River Class (OPV) (RN)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Like shedding the "warload" and compacting some masts/ antennae?Tempest414 wrote:I have to say I have always liked the B1's looks
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _c1982.jpg
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: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
HMS Medway is start carrying 20ft ISO containers. At least, 2 can be seen, one on her starboard waist, and another in her flight deck. Mission deck, it is!
[add] 24 Commando Royal Engineers, is retweeting the Medway's photo, stating "Very much looking forward to working with
HMS_Medway in the future. See you next week!". I think this means HMS Medway is to carry 24 Commando or work with it.
- Does this mean she will be sent to Caribbean ocean in "future" = next year?
- Or, HMS Medway is to conduct training with 24 Commando next week, and only that?
(In this case, my question is, "future" and "next week" is the same thing or other things?)
[add] 24 Commando Royal Engineers, is retweeting the Medway's photo, stating "Very much looking forward to working with
HMS_Medway in the future. See you next week!". I think this means HMS Medway is to carry 24 Commando or work with it.
- Does this mean she will be sent to Caribbean ocean in "future" = next year?
- Or, HMS Medway is to conduct training with 24 Commando next week, and only that?
(In this case, my question is, "future" and "next week" is the same thing or other things?)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
“We are thinking about how we might enhance the lethality of the Batch II OPVs”
RAdm Paul Halton
So, it is not completely a fantasy. Although there are many options other than "up-arming" (USV, UAV, etc), the term "enhance the lethality" looks more like talking about armaments.
Easy idea is "adding LMM"?
RAdm Paul Halton
So, it is not completely a fantasy. Although there are many options other than "up-arming" (USV, UAV, etc), the term "enhance the lethality" looks more like talking about armaments.
Easy idea is "adding LMM"?
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
There are a number of other small changes that could fall into the "enhancing lethality" category, without any structural changes to the vessel:
- More 50 cal, as happened with the MCMVs;
Replace crew-served weapons with stabilised platforms;
Containerised LMM-capable UAVs;
Perhaps trialling a 40mm AGL (is there a stabilised version of that?).
Adding an RM party with iLAW/ASM/Starstreak.
Bolt-on ceramic and kevlar armour for protection of crew and major systems
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Kevlar amour and other hand-carried heavy (in infantary point of view) weapons will surely make River B2 "more lethal", I agree.
And, no, regardless of how much up-armed, River B2 will never make a frigate or alike. Its damage control level is not frigate standard, as I understand (36 onboard crew, or 56 including rotation, says so). It is more about how to improve constabulary operations, I guess.
But, for what?
1: With LMM and ATGM or others added, can it be used in Hormuz strait to counter Iranian fast boats, not in singleton but as a minor member following a T23/T45? (Not sure).
2: If Red Sea, LMM is useless against Hoithi-rebels' Anti-ship missile attack. At least a CIWS will be needed. CIWS is doable, but not sure if it is cost effective (it is maintenance intensive)
3: the possible most drastic will be to replace the bow 30mm gun with a gun adopted in T31e (57 or 76 mm). As such, logistic problem is not large. But, without expensive guided rounds, it won't be efficient against nether fast boat nor ASM. But, it will make the ship "look" a bit fighty, sometimes important for public and for diplomacy (what if Falkland Island guard ship have a 57/76 mm gun?). If a River B2 with such gun travel around Britain Island, visiting ports, inviting many young gentlemen and women, recruiting issue may be a bit relaxed?
Not sure....
[EDIT] My proposed option is, 1 = modest and realistic, 2 = slightly too much, 3 = very big jump = rather a fantasy at this moment. But, my intention was to show options with various levels.
And, no, regardless of how much up-armed, River B2 will never make a frigate or alike. Its damage control level is not frigate standard, as I understand (36 onboard crew, or 56 including rotation, says so). It is more about how to improve constabulary operations, I guess.
But, for what?
1: With LMM and ATGM or others added, can it be used in Hormuz strait to counter Iranian fast boats, not in singleton but as a minor member following a T23/T45? (Not sure).
2: If Red Sea, LMM is useless against Hoithi-rebels' Anti-ship missile attack. At least a CIWS will be needed. CIWS is doable, but not sure if it is cost effective (it is maintenance intensive)
3: the possible most drastic will be to replace the bow 30mm gun with a gun adopted in T31e (57 or 76 mm). As such, logistic problem is not large. But, without expensive guided rounds, it won't be efficient against nether fast boat nor ASM. But, it will make the ship "look" a bit fighty, sometimes important for public and for diplomacy (what if Falkland Island guard ship have a 57/76 mm gun?). If a River B2 with such gun travel around Britain Island, visiting ports, inviting many young gentlemen and women, recruiting issue may be a bit relaxed?
Not sure....
