River Class (OPV) (RN)

[RichardIC]

thought sri lanka was getting first dibbs on the rivers

why??

[marktigger]

i seam to remember something online but not 100%.

But yes they would be good addition to Irish Navy, I'm also sure Appledore could also come up with something as effective.

[Spinflight]

"the extra space and mission bays built into River B.2 allows for the potential use of unmanned systems"

Do you have a link to this article?

[donald_of_tokyo]

"the extra space and mission bays built into River B.2 allows for the potential use of unmanned systems"
Do you have a link to this article?

Navy News October issue, p.11, it is online. https://navynews.co.uk/digital-edition/ ... lYear=2015
As you can see, it is just a report. But, it is also clear at least the author thinks so.
Also as I referred to the "unmanned warrior" movie, River B.2 is in the "front page", suggesting relation with unmanned systems.

[Spinflight]

They do bear a startling similarity to the mooted Black Swan class.

Never seen the compliment stated as being so high. Batch 1s it was 30 and most sources give 34 for the Batch 2's. Accommodation for 108, if I'm reading the article correctly, gives the lie to the term OPV.

Why have replenishment stations and an integrated combat system? Yeah has to be something UAV related, maybe the rumours of us buying Triton to go with the P-8s aren't far off the mark.

[clinch]

"the extra space and mission bays built into River B.2 allows for the potential use of unmanned systems"

Do you have a link to this article?

There is an interesting article here, in which the author argues that the new Rivers have more potential than many people think

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

[Spinflight]

Yep, seen that before.

The key is the move to offboard sensors. Whether UAV, UUV or helicopter based the argument holds that the launch platform itself doesn't matter much.

Which, with the proviso that most of these have yet to be developed, I fully agree.

Capital ships and firepower are great but most of the actual work historically has been done by small sloops and suchlike.

If you take manpower as being the biggest limiting factor in the RN then it makes sense to have lots of smaller ships which are very efficient in manpower terms. A river batch 2 will cost you a sixth of the manpower of a Type 23, or probably a quarter of the proposed Type 31. Personally I'd rather see lots of the smaller vessels than a few not much more capable Type 31s.

[donald_of_tokyo]

On crew:
1: When HMS Severn came back from Caribbean ocean, they say "48 strong crew". This is I suppose, 32 crew x1.5 (crew rotation of River B.1). If this is also the case with the "58" referred here, it will be 38-39 x1.5. River B.1 is referred to have a crew of 30, B.2 a crew of 34. So, the "x 1.5" will be one possibility.
2: RNZN's Protector class OPV is referred to have 35 crew (without flight), but in their navy news report, in many case there are 50-60 crews onboard. Not only from navy, but also from fishery, conservation, law-enforcements, and so on. If River B.2 is to carry such "additional" crew "almost always", then 58 will be it.
3: Of course, there is a possibility that the crew number has increased from well known 34 (sometimes referred 36 I remember), to 58. For example, RAS gear (which does not exist onboard River B.1s) is famous to require man power (to my understanding).

On OPV "class":
River B.2 is a bit high-end than B.1s, illustrated by its having CMS. So, they are similar class to Spanish BAM and Dutch Holland, and different from River B.1, Spanish Serviola and RNZN Protector classes. River B.1 is "properly armed" for its class = only 1 20mm gun or 30 mm gun (Clyde) is enough. But, River B.2 is a bit "under armed" for its class, this is my point.

But, what makes it complicated is the fact that River B.2s are built to "replace" B.1 ships. Thus, proposing for up-arming it, and opposing to it, BOTH make sense, I think. In other words, we can discuss how to user River B.2.

With CMS, handling UUV/USV will be easier. Arming with SeaHawk sigma (30mm + LMMs), adding 20mm CIWS, and even ESM and Chaff/Flare launcher, are also easy supported by its better radar. But those make its operation cost and crew number higher, draining resources from already resource limited escort fleet.

