River Class (OPV) (RN)

[dmereifield]

I was talking about CAMM, I don't t think they'll have 12 CAMM. More likely 24. When (or if) they get MK41, it will be 16 at best, and maybe only 8

[Tempest414]

….Type 31 but 32 Mk41 cells provide the option to quad-pack up to 128 of these missiles

A couple of T31’s with quad packed CAMM and the 57mm/40mm combo would be supremely useful in the Red Sea right now. A couple of T31 with the full Iver Huitfeldt upgrade would be even more helpful.

I am not a fan of upgrading the RB2’s but adding NS50, 1x 57mm, 2x 40mm and a flight deck loaded with containerised CAMM would really help fill the gaps for RN right now.

A good out come for type 31 would be 16 Mk-41 and 20 CAMM plus 8 NSM

As for the RB2's they really need NS50 and a 40mm as a new base line as said I would like to see 2 x 8 round LMM launchers however with the NS50 fitted CAMM may become a option

[SW1]

The best thing they can do with the rivers is to replace them ASAP.

If the future is variants of the cold launched camm missile and box launchers of nsm or future types why bother with the complexity and cost of a launching systems for hot launched missiles.

[donald_of_tokyo]

River B2 is good as it is. Just not suitable for the Red Sea task. The same to SSBN, MRoSS, and Hunt MCMV. Good for their task, but not much use for AAW requirement here.

[Repulse]

The best thing they can do with the rivers is to replace them ASAP.

What utter blinkered bullshit - were you up late drinking?

Firstly for the same cost (money and crew) of a single forward based T31, we have five capable global trotting patrol ships that are doing invaluable work.

No they aren’t first tier warships, no they aren’t designed to operate in high threat environments, but guess what nor is the T31 as per its base specification. It’s designed to gracefully run away from a threat. Everyone is talking that they will be getting all the upgrades that have been casually discussed - but where is the money? Also, where is the crew coming from to double crew these ships to forward base them?

Even then they are still at best on par with a T23 GP, and guess what’s making the news for the RN, it’s not the forward based GP T23 is it, it’s a tier one AAW T45.

If you want to draw any conclusions from this conflict, scrap the T31 and buy more AAW tier platforms. There fixed it for you.

[jedibeeftrix]

If you want to draw any conclusions from this conflict, scrap the T31 and buy more AAW tier platforms.

i don't like the T31, and never have.
i'd tend to agree with this statement, as part of a broader hi-lo fleet.

by which i mean a greater delineation between high-end specialist escorts (more of please), and low-end specialist patrol vessels.

i don't want to make the OPV's expensive to maintain and operate, which is why i limit my fantasy fleet upgrades to 40mm+3P+CMS upgrade.
i do expect the low-tier escorts to do something special, not just be low-end non-specialist escorts as the T31 will be.

this is why i am enthusiastic for T32, as it seems to be envisaged as mission-space for deploying USV packages, important but low-threat roles that are suited to singleton persistent deployments. i.e. where the T31 is supposed to live.

so, do what the DIS envisages; make the T31 and sell them on with low mileage, while industry gets on with replacing them in service with more useful low-end specialist escorts.
and at the same time, give the Rivers just enough to usefully provide the role of convoy escort 'companion' in persistent choke-point threat zones where they are deployed anyway.

[SW1]

The best thing they can do with the rivers is to replace them ASAP.

What utter blinkered bullshit - were you up late drinking?

Firstly for the same cost (money and crew) of a single forward based T31, we have five capable global trotting patrol ships that are doing invaluable work.

No they aren’t first tier warships, no they aren’t designed to operate in high threat environments, but guess what nor is the T31 as per its base specification. It’s designed to gracefully run away from a threat. Everyone is talking that they will be getting all the upgrades that have been casually discussed - but where is the money? Also, where is the crew coming from to double crew these ships to forward base them?

Even then they are still at best on par with a T23 GP, and guess what’s making the news for the RN, it’s not the forward based GP T23 is it, it’s a tier one AAW T45.

If you want to draw any conclusions from this conflict, scrap the T31 and buy more AAW tier platforms. There fixed it for you.

I’m not that interested in who’s making current headlines when discussing the future composition. Today’s headlines are just that todays, they do perhaps though give us a pointer along the future roadmap.

Be it HMS Lancaster, Richmond or Diamond any of them are more than capable of intercepting any of the drones that diamond has so far engaged.

