River Class (OPV) (RN)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Mark-san
I have no objection to your point. But it is not only ministers and politicians. UK people shall say they want to pay for RN. More tax for more safer/stronger navy.
At the same time, we shall make it clear to the public that RN do not have enough escorts. So, RN cannot do all the jobs YOU (=UK people) expects. Do not hide the reality, never say OPV is a frigate. In this case, "because of Argentina military low status" is important. If it become active again, gapping APT-S will mean losing Falkland Island, at least in military point of view. RN shall clearly say it. So it is then politics to save Falkland Island, not military. Let FI people claim they need better defense, to invoke movement within UK people.
Also, not using escort for WIGS means (as you say) UK-RN will not be able to fight for Belize if the country is suddenly attacked. Do NOT pretend you can. In this case, if that issue happened, RN shall say "No there is no vessel deployable to the theater, UK-HMG WAS NOT PAYING FOR IT for very long, so there is no escort there. OPV? OPV is OPV. Sending an OPV to real war is just like sending you citizen to fight against terrorists in London without any training nor armament. No, we will never do it.".
# In this case, sadly I guess the answer will be "so let Belize be conquered.". Anyway Belize is independent nation, not UK dependency, isn't it? So I feel sending OPV for WIGS is acceptable.
I have no objection to your point. But it is not only ministers and politicians. UK people shall say they want to pay for RN. More tax for more safer/stronger navy.
At the same time, we shall make it clear to the public that RN do not have enough escorts. So, RN cannot do all the jobs YOU (=UK people) expects. Do not hide the reality, never say OPV is a frigate. In this case, "because of Argentina military low status" is important. If it become active again, gapping APT-S will mean losing Falkland Island, at least in military point of view. RN shall clearly say it. So it is then politics to save Falkland Island, not military. Let FI people claim they need better defense, to invoke movement within UK people.
Also, not using escort for WIGS means (as you say) UK-RN will not be able to fight for Belize if the country is suddenly attacked. Do NOT pretend you can. In this case, if that issue happened, RN shall say "No there is no vessel deployable to the theater, UK-HMG WAS NOT PAYING FOR IT for very long, so there is no escort there. OPV? OPV is OPV. Sending an OPV to real war is just like sending you citizen to fight against terrorists in London without any training nor armament. No, we will never do it.".
# In this case, sadly I guess the answer will be "so let Belize be conquered.". Anyway Belize is independent nation, not UK dependency, isn't it? So I feel sending OPV for WIGS is acceptable.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Problem id Donald just like 1982 the Great British Public believe the PR and its only when there are Images of burning/sinking ships will they sit up and take note.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Nope, HMS Sutherland has been the fleet ready escort for most of the year. Been doing lots of shadowing of Russian ships.marktigger wrote:didn't one of the OPV's escort the last russian ship through the channel? was on RN FB feed
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
So HMS Tyne didn't escort the Alexander Shablin and The Minsk through the English Channel in september 2016?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Sorry, I thought you were referring to this;
Take a look at @RoyalNavy's Tweet:
I shall concede you have found an instance were a river is used where a escort probably should be. I wonder why Tyne was sent when HMS Sutherland has been assigned to FRE and TAPS all year, perhaps she was busy looking for a sub.
Perhaps I should modify my statement on the last page, a River class is never deployed in place of an escort.
Take a look at @RoyalNavy's Tweet:
I shall concede you have found an instance were a river is used where a escort probably should be. I wonder why Tyne was sent when HMS Sutherland has been assigned to FRE and TAPS all year, perhaps she was busy looking for a sub.
Perhaps I should modify my statement on the last page, a River class is never deployed in place of an escort.
@LandSharkUK
- Galloglass
- Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: 01 Apr 2016, 13:29
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
You're correct Mark I remebered it myself.....http://navaltoday.com/2016/09/08/hms-ty ... n-a-month/marktigger wrote:So HMS Tyne didn't escort the Alexander Shablin and The Minsk through the English Channel in september 2016?
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Agreed. Also, there's no oil or anything important there, so who really cares? UK plc isn't some charity institution.donald_of_tokyo wrote:
# In this case, sadly I guess the answer will be "so let Belize be conquered.". Anyway Belize is independent nation, not UK dependency, isn't it? So I feel sending OPV for WIGS is acceptable.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
A tad embarrassing on the international stage if the former British Honduras, a member of the Commonwealth, with HM Queen Elizabeth as Head of State, can't depend on assistance from the aformentioned monarch's armed forces, donchathink? Particularly as we created the country and decided the border that seems to be such a problem.
Quite apart from our obligations to assist under international law as former colonial power etc, etc
Quite apart from our obligations to assist under international law as former colonial power etc, etc
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
actually was two incidents one was transiting north the other southshark bait wrote: I shall concede you have found an instance were a river is used where a escort probably should be. I wonder why Tyne was sent when HMS Sutherland has been assigned to FRE and TAPS all year, perhaps she was busy looking for a sub.
