activity?
From my observations there is no substantial change;
  • I have two T45's and four T23's that are 'laid up' the the moment, which follows the rule of three quite nicely.
  • I then have one T45 and two T23's on a full deployment, which is one less than the norm.
  • The rest are active, either training, port visiting, or on 'maritime security operations', whatever that means?
donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is also more easy, no need for "9month" long deployment. Anyway, let's see when Lancaster and Dauntless will go into refit.
I have a feeling that is the key point. Before Christmas there was more activity than usual for the Royal Navy, I am assuming the Navy are short on people that they can send on long deployments at the moment.

We also have a frigate permanently attached to Nato at the moment, which is the first in a long time I believe, and appears to have come at the expense of APT(s).

To me these are signs of a Navy at tipping point, very carefully managing their resources, but if something new comes up, something else has to go to make room for it.
@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 »

the problem is comming is the fleet has been stretched so far that the people are now voting with their feet.

User avatar
Galloglass
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 01 Apr 2016, 13:29
Ireland

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

Post by Galloglass »

Just announced the INS has ordered a fourth Beckett class from Appledore. Good decision.

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 »

Well done appledoor getting repeat business!
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5600
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Then, 3 Patrol Frigate plan will reduce the "stretch". They are lean manned, significantly. Can be long legged, and can go anywhere if it is NOT in real war (close-in defense is top-level, while AAW, ASW, ASuW is quite low). It is as cheap as 130M GBP per ship. (admittedly "fantasy", but not that far I guess).

On the other hand, I understand all of your "NO" to 3 Patrol Frigates to replace 3 T23s.

<Plan-B!!>
Another mitigation is to, just build the 2 River Batch 3s, but with 5m enlarged = 95m long, 2400t FL, with a Wildcat hangar and longer range/endurance, and FFBNW 20mm CIWS and LMMs (SeaHawk sigma option). As built, they are armed as much as River B.2s, and just added with a Wildcat hangar. If T31 turned out to be a failure/political mirage at around 2025, the 2 vessels can be up-armored to have
- 1x 30mm SeaHawk sigma (as is) with 7 LMM/StarStreaks (added)
- 2x 7.62mm gatlings (as is), and a 20mm Phalanx CIWS (added)
- a Wildcat (as is) with LMM/SeaVenom (added)
- and Chaff/Flare launcher with ESM suites (added)
They are really top-level in close-in defense, but only with "minimum" AAW-selfdefence for small surprise attack (~2 SuperEtandar), completely useless as ASW, and practically useless for ASuW (but can stop Merchant vessel, by shooting LMMs on their vital locations).

The 2 vessels can be both (most) forward deployed for the "2 Atlantic Patrol Tasking (both N/S)". In other words, a bit up-armored FIGS to handle the South Atlantic issue, supported by ~2-month/year escort port-visit deployment for "showing the flag". Also a "Wildcat Capable" WIGS OPV to handle APT-N, with ~3-months/year "Bay" deployment for Hurricane Disaster relief.

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 »

That does nothing to reduce the stress placed on the escort fleet.

Alternatively spend that £130m on a crew. That is a full crew paid for for 10 years.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5600
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote:That does nothing to reduce the stress placed on the escort fleet. Alternatively spend that £130m on a crew. That is a full crew paid for for 10 years.
No I can't spend the 130 MGBP for manpower. Because I ripped off that "130 MGBP" (or 200 MGBP) by disbanding 3 T23s not to be modernized. From here the cost comes.

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 »

Galloglass wrote:Just announced the INS has ordered a fourth Beckett class from Appledore. Good decision.
Well done Babcocks just shows that other yards can produce this type of vessels.

Just a shame the MoD are so tied to BaE

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 »

Donald the UK hasn't got a spare £130 million except its taken out of the type 26 or type 31 programs.
But we need to look at getting value for money and programs being delivered on time and to spec which it would appear Babcoks do very well.

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:Well done Babcocks just shows that other yards can produce this type of vessels.

Just a shame the MoD are so tied to BaE
Everyone know that, including the MOD. They are not tied to BAE to buy patrol vessels, they are tied to BAE to buy frigates which is reasonable since no others can build frigates .

donald_of_tokyo wrote:No I can't spend the 130 MGBP for manpower. Because I ripped off that "130 MGBP" (or 200 MGBP) by disbanding 3 T23s not to be modernized. From here the cost comes.
Seems over estimated

2m combat system
5m new engines
1.5m new transformers
7.5m artisan
CAMM costs not known?

total 25 around million for each upgrade
@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 a samuel Beckett costs £40M

User avatar
Galloglass
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 01 Apr 2016, 13:29
Ireland

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

Post by Galloglass »

marktigger wrote:so a samuel Beckett costs £40M
The Government has agreed to provide €54.3m for the purchase an additional ship after reaching a contract agreement with Babcock International to build it at their headquarters in Appledore. That's about £43 million Mark.....might not include the cost of the Oto Melara which I think is purchased seperately for installation in Appledore. From memory, I think they cost around €8million per gun.

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 »

"'Repeat orders' keep Appledore Shipbuilders in business

Neil Gallacher, Business & Industry Correspondent
BBC Spotlight
Posted at
13:47
It's welcome news that Appledore has secured a £40m contract with the Irish Navy.

About half the yard's workforce of 170 people have spent recent months on a transfer to the bigger sister yard at Devonport.

Appledore
BBC
This contract is more or less a straight repeat of the orders that have kept Appledore Shipbuilders in business at a time when their work on Britain's new aircraft carriers has tailed off.

So although this won't refill the technical drawing office at Appledore, it will keep other trades busy. They have to build 90 metres of small warship that can handle a crew of around 50 people and the worst the Atlantic can throw at them.
"

BBC news devon

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2822
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

marktigger wrote:Donald the UK hasn't got a spare £130 million except its taken out of the type 26 or type 31 programs.
Or the B2 OPV build and TOBA payments, which between them are more than double that figure, if not triple
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

£230m GBP of activities are guaranteed under the TOBA agreement, not bad, the issue is the reluctance to spend it on proper ships.

I herd a rumour the TOBA was cancelled as part of the River order and T26 contract.
@LandSharkUK

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 »

Engaging Strategy wrote:Speaking of "how small can you make a small warship" there was a very interesting article about the River IIs on Think Defence that went up the other day: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2016/06/t ... ver-class/
Just read this, trying to suggest the rivers are good value is a very difficult sell. It seemed like a lot of bullshit, I struggled to continue reading after the suggestion of putting sea ceptor on there.

The new rivers are a disaster, they are platforms that the Royal Navy does not want or need, and only exist as make busy work until we finally build some proper ships.

All they are doing is sucking up resources from platforms that do have a credible wartime capability. We are already loosing three mine hunters to fund the new additions, and then the hundreds of millions of pounds that would be much better plugging one of the many holes within the armed forces.

What we have done is paid for a mini complex warship, to do tasks that don’t require a complex warship, for the sole purpose of sustaining a complex warship industry.

All those tasks you point out; Carrying containers, Launching patrol boats, Mine laying, UAV operations can all be done just as well from cheap non complex platforms. There is very little that can justify using a complex platform in these roles.

Putting Sea Ceptor missiles on this thing is such a horrible idea. The vessels have a 30mm cannon on the front, it is there for sinking criminals in canoes, not for going up against something with ASM. The rivers should never be in that position, so spending the money to defend against it is ridiculous. Firth more one the flight deck is filled with a proper radar and Sea Ceptor silos there is no room left for anything else. It will be a platform who’s only purpose is self defence, and it can self defend a lot better by staying in port.

The hangar and Merlin features are moot, because there will not be enough Merlin to start pointlessly equipping the river class with one, and if there was a small hangar there is still nothing to put in it.

There is very little that can justify the price of these, the only reason they exist is to sustain an industry for an important program. It is a terrible waste, draining yet more resources from a Royal Navy already at the tipping point.

If we want boats to be flexible and patrol, the same effect can be achieved much more efficiently using a simple commercial hull. An opportunity exist to do exactly that through through the MHC program in the late 20’s, which is a much better approach. The same capabilities, at a fraction of the cost.

Unfortunately the rivers are happening, so now we have to suck it up and make do.

The platforms are not well equipped to counter the ad-hoc and pop up maritime security threats they are best suited to. They are too slow, with a too small sphere of influence to have the coverage or response times necessary to counter general maritime security threats like piracy or smuggling.

We should try and change that by permanently equipping these new rivers with a Scan Eagle catapult at the front to increase the platform coverage. We can develop this capability capabilities with multiple units and swarm tactic to further increase the sphere of influence.

The next addition is some fast boats on that flight deck, initially as offshore raiding craft, but with the aim of developing capabilities to operate a full on fast combat boat like the CB90. Multiple units can be added to response at a more appropriate scale, speed and legality.

Through a mixture of UAV to increase data collection, and combat boats to increase speed of response, the sphere of influence for the new river class can be greatly enhanced. It will act as a mother ship for some off board distributed systems, our own budget LCS if you like.

They are certainly not going to have any wartime role however, maritime security is the limit. Station one in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, Falklands and the others wherever, and they can make a real contribution maritime security in the area.

That doesn’t justify the purchase, the same effect could be achieved much more efficiently from a simple hull, but unfortunately its already happening, and we now need to think how to make the most out of them.
@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 »

given the current situation these vessels will be needed to guard our waters and to carry out the continuing EU southern flank operations. Maybe partially crewing from the Border agency.
I do wonder now is the flight deck ever going to be used by helicopters except for publicity.

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by Engaging Strategy »

shark bait wrote:Just read this, trying to suggest the rivers are good value is a very difficult sell. It seemed like a lot of bullshit, I struggled to continue reading after the suggestion of putting sea ceptor on there.
I said it was interesting, I never said I agreed with it! :lol: I can't remember which thread I posted it on, but my general view of the RN doing EEZ work is that it's essentially a function of petty departmental empires that prevent the UK from having a proper, dedicated, civilian or paramilitary "Coast Guard" force.
The new rivers are a disaster, they are platforms that the Royal Navy does not want or need, and only exist as make busy work until we finally build some proper ships.
I wouldn't call them a disaster, but I'd definitely say they're very much sub-optimal. A product of TOBA and having the RN do jobs it really shouldn't be doing. Naval manpower and ships built to naval standards cost serious money, using our complex warship building industry and skilled military personnel to build and drive ships whose core duty is fisheries protection is a nonsense. This is where the problem lies, not in the Rivers themselves; but in the system that produced them.
All they are doing is sucking up resources from platforms that do have a credible wartime capability. We are already loosing three mine hunters to fund the new additions, and then the hundreds of millions of pounds that would be much better plugging one of the many holes within the armed forces.
I'm not sure there's as direct a link between the loss of MCMs and the addition of the Rivers as you make out. HMG has been running down the RN's MCM fleet since the end of the Cold War, probably because they do an obscure job (from the perspective of Joe Public and the news media) and they're an easy target when the Treasury wants hull numbers reduced. As you say though, the money could absolutely have been much better spent elsewhere.
What we have done is paid for a mini complex warship, to do tasks that don’t require a complex warship, for the sole purpose of sustaining a complex warship industry.

All those tasks you point out; Carrying containers, Launching patrol boats, Mine laying, UAV operations can all be done just as well from cheap non complex platforms. There is very little that can justify using a complex platform in these roles.
Except the paramount necessity of sustaining our complex warship building industry.
That doesn’t justify the purchase, the same effect could be achieved much more efficiently from a simple hull, but unfortunately its already happening, and we now need to think how to make the most out of them.
Maybe we should seriously look at getting back into the business of minelaying! :lol:
marktigger wrote:given the current situation these vessels will be needed to guard our waters and to carry out the continuing EU southern flank operations. Maybe partially crewing from the Border agency.
I do wonder now is the flight deck ever going to be used by helicopters except for publicity.
That's sort-of the point both I and Shark Bait have made, the Rivers aren't actually especially good for that sort of work. Why waste precious and expensive naval manpower crewing very expensive quasi-corvettes if all you're going to do with them is pull soggy refugees out of the Mediterranean and combat smugglers in the channel? Why spend ~£350mn on three B2 Rivers when you could spend ~£15mn on the same number of 42m cutters?
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

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 to be looking at the next generation of mine hunters and could the river II or the LE Samuel be the basis for them?

rec
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 22 May 2015, 10:13

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

Post by rec »

They could be the basis for the next generation of MCMS, if we go for an stealth MCM with a specialist hull which is what the Hunts and Sandowns are.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7323
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote:£230m GBP of activities are guaranteed under the TOBA agreement, not bad, the issue is the reluctance to spend it on proper ships.

I herd a rumour the TOBA was cancelled as part of the River order and T26 contract.
Correct. TOBA is no more.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2704
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

Ron5 wrote:Correct. TOBA is no more.
That is one sinkhole closed. But the government will need to provide work for the shipyards or they will close.

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 »

they may not be good round straits of dover but round the rest of our EEZ they are useful vessels.

Post Reply