I note your taking the Ron line of ignorance on type 31 that’s your choice it matters not to me.

What this rise in tensions has perhaps shown is that like earlier land conflict in the 2010s it has shown that unmanned systems now at sea are providing organisations the ability to cause disruption previously the preserve of more sophisticated states.

states hostile to western powers are supplying proxies relatively simple missiles and unmanned systems to disrupt and complicate western economics. This will likely proliferate from here to other areas of the world with economic choke points.

We will be required to counter that in those areas that interest us with vessels capable of maintaining defence watches with the gun and missile systems that can deal with them. It’s what camm was developed for. What isn’t part of that counter is opvs you can ignore that reality if you wish just like we ignored the early warning in the land domain.

[Tempest414]

The best thing they can do with the rivers is to replace them ASAP.

What utter blinkered bullshit - were you up late drinking?

Firstly for the same cost (money and crew) of a single forward based T31, we have five capable global trotting patrol ships that are doing invaluable work.

No they aren’t first tier warships, no they aren’t designed to operate in high threat environments, but guess what nor is the T31 as per its base specification. It’s designed to gracefully run away from a threat. Everyone is talking that they will be getting all the upgrades that have been casually discussed - but where is the money? Also, where is the crew coming from to double crew these ships to forward base them?

Even then they are still at best on par with a T23 GP, and guess what’s making the news for the RN, it’s not the forward based GP T23 is it, it’s a tier one AAW T45.

If you want to draw any conclusions from this conflict, scrap the T31 and buy more AAW tier platforms. There fixed it for you.

I might ask you where you were drinking

1 x RB2 cost 133 million and has a crew of 60 with 45 on duty where at this time Type 31 is costing 268 million and will have a crew of 110 ( not including the helo crew as they come from the FAA) so had you said that we can operate 2 x RB2's for one T-31 it would be closer however we have to take into account that the RB2's have 1/5 the firepower half the range half the awearness capability of T-31

As for T-45 in the Red Sea it has not gone unnoticed by the press that we are using 1 million pound missiles to shoot down 16,000 pound drones

I am not saying we should not have T-45 in the Red Sea but lets be clear that T-23 is also in the Red Sea at this time

Also some really good learning going on here like at what range can our radars pick up these drones and at what range can our missiles like CAMM hit them

I think your conclusion is wrong the real conclusion is that T-31 needs a better radar

[donald_of_tokyo]

1SL did not specify if the Mk41 cells will be fitted from the outset on ship 1 but it would make a lot of sense and not greatly impact the construction schedule.

I believe that has always been the plan for each ship to go back for capability insertion (ouch) after they are accepted into the RN. The reason being to keep the original fixed price contract unsullied with later amendments.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1SL did not specify if the Mk41 cells will be fitted from the outset on ship 1 but it would make a lot of sense and not greatly impact the construction schedule.

I believe that has always been the plan for each ship to go back for capability insertion (ouch) after they are accepted into the RN. The reason being to keep the original fixed price contract unsullied with later amendments.

Anyway, this discussion shall move to escort thread, I think?

River B2 is OPV. Not to be mixed with escorts.

[Ron5]

I note your taking the Ron line of ignorance on type 31 that’s your choice it matters not to me.

If it matters not to you, why are you taking note?

It's a fact that the T31 has been configured and contracted to be a low level warship whose role is global constabulary & diplomacy. Anything over a low level threat would see them rapidly retreat and call on better equipped assets.

Now the RN may harbor a cunning plan to upgrade them over time to be more "fighty" starting with the addition of a Mk 41 VLS but as of right now, that's an unhatched egg. Too many folks here are counting the resulting chickens and disregarding the current RN financial climate.

I think it is just as likely for the Navy to sell off the whole T31 class (like the Upholders) in order to preserve Type 26 numbers, as it is for them to be upgraded to the capabilities listed here.

By the way, if installed, the Mk 41 would undoubtedly be exclusively reserved for FC/ASW. It would be financially retarded of the Navy to spend extra money to provide exactly the same CAMM launch capability. Millions of pounds to do exactly the same thing as the currently contracted mushrooms.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Sorry, I'll move my post across.

