River Class (OPV) (RN)

[donald_of_tokyo]

Even if with OPV level damage control standard, I cannot see this ship be lean manned as low as 50 core crew.

Whilst I disagree with using OPVs as part of an escort group (with exception of possibly the North Atlantic convoys with other assets providing wide area defence), there are examples where this level of crew is supporting a higher level of sensors and weapons than the B2s - just look at the Holland class with a core crew of 54.

It’s interesting that the Netherlands will be looking at Holland replacements soon - they have gone with the City class MCM motherships, but there is an opportunity to look at developing a similar hull design.

Another thing for me is that if we talk about scaling we are not just talking about ships, we are talking about crews also. Having an OPV using frigate type kit like CMSs, gives a seed-corn to grow from for new FF/DD crews in a crisis.

[Tempest414]

What would be good to know is how close the RB2's are to a Corvette standard of damage control we know they are higher than most OPV's with all the extra improvements made

What we know is that the RB2's can carry 5 TEU's and still operate a Peregrine UAV we know that replacing the 30mm for a 40 or 57mm is no big effort and that if we wanted swapping the 2D radar for a 3D is also not that big a deal

Now if as I think the RB's are closer to a corvette standard of damage control then adding a 3D radar , 57mm & Peregrine UAV is a no brainer

[new guy]

…adding a 3D radar , 57mm & Peregrine UAV is a no brainer

Regardless of their damage control, their current use warrants this very modest upgrade.

[Tempest414]

…adding a 3D radar , 57mm & Peregrine UAV is a no brainer

Regardless of their damage control, their current use warrants this very modest upgrade.

For me if the damage control is found to be someway below that of a Corvette then just adding a 40mm and Peregrine UAV and keeping the 2D radar would be fine

[Tempest414]

Even if with OPV level damage control standard, I cannot see this ship be lean manned as low as 50 core crew.

Whilst I disagree with using OPVs as part of an escort group (with exception of possibly the North Atlantic convoys with other assets providing wide area defence), there are examples where this level of crew is supporting a higher level of sensors and weapons than the B2s - just look at the Holland class with a core crew of 54.

It’s interesting that the Netherlands will be looking at Holland replacements soon - they have gone with the City class MCM motherships, but there is an opportunity to look at developing a similar hull design.

Another thing for me is that if we talk about scaling we are not just talking about ships, we are talking about crews also. Having an OPV using frigate type kit like CMSs, gives a seed-corn to grow from for new FF/DD crews in a crisis.

So on the question of core crew the Independence class LCS has a core crew of 40

[Repulse]

So on the question of core crew the Independence class LCS has a core crew of 40

I wouldn’t put the LCS as a shining beacon of what should be done - it’s rather like the T31, fallen fowl of global events and now either too lightweight to act as a fighting ship and too expensive/overdone for a USCG equivalent.

However, it does clearly demonstrate what is possible in the 35-55 core crew bracket.

[donald_of_tokyo]

So on the question of core crew the Independence class LCS has a core crew of 40

And therefore, LCS never deploys with only core crew. To my understanding, LCS crew is always somewhere around 70-80, and one of the reason was to keep the ship running (just not go back to port when there is an issue), and for damage control. I am not sure about the number but I remember it was written that 40 was far from enough and thus mitigated. Note LCS is no more a modular ship. Each hull has a fixed task, and carries fixed modules.

[Tempest414]

So on the question of core crew the Independence class LCS has a core crew of 40

And therefore, LCS never deploys with only core crew. To my understanding, LCS crew is always somewhere around 70-80, and one of the reason was to keep the ship running (just not go back to port when there is an issue), and for damage control. I am not sure about the number but I remember it was written that 40 was far from enough and thus mitigated. Note LCS is no more a modular ship. Each hull has a fixed task, and carries fixed modules.

So LCS has a core crew of 40 and a mission crew of 20 to 35 for me LCS is interesting in that it went to far and it was to complex for its role but the idea is a good one the RB2's are just the other side of the same good idea and the sweet spot sits in the middle

The idea of having a 105 by 16 meter ships with a corvette standard hull and top speed of 27 knots with a core crew of 45 and space for 50 others plus a 3D radar , good CMS hangar flight deck and mission deck

Lets say that the RB2 dose have a corvette standard of damage control then if it is fitted with say a 3D radar ,57mm , 2 x 30mm and if needed 2 x CAMM containers it should be ok in the Red Sea at this time working with a crew of 60

Also lets also say the UK leased say 4 Freedom class LCS if we removed the RAM unit and replaced it with a 40mm and added 12 CAMM in the amidship weapons pods we could also operate this ship in the Red Sea now with a crew of 60 plus a Wildcat and crew

[Ron5]

wouldn’t put the LCS as a shining beacon of what should be done - it’s rather like the T31, fallen fowl of global events and now either too lightweight to act as a fighting ship and too expensive/overdone for a USCG equivalent.

