River Class (OPV) (RN)

[Jensy]

Did we ever actually buy HMS Clyde or she still on Pfi contract?

[Repulse]

Did we ever actually buy HMS Clyde or she still on Pfi contract?

Pfi

[donald_of_tokyo]

The UK is going through a period of restructure, which means it is doing less globally until it focuses itself around CVF based Maritime Groups. For me, decommissioning 1 T23 early and keeping the 3 Batch 1s running is the best short term solution as it would enable the UK to transition in parallel to having "presence vessels" (in this case the B2 Rivers) in parallel to our Maritime Group "big stick". It won't happen due to politics.

From 10-20G GBP (for 10 years) shortage issues rising, I think considering decommissioning 2-3 T23GP shall be within the options to be considered.

What a "presence vessels" can do will be an issue. For me, it can OMIT survivability against national-level air-force/navy attack (because it will cause war, and UK will send CVTF for revenge), but cannot omit survivability against terrorism (against which CVTF is not good at reacting).

I think 2 or 3 River B2s will be filled with fishery and WIGS, happy with current armaments.

The other 2-3 hull for "presence" will go to, Holmz strait, Bahrein, Somalia (to reduce Kipion-escort from 2 to 1), and even APT-S (to abandon it). Then the armament of these high-grade hulls will be

<Plan-A: simpler case >
- locate a 20mm CIWS 1B in place of the 16t crane. (will be space and weight equivalent). Add a ~6t crane in place for "misc. handling".
- add 7 LMMs on the 30mm turret (make it SeaHawk Sigma)
- add 2x ISO containers to carry UAVs.
- add 2x LARD.
- add 2x chaff/flare launchers with simple ESM
- keep 2x 7.62 mm Gatlings

<Plan-B: more comprehensive case >
- add retractable Wildcat-capable hangar in place of the 16t crane (weight will increase, significantly). Carry LMMs on Wildcat.
- replace 30mm gun with 20mm CIWS 1B (also weight will increase)
- add 2x LARD.
- add 2x chaff/flare launchers with simple ESM
- keep 2x 7.62 mm Gatlings

I admit this is all fantasy at now, but if a "big cut" is coming, these discussion will become more important as an option.

[marktigger]

plan C

Sell them and use the money and Manpower for type 26/31 programs

[donald_of_tokyo]

Dear Mark-san.

Selling them will provide only marginal gain. Especially, River B2's "cost" will include many costs related to TOBA, not to the ship itself. So, even though they costed 635M GBP to buy, I am not surprised if it was sold with 70M GBP each = 350M GBP or even cheaper.

And, anyway River B1s is reaching their mid-life. So, if an OPV is 60-80M GBP per hull (depending on CMS and other standards), 30-40M GBP x4 hull is "anyway needed". In other words, selling 5 River B2s will provide 350M - (120 or 160M) = 190 or 230M GBP gain only, while we are losing 30mm Guns inplace of 20mm guns of River B1s, 5 hulls for 4 hulls, 5 helicopter flight deck for 1, 5x 51RM EMF space for 4x 20-30RM EMF.

I agree this is one option, but it is very marginal, so will little contribute to save the funding crisis.

[shark bait]

plan C

Sell them and use the money and Manpower for type 26/31 programs

Bingo! Got plenty of issues to fix before creating new ones.

[Repulse]

plan C

Sell them and use the money and Manpower for type 26/31 programs

Ultimately, a T31 / MHPC could replace but the need is now - the focus on the surface fleet for the next 10 years will be on the CVF Maritime Group formations and the T26, starting with the 8 ASW ŕeplacements.

[Galloglass]

plan C

Sell them and use the money and Manpower for type 26/31 programs

I like the Rivers but can't imagine who would buy the Batch2 series at the price the RN is paying for them. The Batch1 series should be much more reasonably priced (Bangladesh had a look apparently) I didn't realise that Clyde is only leased though.

Care to hazard a guess on the asking price for a Batch1?

