Sounds very hopeful given budgetary and economic pressuresRepulse wrote:Yesdmereifield wrote:8 T31 and 8 River B2/3?
River Class (OPV) (RN)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Repulse wrote:Never liked the Arrowhead for this exact reason tbh, I’m hoping it’s not too late to do something. The RN cannot afford a half-arsed frigate that cannot add significantly on the MHC capability - I still think the 80m Venator design with CAMM remains the best one I’ve seen. Would have been the perfect forward presence ship IMO.donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, Arrowhead 140 will not be a good hull
The River isn’t the best design but we have it, and a third batch with some further modifications would be the most affordable option.
No doubt still fantasy land, given our expected economic future, but would six lighter armed BAE Leander concepts not be far more suitable and perhaps cheaper than 3+3?dmereifield wrote:Sounds very hopeful given budgetary and economic pressuresRepulse wrote:Yesdmereifield wrote:8 T31 and 8 River B2/3?
Remove the mid-ship VLS, deck launchers, Phalanx and Artisan radar; replace the 76mm with a 57mm; and reduce the CAMM load to 12.
As was frequently pointed out during the Type 31 competitions, the Leander wasn't much more than a stretched River Class with a decent sized mission bay in the middle and not far off the size of an Echo Class. With all the above kit removed, surely it could be delivered for £150-200m?
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Why do we (on these pages) fancy more OPVs/ corvettes when they are clearly just a bridge to the future build prgrms?
As Engaging Strategy points out on his (already once linked) twitter, it is the improvements to existing fleet
"as the Type 23 Life Extension refit and Type 45 PIP upgrade programmes progress the number of units available and in the water could (counter-intuitively) increase in 2023-24, despite the first two General Purpose Type 23s paying off in this timeframe."
, and the disproportionately high number of OPVs (two generations in use instead of the normal paying off/ selling off) that will hold the fort as for surface ship - I can't bring myself to say combatants - numbers, to the end of this decade
- the first top up will come from the "budget frigate" programme, so that is unlikely to be cut
- but how slowly will anything else enter into the fleet with the budget pressures in the "Covid works" now is anybody's guess.
So we will be seeing more Rivers/ for longer than we would care to. What are we going to do with them... other than fight to the last fish
As Engaging Strategy points out on his (already once linked) twitter, it is the improvements to existing fleet
"as the Type 23 Life Extension refit and Type 45 PIP upgrade programmes progress the number of units available and in the water could (counter-intuitively) increase in 2023-24, despite the first two General Purpose Type 23s paying off in this timeframe."
, and the disproportionately high number of OPVs (two generations in use instead of the normal paying off/ selling off) that will hold the fort as for surface ship - I can't bring myself to say combatants - numbers, to the end of this decade
- the first top up will come from the "budget frigate" programme, so that is unlikely to be cut
- but how slowly will anything else enter into the fleet with the budget pressures in the "Covid works" now is anybody's guess.
So we will be seeing more Rivers/ for longer than we would care to. What are we going to do with them... other than fight to the last fish
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
How would any of this feed into the overall strategy that was discussed on sdsr thread?
Is the river the “small ship” class on which coastal protection is now centred? Or is that now type 31?
If more rivers are ordered where would they be built if it’s the Clyde then type 26 will be delayed further.
Is the river the “small ship” class on which coastal protection is now centred? Or is that now type 31?
If more rivers are ordered where would they be built if it’s the Clyde then type 26 will be delayed further.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
That's a good question as the protection of our own shores/ports would be against threats that aren't countered with cannon fire.
Unmanned systems (MCM/ ASW) would play a major role but as it cannot be known where the threats would materialise, numbers will also be required so that the assets (with restricted range and/or control span) can be got to the right locations quickly, for launching.
Even the Rivers might be too much ship for this (taking the rqrmnt for numbers also into account), so the good old Hunts might live for longer than anyone has expected
- they have that A-frame type of arrangement for hosting "stuff" into and out of water (whereas the work deck on the smaller Sandowns does not ' fit the occasion ').
Unmanned systems (MCM/ ASW) would play a major role but as it cannot be known where the threats would materialise, numbers will also be required so that the assets (with restricted range and/or control span) can be got to the right locations quickly, for launching.
Even the Rivers might be too much ship for this (taking the rqrmnt for numbers also into account), so the good old Hunts might live for longer than anyone has expected
- they have that A-frame type of arrangement for hosting "stuff" into and out of water (whereas the work deck on the smaller Sandowns does not ' fit the occasion ').
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
So could we look to do with the rivers what Canadian are looking at with the Kingston class.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
given were we are heading I would say first off we need to make what we have and what is coming the best it can be and then maybe add some hulls so for me this meansJensy wrote:No doubt still fantasy land, given our expected economic future, but would six lighter armed BAE Leander concepts not be far more suitable and perhaps cheaper than 3+3?
Remove the mid-ship VLS, deck launchers, Phalanx and Artisan radar; replace the 76mm with a 57mm; and reduce the CAMM load to 12.
As was frequently pointed out during the Type 31 competitions, the Leander wasn't much more than a stretched River Class with a decent sized mission bay in the middle and not far off the size of an Echo Class. With all the above kit removed, surely it could be delivered for £150-200m?
For the B2 Rivers fitting a 57mm + 2 x 30mm with LMM + 2 x 12.7mm and adding a UAV
For the type 31 adding a hull mounted sonar fitting 24 CAMM as a base line 32 would be better plus 8 x anti ship missiles
Next if we could get this add one type 31 to make it six and forward base 4 of them EoS along with 2 RB2's and a Wave class the rest of the escort /patrol fleet would be kept West of Suez giving a fleet of 16 escorts and 6 patrol ships
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Agree we need to make do and mend. Just wondering though whether building more Type 31 might be more economically attractive than up-arming the already planned ships?
-
- Member
- Posts: 527
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Like Donald and you good self - I too dislike A140 as the davit size seems to work against the utility of large UUV offboard systems, but...Repulse wrote:Never liked the Arrowhead for this exact reason tbh, I’m hoping it’s not too late to do something. The RN cannot afford a half-arsed frigate that cannot add significantly on the MHC capability - I still think the 80m Venator design with CAMM remains the best one I’ve seen. Would have been the perfect forward presence ship IMO.donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, Arrowhead 140 will not be a good hull
Remember, we are explicitly not committed to these ships for the long term.
They were purchased with the intention of rapidly selling them off mid-life to a foriegn navy.
We've all been assuming that they would be replaced by an evolved T31, but is that necessarily the case?
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Because the original numbers were too few, and the current finances can only make numbers fewer. Also, a third of the significant fleet (15 MCMs + Echos) have no replacement planned nor any money earmarked.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why do we (on these pages) fancy more OPVs/ corvettes when they are clearly just a bridge to the future build prgrms?
I get that MHC drones are the new world, but you still need a platform to operate from, as Donald-san points out it is not a quick job, they will operate in higher threat environments and they cannot be in more than one place at a time.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
True, but history suggests that there is the possibility of them being removed early (short term cost cutting), for a small cost to another navy and not being replaced.jedibeeftrix wrote:Remember, we are explicitly not committed to these ships for the long term.
They were purchased with the intention of rapidly selling them off mid-life to a foriegn navy.
We've all been assuming that they would be replaced by an evolved T31, but is that necessarily the case?
I’m trying to be positive on the T31, and maybe is they resolve the flaws in the Arrowhead (of which this is the main one), then it can be a success. However, I still can’t help that a more realistic view on what will be forward based, another T26 and an evolved B3 River (For MHC) remains the best approach.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
As time goes on and we start to see how unmanned MCM is shaping I see more and more the need for a Venari type ship than a B3 River
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
The Venari design look good a the sort of vessel that will be needed, but Iv been thinking why not evolve the RB2 design to something like the Venari.Tempest414 wrote:As time goes on and we start to see how unmanned MCM is shaping I see more and more the need for a Venari type ship than a B3 River
Have a low end fleet based on the same “family” sharing as much commonality as possible and based on a proven successful export design.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
I keep coming back to the idea that the navy needs surface fleet mix of say 10 , 8 , 8 , 8 so this would be
10 x Multi mission sloops ( MHPC ) 90 to 100 meters with a so so radar and CMS
8 x GP frigates ( type 31 ) with a HMS 24 to 36 CAMM and 8 x anti ship missile
8 x ASW frigates ( type 26 ) pretty much as is
8 x AAW Destroyers ( type 4x )
with this in mind if a River B3 could be made into a Venator style lay out it could work
10 x Multi mission sloops ( MHPC ) 90 to 100 meters with a so so radar and CMS
8 x GP frigates ( type 31 ) with a HMS 24 to 36 CAMM and 8 x anti ship missile
8 x ASW frigates ( type 26 ) pretty much as is
8 x AAW Destroyers ( type 4x )
with this in mind if a River B3 could be made into a Venator style lay out it could work
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
And if you just strike thru the bottom line of those 4 I think that’s what you’ll end up with.Tempest414 wrote:I keep coming back to the idea that the navy needs surface fleet mix of say 10 , 8 , 8 , 8 so this would be
10 x Multi mission sloops ( MHPC ) 90 to 100 meters with a so so radar and CMS
8 x GP frigates ( type 31 ) with a HMS 24 to 36 CAMM and 8 x anti ship missile
8 x ASW frigates ( type 26 ) pretty much as is
8 x AAW Destroyers ( type 4x )
with this in mind if a River B3 could be made into a Venator style lay out it could work
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
We are possibly veering off topic, but I’d say Tempest414, you are being very optimistic.
