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.
User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5835
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby SKB » 04 Aug 2019, 16:52

Stupid to put CIWS on an inshore patrol vessel. Especially as you've also made the helipad unusable. Rotor blades will hit the CIWS.
No fantasy ships/weapons refits here please, theres already a thread for that.... viewtopic.php?f=39&t=215

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby RichardIC » 04 Aug 2019, 18:55

donald_of_tokyo wrote:If ever River B2 to be up-armed in reaction to current situation or in view of "dedicated for Persian Gulf", I think one powerful option is to make it "removable", so that the hull configuration can be brought back into EEZ patrol version easily in future.

So, here is the version with
- a 30mm gun with 5 LMM at bow (not shown)
- a 20mm CIWS in place of the crane (from the pooled units)
- and a few 12.7mm and 7.62mm guns
- with simple ESM/chaff/flare kits added (not shown)

How about two of them for Persian Gulf patrol, until T31e will ever be ready? (say, ~2024 at the earliest, and more later if my proposal to delay and even cancel T31e was chosen). If more fire power be needed, add two to four 3-tube LMM launcher operated by RM team, or even 6-8 more 7.62mm gatling guns, operated by RM detachment (plenty of room for them).


Phalanx is an expensive bit of kit and the RN/RFA are already short of them. And there's limited ammunition on the mount which takes an eternity to reload manually. So not good for swarm attacks. And there's the helicopter issue too.

Crew served weapons also expose personnel to direct fire, have limited range and are inherently less accurate in unstabilised mounts.

If you have to be so unspeakably vulgar as to upgun the River B2s - and if you want them to go anywhere remotely dangerous you do - the way the Thai's have gone about it looks about right - add Martlet to the beam 30s and a medium-calibre gun of choice for reach. Loose the Harpoon.

But you'd also, as Caribbean said, need to add some serious ballistic protection, which is going to impose further weight penalties, and ESM, ECM etc. . You're probably going to have a very cramped ops room.

And not cheap. You'd need to be desperate but the RN doesn't have a whole bag of options.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3569
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Aug 2019, 01:56

Taking a step back it is interesting that people complain that the T-31e has been the result of a reduction in the number of high end escorts and now we have suggestions to use the B2 River to reduce or replace the T-31 reducing the option for the Rm to have a medium threat level platform that could possibly operate with the high end assets or take over from them in areas where a T-26/45 is overkill but is too risky for an OPV.
The B2 Rivers are ideal for the OPV role a should be pretty effective in anti piracy duties with a few bolt on weapon systems, but mainly replacing the main gun with a larger weapon like a 57mm. Phalanx isn't really needed nor truly effective in these role but a couple a 30mm/LMM mounts wold be ideal. The former should be mandatory and buying a few more of whatever mount is purchased for the T-31e should not increase support costs across the RN and give a substantial up lift to the B2 River's capabilities. The latter could only be realised if funding was available without affecting other high priority needs, so maybe having the B2s FFBNW these mounts and having a couple of sets available for when one is dispatched on a tour of duty requiring the extra firepower.

Even is we retain the B1 and B1.5 Rivers they together with the B2 do not really meet the UK's need to police its waters and those of its BSTs. The Navy also needs more than the 6 T-45s and 8 T-26s to meet all of its actual commitments so needs the 5 T-31e as well as the crews to man them effectively. In fact the T-31e should be pushed more towards a light frigate, increasing its capability rather then diluted to become a "Super" River.

The River design though could form the basis of the future MHC having a mission bay module built on the aft deck in order to operate unmanned systems etc and maybe a helicopter spot on the roof like that of the Franco/Dutch/Belgium new MCM platform.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 Aug 2019, 06:48

SKB wrote:Stupid to put CIWS on an inshore patrol vessel. Especially as you've also made the helipad unusable. Rotor blades will hit the CIWS.
I do not think it is stupid, although I agree there can be some better idea (including keeping it as a simple Offshore Patrol Vessel (of course, not inshore ...)).

As I said, Persian gulf deployment do not need helipad so frequently, and it will rather be used as small-arms deck, as actually did in this Gibraltar deployment. So, I myself see no big problem here. In future, small UAV can be there, and CIWS fire-line is well above it. Note, OPV's flight deck is very rarely used in general.
No fantasy ships/weapons refits here please, theres already a thread for that.... https://www.ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=215
Figures, replaced.

But, I do not think up-arming River B2 is a fantasy. RN kept 3 River B1, good enough for EEZ patrol. And, 5 new River B2 are coming, to cover both EEZ patrol and constabulary operations. Yet, RN is planning to order 5 T31e light frigates, which are also designed to do constabulary operations as well as joining warfare.

It looks as if RN has so many man-power redundant, and current priority is to add hull. In reality, adding hull is surely NOT a high priority issue now. If RN want to be active, powerful and effective, numbers of hulls (on paper, of which many are tied to port as "extended readiness") is NOT important. Operational cost and man-power resource are the most important. In this circumstances, it is worth considering how to use the newly coming assets as far as possible, before talking about adding something new. This is my standpoint.