[EDIT] My proposed option is, 1 = modest and realistic, 2 = slightly too much, 3 = very big jump = rather a fantasy at this moment. But, my intention was to show options with various levels.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
I have to say this is a turn up . As I said on the other thread the up arming of the B2's outside of fitting LMM was a bit of dead end as the RN was not going to add another gun type just for five OPV's however if Type 31 comes in with 40mm or 57mm this could open the door for an upgrade on the B2's to one of these weapons with 3P ammo giving a big step up in both air and surface defence of the ship
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
This was ruled out in commons defence meeting about a week ago . However I have said in the past that if a B2 fitted with 1 x 40mm and 2 x 30mm with LMM was used in a escort role like sodonald_of_tokyo wrote:- With LMM and ATGM or others added, can it be used in Hormuz strait to counter Iranian fast boats, not in singleton but as a minor member following a T23/T45? (Not sure).
1 B2 then 4 to 6 tankers a frigate in the middle more tankers and a B2 at the back. The B2's could fend off fast attack boats and the frigate could use its CAMM to defend against air attack
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
You honestly think they'd put Phalanx CIWS on a B2 River when the T23 doesn't even have them?!
It's an offshore patrol vessel, not a T45 destroyer!
It's an offshore patrol vessel, not a T45 destroyer!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Thanks. Could you share the details? I understand, "River B2 cannot sent to Hormuz Strait", as Lord West said. But, it is NOT "up-armed" River B2?Tempest414 wrote:This was ruled out in commons defence meeting about a week ago .donald_of_tokyo wrote:- With LMM and ATGM or others added, can it be used in Hormuz strait to counter Iranian fast boats, not in singleton but as a minor member following a T23/T45? (Not sure).
Oh, please do not take me wrong, I am not saying she can be sent to the Strait. I am just asking, if she can.
Also, if not for Hormuz strait, for what purpose do the Rear Admiral is thinking of "might" enhancing the lethality?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
As I said, unlikely. So agree. Please note "CIWS on River B2" has its origin on SavetheRoyalNavy article (not me), so there are others who might think it is valid.SKB wrote:You honestly think they'd put Phalanx CIWS on a B2 River when the T23 doesn't even have them?!
It's a bleedin' offshore patrol vessel for Christ's sakes, not a T45....
Technically, adding CIWS to River B2 is surely doable I think. One Phalanx is much light weight than 6 ISO 20ft containers (River B2 design requirement), and power and water piping is "doable" if not easy. Additional man-power can be easily absorbed in the "50-strong soldiers' accommodation". Yes, I think it is attractive option "on paper", but has Pro and Con, for sure.
- Con. I understand CIWS is very much maintenance heavy = costy to operate.
- Pro. It can be rotated, as MOD does with CIWS on Bays, Waves, and Tides. So, a River B2 can carry a CIWS only when she goes to a theater it is needed.
It is a matter or aim and cost.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
While I would be quite (pleasantly) surprised to see the main gun being changed on the B2s, there is room for a non-deck-penetrating system, with a modest magazine capacity, to be retro-fitted without any major structural changes. Personally, I think there is a great deal of room for improvement without getting into changing major systems. Considering available budgets, I think we are much more likely to see re-use of existing infantry/light vehicle-level weapons
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4106
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
The best way to up-arm a RB2 would have been to build it with a hanger in the first place....
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Sorry no I don't have the details hopefully some can put them up on heredonald_of_tokyo wrote:Thanks. Could you share the details? I understand, "River B2 cannot sent to Hormuz Strait", as Lord West said. But, it is NOT "up-armed" River B2?
This is the million dollar question what is going on that such a statement would be made by a high ranking officerdonald_of_tokyo wrote:Also, if not for Hormuz strait, for what purpose do the Rear Admiral is thinking of "might" enhancing the lethality?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Esp.as there is already a mag in place for thatPoiuytrewq wrote:The best way to up-arm a RB2 would have been to build it with a hanger in the first place....
... I would imagine it is for re-arming helos that have dropped their torp load, and will need to be quick about getting back to stn/ to continue the chase
- in effect, a "petrol" station, with other goodies near by the checkout, for them
- but when you have assets like this to distribute, say, 50 mls apart the main force... every little bit helps
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: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
It is not up-arming River B2, it is rebuilding it?Poiuytrewq wrote:The best way to up-arm a RB2 would have been to build it with a hanger in the first place....
By the way, to operate a helo with some useful efficiency, it must be a Khareef derivative (100 m hull) with a hangar, or River B2 (90 m hull) without a hangar.
Looking around the world, 80-90m OPVs with flight deck and helo hanger, seldom carries it. Irish navy, no. RNZN, only sometimes. I even think current trend is shifting not to have a helo hangar on 80-90m class OPV (aka German Corvettes).
# But I might be wrong...
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4106
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Thanks Donald, that made me laugh.donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is not up-arming River B2, it is rebuilding it?