Perhaps I should modify my statement on the last page, a River class is never deployed in place of an escort.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Caribbean wrote:A tad embarrassing on the international stage if the former British Honduras, a member of the Commonwealth, with HM Queen Elizabeth as Head of State, can't depend on assistance from the aformentioned monarch's armed forces, donchathink? Particularly as we created the country and decided the border that seems to be such a problem.
Quite apart from our obligations to assist under international law as former colonial power etc, etc
also add in its a British Army training area
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
I think the UK gave some sort of guarantee of security when Belize was given independence.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
thats what we maintained a garrison with harrier and Puma support out there till the 1990'sAethulwulf wrote:I think the UK gave some sort of guarantee of security when Belize was given independence.
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
I'm not an expert for international law, but I can't remember what international convention say's that former colonial master must defend their former colonies?Caribbean wrote:A tad embarrassing on the international stage if the former British Honduras, a member of the Commonwealth, with HM Queen Elizabeth as Head of State, can't depend on assistance from the aformentioned monarch's armed forces, donchathink? Particularly as we created the country and decided the border that seems to be such a problem.
Quite apart from our obligations to assist under international law as former colonial power etc, etc
Bit embarrasing, yes, but if they wanted protection, they should have stayed as UK overseas territory...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Having a Frigate on station may have a level of deterrence, having to ability to project a carrier group and land a Cdo Brigade independently is game set and match.
”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
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Well said @repulse.
There are much higher priorities. Even if there was an extra frigate available for another task I'd argue there are more important ones than the carribian. Auxilaries and Rivers are a measured and correct response to our interests in the carribian.
There are much higher priorities. Even if there was an extra frigate available for another task I'd argue there are more important ones than the carribian. Auxilaries and Rivers are a measured and correct response to our interests in the carribian.
@LandSharkUK
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
The deployment of a River as guard vessel during the none hurricane season would be an effective use of assets. Flag waving presence in area . Slightly up armed as even a duty frigate would be in effective in a Belize situation, Priority should be to carrier operational capability.
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
This. Also, considering that UK has an ( civilian ) airport in Grand Cayman ( about 850 km ) from Belize and Guatemala and lack of Guatemalan Air Force opposition, I really don't think that UK needs frigate there. Moreso because primary danger for Belize is from land, not from sea.Repulse wrote:Having a Frigate on station may have a level of deterrence, having to ability to project a carrier group and land a Cdo Brigade independently is game set and match.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
given the lack of escorts the "operational capability" of the carriers independently is questionable.S M H wrote:The deployment of a River as guard vessel during the none hurricane season would be an effective use of assets. Flag waving presence in area . Slightly up armed as even a duty frigate would be in effective in a Belize situation, Priority should be to carrier operational capability.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Naval vessel adds allot of different capabilities that can remain on station for long periods and in most weather conditionsabc123 wrote:This. Also, considering that UK has an ( civilian ) airport in Grand Cayman ( about 850 km ) from Belize and Guatemala and lack of Guatemalan Air Force opposition, I really don't think that UK needs frigate there. Moreso because primary danger for Belize is from land, not from sea.Repulse wrote:Having a Frigate on station may have a level of deterrence, having to ability to project a carrier group and land a Cdo Brigade independently is game set and match.
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
I agree with this, but keeping a frigate on station in case something happens, with the other in-theatre assets is overkill. A containerised Brimstone/LMM armed VTOL UAV capable of ISR would be a great addition to the River tool kit would be useful however.marktigger wrote:Naval vessel adds allot of different capabilities that can remain on station for long periods and in most weather conditions
”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
-
- Member
- Posts: 579
- Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Why vtol?
Lots of design compromises in a Vtol design, why not just use the sea as a runway with a floatplane design? Crane it over the side and recover it the same way. You'd get much more payload, the sea is effectively a runway of limitless length.
Think the Russians have something using a hovercraft skirt to use in this way. Haven't seen any recent details though.
Lots of design compromises in a Vtol design, why not just use the sea as a runway with a floatplane design? Crane it over the side and recover it the same way. You'd get much more payload, the sea is effectively a runway of limitless length.
Think the Russians have something using a hovercraft skirt to use in this way. Haven't seen any recent details though.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Not impossible. Then you have the challenge of waterproofing the drone, and all the sensors and weapons that sit underneath it.
The choice is which has the lowest performance penalty?
A floatplane drone has no use on land either, where as VTOL does.
The choice is which has the lowest performance penalty?
A floatplane drone has no use on land either, where as VTOL does.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
and hoping to god that your enemy doesn't have EW capability or and aircraft with a machine gun mounted on it!
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
Tried that in World War One. Didn't work so they invented aircraft carriers.Spinflight wrote:Why vtol?
Lots of design compromises in a Vtol design, why not just use the sea as a runway with a floatplane design? Crane it over the side and recover it the same way. You'd get much more payload, the sea is effectively a runway of limitless length.
Think the Russians have something using a hovercraft skirt to use in this way. Haven't seen any recent details though.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels
yep; or is it rather...there we go againabc123 wrote:I'm not an expert for international law, but I can't remember what international convention say's that former colonial master must defend their former colonies?
Bit embarrasing, yes, but if they wanted protection, they should have stayed as UK overseas territory...
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)