UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2037
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby RetroSicotte » 24 Jul 2018, 02:10

Tempest414 wrote:but only after type 31 was launched did they improve the khareef design and had they done so before we may have had 3 heavy corvettes in place of the 5 Rivers

MoD wasn't asking for Corvettes before T31.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2536
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Jul 2018, 07:06

shark bait wrote:The River Class shit show continues, fantastic value for money!
Repulse wrote:Trip to Portsmouth today still shows HMS Forth under repair. The word from the harbour tour guide was that the generators overheat and they don’t know how to fix it.
EDIT: oh and HMS Tyne will be recommissioned whilst they sort it out.
jimthelad wrote:So BAe despite having been paid an exhorbitant sum for an OPV have even fucked that up?
1: There is no money Tax payer is paying regarding the HMS Forth's defects. Even HMS Tynes recommission is reported to be paid by BAE. Good value for money.

2: Facing these issues right before T26 building goes on pace is very good. BAE must be reviewing their review process; why a sub-standard HV circuit was "allowed" to be purchased (leaking the reviews), why the bolt-head glueing happens (or who did the sabotage?) , and many other issues they see there.

River B2 program payed well for what it aimed at, securing the work force for T26 build. Imagine if the same thing happens in HMS Glasgow, the hull-1 of T26. The impact is much huge, and BAE may not be able to pay for all the countermeasures (say, T23 life extension etc...).

3: All these issues clears out that, TOBA is must = keeping the labor force active is really needed, and hence ordering OPVs to save the day was a good choice.

4: Why it is River B2 = Amazons-class corvette based OPV, and not Khareef/Cultass/Leander is totally RN's issue (fault).

RN sticked to (bet with "optimism" = always bad heritage) the hope of "keeping 13 frigates", and intentionally build OPV to replace River B1, which has a long life left.

Now, it is clear that they should have bet to "realism", and build 3 large OPV or corvettes, based on Khareef design, to replace 1 frigate, accepting the frigate to be 12. If prepared 2 years in advance, it could be possible and it would have been "T31e batch-1".

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Tempest414 » 24 Jul 2018, 08:11

RetroSicotte wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:but only after type 31 was launched did they improve the khareef design and had they done so before we may have had 3 heavy corvettes in place of the 5 Rivers

MoD wasn't asking for Corvettes before T31.


My point is that BAE sat fat dumb and happy waiting for RN contracts and did bog all more. Bae inherited a number of good designs that it could and should of worked on to adapted and improve on including Khreef and the 106m Lekiu class which would have meant that when the type 26 program ran into TOBA they could have put forward more than just the Rivers

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5289
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby shark bait » 24 Jul 2018, 08:25

donald_of_tokyo wrote:There is no money Tax payer is paying regarding the HMS Forth's defects. Even HMS Tynes recommission is reported to be paid by BAE. Good value for money.


Haha.

It's a single supplier, single customer relationship. All the money comes from the tax payer one way or another.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2536
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Jul 2018, 09:22

shark bait wrote:Haha.
It's a single supplier, single customer relationship. All the money comes from the tax payer one way or another.
All nation is doing the same = single supplier. The issue is NOT on its being single, BUT on how to promote it. Only if UK has twice the ship-building budget of France, Spain, and Italy, UK can "afford" the luxury of having 2 builders to compete.

#Also we must admit that "compete" will mean, one of the two may bankrupt for sure --> single supplier again. This is the healthy competition.

In other words, UK MOD must know how to promote their industry, keeping good skill and high morale, regardless of being a single supplier or not. Blaming them is just stop thinking. "Hoping" for 2nd supplier without good investment is, just, just, *****lish. I don't like such idea = irresponsible. Blaming other is quite easy, really making the result is not. But, for sure, latter is the only important thing.