[Rambo]

I've always wondered by the B2 rivers aren't being built with 76mm Oto Melera like on the Thai version instead of 30mm canon. I know the arguments surface about re introducing a new weapon etc will come into it however it could increase their utility value massively as they could perhaps perform close in NGFS in certain low intensity situations. Maybe add x1 Phalanx for self defence and retractable hangar and they could actually be useful to a task force.

[shark bait]

Because if you're patrol boat has come across something that needs a three inch shell you've sent the wrong boat.

Non of the low intensity tasks we place on the river class require such a large weapon.

[Rambo]

Because if you're patrol boat has come across something that needs a three inch shell you've sent the wrong boat.

Non of the low intensity tasks we place on the river class require such a large weapon.

I know what you're saying. However if say we were in a Falklands 2 scenario and given how low our escort numbers are at present. Would it be better to have an up gunned river detach from the task force in certain situations eg. NGFS or nothing at all? I can see arguments for yes and no.

[shark bait]

No, it would get sunk.

Sending a ship full of people into a war zone with only a medium sized gun is a real dumb idea. To make that acceptable it would also need Artisan, CAMM, Phalanx, Countermeasures, EW, Sonar ect... or in other words, a frigate.

Especially for NGFS, if a platform is going to be sitting within visual range of the coast it needs to be highly protected. In that environment not only does it have to deal with the typical symmetric threats, its now vulnerable to a whole bunch of asymmetric threats, not a place for a patrol boat.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I know what you're saying. However if say we were in a Falklands 2 scenario and given how low our escort numbers are at present. Would it be better to have an up gunned river there in certain situations eg. NGFS or nothing at all? I can see arguments for yes and no.

I also think it is yes and no. But I am personally very near to no.
- if we are to adopt 76mm, it shall be in some number, say 5 or more.
- but, River B.2 will also be used for EEZ-patrol/fishery-protection. In this case a 30mm (even 20mm) gun is good enough. This means, at least 3 River B.2s do not need 57/76mm gun.

But, if the 5 T31 are to adopt 57 or 76 mm gun, I think arming 2 of the 5 River B.2 also will be good, making the total number to 7. It is not "for" NGFS (of course "can do a little"), but to stopping merchant ships, shooting down slow aircrafts and engage fast boats in large distance. If properly selecting the ammo (expensive though), it can also be used as a CIWS. The mid-calibre gun will thus be useful if the River B.2 are to be used as RM transporter, I guess.

However, UK has another reasonable option, SeaHawk sigma, a 30mm turret with 7 LMMs mounted. LMM will be also good for "stopping merchant ships, shooting down slow aircrafts and engage fast boats in large distance" (but not for CIWS). Good, we have a choice.

[donald_of_tokyo]

No, it would get sunk.
Sending a ship full of people into a war zone with only a medium sized gun is a real dumb idea. To make that acceptable it would also need Artisan, CAMM, Phalanx, Countermeasures, EW, Sonar ect... or in other words, a frigate.

I do not agree. In your case, you cannot also send Albions and Bays there. Yes there will be such situation, but also there will be some situations allowing Bays to be deployed. There, up-armed River can also do. I am thinking about sending a detachment with 2 River B.2 to, say, Fitzroy. With its small size, fast speed, good maneuverability, it will be even more survivable than Bays there, for sure.

Especially for NGFS, if a platform is going to be sitting within visual range of the coast it needs to be highly protected. In that environment not only does it have to deal with the typical symmetric threats, its now vulnerable to a whole bunch of asymmetric threats, not a place for a patrol boat.

In singleton deployment, yes and no, depending on your enemy. For example, if you are providing NGFS to a south pacific island occupied by a militia to support RNZN, a River with 57/76 mm gun will do good. But, at Siria and Lebanon, very dangerous I agree.

[shark bait]

The Albions and Bays will be escorted by some of the most capable escorts in the world, and even then they wont be within visual range of a contented coast line.

Whats the point in a River class for NGFS is it needs an escort? surely just use the escorts gun? Neither do they have good speed or mobility, if that's whats needed for some coastal shoot and scoot how about or perhaps a nemo motar boat?

