River Class (OPV) (RN)
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Navy Lookout has a great article about HMS Medway's past history and future plans, some photos and a deck/compartment plan.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/up-clo ... ms-medway/
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/up-clo ... ms-medway/
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Interesting that there is a magazine below the 30mm, has thought there were just ammo cupboards - perhaps space for a deck penetrating gun in the future?
”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)
Just out of curiosity, how does the 3-watch system work with senior officers (and indeed other key/specialist staff for whom presumably there are only one or two posts per crew for a small lean-manned OPV).
Most obviously, are there two captains? But presumably also there are posts like Chief Engineer (or whatever the position might be called). I'm guessing that there must be eg a Senior Captain (the ranking officer whenever both are aboard) and a Junior Captain, but equally there must be a probability that the junior one will be in command when some important assignment crops up?
Most obviously, are there two captains? But presumably also there are posts like Chief Engineer (or whatever the position might be called). I'm guessing that there must be eg a Senior Captain (the ranking officer whenever both are aboard) and a Junior Captain, but equally there must be a probability that the junior one will be in command when some important assignment crops up?
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
The navy used a three watch system on the Bird class patrol boats after comparisons done when they took over Sea otter as Redpole. The officer watches were 12-4 4-8 8-12 Captain did 12-4 . The two other officers did the other watch's. They had one extra officer to the air force crews whom used a S.N.C.O. for the third O.O.W. The Senior Engineer would do the 12-4 having one fitter per watch. There was specialist as well. The crew requirement for the navy was 27 for the naval watch system . The air force had 18 crew of duty crew dropping to 8 towards the end of 1985 in preparation for contractor crewing. If you required to berth up launch sea boat. The off duty crew would be woken up to assist. If something cropped up you got woken up. It was a culture change to some of the navy crew. Civil crews working on the same boats G.O.C.O and Grey Fox now one of the Gibraltar Sqn boats .Worked a two watch system. That thankfully was not adopted by the navy in there lean manning requirement.albedo wrote:Just out of curiosity, how does the 3-watch system work with senior officers (and indeed other key/specialist staff for whom presumably there are only one or two posts per crew for a small lean-manned OPV).
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Reading that article you get the impression some people see the T-31e is the poor mans T-26 and the River B2 becoming be the poor mans T-31e, with all the kit they would like to see installed on these two classes of ship, and the expansion of their respective roles.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
SKB, In it’s current form no, and not at the expense of a couple more T26s.
However, linking to the ASW thread, of it had a (T26 style) mission bay amidships operating UUVs and USuVs, combined with 12-24 CAMM, Wildcat hangar and medium guns (57mm plus 2 x 30mms), I could see it being part of future balanced fleet when the MCMs are replaced.
However, linking to the ASW thread, of it had a (T26 style) mission bay amidships operating UUVs and USuVs, combined with 12-24 CAMM, Wildcat hangar and medium guns (57mm plus 2 x 30mms), I could see it being part of future balanced fleet when the MCMs are replaced.
”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: 5593
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
(to be) HMS Medway, River B2 aerial view. Very impressive.
Note:
- harpoon landing "mesh" is located very aft.
- waist after the RHIB is very space. 9 m-long ORC can be easily carried.
Cannot stop thinking extending the stern by ~2m or so, to
- extend flight deck a little more
- enable 11 m-long boat to be carried on those waists
- or even ARCISM MCM drones, if needed
- or can add a UAV hanger (or two), even larger than a 20ft-ISO container if needed.
Note:
- harpoon landing "mesh" is located very aft.
- waist after the RHIB is very space. 9 m-long ORC can be easily carried.
