River Class (OPV) (RN)

[Tempest414]

Maybe if we are going to deploy 2 B2 Rivers in the Far East then maybe Brunei would be the best place there are some good reasons

First we already have a garrision stationed there second it allows them to operate in the same way as if they were at Singapore If the UK rivers were fitted with 57mm then the they could have joint support of Radar and main gun with the RBN's Darussalam class OPVs

[donald_of_tokyo]

Trouble is, the UK has no interest in Far East.

If it is so, no need to send 2 OPVs. But, at least your government says, they have an interest there. To stop RN sending 2 OPVs, you shall change your government or its policy.

It it isn't so, the RN would have more to send there than two OPVs

I do not think so. Sending two River B2s are some message, far from nothing, (but also far from enough, I agree). But, yes, far from nothing. Zero to one is infinite.

[RichardIC]

If it is so, no need to send 2 OPVs. But, at least your government says, they have an interest there. To stop RN sending 2 OPVs, you shall change your government or its policy.

Donald, we have global interests in the same way Japan does. But sending two OPVs to Singapore or Brunei does absolutely nothing to promote our interests.

In fact it does the opposite. It gives China the opportunity to accuse is of behaving in an imperialistic manner, and they'd have a point.

Good will visits and exercises are one thing, and personally I'd love to see more visits to the UK by the JMSDF. I'd take a very different view if you unilaterally decided you were going to permanently station ships on the south coast to help control piracy in the English Channel.

[abc123]

Trouble is, the UK has no interest in Far East.

If it is so, no need to send 2 OPVs. But, at least your government says, they have an interest there. To stop RN sending 2 OPVs, you shall change your government or its policy.

It it isn't so, the RN would have more to send there than two OPVs

I do not think so. Sending two River B2s are some message, far from nothing, (but also far from enough, I agree). But, yes, far from nothing. Zero to one is infinite.

a) it's not my government considering I'm not from the UK. But sometimes, you better see things from distance.

b) NOT far from nothing, you mean?

c) and how would you explain to your own citizens in say Falklands, Gibraltar or Cayman Islands ( or British fishermans for that matter ) that they will not have a OPV stationed there because South China Sea has priority?

[donald_of_tokyo]

If it is so, no need to send 2 OPVs. But, at least your government says, they have an interest there. To stop RN sending 2 OPVs, you shall change your government or its policy.

Donald, we have global interests in the same way Japan does. But sending two OPVs to Singapore or Brunei does absolutely nothing to promote our interests.
In fact it does the opposite. It gives China the opportunity to accuse is of behaving in an imperialistic manner, and they'd have a point.Good will visits and exercises are one thing, and personally I'd love to see more visits to the UK by the JMSDF. I'd take a very different view if you unilaterally decided you were going to permanently station ships on the south coast to help control piracy in the English Channel.

No objection. I think UK is just going to do it. Using the historical relation with South East Asia and trying to show the flag there.

I agree it may invoke some reaction from China. But, the effect and reaction is the same even if you send an Oiler or an escort. No difference. It simply, sending 2 OPVs are cheaper.

UK was sending an escort annually, until ~2010. Just coming back with a decade of gap. This is completely different from JMSDF deploying permanently a vessel in Europe. We never did it, not a decade, never in history. Very different.

[Repulse]

RichardIC, The point on Japan basing ships in the UK to help with piracy is not a good comparison. One, there is no problem with piracy, if there was and we couldn’t cope then we might be grateful, nor does Japan have a long standing supply base in the UK.

I don’t believe anyone is arguing that visits from RN ships to the region are not a good thing. Also, it does not have to be a Frigate or even a Carrier Battle Group for it to be valuable. Yes, this is the same for every region, which guess what we are doing also.

Let’s not call it forward basing, let’s call it a regional roving ship using the RN facilities in Singapore for supply and maintenance. Having it permanently in the region cuts costs and has the benefits a permanent presence gives.

I do agree however, only one is needed.

[donald_of_tokyo]

a) it's not my government considering I'm not from the UK. But sometimes, you better see things from distance.

Thanks. My only point is, UK HMG is stating they have interest, not me.

b) NOT far from nothing, you mean?

