River Class (OPV) (RN)

[Repulse]

Instead of the mass purchase of OPVs with a home based 'surge fleet' blinkers that you have on.
A GP frigate would have been the best option in my opinion.

Perhaps - though I’d rather see this case as underlining the case for smaller minor warships as a cheap and effective way of providing relevant forward based diplomatic and low level military power. Having say 15 minor warships is hardly massive when even 5-10 years ago there were almost double that.

Also, I have not problem with forward basing a tier one escort when there is a real case for it, like Kipion. There just needs to be a real need and justification, as every pound / ship spent on this is one less for the core UK fighting fleet. Having in the UKs diplomatic tool kit to surge real warships upto a CSG gives options to make statements and ultimately defend UK interests and help prevent conflicts.

[Tempest414]

Instead of the mass purchase of OPVs with a home based 'surge fleet' blinkers that you have on.
A GP frigate would have been the best option in my opinion.

Perhaps - though I’d rather see this case as underlining the case for smaller minor warships as a cheap and effective way of providing relevant forward based diplomatic and low level military power. Having say 15 minor warships is hardly massive when even 5-10 years ago there were almost double that.

Also, I have not problem with forward basing a tier one escort when there is a real case for it, like Kipion. There just needs to be a real need and justification, as every pound / ship spent on this is one less for the core UK fighting fleet. Having in the UKs diplomatic tool kit to surge real warships upto a CSG gives options to make statements and ultimately defend UK interests and help prevent conflicts.

I don't see this making the case for ether as the RN OPV's are too lightly armed and the T-45 is way to much

I to see a good case for having 12 or so MHPC's forward deployed with the ability to have mission kit sent by air as needed

I also see a good case for mixed patrol groups based in regions and good case for this is the Indian Ocean where we have a Escort doing its job in the Red Sea and the OPV's keep working away

having region based group of MHPC's and GP frigates allows for a fast response to events these groups can then be back up by Tire 1 units from the UK

[Repulse]

…and GP frigates allows for a fast response to events these groups can then be back up by Tire 1 units from the UK

That only makes sense if the money is there, and the UK playing a more visible global policing role in places where there isn’t an active conflict or a UK BOT is a good idea - neither are true IMO.

What will happen is that we end up with light frigates scattered globally trying to be colonial gunboats of old, and little in reserve to surge to real emergencies. The idea of forward basing light frigates and LRGs are now outdated and unaffordable concepts.

[Tempest414]

…and GP frigates allows for a fast response to events these groups can then be back up by Tire 1 units from the UK

That only makes sense if the money is there, and the UK playing a more visible global policing role in places where there isn’t an active conflict or a UK BOT is a good idea - neither are true IMO.

What will happen is that we end up with light frigates scattered globally trying to be colonial gunboats of old, and little in reserve to surge to real emergencies. The idea of forward basing light frigates and LRGs are now outdated and unaffordable concepts.

It is now becoming very clear that both Russia and China are pushing out and there are more areas of tension as they use there proxies the need for region based duty frigates is higher now than at anytime since the cold war today we have 5 active areas of concern the Baltic , North Atlantic , Eastern Med , Red Sea , South America and these are taking us away from every important day to day duties covering trade both sides of Africa in the Indian Ocean and BOT's

Having 12 MHPC's and 8 x Type 31's covering the North and South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean frees up the 14 trie 1 escorts to cover the RN's big sticks which should be the SSBN's , CSG & ARG this is more than doable within the current budget

[abc123]

Maybe what the RB2's need is…

What the RB2 needs is LRG(N) over the horizon.

A carrier would be better, no need for UK boots on the ground and this situation is exactly why the UK has carriers.

A carrier would also need aircrafts...

we have aircrafts

Yeah, sorry. I meant fighter jets. More than 8 of them. All with UK markings.

[new guy]

Yeah, sorry. I meant fighter jets. More than 8 of them. All with UK markings.

Good thing we have more than 30. 24 in 25 though.

[abc123]

Yeah, sorry. I meant fighter jets. More than 8 of them. All with UK markings.

Good thing we have more than 30. 24 in 25 though.

I know. But how many of them are able to be permanently based on an aircraft carrier without RAFs air marshals commiting collective harakiri? If 8, that's a good number.

[new guy]

Yeah, sorry. I meant fighter jets. More than 8 of them. All with UK markings.

Good thing we have more than 30. 24 in 25 though.

I know. But how many of them are able to be permanently based on an aircraft carrier without RAFs air marshals commiting collective harakiri? If 8, that's a good number.

What do you mean buy permanently based? A 6+ month deployment is long enough to do pretty much all of the stuff that happens on land

[serge750]

Since we now have over 30 + pilots including instructors, would 16 be able to be serged up if totally needed ? & still not effect the training too much...

[abc123]

Yeah, sorry. I meant fighter jets. More than 8 of them. All with UK markings.

Good thing we have more than 30. 24 in 25 though.

I know. But how many of them are able to be permanently based on an aircraft carrier without RAFs air marshals commiting collective harakiri? If 8, that's a good number.

What do you mean buy permanently based? A 6+ month deployment is long enough to do pretty much all of the stuff that happens on land

Don't know, maybe. I certainly hope so.
But, 16 is still too small number for anything serious. Maybe for air defence of the carrier itself, but that's it.

