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 »

Beautiful shots of HMS QNLZ and HMS Medway, taken from HMS Forth.


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

Image
Image
Image
Image

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

What is she doing there at Gibraltar?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

Maybe Forth is guarding the oil tanker which the Royal Marines took? It is seen in the photographs ^

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by RichardIC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:What is she doing there at Gibraltar?

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

A sister of River B2, in Thai, armed with 76mm gun and Harpoon.

# learned from Navy Lookout Twitter, referring to thaidefense-news.blogspot.com.

http://thaidefense-news.blogspot.com/20 ... st_31.html
Image
Image

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Change the 76mm for a 57mm at the front, remove the Harpoon (for now :shh:) and add LMM/Starstreak launchers to the 30mms port and starboard and we have our B2+ for the RN :thumbup:
”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

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Some more photos..
ImageImageImage

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

So all we need is for the MoD to realise that the B2 Rivers could do more than just being OPVs, use some of the money from the pot the FLSS is possibly gong to be funded from to increase the capability of the five ships, and the RN will have five vessels able to carry out many more mission types including some that currently utilise a T-23 or T-45. I cannot see any negatives here, can anyone?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:I cannot see any negatives here, can anyone?
Yes, they should have been 12m-15m longer and incorporated a Wildcat hanger....

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I would rather say “there is a huge growth margin here”.

As a EEZ patrol ship, current RB2 is perfect.

But, as it can be easily up-armed to cover “about a half” of the middle-level constabulary operations (any tasks which is within land-based air cover), do we need new assets = T31 for it? Also, up-arming some of the River B2 will only take a year, but T31 needs another 4 years for delivery. At least for the current crisis, up-armed River B2 shall be more practical option than T31.

Of course, the key point here is NOT cutting, but the saved money must go to filling the huge growth margin already in the fleet. T26, P-8, P-7, F-35, and what is more, T45.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by abc123 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Some more photos..
Image

What's in that part behind the funnel?
Couldt some small hanger ( maybe extendable ) be added there and that part moved somewhere, left or right?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

abc123 wrote:What's in that part behind the funnel?
Couldt some small hanger ( maybe extendable ) be added there and that part moved somewhere, left or right?
Probably not in an effective way with an already built ship, but BAE did pitch an extendable hangar with the B1 for exports, so no reason if it was crucial than this should be possible also. Though this wouldn’t be my preference as it’s sub optimal and these ships should be operating in areas where helicopters can be shore based.

The best thing would be to build a small number of B3s with a hangar (and my preference, a mission bay).

As @Donald-san says, upgraded B2s could give a big boost in the short term, especially if forward based - say one in the West Indies, one in Gib for the Mediterranean, two in the Gulf and even one in Singapore. To do this the RN should also buy HMS Clyde and keep as FIGS.

We are way of course now of the News Only Thread, but it’s good to see a country utilising the potential of the River design.
”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

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I understand this is not news only thread. But, if related to T31, discussion shall move to escort thread.

Problem is, the up-armed River B2 discussed here is surely NOT escorts. :D

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Problem is, the up-armed River B2 discussed here is surely NOT escorts
And here, once again. we get into the definition of "escort" - in my opinion a virtually meaningless descriptor on its own. Every ship can be an escort - it just has different functions and capabilities. An up-armed (and the bit that is usually left out - up-armoured) River B2 would be a good escort for merchant ships in circumstances such as the current situation in the Gulf - not so good for an aircraft carrier in the GIUK gap in a hot war.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo, my bad - getting confused on which are the News Threads. Carry on the discussion :thumbup:
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Caribbean wrote:Every ship can be an escort - it just has different functions and capabilities. An up-armed (and the bit that is usually left out - up-armoured) River B2 would be a good escort for merchant ships in circumstances such as the current situation in the Gulf - not so good for and aircraft carrier in the GIUK gap in a hot war.
Spot on - and for those tasks we have the T45/T26s, I think we are saying there is not enough of them for those tasks - but it’s a different thread. Problem is that people are pitching the T31 for both roles- I’m saying it’s a waste for the role that can be done by the B2 (or future evolution) and it’s a) not capable enough to do the role of a T26/T45 and b) wastes money as they will never be built in numbers to get efficiencies of scale.
”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

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

abc123 wrote:What's in that part behind the funnel?
Couldt some small hanger ( maybe extendable ) be added there and that part moved somewhere, left or right?
Image
It is a flight deck light and helicopter landing support camera (which is located on the port-side of the funnel, in UK River B2).
Repulse wrote: ... As @Donald-san says, upgraded B2s could give a big boost in the short term, especially if forward based - say one in the West Indies, one in Gib for the Mediterranean, two in the Gulf and even one in Singapore. To do this the RN should also buy HMS Clyde and keep as FIGS.
I'm thinking it a bit modest. My proposed "up-arming" is to
A: a bow 57mm gun, and another 57mm gun replacing the crane, or
B: a bow 57mm gun, and two "30mm +LMM" turrets (or 20mm CIWS), on both side of the waist
My principle here is, "when the need is gone, can be re-configured as an EEZ patrol OPV". In options A-B, EEZ patrol version will be like Holland-class or BAM-class, with a single 57mm gun at bow. The 57mm gun can be "cheap and simple" with normal rounds, but also can be "expensive and powerful" with AAW and AShW guided rounds integrated.

Other options will be
C: with three "30mm +LMM" turrets, on bow and on both side of the waist
D: with a "30mm +LMM" on bow, and two 20mm CIWS on both side of the waist
In this case, the down-graded version will be armed similar to the current River B2.

