River Class (OPV) (RN)

[SKB]

"navel gun"

[RichardIC]

I'm sure this has been done to death already, but yeah, 57mm Mk110 in A-turret position.

While we're at it I'd like them on the QECs too in place of Phalanx. Oto would do as an alternative, but as we're switching to BAE for the Mk45 the Mk 110 seems to make sense too (in my fantasy world).

[Dahedd]

Rolling the 40mm out across the whole of the UK military seems to be a no brainer.
It would be prefect at sea on the Rivers & possibly on others instead of the 25mm guns.

Plus it should be purchased for land based air defence vs drones & choppers. See the Thale RapidFIRE system.

[marktigger]

prefer phalanx/goalkeeper system on QE's (especially the later with some piggyback LMM) as a CIWS system CAMM would be nice to .

for a patrol vessel with international operations pretensions a 57mm Bofors or 76mm OM is goog primary system with 40mm as secondary either side of bridge again with some LMM piggyback

[SKB]

^ Before fitting out.

A bottle of Deanston 12-year-old single malt Scotch whisky was broken over the bow of HMS Forth (P222) in the naming ceremony at BAE Systems' Scotstoun yard on 9th March.

[90inFIRST]

[quote="Dahedd"]Rolling the 40mm out across the whole of the UK military seems to be a no brainer.
It would be prefect at sea on the Rivers & possibly on others instead of the 25mm guns.

They all use 30mm guns

[marktigger]

what about Eurofighter's & tornado's 27mm Mauser , Does Hawk still use 30mm Aden ? then there is the 30mm chain gun on the Apache. Yes i would agree standardise but could the 40mm do all these roles?

[Gabriele]

The 40mm CTA could never do all things on its own. Some things are specific, and Typhoon could never be included. Not even Apache, which by the way uses a different 30mm round than the MK44 on the Navy's mounts (30x113 versus 30x173).

It certainly could arm all ships eventually, but it would take millions of pounds and they are not currently available.

[donald_of_tokyo]

An OPV armed with 76, 57, or 40 mm canon is not bad.
But, the importance of OPV armed with simple 30mm guns still remains.

Current operation held by River B.1s all do not need such mid-calibre canons, and 30mm guns are much much cheaper than larger ones.

If the operation cost becomes 10-20% higher, it means that with fixed resources, 300 sea-going days fulfilled by a lightly armed OPV reduces to 240-270 sea-going days with slightly heavily armed ones. In other words, leaving 30-60 days devoid of OPV in the area in charge. Which is better? Which is "flexible?". I think the former is.

Since UK lacks coast guard equipped with lightly armed cutters, having lightly armed OPVs are by its nature reasonable. Up arming ALL OF THEM is not a good idea. Just a waste of resource. If the type-31e is to be equipped with 57 or 76 mm cannons, 2 of the 5 River B.2s can also be equipped with it (in addition to a retractable Wildcat hangar), and it will fill the gap between the lightly armed OPV and the light frigates (T31), further adding flexibility in the fleet.

[marktigger]

Donald one of the Type31's missions is NGS of have you forgotten that argument?

76mm & 57mm are fine for patrol vessels but for frigate with that mission you need a reasonable size gun

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald one of the Type31's missions is NGS of have you forgotten that argument?
76mm & 57mm are fine for patrol vessels but for frigate with that mission you need a reasonable size gun

Actually I am very severely thinking of T31 cost, and the very tight cost force me to think omitting (heavy) NGFS from the mission requirement as one of the options.

In this case, the 57/76 mm guns can be also the main armaments of MHCs. Also in this case, RN shall replace 114mm gun of T45 with 127mm guns (to abolish 114mm canon). With so many impressive land-attack capability coming; 2 CVs carrying 24-36 F35Bs each, 8 T26 each with 24 land attack missiles, and 6+8 DD/FF with NGFS capability, lack of NGFS only in 5 escorts is just a small fraction of land attack capability in 2030s.

Note here I am talking of the most pessimistic case, such as Avenger or (light version of) Cutlass, which I'm afraid will be the only choice available with estimated cheap cost. If we can build Venator 110, of course 127mm gun will be nice to have. (I see no chance building Spartan, which is almost equivalent to T26, except for ASW).

[shark bait]

how does Spartan differ from Venator, both look like extremely similar reference designs?

[donald_of_tokyo]

how does Spartan differ from Venator, both look like extremely similar reference designs?

