River Class (OPV) (RN)

[abc123]

But it's across all 3 services and MoD so how do we sort out the mess

Frigate procurement
AFV Procurement
Aircraft Procurement

all have been screwed up by dramatically. But how much has been down to politics and political interference and constant changes in policy

When we see some Chief of Defence Staff, First Sea Lord etc. publicly resign in disgust because of such political bungling, reduction of budget etc. then we can blame the politicians.

[marktigger]

But it's across all 3 services and MoD so how do we sort out the mess

Frigate procurement
AFV Procurement
Aircraft Procurement

all have been screwed up by dramatically. But how much has been down to politics and political interference and constant changes in policy

When we see some Chief of Defence Staff, First Sea Lord etc. publicly resign in disgust because of such political bungling, reduction of budget etc. then we can blame the politicians.

thing is they won't be appointed unless they have a proven track record of being yes men to civil servants & MP's

[abc123]

But it's across all 3 services and MoD so how do we sort out the mess

Frigate procurement
AFV Procurement
Aircraft Procurement

all have been screwed up by dramatically. But how much has been down to politics and political interference and constant changes in policy

When we see some Chief of Defence Staff, First Sea Lord etc. publicly resign in disgust because of such political bungling, reduction of budget etc. then we can blame the politicians.

thing is they won't be appointed unless they have a proven track record of being yes men to civil servants & MP's

Of course. So, Armed Forces, led by yes men, what can we expect? Nothing good, I'm afraid...

[bobp]

Of course. So, Armed Forces, led by yes men, what can we expect? Nothing good, I'm afraid...

Have to consider possible Knighthood, Pension Pot, and London Apartment so of course they say yes.

[abc123]

Of course. So, Armed Forces, led by yes men, what can we expect? Nothing good, I'm afraid...

Have to consider possible Knighthood, Pension Pot, and London Apartment so of course they say yes.

I know...

[clinch]

Interesting developments with the Thai River class.

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.word ... ol-vessel/

Is this author possibly right in suggesting the Batch 2 design has been underestimated?

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2016/06/t ... ver-class/

[marktigger]

the batch 2 design has allot of potential for growth for smaller navies. the 76mm is a no brainer and the enhanced electronics, VLS and harpoon capability are ideal for a small to medium sized 3rd world navy wanting more bang for their buck. But that does make you question the Royal Navy vessels. Are they to big for what we need? yes they were ordered to preserve jobs at govan so therefore are almost minimal spec and will be able to handle UK EEZ protection and Falklands EEZ Patrol. The potential is there to enhance them but its not stuff we require......except for them to mysteriously be retitled the type 31 frigate!
I would agree with the second article the redesign to make it better protected and more seaworthy is a good thing though i wonder how much weight margins has it eaten up. I would also agree with the analysis put more gucchi systems on them and politicians & treasury will use them as a reason to cut elsewhere or misemploy putting their crews at risk. I would suspect the swarm attack scenario has been modeled as even in Home waters it might be necessary er Green/Anti Nuclear protestors trying to hamper operations of trident boats.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Navy news October 2016 issue has some info on HMS Forth.

- Ship's company is 58. If this includes the "1.5 times many crews", it means always 38 onboard. If this means always 58 onboard, it requires +22 crew per ship compared to River B.1s. Which is true?
- additional 50 crew space can be used for trainees getting sea experience, when it was not used by RM, flight crew, and boarding team.
- She has 2 RAS stations. So she can go anywhere with Tanker.
- the author call the space aside the crane "mission bays" which allows for potential use of UUV/USVs.

Interesting.

[Gabriele]

The extra crew members might come from the reserve. Apparently the idea is of having always mixed crews on the OPVs.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The extra crew members might come from the reserve. Apparently the idea is of having always mixed crews on the OPVs.

Exactly that... in fact the captains are also "trainees". As typically it is their first command; hence these ships are so highly valued by the RN (they would run out of captains without some kind of pyramid scheme being in operation).

[marktigger]

The extra crew members might come from the reserve. Apparently the idea is of having always mixed crews on the OPVs.

could Border agency also be putting personnel aboard?

[Gabriele]

Guess so, but don't think they'd fill ship crew billets. They would be part of the extra personnel, in the case.

[marktigger]

i think they should provide a law enforcement element to the crewing with MAFF providing the fisheries inspection teams leaving the navy to concentrate on running the shi and delivering the specialists where they need to be.

[jimthelad]

MAFF died a long time ago. Now DEFRA and in this particular context APHA. They dont have personnel to to this so subcontract to RN and border agency.

[marktigger]

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/imps ... -rnzn-opv/

wouldn't something like that would be a better replacement for HMS clyde?
(read the article don't just look at the picture)

[shark bait]

Anything would. The rivers are a dumb class.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1: Capability of River B.2 as a "mission bay"
In Navy News, the auhtor says "the extra space and mission bays built into River B.2 allows for the potential use of unmanned systems". Interesting also is that the video of "unmanned warrier" https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video. ... 4869338205 starts with Amazonas-class OPV, imitating River B.2s. Thus, River B.2s are considered as mother ship for UUV/USV and UAV, I guess.

comment : Good. I will even think that, T31 can "off-load" mission-bay to a River B.2 alongside, which will relax the need for mission bay (of course, not zero, just small) on the frigate. In peace time, 5 T31 + 5 River B2 will provide 2+4 = 6 hulls for mid-level/low-level threat deployment. In high end war, 2 T31 and 2 River B.2 combined can provide "2 units" as "frigates with large mission bay", while the other 2 River B.2 will be on patrol as useal.