Actually, thinking of up-arming River B2 looks like a fantasy, I agree. But, in reality, it is just looking at the reality = man-power and operational cost shortage as the prime difficulty in RN now, not hulls.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 Aug 2019, 07:09

RichardIC wrote:Phalanx is an expensive bit of kit and the RN/RFA are already short of them. And there's limited ammunition on the mount which takes an eternity to reload manually. So not good for swarm attacks. And there's the helicopter issue too.
I think there are many R2D2s waiting for T26 to come, and here I am talking about short term, well before T26 comes into service. But, yes, it is man-power consuming, which is not so good, I agree. For helicopter, see above, but I do understand your concern.

For me, CIWS for River B2, if ever to be up-armed, is a stop-gap until a 57 mm gun with MAD-FIRES AAW guided rounds be available. (I guess it is about 5 years or so, nearly coincident to T26 coming into service). And also, I am just thinking it as, "20 CIWS on RFA vessels are frequently seen, why not River B2?". If AAW can be omitted, I agree 30mm guns with LMMs will be better options.

If you have to be so unspeakably vulgar as to upgun the River B2s...
Very good sentence, I think :D
I am NOT a fan of up-arming River B2, but compared to adding 5 T31 with 1.5B GBP, while ignoring the man-power issue and operational cost shortage, up-arming River B2 and killing T31e is much much better. Yes, "have to be so unspeakably vulgar", here.
But you'd also, as Caribbean said, need to add some serious ballistic protection, which is going to impose further weight penalties, and ESM, ECM etc. . You're probably going to have a very cramped ops room.
What kind of ballistic protections do T23 have? (How heavy it will be?) I could not find info about it. On the ops room, ESM needs one console, and CIWS needs another one. That's all we need here. If it is 57mm gun, the added console number is the same (because ESM/chaff/flare is anyway needed).
And not cheap. You'd need to be desperate but the RN doesn't have a whole bag of options.
I agree it is not 10M GBP or so. But, I am comparing it with 1.5B GBP of T31e. Also in man-power point of view, River B2 ship handling crew will be anyway needed, and only weapon handling crew is needed in addition. Much less than T31e needs.

And, with up-arming 2 of the 5 River B2s, I want to (actually add one T26. If this is politically very difficult, then I want to) reduce the T31e number from 5 to 4 (or even 3), to "better" equip the remaining hulls. Man power shortage, not hull, is the key in RN for coming decade, I understand.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby RichardIC » 05 Aug 2019, 07:22

donald_of_tokyo wrote:What kind of ballistic protections do T23 have? (How heavy it will be?) I could not find info about it. On the ops room, ESM needs one console, and CIWS needs another one. That's all we need here. If it is 57mm gun, the added console number is the same (because ESM/chaff/flare is anyway needed).


Donald, I’m really content that you can’t Google where RN vessels are fitted with ballistic protection.

Just please remember that that every gizmo you fit adds weight and adds to crewing requirements. Nothing is for nothing.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 Aug 2019, 08:04

RichardIC wrote:Donald, I’m really content that you can’t Google where RN vessels are fitted with ballistic protection.

Just please remember that that every gizmo you fit adds weight and adds to crewing requirements. Nothing is for nothing.
Thanks. I'm not that against to your comment, which is actually very helpful for me. Only my big concern is, RN do not have enough man-power to handle large "crewing requirements" of the 5 T31e (*1) without keeping 3-4 T45/T23ASW/T26 in extended readiness. Nothing is for nothing = there is no crew.

*1: And, it is even in addition to 3 River B1s and 5 River B2s.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby jedibeeftrix » 05 Aug 2019, 23:03

what value in deliberately low-balling T31e as Leander with the intention of making it the MHPC platform.

it has the mission space, it can deploy two 11m vessels (unlike 140), it is smaller and cheaper and less manpower intensive than the 140 (I think?).

if HMG can really nail down the price, why not make it the baseline of the future wider requirement that looks beyond high-end specialised escorts?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2004
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Repulse » 06 Aug 2019, 10:13

jedibeeftrix, agree low balling the T31 for the MHPC assuming we are looking at a £100-£150mn unit cost. Anything more needs to come with a hefty budget increase as adding SeaCeptor permanently would be lower down the priority list.
"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: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 07 Aug 2019, 16:08


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 Aug 2019, 15:00



One question. HMS Medway is handed-over to RN, but NOT yet commissioned, I understand. Are they doing FOST before commissioning? Or, she has already commissioned?

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby RichardIC » 13 Aug 2019, 15:20

donald_of_tokyo wrote:One question. HMS Medway is handed-over to RN, but NOT yet commissioned, I understand. Are they doing FOST before commissioning? Or, she has already commissioned?


Commissioning is just the formal ceremonial bit. HMS Illustrious was commissioned en-route to the Falklands in 1982. HNLMS Karel Doorman was commissioned after she'd completed a deployment to West Africa.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 21 Aug 2019, 15:36

From NavyLookOut Twitter.