Nothing there (=now) vs 2 OPV (plan). This two differs A LOT. UK presence in Asia has shrunk very very significantly after UK stoped far-east annual escort deployment. For most of the people, a 2000t ship with a (30 mm) gun is "a RN warship". T23/T45 is "a slightly large RN warship", and LPD/LSD is "a large RN warship". Compared with "no RN warship", 2 OPVs are big difference. But, it is also much LESS than what RN was doing until ~2010. This is what I mean.

0 ship << 2 OPV (2021-plan) < 1 escort (until ~2010).

c) and how would you explain to your own citizens in say Falklands, Gibraltar or Cayman Islands ( or British fishermans for that matter ) that they will not have a OPV stationed there because South China Sea has priority?

Again, it is not me. It is UK HMG. But, I remember RN is sending an escort to far east annually until ~2010.

In ~2010, Falkland had "1 escort, 1 Oiler and 1 OPV", Caribbean had "1 escort", and far east had "1 escort".

In 2021 (?), Falkland will have "1 OPV", Caribbean "1 OPV in winter, 1 OPV and 1 RFA in summer", and far east will have "2 OPVs".

Big difference? I do not know. Note the Argentina military was "in bad condition" in 2010, and "already collapsed" in 2020. It differs a lot. Anyway, my point is, sending 2 OPV to Singapore do have some message and effect = 2 OPVs are far from nothing (compared to APT-N and S. This is exactly what you are saying).

# By the way, how do you explain to Pitcairn Islands' people for not sending any ship from UK to there for several decades?

[abc123]

Pitcairn Islands are AFAIK mostly provided by the NZ and they don't need RN presence.

[Caribbean]

Pitcairn Islands are AFAIK mostly provided by the NZ and they don't need RN presence.

Mostly, knowing their predilection for underage children, they really don't want anyone looking over their shoulders. Fortunately the Kiwis sorted them out

[abc123]

Pitcairn Islands are AFAIK mostly provided by the NZ and they don't need RN presence.

Mostly, knowing their predilection for underage children, they really don't want anyone looking over their shoulders. Fortunately the Kiwis sorted them out

Yep.

[RichardIC]

RichardIC, The point on Japan basing ships in the UK to help with piracy is not a good comparison. One, there is no problem with piracy, if there was and we couldn’t cope then we might be grateful, nor does Japan have a long standing supply base in the UK.

I'm perfectly happy with the analogy.

There are people constantly saying how badly our borders are defended. Let's take out pirates and exchange for "illegal immigration, terrorism and Russian sub incursions".

You would agree those are very real problems wouldn't you?

How would you react if Japan decided they were going to sort that out for us because we were clearly incapable of doing it ourselves?

And as for our "long standing support base" in Singapore. It has a total military establishment of five (5) personnel, backed by two civil servants.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 04/227935/

I suspect Japan could match that.

[Repulse]

suspect Japan could match that.

Ok, name that facility.

And as for our "long standing support base" in Singapore. It has a total military establishment of five (5) personnel, backed by two civil servants.

And the point is? There are other local civilian employees also. Also it is a facility that goes back a long way, serving not only RN ships but other ships, like the USN.

The Singapore government doesn’t seem to have a problem with US ships based at Changi Naval Base or the Indian navy using logistic facilities; but you are right they may object to the RN using an existing Logistics Base, but i’d be surprised (as much surprised that these conversations haven’t happened already between governments).

My main point remains, we have a variety of ships that occasionally operate in the region already, in fact ships like the Echo class are more regular than we realise. IMO, adding a permanent presence in the region, which is a OPV/Sloop is not going to raise any eyebrows - just a sign that the UK is making a small additional commitment to the region and probably saving cash from what is doing now with ships sailing to and from the UK.

[RichardIC]

So to sum your point up in two words:

Colonial Legacy

[Repulse]

Colonial Legacy

You are either Trolling or have a certain political view that is preventing you for accepting a reasonable proposition. I’d perhaps have more sympathy to your viewpoint if we were planning to base a Carrier Battle Group there, but even then it should be seen in a modern context.

The UK of old, did have an empire, yes it did bad and good things. Today, the UK is a 1st tier regional power with global interests and views. It is right for the UK to engage globally, and having minor warships forward deployed is part of this - to suggest it is somehow re-establishing the empire is absurd.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Nice Photos!

[shark bait]

It is right for the UK to engage globally,

Yes

and having minor warships forward deployed is part of this

No, its how the Brits used to do it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Today, the UK is a 1st tier regional power with global interests and views.

