River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 14:33 The 16tonnes crane is showing its usefulness.
Agreed.

Just goes to show how useful an ‘Avenger’ configured RB3 could be.
1C3231F3-F07B-4F36-9FD6-6AD610AB2A7A.jpeg
Remove the CAMM amidships and replace with a 16 tonne crane to service a highly versatile amidships working deck. Very much like the Italian PPA design.

Such a vessel would be massively capable and extremely cost effective both in terms of initial procurement costs and ongoing operating costs, crew numbers etc. In many ways a much more cost effective solution than the T31 for forward basing, HADR deployments and general patrol duties in low threat environments.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
Repulsejedibeeftrix

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 20:57
Just goes to show how useful an ‘Avenger’ configured RB3 could be.

Remove the CAMM amidships and replace with a 16 tonne crane to service a highly versatile amidships working deck.
I’ve always liked the Avenger class…

Personally would build five in two batches each with slightly different configs;

Batch A: 3 ships as per your design to based in Gib and the Indo Pacific region (allowing three B2s to replace the B1s).

Batch B: 2 ships similar to your design but move the CAMM launcher to where the hangar is, allowing a working deck amidships for USVs/boats but keeping a helipad for operating helicopters for limited periods and also limited air defence. These then would be the core of the Kipion commitment.
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

With the B2s and the theoretical B3 Rivers the Royal Navy would just be doing what the French Navy has done for decades and reaped the benefits. With the A69 and Floreal classes then have maintained a presence around the Globe, protecting their overseas territories and been able to conduct HADR operation when needed.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 3):
donald_of_tokyoRepulsewargame_insomniac

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Dahedd »

Tempest414 wrote: 22 Jan 2022, 10:24 T

For me also having a Wave class stationed out of say Singapore would also give our allies something most are lacking and if we are lacking crew for it maybe we provide the ship and a core crew of 20 and rest come from allies.
Agreed. Rather than talk of binning of selling a Wave class one should be deployed to support the B2 Rivers with the other kept close to the UK for training. That would allow the Tides to deploy with the CVF or ARGs.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

HMS Spey in Tonga. We can see how the crane is used. Also, ISO container, dingy-boats are used.
She is using the same warf, right before the King's palace. HMNZS Aotearoa was there a few days ago, now she has gone where?

[EDIT] HMNZS Aotearoa was refuelling Tonga’s Guardian-class patrol boat VOEA Ngahau Siliva in the port, and USS Sampson out in the see. (Ref, RNZN facebook/twitter). Working as a pivot. Surely, HMS Spey will soon also be one of her "customers".

These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
Repulsewargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Great pictures of Spey and underlines the flexibility we've been talking about. People criticize the B2s, but the fact is they money would have been wasted, and if we didn't have her we wouldn't be there helping.
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

It also high lights the use of the crane which it would not have if it had a hangar

However would the money have been wasted or could of been spent on something else so the 5 Batch 2's cost 630 million and were ordered in 2 batches (which really makes Tamar and Spay batch 2.5 or 3's ha ho ) which clouds the thinking just a bit however if we take the 630 we could have built 3 x 110 meter Khareef class at 210 million each which could of lead to a build 10 or 12 more in two batches giving the RN a possible class of 15 heavy corvettes
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 11:46 It also high lights the use of the crane which it would not have if it had a hangar

However would the money have been wasted or could of been spent on something else so the 5 Batch 2's cost 630 million and were ordered in 2 batches (which really makes Tamar and Spay batch 2.5 or 3's ha ho ) which clouds the thinking just a bit however if we take the 630 we could have built 3 x 110 meter Khareef class at 210 million each which could of lead to a build 10 or 12 more in two batches giving the RN a possible class of 15 heavy corvettes
I agree it was not a perfect way to go about shipbuilding, but the result is good and the skills and tooling developed will play dividends on the T26.