[jedibeeftrix]

If you want to draw any conclusions from this conflict, scrap the T31 and buy more AAW tier platforms.

i don't like the T31, and never have.
i'd tend to agree with this statement, as part of a broader hi-lo fleet.

by which i mean a greater delineation between high-end specialist escorts (more of please), and low-end specialist patrol vessels.

i don't want to make the OPV's expensive to maintain and operate, which is why i limit my fantasy fleet upgrades to 40mm+3P+CMS upgrade.
i do expect the low-tier escorts to do something special, not just be low-end non-specialist escorts as the T31 will be.

this is why i am enthusiastic for T32, as it seems to be envisaged as mission-space for deploying USV packages, important but low-threat roles that are suited to singleton persistent deployments. i.e. where the T31 is supposed to live.

so, do what the DIS envisages; make the T31 and sell them on with low mileage, while industry gets on with replacing them in service with more useful low-end specialist escorts.
and at the same time, give the Rivers just enough to usefully provide the role of convoy escort 'companion' in persistent choke-point threat zones where they are deployed anyway.

Would agree with this - though for clarity think the T32 is in the minor warship bracket a MHPC style ship.

[Repulse]

I might ask you where you were drinking

Completely sober, not one to drink the T31 cool aid.

1 x RB2 cost 133 million and has a crew of 60 with 45 on duty where at this time Type 31 is costing 268 million and will have a crew of 110 ( not including the helo crew as they come from the FAA) so had you said that we can operate 2 x RB2's for one T-31 it would be closer however we have to take into account that the RB2's have 1/5 the firepower half the range half the awearness capability of T-31

Published costs for the RB2s are completely distorted by the ToBA - to be generous is give you halfway between the original Amazonas unit cost (£50mn) and the published costs, so closer to £90mn. Your quoted cost for the T31 ignores both the cost of the kit being transferred and also the ongoing cost dispute.

As for crew, the Rivers have a core crew of about 30 (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/equipment/ ... iver-class) with a 2 on, 1 off rotation, gives 45 for a forward based ship. For forward basing T31s, like Kipion, double crewing is planned for you 110 becomes 220.

It’s a hell of a lot closer than you think.

As for T-45 in the Red Sea it has not gone unnoticed by the press that we are using 1 million pound missiles to shoot down 16,000 pound drones

I am not saying we should not have T-45 in the Red Sea but lets be clear that T-23 is also in the Red Sea at this time

This is not a justification for a T31, it’s a justification for modern guns capable of providing AAW defence. These guns can fit on any ship from an OPV (or smaller), RFA and could easily be fitted to a T45. Sadly the 114mm had air burst capabilities, but was cut for money saving.

I am clear that there is a T23 in the area, but there is an undeniable reason why the T45 is in the front line.

Also some really good learning going on here like at what range can our radars pick up these drones and at what range can our missiles like CAMM hit them

I think your conclusion is wrong the real conclusion is that T-31 needs a better radar

So the T31 would be better if you spent even more money on it - why would we, if we need more AAW ships, let’s build some.

[Repulse]

I’m not that interested in who’s making current headlines when discussing the future composition. Today’s headlines are just that todays, they do perhaps though give us a pointer along the future roadmap.

They do give us both a view in terms of direction and composition. You do not believe in minor warships, a small hi/ larger mid fleet mix - every discussion on this thread talks about how adding more weapons and cost to this mid tier will allow them to operate in conflicts. I firmly believe in a larger hi / larger small fleet composition.

Be it HMS Lancaster, Richmond or Diamond any of them are more than capable of intercepting any of the drones that diamond has so far engaged.

I don’t believe that’s true - if it were Lancaster would be closer to the action and firing missiles. The fact is that we are just talking about cheap drones, we are also talking about cruise and ballistic missiles - the technology of which will only get better.

I note your taking the Ron line of ignorance on type 31 that’s your choice it matters not to me.

I’ll let Ron talk for himself, but your blinkered wishful thinking is your choice.

What this rise in tensions has perhaps shown is that like earlier land conflict in the 2010s it has shown that unmanned systems now at sea are providing organisations the ability to cause disruption previously the preserve of more sophisticated states.

states hostile to western powers are supplying proxies relatively simple missiles and unmanned systems to disrupt and complicate western economics. This will likely proliferate from here to other areas of the world with economic choke points.

I’m glad you’ve caught up - I’ve said this many times and was one of the reasons why a light frigate is nonsense. If you want to engage in conflicts you need tier one T45 / T26 assets. Could the T31 be better, yes for sure, but go back to what the Iver Huitfeldt design and even then it will never be a T45.

We will be required to counter that in those areas that interest us with vessels capable of maintaining defence watches with the gun and missile systems that can deal with them. It’s what camm was developed for.