[new guy]

Don't know, maybe. I certainly hope so.
But, 16 is still too small number for anything serious. Maybe for air defence of the carrier itself, but that's it.

Where did you get 16 from?

[serge750]

guestimated, CSG 21 had 8 uk F35, isnt POW CSG 25 going to embark 24 F35 ? so split the difference

[abc123]

Don't know, maybe. I certainly hope so.
But, 16 is still too small number for anything serious. Maybe for air defence of the carrier itself, but that's it.

Where did you get 16 from?

You don't think that all 24 of 24 will be permanently available? Having a 2/3 availability is a very good number.

[new guy]

Don't know, maybe. I certainly hope so.
But, 16 is still too small number for anything serious. Maybe for air defence of the carrier itself, but that's it.

Where did you get 16 from?

You don't think that all 24 of 24 will be permanently available? Having a 2/3 availability is a very good number.

In a verry RN admiral-dodging-Defence-committee-questions kind of way, what level of availability are we talking about?

[Ian Hall]

https://www.forces.net/services/navy/hm ... deployment

[RunningStrong]

Do we need to revisit the OPV armament in of Yemen and consider LMM or CAMM?

https://www.navylookout.com/enhancing-t ... h-ii-opvs/

[jedibeeftrix]

or perhaps simply a Bofors 40mm with 3M and sufficient radar/cms to deal with RPG/boghammer/drone threats?

[Tempest414]

Do we need to revisit the OPV armament in of Yemen and consider LMM or CAMM?

https://www.navylookout.com/enhancing-t ... h-ii-opvs/

As I said before refit the RB2's with NS50 radar , 1 x 40mm , 2 x 8 round HVM/LMM launchers , 2 x 6 round Brimstone launchers and a Peregrine UAV

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4d/1e/f6 ... 240ab8.jpg

https://www.army-technology.com/wp-cont ... 35x551.jpg

https://www.ex2.com.au/wp-content/uploa ... 008916.jpg

[donald_of_tokyo]

Do we need to revisit the OPV armament in of Yemen and consider LMM or CAMM?
...

"For what?" is the most important point.

If we consider the current situation in Red Sea, up-arming River B2 with 40-57mm 3P and/or LMM rounds will improve its survivability, but just it. As their range is quite short, it cannot defend merchant ships from air-raids. River B2 can work on stopping fast-boats, when operating under the AAW umbrella of T45 or T23, as Sea Viper and Sea Ceptor both can do (local) area air defense. To do that, I agree "40-57mm 3P and/or LMM" might be good.

On the other hand, if we send a T31, with increased CAMM rounds, say, 48-CAMM, them it will be a perfect match to the situation. Even with 24 CAMM, it will make a big contribution in defending merchant ships.

This is my thought.

[Repulse]

Do we need to revisit the OPV armament in of Yemen and consider LMM or CAMM?

https://www.navylookout.com/enhancing-t ... h-ii-opvs/

Yes, I think a review of defence capabilities is required, HOWEVER only in the context that these ships are for low level constabulary / presence / diplomacy not warships.

[Ron5]

Do we need to revisit the OPV armament in of Yemen and consider LMM or CAMM?
...

"For what?" is the most important point.

If we consider the current situation in Red Sea, up-arming River B2 with 40-57mm 3P and/or LMM rounds will improve its survivability, but just it. As their range is quite short, it cannot defend merchant ships from air-raids. River B2 can work on stopping fast-boats, when operating under the AAW umbrella of T45 or T23, as Sea Viper and Sea Ceptor both can do (local) area air defense. To do that, I agree "40-57mm 3P and/or LMM" might be good.

On the other hand, if we send a T31, with increased CAMM rounds, say, 48-CAMM, them it will be a perfect match to the situation. Even with 24 CAMM, it will make a big contribution in defending merchant ships.

This is my thought.

Most likely just getting 12 tho'

[dmereifield]

I sill can't see them only getting 12

[Ianmb17]

Will they still be getting mushrooms as they are fitting MK41 so can quad pack camm and double pack camm er if needed

Navy lookout MAY 17, 2023
CURRENT NEWS
Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system

The RN has always been vague about how many Sea Ceptor cells would be fitted to Type 31 but 32 Mk41 cells provide the option to quad-pack up to 128 of these missiles, although a mix-and-match approach with other weapons is more likely.

1SL did not specify if the Mk41 cells will be fitted from the outset on ship 1 but it would make a lot of sense and not greatly impact the construction schedule. The ship-launched Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FCASW) or Future Offensive Surface Weapon (FOSW) is supposed to be in service from 2028 and this would dovetail well with the entry into service of HMS Venturer and HMS Glasgow

[Poiuytrewq]

….Type 31 but 32 Mk41 cells provide the option to quad-pack up to 128 of these missiles

A couple of T31’s with quad packed CAMM and the 57mm/40mm combo would be supremely useful in the Red Sea right now. A couple of T31 with the full Iver Huitfeldt upgrade would be even more helpful.

I am not a fan of upgrading the RB2’s but adding NS50, 1x 57mm, 2x 40mm and a flight deck loaded with containerised CAMM would really help fill the gaps for RN right now.

[Phil Sayers]

If / when Mk 41 is added to T31, I'd be amazed if it is 32 cells. Probably 16, maybe 8 IMO.