So, there are plenty of options. To fight against fast boats, I think 57mm gun with ALaMo guided rounds or 30mm turret with LMMs are key assets. With these weapons, the "up-armed River B2" will be even better than T23, T45 or T26 against these fast boats (at least in close-in firepower).

Also I think may be not all 5 hulls, but just 2 or 3 shall be up-armed, because only the two hulls for Persian gulf needs it. (If it continues for longer than 3 years, we need the 3rd hull for long maintenance.) In this case, options-C and D looks better for commonality.
Repulse wrote:
Caribbean wrote:Every ship can be an escort - it just has different functions and capabilities. An up-armed (and the bit that is usually left out - up-armoured) River B2 would be a good escort for merchant ships in circumstances such as the current situation in the Gulf - not so good for and aircraft carrier in the GIUK gap in a hot war.
Spot on - and for those tasks we have the T45/T26s, I think we are saying there is not enough of them for those tasks - but it’s a different thread. Problem is that people are pitching the T31 for both roles- I’m saying it’s a waste for the role that can be done by the B2 (or future evolution) and it’s a) not capable enough to do the role of a T26/T45 and b) wastes money as they will never be built in numbers to get efficiencies of scale.
Agreed. I think it is politics pushing T31e, so the rationale will not be fully logical. The problem is, T31 idea itself is NOT totally bad, it is only surely NOT the best solution (considering the current lack of operational costs and man-power), which enables counter-arguments. But, yes this discussion shall go to escort thread. :D

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by abc123 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
abc123 wrote:What's in that part behind the funnel?
Couldt some small hanger ( maybe extendable ) be added there and that part moved somewhere, left or right?
Image
It is a flight deck light and helicopter landing support camera (which is located on the port-side of the funnel, in UK River B2).
And what's in that little "house" below it?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

abc123 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is a flight deck light and helicopter landing support camera (which is located on the port-side of the funnel, in UK River B2).
And what's in that little "house" below it?
Not sure what you mean, but assume you are asking about the deck-house between the funnel and the flight-deck.

There is a good YouTube, and can see what is where. I think the deck-house in front of the flight deck is Flyco, store spaces, and air-intakes.
HMTS_RiverB2.jpg
* to my understanding, in the Thai navy opv's CIC location, RN River B2 has emergency generator. So internal arrangement differs. (all from open source, at the first moment of ""). Actually, there is two air-intakes on top of the roof, right before the bridge in RN River B2, while it is flat in Thai navy's.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

Repulse wrote:Problem is that people are pitching the T31 for both roles
Agreed that this is the problem, though my solution would be slightly different. My belief is that we need both the T31 and a more capable "patrol frigate", based on the River (RB3). The T31 should be a combat vessel, capable of both acting independently and of supporting the top-end T26 and T45 fleet, whereas the RB3 would be a top-end, small crew, constabulary vessel, built to basic frigate standards. It would be capable of supporting the T31 in medium threat environments, or acting as the lead vessel alongside OPVs in a low-threat environment The difficulty with the current plans, is that, though both requirements are there, the £250-300m budget for the T31 means that it has to straddle the boundary between combat ship and patrol vessel, which satisfies no-one.

In terms of cost - I would guesstimate the budget for the T31 envisaged above being around £350-400m and the RB3 around £130-175m. However, if we can only afford one, then I would go for the T31.

On the issue of our favourite and perennial topic of up-arming the B2 Rivers, I would say that, if that course was chosen, improving the "structural deficits" are equally important. At the low end, this could mean additional bolt-on armour plating and spall-liners for crew protection against small arms and splinters. At the top end, it could mean things like retro-fitting a longitudinal bulkhead to divide the existing engine room into two waterproof compartments or adding podded thrusters for auxiliary mobility.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Caribbean wrote:My belief is that we need both the T31 and a more capable "patrol frigate", based on the River (RB3).
I can see some logic in this, but I’d say the River evolution needs to be towards a multi-role MHPC Sloop. With the replacement of the B1s and MCMs this could be in the order of 12-15 vessels.

The only reason for the T31 IMO was if it was going to take on the role of a ASW escort, TAPS and North Sea patrolling - the best solution would be a dumbed down T26.
”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: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

Image

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

# Sorry for fantasy...

If ever River B2 to be up-armed in reaction to current situation or in view of "dedicated for Persian Gulf", I think one powerful option is to make it "removable", so that the hull configuration can be brought back into EEZ patrol version easily in future.

So, here is the version with
- a 30mm gun with 5 LMM at bow (not shown)
- a 20mm CIWS in place of the crane (from the pooled units)
- and a few 12.7mm and 7.62mm guns
- with simple ESM/chaff/flare kits added (not shown)

How about two of them for Persian Gulf patrol, until T31e will ever be ready? (say, ~2024 at the earliest, and more later if my proposal to delay and even cancel T31e was chosen). If more fire power be needed, add two to four 3-tube LMM launcher operated by RM team, or even 6-8 more 7.62mm gatling guns, operated by RM detachment (plenty of room for them).

(Photo of HMS Forth at Gib. I first "mis-identified" the starboard sat-com dome as that of "20mm CIWS" in place of the crane.)
Forth_at_Gib.jpg

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

Stupid to put CIWS on an inshore patrol vessel. Especially as you've also made the helipad unusable. Rotor blades will hit the CIWS.
No fantasy ships/weapons refits here please, theres already a thread for that.... https://www.ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=215

Post Reply