River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

Poiuytrewq wrote:if the Batch2 Rivers had of been fitted with Hangers the T31's would never have happened
.... and we would be looking at a Navy of 9 T26 and 6 OPVs
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 »

Caribbean wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:if the Batch2 Rivers had of been fitted with Hangers the T31's would never have happened
.... and we would be looking at a Navy of 9 T26 and 6 OPVs
Good chance we might have got 10.
That would have been,
6x T45's
10x T26's
5x RB2's at 105m LOA and wildcat hanger
4x RB1's

Actually I think it compares pretty favourably with current planning.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

I disagree
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 »

If UK were building ~105 m long OPV-H using the 630M GBP spent on 5 River B2s, I guess the number will be “3”. Easily imagine a Khareef hull with 6 m extension, used for expanding the flight deck and improving the float = growth margins.

A fleet with
6 T45 fully manned
10 T26 fully manned
3 such OPV-H fully manned
and 4 River B1 for BF
will be much better than current plan, I agree.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Caribbean wrote:I disagree
If it turns out that an Arrowhead 140 can be built in the UK with 24 CAMM for £250m then I agree current planning may still be on the right track but I still struggle to see how it's possible.

Especially considering of the four yards that initially made up Team31, Appledore is shut, Fergusons is going to be nationalised to remain solvent and H&W is a month away from closure. It's hard to believe that any cost analysis by Babcock remains valid if the entire vessels are now going to be manufactured in Rosyth rather than by distributed block construction across the UK. It's an entirely different proposition.

The bulk of what's left of the UK shipbuilding industry and the entire National Shipbuilding Strategy appear to be disintegrating before our very eyes and this government seems oblivious to the repercussions down the line. It's almost as if BAE seen it coming....

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:If UK were building ~105 m long OPV-H using the 630M GBP spent on 5 River B2s, I guess the number will be “3”.
Seems expensive at £210m per hull for a 105m OPV.

The 108m Holland Class at £100m each would seem like fantastic value for money by comparison.

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:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:If UK were building ~105 m long OPV-H using the 630M GBP spent on 5 River B2s, I guess the number will be “3”.
Seems expensive at £210m per hull for a 105m OPV.

The 108m Holland Class at £100m each would seem like fantastic value for money by comparison.
Of corse including TOBA. Those ships cannot be built in cheap east European shipyards.

They cannot even focus on building cheap, but must follow (at least part of) T26 build process.
Top priority was to secure and train the workforce.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

Poiuytrewq wrote:If it turns out that an Arrowhead 140 can be built in the UK with 24 CAMM for £250m then I agree current planning may still be on the right track but I still struggle to see how it's possible.

Especially considering of the four yards that initially made up Team31, Appledore is shut, Fergusons is going to be nationalised to remain solvent and H&W is a month away from closure. It's hard to believe that any cost analysis by Babcock remains valid if the entire vessels are now going to be manufactured in Rosyth rather than by distributed block construction across the UK. It's an entirely different proposition.

The bulk of what's left of the UK shipbuilding industry and the entire National Shipbuilding Strategy appear to be disintegrating before our very eyes and this government seems oblivious to the repercussions down the line. It's almost as if BAE seen it coming....
While I agree with you that the NSS is, disappointingly, in the process of being strangled at birth (mainly due to an unwillingness on the part of Government to make timely decisions), I think that we are conflating two things, namely the NSS as an industrial strategy and the concept of a multi-tier frigate fleet, with tier 2 being cheaper, but still a credible frigate. The OPV-based solutions spend the money, but only produce pseudo-frigates (which have their part to play, particularly in peace-time operations, but would be severely constrained in genuine war-time scenarios). The reason that I favour the T31 (and in particular the A140) is that I see us getting c. 70% of the capability of a tier 1 escort (even if all of it is not exploited to the full on day one) for around 40% of the cost. The OPV-based solutions suggested here get about 20% of the capability for c. 20% of the cost. If you upgrade an OPV to the point where it might contribute more robustly, you get Leander.

As to the issue of the solvency of the yards. Even if Ferguson's are nationalised, does that mean they stop building ships? On the contrary, it puts them in a very strong position, as their entire operation is now backed by tax revenue from the Scottish Parliament (putting their money where their mouth is, for once?). H&W have two companies vying to take them over as well, indicating that the yard itself is seen as a viable proposition, even if the parent company isn't. As for Appledore - perhaps Babcock's have closed the less efficient yard, improving their cost analysis? They've had a long time to re-calculate their figures, I'm pretty sure they've got around to it.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

The way I see it is that on a scale of 1 to 10, I’d see the B1 River as a 1, and a T26 as a 10. the T31e is as advertised (e.g. with CAMM) it would be a 6 (and a 7 if ASMs are fitted).

A B2 River IMO is a 3, if up gunned it could be a 4, and if with added CAMM and hangar (Avenger style) it could be a 5.5 and a solid design for a high availability forward based ship.

I’d say that a 6 T45, 9 T26, 10 Avenger (B3) and 5 B2 would be possible in the current budget by mid 2030s and is a balanced fleet. If more cash comes invest in more T26s and SSNs.

Short term, I’m aligned with @Donald-san, there is no point playing top trump warships- if you can’t deploy / man it, don’t count it. I’d say in the next 12 months, cut 3 T23s, keep HMS Clyde as FIGS and upgrade the B2 Rivers to play a global role inc the Gulf. Painful, yes, but it needs to get worse before and we need to take some tough decisions, before it can get better.
”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 »

Please stop fantasy ship rearming and fantasy fleet building. This is a River Class thread.
If you want to build fantasy ships and fleets, go to Russia and build some models.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »

Image
Image

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

If HMG had ordered the number of escorts it ought to have ordered and delivered BREXIT when they should have, these yards would in all probability not now be facing closure. Governments of recent decades stand guilty of gross incompetence regarding Naval Defence, which cannot be regenerated if you have destroyed the industry necessary to support it. :mrgreen:

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

On the man power.

Original 4 River B1 were operated by a crew of 45 each (30 onboard and 15 at rest) for > 300 sea going days. In total 180.

New 5 River B2 need a crew of 54 (36+18), in total 270. So RN needed 90 more crews. I understand this shall mean 180 more manpower, including all the “not as a crew” tasks (training, promotion, land based asset support, etc...).

Now with 3 River B1 to remain, RN need yet another 135 crews. From where RN can find these 90+135 crews?

We know some reservists are mobilized for River B1. But not sure
- how many reservists shall be mobilized
- how actively the 3 River B1 will be operated
- and how RN is trying to get the 90 more crews at least for the 5 River B2s, which is unrelated to reservists?

Are there any information?

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo, no new information, but previously MCM crews have manned B1 Rivers. With two Hunts going, an additional Sandown expected to go, plus the spare MCM crew that used to rotate, this would give @160 (45+45+34+34).
”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

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by abc123 »

Scimitar54 wrote:If HMG had ordered the number of escorts it ought to have ordered and delivered BREXIT when they should have, these yards would in all probability not now be facing closure. Governments of recent decades stand guilty of gross incompetence regarding Naval Defence, which cannot be regenerated if you have destroyed the industry necessary to support it. :mrgreen:
Undermining the defence capabilities of the Realm. :think:
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…

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
South Africa

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Old RN »

What about equiping the B2 with two CB90s on the waist working areas? While the crane might need to be uprated (the CB90 is less than 16t standard displacement, but more than 20t full load). The CB90 beam appears OK and the length would protrude into the flight deck by 2-3 meters.

Such a B2, if also fitted with LMM ln the DS30 mount, would be useful in the Gulf at the moment?

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by RichardIC »

Scimitar54 wrote:and delivered BREXIT
What's Brexit got to do with it?

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

Old RN wrote:What about equiping the B2 with two CB90s on the waist working areas? While the crane might need to be uprated (the CB90 is less than 16t standard displacement, but more than 20t full load). The CB90 beam appears OK and the length would protrude into the flight deck by 2-3 meters.

Such a B2, if also fitted with LMM ln the DS30 mount, would be useful in the Gulf at the moment?
I was saying the same sort of thing however I was saying fit three 30mm with LMM which would allow them to escorts tankers with a T-23 as said one River up front with 3 to 4 tankers behind next a T-23 then more tankers and then the second River this would allow all ship to stay under the CAMM & LMM umbrella

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote:donald_of_tokyo, no new information, but previously MCM crews have manned B1 Rivers. With two Hunts going, an additional Sandown expected to go, plus the spare MCM crew that used to rotate, this would give @160 (45+45+34+34).
Thanks.

But I understand the 45+45 crews of two Hunts, disbanded when in extended-readiness, are already absorbed elsewhere. The additional Sandown will provide 34, but "the spare MCM crew" is there for a reason (rotating to Gulf?), so I'm afraid non-existing. In short, I can only find 34.

The reason I raised this question is, I'm afraid "90 more crews for 5 River B2 <-- 4 River B1" and "135 crew to keep 3 River B1", can amount to "another (3rd) escort in extended readiness". Currently, I understand 2 River B2 (Forth and Medway) and 3 of the 4 River B1 are fully manned (HMS Severn is still in refit). HMS Clyde will be replaced with Forth, providing (most of the) crew for the 3rd River B2. But, how about crews for 4th and 5th River B2, and HMS Severn?

As I do not want "3rd escort in extended readiness", I hope to get crews from MCMV force. To do this, at least 3 of the River B2 (and B1) shall be a vessel for mine counter measure. If carrying any boats/assets on their waist (RB2) or stern (RB1), I therefore think MCM kits will be the first choice to try.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But I understand the 45+45 crews of two Hunts, disbanded when in extended-readiness, are already absorbed elsewhere.
Thanks, this is new to me. If that is the case then I hope that using reserves and part of the additional 400 recruited / added due to be created as part of the RM restructure will plug the gap. I personally would also like HMS Clyde kept also as the FIGS, allowing the 5 B2s to plug more of the global gaps, perhaps partially manned by FI reserves.
”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

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

RichardIC Wrote:-
What's Brexit got to do with it?
An unwillingness to invest in or place orders with due to business uncertainty :mrgreen:

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by RichardIC »

Scimitar54 wrote:An unwillingness to invest in or place orders with due to business uncertainty
You mean Brexit's going to wreck the economy? Fair enough.

Totally off-topic now. Sorry.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

No, but the Remoaners are still trying to scare people (and companies) into believing that it will. Hence lack of business confidence

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by RichardIC »

Scimitar54 wrote:No, but the Remoaners are still trying to scare people (and companies) into believing that it will. Hence lack of business confidence
Happy to take this elsewhere, but that's delusional. But when did facts matter?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Never to you apparently.

Post Reply