River Class (OPV) (RN)

[Repulse]

From the information online the BAE mk 110 57mm gun does need ammunition hoists, but shouldn't be unsolvable for a B3 design.

[Ron5]

Yep, slow day.

[Caribbean]

From the information online the BAE mk 110 57mm gun does need ammunition hoists, but shouldn't be unsolvable for a B3 design

"Length of ammunition hoists: 1,960 to 9,805 mm (gun can be operated without hoists)". The turret on its own hold 120 rounds. Turret alone is 7t. Weight with 1000 rounds (and presumably associated hoists and magazines) 14t. Designed for hulls of 140t plus

[ArmChairCivvy]

The turret on its own hold 120 rounds. Turret alone is 7t. Weight with 1000 rounds (and presumably associated hoists and magazines) 14t.

It is not only double weight, but automated mags are also very expensive. For an OPV 120 rounds are a plenty. Just design in the void for adding the mag later... no, it is not big enough for a gym in the meantime

[Caribbean]

Why?

The cta is an expensive way of freeing up some turret space.

I'll wager it would be less effective than a bofors too.

I agree - the Bofors 40mm is very capable. There is not much point in trying to develop a variant of the 40CTA to complete with it as a "main gun", which is why I suggested that it would be better as a replacement for the secondary ASCG 30mm. The 40CTA is intended as an easy replacement for other 25/30mm systems, so I do think that it is worth investigating whether there may be some benefit in moving all RN secondary armament to a common calibre with the Army, particularly if it is a simple upgrade to the existing mount. The GPR ammunition variant would probably be best for naval use and more effective than the available 30mm ammunition.

[Spinflight]

The current 30mm are quite capable. Less than ten years old too.

Cta is useful where space is at a premium. No lack of space on a deck.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[Repulse]

The turret on its own hold 120 rounds. Turret alone is 7t. Weight with 1000 rounds (and presumably associated hoists and magazines) 14t.

It is not only double weight, but automated mags are also very expensive. For an OPV 120 rounds are a plenty. Just design in the void for adding the mag later... no, it is not big enough for a gym in the meantime

Thanks @Caribbean. I'd argue that we are looking slightly beyond just an OPV and heading for a Sloop which has a higher deterrent capability. As such additional magazines would be a small but needed investment in my view.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Discussion of up-arming River B2/3 shall be based on what kind of tasks they are going to do.

For the OPV roles, currently River B1s are taking (=EEZ patrol, fishery, anti-smuggler, HADR, port-visit), a cheap 30 mm gun (or even a 20 mm gun) is much better than a 57mm. For example, cost of ammo available off the shelf is very different.

For the APT-S role (= port visit along south Atlantic, training with foreign navy, Falkland Island show the flag), I think an up-armed River B"3" may come. In this case, what we need is only 2 hulls (3 at most), so 76/57mm is not good in logistical point of view. So, if we decide to arm MHC hulls with a 57/76 mm individually, then 2 (or 3) River B3s shall have it. In this case, 1000 ammo is good to have. 120 is not enough. If not, River B"3" shall use existing armaments, such as 20mm CIWS and 30mm gun (with LMM). With 5-10 m hull extension, to add a fixed Wildcat hangar, it will be a perfect solution for APT-S as currently is.


40mm CTA for navies has a merit on CTA-side, but not in Navy side, I guess. Its maintenance and ammo cost will be vastly expensive than the 30mm guns, which is much more common world-wide.

ONLY if, it can replace BOTH 20mm CIWS and 30mm Gun, it will become one candidate. This means, T23 is finally getting CIWSs. Also this will mean the large side space of T45 will be released to be used for anything else (e.g. move NSM there and re-role Harpoon space for additional CAMM). Without this scenario, I see no merit for Navy to be armed with CTA 40mm.

[Caribbean]

The current 30mm are quite capable. Less than ten years old too

What is the barrel life? The Bofors 40mm has a life of c. 5000 rounds. Can't find what it is for the Bushmaster. I would have thought that, with normal training usage, the first guns will need refurb'ing in the next few years. Which, at the speed at which these programs seem to move, is not far away.

Cta is useful where space is at a premium.

Such as in an existing gun mount?
Not a an immediate priority , but simply a logical progression when circumstances warrant a change.

