River Class (OPV) (RN)

[wargame_insomniac]

In future, do both.

Absolutely - just let’s not pretend it’s a top priority, nor that we can afford to forward base frigates beyond Kipion. Maybe if the T32s actually become a reality, but there’s a lot of other things that need funding before that.

What about the Guard Ships in Gibralter, West Indies and Falkland Islands. Historically these have been Frigates or even Destroyers. The RB2s made a good cheap stand in more peaceful times when reduced escort numbers meant that we had no other choice.

But what about going forward? Is an RB2 sufficent deterrance in the face of Argentinan efforts to seeimgly rearm. What about the T31s once they are commisioned into service, if we assume they are kept broadly as they are with existing weapons and sensors?

[wargame_insomniac]

And this is exactly what the RB2's are perfect for along with the much derided "cocktail parties".

Low intensity anti-piracy, anti-smuggling and HADR operations, wotking with various regional navies and coastguards, often comparably sized corvettes, OPV's and Cutters.

This is not gunboat diplomacy of old where RN could bully such smaller navies by sending warfighting escorts that would outgun the smaller ships of regional navies. This is sending a smaller ship to work WITH these navies, alongside side them, helping them to benefit of many years RN experience and procedures, generating goodwill by soft power diplomacy.

Ideally we would have Bays working alongside the RB2's in such regions, especially in times of seasonal bad weather needing additional HADR support. But we can't afford to spare such a usefull asset as the Bays due to the other missions required of them.

Not really no, here’s one country doing it on the east coast of Africa and one on the west coast

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... of-guinea/

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/maritim ... rcise-0_en

We must tell them there doing it wrong..

Bravo for them if they have spare frigates to do so. By around 2032 we might have enough Frigates to do so once again assuming no delays in either T26 or T31 construction.

Re Operation Atalanta, we used to participate in that whilst we were still part of the EU. I think we should rejoin it. Once we have enough frigates again.

You think you are disproving my point. It is more that we are havig to use OPV instead of frigates in the first place. I have my criticisms of RB2s, namely that if they could have been 5-10m longer they could have fitted a helicopter hangar and are underarmed (they could do with having a second 30mm cannon or a pair of lighter guns at a minimum). But, havig built them then we ought to use them to the max, and this sort of mission is using them best ;to releive pressure on the dwindling number of RN frigates.

When it comes to TF-150 and OP Atalanta we have had a Fort-1 with 2 x ASaC7 Sea King's and Wave class conducting this task in the past

For me we really need to start thinking about a RB2 upgrade starting with the radar to a 3D radar next a UAV like Camcopter with I master radar fitted ( this is now coming into service with the RN so lets get it trialled on the RB2's ) and if money is found go all in and fit a 57mm and 4 x 12.7mm

And at the same time really push on with POD's we really need to see a CAMM , UAV , MCM , ASW , Medical POD maybe even a MLRS POD that can be fitted to the Amphibs for NRFS

And by that point youve spent so much you know you may as well have bought a frigate like everyone else and have all the capabilities of a frigate that you still won’t have when you’ve attempted to make a offshore patrol vessel a frigate for the same cost.

The batch 1 will be 30 years old by end of decade and scrapped the river 2 will replace them and be returned to the designed role. You can then decide if you to delete what the rivers are currently doing or have a type 31 do it. I would suggest the maritime security and escort role which the rivers can’t do, is a pretty fundamental role if you value your overseas territories and trade partnered especially if youre espousing a future based on a maritime strategy.

It was a requirement by law a long time ago that at least 25% of the RN strength was dedicated to protection of trade it was the prerequisite for having it funded.

And by that point youve spent so much you know you may as well have bought a frigate like everyone else and have all the capabilities of a frigate that you still won’t have when you’ve attempted to make a offshore patrol vessel a frigate for the same cost.

Indeed there is a finite amount of money. It's not unreasonable to want to explore upgrades to the RB2, but this had to be in the context of its role and foreseeable missions. Those who advocate turning them into corvettes need to be to say what other elements of the fleet they would cut to pay for them, e.g. how many new T31s would they be prepared to cancel to have 5 RB2 'corvettes', that will already be halfway through their lives?

