River Class (OPV) (RN)

[Ron5]

So yes a new class would need to be designed which would need to be 105 by 16 meters with a top speed between 22 and 25 knots given we would be building 12 of them I think we could get them for 120 million each = 1.5 billion if we take the Type 32 budget at 2.5 we could build 3 more type 31+ for say 1.1 billion and 12 new MHPC for 1.5 billion giving a overall budget of 2.6 billion and surcurring Rosyth dock yard into the 2040's

I am not convinced MHC-LSV shall be so high-speed = expensive. No need for top speed in MCM tasks. 15 knots is enough. And, 24 knots vs 15 knots make a big cost difference.

Wasn't mine stuff all going to be done by drones so no need for dedicated minesweepers? Or am I missing something?

[SW1]

Your first point is correct in the rivers are in places they shouldn’t be because the material state of the escort fleet is terrible due to past decisions.

To be crystal clear, those past decisions have been made by politicians of both flavors, not the RN. And have severely impacted more than the Navy.

To be absolutely crystal clear you are wrong. If you wish to absolve those in uniform who held senior positions and generated the nonsensical force structure then we will continue lurching from one round of shuffling paper orbits to the next.

[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.

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,..

Yes so just confirming what I said Mk41 could be fitted in a CIP after acceptance but before entry into service.

You also said it could be easily done before acceptance. I don't think it can or will. Neither do the ship designers.

I said after launch separate from the fixed price contract. That is entirely possible and not inconsistent with after acceptance but before service as suggested by the designers.

Noting that MOD\Navy are free to do whatever they want as the customer and have done so in the past with other programmes despite the best intensions of not knocking a procurement of track.

This is actually what you said which I disagree with. So do the ships designers. Jeesh.

Adding Mk41 could easily be done under separate contract prior to or soon after launch without affecting the original contract.

How does what the ships designers say negate what I've said? What I've said is completely feasible both technically\logistically and in procurement\contractually.

Are Babcock going to refuse some extra cash to drop some Mk41 modules in while the ship is on the hardstanding or alongside? As has been announced the first CIP has already been signed.

[tomuk]

here are a lot of non UK MBDA bits in CAMM, more in ER

No, not really. Different booster is most of it. Apart from the booster, CAMM-ER's workload distribution between the MBDA countries is pretty much the same. Country of final assembly differs based on who orders the missile. All spelled out in the the Anglo-Italian DOU.

Bit hard to be definitive about the CAMM-ER seeing that it only exists in CGI and the DOU hasn't been published although they may very well have just taken the CAMM-ER deal and copy/pasted.

No you're wrong once again for example

The CAMM ER ammunitions for national and international customers will be assembled in Italy with components supplied by MBDA group. More specifically, the locally produced seeker and radome will be sent to the UK where the front-end will be assembled and returned to Italy. Here, the missile will be assembled, including the warhead

[donald_of_tokyo]

...As has been announced the first CIP has already been signed.

And, there is no FMS talk of Mk41 order for T31 yet. Also the CIP cost was very cheap. I think the CIP on order does NOT include Mk.41. It is for future. ...

Moved to escort thread...

[Tempest414]

So yes a new class would need to be designed which would need to be 105 by 16 meters with a top speed between 22 and 25 knots given we would be building 12 of them I think we could get them for 120 million each = 1.5 billion if we take the Type 32 budget at 2.5 we could build 3 more type 31+ for say 1.1 billion and 12 new MHPC for 1.5 billion giving a overall budget of 2.6 billion and surcurring Rosyth dock yard into the 2040's

I am not convinced MHC-LSV shall be so high-speed = expensive. No need for top speed in MCM tasks. 15 knots is enough. And, 24 knots vs 15 knots make a big cost difference.

But they would not only be doing MHC they would be doing Patrol as well so 20 knots would be the base line top speed I would see this new ship as a true multi role low end warship

[shark bait]

MHPC is gone. The Navy considered the P satisfied through the River class B2.

That leaves MHC that shall be slow, fat, and utilitarian.

[jedibeeftrix]

MHPC is gone. The Navy considered the P satisfied through the River class B2.

That leaves MHC that shall be slow, fat, and utilitarian.

if the P has been dropped, does that make it more likely that the MHC capability will be delivered via modular payload from the back of a low-end specialist escort?

a.k.a. T32 with a USV mission bay

[Tempest414]

MHPC is gone. The Navy considered the P satisfied through the River class B2.

That leaves MHC that shall be slow, fat, and utilitarian.

I think this is wrong the need for a new ship to do all 3 parts remain more now than ever yes we can do with some cheap fat slow ships but these should be under a Point class style contract for home waters duty only

It also seems to me that RN are every much working out how to use the RB2's as MHPC's

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think 4 MHC LSV (slow, fat, and large capacity) + 5 OPV (fast, sleek, and so-so capacity) is a perfect match for the task.

I think LSV shall be capable to handle 2 USV MHC teams (each with 3 USVs and other kits) in a single ship = 6 USV and other kits. This will enable single LSV to replace "4 (now 3) MCMVs and 1 Bay LSD" now in KIPION. LSV with 2 MHC kits is the most efficient way in the MCM tasks in peace time.

I totally agree fast OPVs being capable of handling some part of MCM tasks is "nice". This will be good in some specific events (i.e. in hurry). This will make the reaction faster, and UK can take advantage of it. But, just it. Just "better be".

Notable is, 99% of the MCM tasks are in peace time, clearing ALL the mines laid in a war. And, this is very very important task. Time consuming, danger, and very difficult task. No mine must be left. Just clearing 99% of the mine is not enough.

The MHC LSV in PSV like hull is the best suited for this task. Note that none of the MCMVs RN had was high-speed. Why? Simply because it is not needed.

This is my opinion.

[Ron5]

Your first point is correct in the rivers are in places they shouldn’t be because the material state of the escort fleet is terrible due to past decisions.

To be crystal clear, those past decisions have been made by politicians of both flavors, not the RN. And have severely impacted more than the Navy.

To be absolutely crystal clear you are wrong. If you wish to absolve those in uniform who held senior positions and generated the nonsensical force structure then we will continue lurching from one round of shuffling paper orbits to the next.

It wasn't the Navy that cut numbers of Type 23, Type 45 & Type 26 and it wasn't the Navy that cut numbers of sailors.

I know you hate the idea of aircraft carriers and want an all frigate Navy but dressing it up as "nonsensical force structure" is rather obtuse. As is the thought that Gordon Brown, after cancelling CVF, would have turned around and ordered more frigates.

[Ron5]

here are a lot of non UK MBDA bits in CAMM, more in ER

No, not really. Different booster is most of it. Apart from the booster, CAMM-ER's workload distribution between the MBDA countries is pretty much the same. Country of final assembly differs based on who orders the missile. All spelled out in the the Anglo-Italian DOU.

Bit hard to be definitive about the CAMM-ER seeing that it only exists in CGI and the DOU hasn't been published although they may very well have just taken the CAMM-ER deal and copy/pasted.

No you're wrong once again for example

The CAMM ER ammunitions for national and international customers will be assembled in Italy with components supplied by MBDA group. More specifically, the locally produced seeker and radome will be sent to the UK where the front-end will be assembled and returned to Italy. Here, the missile will be assembled, including the warhead

You really need to read the DOU. It's available online.

CAMM-ER for Italy will be assembled in Italy. CAMM-ER for the UK and 3rd parties will be assembled in the UK (of course, subject to further DOU with other countries).

[Ron5]

How does what the ships designers say negate what I've said? What I've said is completely feasible both technically\logistically and in procurement\contractually.

Yes. And what you've said might be feasible but that doesn't make it desirable or practical.

Argue much?

[tomuk]

here are a lot of non UK MBDA bits in CAMM, more in ER

No, not really. Different booster is most of it. Apart from the booster, CAMM-ER's workload distribution between the MBDA countries is pretty much the same. Country of final assembly differs based on who orders the missile. All spelled out in the the Anglo-Italian DOU.

Bit hard to be definitive about the CAMM-ER seeing that it only exists in CGI and the DOU hasn't been published although they may very well have just taken the CAMM-ER deal and copy/pasted.

No you're wrong once again for example

The CAMM ER ammunitions for national and international customers will be assembled in Italy with components supplied by MBDA group. More specifically, the locally produced seeker and radome will be sent to the UK where the front-end will be assembled and returned to Italy. Here, the missile will be assembled, including the warhead

You really need to read the DOU. It's available online.

CAMM-ER for Italy will be assembled in Italy. CAMM-ER for the UK and 3rd parties will be assembled in the UK (of course, subject to further DOU with other countries).

Do you have a link to this DOU?

Firstly the article I quoted seems pretty clear that MBDA Italy will be assembling CAMM-ER for both Italy and international customers.

Secondly I wasn't talking about assembly I was talking about components. MBDA make components for CAMM at various locations outside of the UK that is a fact. Just as other missiles of MBDA France, Germany and Italy have UK made components.

[Tempest414]

I think 4 MHC LSV (slow, fat, and large capacity) + 5 OPV (fast, sleek, and so-so capacity) is a perfect match for the task.

I think LSV shall be capable to handle 2 USV MHC teams (each with 3 USVs and other kits) in a single ship = 6 USV and other kits. This will enable single LSV to replace "4 (now 3) MCMVs and 1 Bay LSD" now in KIPION. LSV with 2 MHC kits is the most efficient way in the MCM tasks in peace time.

I totally agree fast OPVs being capable of handling some part of MCM tasks is "nice". This will be good in some specific events (i.e. in hurry). This will make the reaction faster, and UK can take advantage of it. But, just it. Just "better be".

Notable is, 99% of the MCM tasks are in peace time, clearing ALL the mines laid in a war. And, this is very very important task. Time consuming, danger, and very difficult task. No mine must be left. Just clearing 99% of the mine is not enough.

The MHC LSV in PSV like hull is the best suited for this task. Note that none of the MCMVs RN had was high-speed. Why? Simply because it is not needed.

This is my opinion.

As said I have no problem with having 4 MCV-LSV's on contract like the Points given that these ships are meant to stay outside any minefield this would be a good outcome. However with this said given the up tick in grey zone conflict what sensors and armament would a MCMV need now. The Belgian and Dutch MCMC's will have NS50 radar and a 40mm main gun

The key thing will be having ships globally deployed to which kit can be flown to as needed reducing time from need to action

[Ron5]

here are a lot of non UK MBDA bits in CAMM, more in ER

No, not really. Different booster is most of it. Apart from the booster, CAMM-ER's workload distribution between the MBDA countries is pretty much the same. Country of final assembly differs based on who orders the missile. All spelled out in the the Anglo-Italian DOU.

Bit hard to be definitive about the CAMM-ER seeing that it only exists in CGI and the DOU hasn't been published although they may very well have just taken the CAMM-ER deal and copy/pasted.

No you're wrong once again for example

The CAMM ER ammunitions for national and international customers will be assembled in Italy with components supplied by MBDA group. More specifically, the locally produced seeker and radome will be sent to the UK where the front-end will be assembled and returned to Italy. Here, the missile will be assembled, including the warhead

You really need to read the DOU. It's available online.

CAMM-ER for Italy will be assembled in Italy. CAMM-ER for the UK and 3rd parties will be assembled in the UK (of course, subject to further DOU with other countries).

Do you have a link to this DOU?

Firstly the article I quoted seems pretty clear that MBDA Italy will be assembling CAMM-ER for both Italy and international customers.

Secondly I wasn't talking about assembly I was talking about components. MBDA make components for CAMM at various locations outside of the UK that is a fact. Just as other missiles of MBDA France, Germany and Italy have UK made components.

1. Of course.

2. Your article is wrong wherever it is from.

3. I was discussing your assertion that more of CAMM-ER is from non-UK sources. Apart from the booster, you are incorrect.

[tomuk]

here are a lot of non UK MBDA bits in CAMM, more in ER

No, not really. Different booster is most of it. Apart from the booster, CAMM-ER's workload distribution between the MBDA countries is pretty much the same. Country of final assembly differs based on who orders the missile. All spelled out in the the Anglo-Italian DOU.

Bit hard to be definitive about the CAMM-ER seeing that it only exists in CGI and the DOU hasn't been published although they may very well have just taken the CAMM-ER deal and copy/pasted.

No you're wrong once again for example

The CAMM ER ammunitions for national and international customers will be assembled in Italy with components supplied by MBDA group. More specifically, the locally produced seeker and radome will be sent to the UK where the front-end will be assembled and returned to Italy. Here, the missile will be assembled, including the warhead

You really need to read the DOU. It's available online.

CAMM-ER for Italy will be assembled in Italy. CAMM-ER for the UK and 3rd parties will be assembled in the UK (of course, subject to further DOU with other countries).

Do you have a link to this DOU?

Firstly the article I quoted seems pretty clear that MBDA Italy will be assembling CAMM-ER for both Italy and international customers.

Secondly I wasn't talking about assembly I was talking about components. MBDA make components for CAMM at various locations outside of the UK that is a fact. Just as other missiles of MBDA France, Germany and Italy have UK made components.

1. Of course.
Where is the link?
2. Your article is wrong wherever it is from.
Any evidence that it is wrong?
3. I was discussing your assertion that more of CAMM-ER is from non-UK sources. Apart from the booster, you are incorrect.

How am I incorrect?

[shark bait]

if the P has been dropped, does that make it more likely that the MHC capability will be delivered via modular payload from the back of a low-end specialist escort?

a.k.a. T32 with a USV mission bay

The most likely is from ships like RFA Stirling Castle, and also likely is operations from the shore.

I wouldn't discount operations from a Frigate, or perhaps a patrol boat, but that feels like a niche capability.

[new guy]

if the P has been dropped, does that make it more likely that the MHC capability will be delivered via modular payload from the back of a low-end specialist escort?

a.k.a. T32 with a USV mission bay

The most likely is from ships like RFA Stirling Castle, and also likely is operations from the shore.

I wouldn't discount operations from a Frigate, or perhaps a patrol boat, but that feels like a niche capability.

For me the issue is that the gap between a LSV and a patrol ship is minimal, when you put aside it going to the RFA (which is a bad joke given the state of the RFA fleet).

You could probably argue that another OSV could be based in the Gulf / Oman, but there is a real opportunity for a common LSV/OPV design that has benefits all round.

Reality is that you can only operate MCM USVs in benign waters or supported by an appropriate level of maritime security.

[Poiuytrewq]

…going to the RFA (which is a bad joke given the state of the RFA fleet).

RN cannot realistically expect the RFA to do any more.

Expecting the RFA to find the crews for 6x MRSS, 4x Tides, 3x FSS, 3x LSVs and 2x MROSS is clearly ridiculous.

Pointless continuing with the current planning charade unless there is an achievable and costed plan to increase the headcount and maintain it at an elevated level.

[shark bait]

there is a real opportunity for a common LSV/OPV design that has benefits all round.

There is potential, but one conflict that makes it difficult. A key requirement for an LSV is increased width so it can remain stable while lifting heavy loads over the side, and creates a large working deck. A key requirement for and OPV is speed, which tends towards a narrower form factor.

This is why there should be two classes, but the roles can overlap. A wide ship can still do patrol tasks, and a narrow ship with a stern ramp can still launch payloads in niche circumstances.

[Tempest414]

This is why I think a new Multi role ship of 105 by 17 meters with a top speed of 22 knots is what is needed

It is my view and only my view that MCM operations will take place in more and more conflicted or contested areas going forward as the grey zone expands

[Tempest414]

also with things like the Palfinger slipway system we don't have to lift over the side as long as we can lift on and off the slipway using say a 20 or 30 ton beam crane

[donald_of_tokyo]

This is why I think a new Multi role ship of 105 by 17 meters with a top speed of 22 knots is what is needed

It is my view and only my view that MCM operations will take place in more and more conflicted or contested areas going forward as the grey zone expands

Why do we need high speed for MCM vessel, even if it is in the grey zone area? If it is highly grey zone, just locate an escort. If "white", too high speed and so-so armament is NOT needed. OPV need to "dash" to chase the enemy/suspect, and this is expensive (sleek hull and powerful engine). MCM mothership does not need it.

Also, if OPV is only 22 knots speed, I'm afraid it is not enough for many of the grey zone tasks, and even in some fishery tasks.

Compromised MHPC hull will make everything bad, I'm afraid.

also with things like the Palfinger slipway system we don't have to lift over the side as long as we can lift on and off the slipway using say a 20 or 30 ton beam crane

Good point, but still the capacity is needed. And, that capacity is NOT needed onboard the OPV.

USV-based MCM kit needs more man-power than MCM kit handling onboard MCMVs. This is simply because you need maintenance of the USVs in addition to all the MCM gears. Of course, some of the crew onboard an MCMV is there to handle the vessel, and this man-power will be used to mann the MHC LSV.

But, 12 MHPC to replace 8 MCMVs and 5 OPVs is not easy.
- A MHPC will need more man-power than an OPV, because it is significantly larger.
- A MHPC, if will only capable of carrying one USV-MCM kits (with 3 (or 2) USVs and other kits), and therefore the crew needed there will significantly exceed that of the Hunt class. More crew for ship handling, and more crew for the MCM handling.

Overall, I do not think it is feasible in view of man-power.

Just my view, but this is one of the reason I cannot see any "benefits all round" on a common LSV/OPV design. Actually, I can see zero such merit. It will be a huge compromize...

Just my view...

[new guy]

…going to the RFA (which is a bad joke given the state of the RFA fleet).

RN cannot realistically expect the RFA to do any more.

Expecting the RFA to find the crews for 6x MRSS, 4x Tides, 3x FSS, 3x LSVs and 2x MROSS is clearly ridiculous.

Pointless continuing with the current planning charade unless there is an achievable and costed plan to increase the headcount and maintain it at an elevated level.

1,800 crew for an institution with only 1,600 staff.