CAMM is key part of the toolkit, but it’s not the only part. Wider sensors and other missiles are all part of it.

What isn’t part of that counter is opvs you can ignore that reality if you wish just like we ignored the early warning in the land domain.

I’ve never said the RB2s should be sent into these high threat environments, what I have said is that we can’t afford a mid tier, these low end ships are key to the fleet to ensure the top tier can be funded and used appropriately.

[Tempest414]

I might ask you where you were drinking

Completely sober, not one to drink the T31 cool aid.

1 x RB2 cost 133 million and has a crew of 60 with 45 on duty where at this time Type 31 is costing 268 million and will have a crew of 110 ( not including the helo crew as they come from the FAA) so had you said that we can operate 2 x RB2's for one T-31 it would be closer however we have to take into account that the RB2's have 1/5 the firepower half the range half the awearness capability of T-31

Published costs for the RB2s are completely distorted by the ToBA - to be generous is give you halfway between the original Amazonas unit cost (£50mn) and the published costs, so closer to £90mn. Your quoted cost for the T31 ignores both the cost of the kit being transferred and also the ongoing cost dispute.

As for crew, the Rivers have a core crew of about 30 (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/equipment/ ... iver-class) with a 2 on, 1 off rotation, gives 45 for a forward based ship. For forward basing T31s, like Kipion, double crewing is planned for you 110 becomes 220.

It’s a hell of a lot closer than you think.

As for T-45 in the Red Sea it has not gone unnoticed by the press that we are using 1 million pound missiles to shoot down 16,000 pound drones

I am not saying we should not have T-45 in the Red Sea but lets be clear that T-23 is also in the Red Sea at this time

This is not a justification for a T31, it’s a justification for modern guns capable of providing AAW defence. These guns can fit on any ship from an OPV (or smaller), RFA and could easily be fitted to a T45. Sadly the 114mm had air burst capabilities, but was cut for money saving.

I am clear that there is a T23 in the area, but there is an undeniable reason why the T45 is in the front line.

Also some really good learning going on here like at what range can our radars pick up these drones and at what range can our missiles like CAMM hit them

I think your conclusion is wrong the real conclusion is that T-31 needs a better radar

So the T31 would be better if you spent even more money on it - why would we, if we need more AAW ships, let’s build some.

The cost are the costs and on reflection 3 RB2's did cost 399 million where as 1 type 31 will cost 400 million as things stand

What type 45 needs is 3 x 57mm and 30 CAMM , what type 31 needs is 40 CAMM and betters radar

Fact is type 31 with current radar and gun fit with 40 CAMM would the perfect fit for this low level spat as said I think a RB2 fitted with NS50 radar , 1 x 40mm and 2 x 8 round LMM launchers with 3 reloads could do a good job in this spat

Lets say we want to convoy 10 ships through the Red Sea having 2 x RB2 as laid out above and one T-31 we could have 1 RB2 up front followed by 5 MV's then the Type 31 followed by 5 more MV's followed by the second RB2 the T-31 keeping its Wildcat on QRA with 20 LMM. We should be able to keep this group within a 6 by 2 Km bubble meaning that there would be 1 x 57mm , 4 x 40mm , 32 x LMM & 40 CAMM working under 3 x 4D radars this should be more than enough to deal with anything other than BM's

[new guy]

Sorry, the RB2s should be nowhere near the conflict.

Also, the costs are the costs, but when comparing things you cannot just take things at such a level to have a meaningful discussion. Given another budget of £2bn, I would be going for another 3 OPVs and 2 more T26s without hesitation.

[SW1]

I’m not that interested in who’s making current headlines when discussing the future composition. Today’s headlines are just that todays, they do perhaps though give us a pointer along the future roadmap.

They do give us both a view in terms of direction and composition. You do not believe in minor warships, a small hi/ larger mid fleet mix - every discussion on this thread talks about how adding more weapons and cost to this mid tier will allow them to operate in conflicts. I firmly believe in a larger hi / larger small fleet composition.

Be it HMS Lancaster, Richmond or Diamond any of them are more than capable of intercepting any of the drones that diamond has so far engaged.

I don’t believe that’s true - if it were Lancaster would be closer to the action and firing missiles. The fact is that we are just talking about cheap drones, we are also talking about cruise and ballistic missiles - the technology of which will only get better.

I note your taking the Ron line of ignorance on type 31 that’s your choice it matters not to me.