Why would we send a River class to the south pacific to support the RNZN? surely thats what we have frigates for? or even global combat ships.

[rhodes76]

I would love to see the River's fitted with either the Thales or Bae 40mm guns.

[Spinflight]

The hull itself can take a 5", as seen by the stretched version offered for the Type 31.

Which is a very bad idea for the RN at present as all a politician would see if something that looks like a frigate.

"To make that acceptable it would also need Artisan, CAMM, Phalanx, Countermeasures, EW, Sonar ect... or in other words, a frigate."

But you'd have all those on a frigate over the horizon. Probably at least 1 Type 45 too, not to mention aircover from a CVF.

Sending an OPV to provide some 5" goodness, or even 4.5" as I'm sure we have a warehouse somewhere stuffed full of them somewhere, makes much more sense than an FF or DD. The risks are the same, though the worst is much less. With a CMS the only addition that you'd need is countermeasures, which aren't expensive or difficult to fit. The gunline in the Falklands was often manned by the lower end frigates. It might not be the first platform you'd use but once an area had been sanitised why task a bigger ship for the same effect?

There's also all sorts of duties than small vessels can undertake to be useful in a larger fleet. The Hecla's for instance served as casualty ferries and some of the tugs taken up from trade were used to insert sneaky beaky types.

[Spinflight]

"Whats the point in a River class for NGFS is it needs an escort? surely just use the escorts gun?"

Because the escort is conducting defensive ASW somewhere else? Once you have a beach head established the capable escorts will be defending it to prevent anything slipping through to the amphibs, not directly escorting the amphibs.

[Ron5]

I would love to see the River's fitted with either the Thales or Bae 40mm guns.

I'm intrigued by the Thales gun.

[Rambo]

The hull itself can take a 5", as seen by the stretched version offered for the Type 31.

Which is a very bad idea for the RN at present as all a politician would see if something that looks like a frigate.

"To make that acceptable it would also need Artisan, CAMM, Phalanx, Countermeasures, EW, Sonar ect... or in other words, a frigate."

But you'd have all those on a frigate over the horizon. Probably at least 1 Type 45 too, not to mention aircover from a CVF.

Sending an OPV to provide some 5" goodness, or even 4.5" as I'm sure we have a warehouse somewhere stuffed full of them somewhere, makes much more sense than an FF or DD. The risks are the same, though the worst is much less. With a CMS the only addition that you'd need is countermeasures, which aren't expensive or difficult to fit. The gunline in the Falklands was often manned by the lower end frigates. It might not be the first platform you'd use but once an area had been sanitised why task a bigger ship for the same effect?

There's also all sorts of duties than small vessels can undertake to be useful in a larger fleet. The Hecla's for instance served as casualty ferries and some of the tugs taken up from trade were used to insert sneaky beaky types.

I agree this was kind of what i was getting at. I'm not even sure a high end asset like T45 / T26 would be used this way as for starters there aren't enough of them and because of this they will be doing what they do best - AAW & ASW. Leaving perhaps T31 (only 5?) at the lower end and Rivers if they were up armed. Obviously the Rivers would be useless in their current configuration. It is not ideal the way they are being built, but i'm not optimistic in an increase in escort numbers and if something was to kick off we clearly don't have enough 'high end' vessels leaving only a handful of T31 / River to do the other stuff.
I do concur though that in certain circumstances in a F2 scenario a River could be very vulnerable.

[Spinflight]

Arguably less vulnerable should a more realistic and robust NGFS solution exist.

Without it a defended shore line could pretty much stick any A2AD pretty much on the shoreline. Best thing to target soft skins like them is with naval artillery. With an NGFS capability they'd be pushed back inland.

Bear in mind that NGFS doesn't exist in a vacuum and ships are uniquely equipped to share targeting data via datalinks. If the F-35 works as advertised then it may be able to generate real time targeting info which it can't prosecute itself. Often these will be time critical so in an amphibious scenario having something more expendable providing on call artillery support would be a major plus.