[Pongoglo]

Interesting piece from UKDJ - according to Rear Admiral Burton, Commander UK Maritime forces, the RN has enough 'frigates and destroyers to protect Queen Elizabeth' because;

"We’re building OPVs as well to deliver some of the capabilities that would otherwise be delivered by frigates and destroyers".

So its official, the role of the River Batch 2's will be take over constabulary tasks such as APT(S) and APT(N) in order to free up escorts to protect QEC. Leaving the EU and with a massively expanded EEZ beggars the question that seeing that we have never used frigates or destroyers for fishery protection who and what is going to count the fish !

Retain the Batch 1 Rivers - only way to go

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-n ... elizabeth/

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think he says nothing. He mentioned about T31. And now, T31 is "5 or more hulls" officially. So, literally, what he said is,

- RN has 19 escorts and 4 OPVs now
- Within a few years, will have 19 escorts and 5 OPVs.
- In T31 future, will have "19 or more" escorts and 5 OPVs.

Then, RN has enough escorts to support CVTF. With 1 more OPV (River B2), which could be used to partly cover FRE (for example), and possibly more escorts (T31), tension to the escort fleet will be relaxed.

No problem. The main problem is if there will really be "5 or more" T31 escorts.

This is what I read.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Agree with Donald:

He lists everything in the pipeline, pauses, and passes his judgement. Typing from the recording, somebody inserts a comma (before that, a grammatical error in itself) when it should have been a dash.
"So I’m confident that with the eight Type 26s, the six Type 45s, the OPVs and the Type 31s that are coming online, that will be sufficient to..."

[Pongoglo]

Dont know where this stuff about comma's and dashes comes in . I have quoted exactly as written in the article, in fact it was a straight cut and paste;

'We’re building OPVs as well to deliver some of the capabilities that would otherwise be delivered by frigates and destroyers.'

As for

'1 more OPV (River B2), which could be used to partly cover FRE (for example), and possibly more escorts (T31), tension to the escort fleet will be relaxed'.

Yet again this mythical additional (or sixth) OPV which I have never seen mentioned anywhere outside the imaginations of this column. The 'five or more Type 31's' however have on many an occasion and by senior ministers too. Whether you like it or not Type 31 is a reality and will happen although sadly I fear after and not concurrently with the Type 26 build.

[ArmChairCivvy]

sadly I fear after and not concurrently with the Type 26 build.

Good that we find at least something to disagree about. This place has gone eerily quiet... so I am off to the beach, too!

with the eight Type 26s, the six Type 45s, the OPVs and the Type 31s that are coming online, that will be

- the first that in the above is about the T31s
- the second one is about the whole list; we just have a tendency here to speak about one class in isolation (pet hates and the opposites...)

[donald_of_tokyo]

As for
'1 more OPV (River B2), which could be used to partly cover FRE (for example), and possibly more escorts (T31), tension to the escort fleet will be relaxed'.
Yet again this mythical additional (or sixth) OPV ....

I am not talking about 6th OPV. As I stated, from 4 River B1s to 5 River B2s, it is "1 more OPV".

[Pongoglo]

I think he says nothing. He mentioned about T31. And now, T31 is "5 or more hulls" officially

Yes but you miss my point and I say again what he actually said was ;

'We’re building OPVs as well to deliver some of the capabilities that would otherwise be delivered by frigates and destroyers.'

So to say he is saying 'nothing' is wrong. What he is actually saying is that the new build OPV's ie the River 2's are specifically being constructed to deliver 'some of the capabilities' that would hitherto have been delivered by frigates and destroyers. I appreciate that English is probably not your first language and it is not I that brought in the semantics of grammar but this is not 'nothing' as you state .

If the role of the River 2's is to cover some of the tasks previously delivered by the escort force, and we assume APT(S), APT(N) and as you say FRE then it is fundamentally different from that of the River 1's which were purchased specifically for the Fishery Protection Squadron (FPS) and to police our EEZ. Yes I know that the River 1's have increasingly been used to cover these tasks spending many months away from home, as indeed have RFA's but it was never their primary role.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks.

'We’re building OPVs as well to deliver some of the capabilities that would otherwise be delivered by frigates and destroyers.'

I got your point, and understood our miss-communication. Yes. This is "important" information, but, it has been stated from the beginning of River B2 program. "Nothing new", was what I meant.