I’ll let Ron talk for himself, but your blinkered wishful thinking is your choice.

What this rise in tensions has perhaps shown is that like earlier land conflict in the 2010s it has shown that unmanned systems now at sea are providing organisations the ability to cause disruption previously the preserve of more sophisticated states.

states hostile to western powers are supplying proxies relatively simple missiles and unmanned systems to disrupt and complicate western economics. This will likely proliferate from here to other areas of the world with economic choke points.

I’m glad you’ve caught up - I’ve said this many times and was one of the reasons why a light frigate is nonsense. If you want to engage in conflicts you need tier one T45 / T26 assets. Could the T31 be better, yes for sure, but go back to what the Iver Huitfeldt design and even then it will never be a T45.

We will be required to counter that in those areas that interest us with vessels capable of maintaining defence watches with the gun and missile systems that can deal with them. It’s what camm was developed for.

CAMM is key part of the toolkit, but it’s not the only part. Wider sensors and other missiles are all part of it.

What isn’t part of that counter is opvs you can ignore that reality if you wish just like we ignored the early warning in the land domain.

I’ve never said the RB2s should be sent into these high threat environments, what I have said is that we can’t afford a mid tier, these low end ships are key to the fleet to ensure the top tier can be funded and used appropriately.

I believe in mcm vessels in the survey fleet minor warships that provide specialist capability. OPVs doing some local eez fisheries protection in uk waters ok. What we are using them for round the world pointless.

The sea ceptor missile system fitted to the type 23 frigates have been tested against dealing with multiple anti ships missiles arriving to the ship in far more complex situations than what is being displayed in the Red Sea right now. Diamond can do it over a bigger area sure but as far as I know type 45 does not yet have anti ballistic missile capability fitted. HMS Lancaster is not assigned to prosperity guardian I believe she is with one of the other task groups in the region covering the strait of Hormuz at present. Richmond will cover either task group when either diamond or Lancaster comes off task.

The only weapon system I’ve talking about adding to the fleet all of it not just type 31 is NSM letting harpoon life expire and dream about hypersonics was bonkers.

I didn’t need any catching up it’s why I’ve repeatedly argued we shouldn’t have been sending practically unarmed opv showboating as presence instead of the type 23 general purpose frigates was folly for exactly this reason. it is being done for no other reason than they allowed the escort fleet to deteriorate by design. It has been the same in a number of other areas to an e3d operating in the region might off been quite useful right now to, maybe chile would give us one back.

[new guy]

I believe in mcm vessels in the survey fleet minor warships that provide specialist capability. OPVs doing some local eez fisheries protection in uk waters ok. What we are using them for round the world pointless.

Ok it’s a start. The forward based B2s, are based in the Falklands, Caribbean and Gibraltar (covering west Africa) - none of these require a T23 or T31. Arguably, the two that could be replaced are the two East of Suez doing diplomacy style operations - but why given the state of the overall finances is it a priority to replace them with mid tier when SSNs / CSGs are the assets that make the difference? It would be better just to withdrawal completely. There is no priority for a mid tier for the RN in its current budget envelope.

[new guy]

OPVs doing some local eez fisheries protection in uk waters ok. What we are using them for round the world pointless.

I didn’t need any catching up it’s why I’ve repeatedly argued we shouldn’t have been sending practically unarmed opv showboating as presence instead of the type 23 general purpose frigates was folly for exactly this reason. it is being done for no other reason than they allowed the escort fleet to deteriorate by design. It has been the same in a number of other areas to an e3d operating in the region might off been quite useful right now to, maybe chile would give us one back.

I completely disagree, the RB2's are being used for great meaning:

HMS Medway: East indies hurricane support, which means it is saving RN escorts, which don't need CAMM or NSM to help BOT's, and RFA vessels, either tankers which can be used to actually RAS vessels as is there purpose, or the Bays, which would result in the suspension of either LSG(N) or S. Also anti-piracy and stopping drug trade going to the carribean, North america and europe.
Also provides presence in the region

HMS Trent: Operations in the gulf of Guinea, which now has more piracy than Somalia, you know, the place that made modern day piracy famous. It has shown the RN in parts of West Africa that haven't seen it for decades. A lot of small nations top capability is comparable to the RB2's and thus it can deliver far greater cooperation than a T45 ever could. Operations around Gibraltar and the Mediterranean. Also worked with Ukrainian marines before the war kicked off.

HMS Forth: You know, quite crucial, Falklands patrol.

HMS Tamar: Worked in BIOT, commonwealth, and operations with allies, and using its flight deck or more aptly Multi-mission deck UUV trials with Australia.

HMS Spey: Worked around the Commonwealth, gave aid to tonga, work in Australia, and survey & support work for the Pitcairn islands.

The RB2's are being used for appropriate roles, not T23GP roles.

[tomuk]

1SL did not specify if the Mk41 cells will be fitted from the outset on ship 1 but it would make a lot of sense and not greatly impact the construction schedule.

I believe that has always been the plan for each ship to go back for capability insertion (ouch) after they are accepted into the RN. The reason being to keep the original fixed price contract unsullied with later amendments.

A contract for capability insertions has already been signed, for what capabilities only MOD and Babcock know.
The ships are built with the foundations and power\water to 'drop' in Mk41.
Adding Mk41 could easily be done under separate contract prior to or soon after launch without affecting the original contract.

[tomuk]

OPVs doing some local eez fisheries protection in uk waters ok. What we are using them for round the world pointless.

I didn’t need any catching up it’s why I’ve repeatedly argued we shouldn’t have been sending practically unarmed opv showboating as presence instead of the type 23 general purpose frigates was folly for exactly this reason. it is being done for no other reason than they allowed the escort fleet to deteriorate by design. It has been the same in a number of other areas to an e3d operating in the region might off been quite useful right now to, maybe chile would give us one back.

I completely disagree, the RB2's are being used for great meaning:

HMS Medway: East indies hurricane support, which means it is saving RN escorts, which don't need CAMM or NSM to help BOT's, and RFA vessels, either tankers which can be used to actually RAS vessels as is there purpose, or the Bays, which would result in the suspension of either LSG(N) or S. Also anti-piracy and stopping drug trade going to the carribean, North america and europe.
Also provides presence in the region

HMS Trent: Operations in the gulf of Guinea, which now has more piracy than Somalia, you know, the place that made modern day piracy famous. It has shown the RN in parts of West Africa that haven't seen it for decades. A lot of small nations top capability is comparable to the RB2's and thus it can deliver far greater cooperation than a T45 ever could. Operations around Gibraltar and the Mediterranean. Also worked with Ukrainian marines before the war kicked off.

HMS Forth: You know, quite crucial, Falklands patrol.

HMS Tamar: Worked in BIOT, commonwealth, and operations with allies, and using its flight deck or more aptly Multi-mission deck UUV trials with Australia.

HMS Spey: Worked around the Commonwealth, gave aid to tonga, work in Australia, and survey & support work for the Pitcairn islands.

The RB2's are being used for appropriate roles, not T23GP roles.

No. RB2s are being used in GP roles.
Some of those ops like Medway in the Caribbean would be far easier with an embarked Helicopter. And what can Trent do against pirates? Again an embarked armed helicopter makes all the difference in providing better sa and overwatch of boarding ops.

UUV trials could be done of the flight deck of a GP frigate (you get quite a big hangar, mission space and flight deck on 31)

As to working with allies there is no need for our capability to match that of the nation we are visiting. Useful training could be still be done with a T45 and the host only having ribs eg simulating fast boat attack.

That isn't to say the work done by the RB2s isn't useful but whereas what the RB2s have done is pretty much all they can do a GP or higher tier vessel can do the same or better job in the 'OPV Role' and is far more useful in higher tempo environments.

I mush rather have a frigate like T31 that has been designed to be cheap to run as possible but still retaining standard GP capabilities as ordered but have a massive range of upgrades possible, right up to a pretty good AAW destroyer, than an OPV which will always be far more limited.

[donald_of_tokyo]

No. RB2s are being used in GP roles.

Yes and no, I think.

Some of those ops like Medway in the Caribbean would be far easier with an embarked Helicopter. And what can Trent do against pirates? Again an embarked armed helicopter makes all the difference in providing better sa and overwatch of boarding ops.

Embarked helicopter is very inefficient and high cost asset. Much better to use land-base air assets.

When RN are sending 4 OPVs globally (1 in refit now) with large sea-going days, RN can only send 1 GP frigate with the same effort. River B2 is manned by 40 crew (60 assigned for x1.5 manning), which means always 160 souls are onboard deployed (and 240 souls assigned). A T23 GP frigate with embarked helicopter needs 200 souls. As frigates are maintenance heavy, you need the second frigate to keep the deployment, with the same pace RN do with River OPVs.