[Repulse]

@Donald-san: Whilst the loss of one T23 can be explained when replaced by the ability to deploy 3 OPV/Sloops, losing 3 is politically too far, and I think unnecessary. Cuts may come, but given the current appetite for ground wars, the army will (and probably should take the brunt), the the navy will not see "new" money so something needs to be done.

I'd be more conservative and go back to the 3 gun Amazonas design - maybe having all 3 30mm Seahawk Sigma gun mounts with LMM. I'd keep the crane as it will be needed for HADR operations.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I like the Rivers but can't imagine who would buy the Batch2 series at the price the RN is paying for them. The Batch1 series should be much more reasonably priced (Bangladesh had a look apparently) I didn't realise that Clyde is only leased though.

May be Brazil? UK sold 3 Amazonas-class with 133M GBP in 2011. 5 River B2s are slightly better equipped (e.g. CMS), so may be 20% more can be expected (guess). Then, 133/3*5 *1.2 = 266M GBP is my "guesstimate". Note that "29 improvements for RN standard" may not be important for Brazilian navy. Anyway, never expect for 635M GBP, or even 435M GBP (excluding 200M TOBA "guesstimate").

Care to hazard a guess on the asking price for a Batch1?

I guess it will be really tiny, say ~15M GBP per hull or even less, excluding the mid-life upgrade. They've spent long time at sea (300 days a year). I think the way to go is to propose extensive upgrades/up-arming the B1s, and sell them as a package.
Since I guess River B2 cost is 87M GBP per hull (see my "03 May 2017, 20:11" comment), it is ~1/10 of a T26. River B1 is without CMS and significantly simpler than B2s. So, they are much cheaper. Comparing their cost with that of Frigate is just like saying "let's disband 5 Hawk T1As and get F35s in place !" = almost negligible contribution.

On the other hand, man-power is non-negligible. T23 has 180 crew, while River B2 has 36+ (or 58. I do not understand the meaning of "58" crews for River B2, recently articled. The core crews shall be 36. So many additional tasks would be considered). In general, River has a crew 1.5 times larger for rotation, which means you can save 1 T23 by disbanding 3.3 (or 2) River B2 from man-power.

But, a T23GP can steam only ~180 days per year, while River B2 can go 300 days per year. In short, in man-power point of view, a River B2 is 5.5 (or 3.5) times efficient in view of "presence". Of course, "presence of T23" and "presence of River B2" have very different meaning, so this comparison is not fair, but this also clearly shows the merit of River OPVs. Note River B1 are MORE lean manned, and MORE cheap.

Thus, using River B1 (B2) for WIGS/Med. in place of T23 is a huge huge saving in resource (= cost and man-power), which will be a critical contribution to enable CVTF working.

@Donald-san: Whilst the loss of one T23 can be explained when replaced by the ability to deploy 3 OPV/Sloops, losing 3 is politically too far, and I think unnecessary. Cuts may come, but given the current appetite for ground wars, the army will (and probably should take the brunt), the the navy will not see "new" money so something needs to be done.

Hopefully.

I'd be more conservative and go back to the 3 gun Amazonas design - maybe having all 3 30mm Seahawk Sigma gun mounts with LMM. I'd keep the crane as it will be needed for HADR operations.

Good choice, I agree.

[PAUL MARSAY]

I think the batch 2 need to be upgunned to give them a more global capability exactly by how much is a matter for debate .
The question of fisheries and control of U.K. waters after brexit needs a bit of thought , it could be similar to now or it could need a major increase and that is discounting any terrorist threat.
Going slightly off topic I liked the idea of a "Home fleet " as discussed in " saving the Royal Navy " , I accept that some of the force structures were unrealistic but for overarching control and certainly PR could be positive.

[shark bait]

What's the point? They're not suppose to be going up against anything tastey, its for maritime security, not surface combat.

If its equipped for combat it must be able to counter some highly potent threats. Look at the fast attack craft around the world, see how their packed with missiles that would kill a river which has zero countermeasures against such threats. Upgunning a river would also mean adding artisan and CAMM ect...., and we're now left with a silly light frigate, not an OPV for cruising round the caribbean, or counting fish.

[Repulse]

Whilst trying to avoid replaying old arguments, the fact is that the Rivers could be available to cover low threat commitments in the next 10 years when manpower and focus on the Maritime Groups mean that the FF/DDs will not be. Fisheries weaponry is not appropriate for this role as much as going too far in the other direction. Post Brexit it is key that the navy is not all tied up in Port, and we cannot wait for the mythical T31.

[imperialman]

Medway looking good, photo taken today.

[shark bait]

is it just me, or have imgr images stopped displaying on here for everyone?

[RetroSicotte]

is it just me, or have imgr images stopped displaying on here for everyone?

Seems fine for me?

[Smokey]

HMS Severn, a River class offshore patrol vessel, will be be decommissioned by the end of this year, being replaced by HMS Forth.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-sev ... oned-year/

[Repulse]

Still hoping they keep HMS Tyne as a UK EEZ MCM Test / SF platform. I understand the SF like them due to the large deck space.

[shark bait]

When we can't afford to keep our frigates at sea there is no room for the batch 1's.

[donald_of_tokyo]

When we can't afford to keep our frigates at sea there is no room for the batch 1's.

Not necessarily.
- if it is man power, River B1 (45) is a quarter of an escort (180), small but I agree not negligible. But, OPV can provide 70% more (300 vs 180 days) sea-going days with that crew. (7 times efficient per crew)
- if it is purchase cost, 10 times. if it is maintenance, I understand also 10 times (because it is roughly proportional to the purchase cost)
We cannot fly a Typhoon by stopping a Hawk T1A.

However, I agree to SharkBait-san because RN is fully using its OPV "resource" on River B2s. (Do not blame them for their purchasing cost. It is to save ship building industry (I mean TOBA), not the OPVs). Additional resource is not there.

But, I think there are 2+1 chances for the River B1s to stay within UK.
1: Replace Brecon, a training ship at HMS Raleigh, and Cromer, a training ship at Britannia Royal Naval College
2: BF getting them
(+3: RN shift to the "presence ship concept", i.e. replacing APT-S and/or 1 Kipion with (a bit up-armed R-B2) OPV, as we discussed in escort thread)

[donald_of_tokyo]

Some news:

- HMS Clyde back on patrol, after overhaul at South Africa.
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/06/02/hms ... r-a-decade
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/01/12/fal ... uth-africa

- HMS Mersy gets new 2 RHIBs, Pacific 24, replacing 2 Pacific 22s.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/imps ... -24-boats/

- HMS Tyne has no information, after it was announced that MCMV crew is tentatively crewing her.

- HMS Servern, enjoying seafood festival, while look like actively working on EEZ patrol, including escorting Russian vessel.
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/153430 ... ebrations/
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/royal-n ... story.html
http://www.aol.co.uk/news/2017/05/30/hm ... h-channel/

- Are there any more photo/info on HMS Forth, or Medway?

[marktigger]

Donald i'd replace Brecon with walney and refit her to the updated hunt standard and return her to the Fleet. And put the river I & I.5 into the Training Flotilla for the RNR/BRNC/Sea Cadets so they could be surged into the Patrol role if necessary.

[S M H]

Donald i'd replace Brecon with walney and refit her to the updated hunt standard and return her to the Fleet. And put the river I & I.5 into the Training Flotilla for the RNR/BRNC/Sea Cadets so they could be surged into the Patrol role if necessary.

This was the rational behind the Bird class patrol craft being assigned to the training flotilla. B.R.N.C. had two.

[dmereifield]

Do we know which will be the home port of the batch 2's? Since, as it seems, the plan is still to replace the batch 1's with the batch 2's, will they be based at Portsmouth?

[Pongoglo]

For what its worth I am not a Brexiteer but I do think this a step in the right direction....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rn_rm=als1

However ! If we are to even think about beginning to police our poxy 12 miles territorial limit let alone a 200 mile EEZ we need to keep the River Batch 1's !