River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 26 Feb 2023, 08:42 I think closer ties with RNZN is a good approach for the RN to pursue. It feels they are becoming a more distant partner, and with the advent of AUKUS could become more marginalised and prone to Chinese influence. I would perhaps suggest a jointly manned low level constabulary/influence ship(s) focused on the Pacific islands where Chinese influence is also on the rise.

In terms of which ships etc, I’m unsure. Personally, I see the need for 80-90m OPV/Sloops for the RN and a decent drumbeat of new ships, so am definitely in favour of pushing for B1 replacements. For me, in the next war (there will be one it’s just when) this type of ship could be built in a number of yards and would be the real RN scaling factor, Frigates and Destroyers would take much longer constrained by the current yard(s) - a modern day Flower type if you’d like.
As I have said before we need more OPV's and Type 31's. The B2's are looking like good ships that need a bit more for me the happy place is a 40mm with 3P rounds plus a 8 round LMM mount with 1 or 2 reloads maybe if we want to give them a war time kit fit 6 or 8 round GSDB launch system with a 150 KM range and low cost of between 40K to 60K per round. All other roles should come from off board kit

When talking GSDB's these could also work well on T-31's with a load out of 8 x NSM and 8 x GSDB's they would have two forms of strike out to 150km. In 2019 GSDB hit a moving sea target at 130km's

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

from twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1630901908339556357

HMS Fort reached Gib, for refit.

Note that she carries full load of 6 20ft ISO containers. I think I've seen it for the first time. Impressive.

Image
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
RepulseRon5

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SKB »




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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

More dazzle please :D

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Image

HMS Spey depart Thailand. From twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1634097039624613888
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Ron5

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Image

HMS Tamar in Diego Galcia. Beautiful photo showing the ship in active work. Impressive is the two ISO containers.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 3):
Ron5Poiuytrewqwargame_insomniac

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

Even got a hangar! Open on 4 sides tho' :D

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: 10 Mar 2023, 12:30Impressive is the two ISO containers.
Super Photo!

Interesting how flexible the design appears to be and how capable an extended Batch3 version could ultimately become.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
RepulseRon5

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 10 Mar 2023, 13:08
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 Mar 2023, 12:30Impressive is the two ISO containers.
Super Photo!

Interesting how flexible the design appears to be and how capable an extended Batch3 version could ultimately become.
I know when we discused could T26 possibly be stretched, as the potential basis for T83, apparently the T26 were already at their limits.

So what about RB2s?? How much further "stretch" is there still left in RB2 design?

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Full marks, they have even painted the ISO containers with Dazzle Paint. :shock:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
Ron5

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Ron5 wrote:-
Even got a hangar! Open on 4 sides tho'
Not many people to attend a cocktail party in Diego Garcia, so the small size would not be an impediment. :lol:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
Ron5

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 Mar 2023, 12:30 Image
Looking at this photo, we can imagine RB2's size. A 20ft container is 6m long, 2.5m wide. Both side waist has a width of 4-4.5 m, and a length of ~10 m. If RHIBs are moved forward by 2 m (which I think is doable with small modification), the waist behind the RHIBs can be ~12 m long.

So, RB2 can carry two 12-m class USVs on her waist.

RAF operates 7 Airbus H145 Jupiter. The latest version of H145 has a 5-blade foldable rotor (*1). If there be a hanger 12m long and 4 m wide, EC145 shall be able to be carried. Carrying two EC145 helicopters is doable, if RN wishes.

Wildcat lack tail folding and is 13.5m long when the blades are folded. But, if you move a RHIB to another side, "locating a Wildcat in starboard and 2 RHIBs in port", is doable, if RN wishes. (not saying it shall be).

If we forget Merlin operation, we can add one 20ft container in the front side of the flight deck. As such, RB2 can carry at least 3 20ft-containers, i.e. PODS, if needed.

River B2s forward 30mm gun has a magazine area underneath. Her 16t crane also has a "root" structure underneath. As such, we can uparm River B2 with two 57 mm canons, in "double ender". If she be armed with 2 57mm guns, with ALaMo anti-surface guided rounds (already fielded in number in US), and possibly with MAD-FIRE anti-air guided rounds, supplemented by NS500 small "4D" radar and 2nd EO/laser-range-finder FCS systems, she will be a "very good" close-on fighter. (although her damage control must be enforced). Her crew will be at least doubled, to be 70 onboard normally, or in-total 105 on x1.5 rotation.

Not saying all of them must be done. But, some of them could be trialed, I guess. It will contribute significantly for her export, as well.

We can enjoy River B2s to be used as a drone mother ship. We can enjoy them to be a "guard ship". And, we can also continue using them as basic patrol vessels.

*1: https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... on-by-easa
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
RepulsePoiuytrewq

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

What could we get out of a H145M could we fit a EO turret , I-Master Radar , 12.7mm , 10 x LMM , 2 x Sea Venom ( not all at the same time)

As for RB2's yes we could fit a 57mm up front plus if we moved the life rafts from between the Superstructure and funnel we could fit 12 Ground launched small diameter bombs which have a range of 150kms and can strike land and sea targets no these are not as good as NSM but at 2 million for a set of 12 are cheap and give that capability

I really do think we need to push what could be done with a RB2 before looking making them bigger

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: 10 Mar 2023, 12:30 Image
Looking at this photo, we can imagine RB2's size.
Interesting ideas and eminently plausible.

I have always suspected that BAE and RN had placed the 16t crane in that location so it could be retro fitted with a hanger at a later date if required.

I am not in favour of spending any more money on the RB2s, much better to base one each in the Falklands and Gibraltar and retain the other 3 in the U.K. EEZ.

However my solution to the hanger conundrum would be to remove the 16t crane and Flyco entirely and install a full width covered multi-use mission space with an area of around 160m2. A full width overhead gantry crane could be fitted to the deck head which could then place containers on the dock via side hatches. Something simple like this.
E0D3F36A-B077-4036-AC3D-4C9531938452.jpeg
The air intakes are the main issue but if they can be moved I think it would work.

This graphic shows the potential well.
7B4B26DB-3E97-49EF-8E76-F8FC595290C5.jpeg

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: 14 Mar 2023, 11:26This graphic shows the potential well.
Image

I was thinking, "a 90m River B2 cannot be equipped with a Wildcat capable hanger while keeping the flight deck size, because the length behind the funnel is not long enough."

With some google, I found it. It is 94-m version. Interesting.

The BAE Systems 94m OPV design with 76mm Oto Melara Gun – this design with an aircraft hangar is adaptable for extended operations using organic helicopters and Unmanned Air Vehicles.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/nava ... sponsored/

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 big news for me. HMS Trent revives. It means, now 4 River B2 OPVs, not 3, are active. Also, we must admit that it had been "only 4-active" from last May, well before HMS Forth goes into long maintenance.

And, a question. Has HMS Trent passed the "long maintenance" which HMS Forth is now undertaking? Any info?


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: 14 Mar 2023, 11:26 I am not in favour of spending any more money on the RB2s, much better to base one each in the Falklands and Gibraltar and retain the other 3 in the U.K. EEZ.
Not a bad idea. It all depends on how much money and man-power will be there.

1: If no money nor man-power, 3 River B1s will just go away on 2025. This will release 30x3 = 90 man-power. I'm afraid the 90 crew will be needed for T31-hull1 (which will enable the first of the last 3 T23GP to be kept in service until 2026, a year before the T31-hull1 being accepted into service).

2: If T31's crew is not planned to be reused from the 3 River B1s, and there is a good money and additional 50 man-power, getting 2 of a Vard-7 313 (core crew 74), or Fassmer MPV100 (N/A) or "stabilized" RNZN MRV Canterbury (70), as "multi-role OPVs" could help a lot.

3: If T31's crew is not planned to be reused from the 3 River B1s, and only small money and no additional man-power are there,

3A: two 94 or 100m version of River B2 (River B3) with enclosed mission hangar might come in.

3B: Or, purchase 3 80-m class simplish (much more merchant ship-like) OPVs to replace River B1s one-by-one, while adding many extra kits to River B2s.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Let’s see what the LSVs are, but they are likely to be able to fill the B1 River role if they have a standard radar and a small caliber gun.

I actually think with the probable announcement of more funds for SSNs, then the T31s will be needed closer to home (excluding one for Kipion), so better to keep the B2s where they are.
”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

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: 14 Mar 2023, 14:43 1: If no money nor man-power, 3 River B1s will just go away on 2025. This will release 30x3 = 90 man-power. I'm afraid the 90 crew will be needed for T31-hull1 (which will enable the first of the last 3 T23GP to be kept in service until 2026, a year before the T31-hull1 being accepted into service).
I think this was current planning. The forward RB2s were to be relieved by the T31s apart from in the Caribbean and Falklands. The RB1s would decommission and the RB2s would slot back into the UK EEZ.

Two things to consider. The RB2s are really a bit too capable for UK EEZ patrol when compared to other RN patrol vessels that have performed the same role but times are changing. Patrolling the oil and gas fields, offshore wind farms and protecting undersea cables is going to become much more important as securing critical national infrastructure rises up the agenda.

Working in conjunction with the MROSS and possibly the Castle Class LSVs will become more important and therefore I am not of the opinion that the RB2s are over qualified for UK EEZ patrol any longer. So effectively current planning with the RB2s should continue.

The second consideration is that if the T31s are going to become more capable then it makes sense to operate from one single forward base, most likely Duqm alongside LRG(S). A sensible logistic chain will save money and improve efficiency. Three or four T31s plus a Bay, Wave and hopefully Bulwark operating primarily in the Gulf, Red Sea, Indian Ocean and the Indo-Pacific gives RN enough assets to really make its presence felt. Proportionate and affordable, it’s a good plan if the manpower can be found to operate it.

That leaves East and West Africa and the Caribbean. This is where the 3 replacements for the RB1s need to be tailored to operate IMO. Nothing fancy, expensive or complicated just simple high capacity OPVs maintaining a persistent presence in the areas of operation.
2: If T31's crew is not planned to be reused from the 3 River B1s, and there is a good money and additional 50 man-power, getting 2 of a Vard-7 313 (core crew 74), or Fassmer MPV100 (N/A) or "stabilized" RNZN MRV Canterbury (70), as "multi-role OPVs" could help a lot.
Lots of good options but where are the UK options from BAE, Babcock and BMT? The T32 could be a world-beating cutting edge design but I don’t believe it needs to be a Frigate and if built as an OPV it would be half the cost and twice as exportable. Why not design two options, Frigate and OPV and let RN decide. The steel needs cut in Rosyth in 3 years time and the whole program currently appears to have capsized. The T32 program has every possibility of being RNs Ajax moment without restraint.

The concepts you mention are interesting. The Canterbury has a good idea, badly executed so not an option. The Fassmer concepts are certainly very impressive and likely very expensive. They are certainly aimed at a certain market but I don’t think it’s the UK market. Vard is the one I would be most interested in. Solid hull forms with excellent sea keeping qualities tailored to the end user. They would slot into Rosyth or Appledore beautifully.

Actually I think these three replacement OPVs could be procured for £50m, £100m or £150m per hull. Of course, capability and build standards improve as the budget increases but none of these vessels need to have anything more than the most basic self defence weapons.
3: If T31's crew is not planned to be reused from the 3 River B1s, and only small money and no additional man-power are there,

3A: two 94 or 100m version of River B2 (River B3) with enclosed mission hangar might come in.

3B: Or, purchase 3 80-m class simplish (much more merchant ship-like) OPVs to replace River B1s one-by-one, while adding many extra kits to River B2s.
In the most simplest terms these OPVs are going to cost around £1m per meter if fitted with simple weapons and sensors unless converted commercial vessels are chosen.

High Capacity OPVs would be a huge boost to capability for a very modest outlay. More 80m to 90m OPV would be a huge missed opportunity. Not adding the hangers to RB2s was a disastrous decision at the time. This is the chance to fix it.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Another great shot

These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
donald_of_tokyo
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

So Tamar has been knocking about DG for about a month and has now moved again back to India still seems to to be working a 15 days at sea 5 along side pattern

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Missed that HMS Mersey has been working as part of the JEF.

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

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 07:58 Missed that HMS Mersey has been working as part of the JEF.

Along with RAF P8:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... in-baltic/

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

HMS Spey, "playing" with Indonesian Diponegoro-class corvette.

Note the corvette has, a 76 mm gun, 2 × quad Mistral TETRAL Anti-air missile, 4× Exocet MM40 Block III SAM, and 2× triple launchers AS torpedo, while the ship size is very similar to River B2.

I think River B2 is good enough as is, but she can be easily upgraded to similar standard if need arises (and I do not think the need is there at this moment).

These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 13:35 HMS Spey, "playing" with Indonesian Diponegoro-class corvette.

Note the corvette has, a 76 mm gun, 2 × quad Mistral TETRAL Anti-air missile, 4× Exocet MM40 Block III SAM, and 2× triple launchers AS torpedo, while the ship size is very similar to River B2.

I think River B2 is good enough as is, but she can be easily upgraded to similar standard if need arises (and I do not think the need is there at this moment).

This is the part of the mission of Spey / Tamar that those critics who focus on them as merely "hosting cocktail parties" forget. Working with regional navies and rebuilding relationships with them, as long time since RN had such a regular presence in Indo Pacific.

All the more important since UK has now joined CPTPP. Yes most of those counties we already had some sort of free trade relationship with, but now as a member, we can affect and influence potential signatories such as Indonesia, Phillipines and Thailand.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post (total 2):
Repulsedonald_of_tokyo

Post Reply