Dead chicken sounds about right

[donald_of_tokyo]

Again I still think as follows:
A: if we want a new built "up-armed", "100+m hull with helicopter hanger", but with OPV standard ship, it will be Spanish BAM and Dutch Holland. We know it. It is not a stupid idea. This is a ship "in-between" River B2 and T31.
B: if we further add "escort-level damage control" and "CAMM missile", this is very very similar to a ship required in T31 RFI. This is T31, for RN.

River B2 is not a corvette. Its hull standard was never said to be so (if so, it must have been a good PR for the design). BUT, it is also known that many/some of the "corvettes" are actually built to OPV standard of hulls. Mexican Damen Sigma 10514 has an OPV standard hull. So, saying "River B2 has a corvette standard of hull" works, actually, to my understanding.

"Is RN going that approach?", exposing the crew's life in danger in cheap? I hope not. This is why RN has T31. If you see the T31 "as is", it is perfect version of "patrol ship with 57mm gun, 40mm guns, CAMM, helicopter" with "extremely good range/endurance and escort-level standard hull" = a ship which can fight. It is well known T31's cost is "a bit less than a half" of a full-fat frigate, T26 = so-so cheap. Best match for the "higher end" tasks we are discussing here.


Going back to "A", Holland-like OPV, yes we can think of it. But, the ship has nothing to do with the Red Sea issue, nor even KIPION. These two tasks need a ship to fight = T23/26/45 and T31. A "RN-Holland OPV" will slightly improve the efficiency in Caribbean sea (HMS Medway) and also some of the tasks (not all) of HMS Spey and Tamar. It will improve little over HMS Forth and Trent (my personal opinion). In place, I'm sure there will be "less than 5" of "RN-Holland" in place for 5 River B2. Nothing is free. Might be even only 3 hulls. If 3 River B1 OPV replacements are there (3 simple-simple EEZ OPV), it could be ok. But, if the 2 River B2s (Spey and Tamar) are to come back to Britain, to replace the 3 River B1s, it will leave only Forth and Medway deployed (5th will be in maintenance). So, 5 is needed.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I once thought that an OPV with 40mm 3P and Counter-UAS radar (adding Leonardo TMMR, counter-UAC AESA) can be a helpful asset to counter the drones-era. But the Red Sea Houthi's issue made me think twice. T31 with more CAMM can be more important?

A gun with 3D-type radar and EO-FCS can be used for self defense against cheap drones. But, it cannot escort merchant ships, because of too short range. An OPV with a 57mm gun (probably with USV-RHIB as a "centurion") will be a serious threat to enemy fast boat, like those used by Houthis. (US is investing a lot on 57 mm guided rounds. ALaMo is cheap and good and already fielded in number. Northrop Grummun has been awarded the next generation 57 mm guided rounds development). So, it is NOT "useless". This is why I still think "up-armed River B2" can be considered.

But, this all depends on operational assessment. For me, once Houthi was the candidate enemy. But, now it looks like it has a mass (as a state), and thus shall be handled by escorts.

But, 2 River B2 OPV requires 120 crew (with x1.5 over manning), which equates to one T31 (with flight). The former two can provide ~400 sea going days per year added, while the latter maybe only 150 days. But the capability difference is huge. The former cannot defend Merchant ships from air-raid in Red Sea, but the latter can.

Which will be better? I myself does not have an answer yet.

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting discussion.

A few points.

• IMO the rationale for the T31 concept as first proposed is gone. A frigate with only 12x CAMM and no sonar was ridiculous from the beginning but due to a stable security environment HMT pushed it through. Times have changed and the T31 will have to change. IMO @Tempest414 has it spot on with the first two hulls: 57mm, 2x 40mm, 40x CAMM and 8x NSM with another 8x NSM easily added if required. Hulls 3,4 and 5 can follow the same format or upgrade.

• The original T31 requirement is now not satisfied. Building another batch of lightly armed T31 would do it but it would be a decade before they arrive and planning doesn’t have the luxury of kicking the can down the road for a decade anymore. Therefore I would suggest that five vessels need to be rapidly procured to fill the original T31 requirement. A patrol vessel built to an OPV+ standard with a 57mm backed up two 40mm, TACTICOS and NS50 or NS110. A generous open deck capacity of at least 6x TEU should be included for containerised CAMM and/or MLRS along with the ability to rapidly add a basic TAS. Set the budget at £150m to £175m and aim for 50 core crew plus flight and an EMF of 50.

