UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Tempest414 » 10 Jul 2019, 10:00

shark 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.


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 fit

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Repulse » 10 Jul 2019, 19:59

Tempest414, would tend to agree, but having the capability to operate a Wildcat and having one permanently deployed is different ends of the scale.

The original B3 (Avenger) concept plus a T26 style mission bay is what the T31 should be.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 11 Jul 2019, 01:10

Digger22 wrote: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?
Scimitar54 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.
Currently, River B2 provides
- 2 "mission decks" in the waist, with a size of ~10x4.5 m, covered by 16t crane
- 1 "mission deck or flight deck", with a size of ~21x13.6 m, on which 1/3 is covered by 16t crane.
I guess this will work very nice as a "mission deck". May be able to contribute "a half" of what will be provided by, say, Venari 85?

The latter is "shared" with flight deck, so not optimal. But River B2 primary roles is patrol (with 25 knot speed) and if "a small fraction of MHC tasks" can be added as a part time job, may be good enough?

Then, adding an enclosure = make it a hangar, is how much useful in addition, other than capability to carry a Wildcat?

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 179
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Location: South Africa

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Old RN » 11 Jul 2019, 07:09

Why does not the RN buy some of these to install ln the container areas on the Batch 2s?
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems ... ns/klab-k/
:lol: :lol:

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Repulse » 11 Jul 2019, 07:10

donald_of_tokyo, an enclosure would help enormously with support, maintain and avoid weather/sea damage of larger off-board systems.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 11 Jul 2019, 07:31

Repulse wrote:donald_of_tokyo, an enclosure would help enormously with support, maintain and avoid weather/sea damage of larger off-board systems.
But ,Venari 85 are designed to carry their MCM drones in open deck. No difference to River B2. For the RoV, they do have covered area. But, River B2 will not be required to carry out ALL of the tasks MHC shall do.

On the other hand, enclosure is costy, and consumes many of the center-of-gravity margins. I myself think enclosure "might be nice", but
- lack of Wildcat number, and the report that a 90m ship cannot operate helicopter efficiently
- apparent big flexibility a large open mission deck provides (not limited to the enclosure size)
makes me wonder, open mission deck itself has its own merit?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Tempest414 » 11 Jul 2019, 09:06

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Currently, River B2 provides
- 2 "mission decks" in the waist, with a size of ~10x4.5 m, covered by 16t crane
- 1 "mission deck or flight deck", with a size of ~21x13.6 m, on which 1/3 is covered by 16t crane.
I guess this will work very nice as a "mission deck". May be able to contribute "a half" of what will be provided by, say, Venari 85?


Given these spaces building four 10 x 4 x 4 meter and two 12 x 4 x 4 meter containers as said with roller shutter doors would mean the B2's could carry UAVs up to MQ-8c plus a few containers could have side shutters and a small crane to allow other kit to be deployed over the side

Digger22
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Digger22 » 11 Jul 2019, 12:02

Not sure that I completely agree. The Wildcat numbers limit options, but considering the number of ships usually deployed I don't think it's a deal breaker, and besides the ability to land a Merlin is more overkill than operating a Wildcat. As for moving the Funnel, cost dictates the removal of the current structure rather than mess with the Funnel? Besides unles there's a war, I can't see any Structural mods happening regrettably. And no one wants a war. Unles Iran continues pushing in the Strait. Well done Montrose!

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Repulse » 11 Jul 2019, 13:05

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, River B2 will not be required to carry out ALL of the tasks MHC shall do.


True, but given the MHC programme is unlikely to be focused on delivering ships, the reuse of existing platforms such as the B2 Rivers will be key. Also, looking more broadly such as UUV ASW drones - the potential roles are increasingly not decreasing.

However my pitch is more towards a B3 (Avenger style) Class :P
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5306
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby SKB » 13 Jul 2019, 12:43



Another angle.


(ships, planes and gaming) 13th July 2019

User avatar
Ianmb17
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 01 May 2015, 21:33
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Ianmb17 » 16 Jul 2019, 20:03

Perfect upgrade for rivers


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 17 Jul 2019, 15:55

As I proposed in the escort thread, I think RN shall better stop pretending "19 escort" saga even though the actual sea-going days shows virtually only 12 is active, and shall cancel 5 T31 to get 1 more T26 and up-arm T45 and other assets.

Along this line, it will be River B2s to carry out most of (say, two-thirds of ?) the tasks currently assumed to the 5 T31e.

Fortunately, RN are going to have 5 River B2 very soon. At the same time, keeping 3 (or 4) River B1 for EEZ/fishery patrol is technically very easy. Then, up-arming River B2 will be of great importance if RN can cancel 5 T31e. What is an option here?

1: Apart from many "high-grade" up-arming plans, just adding the LMM launcher to the forward 30mm gun is a very good starter. For "more", adding two 30 mm +LMM turrets on their bridge-wings will also be a very practical approach. With commonality, additional naval engineers will be limited. With 360 degree coverage, (supported with 12.7mm and 7.62mm guns), it will make River B2 a good "close-in fighter" for fast-boat attacks.

