River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

We have all seen photographs of the B2s having ISO containers on their deck. I wonder could the flight deck be have attachment point and the wiring for containerised mission kits to be carried if needed. Imagine a B2 having one ISO containing a Towed Array and the second having the electronics and consoles for the operators allow the B2 to operate as Long Array TASS boats in the North Atlantic as a wartime mission. What about acting as a Minelayer with a ISO based launching system that includes the mines and a B2 carrying two such containers. The next obvious one would be to act as a littoral MCM mothership for say two unmanned platforms and having their control centre being in an ISO. Maybe the B2s are too small for the above but such roles could be given to a larger B3 possibly?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

I would say the B2's can do all that right now we know it can carry 2 x ORC or 2 x MCM USV's we know it can carry and operate 2 x Camcopter UAV's I would say it could carry mine laying gear the same as the B'1s . I would say both the B1's and B2's could be fitted with containerized TAS for coastal ASW

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

I am beginning to believe that the idea developed in the 1990s for the RN to have three levels of warship is both what is developing and what should be embraced. The T-26, T-45 and its successor the T-83* would cover level 1, the T-31 and T-32 would cover level 2 and the B2 Rivers and a possible B3, built instead of the T-32, would be level 3, The Rivers would be treated as multirole platforms as mentioned previously. Can some work out how many B3 Rivers we could roughly get instead of 5 T-32s. I know both are hypothetical vessels but if we could get two B3 Rivers per T-32 or better I think that could be the way forward for the RN. It would retain its top tier warfighting capability with the Carreir Strike Group, have the T-31s for forward presence in medium risk areas and the Rivers for Forward deployment in low Risk regions, plus carrying out MCM duties and other tasks supporting the first two groups as well by themselves. Having the B3s as a truly modular version of the B2 would be a good start.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacJensy

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

if we say type 32 will cost the same as type 31 at 380 million per ship it then depends what you want fitted on a B3 if we say we want a B3 to be 110 meters armed with 1 x 57mm and 1 x 40mm , 4 x 12.7mm and have a mission bay that can take a helicopter and 2 x MCM USV's plus a flight deck for a Merlin if we also say we want it to have a low cost 3D radar and good CMS then we are looking at 180 million per ship but it wont be a frigate so the way to go would be to build 3 more type 31's bring the class to 8 ships and 5 B3's for the type 32 money

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 23 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Agree that the pre-SDSR 2010 three tier (C1, C2 and C3) escort structure holds weight.

However, back in the early 2000’s we were still talking about global COIN and stability which was the main C2 role. Countering Russia and China are now top priority, so this role should come part of the C3 requirements and the C2 should be focused on a real tier 2 ASW/ASuW escort role.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Jensy
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 21:26 Agree that the pre-SDSR 2010 three tier (C1, C2 and C3) escort structure holds weight.

However, back in the early 2000’s we were still talking about global COIN and stability which was the main C2 role. Countering Russia and China are now top priority, so this role should come part of the C3 requirements and the C2 should be focused on a real tier 2 ASW/ASuW escort role.
The integrated review is clear we are countering Russia we are engaging with China.


“The precondition for Global Britain is the safety of our citizens at home and the security of the Euro-Atlantic region, where the bulk of the UK’s security focus will remain. As we look further afield, the future success of Global Britain requires us to understand the precise nature and extent of British strengths and the integrated offer we bring in other parts of the world. It is an approach that puts diplomacy first.

The UK respects the people, culture and history of Russia. However, until relations with its government improve, we will actively deter and defend against the full spectrum of threats emanating from Russia. Through NATO, we will ensure a united Western response, combining our military, diplomatic and intelligence assets in support of collective security. We will uphold international rules and norms and hold Russia to account for breaches of these, working with our international partners, as we did after the Salisbury attack.

We will require a robust diplomatic framework for this relationship that allows us to manage disagreements, defend our values and preserve space for cooperation where our interests align. China is an increasingly important partner in tackling global challenges like pandemic preparedness, biodiversity and climate change. We will continue to pursue a positive economic relationship, including deeper trade links and more Chinese investment in the UK.”

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 61 times
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 14:57 I am beginning to believe that the idea developed in the 1990s for the RN to have three levels of warship is both what is developing and what should be embraced. The T-26, T-45 and its successor the T-83* would cover level 1, the T-31 and T-32 would cover level 2 and the B2 Rivers and a possible B3, built instead of the T-32, would be level 3, The Rivers would be treated as multirole platforms as mentioned previously. Can some work out how many B3 Rivers we could roughly get instead of 5 T-32s. I know both are hypothetical vessels but if we could get two B3 Rivers per T-32 or better I think that could be the way forward for the RN. It would retain its top tier warfighting capability with the Carreir Strike Group, have the T-31s for forward presence in medium risk areas and the Rivers for Forward deployment in low Risk regions, plus carrying out MCM duties and other tasks supporting the first two groups as well by themselves. Having the B3s as a truly modular version of the B2 would be a good start.
Sounds good. So long as decent sized VLS silos are fitted for T31/T32 so that they can be fielded for high intensity level 1 assignments in an emergency.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 23 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 22:37 The integrated review is clear we are countering Russia we are engaging with China.
In my view there is no doubt that we are countering the military power of China - we may be looking at opportunities to engage diplomatically and in trade, but when we are looking at the structure of the RN the former is true.