Cannot stop thinking extending the stern by ~2m or so, to
- extend flight deck a little more
- enable 11 m-long boat to be carried on those waists
- or even ARCISM MCM drones, if needed
- or can add a UAV hanger (or two), even larger than a 20ft-ISO container if needed.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Lovely looking boat the B2 but no teeth....shame really, could have been so much more.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
^ Yes, but just remember that River is a Vosper Thornycroft design, not BAE's.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Yep the B2's have a lot of untapped capability like UAV's out of containers , USV carried on the fight deck . Given the room needed to operate a UAV they could maybe have 2 USV MCM on the waist a 20 ft container along the end of the crane housing and still have space to operate a UAV
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Great pic of HMS Medway and the B2s in general, shows how much space is available to enhance its off board and self-defence capabilities.
”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
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Agree entirely. They came so close to creating a modern small naval ship, but missed the opportunity because the decision was such a rush job.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Cannot stop thinking extending the stern by ~2m or so, to
The Russians have achieved this with their Project 22160 patrol boat, shame the Brits couldn't have applied a little bit of planning instead stumbling from mistake to mistake.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5593
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
It is NOT too late. There are many examples world-wide, which had stern extension of more than 2 m even AFTER the ship has been built.shark bait wrote:Agree entirely. They came so close to creating a modern small naval ship, but missed the opportunity because the decision was such a rush job.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Cannot stop thinking extending the stern by ~2m or so, to
The Russians have achieved this with their Project 22160 patrol boat, shame the Brits couldn't have applied a little bit of planning instead stumbling from mistake to mistake.
For example;
- LCS Freedom class (+3m)
- OH Perry FFG (+2.5m)
As an EEZ patrol ship, River B2 is good as it is. But,
- if T31e program goes wrong, adding armaments to River B2 will be a able to partly mitigate the loss
- by including River B2 as MHC-hull part, River B2 can be the high-speed response hull, but with a bit limited deck space, which will be a nice combination with slow but bulky MHC hull.
Many "possibilities" remain there.
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Thinking outside the box in a retro kind of way....plenty of Rapier coming available soon? Low cost low pain weapon readily available. Crane on, bolt down stand alone system.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5593
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
If only they had a hangar / mission bay...
”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)
Do we have more info on actual deck layout dimensions? From that angle with those Sailors, the flight deck looks pretty big. Remove the structure aft of the Funnel with the crane, replace with a full width mission bay, surely you could squeeze a Wildcat in there with a couple of ribs and their launch system too?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Digger22 Wrote
May be better to offset the structure aft of the funnel & the crane to either Port or Starboard and provide a Wildcat capable hangar, which can also double as a mission bay when there is no helicopter flight embarked.Remove the structure aft of the Funnel with the crane, replace with a full width mission bay, surely you could squeeze a Wildcat in there with a couple of ribs and their launch system too?
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Nah, how about a couple of AS90 parked on the heli deck, proper NGFS. the navy must be bonkers to not have thought of this before!RAF>FAN wrote:Thinking outside the box in a retro kind of way....plenty of Rapier coming available soon? Low cost low pain weapon readily available. Crane on, bolt down stand alone system.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
Sounds totally reasonable. The Navy should have expected better from this class, but since it was a politically driven rush job important little optimisations like this have gone unchecked. Its such a massive shame.Scimitar54 wrote:May be better to offset the structure aft of the funnel & the crane to either Port or Starboard
That's probably a bit too far out the box, pushing a very old system well beyond it's design parameters is not advised. If an air defence option is required for the Rivers the, only option that makes sense is LMM.RAF>FAN wrote:Thinking outside the box in a retro kind of way....plenty of Rapier coming available soon?
@LandSharkUK
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)
I would agree as it seems any LMM mount can also operate Starstreak. As for the Hangar / mission bay we would need more wildcats before we see the Rivers operating them and in many ways a wildcat is over kill for what the ship will be asked to do day to day. Maybe the way around this is to have six bespoke containers made say 30 foot or 9 meters a bit taller and wider with roller shutter power lighting and heating capable of holding and operating 3 UAVs and other kit as seen fitshark bait wrote:That's probably a bit too far out the box, pushing a very old system well beyond it's design parameters is not advised. If an air defence option is required for the Rivers the, only option that makes sense is LMM.