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 789
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 24 Jul 2018, 09:23

RetroSicotte wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:but only after type 31 was launched did they improve the khareef design and had they done so before we may have had 3 heavy corvettes in place of the 5 Rivers

MoD wasn't asking for Corvettes before T31.
Is RN asking for Corvettes now or is it simply a case of that is all the budget will allow.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Now, it is clear that they should have bet to "realism", and build 3 large OPV or corvettes, based on Khareef design, to replace 1 frigate, accepting the frigate to be 12. If prepared 2 years in advance, it could be possible and it would have been "T31e batch-1".
If it is true that 3 Leanders rather than 5 RB2's would have resulted in 11 or 12 Type 26's why not sell the RB2's and Build 12 T26's and 3 Leanders now and then retain the RB1's. It would be no loss to the taxpayer as the RB2's could be sold for around £80m each and replaced if necessary by something similar for around £80m each. The RB2 money has already been lost.

8x Type 26's
5x Type 31's
5x RB2's

OR

11x or 12x Type 26's
3x Leanders
4x RB1's

No contest :thumbup:


Tempest414 wrote:My point is that BAE sat fat dumb and happy waiting for RN contracts and did bog all more.
I have to agree, apart from the T26 design, (which may be were all the energy has been directed) BAE has hardly set the world alight with its ship design and innovation. Adapted VT designs is all it has really offered. Compared with Naval or Damen and the difference in ambition is clear.

shark bait wrote:It's a single supplier, single customer relationship. All the money comes from the tax payer one way or another.
...or BAE shareholders, one of the two...

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2037
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby RetroSicotte » 24 Jul 2018, 09:44

No more "theoretical escort fleet" chatter in here, folks. Topic was specifically about the ordering of Rivers.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Ron5 » 24 Jul 2018, 17:53

shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:There is no money Tax payer is paying regarding the HMS Forth's defects. Even HMS Tynes recommission is reported to be paid by BAE. Good value for money.


Haha.

It's a single supplier, single customer relationship. All the money comes from the tax payer one way or another.


Wrong. Money to fix these problems comes straight out of Bae's bottom line and is therefore paid for by the companies stockholders through reduced dividends and a lower stock price.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 4651
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby SKB » 26 Jul 2018, 11:15


(Harry Garland) 22nd July 2018
HMS Medway (P223) alongside BAE Surface Ships, Scotstoun.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Ron5 » 26 Jul 2018, 16:14

shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:There is no money Tax payer is paying regarding the HMS Forth's defects. Even HMS Tynes recommission is reported to be paid by BAE. Good value for money.


Haha.

It's a single supplier, single customer relationship. All the money comes from the tax payer one way or another.


Wrong! You clearly have zero idea how a publicly traded company's finances work. You are just repeating pinko drivel.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Ron5 » 26 Jul 2018, 16:19

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
shark bait wrote:Haha.
It's a single supplier, single customer relationship. All the money comes from the tax payer one way or another.
All nation is doing the same = single supplier. The issue is NOT on its being single, BUT on how to promote it. Only if UK has twice the ship-building budget of France, Spain, and Italy, UK can "afford" the luxury of having 2 builders to compete.

#Also we must admit that "compete" will mean, one of the two may bankrupt for sure --> single supplier again. This is the healthy competition.

In other words, UK MOD must know how to promote their industry, keeping good skill and high morale, regardless of being a single supplier or not. Blaming them is just stop thinking. "Hoping" for 2nd supplier without good investment is, just, just, *****lish. I don't like such idea = irresponsible. Blaming other is quite easy, really making the result is not. But, for sure, latter is the only important thing.


Excellent comment. If you look at France and their notion of national champions that work in partnership with government, it is so unlike the UK where politicians and civil service delight in blaming industry for everything. And which approach is working better?

The latest, of course, is the Type 31e stoppage. Whatever the causes of the problem, the MoD is very clear it's all because of industry. It's their bids that are not compliant. Can't possibly be the MoD at fault in any way. Cough, bullshit, cough.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Ron5 » 26 Jul 2018, 16:22

Poiuytrewq wrote:I have to agree, apart from the T26 design, (which may be were all the energy has been directed) BAE has hardly set the world alight with its ship design and innovation. Adapted VT designs is all it has really offered. Compared with Naval or Damen and the difference in ambition is clear.


I fear you might be comparing outputs of glossy brochures and pretty CGI''s rather than actual ships.