• The containerised CAMM should not be controversial as it would rarely be fitted but it would be essential self defence in some instances. It may also become necessary for the MRSS and FSS to occasionally embark it also. Why not design a unit that can be used on land and at sea? The more simple and straightforward the better.

• The reason these 5 patrol vessels are needed to still meet the original T31 requirement is because RN will now be stretched everywhere all at once but not necessarily in kinetic exchanges. RN will need additional mass to successfully mitigate these challenges and the vessel described above is all that is required in the next 5 years to provide the extra mass. These OPV+ vessels would be especially effective when paired with the MRSS such as an Enforcer 14428 or stretched Vard 7 313.

• RN would then have a compact but extremely well balanced fleet plus a clear pathway to continue enlarging if the global security landscape started to deteriorate further.

By 2030 RN would have:
- 6x T45
- 8x T26/T23 ASW
- 5x T31 GP with 40x CAMM and 8x NSM
- 5x OPV+ with Wildcat and 57mm, 2x40mm
- 5x RB2 with zero upgrade

This could followed in the early 2030s with another 5x T31/T32 and 6x MRSS providing excellent strength in depth which could be easily added to if required.

It isn’t perfect but RN has few other options to add mass within the next decade.

[SW1]

Interesting discussion.

A few points.

• IMO the rationale for the T31 concept as first proposed is gone. A frigate with only 12x CAMM and no sonar was ridiculous from the beginning but due to a stable security environment HMT pushed it through. Times have changed and the T31 will have to change. IMO @Tempest414 has it spot on with the first two hulls: 57mm, 2x 40mm, 40x CAMM and 8x NSM with another 8x NSM easily added if required. Hulls 3,4 and 5 can follow the same format or upgrade.

• Therefore the original T31 requirement is now not satisfied. Building another batch of lightly armed T31 would do it but it would be a decade before they arrive and planning doesn’t have the luxury of kicking the can down the road for a decade anymore. Therefore I would suggest that five vessels need to be rapidly procured to fill the original T31 requirement. A patrol vessel built to an OPV+ standard with a 57mm backed up two 40mm, TACTICOS and NS50 or NS110. A generous open deck capacity of at least 6x TEU should be included for containerised CAMM and/or MLRS along with the ability to rapidly add a basic TAS. Set the budget at £150m to £175m and aim for 50 core crew plus flight and an EMF of 50.

• The containerised CAMM should not be controversial as it would rarely be fitted but it would be essential self defence in some instances. It may also become necessary for the MRSS and FSS to occasionally embark it also. Why not design a unit that can be used on land and at sea? The more simple and straightforward the better.

• The reason these 5 patrol vessels are needed to still meet the original T31 requirement is because RN will now be stretched everywhere all at once but not necessarily in kinetic exchanges. RN will need additional mass to successfully mitigate these challenges and the vessel described above is all that is required in the next 5 years to provide the extra mass. These OPV+ vessels would be especially effective when paired with the MRSS such as an Enforcer 14428 or stretched Vard 7 313.

• RN would then have a compact but extremely well balanced fleet plus a clear pathway to continue enlarging if the global security landscape started to deteriorate further.

By 2030 RN would have:
- 6x T45
- 8x T26/T23 ASW
- 5x T31 GP with 40x CAMM and 8x NSM
- 5x OPV+ with Wildcat and 57mm, 2x40mm
- 5x RB2 with zero upgrade

This could followed in the early 2030s with another 5x T31/T32 and 6x MRSS providing excellent strength in depth which could be easily added too if required.

It isn’t perfect but RN has few other options to add mass within the next decade.

Why do you think this opv + arrives quicker than something that’s already in build?

What design is it going to be as non currently existing in the uk where are you getting the budget from and who’s going to build it?

[Repulse]

But, 2 River B2 OPV requires 120 crew (with x1.5 over manning), which equates to one T31 (with flight). The former two can provide ~400 sea going days per year added, while the latter maybe only 150 days. But the capability difference is huge. The former cannot defend Merchant ships from air-raid in Red Sea, but the latter can.

Which will be better? I myself does not have an answer yet.

MOD source says up to 300 sea days per year for the B2 Rivers, so up to 600 for two. The T31 can provide a level of local air defence for ships its escorting, but it’s on the assumption it gets 24 or more CAMM. However comparing a T31 to an OPV is the wrong comparison - compare a 3 T31s to 2 T26s or T45s with the same crew.

