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.
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Repulse » 06 Jan 2019, 11:05

The 3 B1 Rivers have been designed and operated primarily for UK Fisheries Protection. The 5 B2 Rivers are right for FRE, surveillance and anti terrorist operations in UK and BOT EEZs - with some enhancements they can also play a role in layered ASW defence also.

I see no need to change this position - moving this to other agencies will only cost money, weaken the UKs ability to respond to unforeseen events and starve the RN from training opportunities IMO.

I would like to see replacements for the P2000s, and would be interested to see what the new Gibraltar Patrol Craft are. The ability to respond to low level military (though high threat policing - e.g. armed terrorists) will become more not less likely.

For the Border Force, I’d say a few more Damen designs would be wise, but just focusing the assets we have and are getting would be a start.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Caribbean » 06 Jan 2019, 12:02

SW1 wrote:Must of got confused the when your first comments on this subject said you’d like a coastguard along the lines of a US coast guard service.


What I actually said was

"I think we need a proper UK Coastguard, similar to, but not quite as militarised as the USCG, combining physical resources from the RN, UKBF, marine Police, civilian Fishery protection and possibly even some of the Serco resources, with each of the different law-enforcement agencies providing sea-going teams as needed, to be hosted by the UKCG.

Guilty of typically British understatement - sorry if that confused you. I was thinking of the same set-up as the RFA. Civilian, but able to act under military discipline when an RN officer is aboard (as they then operate under different legal constraints).
SW1 wrote:If you want them armed with nothing more than pepper spray and a taser fair enough.

The list is a little more extensive than that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom#Weapons_used_by_Home_Office_police_forces

Edit: To be fair, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary operate weapons up to 30mm autocannon on board the nuclear transport ships, but I didn't intend to include them in the UKCG
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 06 Jan 2019, 14:52

Repulse wrote:.... The 5 B2 Rivers are right for FRE, surveillance and anti terrorist operations in UK and BOT EEZs - with some enhancements they can also play a role in layered ASW defence also.
I was thinking of this for the new year period. Although a bit fantasy, this is my thought.

The main aim is to
1: Add shallow water ASW capability (interim) to some (2-3) of the five T31e frigates, "out of" the Type-31e program budget.
2: At the same time, apply the same to some (2-3) of the five River B2s, with a little modification.


< Proposal for adding ASW capability to T31e and River B2, without using their program cost >

In short, buy 8 Atlas Electrik "ARCIMS" USV with ASW modules (centered around ACTAS sonar), and carry two each of them onboard up to four T31e and River B2. It is also important to prepare a room astern, so that T31e and River B2 themselves can "carry" the "ASW modules (centered around ACTAS sonar)".

By this arrangement, we can
- operate USV-based shallow water ASW team, deployed from T31e or River B2. As the broadband network of ARCIMS is "within visual range RF" (supplemented by Iridium satellite, to my understanding), USV must be located within ~20 km from the control center's antenna. In other words, using mother ships for USV has its own rationale.
- if needed or if better, ACTAS sonar could be towed directly from T31e and River B2. As ACTAS is as small as CAPTAS-1, they will never be an ASW specialist. But, they WILL contribute to ASW, especially in shallow water.

Is this doable? Not sure, but it will be a candidate plan to "add" ASW capability to these 10 ships.

Here are some design plans for River B2. (T31e can, by default, handle them as built).
- As you can see, adding 3 m astern is the key, to design both USV-capable version and Wildcat hangar version. Such a stern extension is done in Freedom class LCS.
- Using T31e and River B2 as a host ship for ARCIMS USVs is anther key point (T26 as well).

<Plan for shallow water ASW corvette>

This version does not have a helo, because the crane is vital for USV operation. Air cover is provided elsewhere (P-8A, or Merlin from other assets).

スクリーンショット 2019-01-06 23.21.23.jpg
スクリーンショット 2019-01-06 23.21.36.jpg
スクリーンショット 2019-01-06 23.21.46.jpg



<Plan for "Floreal-like" Patrol Corvette>

Bonus plan. Another candidate for modification. This version has a fixed Wildcat hangar. With no crane, it cannot carry USV anymore. Thinking of using this version as "Floreal like", locating an SSM launcher in both side of the hangar may be interesting (NSM?).
スクリーンショット 2019-01-06 23.21.57.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Jan 2019, 16:25

Caribbean wrote: not quite as militarised

+
Caribbean wrote:combining physical resources

I think that was the discussion (starting point for it?),
- to be more efficient (save money, while delivering at least the same outputs),
- while being more effective: delivering :idea: outputs that had not been thought to be necessary, or of priority, previously :!:
Caribbean wrote: the Civil Nuclear Constabulary operate weapons up to 30mm autocannon on board the nuclear transport ships

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Jan 2019, 16:30

As for the last quote [above]
- typical law(yer) text
- put it in (there are no such ships?); should there be any... that should do it (as the max)?
... and you can always amend it, as long as the paragraph is there. Starting a "new" text, from nothing ... oohh, what will the other side say :)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5566
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby shark bait » 07 Jan 2019, 09:46

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I was thinking of this for the new year period. Although a bit fantasy, this is my thought.
Some nice concepts here Donald, reminds me of the old Black Swan concept which proposed some nice features. I've always thought the RN missed a trick by not turning the B2's into 'Black Swans' perhaps this proposal could reverse it?

When I thought about this in the past I generally came to the same conclusion, they're just a little bit too short, so i'm very intrigued by your proposal to extend them. I didn't know such a stern extension was possible, could you expand on that part please?
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 07 Jan 2019, 11:11

donald_of_tokyo wrote:<Plan for "Floreal-like" Patrol Corvette>

Bonus plan. Another candidate for modification. This version has a fixed Wildcat hangar. With no crane, it cannot carry USV anymore. Thinking of using this version as "Floreal like", locating an SSM launcher in both side of the hangar may be interesting (NSM?).
Hi Donald, I'm intrigued by your proposal. It's clear you have given this a lot of thought :thumbup:

First question, for deployments like APT(N) or Falklands patrol, does an OPV really need a Merlin capable flight deck? Would Wildcat capable be enough? Is this the compromise that could allow the RB2's to gain the critical embarked helicopter?

Second, in your opinion, as part of your deck extension refit, could a stern ramp be included for a single 8m RHIB? Lots of usable space under the flight deck in the EMF compartment. This may allow for 2 CB90 type craft to be davit mounted either side of the Wildcat hanger.

I'm not a big fan of drastically uparming the RB2's but I don't believe any patrol vessel should leave the EEZ without a 57/76mm and 2x 30mm's minimum.

If we could refit the RB2's with,
57/76mm
2x 30mm's
Wildcat hanger
2x CB90's
Single 8m RHIB

I would go from being the RB2's biggest critic to their biggest fan. Especially with the 25knt top speed.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Jan 2019, 11:35

Poiuytrewq wrote:a stern ramp be included for a single 8m RHIB? Lots of usable space under the flight deck in the EMF compartment. This may allow for 2 CB90 type craft to be davit mounted either side of the Wildcat hanger.

Regardless of whether there is enough space for CB90s on each side, such alternative launching method should be included (making use of the lea-side). USCG noted some generic problems for consideration when the designs for their various cutters were 'in the works':
"The longer the ship the higher the
accelerations and the greater the motions, limiting use
in higher sea states.


The ship speed for most launchings was
between 3 and 6 knots. This gives the mother ship
enough forward motion to maintain her course but still
slow enough for the RHIB to escape the stern wake
after launch.


All the small boats exhibited difficulty
navigating the wake and keeping the boat on a straight
in approach. The stern wake made it difficult to
maintain directional control of the small boat. As the
sea states increased, the wake effects worsened."

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 07 Jan 2019, 13:59

Thanks
shark bait wrote:...When I thought about this in the past I generally came to the same conclusion, they're just a little bit too short, so i'm very intrigued by your proposal to extend them. I didn't know such a stern extension was possible, could you expand on that part please?
Not sure enough, but there are several examples.
1: LCS Freedom has a big extension astern.
スクリーンショット 2019-01-07 22.58.13.jpg
2: FFG-7 had an extension by 2 m.
スクリーンショット 2019-01-07 23.10.11.jpg
3: Khareef-class corvette has ~0.5m extension astern.
スクリーンショット 2019-01-07 23.10.58.jpg


So, maybe the same will be possible. Succeeding ships of Freedom class has extended stern. I understand only the stern is extended, not the whole ship. If my memory works, the same happened to Italian FREMM.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 07 Jan 2019, 14:39

Poiuytrewq wrote:Hi Donald, I'm intrigued by your proposal. It's clear you have given this a lot of thought :thumbup:

First question, for deployments like APT(N) or Falklands patrol, does an OPV really need a Merlin capable flight deck? Would Wildcat capable be enough? Is this the compromise that could allow the RB2's to gain the critical embarked helicopter?
Thanks.

Falkland Island SAR helicopters (S-70) are large, so the ship there needs "so-so" large flight deck. I guess it is the same for SAR helos around Britain Island.

