River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

I have to say I have always liked the B1's looks

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:I have to say I have always liked the B1's looks
Like shedding the "warload" and compacting some masts/ antennae?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _c1982.jpg
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 »


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

HMS Medway is start carrying 20ft ISO containers. At least, 2 can be seen, one on her starboard waist, and another in her flight deck. Mission deck, it is!

[add] 24 Commando Royal Engineers, is retweeting the Medway's photo, stating "Very much looking forward to working with
HMS_Medway in the future. See you next week!
". I think this means HMS Medway is to carry 24 Commando or work with it.
- Does this mean she will be sent to Caribbean ocean in "future" = next year?
- Or, HMS Medway is to conduct training with 24 Commando next week, and only that?
(In this case, my question is, "future" and "next week" is the same thing or other things?)
ImageImage

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

“We are thinking about how we might enhance the lethality of the Batch II OPVs”
RAdm Paul Halton


So, it is not completely a fantasy. Although there are many options other than "up-arming" (USV, UAV, etc), the term "enhance the lethality" looks more like talking about armaments.

Easy idea is "adding LMM"? :D

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

There are a number of other small changes that could fall into the "enhancing lethality" category, without any structural changes to the vessel:
  • More 50 cal, as happened with the MCMVs;
    Replace crew-served weapons with stabilised platforms;
    Containerised LMM-capable UAVs;
    Perhaps trialling a 40mm AGL (is there a stabilised version of that?).
    Adding an RM party with iLAW/ASM/Starstreak.
    Bolt-on ceramic and kevlar armour for protection of crew and major systems
None of them move the B2s to warship status, but they might be sufficient to allow the B2s to assist a frigate without too great a risk to the crew in tanker escort missions (which is what I presume this is all about).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Kevlar amour and other hand-carried heavy (in infantary point of view) weapons will surely make River B2 "more lethal", I agree.

And, no, regardless of how much up-armed, River B2 will never make a frigate or alike. Its damage control level is not frigate standard, as I understand (36 onboard crew, or 56 including rotation, says so). It is more about how to improve constabulary operations, I guess.

But, for what?

1: With LMM and ATGM or others added, can it be used in Hormuz strait to counter Iranian fast boats, not in singleton but as a minor member following a T23/T45? (Not sure).

2: If Red Sea, LMM is useless against Hoithi-rebels' Anti-ship missile attack. At least a CIWS will be needed. CIWS is doable, but not sure if it is cost effective (it is maintenance intensive)

3: the possible most drastic will be to replace the bow 30mm gun with a gun adopted in T31e (57 or 76 mm). As such, logistic problem is not large. But, without expensive guided rounds, it won't be efficient against nether fast boat nor ASM. But, it will make the ship "look" a bit fighty, sometimes important for public and for diplomacy (what if Falkland Island guard ship have a 57/76 mm gun?). If a River B2 with such gun travel around Britain Island, visiting ports, inviting many young gentlemen and women, recruiting issue may be a bit relaxed?

Not sure....

[EDIT] My proposed option is, 1 = modest and realistic, 2 = slightly too much, 3 = very big jump = rather a fantasy at this moment. But, my intention was to show options with various levels.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

I have to say this is a turn up . As I said on the other thread the up arming of the B2's outside of fitting LMM was a bit of dead end as the RN was not going to add another gun type just for five OPV's however if Type 31 comes in with 40mm or 57mm this could open the door for an upgrade on the B2's to one of these weapons with 3P ammo giving a big step up in both air and surface defence of the ship

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:- With LMM and ATGM or others added, can it be used in Hormuz strait to counter Iranian fast boats, not in singleton but as a minor member following a T23/T45? (Not sure).
This was ruled out in commons defence meeting about a week ago . However I have said in the past that if a B2 fitted with 1 x 40mm and 2 x 30mm with LMM was used in a escort role like so

1 B2 then 4 to 6 tankers a frigate in the middle more tankers and a B2 at the back. The B2's could fend off fast attack boats and the frigate could use its CAMM to defend against air attack

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

You honestly think they'd put Phalanx CIWS on a B2 River when the T23 doesn't even have them?! :lol:
It's an offshore patrol vessel, not a T45 destroyer!

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:- With LMM and ATGM or others added, can it be used in Hormuz strait to counter Iranian fast boats, not in singleton but as a minor member following a T23/T45? (Not sure).
This was ruled out in commons defence meeting about a week ago .
Thanks. Could you share the details? I understand, "River B2 cannot sent to Hormuz Strait", as Lord West said. But, it is NOT "up-armed" River B2?

Oh, please do not take me wrong, I am not saying she can be sent to the Strait. I am just asking, if she can.

Also, if not for Hormuz strait, for what purpose do the Rear Admiral is thinking of "might" enhancing the lethality?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SKB wrote:You honestly think they'd put Phalanx CIWS on a B2 River when the T23 doesn't even have them?! :lol:
It's a bleedin' offshore patrol vessel for Christ's sakes, not a T45....
As I said, unlikely. So agree. Please note "CIWS on River B2" has its origin on SavetheRoyalNavy article (not me), so there are others who might think it is valid. :thumbup:

Technically, adding CIWS to River B2 is surely doable I think. One Phalanx is much light weight than 6 ISO 20ft containers (River B2 design requirement), and power and water piping is "doable" if not easy. Additional man-power can be easily absorbed in the "50-strong soldiers' accommodation". Yes, I think it is attractive option "on paper", but has Pro and Con, for sure.
- Con. I understand CIWS is very much maintenance heavy = costy to operate.
- Pro. It can be rotated, as MOD does with CIWS on Bays, Waves, and Tides. So, a River B2 can carry a CIWS only when she goes to a theater it is needed.

It is a matter or aim and cost.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

While I would be quite (pleasantly) surprised to see the main gun being changed on the B2s, there is room for a non-deck-penetrating system, with a modest magazine capacity, to be retro-fitted without any major structural changes. Personally, I think there is a great deal of room for improvement without getting into changing major systems. Considering available budgets, I think we are much more likely to see re-use of existing infantry/light vehicle-level weapons
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

The best way to up-arm a RB2 would have been to build it with a hanger in the first place....

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Thanks. Could you share the details? I understand, "River B2 cannot sent to Hormuz Strait", as Lord West said. But, it is NOT "up-armed" River B2?
Sorry no I don't have the details hopefully some can put them up on here
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Also, if not for Hormuz strait, for what purpose do the Rear Admiral is thinking of "might" enhancing the lethality?
This is the million dollar question what is going on that such a statement would be made by a high ranking officer

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The best way to up-arm a RB2 would have been to build it with a hanger in the first place....
Esp.as there is already a mag in place for that
... I would imagine it is for re-arming helos that have dropped their torp load, and will need to be quick about getting back to stn/ to continue the chase
- in effect, a "petrol" station, with other goodies near by the checkout, for them
- but when you have assets like this to distribute, say, 50 mls apart the main force... every little bit helps :)
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)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The best way to up-arm a RB2 would have been to build it with a hanger in the first place....
It is not up-arming River B2, it is rebuilding it? :D

By the way, to operate a helo with some useful efficiency, it must be a Khareef derivative (100 m hull) with a hangar, or River B2 (90 m hull) without a hangar.

Looking around the world, 80-90m OPVs with flight deck and helo hanger, seldom carries it. Irish navy, no. RNZN, only sometimes. I even think current trend is shifting not to have a helo hangar on 80-90m class OPV (aka German Corvettes).

# But I might be wrong...

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is not up-arming River B2, it is rebuilding it?
Thanks Donald, that made me laugh.

My point is that if the RB2's had of been around 105m LOA, with a wildcat hanger things would have been very different. RN would now be in the process of building at least 13 Frigates plus the 6 Destroyers along with 5 highly capable and genuinely globally deployable OPV's already in the water.

If HMG is really considering sending the RB2's into harms way it makes the original decision to build them without hangers even more ridiculous.

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 B2 should have been the BAE avenger, but we cant change that now, so lets just add 24 Mk41 cells and call it a day!
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:The River B2 should have been the BAE avenger, but we cant change that now, so lets just add 24 Mk41 cells and call it a day!
Only 24 I fear you are thinking to small

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by dmereifield »

If the River B2's had been something like the Avebger you'd probably have gotten 3 hulls not 5 and given the higher than anticipated T26 costs you wouldn't have had a reduction from 13 T26 to 8T26+5T31 but problay a cut to 10 T26 and no T31.

So, either you have:

1) as now:
5 x River B2 (potentially with enhanced lethaliry in due course)
5 x T31 Arrowhead 140
8 x T26

Or

2) hypothetically,
3 x Avenger
10 x T26

What is the better option of the two, in hindsight?

Option 1 doesn't look all that bad, depending on the final T31 and River B2 fit outs

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

dmereifield wrote:What is the better option of the two, in hindsight?
Definitely this one.

2) hypothetically,
3 x Avenger
10 x T26

Another 5 or 6 Arrowhead 140's on top of this would have resulted in a nicely balanced fleet.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

https://www.defenceprocurementinternati ... -dsei-2019

Not sure how "reliable" this article is (I hope he is surely not mixing Leander and River B2). Independent issue is, if RN will be interested in this "apparently heavily armed" version, or not. I hope NOT, but

I wanna see the "model" stated as follows

A possible vision of the River class’s future, with enhanced lethality and ISR capabilities, was also on display at DSEI 2019. It included a 76 mm gun, decoy dispensers, anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles and the possibility of a towed array sonar, which is a proposal being studied jointly by the Royal Navy and manufacturer BAE systems.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

We have seen the Thai B2 design fitted with 76mm and decoys plus a mock up of the second Thai navy B2 with anti-ship missiles so it is doable but why the RN would want to go that far is the question that grabbing me . We have talked in past about what could be done with a B2 and what could fitted and the list is long but this is a little mad.

We have all been slamming BAE and the MOD about the cost of the River B2's but could the hulls have been built to a corvette standard ? sound unlikely

Edit ; the 2nd Thai navy B2 is in the water and is fitted with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 30mm , 4 x Harpoon missiles

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:We have seen the Thai B2 design fitted with 76mm and decoys plus a mock up of the second Thai navy B2 with anti-ship missiles so it is doable but why the RN would want to go that far is the question that grabbing me . We have talked in past about what could be done with a B2 and what could fitted and the list is long but this is a little mad.

We have all been slamming BAE and the MOD about the cost of the River B2's but could the hulls have been built to a corvette standard ? sound unlikely
IMO if an upgrade is wanted then it has to be sensible these are still only OPVs after all. I’d go for something like 3 x 30mm fitted with LLM then 2 large ISOs one either side of the funnel/crane, one to house and maintain a rotary UAV the other as a control room.
I think anything really more than this would just be asking for them to be put in situations they shouldn’t be and a waste of money.

I do believe the hull build standard is meant to be on the very upper limit of an OPV so I wouldn’t be too surprised if it’s knocking on the door of a covert build standard.
We could of got more if they were planed for, for the cost we could of got 4-5 true global OPVs / patrol vessels with hangers and the lot, but it wasn’t about the cost and more to do with the last minuet rush as for some reason the RN kept thinking right until the last minuet that the T26 design would be done on time.

Post Reply