[Poiuytrewq]

Why do you think this opv + arrives quicker than something that’s already in build?

The Rosyth and Govan yards are at full production unless someone can convince HMT to commit to more T26 which seems unlikely.

What design is it going to be as non currently existing in the uk where are you getting the budget from and who’s going to build it?

The idea that BAE can’t stretch an OPV and add a hanger and a few guns is ridiculous. The idea that it should cost £400m to £500m for the alterations is also ridiculous. However, if HMG wants more mass fast then the options are limited but even if it cost an extra £200m per annum to 2030 it’s still cheap.

Adding 5 much more capable OPVs to the fleet by 2030 would ensure that the upgraded T31s would in effect be extra hulls.

A collaboration of BAE and Cammell would be most likely but H&W Appledore would be another serious contender.

[new guy]

Why do you think this opv + arrives quicker than something that’s already in build?

The Rosyth and Govan yards are at full production unless someone can convince HMT to commit to more T26 which seems unlikely.

What design is it going to be as non currently existing in the uk where are you getting the budget from and who’s going to build it?

The idea that BAE can’t stretch an OPV and add a hanger and a few guns is ridiculous. The idea that it should cost £400m to £500m for the alterations is also ridiculous. However, if HMG wants more mass fast then the options are limited but even if it cost an extra £200m per annum to 2030 it’s still cheap.

Adding 5 much more capable OPVs to the fleet by 2030 would ensure that the upgraded T31s would in effect be extra hulls.

A collaboration of BAE and Cammell would be most likely but H&W Appledore would be another serious contender.

then who will build it?
And how is it any better then just putting more munitions on T31, assuming that it isn't already planned to have 24-32 CAMM or MK41?
Idiotic.

[SW1]

Why do you think this opv + arrives quicker than something that’s already in build?

The Rosyth and Govan yards are at full production unless someone can convince HMT to commit to more T26 which seems unlikely.

What design is it going to be as non currently existing in the uk where are you getting the budget from and who’s going to build it?

The idea that BAE can’t stretch an OPV and add a hanger and a few guns is ridiculous. The idea that it should cost £400m to £500m for the alterations is also ridiculous. However, if HMG wants more mass fast then the options are limited but even if it cost an extra £200m per annum to 2030 it’s still cheap.

Adding 5 much more capable OPVs to the fleet by 2030 would ensure that the upgraded T31s would in effect be extra hulls.

A collaboration of BAE and Cammell would be most likely but H&W Appledore would be another serious contender.

I’m not saying they can’t stretch an opv but what opv are they stretching? Nor even mentioning cost currently there isn’t any budget line for another ship opv or otherwise. Where are you taking that 200m pound a year from in the next 5 years?

Design a new ship, start build somewhere not specified in facilities that tbh, find a budget and deliver in the next 5 years all 5 and start it during an election year. More chance me winning the lottery.

It took them 4 years to get the first batch 2 vessel in commission and that was at a full functioning ship yard and to an existing design.

[tomuk]

Why do you think this opv + arrives quicker than something that’s already in build?

The Rosyth and Govan yards are at full production unless someone can convince HMT to commit to more T26 which seems unlikely.

What design is it going to be as non currently existing in the uk where are you getting the budget from and who’s going to build it?

The idea that BAE can’t stretch an OPV and add a hanger and a few guns is ridiculous. The idea that it should cost £400m to £500m for the alterations is also ridiculous. However, if HMG wants more mass fast then the options are limited but even if it cost an extra £200m per annum to 2030 it’s still cheap.

Adding 5 much more capable OPVs to the fleet by 2030 would ensure that the upgraded T31s would in effect be extra hulls.

A collaboration of BAE and Cammell would be most likely but H&W Appledore would be another serious contender.

I’m not saying they can’t stretch an opv but what opv are they stretching? Nor even mentioning cost currently there isn’t any budget line for another ship opv or otherwise. Where are you taking that 200m pound a year from in the next 5 years?

Design a new ship, start build somewhere not specified in facilities that tbh, find a budget and deliver in the next 5 years all 5 and start it during an election year. More chance me winning the lottery.

It took them 4 years to get the first batch 2 vessel in commission and that was at a full functioning ship yard and to an existing design.

If we were desperate for more meaningful mass and money was available the best option would be to take the t31 plus frigate factory bundle that Babcock have exported and roll it out at Cammel Laird.

[Poiuytrewq]

If we were desperate for more meaningful mass and money was available the best option would be to take the t31 plus frigate factory bundle that Babcock have exported and roll it out at Cammel Laird.

Really for 5 Frigates?