Firstly I am talking about fitting SAAB X1 which we know costs 2 million a pop as proven in the last contract next I am talking about giving the RB2's a good UAV in the form of a Camcopter S100 which costs about 500K a pop both of these system are about to come into service with the RN and would cost sub 30 million to fit across the fleet of 5 RB2's and both would give the class a big step up in there current role

I did then go on to say that if money could be found then up gun them to give them a base line anti air capability as the use of long range drones will only become more and more seen

So no I am not talking about making them a Corvette or light frigate I am talking about giving them better eye and ears to do there current and future roles and at the same time options later down the if and when POD's comes on line

And the eyes and ears part is important as we are moving towards an era of integrated sensor information. The RB2s help with eyes and ears on station, especially if their own senser range is expanded by cheaper UAV and USV. Along with other escorts, and ship-borne helicopters and land based P8 aircraft and Sea Guradian drones, they become just another node in the integrated information database.

I don't know if the prices that Tempest is quoting are reasonable for such equipment, but, assuming they are, this is the sort of low cost upgrades to RB2s that would allow them to contribute more fully going forward.

It is comparable to the discussions we have had on whether the T31s should be upgraded and if so, with what. In both cases there is a tipping point to the upgrades on both RB2s and T31s where they can lose the (comparative) benefits they bring of being cheap, requiring low crew complement and having high availability of number of days at sea.

[SW1]

For inferior vessels over 2/3s the way thru their life they would be mad if they jumped at that. And show they have zero idea about industrial drum beat and threw life costs.

They would be entering there most intensive maintenance period, its when they should be sold and replaced with what’s in build eg type 31.

If OPVs can do the job that is required, which it seems they can, then buy more OPVs. If the RN know anything about drumbeats then they need to build something that’s needed and something they can afford in bulk.

Whilst it would be “nice”, deploying even one T31 to the region would cost more than both B2s that are there already doing a great job building alliances for very little gain if any.

Can they though? They can’t escort and it would interesting to see how far up the boarding and interception curve they would be prepared to go without the ability to have helicopter assault or top cover in place. And they can’t persist for any period of time without returning to port.

Beyond fisheries protection a river offers little

[SW1]

Well after the current type 26 and type 31 funding and there will be more funding for the escort fleet or there will be just 13 vessels.

Absolutely and the next DS needs to realise that. It’s only enough to operate a single CVF , protect the CASD and maintain NATO commitments etc.

If HMG really want to operate both CVFs concurrently the priority is more T26/T83 not T31/32. A credible rate of attrition against a single or more peer opponent(s) now has to be included in planning. The days of bare minimum defence spending are over for the foreseeable but HMT aren’t listening yet.

Any uplift in RN procurement funding is likely to be swallowed by AUKUS which is fine within reason.

This highlights very clearly why the DCPR was such a wasted opportunity to press reset on current planning which is now clearly out of date with an ongoing war in Europe, the Indo Pacific tilt, AUKUS, and a new NATO force structure.

Even within current budgets much more could have been done but with an election looming the possibility of unkind headlines took priority over the defence of the realm.

We have far far far more than bare minimum defence spending our defence budget is huge. It dwarfs just about every other country in the world bar a handful.

[new guy]

I think it is fair to say that the RN should be able to afford 25 main combatant ships.
I think this could arise with:
a) Least viable option IMO, T31B2/T32. £2-2.5bn depending if you want 5 or 6 hulls. This seems least viable considering it will have to exist in a budgetary world alongside MRSS, SSNR, T83.
b) The more viable approach in my opinion, expand T83 programme. Navy lookout is already reporting that doctrine is swinging towards a greater number of more moderate ships. If so, moving T83 for 6 hulls to 12. As it will have to be a new design, a ASW FFBNW design can be procured. It can be the global cruiser that T26 was and may be. It can be the Global Combatant Ship that T26 is marketed as.

a fleet of 12 T83, 8 T26, 5 T31.
Alongside ~25 MHCP/GPS.