The UK needs to engage through a position of maximum (possible) strength and clarity of purpose, otherwise it will not be taken seriously - it shouldn’t repeat the mistakes of the past, like the EU still seems to be trying to do with both China and Russia.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 08:33
SW1 wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 22:37 The integrated review is clear we are countering Russia we are engaging with China.
In my view there is no doubt that we are countering the military power of China - we may be looking at opportunities to engage diplomatically and in trade, but when we are looking at the structure of the RN the former is true.

The UK needs to engage through a position of maximum (possible) strength and clarity of purpose, otherwise it will not be taken seriously - it shouldn’t repeat the mistakes of the past, like the EU still seems to be trying to do with both China and Russia.
I doesn’t appear to be the view of government.

The RN is not in anyway shape or form structured to counter China.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Defiance

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 815
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 22 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Defiance »

SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 08:52 I doesn’t appear to be the view of government.
Indeed. Lots of the talk in the IR is certainly less assertive about China than Russia
China: we will do more to adapt to China’s growing impact on many aspects of our lives as it becomes more powerful in the world. We will invest in enhanced China-facing capabilities, through which we will develop a better understanding of China and its people, improving our ability to respond to the systemic challenge that China poses to our security, prosperity and values - and those of our allies and partners. We will continue to pursue a positive trade and investment relationship with China, while ensuring our national security and values are protected. We will also cooperate with China in tackling transnational challenges such as climate change.
The UK respects the people, culture and history of Russia. However, until relations with its government improve, we will actively deter and defend against the full spectrum of threats emanating from Russia. Through NATO, we will ensure a united Western response, combining our military, diplomatic and intelligence assets in support of collective security. We will uphold international rules and norms and hold Russia to account for breaches of these, working with our international partners, as we did after the Salisbury attack. We will also support others in the Eastern European neighbourhood and beyond to build their resilience to state threats. This includes Ukraine, where we will continue to build the capacity of its armed forces.
It isn't neccesarily buddy-buddy about China, but it's definitely much softer in tone
These users liked the author Defiance for the post:
SW1

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 23 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 08:52 I doesn’t appear to be the view of government.

The RN is not in anyway shape or form structured to counter China.
I completely agree the scale / approach of the counter is different between the two. However, I judge HMG by their actions, rather than wording at a point in time. SDRs are virtually outdated at the point they are printed.

Sending the CSG and through AUKUS collaborating on SSNs are clear statements of intent to be part of a multinational effort to counter Chinese aggression. Doesn’t mean we need a Cruiser Squadron parked in Singapore - just the ability and intent to project power at distance, coupled with lower end forward presence.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 13:11
SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 08:52 I doesn’t appear to be the view of government.

The RN is not in anyway shape or form structured to counter China.
I completely agree the scale / approach of the counter is different between the two. However, I judge HMG by their actions, rather than wording at a point in time. SDRs are virtually outdated at the point they are printed.

Sending the CSG and through AUKUS collaborating on SSNs are clear statements of intent to be part of a multinational effort to counter Chinese aggression. Doesn’t mean we need a Cruiser Squadron parked in Singapore - just the ability and intent to project power at distance, coupled with lower end forward presence.
AUKUS is certainly an intent to show the UK will provide its longest and most trusted friends with the technology to protect themselves as they do with information for mutual benefit. We will have to agree to disagree on the CSG it certainly sailed a long way but it was power projection with very very small p for a very considerable cost.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

Having two Rivers operating out in the Indo Pacific region is really as far as the RN should go with its forward presence there. IT shows the UK has a commitment to the region, provides allied navies a view of how the RN operate and besides just showing the flag they can co-operate with allied navies in constabulary duties. This is really all tat is affordable for the RN and I have severe doubts about the forward presence of a LRG in the same area. Sending the Carrier Group East every few years show our allies and other nations what the RN can bring to the table if needed and the same should be done with the LRGs, deploying one east every so often. In the meantime the LRG would remain in or around the Gulf, with an escort of two T-31s as a minimum.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
Repulsewargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 23 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 16:44 Having two Rivers operating out in the Indo Pacific region is really as far as the RN should go with its forward presence there. IT shows the UK has a commitment to the region, provides allied navies a view of how the RN operate and besides just showing the flag they can co-operate with allied navies in constabulary duties. This is really all tat is affordable for the RN and I have severe doubts about the forward presence of a LRG in the same area. Sending the Carrier Group East every few years show our allies and other nations what the RN can bring to the table if needed and the same should be done with the LRGs, deploying one east every so often.
I would agree with this, though I would add an Echo and a RFA Tanker (for HADR) to the mix spanning the Pacific and Indian Oceans. We are talking about <£500mn of kit and a @£100mn annual running cost - good value for money.

This plus biannual visits from a CSG, occasional sightings of an Astute, along with similar regular LRG visits is sufficient.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 23 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 16:33 We will have to agree to disagree on the CSG it certainly sailed a long way but it was power projection with very very small p for a very considerable cost.
I’d say it’s “p” that continues to become more significant as more F35Bs come online. Whilst not a main player compare to the USN and JMSDF, the RN CSG/SSNs could integrate with the RAN to make a significant overall contribution.
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

SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 16:33
Repulse wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 13:11
SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 08:52 I doesn’t appear to be the view of government.

The RN is not in anyway shape or form structured to counter China.
I completely agree the scale / approach of the counter is different between the two. However, I judge HMG by their actions, rather than wording at a point in time. SDRs are virtually outdated at the point they are printed.

Sending the CSG and through AUKUS collaborating on SSNs are clear statements of intent to be part of a multinational effort to counter Chinese aggression. Doesn’t mean we need a Cruiser Squadron parked in Singapore - just the ability and intent to project power at distance, coupled with lower end forward presence.
AUKUS is certainly an intent to show the UK will provide its longest and most trusted friends with the technology to protect themselves as they do with information for mutual benefit. We will have to agree to disagree on the CSG it certainly sailed a long way but it was power projection with very very small p for a very considerable cost.
Jeez I didn’t realise that a day at sea gets more expensive after you transit the Suez canal. I guess we paid 6 billion for a harbour ornament. Small power projection? It was massive. Historians may judge it may even have tipped the power balance calculations in terms of a potential invasion of Taiwan. If so it’s more important than anything we’ve done since 1940.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 815
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 22 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Defiance »

SD67 wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 23:21 Jeez I didn’t realise that a day at sea gets more expensive after you transit the Suez canal. I guess we paid 6 billion for a harbour ornament. Small power projection? It was massive. Historians may judge it may even have tipped the power balance calculations in terms of a potential invasion of Taiwan. If so it’s more important than anything we’ve done since 1940.
You're not serious, are you?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1276
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 18 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

SD67 Wrote,
If so it’s more important than anything we’ve done since 1940.
Substitute “1972” or “1982” (whichever is your preference) for “1940” and there would be no doubt about that statement. :mrgreen:

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 815
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 22 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Defiance »

We should probably move this out of the OPV thread, we're way OT at this point
These users liked the author Defiance for the post (total 2):
Repulsedonald_of_tokyo

SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

Apologies for the dragging to the right - from OPVs to WW3 in one thread

SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

Defiance wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 08:17
SD67 wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 23:21 Jeez I didn’t realise that a day at sea gets more expensive after you transit the Suez canal. I guess we paid 6 billion for a harbour ornament. Small power projection? It was massive. Historians may judge it may even have tipped the power balance calculations in terms of a potential invasion of Taiwan. If so it’s more important than anything we’ve done since 1940.
You're not serious, are you?
Absolutely serious. HMS Richmond was the first ship in years to sail through the Taiwan straight, and HMS QE's airgroup were the first 5th generation Western fighters to come within range of the Island. Message sent.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 19:40
SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 16:33 We will have to agree to disagree on the CSG it certainly sailed a long way but it was power projection with very very small p for a very considerable cost.
I’d say it’s “p” that continues to become more significant as more F35Bs come online. Whilst not a main player compare to the USN and JMSDF, the RN CSG/SSNs could integrate with the RAN to make a significant overall contribution.
As I have said time and time again CANZUK battle group made up of

1 x UK Carrier
1 x Aus LHD
2 x Bay class 1 Aus , 1 UK
4 x Destroyers 2 Aus & 2 UK
8 x Frigates 3 Can , 2 Aus , 1 NZ , 2 x UK
1 x SSN UK
4 x SSK 2 Can , 2 Aus
2000 x Troops

deployed to the South edge of the SCS with a Joint US / Japan battle group in the centre and a Joint US / S Korean group to the North this is doable today and should be tested in 2023

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4265
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 26 times
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 11:08As I have said time and time again CANZUK battle group made up of
....
You have not mentioned even a single word of River B2 here, the topic of this thread (although interesting, it shall move to escort thread).
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Repulse

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

However it is in context to the discussion if not the thread

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4265
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 26 times
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 12:36 However it is in context to the discussion if not the thread
Sorry I was not saying it only for your post. All the discussion shall better go to escorts thread. It is also better for tracking the discussion....

Back on River OPVs.

HMS Tamar had her crew rotated at the year end of 2021. At X'mas there were all three "watches" in Hawaii, and I guess now two remaining, in normal condition. HMS Spey even changing the commander, from Lt Cdr Ben Evans to Cdr Mike Proudman. Now HMS Tamar's commanding officer is Cdr Teilo Elliot-Smith. So both OPVs of the small "Pacific" flotilla of RN are commanded by Cdr? Interesting.



These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply