Yes but you have it back to front the B2s are standing in for a lack of T23GP and T31. The B2s are performing an adequate job but they are stand insRepulse wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 20:15What if the Gulf still needs it, which it does.
Sorry, for me replacing a platform that is doing the job with a more expensive one makes zero sense - but then again I’m alone it seems in saying replacing the B2s with T31s when the money / focus is needed elsewhere make zero sense also.
River Class (OPV) (RN)
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Which is more important the gulf or pacific that dictates what you choose.Repulse wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 20:15What if the Gulf still needs it, which it does.
Sorry, for me replacing a platform that is doing the job with a more expensive one makes zero sense - but then again I’m alone it seems in saying replacing the B2s with T31s when the money / focus is needed elsewhere make zero sense also.
The river is an offshore patrol vessels that adds practically zero to the military security situation in the pacific.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Both are very important and having a Frigate based in the Gulf and two forward based OPVs with regular CSG/SSN deployments is a good balance and one of the best things the RN has done for years.
I think also you completely miss the point by saying that the OPVs are there purely to contribute to the military situation in the Pacific (though equally I would not say it was zero). The reason why the OPVs are there is to show a low level diplomatic engagement, but by its nature it is not threatening. This is crucial in a region of such growing importance to the world.
Working with AUKUS, Japan and within the FPA, the UK can exercise its war fighting support through CSG and SSN deployments - but it would be very wrong to permanently base these assets permanently in the region (with perhaps the exception of a “training” SSN in Oz). We aren’t a superpower and such a move would only exacerbate the tension. The Chinese know if needed we could act to support allies in the region, and with exception of US probably the only one that could do it on a sustainable basis (albeit limited).
The problem with replacing the OPVs with paper T31 frigates is that it’s trying to be something in the middle, which is IMO both very limited in value but also damaging and dangerous to the situation. It can be used as a narrative of foreign colonial intervention, whilst being effective sitting targets.
Better to equip them properly and use them in real roles.
- These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
”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
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
That’s the I want everything option! It’s not really much of a balance.Repulse wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 07:22Both are very important and having a Frigate based in the Gulf and two forward based OPVs with regular CSG/SSN deployments is a good balance and one of the best things the RN has done for years.
I think also you completely miss the point by saying that the OPVs are there purely to contribute to the military situation in the Pacific (though equally I would not say it was zero). The reason why the OPVs are there is to show a low level diplomatic engagement, but by its nature it is not threatening. This is crucial in a region of such growing importance to the world.
Working with AUKUS, Japan and within the FPA, the UK can exercise its war fighting support through CSG and SSN deployments - but it would be very wrong to permanently base these assets permanently in the region (with perhaps the exception of a “training” SSN in Oz). We aren’t a superpower and such a move would only exacerbate the tension. The Chinese know if needed we could act to support allies in the region, and with exception of US probably the only one that could do it on a sustainable basis (albeit limited).
The problem with replacing the OPVs with paper T31 frigates is that it’s trying to be something in the middle, which is IMO both very limited in value but also damaging and dangerous to the situation. It can be used as a narrative of foreign colonial intervention, whilst being effective sitting targets.
Better to equip them properly and use them in real roles.
Diplomacy is best handled by our expanding embassy presence in Asia where people can actually talk to people in power that make decisions.
If your going to have a military presence they it should be capable of being attached to a larger military construct in the region say an Australian or Japanese task group and actually be able to contribute. If not ur just wasting time and money.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Why is T-31 paper frigate ?Repulse wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 07:22Both are very important and having a Frigate based in the Gulf and two forward based OPVs with regular CSG/SSN deployments is a good balance and one of the best things the RN has done for years.
I think also you completely miss the point by saying that the OPVs are there purely to contribute to the military situation in the Pacific (though equally I would not say it was zero). The reason why the OPVs are there is to show a low level diplomatic engagement, but by its nature it is not threatening. This is crucial in a region of such growing importance to the world.