[wargame_insomniac]

For inferior vessels over 2/3s the way thru their life they would be mad if they jumped at that. And show they have zero idea about industrial drum beat and threw life costs.

They would be entering there most intensive maintenance period, its when they should be sold and replaced with what’s in build eg type 31.

If OPVs can do the job that is required, which it seems they can, then buy more OPVs. If the RN know anything about drumbeats then they need to build something that’s needed and something they can afford in bulk.

Whilst it would be “nice”, deploying even one T31 to the region would cost more than both B2s that are there already doing a great job building alliances for very little gain if any.

Without wanting to go too far off topic, I believe the RN would need to deploy the 5*T31 something alog the lines of:
-2 vessels in UK waters (one to be FRE and one to cover LRG(N) and RN's contribution to Standing NATO Maritime Group One (SNMG1).
-1 vessel in Gibralter to cover Med, West Africa and RN's contribution to SNMG2.
-1 vessel in Persian Gulf as RN's contribution to Operation Kipion
-1 vessel in Oman to covr LRG(S).

I am assuming that the 6*T45 and 8*T26 will normally be fully utlised in CSG, CASD and TAPS (allowing for roughly one third to be on active deployment, one third at high readiness to deploy (carrying out crew training and minor maintenance before undergoing FOST), one third at lowe readiness (with crew on leave, and ship underging more major refits and repairs).

In this scenario I see the 5*RB2s being kept and deployed pretty much where they are now. I regard them as more Oceanic Patrol Vessels than Offshore. I have said before that for UK waters the RB2s are just overkill - hence I would replace the RB1s with 4 smaller (80m - 85m) off-the-shelf commercial designed OPVs - smaller, cheaper, requiring less crew.

[new guy]

In future, do both.

Absolutely - just let’s not pretend it’s a top priority, nor that we can afford to forward base frigates beyond Kipion. Maybe if the T32s actually become a reality, but there’s a lot of other things that need funding before that.

What about the Guard Ships in Gibralter, West Indies and Falkland Islands. Historically these have been Frigates or even Destroyers. The RB2s made a good cheap stand in more peaceful times when reduced escort numbers meant that we had no other choice.

But what about going forward? Is an RB2 sufficent deterrance in the face of Argentinan efforts to seeimgly rearm. What about the T31s once they are commisioned into service, if we assume they are kept broadly as they are with existing weapons and sensors?

Far better than any additional warship for the Falklands would be the addition of a facility capable of sub operations, air defence, anti-ship missile battery, and maybe a conventional ballistic missile / HGV battery for military targets on Argentinian soil.
In simulations, the flight of typhoons at mount pleasant have been able to take down all of 2 squadrons of F-16's that Argentina intends to buy. effortlessly.
Secondly, Argentina isn't actually up-arming. All just rumours. If they do, we will have years of forewarning to up-arm the Falklands ourselves. If war does break out, one frigate by themselves won't do much without a task group protecting it. only operating costs increase.
As for the Caribbean, what threat?
Gibraltar, if Spain, what will a frigate do? A far bigger concern would be in the air.
If it is a foreign nation trying to get control of a trade choke point, I think Spain would have to fight them.

[Poiuytrewq]

We have far far far more than bare minimum defence spending our defence budget is huge. It dwarfs just about every other country in the world bar a handful.

How does it look if you remove the CASD and pensions?

[Repulse]

Can they though? They can’t escort and it would interesting to see how far up the boarding and interception curve they would be prepared to go without the ability to have helicopter assault or top cover in place. And they can’t persist for any period of time without returning to port.

Beyond fisheries protection a river offers little

I think it’s fair to say they’ve done very little fisheries protection in the past 18 months, so facts disprove your point.

Also, there plenty of vessels in the region available to escort trade which is in their interest. The real offerings the UK can make is the ability to deploy and sustain a CSG from the UK and SSNs.

[wargame_insomniac]

What about the Guard Ships in Gibralter, West Indies and Falkland Islands. Historically these have been Frigates or even Destroyers. The RB2s made a good cheap stand in more peaceful times when reduced escort numbers meant that we had no other choice.

But what about going forward? Is an RB2 sufficent deterrance in the face of Argentinan efforts to seeimgly rearm. What about the T31s once they are commisioned into service, if we assume they are kept broadly as they are with existing weapons and sensors?

From a maritime perspective, the OPVs are just a trip wire. What will help protect the Falklands will be the CSG and SSNs - we just need to do a training deployment at the right time to prove the point.

What I would say however is that the UK must invest in more A2/AD missile capabilities which is where the Army should be looking to take a leading role in.

For the rest in the same way a River is also fine.

[new guy]

For inferior vessels over 2/3s the way thru their life they would be mad if they jumped at that. And show they have zero idea about industrial drum beat and threw life costs.

They would be entering there most intensive maintenance period, its when they should be sold and replaced with what’s in build eg type 31.

If OPVs can do the job that is required, which it seems they can, then buy more OPVs. If the RN know anything about drumbeats then they need to build something that’s needed and something they can afford in bulk.

Whilst it would be “nice”, deploying even one T31 to the region would cost more than both B2s that are there already doing a great job building alliances for very little gain if any.

Without wanting to go too far off topic, I believe the RN would need to deploy the 5*T31 something alog the lines of:
-2 vessels in UK waters (one to be FRE and one to cover LRG(N) and RN's contribution to Standing NATO Maritime Group One (SNMG1).
-1 vessel in Gibralter to cover Med, West Africa and RN's contribution to SNMG2.
-1 vessel in Persian Gulf as RN's contribution to Operation Kipion
-1 vessel in Oman to covr LRG(S).

I am assuming that the 6*T45 and 8*T26 will normally be fully utlised in CSG, CASD and TAPS (allowing for roughly one third to be on active deployment, one third at high readiness to deploy (carrying out crew training and minor maintenance before undergoing FOST), one third at lowe readiness (with crew on leave, and ship underging more major refits and repairs).

In this scenario I see the 5*RB2s being kept and deployed pretty much where they are now. I regard them as more Oceanic Patrol Vessels than Offshore. I have said before that for UK waters the RB2s are just overkill - hence I would replace the RB1s with 4 smaller (80m - 85m) off-the-shelf commercial designed OPVs - smaller, cheaper, requiring less crew.

Yes I agree. RB2 are to gucci for just UK waters. Instead of a 2,000 tonne ship we need a new 1,000t one for home stretches. babcock seems prime for this construction.
the RB2 are perfect where they are now.
Yes the T26 & T45 will always be for CSG, CASD and home.
From now on the RN will be perceived in X ways:
1) the auxiliaries, rivers and T31 doing most of the global work.
2) The force: the CSG
3) The Underwater; The CASD and the killers you cannot see

[SW1]

We have far far far more than bare minimum defence spending our defence budget is huge. It dwarfs just about every other country in the world bar a handful.

How does it look if you remove the CASD and pensions?

Both are counted in the US defence budget for example.

We paid for Polaris out of the existing defence budget way back when. If you don’t wish to pay for nuclear weapons don’t. But they area weapon and the defend us so seems fair to have the. In the defence budget.

Pensions is part of paying people to serve, its that simple.

Don’t know how other countries count spending to their defence budget, but for the nato nations they a criteria for it and both the above are included in that criteria.

[Poiuytrewq]

Argentina isn't actually up-arming.

Great, no need to be concerned then.

What a relief for the Falkland Islanders!

Just out of interest, do you think it’s only the UK that needs to maintain a drumbeat for their shipbuilding industry?

[SW1]

Can they though? They can’t escort and it would interesting to see how far up the boarding and interception curve they would be prepared to go without the ability to have helicopter assault or top cover in place. And they can’t persist for any period of time without returning to port.

Beyond fisheries protection a river offers little

I think it’s fair to say they’ve done very little fisheries protection in the past 18 months, so facts disprove your point.

Also, there plenty of vessels in the region available to escort trade which is in their interest. The real offerings the UK can make is the ability to deploy and sustain a CSG from the UK and SSNs.

Yes and other than cocktail parties in ports and some nice sight seeing not much military effect either.


I assumed the uk was interesting in being a maritime state. The definition of which is escorting and ensuring free movement of trade. If we aren’t then define our future differently.

We can’t deploy and sustain a carrier in the region or any length of time and if there is one thing the region has its hundreds and hundreds of fast jets we don’t offer anything unique there.

[wargame_insomniac]

What about the Guard Ships in Gibralter, West Indies and Falkland Islands. Historically these have been Frigates or even Destroyers. The RB2s made a good cheap stand in more peaceful times when reduced escort numbers meant that we had no other choice.

But what about going forward? Is an RB2 sufficent deterrance in the face of Argentinan efforts to seeimgly rearm. What about the T31s once they are commisioned into service, if we assume they are kept broadly as they are with existing weapons and sensors?

From a maritime perspective, the OPVs are just a trip wire. What will help protect the Falklands will be the CSG and SSNs - we just need to do a training deployment at the right time to prove the point.

What I would say however is that the UK must invest in more A2/AD missile capabilities which is where the Army should be looking to take a leading role in.

For the rest in the same way a River is also fine.

I would feel more comfortable in having a Frigate, if not as the actual FIGS, but deployed regularly to South Atlantic, so it is available at backing up the advance deployed RB2 if necessary. It is a balancing act between not provoking the Argentinians but also providing a regular reminder.

Our 6 current SSN (hopefully soon 7 when the last of the Astutes is launched) are just spread too thinly to rely on, and I suspect the CSG will have enough demdns on it's time with cvering NATO's northern flank and the occasional deployments to Indo/Pacific.

[wargame_insomniac]

Yes and other than cocktail parties in ports and some nice sight seeing not much military effect either.

Nonsense - look at what’s been done without a biased view and they’ve been doing a lot more - military effect is all relative. Have they been imposing the UKs will against the natives, no, but that would be a bit counterproductive wouldn’t it, more subtle than that which is absolutely the right approach when matched with bigger CSG/SSN sticks.

I assumed the uk was interesting in being a maritime state. The definition of which is escorting and ensuring free movement of trade. If we aren’t then define our future differently.

It is a maritime state, it is not the worlds policeman. It’s easy to define our role, it’s based on reality, a top tier regional power with global interests, allies and reach.

We can’t deploy and sustain a carrier in the region or any length of time and if there is one thing the region has its hundreds and hundreds of fast jets we don’t offer anything unique there.

Again nonsense - the only real carrier force outside of the PLAN is the USN. The carriers will be very valuable, there are no land based fighters that have the range, and can be supported via allied ports in the region.

[Poiuytrewq]

We can’t deploy and sustain a carrier in the region or any length of time and if there is one thing the region has its hundreds and hundreds of fast jets we don’t offer anything unique there.

Again nonsense - the only real carrier force outside of the PLAN is the USN. The carriers will be very valuable, there are no land based fighters that have the range, and can be supported via allied ports in the region.

Operating two CSGs from Australia along with multiple SSNs would be a massive contribution if things go kinetic in the SCS.

It’s a maximum effort scenario but it should be planned for with thoroughly tested interoperability between RN, USN, USMC and the RAN especially with F35b and escorts etc.

These capabilities should never be used but it must be clear they are ready to be used if necessary and at short notice.

[SW1]

Yes and other than cocktail parties in ports and some nice sight seeing not much military effect either.

Nonsense - look at what’s been done without a biased view and they’ve been doing a lot more - military effect is all relative. Have they been imposing the UKs will against the natives, no, but that would be a bit counterproductive wouldn’t it, more subtle than that which is absolutely the right approach when matched with bigger CSG/SSN sticks.

I assumed the uk was interesting in being a maritime state. The definition of which is escorting and ensuring free movement of trade. If we aren’t then define our future differently.

It is a maritime state, it is not the worlds policeman. It’s easy to define our role, it’s based on reality, a top tier regional power with global interests, allies and reach.

We can’t deploy and sustain a carrier in the region or any length of time and if there is one thing the region has its hundreds and hundreds of fast jets we don’t offer anything unique there.

Again nonsense - the only real carrier force outside of the PLAN is the USN. The carriers will be very valuable, there are no land based fighters that have the range, and can be supported via allied ports in the region.