2: Another option is, of course, adding a 20mm CIWS or two. But, if you look at the system's photo, it is evident that Phalanx is much more complex than a 30mm turret, and maintenance load needed is much more higher. But, Phalanx can shoot down simple ASMs, as those operated by Houthi-rebels or even by Hizballah. No, Phalanx is not good against super-sonic ASMs, but super-sonic ASM is very large and costy, and enemies operating it is limited. So, adding 20mm CIWS is also a good option, depending on the theater those ships will be sent.

3: Because land-based air-cover can be expected in many cases, lack of helicopter can be accepted. But, adding a UAV will also be a very good option.

4: Other key assets will be, LRAD (sonic weapon), strong search lights, smoke grenades, powerful water nozzles, RHIB-based patrol USVs, and underwater frogman detection high-frequency sonar. Note these assets are not "high-end" expensive weapons, but is very useful in anti-terrorists patrol, I guess.

These 4 options are pretty much "laser focused" on anti-terrorism, or in-quasi-war situations, I think this is very realistic/practical "up-arming" of River B2.


With LMM becoming reality, those "modestly up-armed" River B2 is more and more "easy to imagine" now :D

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5306
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby SKB » 17 Jul 2019, 17:42

@Donald

What do you not understand about "offshore patrol vessel"? Stop trying to turn a River into a regular surface warship. It's a patrol boat!
There is a P (patrol) on the side of their hulls, not a D (destroyer), or F (frigates, corvettes, sloops).

Stop it.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 17 Jul 2019, 18:12

SKB wrote:@Donald

What do you not understand about "offshore patrol vessel"? Stop trying to turn a River into a regular surface warship. It's a patrol boat!
There is a P (patrol) on the side of their hulls, not a D (destroyer), or F (frigates, corvettes, sloops).

Stop it.
I do understand your point. As I stated many times, I am NOT a strong supporter of up-arming River B2 (with large guns, hangars, missiles etc). What I proposed here is well within the "P", never D nor F. In other words, I think we do not need D or F to counter terrorists. For example, LRAD is an equipment valid for Patrol ships, not only Frigates. LMM will never make an OPV into Frigate, it is anyway just MANPADs. 20mm CIWS is a weapon even carried on RFA vessels, and of course we do not call them a Frigate.

I hope it is more clearer.

In short, I totally agree to your point. But, I do not think my proposal is aiming at making a frigate out of OPV. It is still well within "OPV".

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Jake1992 » 17 Jul 2019, 18:26

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SKB wrote:@Donald

What do you not understand about "offshore patrol vessel"? Stop trying to turn a River into a regular surface warship. It's a patrol boat!
There is a P (patrol) on the side of their hulls, not a D (destroyer), or F (frigates, corvettes, sloops).

Stop it.
I do understand your point. As I stated many times, I am NOT a strong supporter of up-arming River B2 (with large guns, hangars, missiles etc). What I proposed here is well within the "P", never D nor F. In other words, I think we do not need D or F to counter terrorists. For example, LRAD is an equipment valid for Patrol ships, not only Frigates. LMM will never make an OPV into Frigate, it is anyway just MANPADs. 20mm CIWS is a weapon even carried on RFA vessels, and of course we do not call them a Frigate.

I hope it is more clearer.

In short, I totally agree to your point. But, I do not think my proposal is aiming at making a frigate out of OPV. It is still well within "OPV".


On this I do agree with you Donald I believe this should be fitted to every 30mm in the fleet.

One thing Iv been wondering since this all came out is with the potential of moving to the 40mm especially if A140 is chosen could this system be fitted on the 40mm as well ?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Jul 2019, 02:43

Or if the vessels have the older manual mounts then add two or more of the three rounds infantry firing pedestals for Starstreak.LMM bolted to the deck.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 18 Jul 2019, 12:51

Lord Jim wrote:Or if the vessels have the older manual mounts then add two or more of the three rounds infantry firing pedestals for Starstreak. LMM bolted to the deck.
Is the "the three rounds infantry firing pedestal" stabilized? If not, it will not be of great use... Also, if the system is connected to CMS, it is better.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Jul 2019, 22:59

Aren't the older cannon mounts not stabilised? Using the three round pedestal would be the basic option to equip RN and RFA platforms obviously, but is an infantryman can it a fast moving target from the shoulder on land, a crew member braced using a pedestal launcher, should be able to hit a much slower target, even if it is manoeuvring from a ship. Obvious more capable options are out there if funding is available. Linking the cannon mounts to the CMS and the ships other sensors is the top end option but will probably only be available to a few vessels. The Rivers are fortunate in having a gun already linked as such but older vessels and RFAs do not, but again could be retrofitted if funding were available. Saying that the return for such funding would be a step change in capability for many of the Royal Navy's platforms and should be looked at given the favourable cost/benefit result.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Tempest414 » 19 Jul 2019, 10:14

when it comes to the Rivers I would like to see the five ships scaled for 50 LMM and 25 Starstreak giving each ship the capability to carry 15 missiles allowing them to have 5 ready missiles and 10 spare

It was also good to note that the 5 round pannier used on the 30mm mount is the same 5 round pannier to be fitted to the Wildcats which should help keep costs down

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5306
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby SKB » 19 Jul 2019, 11:22


Image


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests