River Class (OPV) (RN)

[SKB]

[SD67]

A silly question - I was under the impression that the RN is only responsible for fishery protection in English waters? Doesn’t Scotland do it’s own Fishery Protection?
And if so, does anyone know whether the RN’s preparations for Brexit / Cod War 2 being matched / replicated north of the Tweed?

[Caribbean]

Marine Scotland has three unarmed fishery protection vessels and two patrol aircraft
https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Com ... es/Vessels
https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Com ... s/Aircraft
I believe the RN Fishery Protection Squadron is available in all UK waters, but normally only patrols English/ BoT waters

[SKB]

[Repulse]

Apparently Bahrain has agreed to buy HMS Clyde.

[SKB]

SNP will spin this into "Middle East invests in the Clyde".

[donald_of_tokyo]

Impressive bow. River B2's bow draught is very high, which is even stressed in HMS Tamar by her dragon mark.

I understand OPVs are using most of their CoG/weight "resource" to improve their sea keeping and increase internal space (like accommodation). This make it clearly different from "combatant vessel" (like corvette, frigate and Destroyer) in which cases significant weight and CoG resources are kept for armaments and (top-heavy) radars.

By this comparison, if we look at "corvettes" and "Patrol vessel", they have different hull philosophy;
- corvettes with low drought hull and with relatively large armaments = e.g. French A69, German Braunschweig-class, Malaysian Kasturi Class etc. and also the large missile crafts, such as Malaysian Laksamana Class, and Swedish Göteborg class etc.
- OPV with high draft bulky hull and lightly armed = Mexican Oaxaca-class, Italian Comandanti-class, Dutch Holland-class, and French Floreal class etc.

Clearly River class belongs to the latter.

[Tempest414]

I find it interesting how you come to this as a B2 River could support if laid out for it carry the radar and weapons fit of the corvettes you have put forward.

What I have been thinking for sometime is could a B2 fit 4 NSM or the like between the main mast and the funnel where the life raft racks are. In the video above at 1:02 there is a nice shot and I think you could

[SW1]

Here is pictures of the ones in the Thai navy fitted with 76mm gun and the harpoon anti ship missile

http://thaidefense-news.blogspot.com/20 ... st_31.html

[SKB]

[donald_of_tokyo]

Here is pictures of the ones in the Thai navy fitted with 76mm gun and the harpoon anti ship missile

http://thaidefense-news.blogspot.com/20 ... st_31.html

Yes, HMTS Krabi class is a bit more armed than UK River OPV (although Thai navy calls it an OPV).

My point is from different perspective; optimization.

- River class OPVs are optimized as an OPV. Good seakeeping, large accommodation place, and cheap to operate = lean manned.
- German Braunschweig-class corvette has more lower draught, and hence it can accommodate more armaments. This is of course because see keeping requirement is less than that of River OPV.

Note I am saying River OPV is very nicely designed as an OPV, but not optimized as a corvette. This includes modest up-arming can be done. But, never as much as Braunschweig-class corvette.

This is my point. Thanks.

[Tempest414]

I would agree that a Braunschweig class corvette is a good ship and well armed with

1 x 76mm , 2 x 27mm , 4 x AShM and 42 RAM missiles

However i feel a B2 River with the right Radar and CMS upgrade plus crane removed could be fitted with

1 x 76mm , 2 x 30mm with 5 LMM each , 4 x AShM and 22 RAM missiles

[donald_of_tokyo]

I would agree that a Braunschweig class corvette is a good ship and well armed with

1 x 76mm , 2 x 27mm , 4 x AShM and 42 RAM missiles

However i feel a B2 River with the right Radar and CMS upgrade plus crane removed could be fitted with

1 x 76mm , 2 x 30mm with 5 LMM each , 4 x AShM and 22 RAM missiles

If as a "so-so serious" corvette, in addition you need
- 3D radar
- ESM with decoy launcher
- ECM (although simple)
- and so-so-level CMS (and CIC room larger than now you have in UK River OPV *1)

*1: Note that, Thailand Navy's River class OPV omits the emergency gen-sets, which is located within the forecastle in case of UK and Brazilian ships. I understand Thailand navy has located their CIC there, in place.

Note that I think River do NOT need to be a "so-so serious" corvette, in any case. It is a good OPV. Slight up-arming (as RFA vessels does) is OK, but "more", I'm not sure. Without good sensor and CMS, it is not much uselful as a combatant.

[Tempest414]

I would agree that a Braunschweig class corvette is a good ship and well armed with

1 x 76mm , 2 x 27mm , 4 x AShM and 42 RAM missiles

However i feel a B2 River with the right Radar and CMS upgrade plus crane removed could be fitted with

1 x 76mm , 2 x 30mm with 5 LMM each , 4 x AShM and 22 RAM missiles

If as a "so-so serious" corvette, in addition you need
- 3D radar
- ESM with decoy launcher
- ECM (although simple)
- and so-so-level CMS (and CIC room larger than now you have in UK River OPV *1)

*1: Note that, Thailand Navy's River class OPV omits the emergency gen-sets, which is located within the forecastle in case of UK and Brazilian ships. I understand Thailand navy has located their CIC there, in place.

Note that I think River do NOT need to be a "so-so serious" corvette, in any case. It is a good OPV. Slight up-arming (as RFA vessels does) is OK, but "more", I'm not sure. Without good sensor and CMS, it is not much uselful as a combatant.

Note I had said with the right upgrades. I agree the RN dose not need the River's to be corvettes

[Repulse]

Note I am saying River OPV is very nicely designed as an OPV, but not optimized as a corvette.

Let’s call it a Sloop-of-War.

The reality is these jolly useful ships will be the main forward presence (outside of occasional CSG visits) for the next decade.

Without building a paper frigate, there is an argument to add certain capabilities.

Personally, I’d say adding a 57mm, and having 2 x 30mms port and aft, plus some more soft countermeasures is sufficient - and comparable to other OPVs and Coast Guard cutters.

[Repulse]

With SDSR kicked back a year, but a definite feel of financial cold in the air, then I wonder how long the B1s will be kept on for? I think originally it was said 2 years.

Could look at it as an “easy” cut, but given the low cost and the need to use the B2s to help cover the gap before the T31s arrive.

Speculation seems that the 3 B1s will be replaced by 3 B2s (who will be replaced by 3 T31s). Generally, if we are going to make the T31 a success, then 8 would make sense; but in addition the RN with the MCMs and B1s going will be losing the bulk of the smaller / low manning platforms.

I still see a need for an evolved relatively low cost (sloop-of-war) B3 River - probably starting with 3 to give a significant surface fleet of 30 (6 T45, 8 T26s, 8 T31s, 3 B3 + 5 B2 Rivers).

[dmereifield]

With SDSR kicked back a year, but a definite feel of financial cold in the air, then I wonder how long the B1s will be kept on for? I think originally it was said 2 years.

Could look at it as an “easy” cut, but given the low cost and the need to use the B2s to help cover the gap before the T31s arrive.

Speculation seems that the 3 B1s will be replaced by 3 B2s (who will be replaced by 3 T31s). Generally, if we are going to make the T31 a success, then 8 would make sense; but in addition the RN with the MCMs and B1s going will be losing the bulk of the smaller / low manning platforms.

I still see a need for an evolved relatively low cost (sloop-of-war) B3 River - probably starting with 3 to give a significant surface fleet of 30 (6 T45, 8 T26s, 8 T31s, 3 B3 + 5 B2 Rivers).

More likely to see 3 RB3 than the sometimes rumoured second batch of 3 T31, surely?

[Repulse]

More likely to see 3 RB3 than the sometimes rumoured second batch of 3 T31, surely?

Depends, I’m not a big advocate of the Arrowhead as the T31, but if it, along with the Rivers, are expected to be the primary MHC off board system motherships, then there is a requirement for 8 each IMO.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Personally, I’d say adding a 57mm, and having 2 x 30mms port and aft, plus some more soft countermeasures is sufficient - and comparable to other OPVs and Coast Guard cutters

The German-designed RAN Arafuras will have a 40mm (we are going that way, anyway) and 2 x HMG (to keep anyone unwanted from approaching/ boarding)

Fit for purpose and less training; the HMGs can just be lifted out and sheltered from weather, when not required

[donald_of_tokyo]

Depends, I’m not a big advocate of the Arrowhead as the T31, but if it, along with the Rivers, are expected to be the primary MHC off board system motherships, then there is a requirement for 8 each IMO.

River B1 and B2 both, might be a good candidate for (a part of) MHC hull part (but may be not enough Center-of-Gravity margin, I'm afraid).

But, Arrowhead 140 will not be a good hull.
- its davit is too small for both ARCIMS and Atlas USV systems. So, we need significant design change.
- it is too fast. Its large power-train with 6500 t displacement might be just a waste of fuel and (what is more) maintenance cost.

Most of the MCM tasks are dull, time-consuming, peace-time or quasi-peace-time operations. MHC hull must be prepared for it, which is the main theater for them. MCM tasks in high threat environment is only a small fraction their tasks. And, if it comes to "hunting", it will not even be needed. In war zone, "finding and avoiding" of mines will be the primary aim, I guess.

I think
- mine finding task: by small UUV/USVs with side-scan sonar (such as REMUS pods), operated from T26, and may be T31, River B2, or Bays, will be what is needed in high threat environment. Sending a swarm of side-scan sonars, "find and avoid" the mines shall be the primary aim.
- mine hunting task: highly capable MCM USV/USV kits which could be large and heavy, operated on a cheap (in view of stationing) vessels (for example, River OPVs), or even Bay class LSD. "Find and hunt, make clean" is their task, which surely takes time.

[Tempest414]

Personally, I’d say adding a 57mm, and having 2 x 30mms port and aft, plus some more soft countermeasures is sufficient - and comparable to other OPVs and Coast Guard cutters

The German-designed RAN Arafuras will have a 40mm (we are going that way, anyway) and 2 x HMG (to keep anyone unwanted from approaching/ boarding)

Fit for purpose and less training; the HMGs can just be lifted out and sheltered from weather, when not required

Maybe a good half way house on the B2s would be a 40mm + 2 x 20mm + 2 x 12.7 HMG's giving the ship a maximum range of 12000 meters and maximum wight of fire at 1500 meters and capable of engaging helicopters / UAVs plus boghammar's

[Repulse]

The German-designed RAN Arafuras will have a 40mm (we are going that way, anyway) and 2 x HMG (to keep anyone unwanted from approaching/ boarding)

Possibly, but they also will operate in fairly benign environments with the Australian EEZ and western pacific.

If the B2s are operating further afield, and to some extent East of Suez nor choke points like the Red Sea or Gulf, then spending a little more on a more capable gun (that will be on the T31 also) is appropriate, as are additional 30mms.

[Repulse]

But, Arrowhead 140 will not be a good hull

Never liked the Arrowhead for this exact reason tbh, I’m hoping it’s not too late to do something. The RN cannot afford a half-arsed frigate that cannot add significantly on the MHC capability - I still think the 80m Venator design with CAMM remains the best one I’ve seen. Would have been the perfect forward presence ship IMO.

The River isn’t the best design but we have it, and a third batch with some further modifications would be the most affordable option.

[dmereifield]

More likely to see 3 RB3 than the sometimes rumoured second batch of 3 T31, surely?

Depends, I’m not a big advocate of the Arrowhead as the T31, but if it, along with the Rivers, are expected to be the primary MHC off board system motherships, then there is a requirement for 8 each IMO.

8 T31 and 8 River B2/3?

[Repulse]

8 T31 and 8 River B2/3?

Yes