It’s not a realistic option.

[tomuk]

If we were desperate for more meaningful mass and money was available the best option would be to take the t31 plus frigate factory bundle that Babcock have exported and roll it out at Cammel Laird.

Really for 5 Frigates?

It’s not a realistic option.

If we haven't the money for more meaningful mass buying OPVs to make up the hull numbers is a waste of resources.

If we were v desperate you could put the B1s on FIGs and WIGs and push the released B2s forward but we are talking desperation.

[Poiuytrewq]

I’m not saying they can’t stretch an opv but what opv are they stretching?

Unimportant at this stage. If the U.K. now isn’t capable of adapting an OPV design just build a Vard design at Appledore.

Lots of viable options.

Nor even mentioning cost currently there isn’t any budget line for another ship opv or otherwise. Where are you taking that 200m pound a year from in the next 5 years?

If HMG wants more mass, HMT has to provide the funding.

If it doesn’t materialise then carry on as planned.

Design a new ship, start build somewhere not specified in facilities that tbh, find a budget and deliver in the next 5 years all 5 and start it during an election year. More chance me winning the lottery.

Totally disagree, it’s a perfect opportunity to commit to extra funding whilst packing to leave. There is no purdah yet.

As the program would be so rapid this administration could commit the next administration to a 2.5% spend including substantial cancellation penalties.

It took them 4 years to get the first batch 2 vessel in commission and that was at a full functioning ship yard and to an existing design.

It was a job creation scheme based around a TOBA. It really isn’t relevant in the current climate.

[Poiuytrewq]

If we haven't the money for more meaningful mass buying OPVs to make up the hull numbers is a waste of resources.

If we were v desperate you could put the B1s on FIGs and WIGs and push the released B2s forward but we are talking desperation.

The desperation hasn’t stated yet.

How many active Frigates do you expect RN to have available at any one time in 2029?

[tomuk]

If we haven't the money for more meaningful mass buying OPVs to make up the hull numbers is a waste of resources.

If we were v desperate you could put the B1s on FIGs and WIGs and push the released B2s forward but we are talking desperation.

The desperation hasn’t stated yet.

How many active Frigates do you expect RN to have available at any one time in 2029?

Not very many unfortunately but OPVs aren't a substitute.

[Poiuytrewq]

Not very many unfortunately but OPVs aren't a substitute.

They absolutely are a substitute where an escort isn’t required.

You are aware that the T31s are due to replace the RB2s EoS when the RB1s decommission around 2028.

If two T31s end up in the Indo Pacific with a 3rd forward based in the Gulf and a 4th in the Red Sea RN will have committed all of the UKs active GP Frigates EoS. Not ideal.

What if the T31s are delayed by 12 or 24 months?

What if the T26s are delayed by 12 or 24 months?

It’s not a case of currently adding mass, it’s a case of trying to cling on to as much mass as possible.

By adding another 5 much more capable OPVs by 2030 HMG completely clears the log jam.

• The two Indo Pacific RB2s are replaced with more capable OPVs by 2028.

• A more capable OPV is assigned to APT(N) ensuring no more T45s are required in the Caribbean.

• A more capable OPV is assigned to patrolling the West African coast, another potential flash point but no need for the presence of a Frigate.

• The ultimate effect would be huge. RN would have all current taskings filled and only two GP Frigates committed EoS (Gulf, Red Sea). Based on current availablity that gives RN four extra Frigates available by 2030 (3x GP, 1x ASW).

Building an additional Frigate factory in Birkenhead isn’t realistic. If it isn’t more capable OPVs to fill the gap what do you propose?

[donald_of_tokyo]

…
• RN would then have a compact but extremely well balanced fleet plus a clear pathway to continue enlarging if the global security landscape started to deteriorate further.

By 2030 RN would have:
- 6x T45
- 8x T26/T23 ASW
- 5x T31 GP with 40x CAMM and 8x NSM
- 5x OPV+ with Wildcat and 57mm, 2x40mm
- 5x RB2 with zero upgrade …

Thanks for good discussion.

A crew of 30x3 River B1s cannot man 5 OPV plus. I even think they shall all be used to man as many T45/26/31 as possible.

Simple calculation gives me that,

4 T45 (800), 6 T26 (900), 4 T31 (480) = 1180 future escort fleet equates to

“10 manned (one double-crewed)” = 2200 current fleet.

The 30x3 = 90 souls from River B1s is the only remaining manpower. And by using this resource, one T31 in KIPION can even double-crewed. I propose this option, as this plan can provide maximum number of active escorts to UK.

But this also means there is no more manpower to man OPV+s.