River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »


(Sol Paranormal) 19th September 2019

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

Image
Image

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:Why are you only giving the B1's a 20 year life surly they should be good for 30 years which takes them up to 2033
I think 25 years is realistic, pushing it out to 30 years would be cost prohibitive and in all likelihood, avialibility would reduce.
Caribbean wrote:Probably 2028 would be the latest- that would be 25 years service for the first of the class.
Agreed, it would be interesting to know how much thought has gone into this within the MOD. After all the RB1's should have decommissioned by now. As the RB1's were to be replaced by the RB2's then the allotted replacements are already funded and in the water. That means more money will need to be found to fund 3 replacement vessels within 10 years anyway or the fleet will shrink once again by 3 vessels between 2025/2028.

Why not just get on and spend it now?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »


Image
:clap:

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Caribbean wrote:Replacement with three purpose-designed patrol frigates (c. 2500t range and a target cost of c. £175m) would be a sensible move and would provide the patrol fleet with a greater capability in higher-threat areas.
I would agree with you had the T31 not gone ahead and more T26s purchased (my preference), but the last thing the RN now needs is another class.

It feels like the best hope now is 3 B2+ replacements for the B1s, to keep 8 OPV (Sloops) with 57mm + 2x30mm guns with investment in off board UAV/USuV/UUV kit.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SW1 »

Caribbean wrote:Replacement with three purpose-designed patrol frigates (c. 2500t range and a target cost of c. £175m) would be a sensible move and would provide the patrol fleet with a greater capability in higher-threat areas.
Why would you spend 175m on a patrol frigate? You’d be better off buying 2 extra type 31.

So we’re now saying saying we need to spend money to up gun river opv’s because we’re short frigates, yet have billions of pounds worth of frigates and destroyers mothballed or tied up as harbour ships for years at a time.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote: now saying saying we need to spend money to up gun river opv’s because we’re short frigates, yet have billions of pounds worth of frigates and destroyers mothballed or tied up
Yes. Let's face it. T23s have been 'world cruising' and a lot of the time without the ASW crew -perhaps even w/o the kit - onboard. Many of the missions have been for real, no doubt.

What is the manning (saving)? I think the 180 goes down by about 20 under such circumstances. and the T31 is supposed to have what crew? The Danes can man them with about 100, but then again it is all down to the mission (and how they are/ will be fitted out)
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote: now saying saying we need to spend money to up gun river opv’s because we’re short frigates, yet have billions of pounds worth of frigates and destroyers mothballed or tied up
Yes. Let's face it. T23s have been 'world cruising' and a lot of the time without the ASW crew -perhaps even w/o the kit - onboard. Many of the missions have been for real, no doubt.

What is the manning (saving)? I think the 180 goes down by about 20 under such circumstances. and the T31 is supposed to have what crew? The Danes can man them with about 100, but then again it is all down to the mission (and how they are/ will be fitted out)
So get your priorities straight and scale back the flag waving to suit your budget. Atlantic/carriers the rest is a none core nice to have. So no need pretending the opv is anything other than an opv

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:scale back the flag waving to suit your budget. Atlantic/carriers the rest is a none core nice to have. So no need pretending the opv is anything other than an opv
I am with the thought, but would disagree about the Gulf (plus the adjoining parts ... all the way to DG... of the Indian Ocean) not being "core".
- though, with the way things seem to be going, the time of us+the French for backfilling for the USN is over
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