And now of course, Bae has an Australian 30billion order book to wave :-)

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 789
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 26 Jul 2018, 16:39

Ron5 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:I have to agree, apart from the T26 design, (which may be were all the energy has been directed) BAE has hardly set the world alight with its ship design and innovation. Adapted VT designs is all it has really offered. Compared with Naval or Damen and the difference in ambition is clear.


I fear you might be comparing outputs of glossy brochures and pretty CGI''s rather than actual ships.

And now of course, Bae has an Australian 30billion order book to wave :-)
Personally I think BAE could do a lot more.

The French and the Spanish have been running rings around UK Naval shipbuilding for years.

Let's hope some of the profits from the T26 export success gets reinvested into some innovative and exiting new designs that begin to close the gap between the UK and our foreign competitors.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Ron5 » 26 Jul 2018, 17:53

Poiuytrewq wrote:The French and the Spanish have been running rings around UK Naval shipbuilding for years.


Both heavily subsidized by their governments. Would you be in favor of Bae getting a subsidy in order to compete?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Caribbean » 26 Jul 2018, 18:03

Ron5 wrote:Both heavily subsidized by their governments.

And here was me thinking that subsidies were contrary to EU rules
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 789
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 26 Jul 2018, 18:08

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Both heavily subsidized by their governments.

And here was me thinking that subsidies were contrary to EU rules

Me too....

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Ron5 » 26 Jul 2018, 18:12

a) not for military sales

b) you really think the French and Spanish follow EU rules

c) there's more than one way to subsidize, both the french & Spanish shipyards are partly or wholly owned by teh government. easy for them to write off losses due to selling ships under cost. France in particular did this for DCN for decades

If you going to be smartasses, at least get your facts straight :D

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 789
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 26 Jul 2018, 18:37

Ron5 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:The French and the Spanish have been running rings around UK Naval shipbuilding for years.


Both heavily subsidized by their governments. Would you be in favor of Bae getting a subsidy in order to compete?
Its an interesting question.

I would be of a view that most if not all countries subsidise there indigenous defence industries and the UK with BAE is no different than any other.

I think the UK's success in the SEA5000 competition proves that when the design is right, the price is not necessarily the deciding factor when awarding the contract. Of course Britain's almost unique mix of hard and soft power together with diplomatic leverage also played a crucial role but it was the world class design that won the day.

I would like to see BAE and Babcock do more to design the finest vessels in the world. Design a Tier2 frigate that's better than the FTI. Design a LHD that's better than a Mistral or a Canberra. It can be done, the Daring and City class vessels are already much better than the Horizon or FREMM alternatives.

In a nutshell, don't try and compete on price alone. Design the best at a reasonable cost and the market will queue up to buy it.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Caribbean » 26 Jul 2018, 20:29

Ron5 wrote:a) not for military sale

Incorrect. The rules are complex , but I think that you are confusing the competition rules with the subsidy rules. Subsidy (and even nationalisation) is not impossible in the EU, but it has been repeatedly rejected by the ECJ.
Ron5 wrote:b) you really think the French and Spanish follow EU rules

In this area, yes. If for no other reason than the fact that uncompetitive US companies keep whinging about it and threatening legal action.
Ron5 wrote:c) there's more than one way to subsidize

Indeed there are - paying Boeing $100 for a hammer and $400 for a spanner was a good example in the 70's and 80's. Now it's paying "how fucking much?? :shock: :wtf: " for a 5th gen fighter/ bomber.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

clinch
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby clinch » 26 Jul 2018, 20:35

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Both heavily subsidized by their governments.

And here was me thinking that subsidies were contrary to EU rules


EU rules are just for us. Other member states have their cake and eat it.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Ron5 » 26 Jul 2018, 20:56

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:a) not for military sale

Incorrect. The rules are complex , but I think that you are confusing the competition rules with the subsidy rules. Subsidy (and even nationalisation) is not impossible in the EU, but it has been repeatedly rejected by the ECJ.
Ron5 wrote:b) you really think the French and Spanish follow EU rules

In this area, yes. If for no other reason than the fact that uncompetitive US companies keep whinging about it and threatening legal action.
Ron5 wrote:c) there's more than one way to subsidize

Indeed there are - paying Boeing $100 for a hammer and $400 for a spanner was a good example in the 70's and 80's. Now it's paying "how fucking much?? :shock: :wtf: " for a 5th gen fighter/ bomber.