Working with AUKUS, Japan and within the FPA, the UK can exercise its war fighting support through CSG and SSN deployments - but it would be very wrong to permanently base these assets permanently in the region (with perhaps the exception of a “training” SSN in Oz). We aren’t a superpower and such a move would only exacerbate the tension. The Chinese know if needed we could act to support allies in the region, and with exception of US probably the only one that could do it on a sustainable basis (albeit limited).
The problem with replacing the OPVs with paper T31 frigates is that it’s trying to be something in the middle, which is IMO both very limited in value but also damaging and dangerous to the situation. It can be used as a narrative of foreign colonial intervention, whilst being effective sitting targets.
Better to equip them properly and use them in real roles.
-
- Member
- Posts: 366
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Without even a HMS it is seriously vulnerable operating anywhere that has even a semi-credible sub-surface threat. Iran has its Kilos and domestically produced subs (although I suspect we would have a very good idea exactly where they are whenever they are out of port so perhaps not such a problem) and the Indo-Pacific region has loads of SSKs with the odd SSN thrown in as well. I appreciate that the exact same could be said for the River OPVs mind and happily the most serious T-31 drawback is also a relatively quick, inexpensive and easy fix.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Sorry, just a BIG comment.
"Pacific" is much larger than Atlantic and much diverse.
When you say "OPV adds practically zero to the military security in the pacific", it is the same to saying HMS Trent, HMS Forth and HMS Medway adds zero to the military security in the Atlantic.
If you are saying "OPVs in RN adds practically zero to the military security worldwide", it's good, it your personal opinion. But there is zero need to add "Pacific" in that case.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
The difference with the Atlantic being they are providing an offshore patrol capacity within the waters of U.K. crown dependencies in the same way the rivers are around the U.K. nothing similar exists in the pacific.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 14:00Sorry, just a BIG comment.
"Pacific" is much larger than Atlantic and much diverse.
When you say "OPV adds practically zero to the military security in the pacific", it is the same to saying HMS Trent, HMS Forth and HMS Medway adds zero to the military security in the Atlantic.
If you are saying "OPVs in RN adds practically zero to the military security worldwide", it's good, it your personal opinion. But there is zero need to add "Pacific" in that case.
- These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
- dmereifield
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Type 31 will have the 2170 sonar torpedo defence system to defend against this threatPhil Sayers wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 13:41Without even a HMS it is seriously vulnerable operating anywhere that has even a semi-credible sub-surface threat. Iran has its Kilos and domestically produced subs (although I suspect we would have a very good idea exactly where they are whenever they are out of port so perhaps not such a problem) and the Indo-Pacific region has loads of SSKs with the odd SNN thrown in as well. I appreciate that the exact same could be said for the River OPVs mind and happily the most serious T-31 drawback is also a relatively quick, inexpensive and easy fix.
So once again I ask what makes type 31 a Paper frigate
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Thanks. Then, I misunderstand the "military tasks" you mean.
As UK dependencies in Pacific is only Pitcairn (and Diego Garcia in Indean Ocean), I agree it is not the same to Atlantic (and this is why RN was able to sending NO assets to the region for years = no obligation). But, I think the OPVs in Pacific is (at least) partly doing the things what the OPVs in Atlantic is doing = providing support and improving connection to local states. Sending HMS Tamar to Thailand and Brunei will have no big difference to sending HMS Trent to Gahna and Morocco, nor sending HMS Medway to Antigua and Barbuda, and Bahama. And, I think these are "a part of" military tasks.
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
The reasons they are there is not the same in the both regions. Visits during breaks from routine are not the same thing.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 14:30Thanks. Then, I misunderstand the "military tasks" you mean.
As UK dependencies in Pacific is only Pitcairn (and Diego Garcia in Indean Ocean), I agree it is not the same to Atlantic (and this is why RN was able to sending NO assets to the region for years = no obligation). But, I think the OPVs in Pacific is (at least) partly doing the things what the OPVs in Atlantic is doing = providing support and improving connection to local states. Sending HMS Tamar to Thailand and Brunei will have no big difference to sending HMS Trent to Gahna and Morocco, nor sending HMS Medway to Antigua and Barbuda, and Bahama. And, I think these are "a part of" military tasks.
King Charles III is the head of state of Antigua and Barbuda and the Bahamas.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Sorry not sure what you meant. Those visits to Ghana, Thailand or Brunei is not for break. It is the defense engagement activity. The same.
By the way, the same applies to Australia and New Zealand.King Charles III is the head of state of Antigua and Barbuda and the Bahamas.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
By its own definition it’s a light frigate. It will (hopefully) have 24 AAW missiles (max) and which at best gives it a chance to escape a missile attack. It has an anti torpedo system, which again gives it a chance to escape a torpedo attack. So it has zero ability to influence events, but we’ve decided to make it a target by pretending it does.
”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
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
So if it gets NSM it becomes a frigate right ?
And the Wildcat with 4 x Sea Venom or 20 LMM will have no effect
So what we now know is type 31 will have space for 32 strike length Mk-41 cells in the base line design i.e FFBNW
And the Wildcat with 4 x Sea Venom or 20 LMM will have no effect
So what we now know is type 31 will have space for 32 strike length Mk-41 cells in the base line design i.e FFBNW
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Yes, if you make it a properly equipped frigate then it could. But that is not what’s on order, even then if it was properly equipped, and it still is able to meet the criteria for a cost effective forward based and maintained frigate, I’d argue that it’s better sat as part of the CSG freeing up a T26/T45 for singleton visits to the region.
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
100% agree with this part. Better Sonar + 8*NSM + 12 extra CAMM = Good General Purpose Frigate.
Able to take on more routine, low-medium intensity RN missions worldwide leaving more expensive, speciallised high-intensity warfighting escorts to fullfill the missions that THEY were designed for.
100% disagree with this part. If we are sending CSG into potentially volatile situations far from home in Indo-Pacific, potentially involving a Great Power in China, or rogue state in Nort Korea or Iran, then w need the best warfighting escorts available to RN. To me that means we need to assume that 4*T45 and 4*T26 are reserved to escort the two Carriers. That means a bit like the US Carrier Group and Air Wing, that the escorts and aircraft would have scheduled maintenance, training and oher downtime at the same time as the Carrier.
That would leave 2*T45 and 4*T26 free for other tasks and missions, including CASD, TAPS, and sole actions, including participating in NATO standing deployments and ASW missions etc.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
wargame_insomniac wrote
You can probably halve what is available, I.e. 1*T45 and 2*T26. “free for other tasks and missions including CASD, TAPS, and sole actions, including participating in NATO standing deployments and ASW missions”.
What you seem to have missed is that these units will need to be maintained as well ! The reduced number does not look in any way adequate for all those other tasks any more, does it ?
I’m afraid that this is the sort of assessment that our politicians seem propogate. (I really do hope that the MOD and serving RN officers don’t fall for it). If you think about it, there is something missing from your conclusion.That would leave 2*T45 and 4*T26 free for other tasks and missions, including CASD, TAPS, and sole actions, including participating in NATO standing deployments and ASW missions etc
You can probably halve what is available, I.e. 1*T45 and 2*T26. “free for other tasks and missions including CASD, TAPS, and sole actions, including participating in NATO standing deployments and ASW missions”.
What you seem to have missed is that these units will need to be maintained as well ! The reduced number does not look in any way adequate for all those other tasks any more, does it ?
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Yes, the ship design itself has been selected to meet the requirement to be able to be forward based. However, systems have to be supported also. Every system / capability you add to make these frigates properly equipped costs, requires more crew and makes it harder to maintain (especially outside of the UK).wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 22:58 Able to take on more routine, low-medium intensity RN missions worldwide leaving more expensive, speciallised high-intensity warfighting escorts to fullfill the missions that THEY were designed for.
”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
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
But if that 1 x T45 and 2 x T26 were allocated to constabulary and diplomatic liaison tasks in the Gulf and Far East, then THEY would not be available for NATO standing tasks either. All we would have available for the NATO standing tasks are the current T31s, which are fitted and equipped for the Gulf and Far East roles. Now that isn't totally useless, as it would be a great training opportunity (many nations seem to send along smaller vessels than they could, to train the crews in fleet operations and to use in simulated taskings), but that should not be your standard deployment on NATO tasks - sometimes you have to help train others, as well as train your own in the actual ships they would be using.
The T31s seem well suitably equipped for the role that they will have, while retaining the capacity to be upgraded, should it be needed. If the T32 turns out to be a T31 Batch 2, with added bells and whistles, then that will be a reasonable outcome.
The T31s seem well suitably equipped for the role that they will have, while retaining the capacity to be upgraded, should it be needed. If the T32 turns out to be a T31 Batch 2, with added bells and whistles, then that will be a reasonable outcome.
- These users liked the author Caribbean for the post (total 2):
- Nimonic • wargame_insomniac
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
What??? Where did I suggest that can probably halve numbers to what you came up with.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 01:56 wargame_insomniac wrote
I’m afraid that this is the sort of assessment that our politicians seem propogate. (I really do hope that the MOD and serving RN officers don’t fall for it). If you think about it, there is something missing from your conclusion.That would leave 2*T45 and 4*T26 free for other tasks and missions, including CASD, TAPS, and sole actions, including participating in NATO standing deployments and ASW missions etc
You can probably halve what is available, I.e. 1*T45 and 2*T26. “free for other tasks and missions including CASD, TAPS, and sole actions, including participating in NATO standing deployments and ASW missions”.
What you seem to have missed is that these units will need to be maintained as well ! The reduced number does not look in any way adequate for all those other tasks any more, does it ?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Agreed. But you have stated that T31's are currently "paper frigates". I agree if your meaning is that they are currently under armed and underequipped to conduct those missions that T23 GP frigates currently fullfill.Repulse wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 08:19Yes, the ship design itself has been selected to meet the requirement to be able to be forward based. However, systems have to be supported also. Every system / capability you add to make these frigates properly equipped costs, requires more crew and makes it harder to maintain (especially outside of the UK).wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 22:58 Able to take on more routine, low-medium intensity RN missions worldwide leaving more expensive, speciallised high-intensity warfighting escorts to fullfill the missions that THEY were designed for.
We have discussed uparming of T31's many times. Increase in CAMM should require no extra crew. Adding a decent sonar and set of 8 Canister NSM's (I have consistently assumed that these would be transferred from T23 to T31) will require some extra crew but not significant.
Note the RN is apparently still planning on adding 5*T32's even though they are currently unfunded. If we are doing that then I believe adding a few extra crew to man the extra systems to make T31's into proper frigates should be first priority over simply adding more hulls just for the sake of quoting escort numbers.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
wargame_insomniac Wrote:-
It is the difference between “What you need” and “What you must possess, to have available to you what it is that you need” !
No, you did not, but the more realistic numbers of what would be available for “other tasks are my figures. If you want to rely on your figures being “available”, then an additional T45 and two additional T26 WILL BE NECESSARY.What??? Where did I suggest that can probably halve numbers to what you came up with.
It is the difference between “What you need” and “What you must possess, to have available to you what it is that you need” !
- These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
- Repulse
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
What will we have and how can it be used
6 x Type 45
8 x Type 26
5 x type 31
5 x River B2
Total 24 ships
2 x Type 45 & 2 x Type 26 per Carrier group = 8 ships
2 x Type 26 TAPS
1 x Escort LRG
2 x Type 31 & 2 x OPV EoS
1 x type 31 MED
1 x type 31 AP/N
2 x OPV's UK waters
1 x OPV FIGS
3 x Escorts left
6 x Type 45
8 x Type 26
5 x type 31
5 x River B2
Total 24 ships
2 x Type 45 & 2 x Type 26 per Carrier group = 8 ships
2 x Type 26 TAPS
1 x Escort LRG
2 x Type 31 & 2 x OPV EoS
1 x type 31 MED
1 x type 31 AP/N
2 x OPV's UK waters
1 x OPV FIGS
3 x Escorts left