SW1 wrote:Why would you spend 175m on a patrol frigate?
Sorry - should have been clearer. There was a recent comment reported from a Government spokesman (possibly the DefSec - can't find the quote at the moment), saying that they were considering more ships for the Navy, in particular, mentioning the T31 and "our excellent patrol vessels". My comment was predicated on this actually happening. In light of the recent comment at DSEI that there might be eight T31 built, I was trying to make the point that, if more OPVs were built, presumably on a time frame to replace the RB1s, that they should be built to warship standards, not OPV standards i.e. patrol frigate, not patrol vessel. I made the mental assumption that the T31s would still be in build at that point (a series of eight, if that happened, would run through to around 2028-30, whereas the RB1 replacements would need to be started by around 2025-26 to be in the water as the RB1s start to decommission).
I would agree with T31 being better (more T26 would be even better), but if the patrol fleet are to be used worldwide, then they also need to be built to higher standards. Building an RB3 to frigate standards of damage control etc should cost around £165 - 175m as a finger-in-the-air estimate.
SW1 wrote:yet have billions of pounds worth of frigates and destroyers mothballed or tied up as harbour ships for years at a time
Well, Lancaster is back at sea and Dauntless is now scheduled for refit. The T23s are all going in for refit one after tha other because they are so old (due to the fannying about with the T26 design) as are the T45s (because of the fannying about with untried and unsuitable engine technology). The money is being spent on the other ships and the work is scheduled, but the work takes time and the age of the frigates limits their availablity. THATS's why we are short of ships and having to consider upgunning OPVs to cover for them.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:
Caribbean wrote:Replacement with three purpose-designed patrol frigates (c. 2500t range and a target cost of c. £175m) would be a sensible move and would provide the patrol fleet with a greater capability in higher-threat areas.
Why would you spend 175m on a patrol frigate? You’d be better off buying 2 extra type 31.

So we’re now saying saying we need to spend money to up gun river opv’s because we’re short frigates, yet have billions of pounds worth of frigates and destroyers mothballed or tied up as harbour ships for years at a time.
I would agree that if there was another 525 million in the pot i.e 3 x 175 million when 2 more type 31's would be a better option

However as for up gunning the the B2's if done with the 40mm should not cost that much and will give the ship better all round defence these are nice ships with a lot to offer but are let down by the 30mm. I feel if we can move to a place where the B2's have a 40mm and a UAV capable of carrying 2 LMM then these ships will be in a very good place

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SW1 »

Caribbean wrote:Sorry - should have been clearer. There was a recent comment reported from a Government spokesman (possibly the DefSec - can't find the quote at the moment), saying that they were considering more ships for the Navy, in particular, mentioning the T31 and "our excellent patrol vessels"
Ok so more more rivers, surely they aren’t going to pause type 26 to fit a few more rivers in, seems a bit odd no more than 3 have been ordered does it not.

Was under the impression Daring was nothing more than a stripped hull in Portsmouth now.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:seems a bit odd no more than 3 have been ordered does it not.
No, but the vagueness about the dates past the first one does. All we have, to go by, is BAE stating what they think they could do
- hence I raised this on the NSS thread
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)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Caribbean wrote:Well, Lancaster is back at sea and Dauntless is now scheduled for refit. The T23s are all going in for refit one after tha other because they are so old (due to the fannying about with the T26 design) as are the T45s (because of the fannying about with untried and unsuitable engine technology). The money is being spent on the other ships and the work is scheduled, but the work takes time and the age of the frigates limits their availablity. THATS's why we are short of ships and having to consider upgunning OPVs to cover for them.
Even though your assessments be good, anyway RN is short of 1400 trained crews as of 2019 summer. And, even though the income recruiting is getting better, still this gap is growing, not relaxed at all. As the PoW's crew now is only 600, and must be growing to 800 (as QLNZ did), another 200 is needed within several months.

Simple calculation shows us that RN is lack of trained manpower for 1600 souls. If about a half of that shall be assigned to ships, it means 800 crew is lacking = 4 T23 or T45 do not have a crew compared to the RN requirement.