Keep digging.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Caribbean » 26 Jul 2018, 21:50

Ron5 wrote:Keep digging.

Says the man with no feasible response
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2536
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 29 Jul 2018, 03:20

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Repulse wrote:1) UK EEZ and BOT protection
2) North Atlantic sea control in partnership with the US / CAN
3) Mediterranean SLOC control in partnership with the US / EU
4) Horn of Africa to Gulf SLOC control in partnership with US / EU and Oz
5) Far East SLOC Patrol in partnership with Oz / NZ
6) HADR (part time)
7) Global Power Projection (100%, 1 week notice)
...
Suggestions:
- The UK invests in facilities to forward base the T26 through RN bases (Gibraltar and Oman) and through joint support arrangements with Oz (who will operate the Hunter T26 derivative) then I think it’s quite feasible to get a 1:2 ratio of commitments to ships rather than the current 1:3 ratio.
...
Excluding the Ice Patrol ship and fast Patrol ships, this would give a surface fleet of:
2 x QEs
1 x LHD
6 x T45s
10 x T26s
18 x MHPCs
2 x RFA AORs
2 x RFA FSSs
2 x RFA LSDs
8 x RFA Tankers
...Then, this will give

CVTF: 2 CV, 2 T45, 4 T26 --> 50% on station (or two "6 month deployment" within 2 years) of a CVTF with 1 CV, 1 T45, 2 T26.

Remaining: it is "4 T45 and 6 T26" in your fleet. This will give us "1 T45 and 1 T26 always deployed", reserving 2 T26 for TAPS.
...
- [plan-B] in 50% of the time, RN deploys "1 CVTF and 1 T45", while in the other 50% "1 T45 and 2 T26".
...
In other words, since RN already cut APT-S, and by also cutting FRE-escorts, "6 T45 + 10 T26" fleet will work, to my understanding. Less hull = less tasks. Make it clear cut, so that UK people can "see" there is a cut.
The "6 T45 + 10 T26" fleet reminds me of up-arming River B2.

If the CVTF is made of 1 CV, 1 T45, 2 T26, 1 SSS and 1 AOR (it could be even less), I feel I want 1 (or 2) low-level patrol ship to look over "suspicious" fishery boats or fast incoming boats, while keeping the 3 escorts in position. I think River B2, slightly up-amred, can fill this "Aviso" role.

But, "two more T26" will eat all the 1.25B GBP budget reserved for T31e. This means, up-arming River B2 must be cheap.

My proposal is as follows:

1: Assign 2 River B2s to the 2 CVTF, 1 for 1.

2: Rip 4 CIWS from 2 T26, and mount them on River B2s, as follows. With no significant modernization on the hull, it will be relatively cheap.
スクリーンショット 2018-07-29 10.28.04.png

I think this "OPV-of-the-fleet" or "fleet Dispatch boat" will

- contact approaching "suspicious" ships/boats to take a visual inspection. T45 or T26 can be also sent, but for this kind of operations, River B2 armed with 2 CIWS and 2 7.62mm mini-guns has a capability comparable to these "billion pounds" escorts.

- despatch to some ports when the TF is cruising offshore, to "say hello", and accumulate information. Even though the ship looks "low level", it means "UK CVTF is nearing". It will make a good local news = show the flag.

- can be used as a guard-ship in air operations, leaving precious expensive helicopters "at rest".

- also be good for training. These OPV will be commanded by young leaders. They will be trained in solo-deployment (such as Falkland island guard ship and EEZ) in normal patrol, but when they join CVTF, they can have a good experience on "being along the fighting TF fleet".
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 4651
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby SKB » 29 Jul 2018, 07:37

Please stop inventing new fantasy ships as a solution to everything, there is already an advisory on this page about it from RetroSicotte ^ (24th June).

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Tempest414 » 29 Jul 2018, 07:59

stop trying to be a Mod we already have very good ones thank you if you don't like a post keep to your self or highlight it to a Mod in a private message

No where does it say this is a news only page and I see donalds post as River class linked point of view


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RHK3 and 21 guests