River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by GibMariner »

SKB wrote:If it had a hangar, it'd be the size of a frigate. Besides, they're only meant to be offshore patrol vessels.
The Spanish BAM is only 4 metres longer and has a hangar. The French are also building or planning to build some OPVs which are shorter and feature a full hangar, but I can't remember their name now (EDIT: http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/wo ... tions.html )- I think they're planned to replace the Floreal-class, which are themselves only about 4 metres longer than the Batch 2 Rivers.

If the current Rivers are going to be retired and the Batch II replace them in only patrolling UK waters, then they're fine without a hangar.

If we keep the Batch I Rivers and the Batch II are going to be "globally deployable", as all of BAE & MOD press releases about them says they are, they could really use a hangar and embarked helicopter - especially if the plan is to have one hunting down drug smugglers in the Caribbean.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

SKB wrote:If it had a hangar, it'd be the size of a frigate. Besides, they're only meant to be offshore patrol vessels.
Not the size of a real frigate though.

There is no reason they couldn't have a hanger and basic aviation facilities, infact they should, especially for the money we're paying.
A hanger would make them many times more flexible and useful and would be closer to the global coastguard ship that we really need.

There is always a lot of chatter about modular weapons fit for navy ships, I believe we already have the best modular kit in service, its called a wildcat helicopter. :mrgreen:
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by Gabriele »

jonas wrote:
shark bait wrote:Never before has there been such fanfare over a 6th in class patrol vessel. Shows how desperate he is to pretend he's doing the right things for the navy.

Perhaps if they had got their asses in gear they could be saying all those things about a T26 and would have been some what more justified.
It's not the 6th in class really, with all the improvements it may as well be a separate class. Still pretty disappointing though with no hangar.
Medwey is the sixth if you count the three now in Brazil as "Amazonas", the one for Thailand and HMS Forth. No need to count the Batch 1 and HMS Clyde.

But even more than the number of the ship in the class, it is the fanfare for ships which don't even have a clear future yet and might just end up replacing early the Rivers that are already there.
Not too terribly much to be happy about. And that's before one considers what they are being paid.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by jonas »

Gabriele wrote:
jonas wrote:
shark bait wrote:Never before has there been such fanfare over a 6th in class patrol vessel. Shows how desperate he is to pretend he's doing the right things for the navy.

Perhaps if they had got their asses in gear they could be saying all those things about a T26 and would have been some what more justified.
It's not the 6th in class really, with all the improvements it may as well be a separate class. Still pretty disappointing though with no hangar.
Medwey is the sixth if you count the three now in Brazil as "Amazonas", the one for Thailand and HMS Forth. No need to count the Batch 1 and HMS Clyde.

But even more than the number of the ship in the class, it is the fanfare for ships which don't even have a clear future yet and might just end up replacing early the Rivers that are already there.
Not too terribly much to be happy about. And that's before one considers what they are being paid.
Must admit I clean forgot about the "Amazonas" :oops:

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by jonas »

SKB wrote:If it had a hangar, it'd be the size of a frigate. Besides, they're only meant to be offshore patrol vessels.
Really, when the T26 is coming in at around 6-7000 tons. Take a look at some OPV's with hangars, yes I am aware what they are meant to be.

sea_eagle
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:57
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by sea_eagle »

I agree that they should have had a hangar and seem (nearly) large enough to have one. Well at least we know they will have a radar, is this the same as the other OPVs?
http://navaltoday.com/2015/04/15/royal- ... -new-opvs/

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

sea_eagle wrote:I agree that they should have had a hangar and seem (nearly) large enough to have one. Well at least we know they will have a radar, is this the same as the other OPVs?
http://navaltoday.com/2015/04/15/royal- ... -new-opvs/
not the same radar, but the sharp eye is becoming the go to radar for our small ships and auxiliarys.
@LandSharkUK


sea_eagle
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:57
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by sea_eagle »

Thanks Shark Bait.

