River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Dear marktigger

Of course I am NOT proposing to build your OPVs in Japan. I am just saying "a bit higher price for ship building" is inevitable investment for UK. However, yes this "a bit" shall be around 20-30%, not twice as high.

Appledore is promising but does it have ability to design complex ships? (Echo was of their design?).

I have no answer but breeding two ship building sites (+1 for subs) with RN budget will not be so easy. Looking at Australia's and Canada's struggling, it looks like under-payed support for these industries will result in decease, i.e. rapid loosing in skill and sharp rise in procurement cost because of many short falls.

With 6+13 (or less) escorts, an escort built every 2 years will be the average (CVF replacement is 50 years away, so forget it). If you have 2 shipyards, it will mean 4 years per ship. I am afraid this is not enough for a yard. With LPDs, MARSs, Survey ships and maybe OPVs mixed, maybe you can find some solution, but anyway it will not be easy...

Which 2 yards are you talking about? The UK will have 1 for sub's and 1 for escorts and with the current plan their is enough work to sustain these no problem.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote: Which 2 yards are you talking about? The UK will have 1 for sub's and 1 for escorts and with the current plan their is enough work to sustain these no problem.
I meant breeding Appledore as "a second choice for escort building". I know it is not planned. MOD is just thinking to support BAE (Govan) and BAE (sub). I think this is the correct way, but yes BAE has a bad reputation for cost control (in which case, someone will want to use Appldedore).

I hope this time BAE+MOD make good results !

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:
This is the same BaE we're talking about?
Indeed they don't have a great track record. Basing your views on type 45 and astute they look pretty bad, but they where much higher risk design's. MOD procurement is also at fault for not correctly noticing managing the risk.

This time round they seem to be doing things better, taking their time and using a very low risk design. I think of this lower risk design it stands a reasonable chance of becoming a success.
type 45, astute, QE, Ocean, Bulwark, Albion, bays, nimrod, typhoon, need I go on their bids are low enough to win the contracts then mysteriously costs escalate

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by marktigger »

there is also the need to replace the MCM fleet soon

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by Pseudo »

shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:
This is the same BaE we're talking about?
Indeed they don't have a great track record. Basing your views on type 45 and astute they look pretty bad, but they where much higher risk design's. MOD procurement is also at fault for not correctly noticing managing the risk.

This time round they seem to be doing things better, taking their time and using a very low risk design. I think of this lower risk design it stands a reasonable chance of becoming a success.
Didn't the costs of the Astute's and Type 45's end up being in line with similarly capable vessels? The problem wasn't the cost so much as it was the institutional underestimation of the costs of major procurements, which is self-perpetuating because it inhibits proper, long-term budget management and self-defeating because everything always goes over budget by costing about as much as it should realistically cost.

Obviously there are exceptions such as AEW3 and MRA4, but these were largely down to practical issues with development.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by marktigger »

yes but BaE submit bids that are to good to be true!

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

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
I meant breeding Appledore as "a second choice for escort building". I know it is not planned. MOD is just thinking to support BAE (Govan) and BAE (sub). I think this is the correct way, but yes BAE has a bad reputation for cost control (in which case, someone will want to use Appldedore).

I hope this time BAE+MOD make good results !
Ok, I understand what you mean now. I can see that ever being a good option, plus I think appledore is too small 140m long I think.

marktigger wrote:
type 45, astute, QE, Ocean, Bulwark, Albion, bays, nimrod, typhoon, need I go on their bids are low enough to win the contracts then mysteriously costs escalate
correct, but lets remember all are high risk projects where as the T26 shouldn't be. MOD procurement are also massively to blame for not noticing the costs where unrealistic.
marktigger wrote:there is also the need to replace the MCM fleet soon
out of service date is expected to be well into the late 2020's, I have seen 2028 stated occasionally. When they do come round to being replaced they need to be cheap offshore support vessels and will probably be best off built internationally where it is cheaper.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by Pseudo »

marktigger wrote:yes but BaE submit bids that are to good to be true!
And the MoD know that, they're not that clueless. BAe's bids are driven by what the MoD can justify spending to get the programme underway. BAe aren't taking the MoD for a ride, the MoD want unrealistic bids because that's the only way they can justify the domestic production required to maintain strategic industries.

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

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

Really? my theory is based much more on MOD and politicians incompetence
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by Pseudo »

shark bait wrote:Really? my theory is based much more on MOD and politicians incompetence
Ultimately it does come down to politicians since it's their unrealistic value for money narrative and half hearted support for our strategic industries that drives the MoD and BAe's procurement strategy.

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

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

Pseudo wrote: Ultimately it does come down to politicians since it's their unrealistic value for money narrative and half hearted support for our strategic industries that drives the MoD and BAe's procurement strategy.
Its a strategy that has been a mess and certainly cant afford to continue now. I don't know why I isn't nationalised and then at least their may be some honesty between the builders and the buyers, but thats and entirely different kettle of fish.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by Pseudo »

shark bait wrote:
Pseudo wrote: Ultimately it does come down to politicians since it's their unrealistic value for money narrative and half hearted support for our strategic industries that drives the MoD and BAe's procurement strategy.
Its a strategy that has been a mess and certainly cant afford to continue now. I don't know why I isn't nationalised and then at least their may be some honesty between the builders and the buyers, but thats and entirely different kettle of fish.
That'll only happen when either the forces accept that politicians are only willing to pay for more modestly capable kit or politicians accept the realistic costs of domestically produced high-spec kit. That said, there's historically been an unwillingness by the Treasury to pay the eye-watering going rate for procurement specialists that has exacerbated these problems, but there seems to have been more willingness to fund exceptional recruitment costs in the past few years, so we might see some improvements in the not too distant future.

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

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

Plus they commission a study into a study into a study that cost millions before even drawing up a design these days so hopefully they should be making informed desicions and hopefully understand things a little better.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:Really? my theory is based much more on MOD and politicians incompetence

I think BaE play on the lack of knowledge and experience of Civil servants and MP's. but i think the bid low then play the loss of British Jobs/ Manufacturing capacity. To blackmail the government to pay more that the country should be paying.

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

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote: I think BaE play on the lack of knowledge and experience of Civil servants and MP's. but i think the bid low then play the loss of British Jobs/ Manufacturing capacity. To blackmail the government to pay more that the country should be paying.
I think that's quite accurate. Partly why I don't see the logic in it being a privatised industry.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by marktigger »

its effectivly british in name only as well

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by GibMariner »




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

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

Good spot, nice to see one starting to look like a ship, though clearly progress is being dragged out to keep people in work !
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by GibMariner »


bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by bobp »

From Defence Aerospace.com


Construction of the UK Royal Navy’s second new Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) started today, marked by a ceremony led by Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, at BAE Systems in Glasgow.

The Secretary of State formally started construction of HMS MEDWAY, the second of three River Class Batch 2 vessels, by operating the plasma steel-cutting machine at an event attended by representatives from the Royal Navy, the local community and BAE Systems employees.

Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, said: "These new ships are an important part of the £160 billion we are investing over the next decade in the equipment our armed forces need.

"The contract will benefit the dedicated workers of the Clyde, their families and the local economy in Glasgow. And the investment will ensure these shipyards continue to develop into world class engineering facilities at the heart of a thriving British naval shipbuilding capability."

Mick Ord, Managing Director at BAE Systems Naval Ships, said: “This is a proud day for everyone working on this important programme to deliver three new ships to the Royal Navy. The pace of progress on the River Class vessels reinforces the naval design, engineering and manufacturing skills we have in the UK.

“We are working closely with our Trade Unions, the Ministry of Defence and partners in the supply chain as we continue to build on our proud heritage shipbuilding heritage. With investments in new technologies, cutting-edge processes, new ways of working and improved facilities we are transforming the way we design and build warships. This will enable us to deliver equipment of the highest quality at the lowest possible cost, helping to secure the long-term future of our highly skilled industry in the UK.”

Construction of the first of class vessel HMS FORTH is now well underway with its first unit transferred into the Ship Build Outfit Hall in Glasgow last week. The vessel is now being assembled alongside the final sections of the second Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier, which will be delivered to Rosyth during the course of this year.

The 90 metre OPV is based on a proven BAE Systems design, which is already in service with the Brazilian Navy and Royal Thai Navy. Engineers at BAE Systems have modified the design tomeet the requirements of the Royal Navy in support of UK interests both at home and abroad. The OPVs will be globally deployable and capable of ocean patrol with a range of in excess of 5,000 nautical miles and a maximum speed of 24 knots.

The vessels will include a modified flight deck capable of operating the latest Merlin helicopters, larger stores and more accommodation for embarked troops. They will also be the first ships to be built with a BAE Systems designed operating system called Shared Infrastructure, which will be rolled out across the Royal Navy’s surface fleet over the next 10 years. Shared Infrastructure is a state-of-the-art system that will revolutionise the way ships operate by using virtual technologies to host and integrate the sensors, weapons and management systems that complex warships require. Replacing multiple large consoles dedicated to specific tasks with a single hardware solution, reduces the amount of spares required to be carried onboard and will significantly decrease through-life costs.

The manufacturing contract for the three ships was announced in August 2014 and construction of first of class HMS FORTH began in October 2014. The production of HMS TRENT, the third River Class ship, is expected to begin by the end of this year. The first ship is due to be delivered to the Royal Navy in 2017.

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

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by SDL »

Was this one posted?


marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by marktigger »

when is first launch due?

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

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by shark bait »

Never before has there been such fanfare over a 6th in class patrol vessel. Shows how desperate he is to pretend he's doing the right things for the navy.

Perhaps if they had got their asses in gear they could be saying all those things about a T26 and would have been some what more justified.
@LandSharkUK

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by jonas »

shark bait wrote:Never before has there been such fanfare over a 6th in class patrol vessel. Shows how desperate he is to pretend he's doing the right things for the navy.

Perhaps if they had got their asses in gear they could be saying all those things about a T26 and would have been some what more justified.
It's not the 6th in class really, with all the improvements it may as well be a separate class. Still pretty disappointing though with no hangar.

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

Re: river I/I.5 and II patrol vessels

Post by SKB »

If it had a hangar, it'd be the size of a frigate. Besides, they're only meant to be offshore patrol vessels.

Post Reply