River Class (OPV) (RN)
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
635 millions.
635 millions.
635 millions.
635 millions.
635 millions.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Thats only for the available fleet . Add another three (times)Gabriele wrote:635 millions.
635 millions.
635 millions.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- Galloglass
- Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: 01 Apr 2016, 13:29
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
The costs are really incredible.......If you're looking for exports don't bother asking Ireland. (though we might take the Type1s if they are cheap) We'll stick with Appledore I think. We could buy 12 P60s for that sort of cash.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
yeap definitly shortsighted going to BaEGalloglass wrote:The costs are really incredible.......If you're looking for exports don't bother asking Ireland. (though we might take the Type1s if they are cheap) We'll stick with Appledore I think. We could buy 12 P60s for that sort of cash.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
- 2HeadsBetter
- Member
- Posts: 209
- Joined: 12 Dec 2015, 16:21
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Hmmm.
"The work enabled by the £287 million contract will include the building of HMS Tamar and HMS Spey as well as support for all five of the new ships."
What support and for how long, I wonder.
"The work enabled by the £287 million contract will include the building of HMS Tamar and HMS Spey as well as support for all five of the new ships."
What support and for how long, I wonder.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
I'd say a mix the government has delayed t26 so long they have to support govan. But Bae also should be seeking other contracts to
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
I wonder how much we would have spent if we had ordered 3
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
HMS Spey! Remeber when the Phantom got Speyed? It got fatter and slower.... and vastly more expensive.
Plus ca change
Plus ca change
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
For the kind of money these OPV are costing, you would have thought at least a bigger pea shooter up front, and a couple of Harpoon launchers would have made them more useful.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Loved that one!RichardIC wrote:HMS Spey! Remeber when the Phantom got Speyed? It got fatter and slower.... and vastly more expensive.
Plus ca change
At least the v expensive UK-nization of the Apache brought some operational advantages - that by now have been caught up with, and surpassed by the universal upgrades.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
May be too simple-minded, but 278 MGBP is just 1 year of TOBA (230M) + some machines (engines and armaments) ?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/imps ... -progamme/
They say,
- HMS Forth build started on 2014, and deliver in the second half of 2017, followed by HMS Medway, and Trent.
- HMS Tamar and HMS Spey will be manufactured at Govan before being floated to Scotstoun to be fitted out. They are expected to be delivered in 2019.
So it's not 6 years, only (reasonable) 3 years build. Although, I do not know the sources.
They say,
- HMS Forth build started on 2014, and deliver in the second half of 2017, followed by HMS Medway, and Trent.
- HMS Tamar and HMS Spey will be manufactured at Govan before being floated to Scotstoun to be fitted out. They are expected to be delivered in 2019.
So it's not 6 years, only (reasonable) 3 years build. Although, I do not know the sources.
- hovematlot
- Member
- Posts: 268
- Joined: 27 May 2015, 17:46
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
2 days ago the First Sea Lord tweeted 'under SDSR we will operate up to 6'
Maybe they will keep HMS Clyde after all..
Maybe they will keep HMS Clyde after all..
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
It would be a welcome breath of common sense.
Withdrawing the slightly older (2003) River Batch 1s, without flight deck and all that, might even be acceptable. But HMS Clyde really should stay. She'll only be 10 year old next year, what the hell.
Withdrawing the slightly older (2003) River Batch 1s, without flight deck and all that, might even be acceptable. But HMS Clyde really should stay. She'll only be 10 year old next year, what the hell.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
It would make sense to keep HMS Clyde, perhaps with a lick of paint and she will be good for another 10 years. The Batch 1's I hope they are sold at a decent price and not just allowed to rot.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Decent price? Wishful thinking. OPV's are usually cheap as chips to build brand new, and are usually better armed, no one is going to pay big bucks for some second hand vessels.
Do the Royal Navy actually own HMS Clyde? Thought that was still leased?
Do the Royal Navy actually own HMS Clyde? Thought that was still leased?
@LandSharkUK
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
The best strategy is probably to let them go cheap and then make some money doing a refit/refurb for the new usershark bait wrote:Decent price? Wishful thinking. OPV's are usually cheap as chips to build brand new, and are usually better armed, no one is going to pay big bucks for some second hand vessels.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
i suppose what the designed life of them is and I'd say the original lease company would have wanted repeat business.
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Still leased.Do the Royal Navy actually own HMS Clyde? Thought that was still leased?
The 3 Batch 1 on the other hand were purchased in 2012 for 39 millions, on the assumption that they would serve out to 2023 (20 years service life exactly). They'll now be binned earlier than that, probably making their purchase a net loss, again.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
-
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
I like the idea of keeping Clyde , but I think we should look at the option of keeping the batch 1. I have had a real left field idea of converting them into TASS tugs and using them to cover the deterent , what do you think ?
-
- Member
- Posts: 579
- Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Covering the deterrent is the one area you most definitely want a super quiet hull, a good active sonar and speed.
The Rivers seem to be designed so as to be incapable of being mistaken for a frigate to a politician's gaze. Protecting the deterrent is high end only I'm afraid.
The Rivers seem to be designed so as to be incapable of being mistaken for a frigate to a politician's gaze. Protecting the deterrent is high end only I'm afraid.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Would be nice if it could be made to work.
The US do a similar this with their SURTAS system deployed on Victorious class boat's, but previously on ships that resemble the river's.
I disagree with Spinflight, it's not solely for the high end, they don't need to be combat ships to protect the deterrent, they need to be surveillance platform's, that can call in much more effective aircraft to do the hard work.
The concept is workable, the worry is detracting from more important programmes like the T31.
The US do a similar this with their SURTAS system deployed on Victorious class boat's, but previously on ships that resemble the river's.
I disagree with Spinflight, it's not solely for the high end, they don't need to be combat ships to protect the deterrent, they need to be surveillance platform's, that can call in much more effective aircraft to do the hard work.
The concept is workable, the worry is detracting from more important programmes like the T31.
@LandSharkUK
- hovematlot
- Member
- Posts: 268
- Joined: 27 May 2015, 17:46
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
The US SURTAS system is an integral part of the IUSS network with the data processing from the Towed Arrays carried out in shore stations. I think the RN would baulk at the cost of creating such a system. I just don't there is the money, the manpower, the will to create such a capability. Plus I would guess the B1 Rivers are rather noisy. Not conducive to Passive Sonar Operations. Besides the UK already has access to the SURTASS system.shark bait wrote:Would be nice if it could be made to work.
The US do a similar this with their SURTAS system deployed on Victorious class boat's, but previously on ships that resemble the river's.
I disagree with Spinflight, it's not solely for the high end, they don't need to be combat ships to protect the deterrent, they need to be surveillance platform's, that can call in much more effective aircraft to do the hard work.
The concept is workable, the worry is detracting from more important programmes like the T31.