So, surely it is not only the LIFEX and maintenance, but more about the lack of man-power.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Simple calculation shows us that RN is lack of trained manpower for 1600 souls. If about a half of that shall be assigned to ships, it means 800 crew is lacking = 4 T23 or T45 do not have a crew compared to the RN requirement.
Donald-san, the RN is short of 1600 personnel is all that we can accurately say. For all we know 1599 of the shortage positions are for administrators and filing clerks. Statements have been made by senior RN staff that the historical crew shortage is close to being resolved. Some posting on here, who seem to be familiar with the situation "on the ground" are of the opinion that many RN personnel are sitting on shore in Portsmouth and Plymouth waiting for sea-going postings (not everyone wants to serve on the carriers). Personally, I think that you are making too many assumptions about crew shortages and not enough about the fact that seven of the T23s are (or have been, as some are now completed) queued up waiting for refit and that all six T45s are still in line for the final resolution to their power problems.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Not sure. The sea going days of every escorts are also significantly reduced by 40%. It means, even for the same number of hulls, 40% more sailors are sitting in port, waiting to go to sea (but assigned to a ship as a crew).

Anyway, 1600 shortage is not small. Assuming all of them is NOT related to RN vessels crewing, I cannot believe. Sorry.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Assuming all of them is NOT related to RN vessels crewing, I cannot believe
You make my point for me :) The truth is, of course, somewhere in the middle, but, as the focus is on getting crews to sea, then we can perhaps, believe the RN when they say that the situation is nearly resolved.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:The sea going days of every escorts are also significantly reduced by 40%
donald_of_tokyo wrote:It means .......... 40% more sailors are sitting in port
This, to me, is more an indication of issues with ships and money. So many are in need of repair and refit that we actually have crew sitting around. Making use of the functioning hulls that we do have has become a necessity, even if only temporarily (which is why I think that the OPV "improved lethality" is going to come from simple bolt-on/ containerised systems, since they can be easily moved on once more capable hulls come along and the crisis is past).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

Both the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are suffering form a lack of new recruits in technical trades and in the retention of existing personnel. Without them even if you have the remainder of a crew ready embark and set sail they can't. From what I have read the MoD is looking to open up its cheque book again to offer additional financial incentives both to recruits and existing personnel in the trades to try to improve things. Whether it will work is any ones guess.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Both the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are suffering form a lack of new recruits in technical trades and in the retention of existing personnel.
Incentives ... what a good idea!

As we have discussed the Gurkha Bde initiative (to roll back, from the follies of the 2010 Review) on that thread in some detail, I hear that the incentives added have meant that they are only abt 30 short of the 650, or so, target.
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SW1 »

I think incentives are the wrong way to do it. If you make the standard package much better and the conditions for family much better people will not want to leave and if people don’t want to leave others will want to join. Look after what you’ve got and the rest will follow.


The robbing of the maintenance and support budget to fun new shinny is catching up those at top by the sound of it.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

A little game for you. What colour do you think HMS Forth's wardroom carpet is?
RED
NO! :cry:
ORANGE
NO! :cry:
YELLOW
NO! :cry:
GREEN
NO! :cry:
BLUE
CORRECT! :clap: :thumbup: ImageInstalled by Trimline, the same company which also did the QE class carriers wardrooms!
PURPLE
NO! :cry:
BLACK
NO! :cry:
A NICE FLORAL PATTERN
NO! :cry:
:mrgreen:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

Did they simply had cut off and stock left over from working on the QE? :D

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 2 more type 31's would be a better option
The problem is they won't commission for the best part of a decade.

If RN really want more vessels in a hurry they will need to be Rivers or Leanders built at Cammell Laird.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Will move it over to the Current & Future Escorts thread but it does feel that we are back in C1,C2,C3 territory with the B2 being pitched for the C3.
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

OK lets dip into a little bit of fantasy for a bit and say HMG stump up for 3 extra type 31's and 3 more patrol ships what could we do. In and around the time frame of 2023/4 .we will have type 23's starting to be decommissioned this could offer up some kit for the 3 new patrol ships. Should we try and end up with something like three RB3 built to ASW corvette standards

105 meters
Artisan radar
Good CMS
CAPTAS-4
crew 80 on 1.5
EMF bunks 50
Speed 26 knots
Wildcat hangar & Merlin flight deck
1 x 57mm , 2 x 30mm , 1 x Mk-41 VLS allowing 8 CAMM & 6 ASROC

Could this free up 2 T-26's from TAPS

Post Reply