I’ve been following what they’ve done, nice for the crews I’m sure they’ve seen a lot, learned a lot and had a good time doing it. But I don’t see much contribution to enhancing the security situation in the pacific if I’m honest.


You’re not being a world police men by stepping up in certain area to provide maritime security, anti piracy, drug interdiction, trafficking, terrorism, sanction breaching ect. That directly affect you or countries you specifically trade withs economy’s that have can affect on your own countries prosperity. But it is what a Maritime state is primarily about

Again your basing you answer on a carriers. Japan Korean Australia Singapore ect don’t base there defence on carriers and there not interested in invading or attacking China, air battles in the pacific won’t be happing 100s of miles out to sea where no one that interested in. Our involvement if there ever was one would be working together to defend or deter aggression against one of those allies as our numbers are tiny and don’t alter any balance of power in region.

[Repulse]

Again your basing you answer on a carriers. Japan Korean Australia Singapore ect don’t base there defence on carriers and there not interested in invading or attacking China, air battles in the pacific won’t be happing 100s of miles out to sea where no one that interested in. Our involvement if there ever was one would be working together to defend or deter aggression against one of those allies as our numbers are tiny and don’t alter any balance of power in region.

Every significant conflict in South East Asia since the invention of the aircraft carrier have involved aircraft carriers. The distance and maritime geography lends itself particularly to naval aviation. Whether the conflict is on land like Korea and Vietnam wars or more likely over remote islands carriers will remain critical.

Both Japan and Korea are getting into the carrier game, Singapore is buying the F35B - I wouldn’t be surprised if Australia does also in the future.

I know it doesn’t fit your narrative but an RN CSGs & SSNs add real value.

[Jackstar]

[SW1]

Again your basing you answer on a carriers. Japan Korean Australia Singapore ect don’t base there defence on carriers and there not interested in invading or attacking China, air battles in the pacific won’t be happing 100s of miles out to sea where no one that interested in. Our involvement if there ever was one would be working together to defend or deter aggression against one of those allies as our numbers are tiny and don’t alter any balance of power in region.

Every significant conflict in South East Asia since the invention of the aircraft carrier have involved aircraft carriers. The distance and maritime geography lends itself particularly to naval aviation. Whether the conflict is on land like Korea and Vietnam wars or more likely over remote islands carriers will remain critical.

Both Japan and Korea are getting into the carrier game, Singapore is buying the F35B - I wouldn’t be surprised if Australia does also in the future.

I know it doesn’t fit your narrative but an RN CSGs & SSNs add real value.

Yes and know, there is a distant issue for attack especially from sovereign bases not so much for defence. The stand off distances any sort of conflict in Asia is far beyond what the U.K. could conduct with very limited numbers on a carrier.

It’s not my narrative, there isn’t anyone in MoD and as has been stated by all senior representatives in uniform and out up to the Secretary of State any U.K. involvement in the pacific is political it doesn’t move the dial militarily.

[abc123]

Considering that Argentina was never weaker, I think that River-class as FIGS is quite enough.

[shark bait]

What about the Guard Ships in Gibralter, West Indies and Falkland Islands

It's quite simple, there is no need for guard ships. The boats that exist today are for diplomatic reasons, and therefore need to be the minimum viable solution.

[Caribbean]

Considering that Argentina was never weaker, I think that River-class as FIGS is quite enough.

And, with the Mount Pleasant runway, the Falklands could be signifcantly reinforced with both troops and aircraft within 24 hours. Sufficient to be problematic for any potential invasion force that they are likely to be able to develop within the next 20 years.

Unless they decide to become Chinese proxies, that is

[new guy]

Considering that Argentina was never weaker, I think that River-class as FIGS is quite enough.

And, with the Mount Pleasant runway, the Falklands could be signifcantly reinforced with both troops and aircraft within 24 hours. Sufficient to be problematic for any potential invasion force that they are likely to be able to develop within the next 20 years.

Unless they decide to become Chinese proxies, that is

Imagine a supercat based NSM / FC/AWS battery quickly flying in.