2: As a RM transporter
River B.2 can carry 50 additional RM. In addition to its own 2 RHIBs, it can also carry at least 2 ORCs. By using the flight-deck, it will even carry in totlal 4 ORCs, or even 3-4 LCVPs.

comment : A detachment of a T31 (with 2 Wildcats) and 2 River B.2 (or 1 River B.2 and 1 Tide) will be able to provide the role HMS Antrim, Plymouth, Endurance and RFA Tidespring were doing at 1982. Not bad. I even think it will be better to up-armor 2 of the 5 OPVs (normal 3 for EEZ patrol, counter migration and APT-N). With 1x 20 mm CIWS on bow, and 2x 30mm SeaHawk sigma turrets with LMM on bridge-wings (or 3x 30mm SeaHawk sigma turrets), can free up APT-S, if Argentina military keeps Today's low status.

[Galloglass]

You seem to be a fan of the Rivers ......You make a good case.
What is to be the fate of the Batch1 Rivers do you think?

[Repulse]

Short low level conflict involving a small number of troops / assets in small focused geographical areas will be more common in my view. This could involve pirates / armed gangs, terrorists but also nation states. The South China sea is one example where small detachments of troops could get embroiled in a stand-off over small islands, but unlikely to escalate to nuclear annihilation. This region may not be the focus of the UK, but similar treats exist in the South Atlantic, Caribbean and even Europe in which the UK play a very active role.

With the primarily purpose of the QEs / T45s / T26s / SSNs being for first tier conflict, then as said above by @DonaldSan this is exactly where the OPVs / T31s fit, but given the additional EEZ protection role (and future MHC role), 5+5 is not enough.

Medium term, I'd say the UK should go for a mix of Venator 90s and 110s in much higher volumes, I'd say close 24-30 vessels in total. One thing that I have changed my mind over is that I now agree with @SharkBait etc that the T31 needs a ASW capability.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Galloglass-san

Thanks. Yes I am a fan of Rivers. But, I also understand, up-arming an OPV is not a good thing in principle. It is surely better to have the mission bay on-board the frigate (as well as a few pure OPVs) than "off-loading" mission-bay to a River B.2 alongside those frigates. But, UK cannot afford 19 escorts if they do so. So "mitigation" comes in. RN already have spend resource on 3+2 Rver B.2s. It is TOBA, which (although many here hated it), is a reasonalble/understandable deal in industry/technical respect.

But from military point of view, River B.2s were not needed. For me, River B.1 are the best OPV for EEZ patrol, which anyway is needed for UK. Cheap, efficient (large sea-going days), good sea keeping etc. Optimized for EEZ patrol, they can do some "a little more military" tasks (such as anti-piracy) if needed.

But, River B.2 are there, coming soon. Apparently, they are 1-rank higher-grade. Not optimized for EEZ patrol, but for anti-piracy, as well as providing USV/UUV mother ship.They can also do EEZ patrol, if needed. [add] So, how to best use this vessel, in a circumstance we wanted that resource for the 5 T31s?

So I guess, boader force will be a bit more expanded, leaking into the original River B.1's area. This will enable River B.2 to shift a little more military, and that is what I am talking about, here. [add] For example, it has CMS as well as deck space --> then good for UUV/USV/UAV carrier. Then, can be regarded as a mission bay of T31 frigate...

On the fate of River B.1s, I think it could be, 1: sold for export, 2: sold to BF, 3: kept in RN as a test-bed for "off-board based" MHC program. I am a "fan" of the last case:
replace the 5 remaining (to SDSR15) Sandowns by the 4 River B.1s with 4 full-sets of off-board MCM units, individually. But, unfortunately, the off-board MCM units are commong too late, so that River B.1 will be sold, I'm afraid.

[Galloglass]

Ta Donald.
I like the Rivers too....If they go for sale I'd like the INS to go for them (at the right price) as replacements for the P40s and then look for a new larger type as replacement for LE Deirdre. ......In fact both types exercised together recently http://navaltoday.com/2016/10/10/hms-se ... -off-cork/

[marktigger]

thought sri lanka was getting first dibbs on the rivers

[Galloglass]

Didn't realise that Mark......pity, they would be ideal for INS.....The P40s are really only suitable for Costal patrol and I think EEZ patrol will become much more "interesting" over the next 5 years.

[dmereifield]

thought sri lanka was getting first dibbs on the rivers

Interesting - do you have any details?

Galloglass (or others) - might the INS be interested in the T31 if it ends up being, as what people on here would call, a patrol frigate? I appreciate this would be overkill for EEZ etc but wonder if the INS or Irish government have any appetite to increase naval capability?

[Galloglass]

There is "talk" of replacing the P40s with "something similar" with notional anti-sub/mines capability (I'd prefer the Rivers) and a larger vessel, probably something similar to a Damen Crossover Logistics........If the Rivers were bought there might be a chance of going directly on to source a replacement for LE Eithne (The Taoiseach has expressed interest in a vessel which could support UN humanitarian efforts and peacekeeping missions)
http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/cro ... sover-131a