Can’t see the RN affording more than a 30 “significant surface warship” navy until past the mid 2030s, given the cash situation and priorities.
My view is that by adding a brand new class the numbers drop 1-2 hulls due to the upfront investment and running costs. If you changes you 8’s into 6’s then it is probably realistic, though no chance of a T45 replacement till late 2030’s, unless something significant changes.
This is why I always thought going 9-10 T26s and an evolved River Class for a “MHPC” role would have been best - aiming for 15 in total.
However, we have the T31, so it needs to have significant MHC capabilities - let’s just acknowledge the fact, change the design and build 10 if the money is there; if it’s not we need to go down the evolved River route IMO.
Can’t see the RN affording more than a 30 “significant surface warship” navy until past the mid 2030s, given the cash situation and priorities.
My view is that by adding a brand new class the numbers drop 1-2 hulls due to the upfront investment and running costs. If you changes you 8’s into 6’s then it is probably realistic, though no chance of a T45 replacement till late 2030’s, unless something significant changes.
This is why I always thought going 9-10 T26s and an evolved River Class for a “MHPC” role would have been best - aiming for 15 in total.
However, we have the T31, so it needs to have significant MHC capabilities - let’s just acknowledge the fact, change the design and build 10 if the money is there; if it’s not we need to go down the evolved River route IMO.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Firstly this is what I feel should happen from now until the early 2030's
And this is what I feel should be the aim heading into the 2040'sTempest414 wrote:given were we are heading I would say first off we need to make what we have and what is coming the best it can be and then maybe add some hulls so for me this means
For the B2 Rivers fitting a 57mm + 2 x 30mm with LMM + 2 x 12.7mm and adding a UAV
For the type 31 adding a hull mounted sonar fitting 24 CAMM as a base line 32 would be better plus 8 x anti ship missiles
Next if we could get this add one type 31 to make it six and forward base 4 of them EoS along with 2 RB2's and a Wave class the rest of the escort /patrol fleet would be kept West of Suez giving a fleet of 16 escorts and 6 patrol ships
Tempest414 wrote:I keep coming back to the idea that the navy needs surface fleet mix of say 10 , 8 , 8 , 8 so this would be
10 x Multi mission sloops ( MHPC ) 90 to 100 meters with a so so radar and CMS
8 x GP frigates ( type 31 ) with a HMS 24 to 36 CAMM and 8 x anti ship missile
8 x ASW frigates ( type 26 ) pretty much as is
8 x AAW Destroyers ( type 4x )
with this in mind if a River B3 could be made into a Venator style lay out it could work
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
We’re veering way off topic now guys. Please take it to a more relevant thread. PM me if you need advice.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Recent activities of River B2 and B1 ships. Overall, they look very active, albeit within the COVID19 crisis. Good thing, they are "the every-day-job" worker, providing essential surveillance, EEZ patrol, etc.
""
HMS Forth at Falkland Island.
""
HMS Trent st work.
""
""
HMS Severn and Tyne alongside at sea, doing shiphandling and tactical comms training.
In addition, we know HMS Medway at work along with RFA Argus in Caribbean ocean.
""
HMS Forth at Falkland Island.
""
HMS Trent st work.
""
""
HMS Severn and Tyne alongside at sea, doing shiphandling and tactical comms training.
In addition, we know HMS Medway at work along with RFA Argus in Caribbean ocean.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
(@hms_tamar) 5th May 2020
HMS TAMAR at sea taken by our friends at @815NAS
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
It's about time the Brits has a coast guard for that.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Good thing, they are "the every-day-job" worker, providing essential surveillance, EEZ patrol, etc.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston