River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

The bolt in glue was once announced as non critical, but it happen to be more widely existing around the hull? Or BAES needs docking to invest all bolts, because they need to investigate?

I wonder if it is an intended sabotage?


HV board issue is serious, but can happen in first of class ship. The fact that it was allowed to go through the design review is more important. Just a overlook or the review was not taken?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by shark bait »

The River Class shit show continues, fantastic value for money!
@LandSharkUK

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote: I find it all a bit fishy.
I have no further information; but they are/ were the Fishery Protection Sqdrn, after all :)
'bout time. There I was, thinking I'd been real clever and nobody came to my party ....

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

a good bar, just as we are rosting in the southern England:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WWQxbHeNXoY/ ... smiley.png
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Trip to Portsmouth today still shows HMS Forth under repair. The word from the harbour tour guide was that the generators overheat and they don’t know how to fix it.

EDIT: oh and HMS Tyne will be recommissioned whilst they sort it out.

Image
”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

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by jimthelad »

So BAe despite having been paid an exhorbitant sum for an OPV have even fucked that up?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

No Integrated Electric, no intercoolers... and still:
Repulse wrote:generators overheat and they don’t know how to fix it.

EDIT: oh and HMS Tyne will be recommissioned whilst they sort it out
Just as well we v recently created a reserve fleet (again); though it was meant to fight the EU for every 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)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

These new River class need a higher black boot line too, the tugs have already messed up the paintwork on a brand new ship!

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

jimthelad wrote:So BAe despite having been paid an exhorbitant sum for an OPV have even fucked that up?
Given this is the forth ship of its type to be built in the UK and the fifth in the world this is unforgivable

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Tempest414 wrote:
jimthelad wrote:So BAe despite having been paid an exhorbitant sum for an OPV have even fucked that up?
Given this is the forth ship of its type to be built in the UK and the fifth in the world this is unforgivable
It's actually the 8th to be built in the UK, which is even worse.

However I believe it is the first one to be built at this specific yard. The rest were all made in Southampton, Portsmouth, or Scotstoun.

SDL
Member
Posts: 763
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SDL »

Guessing that yard won't be getting another contract soon...

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by RetroSicotte »

SDL wrote:Guessing that yard won't be getting another contract soon...
Well it's the one building the Type 26's so...

In all fairness, this is a "first" for them, and generally a single incident isn't something I put to suddenly be a reputation.

Something went terribly wrong on this one, and that needs investigated, sorted, and compensated for. But I wouldn't condemn them just yet as a full yard.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

BAE didn't build the original Rivers or the Brazilian export version (Amazonas class). Vosper Thornycroft did, at their original Woolston yard (S**th*mpt*n) and at VT Portsmouth, where HMS Mersey (P283) was the last Portsmouth built River made. Then BAE took VT over (because of their success exporting the Rivers and building the innovative Triton), sold off the VT name to the Yanks, then made "BAE Portsmouth" build T45 and QEC sections. After that, "BAE Portsmouth" was closed down the place to keep the Scottish happy and in the UK, at the expense of Portsmouth and warship building on the south coast.

I hate mergers. And S**th*mpt*n. :twisted:

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

SKB, are you from Pompey?
”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

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

Repulse wrote:SKB, are you from Pompey?
Isn't it already obvious?!
:wave: :clap:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

SKB wrote:BAE didn't build the original Rivers or the Brazilian export version (Amazonas class). Vosper Thornycroft did, at their original Woolston yard (S**th*mpt*n) and at VT Portsmouth, where HMS Mersey (P283) was the last Portsmouth built River made. Then BAE took VT over (because of their success exporting the Rivers and building the innovative Triton), sold off the VT name to the Yanks, then made "BAE Portsmouth" build T45 and QEC sections. After that, "BAE Portsmouth" was closed down the place to keep the Scottish happy and in the UK, at the expense of Portsmouth and warship building on the south coast.

I hate mergers. And S**th*mpt*n. :twisted:
Absolute effing rubbish.

The MoD forced Bae to take over VT shipbuilding as a condition of issuing CVF contracts. Drayson wanted all UK warship building concentrated in one company. Portsmouth closed because there was no work.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: Drayson wanted all UK warship building concentrated in one company.
From what I have read that is the truth. Two extra characters in the name can make a big difference in the outcome... how long did it take the Gvmnt to try and rectify that mistake
- sure, the rectifying medicine is still in "clinical testing" stages
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)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

Because they moved everything to Scotland. They chose to build the T26's, T31's and even the new Batch 2 Rivers (which VT originally created) in Scotland to keep the Scots happy avoid Scottish independence from the UK. So because there was nothing left for Portsmouth to build, they closed the Portsmouth yard down to save money, ruined workers lives and a proud traditional of building warships in Portsmouth came to an end. All that Portsmouth got out out of it was a new special Minister For Portsmouth (2014-2016) to create new jobs and kickstart the local economy again, which did absolutely nothing. And VT now only exists as a footnote in a Yank companys history and doesn't even build ships any more.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by RetroSicotte »

SKB wrote:Because they moved everything to Scotland where the T26's and T31's are to be built. So there was nothing for Portsmouth to build, so they closed it to save money, ruined lives and a traditional of building warships in Portsmouth.
What would Portsmouth have built then?

Take away the orders from the Clyde, and suddenly, you'll see them being crippled with job losses and eventual closure instead.

There simply isn't the orders being made by the MoD, or incoming exports, to support another shipyard like that in the UK. So they chose the one that had more recent high end experience in constructing modern escorts. It was a brutal, harsh choice.

Portsmouth closing was an absolute tragedy, but it was directly attributable to the poor funding and lack of export success of British shipbuilding; not due to any private company.

Roberto
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 06 May 2015, 21:31

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Roberto »

I hate the high boot line. Especially on th 45's where it rises at the bow and the QE would look better if she sat lower in the water. Bit OT, but it was mentioned.. absolute disgrace about the build quality though.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
SKB wrote:Because they moved everything to Scotland where the T26's and T31's are to be built. So there was nothing for Portsmouth to build, so they closed it to save money, ruined lives and a traditional of building warships in Portsmouth.
What would Portsmouth have built then?

Take away the orders from the Clyde, and suddenly, you'll see them being crippled with job losses and eventual closure instead.

There simply isn't the orders being made by the MoD, or incoming exports, to support another shipyard like that in the UK. So they chose the one that had more recent high end experience in constructing modern escorts. It was a brutal, harsh choice.

Portsmouth closing was an absolute tragedy, but it was directly attributable to the poor funding and lack of export success of British shipbuilding; not due to any private company.
However as said in the past BAE did little or nothing about bring new corvette and light frigate designs to the table which may or may not of helped however we could of had 3 heavy corvettes for the TOBRA money if they had played with the Khareef design earlier

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote: Drayson wanted all UK warship building concentrated in one company.
From what I have read that is the truth. Two extra characters in the name can make a big difference in the outcome... how long did it take the Gvmnt to try and rectify that mistake
- sure, the rectifying medicine is still in "clinical testing" stages
Drayson wanted to follow the successful French model of having a warship building national champion which would be able to invest in new facilities based on a steady order stream. But Brown & Osbourne put paid to the order stream.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
SKB wrote:Because they moved everything to Scotland where the T26's and T31's are to be built. So there was nothing for Portsmouth to build, so they closed it to save money, ruined lives and a traditional of building warships in Portsmouth.
What would Portsmouth have built then?

Take away the orders from the Clyde, and suddenly, you'll see them being crippled with job losses and eventual closure instead.

There simply isn't the orders being made by the MoD, or incoming exports, to support another shipyard like that in the UK. So they chose the one that had more recent high end experience in constructing modern escorts. It was a brutal, harsh choice.

Portsmouth closing was an absolute tragedy, but it was directly attributable to the poor funding and lack of export success of British shipbuilding; not due to any private company.
However as said in the past BAE did little or nothing about bring new corvette and light frigate designs to the table which may or may not of helped however we could of had 3 heavy corvettes for the TOBRA money if they had played with the Khareef design earlier
Bae invested in their corvette design and have steadily promoted it. It's now been rebranded as Leander. The problem for Bae and all other warship builder, is that if your own navy doesn't order it, nobody else will. Khareef is an exception, not the rule.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

but only after type 31 was launched did they improve the khareef design and had they done so before we may have had 3 heavy corvettes in place of the 5 Rivers

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Tempest414 wrote:but only after type 31 was launched did they improve the khareef design and had they done so before we may have had 3 heavy corvettes in place of the 5 Rivers
MoD wasn't asking for Corvettes before T31.

Post Reply