It is also worth noting that the T23's "23 m long flight deck" is SMALLER than that on MEKO200, FFG-7 or many other frigates. Yes, Wildcat-capable 20m flight deck may work for RB2, but it will significantly limit other navy's helos (SH-60 and NH-90, which is the world standard now) to land (I'm afraid they are not well trained to land in such a small flight deck).

I might be wrong, but keeping a "23 m long flight-deck" will worth doing.
Second, in your opinion, as part of your deck extension refit, could a stern ramp be included for a single 8m RHIB? Lots of usable space under the flight deck in the EMF compartment. This may allow for 2 CB90 type craft to be davit mounted either side of the Wildcat hanger.
River B2's stern is rather "crowded". It has two ladder machines there. I do not think adding a stern ramp is doable.

I also think the space below the flight deck will be fully used, when River B2 carries two USVs or a Wildcat. Up-arming itself will need additional crew. For example, adding 57 mm gun and 20mm CIWS will require at least 10-15 more crews. Adding ASW-USV system or adding a Wildcat will require 15-20 more. With chaff/flare and torpedo defense, another 5-10 will be needed. Here, the "50 RMs bank" is almost filled.

In addition, CB90 is very large, 15.9 m long and weighs 15-20 t. Even Danish Absalon is NOT carrying it. What they carry is SB90E, 11 m long, 7.2t weight, not CB90. SB90E has the similar size as the ARCIMS USV, so River B2 (mod) can carry two of them aside the crane, easily.
I'm not a big fan of drastically uparming the RB2's
Actually, I am also NOT a fan of up-arming River B2. It is fun to think about it, but it destroys the figure-of-merit of River B2 OPV in many cases. Contradiction, it is. :D

River B2 is an ocean-going patrol vessel, 25 knots fast, has long range and endurance, but simple and cheap to operate so that she need only 36 crew onboard (with rotation, ~60 crews will be assigned, but it does not mean 60 will be onboard), and can be "at sea" as long as 300 days an year. Extremely efficient asset. No escorts can beet them.

My proposal for the ASW-corvette-version is for a "war-time urgent shallow water ASW corvette". In peace time, the (modified) River B2s will be just doing EEZ, fishery, and (part of) FRE, while the ASW-USV operated directly from the ground will patrol the shallow water around UK. If RN is to go to war in vast brown water (such as around Falklands Islands), mod-River B2 will carry ASW-USVs, and become a "ASW corvette" version. This is my proposal.

The "Floreal-like" may be more clear candidate. It can be used for APT-S, and possibly APT-N (non-hurricane) if needed. This means we only need two or even only one OPV in such version.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Jan 2019, 16:48

The SR version of Oto-Melara 76 should not have much hustle & bustle in the turret, and mainly a joy-stick operator at the other end:
" Compared to the older USN 3" (7.62 cm) and Italian 76 mm (3") M.M.I. guns, this weapon has far lower manning requirements and carries a much larger supply of ready-service ammunition, allowing the gun to fire longer bursts without reloading. As the Compact and SR mountings are very nearly unmanned, they can fire at very short notice, about five to ten seconds from a cold start."

Whether anew caliber will enter the RN... hmmm? On a smaller vessels, a jack-of-all-trades might be just the thing (also being the inner layer to whatever Seaceptors might be available from other vessels)
- if we put one on all 5 of the RB2s, we can have a 360 inner layer "the SR can begin engaging attacking missiles at about 6,600 yards (6,000 m), with the first rounds arriving on target at 6,000 yards (5,500 m). With these ranges, a single gun can deal with up to four subsonic sea-skimmer missiles, arriving simultaneously on courses 90 degrees apart, before any reaches 1,100 yards (1,000 m)"
- while one of the 5 in is dock... or in the Channel ;)

tomuk
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby tomuk » 07 Jan 2019, 19:57

All the Rivers should be sold. South America or Eastern Europe. The Navy didn't want the B2s they were only built to keep BAE happy.

For fisheries/EEZ/border patrol more Damen 4207s or their larger option , license build them at Appledore

Venari 85 for MPHC role to replace Hunts, Sandowns, Echo, Rivers. UK ASW

Venator 110 for type 31. Single ship deployments. Carribean, Falklands, Pacific etc.

Type 26, Type 45 with carriers and amphibs.

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 07 Jan 2019, 20:12

tomuk wrote:All the Rivers should be sold. South America or Eastern Europe. The Navy didn't want the B2s they were only built to keep BAE happy.

For fisheries/EEZ/border patrol more Damen 4207s or their larger option , license build them at Appledore

Venari 85 for MPHC role to replace Hunts, Sandowns, Echo, Rivers. UK ASW

Venator 110 for type 31. Single ship deployments. Carribean, Falklands, Pacific etc.

Type 26, Type 45 with carriers and amphibs.
:clap:

If you had of said Venari 95 and Venator 120 we would have been in complete agreement....

tomuk
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby tomuk » 07 Jan 2019, 20:38

Well as long as they can both hangar a Merlin sized helicopter I don't mind the exact classification.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2495
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Jan 2019, 22:48

Maybe the T-31e should be rolled into this. Use them for the roles currently envisaged for the B2 Rivers and use latter as inshore/littoral combat vessels more akin to the Corvettes operated by many nations. Just a thought.

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 07 Jan 2019, 22:54

tomuk wrote:Well as long as they can both hangar a Merlin sized helicopter I don't mind the exact classification.
Unfortunatly you won't be able to embark a Merlin on any of the Venari series without lowering the flight deck.

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 07 Jan 2019, 23:13

donald_of_tokyo wrote:In addition, CB90 is very large, 15.9 m long and weighs 15-20 t. Even Danish Absalon is NOT carrying it. What they carry is SB90E, 11 m long, 7.2t weight, not CB90. SB90E has the similar size as the ARCIMS USV, so River B2 (mod) can carry two of them aside the crane, easily.
Agreed but can't see RN adopting the SB90. Worth considering that the T26 can't embark the CB90 either. In fact not many current RN/RFA vessels are CB90 capable. Maybe what we need is a CB90 type craft, a bit larger than an ORC but still T26 capable. In the region of 10.5m x 3m, weighing around 10t and able to hit 40knts. They should fit nicely either side that Wildcat hanger you proposed.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:The "Floreal-like" may be more clear candidate. It can be used for APT-S, and possibly APT-N (non-hurricane) if needed. This means we only need two or even only one OPV in such version.
I liked all of your proposed RB2 upgrades but the Bonus Floreal variant stood out. Even if RN are thinking along these lines I think it will get kicked into the long grass until the T31 programme is nailed down. Pity because if your proposals were indeed viable there would be a very strong argument to scrap the whole T31 programme and concentrate on the T26's.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Caribbean » 07 Jan 2019, 23:36

Poiuytrewq wrote:
tomuk wrote:All the Rivers should be sold. South America or Eastern Europe. The Navy didn't want the B2s they were only built to keep BAE happy.

For fisheries/EEZ/border patrol more Damen 4207s or their larger option , license build them at Appledore

Venari 85 for MPHC role to replace Hunts, Sandowns, Echo, Rivers. UK ASW

Venator 110 for type 31. Single ship deployments. Carribean, Falklands, Pacific etc.

Type 26, Type 45 with carriers and amphibs.
:clap:

If you had of said Venari 95 and Venator 120 we would have been in complete agreement....

I can't help thinking that, for what we paid for the RB2's, we could have license-built 2 Holland-class OPV's (or possibly three with RB2-grade weapons, sensors, comms and CMS) and a dozen Damen 4207s (or half-a-dozen 5509s) and still we would have had at least £200m left over to put towards the T31 budget (boosting it to around £325-340m each, plus GFE, with the recent additional £250m counted in). That would have started to look like a reasonable mix
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 Jan 2019, 01:49

tomuk wrote:All the Rivers should be sold. South America or Eastern Europe. The Navy didn't want the B2s they were only built to keep BAE happy.

For fisheries/EEZ/border patrol more Damen 4207s or their larger option , license build them at Appledore

Venari 85 for MPHC role to replace Hunts, Sandowns, Echo, Rivers. UK ASW

Venator 110 for type 31. Single ship deployments. Carribean, Falklands, Pacific etc.

Type 26, Type 45 with carriers and amphibs.
Lovely list!

But I'm afraid, River B2 and T31 issues are too late.

1: EEZ/fishery needs large (~2000 t) OPV, hence RN had 3 (+1) River B1 OPVs. Damen 4207-like crafts and River-like OPV covers different area.

2: River B2s are already built. Selling it will not give us back the 630M GBP spent (I guess only a half at most). Also, River B2 is a very good OPV, and as I've shown, they have good utility as built. Why not use it? (And it can be much better with a little modification, as I've proposed).

3: Having 5 River B2 with 25 knots to solve the "P" requirement of MHPC is, I think, vitally important to make MHC great. High speed is very bad for MHC, it will just either make the ship narrower (very BAD for MCM and other utility, bulky hull is needed) and make the engine large (bad from cost/maintenance point of view). In short, "speed" will make MHC vessel less capable as MCM/Hydrography and other utility tasks, and reduce the number of hulls.