At the moment this is far more likely to be the Type 31 if it ever appears, or the general purpose Type 23s but there's no reason why the Rivers couldn't be upgunned, would only be a refit away.

The higher value escorts do get used for NGFS, I'm pretty sure HMS Cardiff banged off over 1000 rds in one day in the Falklands. Which, if they are say providing close AAW for the amphibs, which they would be initially, is fine. Ideally though you want them up threat as pickets.

[Dahedd]

Surely the pic overleaf of the Thales 40mm is a no brainer for the RN. Same ammo as, army. Has anti air ammo as an option (see Rapidfire) & can be used fir ciws.
I'd have thought it made far more sense than the current gun on the rivers.

I'd roll it out across the navy & get air defence versions for the army.

[marktigger]

76mm isn't really very efficient in the NGFS role and sticking a 5in on a River would be more like turning them into a Monitor.
I would argue a 76mm could be justified on an OPV our closest neighbour has practically goten to this point all bar one of their OPV's has a 76 and the odd one out has a bofors 57mmm.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The hull itself can take a 5", as seen by the stretched version offered for the Type 31.

I think it is not easy. Its just power-point. Because HMTS Krabi exists, we can safely say, 76mm (and smaller 57mm) can do. But, a 5in gun is significantly heavier than 76mm compact gun. Also it is only 1800t FL small hull. May be possible, but will need big design cost and significantly enlarging the hull (Avenger), or using the Khareef hull.

Sending an OPV to provide some 5" goodness, or even 4.5" as I'm sure we have a warehouse somewhere stuffed full of them somewhere, makes much more sense than an FF or DD. The risks are the same, though the worst is much less. With a CMS the only addition that you'd need is countermeasures, which aren't expensive or difficult to fit. The gunline in the Falklands was often manned by the lower end frigates. It might not be the first platform you'd use but once an area had been sanitised why task a bigger ship for the same effect?

There's also all sorts of duties than small vessels can undertake to be useful in a larger fleet. The Hecla's for instance served as casualty ferries and some of the tugs taken up from trade were used to insert sneaky beaky types.

In general, I agree to this. But, this "up-armered River B.2" will be as expensice as Floreal Patrol Frigate, which is basically (more than) twice expensive than "pure" OPVs (as River B.1s).

For an escort, 5in gun's additional cost/maintenance-load/crew are not large. But for an OPV which is 1/6--1/10 cheaper than T26, it is significant jump, starting to eat the T31 project resource. Thus, here I think we are start talking about replacing 13 T23 with
- 10 T26ASW
- and 3 Floreal-like Patrol Frigate (call it T31, if you like)
which is always my "option-2" for T23 replacement program.

T31 is "said" to be 350M GBP per hull, which means 1750M GBP for 5 of them. In addition, you need design cost, which I assume will be ~350M GBP for Cutlass/Avenger (modification), and ~700M GBP for Venator (total design). So, in total 2100--2450 M GBP for the T31 project.

The "up-armed River B.2", or "Avenger-light" with
- 1x 5in gun, 2x 30mm gun, 1x 20mm CIWS, ESM and chaff/flare, but no CAMM, no sonar, no AS torpedo,
- with Merlin capable hanger (rather for 2 Wildcats or UAVs) and flight deck, and a few boats
is virtually similar to Floreal class Patrol Frigate. To use it as Monitor, we need to equip it with proper damage control standard, though. Thus, it will cost nearly 200 M GBP per hull. Adding ~200 M GBP design cost, 3 of them will cost 800 M GBP in total.

This will give 1300-1650 M GBP left, which I think wil enable to built 2 full-fat T26ASW in addition to the originally planned 8.

[Spinflight]

I wasn't really talking about new builds, as I said such a thing would only be a refit away. I'm sure the RN could have bolted on all sorts of bits and pieces but that would have put it's frigate programmes at risk.

The Avenger was merely a lengthened River class, don't think the beam was increased or bow significantly altered.