Well Armchair Soldier, if you magnify the picture of the OPV, with my magic glasses, I can clearly see that the Merlin has got 2 pairs of the Lockheed LRASM or is it the Kingsberg NSM hanging off the wings, Looks really nice to me. :o

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by Gabriele »

shark bait wrote: not the same radar, but the sharp eye is becoming the go to radar for our small ships and auxiliarys.
The feeling is that, unless there are more delays, SharpEye will finally become the official replacement of the Type 1007 radars next year, for the whole fleet. I would expect SharpEye to feature on the QE class as well, although i haven't yet seen details about navigation radars for QE so there is not yet a confirmation.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:

:lol:

Ohhhhh wow
what the government is really saying wrote:As part of our commitment to defence in the face of a resurgent Russia we are going to continually study new warship acronyms to ensure we have the best possible sounding defence plan. This will be continually reviewed before ever making a commitment to ensure our acronyms don't become obsolete. Throughout this process we will continue doing such a crap job on ships with weapon's that provide a valuable contribution to security, as promised in the SDSR. Our plan to stand strong in the face of multilateral threats including Russia and ISIS is to align our military around a new strategic force, which is based on 3 new ships without weapon's that we might not even keep. The Russians won't stand a chance!
@LandSharkUK

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by jonas »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:

:lol:
Yes I can see the Russians will be absolutely terrified if they come across this 'warship'

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by jonas »

sea_eagle wrote:Thanks Shark Bait.

Well Armchair Soldier, if you magnify the picture of the OPV, with my magic glasses, I can clearly see that the Merlin has got 2 pairs of the Lockheed LRASM or is it the Kingsberg NSM hanging off the wings, Looks really nice to me. :o
Unfortunately 'looking nice' isn't going to cut it in the north antlantic when hunting Russian submarines. Without a hangar to service,re-arm etc it will be of very little value in the sea conditions it will have to endure.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by marktigger »

they will just have to rely on an RFA for that.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote:they will just have to rely on an RFA for that.
I actually don't think that's a bad idea. A bay class could operate a fleet of merlin's on anti-submarine patrols invincible class style. That is of course forgetting the shortage of bays, merlin's and personnel, but apart from those minor details the concept is sound!
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by marktigger »

that was the concept behind Fort Victoria she would support multiple Helicopters and an austere frigate would need no Helicopter facilities except a flight deck

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote:that was the concept behind Fort Victoria she would support multiple Helicopters and an austere frigate would need no Helicopter facilities except a flight deck
not quite the same concept, Fort Victoria was also fitted with sea wolf and was suppose to protect the frigate which at the time was only suppose to listen out for subs. Luckily as a result of the Falklands the MOD realised what a bad idea this was and the type 23 grew into the impressive multirole frigate it is today.

The invincible class wasn't originally intended to be an aircraft carrier, they were intended to operate as anti-submarine cruisers operating helicopters and its own missile system, however that changed, and they added the harrier to protect from soviet aircraft and they then became aircraft carriers.
@LandSharkUK


arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by arfah »

https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2015/06/08 ... l-vessels/

Nothing new, just another source of info.
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Image
HMS Severn carries out officer of the watch manoeuvres with ARM Independencia, USCGC Paul Clark and RCN Glace Bay.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Here's a nice roundup by NavyLookout on HMS Severn's recent 8-month deployment:

https://storify.com/NavyLookout/hms-severn

Apparently the first OPV deployment to the Caribbean for the RN.


User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

British Navy Warship Tests a 3-D-Printed Drone at Sea



Image Image
The successful launch of a 3-D-printed drone from a ship shows a possible route to cheaper autonomous aircraft.

On Tuesday this week, the Royal Navy ship HMS Mersey launched something unusual from its gun deck off England’s southern coast—a cheap drone made using a 3-D printer.

The three-kilogram craft with an airplane-style design was launched by a three-meter catapult and autonomously flew between a few preprogrammed waypoints for five minutes before being piloted to a safe belly landing on a pebbly beach.
Read More: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/53 ... ne-at-sea/

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by marktigger »

interesting idea

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by xav »

Belgium's Latest OPV Pollux P902 Escorted and Monitored Russia Navy Submarine in EEZ
The Belgian Navy announced that the latest addition to its fleet, Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) Pollux (P902) escorted and monitored a Russian Navy submarine and a Silva class tug boat while they were transiting in Belgium's exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
...
Navy Recognition understands the submarine in question is Russia's new Project 636 (Varshavyanka) diesel-electric submarine (SSK) "B-261 Novorossiysk".
...
The Pollux OPV had taken over the ship of the Royal Netherlands Navy Zr Ms Johan de Witt LPD, who had followed the Russian submarine as it passed through their waters. After transiting in Belgian waters, Royal Navy OPV (River class) HMS Tyne took over and accompanied the Russian submarine into the English Channel.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3022

It is like a relay race Dutch pass the SSK to the Belgium who pass it to the British then likely French, Spanish, Portuguese etc...

Post Reply