HMS Forth's 30 mm cannon (first photo). Compared with the 5-LMM added turret, it looks relatively easy to be modified to replace the manned seat with 5-LMM launcher (of course, only if modification is needed = not needed for EEZ patrol).

# Interesting HMS Forth's 30mm gun is manned controlled, not from the bridge/CIS using the optical camera in the middle of the mast?
Image
Image

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 359
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby jimthelad » 21 Aug 2019, 22:48

Manual system is backup only. FCS is by bridge console.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2004
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Repulse » 22 Aug 2019, 06:35

jimthelad wrote:Manual system is backup only. FCS is by bridge console.


So the seat for the manual operator would need to be removed to fit the LMM launcher?
"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

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Caribbean » 22 Aug 2019, 08:18

Correct - attaching LMM to the side of the mount will make reversionary control impossible on the ASCG, which has always been a sticking point for the RN. I'm surprised to see that configuration being used, a stand-alone launcher seemed much more likely.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 22 Aug 2019, 09:35

Caribbean wrote:Correct - attaching LMM to the side of the mount will make reversionary control impossible on the ASCG, which has always been a sticking point for the RN. I'm surprised to see that configuration being used, a stand-alone launcher seemed much more likely.
1: Stand-alone launcher, need to be stabilized? I'm not sure, if the system can be accurate enough without stabilization.

May be modified version of SIMBAD-RC will be needed ? If so, surely good solution. But, I'm afraid it will cost "so-so", and requires man-power "so-so", as well.

2: Integrated launcher has a merit that it needs less crew.

So, I think it is good and bad. (pro and con)

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Aug 2019, 10:04

donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: Stand-alone launcher, need to be stabilized? I'm not sure, if the system can be accurate enough without stabilization.


There is already a stablilized 8 round unit in the Aselsan / Thales UK system

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 22 Aug 2019, 10:18

Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: Stand-alone launcher, need to be stabilized? I'm not sure, if the system can be accurate enough without stabilization.

There is already a stablilized 8 round unit in the Aselsan / Thales UK system
Thanks. And it looks expensive. "Will it be cheaper (in view of purchase cost, maintenance cost, and man-power/logistics) to have 2nd 30mm DS turret with 5-LMM, or Aselsan turret independently?", is my question.

[EDIT] And, anyhow, "a 30mm DS turret WITH 5-LMM" will be cheaper than "a 30mm DS turret and another independent stabilized turret". If non-stabilized stand-alone system is OK, then independent launcher will be cheap (because it can move around the vessels (or even RM commando) when needed = reduced system number).

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Aug 2019, 10:50

My point is there is stablizied mounts for LMM

As I have said in the past I would go with 3 x 30mm with 5 round mounts fitted and given that both LMM and Starstreak come pack with a 15 year life and can fired from the same mount I would have ships operating out side UK waters carrying 20 LMM and 10 Starstreak fitted like so 5 Starstreak on the forward mount and 5 LMM on the two wast mounts

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 22 Aug 2019, 11:03

Thanks.

But anyway, only when it turned out to be needed. (no need for LMM if used for EEZ patrol, anti-smuggler or anti-pirate operations), although, discussing "growth margin" is nothing bad.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3569
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby Lord Jim » 22 Aug 2019, 13:39

I would be happy if we only modified the existing forward mount to be able to mount five LMM and installed M2 Brownings at the waist.

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1245
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby xav » 26 Aug 2019, 20:41

Rohde & Schwarz provides shipborne communications for Royal Navy River-class OPV
Image
Rohde & Schwarz provides shipborne communications for line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight connectivity, supporting the future of the Royal Navy.

With the Royal Navy retaining its three Batch 1 River-class offshore patrol vessels (OPV) and the OPV(H), HMS Clyde until 2020, essential for protecting British waters, fisheries and national security, five new-generation Batch 2 OPVs have been ordered. Three of these OPVs are expected to be in service with the Royal Navy by the end of the year. Rohde & Schwarz is providing turnkey communications solutions for both batches, supporting the future of the Royal Navy.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... class-opv/

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 27 Aug 2019, 12:18

From HMS Medway twitter feed.

First time operating with a helo today as the ship continues Operational Sea Training
see https://mobile.twitter.com/HMS_Medway/status/1166059024510574592

In the movie, Merlin HM2 is NOT landing on her. Do anyone know if it landed on the OPV or not?

Also see photo ...
Image

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5835
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Postby SKB » 07 Sep 2019, 08:21

HMS Medway is currently in London for DSEI2019 at the ExCeL centre, she's berthed in the Royal Victoria Dock.

Image
Image
(@NavyLookout) 6th September 2019

Meanwhile...

Image
(@NavyLookout/S. Wenham) 7th September 2019
HMS Severn in alongside Portsmouth - regenerating prior to rejoining the fleet shortly


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: serge750 and 14 guests