UK Defence Forum

Sorry for minor issue.

HMS Medway, looks like she move the port-side ISO container to the flight deck. She had it at the port-waist when she left Curacao last week for Jamaica. I guess she is handling it with her 16t crane?

rhodes76 wrote:Is there a picture anywhere of a River batch one next to a batch 2

Not good images to compare their size difference, but for example I can find... Note the width of the hull is the same among the two (the reason they are called Batch 1 and 2).

HMS Severn's CO (with navigator) is now onboard HMS Tyne and commanding her. Interesting way of "sharing" crew.

In a bizarre twist, our captain (philharper) and navigator (HartridgeRoddy) have been borrowed by hms_mersey for a week to support navigation training. So MERSEY, with our CO in temporary command, sailed past us this morning.
ref https://mobile.twitter.com/hmssevern/st ... 6926774272

donald_of_tokyo wrote:

rhodes76 wrote:Is there a picture anywhere of a River batch one next to a batch 2

Not good images to compare their size difference, but for example I can find... Note the width of the hull is the same among the two (the reason they are called Batch 1 and 2).

The photo does highlight the awful bow on the batch 1's. Thank goodness that was fixed.

It seems that we will now have to differentiate between River Batch 2s and River Batch 2 Batch2s ( B2.1 and B2.2 maybe?) !! According to this article, Tamar and Spey have been built to a different internal layout from Forth, Medway and Trent, It would be interesting to know what the differences are (and presumably the catalytic converters will be retrofitted to the entire fleet eventually)
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... enest-ship

So at the end it said that all 5 B 2 B 2.5's will be forward deployed as forward presence operating ship

interested to find out where they will all be based

Tempest414 wrote:So at the end it said that all 5 B 2 B 2.5's will be forward deployed as forward presence operating ship

Filling in for Frigates that should have been built in the first place....

Not sure we need a frigate in the Falklands or the Caribbean, not all the time, anyway. Or Gibraltar and the Med for that matter. They might even be useful running a form of APT(S) up and down the West Coast of Africa to Simonstown. Plenty of roles that we need cheaper platforms for

Caribbean wrote:Not sure we need a frigate in the Falklands or the Caribbean, not all the time, anyway. Or Gibraltar and the Med for that matter. They might even be useful running a form of APT(S) up and down the West Coast of Africa to Simonstown. Plenty of roles that we need cheaper platforms for

I agree with a couple of UAVs they will do fine for now in those roles, but I think we should look at starting to evolve the RB2 design in to a true MCPH vessel similar to the black swan concept.

A good number of these “black swans” could take over the majority of the low end roles from mcm to survey to all that you mentioned in a better way while allow the RB2s to retire to EEZ work replacing the RB1s.

Caribbean wrote:Not sure we need a frigate in the Falklands or the Caribbean, not all the time, anyway. Or Gibraltar and the Med for that matter. They might even be useful running a form of APT(S) up and down the West Coast of Africa to Simonstown. Plenty of roles that we need cheaper platforms for

Apart from the Falklands all of the other deployments mentioned could and should be undertaken by more capable vessels possibly at reduced cost.

Forward basing the RB2's is simply a case of filling the gaps before the T31's arrive.

For me given that we now know the next three ship of the class are to be forward deployed as well it is time to do something about their armament as the 30mm just will not cut it. For me the new base line should be 1 x 40mm , 2 x 30mm with LMM and a UAV

Could be interesting to tie some of these river deployments in with something like zephyr particularly around Africa. Some persistent ISR could be useful in maritime security tasks

NAO Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Ministry of Defence Defence capabilities – delivering what was promised HC 106 SESSION 2019–2021 dd 18 MARCH 2020

"Current estimated cost - The procurement cost of the three ships originally ordered (including HMS Forth) was £378 million. A firm price contract means delivery problems have not caused cost overruns. Two further ships were subsequently ordered, for a total cost of £683 million"

Previously understood BAE fixed price contracts quoted as £348 million and £287 million respectively, total £635 million? now NAO states £683 million.

2014 first three £378 million / 3 = £126 million each
2016 4th and 5th £305 million / 2 = £152.5 million each

Subsequent second contract two years later shows an escalation of 21% over and above first three ships costs, follow-on build more expensive, expect unknown factors in play over normal inflation (BAE made loss on first contract). Conventional wisdom claims follow-on build costs should reduce as as all detail design costs funded and production expertise gained.

I think there was a service contract included in the the second order covering all 5 ships

NickC wrote:NAO Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Ministry of Defence Defence capabilities – delivering what was promised HC 106 SESSION 2019–2021 dd 18 MARCH 2020

"Current estimated cost - The procurement cost of the three ships originally ordered (including HMS Forth) was £378 million. A firm price contract means delivery problems have not caused cost overruns. Two further ships were subsequently ordered, for a total cost of £683 million"

Previously understood BAE fixed price contracts quoted as £348 million and £287 million respectively, total £635 million? now NAO states £683 million.

2014 first three £378 million / 3 = £126 million each
2016 4th and 5th £305 million / 2 = £152.5 million each

Subsequent second contract two years later shows an escalation of 21% over and above first three ships costs, follow-on build more expensive, expect unknown factors in play over normal inflation (BAE made loss on first contract). Conventional wisdom claims follow-on build costs should reduce as as all detail design costs funded and production expertise gained.

Thanks, good info.

Tempest414 wrote:I think there was a service contract included in the the second order covering all 5 ships

I also remember so. But, another important thing to note is, the cost of River B2 wad never only the vessel cost. It is the cost to maintain labour-force to enable smooth T26 build. It is call TOBA cost, and anyway needed.

I guess it means, the additional two ship's work-load were slightly "less" than the work-load to needed to fill the time shift?

She makes a fine sight!

At sea, at last!
I understand HMS Severn was planned to be dedicated for navigation training. Is it still that way? Do anybody know?

donald_of_tokyo wrote:At sea, at last!
I understand HMS Severn was planned to be dedicated for navigation training. Is it still that way? Do anybody know?

Providing the best navigation and seamanship experience to the best navy in the world, is what it says on their Twitter biog.

HMS Tamar's "Dragon".
What is its origin, I do not know...?

Technically, I think that is "a Lion rampant gules" or some such. The Lion originally comes from the Scottish coat-of-arms (the Unicorn for England), but can also represent Britain as a whole and represents strength, bravery, and royalty, rampant is the heraldic position for "a beast that hunts" and Gules (i.e red) is the heraldic colour for military excellence and fortitude.

The lion comes from the crest of HMS Tamar, which in turn is based on elements taken from the coat of arms for Devon and the coat of arms of Cornwall. The river Tamar is the border (in part) between Devon and Cornwall. The lion appears on Devon's coat of arms.