DG is a good halfway point on the way to anywhere where we normally aren't.

having minor warships forward deployed is part of this [?]

No, its how the Brits used to do it.

Agree, minor on its own will only do as the symbolic tripwire in the Falklands and for the special circumstances in the Caribbean, so special that for a third of a year another type of vessel is fit for purpose.

So if we need three, to maintain those 1 and 2/3s, what shall we do with the other 2 RBs?
- a bit expensive for counting fish
- but one in the Channel (with good sensors, moving quickly to where they are needed) and one off the East Coast, at the ready should any rusty Ruskies turn up, for shadowing?

[SW1]

The uk can be engaged with that part of the world without the need to have an opv permanently deployed it doesn’t even have to be military. We send one to the falklands because is a British territory and as such has a maritime security presence, and we send one to the Caribbean again because of British territories that we support with security issues and disaster relief.

But I’m not sure either applies in the Far East. What is the aim of doing it and what are we trying to achieve. Are we being asked to take part in a regional security operation are we covering a deficiency in an allies own security they’ve asked for help with.

The survey vessels are mentioned and I can see the logic in that in so much that having up to date charts are important for all concerned.

[Repulse]

The uk can be engaged with that part of the world without the need to have an opv permanently deployed it doesn’t even have to military.

True, but the OPV + RFA combo which is on show in the Caribbean, and could be replicated, isn’t necessarily only for “military” operations.

The survey vessels are mentioned and I can see the logic in that in so much that having up to date charts are important for all concerned.

And this is the lost opportunity with the T31. The original MHPC concept was the right one IMO, as MCM and Survey capabilities are in demand globally, and would have been relevant for a number if not all the RNs forward based / regular globe trotting requirements when combined as needed by the RFA.

[SW1]

The uk can be engaged with that part of the world without the need to have an opv permanently deployed it doesn’t even have to military.

True, but the OPV + RFA combo which is on show in the Caribbean, and could be replicated, isn’t necessarily only for “military” operations.

The survey vessels are mentioned and I can see the logic in that in so much that having up to date charts are important for all concerned.

And this is the lost opportunity with the T31. The original MHPC concept was the right one IMO, as MCM and Survey capabilities are in demand globally, and would have been relevant for a number if not all the RNs forward based / regular globe trotting requirements when combined as needed by the RFA.

Just because you can replicate doesn’t answer why or for what reason. There’s a clear reason in the Caribbean, UK territories.

Why am I Spending money building and placing such a combination in the Far East instead of Gibraltar or east Africa or the North Sea or having 2 in the Caribbean or the south Atlantic. Or is it just to look good

I’ve argued for some time if your primarily concerned with presence, survey or mcm and security the RFAs with off board systems manned or otherwise is more applicable in the future than frigates but that ship has sailed.

[Repulse]

I’ve argued for some time if your primarily concerned with presence, survey or mcm and security the RFAs with off board systems manned or otherwise is more applicable in the future than frigates but that ship has sailed.

Not sure the ship has sailed. Given the financial situation and requirements, can’t see a 6th T31 built, in fact I’d cut it to three now (or sell two), so they can replace the B2 Rivers apart from FIPS & WIPS (who will replace the 3 B1s), and use the money to start the buy of some “MHPC”s - which ultimately would grow into a fleet of say 10 in the 2030s.

[ArmChairCivvy]

can replace the B2 Rivers apart from FIPS & WIPS (who will replace the 3 B1s)

Now you lost me, replacing brand new ships... to save money?

[Repulse]

Sorry of the 5 B2s, keep 2 for FIPS (Falkland Islands Patrol Ship) and WIPS (West Indies Patrol Ship), and the remaining three replace the three B1s (whose roles will be met by the 3 T31s).

[Scimitar54]

When the B1’s are retired, the B2’s will be brought home. The T31’s will replace the forward deployed B2’s and they are likely to acquire a bespoke weapons fit to suit their deployment and operational location. Second batch of T31 to be not less than 5 (with enhanced weapons fit), unless there is also to be a third batch. The B2 Rivers are all that we have to fulfil the Forward based roles until then. They may well acquire the odd extra bit of kit as a consequence.

[Repulse]

The B2 Rivers are all that we have to fulfil the Forward based roles until then

I’d say that’s a minimum of 8 years, probably 10 years, by which time of the GP T23s will be a distant memory.