Following is my impression.
- start from ANZAC frigate; long range, 127mm gun, 24 (or 32) CAMM or 8-cell ESSM-length Mk.41 VLS, Merlin capable flight deck and SH60 capable hangar, hull sonar, CODOG etc... It is 3600t FL, even built in 1990's standard.
- look at Spartan; 127mm gun, 16-cell Mk.41 strike-length VLS, 32 CAMM, Merlin capable flight deck and a Merlin + a mid-size helicopter capable hangar, very large (maybe 30x16m or so?) under-flight deck mission bay, TASS, hull sonar, CODLAG etc.. And it shall be built in 2020-30's standard. This makes me think Spartan shall be ~5500t FL or so.
- Venator 110 frigate is said to be 4000t FL. To enable it so small, Mk.41 VLS is only 8-cell at most, with 24 CAMM, and other items lists broadly similar to Spartan. How BMT is packing it within the 4000t small hull? I guess the hangar size is smaller, under-flight deck mission bay is smaller. (or it is in reality 5000t FL ship, not 4000t).

This is the reason I think Spartan is larger/more expensive than Venator 110.

[marktigger]

right we're talking frigates again

[donald_of_tokyo]

http://www.clydebankpost.co.uk/news/151 ... rol_vessel

Nice photos of HMS Forth.

[Repulse]

Given that ASW is a key capability I wonder if with the 16t crane whether the Rivers could act as a motheship for a couple of mini ASW attack subs. Something like the Spiggen II class was about 11m long and weighed 14t. Armed with a couple of torpedoes it would give probing enemy submarines something to think about.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Given that ASW is a key capability I wonder if with the 16t crane whether the Rivers could act as a motheship for a couple of mini ASW attack subs. Something like the Spiggen II class was about 11m long and weighed 14t. Armed with a couple of torpedoes it would give probing enemy submarines something to think about.

Yes and No, I think.
- Yes. River B2s will be surely capable as an independent mission bay.
- No, in a sense that "Mini ASW attack subs" will be very difficult. Midget sub was never used for ASW. Sometimes used for ship hunting, like ROK Cheonan sunk by Yono or Sang-O class subs which are 130 or 370t submerged. I am not saying ASW drones/ ASW Midget sub is impossible, but, it is clearly difficult, because if it is easy, they should have been there already. Norway, Germany, Sweden etc. clearly has a needs. And, anyway it will be very expensive. Might be even more expensive than River B2 itself.

ASW drones is worth discussing, but never be cheap and not limited to River OPVs, anyhow.

[Repulse]

The spare MCM crew being used to fill in for the HMS Tyne crew who are bringing HMS Forth into service. A good way to go IMO. I wonder if it signals that the Batch 1 Rivers will be replaced first?

If the RN could keep 6, we could get one to Gibraltar which is needed given the recent EU escalation.

[S M H]

If the RN could keep 6, we could get one to Gibraltar which is needed given the recent EU escalation.

They could retain the batch ! patrol vessels. R.N.R. manning allowing sea training augmenting the R.N. manned craft in u k waters as fishery protection will become harder to police after withdrawal from the E.U. As for sending one to Gibraltar that would be sensible in light of the Spanish government shenanigans. With the possibility of local R.N.R. manning. Don't think that would be a local problem manning wise. The vessel would have to be an iatrical part of the Gibraltar Squadron. This was used previously with Royal air force Launch crews. Some of the Malta employed crews even transferred to U.K. when British forces left Malta. They could follow the peacock class funding arrangement used in Hong Kong. for the Gibraltar based craft with half the cost coming from the Gibraltar Government.

[marktigger]

i think the RNR idea is one with huge merit

[donald_of_tokyo]

But RNR is doing something right now (already busy?).
Also there shall be some reason they are NOT joining fishery protection role now (lack of training level?).
Do anybody know why/what/how?

[The Armchair Soldier]

Steel cut for Spey:

[shark bait]

Screenshot_2017-04-21-22-33-24-426.jpeg

[donald_of_tokyo]

Screenshot_2017-04-21-22-33-24-426.jpeg

Great. I understand this is for 3 River B1s or include HMS Clyde? (Wiki says Fishery Protection Squadron is made of 4, including HMS Clyde)

In the following, I assume it is "3" vessels:
- more than half is "other than fishery protection". We know HMS Mersey worked along Caribbean and Mediterranean for 1 year deployment in 2016. May be the "302" days is of her? It matches the "more than 300 days at sea", as noted as the River B1's specification.
- With 3 hulls, (330+302)/3 = 211 days, which is 58% at sea. (With 4, it is 43% at sea.). If "fishery" is with 2 vessels (HMS Mersey deployed), it is 45%. We know HMS Tyne was called for Russian ship "escort" twice on 2016, so she should have been active. So, HMS Severn was not highly active? Or, both Tyne and Severn has in "reduced activity"?

Of course, 45% sea going days are "typical" for escort = not bad. But, River B1s are designed to go 300 days per year = 82%, provided it is crewed 1.5 times and onboard in rotation (always 1/3 is at rest). Compared to 82%, 45% is in significantly reduced activity.

All here is just speculation... Sorry.

[bobp]

Glad to see the last of the Rivers being built, but feel that they should be up gunned compared to their older sisters.