If the role of the River 2's is to cover some of the tasks previously delivered by the escort force, and we assume APT(S), APT(N) and as you say FRE then it is fundamentally different from that of the River 1's which were purchased specifically for the Fishery Protection Squadron (FPS) and to police our EEZ. Yes I know that the River 1's have increasingly been used to cover these tasks spending many months away from home, as indeed have RFA's but it was never their primary role.

I have no objection to these comments. Now RN is using River B1s for tasks other than fishery protection, which was earmarked from the Severn's Caribbean deployment in early 2015. My point is, it has beed said from 2014, when River B2 program started (*1). So, there is nothing new in his comment, and just reconfirming the existing statements.

*1 see, http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britai ... vrit=59196

the vessels are being designed to patrol the broader oceans as much as waters around the UK.

Followings are from wiki...
-The Ministry of Defence stated that the Batch 2 ships are capable of being used for constabulary duties such as "counter-terrorism, counter-piracy and anti-smuggling operations.
-According to BAE Systems, the vessels are designed to deploy globally, conducting anti-piracy, counter-terrorism and anti-smuggling tasks currently conducted by frigates and destroyers

[Repulse]

I really hope the mini SDSR sees sense and keeps the 3 Batch 1s for Fisheries/ EEZ patrol. HMS Clyde can go as a B2 would be a straight swap. I think a short term drop of a T23 would be worth it, so they can be crewed.

[ArmChairCivvy]

from 4 River B1s to 5 River B2s, it is "1 more OPV"

Those are the facts, and some - at least me - see the whole statement as being about a balanced mix - which not only covers the tasks, but also helps to solve the manning "crisis". - anyone remember the redundancies that created this crisis?

[marktigger]

the manning crisis is the more important issue. And unfortunetly it was seen to be necessary to have redundancies to try and stabilise the budget issues. It will have a much longer term effect than filling in the short term problem. Investing in manning is always a long term project and the shortages will effect the fleet for a generation.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Investing in manning is always a long term project and the shortages will effect the fleet for a generation

Indeed, the whole image of joining for a career that you can retire from (full, or part pension - individuals will always be different, you need a mix, just like with surface vessels).

it was seen to be necessary to have redundancies to try and stabilise the budget issues.

- this is what I have been writing about on other threads
- now that the Commands "do" their own budgets, and the Headrooms - universally - have been done away with
... is it" back to the old game of" cutting manpower, readiness, and within the latter - the properly dimensioned exercises

[donald_of_tokyo]

On the River B2 capabilities.

There will be 1 more (= 5) River B2s than current 4 River B1/1.5s. What can we do with this hull?

A simple idea will be to just reduce the sea-going days per hull by 20%, (say from 300 days to 240 days, or 240 days to 192 days, etc...). Another idea will be to use the "1 more" hull more actively. Then;

A: Can a River B2 work as MCMV flag ship, replacing current HMS Echo's task in Med? With "50-54 more cabin designed for RM" and two ISO 6m containers aside the crane, may be she can do it?

In view of mine-counter-measure, the first step is to "identify" mines. REMUS UUVs, which is just a simple side-scan-sonar ROV, will sweep the bottom to do this. But, in this case, the pre-swept chart is important so that to make a simple differential image to identify suspicious items, as I understand. In this "pre-scanning" in peace time (was called Q-route survey in RNZN, was a task for Moa-class IPB), Echo class will be much faster = efficient than using REMUS itself.

B: Can two of the five River B2 be up-armed to cover APT-S?

I think yes. Add a retractable Wildcat hangar (9m +6m =15), two 20mm CIWS = one on bow, and another on top of the hangar. Add ESM and Chaff/Flare launcher ahead of the bridge. At first, I thought the top weight will be too high. But, when I see HMS Clyde, the top weight added by the helo-deck on River B1 surely exceeds that of River B2 replacing the crane with a retractable hangar. The "50-54 more cabin designed for RM" can easily handle air-crew (11 *1), 3-4(?) additional (compared to 30mm) crews for the 2 CIWS, and 2-3 more (?) for ESM/Chaff/Flare.

In this option, of course the modification cost, Wildcat number, and the whole man-power are the issue. But, this option is directly related to abandoning APT-S escort, which will release ~3.5 hull equivalent. In other words, it will make it possible to disband two T23GP now, use one 180-strong crew to relax man power crisis, and the other 180-strong crew to man 3 River B2 OPVs (overmanning to enable 300-sea-going days a year) and this 2 (up-armed) River B2.5s. By no performing CAMM upgrades and overhawls, we can get 100-200M GBP, which is more than enough to perform this "2 River B2 up-arming". Finally, the Wildcats are already there, just changing the hull from T23GPs to River B"2.5".

Also, if only 2 (not 3) T23GPs are disbanded, another 1.5 (of the 3.5 released from APT-S role) can be used to "relax" the escort fleet tension. Or, this "1.5" can provide 4-months per year routine deployment as "APT-S escort". In this case, the 2nd-River B2.5 will be free to go elsewhere, say Horn of Africa, Red Sea, etc...

But, this option will "kill" T31 concurrent idea.

*1 see http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-la ... erman-navy
the 11-strong team of fliers and engineers of a Wildcat deployed with German Frigate.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good post Donald. the RN should advertise for a "lateral thinker" post and you would be qualified to apply. So don't get me wrong when I point out a few things:

current HMS Echo's task in Med?

- Echo Class, yes, but HMS enterprise, I believe

containers aside the crane

- then you proceed to promote the removal of the crane?

a retractable Wildcat hangar (9m +6m =15), two 20mm CIWS = one on bow, and another on top of the hangar.

additional (compared to 30mm) crews for the 2 CIWS

- I wonder if you know how the 20mm CIWS engage? It is quite different from the RN 30 mm guns that are automated on the deck, but in fact remote controlled

180-strong crew to man 3 River B2 OPVs (overmanning to enable 300-sea-going days a year)

- this is the punch line, and not often put into the context. It is all "OMG, the RN was made to eat" so many extra OPVs just because of the incompetence of the TOBA mandarins

[clinch]

In this option, of course the modification cost, Wildcat number, and the whole man-power are the issue. But, this option is directly related to abandoning APT-S escort, which will release ~3.5 hull equivalent. In other words, it will make it possible to disband two T23GP now, use one 180-strong crew to relax man power crisis, and the other 180-strong crew to man 3 River B2 OPVs (overmanning to enable 300-sea-going days a year) and this 2 (up-armed) River B2.5s. By no performing CAMM upgrades and overhawls, we can get 100-200M GBP, which is more than enough to perform this "2 River B2 up-arming". Finally, the Wildcats are already there, just changing the hull from T23GPs to River B"2.5".

Also, if only 2 (not 3) T23GPs are disbanded, another 1.5 (of the 3.5 released from APT-S role) can be used to "relax" the escort fleet tension. Or, this "1.5" can provide 4-months per year routine deployment as "APT-S escort". In this case, the 2nd-River B2.5 will be free to go elsewhere, say Horn of Africa, Red Sea, etc...

The way things are going, I don't see any point spending money on another light frigate design. Increase the Type 26 order to 10. Together with the 6 T45s, that's the escort fleet. Remove three Type 23 now to conform to that fleet structure. It will save cash and provide plenty of personnel for the extra OPVs.

Buy three more Rivers and keep the existing Type 1 and 1.5 Rivers. That gives us 16 escorts as well as 12 OPVs to do the constabulary work and patrol our waters as we leave the EU. In terms of up-gunning, there was a good piece on Think Defence arguing that the way the River 2s have been re-designed shows the intention of them being put in harm's way. The lack of a hangar is a positive, it suggests, in that the new Rivers can be armed with a modular weapons fit when needed in containerised systems on the flight deck. CAMM, for example.

In terms of the National Shipbuilding strategy, build one Type 26 every two years over 32 years (an AAW version to eventually replace T45). Build one OPV every alternate year. The difference between 24 and 32 leaves slots for other vessels.

At a cost of £770m per T26 and £116m per River, that is £886m every two years - an average of £443m per year. The cost may come down with regular orders. Forget Type 31 and move on to the MCM fleet.

[albedo]

As a total non-expert, can I ask a stupid question? Is it unthinkingly impossible that a demountable hangar could be designed that would fit in 1 (2?) shipping containers? Is there not some design ingenuity that could create an adequately strong and fairly easily erected (maybe with some suitable anchorage points added to the deck) temporary structure with enough space for medium maintenance?