P.S. "Venator 110 for type 31." Yes, I loved it, until we knew T31e program cost is only 1.25B GBP for 5 hulls. For Venator 110, we need at least twice this money...

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 Jan 2019, 02:53

Poiuytrewq wrote:Agreed but can't see RN adopting the SB90. Worth considering that the T26 can't embark the CB90 either. In fact not many current RN/RFA vessels are CB90 capable. Maybe what we need is a CB90 type craft, a bit larger than an ORC but still T26 capable. In the region of 10.5m x 3m, weighing around 10t and able to hit 40knts. They should fit nicely either side that Wildcat hanger you proposed.
Why not SB90? "In the region of 10.5m x 3m, weighing around 10t and able to hit 40knts. " is exactly SB90 itself, I guess? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storebro_SB90E
440px-RDN_LCP2_SRC90E.jpg
I liked all of your proposed RB2 upgrades but the Bonus Floreal variant stood out. Even if RN are thinking along these lines I think it will get kicked into the long grass until the T31 programme is nailed down. Pity because if your proposals were indeed viable there would be a very strong argument to scrap the whole T31 programme and concentrate on the T26's.
May be. Also the "forward deployment policy" will be related.

My proposed modification are not for free. The ASW-USV version may require 20-40M GBP per hull (5-10M GBP per hull for stern extension, another 10-20M GBP for the gun and link-16, and another 5-10M GBP for decoy sets) = not free. Floreal-like version will also cost 20-40M GBP per hull. So, my modification plan is only if the situation has changed a little, yes, as you said.

On the other hand, carrying 2 ARCIMS USVs and control system onboard River B2 (as is) is doable, within unmanned-asset budget, if the program decide to use River B2 as one of the mother ships. (without the stern extension, the flight-deck will be only Wildcat capable though).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Tempest414 » 08 Jan 2019, 11:36

For me right now I would like to see the 3 B1 Rivers kept for UK EEZ duties with a small upgrade to include Scanter 4100 radar and a 30mm in place of the 20mm plus 2 50 cal. This in turn would release the 5 new B2 Rivers for over seas duties again with small upgrade to replace the 30mm ( wihich would be fitted on the B1s) with a 57mm plus add Hero or Camcopter S100 with I-master radar to allow limited OTH and eyes on when conducting boarding ops then deploy them as so

1 to the Falklands
1 to AP-N with a Bay
1 to the Med forward deployed at Gib
1 conducting 2 x 3 monthly patrols of AP-S

Future replace all MCM , Echo's , Rivers with 15 new Venari -95 laid out as I put forward before

98 meter long - 16 meters beam
top speed 20 knots max
Scanter 4100 radar
Hull mounted sonar
BAE - CMS
Wildcat capable hangar

Off board systems

Unmanned MCM
Hydrographic
Unmanned Littoral ASW
Hero UAV
Wildcat

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 Jan 2019, 15:38

Umm. Really simply patrolling back and forth, relatively near the shore. Surely not in blue water = 2000t ship is not needed. Let's wait for the 2 BF cutters coming back from Med.

But, I also think that buying 3-4 more 42m BF cutter is needed. Another idea will be to buy (or lease) 2 (or even all 4) RNZN Protector-class inshore patrol boat, which is for sale. (56m long, 340t, 25 knots, with 20 Navy crew + additional 12 if needed.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector ... rol_vessel


SDL
Member
Posts: 604
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby SDL » 08 Jan 2019, 17:06

i suspect when the cutters return, she'll be sent out further into the channel

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Tempest414 » 10 Jan 2019, 12:07

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, I also think that buying 3-4 more 42m BF cutter is needed. Another idea will be to buy (or lease) 2 (or even all 4) RNZN Protector-class inshore patrol boat, which is for sale. (56m long, 340t, 25 knots, with 20 Navy crew + additional 12 if needed.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector ... rol_vessel


If the Protectors could be picked up for the right price or swapped for HMS Clyde it would be a win win

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 1955
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby abc123 » 10 Jan 2019, 12:23

Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, I also think that buying 3-4 more 42m BF cutter is needed. Another idea will be to buy (or lease) 2 (or even all 4) RNZN Protector-class inshore patrol boat, which is for sale. (56m long, 340t, 25 knots, with 20 Navy crew + additional 12 if needed.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector ... rol_vessel


If the Protectors could be picked up for the right price or swapped for HMS Clyde it would be a win win


A good idea. :thumbup:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Poiuytrewq and 21 guests