I also agree that having a crane rather than a hangar for this role is very beneficial, hence a good demonstration on why some role specific tailoring of these forward based platforms will maximize their benefit. Also, I'm pretty sure that if we had three heavy corvettes we wouldn't have a RN ship off Tonga right now - the days at sea / forward based would be a fraction of what they are, and they would be elsewhere.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
donald_of_tokyo
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

This is why I think the B1s should eventually be replaced by at least three vessels that take what has worked with the B2s and make them better and possibly slightly larger. These would also replace the T-32 in the build schedule, with the T-31s being improved to compensate.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 13:46
Tempest414 wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 11:46 It also high lights the use of the crane which it would not have if it had a hangar

However would the money have been wasted or could of been spent on something else so the 5 Batch 2's cost 630 million and were ordered in 2 batches (which really makes Tamar and Spay batch 2.5 or 3's ha ho ) which clouds the thinking just a bit however if we take the 630 we could have built 3 x 110 meter Khareef class at 210 million each which could of lead to a build 10 or 12 more in two batches giving the RN a possible class of 15 heavy corvettes
I agree it was not a perfect way to go about shipbuilding, but the result is good and the skills and tooling developed will play dividends on the T26.

I also agree that having a crane rather than a hangar for this role is very beneficial, hence a good demonstration on why some role specific tailoring of these forward based platforms will maximize their benefit. Also, I'm pretty sure that if we had three heavy corvettes we wouldn't have a RN ship off Tonga right now - the days at sea / forward based would be a fraction of what they are, and they would be elsewhere.
Well had we gone down the heavy corvette route I am sure we would have had 6 by now as type 31 would have just rolled in this program I think the first 3 would have built at BAE with the next two batches of 5 being built at CL

As much as it is great to see Spay in Tonga helping out would it have been missed if it was not there and had we had a Wave class in the region it could have been sent

I really like the B2's and there sea going days but was it the right ship to Build given the Fighting needs of RN we may well have been able to let 3 Type 23's go early and built one more type 26 giving the RN 15 tier 1 escorts and 13 tier 2 heavy Corvettes

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Heavy corvettes are great operating in littoral zone. Other than Persian Gulf, where we are there as part of multi-national force to protect shipping, what other littoral zones are you expecting RN to fight in?

If we fell out spectacularly with Norway and needed to engage them in North Sea, then maybe we could use Heavy Corvettes......

Forgive the attempt at irony but just because they work for many Navies, doesn't mean they would work for RN.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

There are many littoral zone in the Indo-pacific region to start with.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 20:30 There are many littoral zone in the Indo-pacific region to start with.
Sure, but apart from the Persian Gulf which I mnetioned, how many directly affect UK? Unlike France, we have relatively few British Overseas Territories in the Indo-Pacific. So other than doing the current mission of HMS Spey and Tamar, what missions would we be undertaking there? We would have the occasional flag waving visit of a fulll CSG but otherwise would be likely to operating with other allied forces.

And just to clarify before we go too much further on what we each mean by Heavy Corvette. From the recent discussion on Russian Corvettes, I am assuming that Heavy Corvettes would be similar size to various Rivers but far more heavily armed. In particular that they might might well have 8 Cruise Missile Launchers and 8+ Anti Ship Missile Launchers. Now if we had several of such heavily armed ships wandering around the Indo-Pacific then I suspct we would get a different reaction from our allies than HMS Spey and Tamar currently do.

Now I did think that by Heavy Corvettes, you might be referring to a current refresh of the WW2 Flower Class Corvettes, ued primarily for ASW. If you were talking about what could otherwise be called a Light Frigate, then I apologies. I can see that RN would need more ASW ships, and given the cost of Tier One T26, I could see the benefits of going for a much smaller Tier Two escort, maybe 110m long, able to provide ASW in low/medium intensity locations.

I should have clarified that in earlier post

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 20:57 And just to clarify before we go too much further on what we each mean by Heavy Corvette. From the recent discussion on Russian Corvettes, I am assuming that Heavy Corvettes would be similar size to various Rivers but far more heavily armed.
Typical heavy corvette of the day, for me, is
- Damen Sigma 10514 class (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRI_Raden ... artadinata)
- Naval Gowind-2500 class (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENS_El_Fateh)
Both are 2300-2500t FLD, has a 76mm gun, 8-16 VL MICA, 4-8 Exocet ASM, a helicopter, AS torpedo launcher, with CAPTAS-2 sonar and HMS, SMART-S MK2 3D radar and other sensors. Omani navy Al-Khareef class (2500t FLD) is in the similar league (but without ASW capability). Typically, their hull is built to OPV standard (at least Mexican Damen 10514 is, to my understanding).

T31 as is now is very similarly equipped with those heavy-corvettes (but lacking ASW capabilities), but with very large hull with Frigate standard. "Equipped similar to heavy-corvettes (actually slightly less)" is what the T31RFI was requiring. The T31 original program cost of £1.25Bn was similar to those of these heavy-corvettes. But, its large and higher-standard hull meant it was simply impossible, and hence we have the T31 as-is with £2Bn program cost.

Coming back to River B2 OPVs, it is a 2000t FLD hull. Its hull standard is, to my understanding, NOT frigate standard but OPV standard (if it is of frigate standard, I guess Camel Laird/BAES team should have advocated it in the T31 competition). T31 also has two independent engine room, while River B2 has only one. Thus River B2 is less tolerant to flooding than T31.

As such, I do not think "up-arming River B2" will make it "a perfect replacement" for T31. But, it will do some, and it won't be meaningless. But, we all know that River B2 OPVs as currently equipped has several good places to live. So, any up-arming to River B2 shall be done for only some of the hulls, not all five, I think.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

I did make it clear up thread I was talking about a 110 meter Khraeef class which BEA called Leander. I classed it as a heavy corvette but it could be called a light frigate and I would have likened it to a modern Leander class or type 21 which the type 31 RFI called for so maybe BAE & RN shot them self in foot by building the B2's had they built 3 110 m Khraeef's they could have just gone on to build 10 more in two batches and sure the last batch of 5 could have been ASW centred

Had we got to 13 of these we could of had 8 in the Atlantic home fleet and 5 EoS with tasks like

LRG escort
TAPS
FRE
SNMG 1/2
Gulf based Escort

but we are where we are

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Jan 2022, 10:45 I did make it clear up thread I was talking about a 110 meter Khraeef class which BEA called Leander. I classed it as a heavy corvette but it could be called a light frigate and I would have likened it to a modern Leander class or type 21 which the type 31 RFI called for so maybe BAE & RN shot them self in foot by building the B2's had they built 3 110 m Khraeef's they could have just gone on to build 10 more in two batches and sure the last batch of 5 could have been ASW centred

Had we got to 13 of these we could of had 8 in the Atlantic home fleet and 5 EoS with tasks like

LRG escort
TAPS
FRE
SNMG 1/2
Gulf based Escort

but we are where we are
In my first reply I should have linked what I personally was thinking was meant by the phrase "Heavy Corvette", was the Russian Steregushchiy-class corvette:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steregush ... s_corvette
The Steregushchiy-class corvette was what we had recently discussed, either here or on Escorts thread, and I felt that RN had little need of such a vessel.

Then I subsequently remembered earlier discussion with yourself on the idea of Light Frigate / Sloop / Corvette, being ASW focussed escort on Leander 110m hull, as a sort of modern reimagining of WW2 Flower Class Corvettes. That is why I apologised in my last post as I thought we might be talking at cross purposes.

I guess we need to be careful about using such phrases as "Heavy Corvette" without additional detail or explanation. Apologies for any confusion.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

Comparing ships to those the Russian are building does confuse the issue. The Russians cannot afford to build Frigates and Destroyers like those being built by western navies. Instead they have tried to cram the systems normally fitted to such ships on much smaller hulls. Thins has got to affect the range and endurance limiting where they will operate. They will be very effective in the littoral zone but far less so in "Blue water" areas. There they are relying on the submarine fleet.

Regarding new uses for the B2s and follow on ships, they could have an ASW role in a similar way that the USN used vessels based on commercial trawlers as TASS platform in the North Atlantic during the Cold War. They had little if any offensive capability but provided additional ASW cover. A modular or containerised TASS system that could be mounted on the OPVs when needed would be of value to the RN, with the bonus that they could carryout additional tasks such as those already being carried out by the B2s.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 28 Jan 2022, 23:19 Comparing ships to those the Russian are building does confuse the issue. The Russians cannot afford to build Frigates and Destroyers like those being built by western navies. Instead they have tried to cram the systems normally fitted to such ships on much smaller hulls. Thins has got to affect the range and endurance limiting where they will operate. They will be very effective in the littoral zone but far less so in "Blue water" areas. There they are relying on the submarine fleet.

Regarding new uses for the B2s and follow on ships, they could have an ASW role in a similar way that the USN used vessels based on commercial trawlers as TASS platform in the North Atlantic during the Cold War. They had little if any offensive capability but provided additional ASW cover. A modular or containerised TASS system that could be mounted on the OPVs when needed would be of value to the RN, with the bonus that they could carryout additional tasks such as those already being carried out by the B2s.



The B2's as are will be capable of operating up to three MCM/ASW USV's or as you say a containerised VDS if needed this being said when operating the former I would like to see them carry a UAV capable of carrying a I master radar

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

There’s been a lot of media recently on HMS Spey and Tonga, but not much on HMS Tamar apart from a press announcement a couple of weeks ago about contributing to North Korean sanctions monitoring.

Interesting to see then that according to AIS that 3 days ago it was between Japan and Taiwan in the East China sea. It’s good to see that they are getting around.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

HMS Trent boat handling. Interesting to see how the shackles are locked off. Very efficient.


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

HMS Spey and HMNZS Wellington. Two very similar sized OPVs, with similar weapon, but with a bit different "bias" of design.

HMNZS Wellington (85x14.0 m) has a hangar, can carry three 20ft ISO containers without using the flight deck, has a 15t crane at her stern. 10800 kW, 22 knots, two shafts, probably merchant standard hull (the sales point of Vard 7 design). 35 crew + 10 flight crew + 4 government personnel + 30 passengers, and some more accommodation. 2 RHIBs. 1900t FLD, 21 days endurance. 25 mm gun, and 2x 12.7 mm guns, EO FCS with no CMS, with only navigation radars.

HMS Spey (90x13.5 m) has no hangar, can carry two 20ft ISO containers without using the flight deck, has a 16t crane at the middle. 14700 kW, 25 knots, two shafts, probably OPV standard hull. 36 crew + 50 soldiers, and some more accommodation. 2 RHIBs. 2000t FLD, 35 days endurance. 30 mm gun and 2x minigun, 2 to 4 GP MGs, EO FCS with basic CMS and military-grade radar and navigation radars.

Interesting comparison, I think. Not saying which is better, but River OPVs apparently is a "sea going/endurance" weighted, while Protector-class OPVs are more aimed at multi-purpose in patrolling south pacific. Note its helicopter is mainly for remote-island re-supply and SAR, not much for war fighting.
Image
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 3):
Repulsewargame_insomniacLord Jim

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

Are the B2s able to refuel any helicopters that lands on its deck?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Lord Jim wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 01:04 Are the B2s able to refuel any helicopters that lands on its deck?
Looks like YES...

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2016/06/ ... ver-class/
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixwargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

They can also do the helicopter in flight refuelling as long as the Helicopter has a winch

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

A River B2 in SNMG2???

She became the member? Or just going along with? Not sure...

In both cases, it is a very good presence, though.


Post Reply