My point is that if the RB2's had of been around 105m LOA, with a wildcat hanger things would have been very different. RN would now be in the process of building at least 13 Frigates plus the 6 Destroyers along with 5 highly capable and genuinely globally deployable OPV's already in the water.
If HMG is really considering sending the RB2's into harms way it makes the original decision to build them without hangers even more ridiculous.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
The River B2 should have been the BAE avenger, but we cant change that now, so lets just add 24 Mk41 cells and call it a day!
@LandSharkUK
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Only 24 I fear you are thinking to smallshark bait wrote:The River B2 should have been the BAE avenger, but we cant change that now, so lets just add 24 Mk41 cells and call it a day!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
If the River B2's had been something like the Avebger you'd probably have gotten 3 hulls not 5 and given the higher than anticipated T26 costs you wouldn't have had a reduction from 13 T26 to 8T26+5T31 but problay a cut to 10 T26 and no T31.
So, either you have:
1) as now:
5 x River B2 (potentially with enhanced lethaliry in due course)
5 x T31 Arrowhead 140
8 x T26
Or
2) hypothetically,
3 x Avenger
10 x T26
What is the better option of the two, in hindsight?
Option 1 doesn't look all that bad, depending on the final T31 and River B2 fit outs
So, either you have:
1) as now:
5 x River B2 (potentially with enhanced lethaliry in due course)
5 x T31 Arrowhead 140
8 x T26
Or
2) hypothetically,
3 x Avenger
10 x T26
What is the better option of the two, in hindsight?
Option 1 doesn't look all that bad, depending on the final T31 and River B2 fit outs
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4106
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Definitely this one.dmereifield wrote:What is the better option of the two, in hindsight?
2) hypothetically,
3 x Avenger
10 x T26
Another 5 or 6 Arrowhead 140's on top of this would have resulted in a nicely balanced fleet.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
https://www.defenceprocurementinternati ... -dsei-2019
Not sure how "reliable" this article is (I hope he is surely not mixing Leander and River B2). Independent issue is, if RN will be interested in this "apparently heavily armed" version, or not. I hope NOT, but
I wanna see the "model" stated as follows
A possible vision of the River class’s future, with enhanced lethality and ISR capabilities, was also on display at DSEI 2019. It included a 76 mm gun, decoy dispensers, anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles and the possibility of a towed array sonar, which is a proposal being studied jointly by the Royal Navy and manufacturer BAE systems.
Not sure how "reliable" this article is (I hope he is surely not mixing Leander and River B2). Independent issue is, if RN will be interested in this "apparently heavily armed" version, or not. I hope NOT, but
I wanna see the "model" stated as follows
A possible vision of the River class’s future, with enhanced lethality and ISR capabilities, was also on display at DSEI 2019. It included a 76 mm gun, decoy dispensers, anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles and the possibility of a towed array sonar, which is a proposal being studied jointly by the Royal Navy and manufacturer BAE systems.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
We have seen the Thai B2 design fitted with 76mm and decoys plus a mock up of the second Thai navy B2 with anti-ship missiles so it is doable but why the RN would want to go that far is the question that grabbing me . We have talked in past about what could be done with a B2 and what could fitted and the list is long but this is a little mad.
We have all been slamming BAE and the MOD about the cost of the River B2's but could the hulls have been built to a corvette standard ? sound unlikely
Edit ; the 2nd Thai navy B2 is in the water and is fitted with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 30mm , 4 x Harpoon missiles
We have all been slamming BAE and the MOD about the cost of the River B2's but could the hulls have been built to a corvette standard ? sound unlikely
Edit ; the 2nd Thai navy B2 is in the water and is fitted with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 30mm , 4 x Harpoon missiles
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
IMO if an upgrade is wanted then it has to be sensible these are still only OPVs after all. I’d go for something like 3 x 30mm fitted with LLM then 2 large ISOs one either side of the funnel/crane, one to house and maintain a rotary UAV the other as a control room.Tempest414 wrote:We have seen the Thai B2 design fitted with 76mm and decoys plus a mock up of the second Thai navy B2 with anti-ship missiles so it is doable but why the RN would want to go that far is the question that grabbing me . We have talked in past about what could be done with a B2 and what could fitted and the list is long but this is a little mad.
We have all been slamming BAE and the MOD about the cost of the River B2's but could the hulls have been built to a corvette standard ? sound unlikely
I think anything really more than this would just be asking for them to be put in situations they shouldn’t be and a waste of money.
I do believe the hull build standard is meant to be on the very upper limit of an OPV so I wouldn’t be too surprised if it’s knocking on the door of a covert build standard.
We could of got more if they were planed for, for the cost we could of got 4-5 true global OPVs / patrol vessels with hangers and the lot, but it wasn’t about the cost and more to do with the last minuet rush as for some reason the RN kept thinking right until the last minuet that the T26 design would be done on time.