River Class (OPV) (RN)

[donald_of_tokyo]

Wow. Great movie it is!! HMS Tamar steaming into Sydney harbor...

[donald_of_tokyo]

Interesting read.
HMS Mersy was
- "available" for 80% of the year until now
- spent 3,331 hours under her own steam (140 days equivalent)
- spent more than 120 days patrolling the Channel
Interesting numbers.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ectic-2023

[Jackstar]

The utility of the batch 2's is proven yet again.

[Tempest414]

The utility of the batch 2's is proven yet again.

This is what I want to see the RB2's getting upto

[donald_of_tokyo]

Relate, good photo...
River B2's "flight deck" is actually a "mission deck, sometimes can be used as a flight deck", for me.


ref: twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1724462445865980239

[Tempest414]

Again it is what we have been wanting to see they could put a third container on the rear deck and still operate camcopter off the fight deck

[shark bait]

Always thought they should be 100m long, a 10m extension to the rear, so the Rivers can have a flight deck AND and mission deck at the same time.

[Tempest414]

Always thought they should be 100m long, a 10m extension to the rear, so the Rivers can have a flight deck AND and mission deck at the same time.

As said we need to push the RB2's to gain the info needed for the next gen of OPV's it is my view that a new class of global OPV will be needed and that this new class should be 110 by 16 meters with a good radar and CMS plus 2 x 40mm

[new guy]

Also the reason that the rivers are cheap is the standards and parts.
More equipment or higher standards or both, I will be more expensive.

I think with RB2 at commercial standards, it only has 3 bulkheads, compared to 9-10 for a similarly lengthed escort?

Remember, steel is cheap, air is free.
Tighter tolerances and standards, the higher the price.
More stuff, the higher the price.



We have to acknowledge, that one of the main benefits of RB2 isn't its initial price, it is it's operating cost and more importantly than that availability.

The more complex and more maintenance intensive the lower it's value as an asset compared to a normal escort.
We have to keep the balance of the consequences of upgrade vs the benefits.

[Caribbean]

I think with RB2 at commercial standards, it only has 3 bulkheads, compared to 9-10 for a similarly lengthed escort?

I believe it's based on length. Under 100m, only 3 zones are required. Over 100m, one waterproof bulkhead every 6m (20ft)

[shark bait]

it is it's operating cost and more importantly than that availability. The more complex and more maintenance intensive the lower it's value as an asset compared to a normal escort.

This is the entire value of the River class. The procurement of the OPVs was a disaster, but by chance of Frigate and Destroyer availability being equally disastrous, the OPVs and found a valuable niche.

They are the only ships the Navy can put to sea reliably for a long time, that's because they are mechanically simple and unintensive to operate. This is a feature we need to see in a few more sips across the fleet.

[Tempest414]

Also the reason that the rivers are cheap is the standards and parts.
More equipment or higher standards or both, I will be more expensive.

I think with RB2 at commercial standards, it only has 3 bulkheads, compared to 9-10 for a similarly lengthed escort?

Remember, steel is cheap, air is free.
Tighter tolerances and standards, the higher the price.
More stuff, the higher the price.



We have to acknowledge, that one of the main benefits of RB2 isn't its initial price, it is it's operating cost and more importantly than that availability.

The more complex and more maintenance intensive the lower it's value as an asset compared to a normal escort.
We have to keep the balance of the consequences of upgrade vs the benefits.

so to be clear I am asking for a 110 by 16 meter ship built to OPV standards with a good radar and CMS 2 x 40mm a Hangar and working/ mission deck

When we put this against the RB'2 which is 90 by 13.5 meters built to OPV standard has a military grade 2D radar base line CMS 1 x 30mm and a Flight / mission deck

What I am doing is addressing some of the short falls of what are proving to be very good ships

Some might think 2 x 40mm is too much or not enough maybe it could be 1 x 40mm or 57mm with the ability to add a Phalanx if needed

It should also be noted that the initial price of the RB2's was more than it should have been so there is room to build my ship within the same price ball park

[Tempest414]

it is it's operating cost and more importantly than that availability. The more complex and more maintenance intensive the lower it's value as an asset compared to a normal escort.

This is the entire value of the River class. The procurement of the OPVs was a disaster, but by chance of Frigate and Destroyer availability being equally disastrous, the OPVs and found a valuable niche.

They are the only ships the Navy can put to sea reliably for a long time, that's because they are mechanically simple and unintensive to operate. This is a feature we need to see in a few more sips across the fleet.

And this is something we will see in Type 31 if we take the engine set T-31 will have 4 engines it is capable of reaching 24 knot on 2 meaning that if needed day to day one engine room can be shut down and some maintenance can be carried out on the engines and the ship can still make 24 knots

[new guy]

I think with RB2 at commercial standards, it only has 3 bulkheads, compared to 9-10 for a similarly lengthed escort?

I believe it's based on length. Under 100m, only 3 zones are required. Over 100m, one waterproof bulkhead every 6m (20ft)

Thanks,
Do escorts have even tighter regulations?

[tomuk]

it is it's operating cost and more importantly than that availability. The more complex and more maintenance intensive the lower it's value as an asset compared to a normal escort.

This is the entire value of the River class. The procurement of the OPVs was a disaster, but by chance of Frigate and Destroyer availability being equally disastrous, the OPVs and found a valuable niche.

They are the only ships the Navy can put to sea reliably for a long time, that's because they are mechanically simple and unintensive to operate. This is a feature we need to see in a few more sips across the fleet.

And this is something we will see in Type 31 if we take the engine set T-31 will have 4 engines it is capable of reaching 24 knot on 2 meaning that if needed day to day one engine room can be shut down and some maintenance can be carried out on the engines and the ship can still make 24 knots

And the engine rooms on T31 are spacious and equipped with appropriate lifting gear so maintenance is easy.

[wargame_insomniac]

Lest we forget.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Return of Forth.

[Jackstar]

A lot of upgrades were incorporated during design, development & build of the UK Batch 2 River class ships to meet more exacting Royal Navy standards . Compared to the Brazilian vessels currently in use, for example.

Including,
Improved watertight integrity.
Enhanced firefighting facilities.
Automatic emergency lights.
Flight Deck Officer position.
Merlin helicopter operation (ie strengthening the flight deck to be able to land a Merlin helicopter on it).
Helicopter in-flight refuelling.
Helicopter refuelling modifications.
Changes to ship’s minimum operating temperature.
Davit modifications.
Installation of WECDIS/WAIS (WECDIS stands for Warship Electronic Chart Display and Information System.
Install Combat Management System (CMS), and the new RN standard BAES “Shared Infrastructure” which will equip the RN’s entire surface fleet.
Magazine protection this involves the fitting of Kevlar armour.
Provision of life saving equipment.
Replace navigation radars (fit the Kelvin Hughes Sharpeye).
Install military GPS.
Install flight deck landing grid.
Fuel efficiency monitoring.
Provide emergency communication equipment.
Machinery space walkway.
ETC.
https://thinkdefence.wordpress.com/2016 ... ver-class/

[donald_of_tokyo]

HMS Trent, back to action.

PS Just an impression. But, River B2s "flight deck" is more and more utilized as a container deck. Of course, not always. But, is this a trend in RN? For me, River B2's flight deck is more and more "a mission deck, sometimes can be used as a flight deck".

[donald_of_tokyo]

What a OPV+ with a 110-m long hull and a hangar can added to River B2 OPVs?

1: HMS Forth, NONE. FIGS task has a good air coverage (does NOT need a hangar). Her flight deck might be needed to "lift" the wounded rescued person on the Falkland Island SAR helicopter (but can sling).
2: HMS Medway, YES. WIGS is better to have a helicopter and hangar. But, can go on without it, because there are many allies.
3: HMS Trent, MAYBE.
4: HMS Tamar and Spey, MAYBE.

On items 3 and 4 (HMS Trent, Tamar, and Spey), for me, all of their tasks look "OK" without helicopter;
- face-2-face communication with locals looks like the top priority in west Africa and Indo-Pacific (on which helicopter adds not much),
- and patrolling the sea to cease immigrants looks what is needed in Med (because there are many allies there)

Of course, having a 110-m long hull and a hangar will help a bit. But, "start sending a River B2 in the region" provided a quantum leap (from 0 to 1). But, replacing it with longer-OPV will just add a little (say, from 1 to 1.5). As it will be associated with significant drop in number (OPV+ requires more resources than River B2s, for sure), in short, I am "OK" with EITHER the current 5 River B2 OPVs or replacing them with "three OPV+s with 110-m long hull and a hangar ".

Note, here I compared 5 RB2 to 3 OPV+, because it will be the difference in crew size (if including the flight).

[serge750]

When the river b1 needs replacing could building a couple of extended versions with a telescopic hanger be the ansaw ? embark a wildcat & flight if needed - if not you still have your deck space for containers etc then a couple of b2 rivers can replace the b1 duties while the new build telescopic hanger rivers could do the " nice to have " wildcat tasks...

[shark bait]

The B1's don't need replacing, and the Royal Navy does not need a 110m OPV.

The B2's are imperfect, but they are good enough, and there's no value throwing good money at a problem that doesn't need fixing.