But, yes, River B2 is much LESS capable than a GP frigate. And, just because of it, RN can send it to many places. Not "River OPV is bad and GP frigate is good". It is more, "where with OPV and where with GP frigate".

UUV trials could be done of the flight deck of a GP frigate (you get quite a big hangar, mission space and flight deck on 31)

UUV? None of T23 nor T31 nor River B2 has a crane powerful enough to handle UUV (The frigates even completely lacks crane). UAV trial? Yes, GP frigate is better. But, Camcoptor level UAV can be well operated from OPVs, world's trend.

As to working with allies there is no need for our capability to match that of the nation we are visiting.

Exactly. To counter pirates, continuous presence, land-based air cover, combination of large patrol crafts with numerous patrol boats are essential. Supporting local agency is the most important and demanding. Countering pirates using RN vessels directly is a compromise.

That isn't to say the work done by the RB2s isn't useful but whereas what the RB2s have done is pretty much all they can do a GP or higher tier vessel can do the same or better job in the 'OPV Role' and is far more useful in higher tempo environments.

I mush rather have a frigate like T31 that has been designed to be cheap to run as possible but still retaining standard GP capabilities as ordered but have a massive range of upgrades possible, right up to a pretty good AAW destroyer, than an OPV which will always be far more limited.

Really? I do not. Deploying 4 GP frigate means RN needs 12 hulls to continue the operations. At the minimum, 8 hulls for rotation, and 2 hulls in long maintenance = 10 hulls, I think. Simply put, impossible.

RN is now deploying 4 OPVs with 5 hulls. Good.

GP frigates are best used in locations likes KIPION, and now in Red Sea. So, River B2 OPVs are doing great job, they just differ from what a GP frigate can do. And, GP frigate cannot replace River B2 OPV.

[Repulse]

And what can Trent do against pirates?

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... an-mission

As to working with allies there is no need for our capability to match that of the nation we are visiting.

Quite the contrary according to people on the ground, by using assets with same level of capability allows the training to be meaningful and hands-on. It also a good show case of UK industry. “Training” (or effectively showing around) foreign navies around warships they can’t afford is useful in limited circumstances to say don’t mess with us, but otherwise it’s to show off.

I mush rather have a frigate like T31 that has been designed to be cheap to run as possible but still retaining standard GP capabilities as ordered but have a massive range of upgrades possible, right up to a pretty good AAW destroyer, than an OPV which will always be far more limited.

OPVs could be more useful such as acting as motherships, and should have been self defence capabilities to keep up with threats - they are critical to a balanced navy but they are absolutely limited.

One of the things I hear often is that the T31 would be useful in this or that role if only we add x or y. It’s a ship with future potential, but without a clear and relevant role (matching our priorities) and will be until the role justifies spending the money. Its justification cannot be just that it has a hangar.

If the T31 was used as the launch pad for FADS, tailored to support CSG air defence alongside a larger force of T26s and T45s (and possibly a future single RN Arleigh Burke style class) I would get it, and would then be able to see the class’s potential.

[Ron5]

1SL did not specify if the Mk41 cells will be fitted from the outset on ship 1 but it would make a lot of sense and not greatly impact the construction schedule.

I believe that has always been the plan for each ship to go back for capability insertion (ouch) after they are accepted into the RN. The reason being to keep the original fixed price contract unsullied with later amendments.

A contract for capability insertions has already been signed, for what capabilities only MOD and Babcock know.
The ships are built with the foundations and power\water to 'drop' in Mk41.
Adding Mk41 could easily be done under separate contract prior to or soon after launch without affecting the original contract.

As described in a paper by two of the Type 31 architects, one of the key points about the contract is to deliver a fixed price frigate capable of later adaptations to improve capability. And as such, there would be capability insertions after the ships are accepted from the builder but before they enter service. Here's a few extracts to explain better:

..as a fixed price contract the MoD has very limited flexibility to modify the design during the build phase; therefore the adaptability provision to subsequently add capability later is crucial.

...the MoD are developing the pre-In Service Date (ISD) sequence of activities such as hot weather trials and the capability insertion periods that form the overall Type 31 delivery programme.

As two examples of the adaptable features within the platform; the foundation structural seats for four 8-Cell Mk41 Strike Length VLS modules are built in the baseline Type 31 Frigate to accept the fit of these Mk41 modules if required in the future,..