River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 16:16 For me, the "up-armed River B2" (without hangar) can be used in Persian Gulf, Oman, or Singapore together with T31.

Note that there are many many tasks a helicopter is NOT needed = when the land-based air covers are possible. In relatively calm Persian/Oman gulf, a 90m-long ship is good enough. If with 57 mm gun with 3P/Alamo ammo, the up-armed River B2 can provide "almost a half capability" of a T31 (except for ASM defense). And of course, a River B2 (even up-armed) can be "at sea" much longer than a T31.

An up-armed River B2 can cover 2/3 of a year at sea, and a T31 1/3-1/2 a year. It will be a good "flotilla".

So, if patrolling the Persian gulf or Singapore district against "militia" level threat becomes more important, up-armed River B2 may be a good option. And, as such, even without such needs, up-armed River B2 will make a good showcase for export. A mini-T31? :D
Would one single gun, even a 57mm, have sufficient rate of fire to deal with all the fast patrol boats / RIB / drones that increasingly likely to encounter in those areas? Hence why my preference for those sepcific areas is to have a couple of smaller secondary autocannon where the rate of fire is important.

Thus for me a couple of secondaty 30mm / 20mm would be benefical, and for those medium intnsity areas like Bahrain / Oman / Singapore where potential for things flaring hotter, I also quite like the option of 5-pack Martlett launcher added too.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:10 I don't see it as a bad thing to have, when new General Purpose Frigates finished building, to have one GP Frigate apiece in each of the following locations to cover overseas territories / significant shipping lanes…
I can see the point but argue that it’s window dressing / flag waving politics only. What are we expecting the frigates to do? The RN is and likely will always be too weak to influence any significant events outside of a SSN/CSG deployment, a T31 just makes a nice target.

Now if we are saying that in addition to the two RN CSGs we will operate with the US and Australians in their “CSGs” then I understand, but the last ship I would put there is a T31 as currently defined… a T26 would be a very different story.
”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 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:29If you paint said Vard-7 80/85/90 in Coastguard colours and not RN vessels, then that could be fine. But if they are to be comissioned into RN then they need to be built to better than merchent shipping standards.
Thanks for response.

Why no merchent shipping standard hulls? HMS Echo/Enterprise are Vard 9 design, basically a merchant ship hull. No difference. EEZ/Fishery OPV will never be used in harms way, similar to the Echo class. It is cheap to buy and operate, and can do EEZ/Fishery tasks the same as a River B2 can.
The T31 are supposed to be 5,700 t and just shy of 140m long. The River B2's are 2,000 t and just over 90m long. There is ample difference in size / length to have a River B3 to be between the two.

I want any potential B3's to have an enclosed hangar and slightly upgraded weapons. Something like 1*40mm and *20mm / 30mm rather than one sole 30mm. Should be abe to fit that in with say an extra 10m length and maybe 200-300 t. i.e. roughly half the size and 40m shorter than T31.

There is still clear daylight between such a potential B3 and T31 GP Frigate, especially if T31 themselves get properly uparmed themselves. And such potential B3 would be able to handle more havily armed pirates.
Understandable point, but I have a different point of view.

If you read the T31RFI document, the requirement described there is quite near what you described as River B3.
T31 requirement:
- 110 m long, 4000t-ish, frigate standard hull (with exception allowed).
- a 57 mm or larger gun, 1 Wildcat+ helicopter, 4 boat bays, 4+ containers, CIWS or anti-air missile (in other words, SeaCeptor FFBNW is ok), hull-sonar FFBNW, with simple CMS
With this requirement, the selected T31 was
- 140 m long, 6000t-ish hull with frigate standard
- a 57 mm, two 40 mm, 1 up-to-Merlin helicopter, 3 boats, 6 containers, 12-CAMM, with mid-level CMS.

Yes the resultant T31 is large, just much larger than required. If we list the requirement for (River B3) "enlarged OPV", it will look not much different from that of T31 RFI. Less guns, no anti-air missile, and maybe OPV-standard hull, with 3000t size be ok.

For me, this "enlarged OPV" requirement has too much overlap with T31. Why not add 1 or 2 T31, in place? Omit CAMM and it will be <£200 per hull.

On the other hand, there are huge gap "below" River B2 (which is now filled with River B1). As a EEZ/fishery OPV, River B2 is high-end. Hull standard (although not known) will be higher than that of merchant ship, anti-air capable radar, 50+ soldiers accommodation, and even CMS. None of them is needed for fishery tasks.

This is the reason I opt for simpler Vard-7 "like" OPV for River B2 replacement. Even 2 hulls may work. So, it will be cheap. But, it will free-up two River B2s, which can be (relatively cheaply) up-armed, as discussed here (thanks to 57mm and 40mm guns already adopted for T31 and logistics exists *1).

(Seemingly) original plan to replace 3 River B1s with 2 of the 5 River B2 plan looks reasonable. But, building two EEZ/fishery OPV will be very cheap (~£120M?), and uparming River B2 as noted above will be also cheap (£20-30M in total?) and thus worth considering. On the other hand, if we add three "River B3s" as discussed, I'm not surprised of they cost £450-500M in total. Good if the design can find export, as a corvette. But, if purely for RN, I rather hope for 2 simple OPVs and using remaining ~£300M for improving T26, T45 and even T31 armaments.


*1: By the way, adopting many "smart" ammo for 30mm chain guns on MSI turret is another idea. Air burst rounds, and even proximity rounds are already tested, which will make the gun good against (cheap) drones, while keeping the option to shoot very cheap "dull" rounds for warning = every-day tasks.

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: 03 Dec 2021, 23:41Would one single gun, even a 57mm, have sufficient rate of fire to deal with all the fast patrol boats / RIB / drones that increasingly likely to encounter in those areas? Hence why my preference for those sepcific areas is to have a couple of smaller secondary autocannon where the rate of fire is important.
Yes and no. It will depend on the enemy's "mass". Please note it is the same for T31. Even with three 3P guns and many mini-guns, T31 can also be overwhelmed by hundreds of fast boats.

Also, the reason I didn't mentioned about smaller guns, is not because not needed, but because I think adding such guns when sent to such theater is by default. Also, the same could be applied to the River B2 as is now. So, I have no objection to the following part. Thanks
Thus for me a couple of secondaty 30mm / 20mm would be benefical, and for those medium intnsity areas like Bahrain / Oman / Singapore where potential for things flaring hotter, I also quite like the option of 5-pack Martlett launcher added too.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:29 There is ample difference in size / length to have a River B3 to be between the two.
The export potential should not be overlooked. Keeping the drumbeats going when UK orders are scarce will be crucial to maintaining skills and help ensure production costs stay at an acceptable level.

A blue water capable OPV with excellent speed and endurance, a hanger to embark a medium sized helicopter as well as space for multiple ISO’s or RHIBs that can also be substantially armed if required should be a major export success for UK PLC.

Many rival OPV designs have some of these attributes but very few would have the full package like an enhanced River class.

However unless RN put one in the water, the potential will remain firmly on the drawing board.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

So what we know bout the B2's as fact is

1) All 5 are deployed over seas
2) 4 of the 5 have an Platoon of RM embarked and Forth has had an embarked army unit many times
3) The Brazilian B2's have carried out day and night testing of Camcopter operating 2 from a container
4) The B2's can operate all UK ribs up to 9.5 meters and can carry between 5 and 7 at a time
5) the B2's can be fitted with up to a 76mm main gun and 2 x 30mm guns
6) B2's can operate up to 300 days a year

So with all this right now today if we had the kit a B2 could pull in to port and load 2 x ORC fitted with 12.7mm and a container with 2 x Camcopter this would allow it to insert its primary weapon the RM Platoon with over watch and as said if we have a weapon like hero 120 it allows the RM using its ORC to strike targets up to 140+ km from the ship night and day

So there lots we can do to max out the B2 before we move on to a B3

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:29
The T31 are supposed to be 5,700 t and just shy of 140m long.
The River B2's are 2,000 t and just over 90m long.
There is ample difference in size / length to have a River B3 to be between the two.
I'm sure that's exactly the way the Navy decides on new ships :roll:

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:58
wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:10 I don't see it as a bad thing to have, when new General Purpose Frigates finished building, to have one GP Frigate apiece in each of the following locations to cover overseas territories / significant shipping lanes…
I can see the point but argue that it’s window dressing / flag waving politics only. What are we expecting the frigates to do? The RN is and likely will always be too weak to influence any significant events outside of a SSN/CSG deployment, a T31 just makes a nice target.

Now if we are saying that in addition to the two RN CSGs we will operate with the US and Australians in their “CSGs” then I understand, but the last ship I would put there is a T31 as currently defined… a T26 would be a very different story.
I know that both UK and US CSG's have used foriegn escorts this year. We have had Dutch frigate HNLMS Evertsen and Arleigh Burke-class USS The Sullivans with UK CSG21, and I believe Norwegain Frigate HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen has just left with USS Harry Truman's CSG8. Add in Australian and German contributuins to recent Pacific exercises then multi-national CSG's seems to be the way forward.

I agree that for UK, it will be the T45 and T26 that are best suited to contributing to UK or US CSG's.

I do think it is important for UK to have surface fleet assets in those areas I listed. As well as the Home Fleet we have 3 lots of British Overseas Territories in Gibralter, Carribbean and South Atlantic. The Carribean and South Atlantic both cover several territories some distance apart from each each other. You have got Bermuda, Anguilla, Montserrat and Cayman/Turks and Caicos/Virgin Islands. The latter you have Falklands, South Georgia and Ascension / St Helena / Tristan de Cunha.

Then when you consider British merchant shipping, the overseas bases of Singapore, Bahrain and Oman are important given the passage through geographical bottlenecks of Malacca Strait, Strait of Hormuz, and Gulf of Aden. You would nt want to waste T45 or T26 on anti-piracy patrols - T31 frigate and River B2's (and hopefully B3's) would be perfect for such missions. And in fact HMS Trent is doing exactly that in Gulf of Guinea as we speak, and HMS Montrose doing same in Persian Gulf.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Dec 2021, 02:20
wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:29If you paint said Vard-7 80/85/90 in Coastguard colours and not RN vessels, then that could be fine. But if they are to be comissioned into RN then they need to be built to better than merchent shipping standards.
Thanks for response.

Why no merchent shipping standard hulls? HMS Echo/Enterprise are Vard 9 design, basically a merchant ship hull. No difference. EEZ/Fishery OPV will never be used in harms way, similar to the Echo class. It is cheap to buy and operate, and can do EEZ/Fishery tasks the same as a River B2 can.
The T31 are supposed to be 5,700 t and just shy of 140m long. The River B2's are 2,000 t and just over 90m long. There is ample difference in size / length to have a River B3 to be between the two.

I want any potential B3's to have an enclosed hangar and slightly upgraded weapons. Something like 1*40mm and *20mm / 30mm rather than one sole 30mm. Should be abe to fit that in with say an extra 10m length and maybe 200-300 t. i.e. roughly half the size and 40m shorter than T31.

There is still clear daylight between such a potential B3 and T31 GP Frigate, especially if T31 themselves get properly uparmed themselves. And such potential B3 would be able to handle more havily armed pirates.
Understandable point, but I have a different point of view.

If you read the T31RFI document, the requirement described there is quite near what you described as River B3.
T31 requirement:
- 110 m long, 4000t-ish, frigate standard hull (with exception allowed).
- a 57 mm or larger gun, 1 Wildcat+ helicopter, 4 boat bays, 4+ containers, CIWS or anti-air missile (in other words, SeaCeptor FFBNW is ok), hull-sonar FFBNW, with simple CMS
With this requirement, the selected T31 was
- 140 m long, 6000t-ish hull with frigate standard
- a 57 mm, two 40 mm, 1 up-to-Merlin helicopter, 3 boats, 6 containers, 12-CAMM, with mid-level CMS.

Yes the resultant T31 is large, just much larger than required. If we list the requirement for (River B3) "enlarged OPV", it will look not much different from that of T31 RFI. Less guns, no anti-air missile, and maybe OPV-standard hull, with 3000t size be ok.

For me, this "enlarged OPV" requirement has too much overlap with T31. Why not add 1 or 2 T31, in place? Omit CAMM and it will be <£200 per hull.

On the other hand, there are huge gap "below" River B2 (which is now filled with River B1). As a EEZ/fishery OPV, River B2 is high-end. Hull standard (although not known) will be higher than that of merchant ship, anti-air capable radar, 50+ soldiers accommodation, and even CMS. None of them is needed for fishery tasks.

This is the reason I opt for simpler Vard-7 "like" OPV for River B2 replacement. Even 2 hulls may work. So, it will be cheap. But, it will free-up two River B2s, which can be (relatively cheaply) up-armed, as discussed here (thanks to 57mm and 40mm guns already adopted for T31 and logistics exists *1).

(Seemingly) original plan to replace 3 River B1s with 2 of the 5 River B2 plan looks reasonable. But, building two EEZ/fishery OPV will be very cheap (~£120M?), and uparming River B2 as noted above will be also cheap (£20-30M in total?) and thus worth considering. On the other hand, if we add three "River B3s" as discussed, I'm not surprised of they cost £450-500M in total. Good if the design can find export, as a corvette. But, if purely for RN, I rather hope for 2 simple OPVs and using remaining ~£300M for improving T26, T45 and even T31 armaments.


*1: By the way, adopting many "smart" ammo for 30mm chain guns on MSI turret is another idea. Air burst rounds, and even proximity rounds are already tested, which will make the gun good against (cheap) drones, while keeping the option to shoot very cheap "dull" rounds for warning = every-day tasks.
If we are using OPV for PURELY EEZ/fishery, then yes going for a merchant ship hull is fair enough. But they should be treated as (and painted as), Coastguard / border force rather than as a RN Warship. That will reduce the etndancy to be treated as a Warship.

What about anti-piracy patrols or dealing with Iranian militia? They are getting better armed with heavier MG and RPG. Those are missions that I would like to see either B2's being slightly uparmed or potential B3's introduced.

When you talk about HMS Echo/Enterprise, have either of those been used on anti-piracy operations? As survey ships they should be getting into locations where they are being shot at.

Re T31, I don't want to get too off topic. I think it was a good thing that the government was able to get them ordered on a fixed price contract, to avoid the almost imevitable price rises that UK MoD procurement seem to be liable to. I think it was a good thing that they were increased from 110m and 4,000 t to a bigger more flexible chassis. I think it is a bad thing that they were so lightly armed with 1*57mm and 2*40mm, especially as neither gun were previously in use in RN, and thus further complicating logistics support.

FFBNW makes me nervious. How long would it take to upgrade T31 to give them ability to defend themselves against attacks on land, sea, air or undersea? I don't expect T31 to have the level of either the anti-air of the T45 Destroyers or the level of anti-submarine of the T26 Frigates to be able to act in High Intensity Great Power conflicts against the best of Russian / Chinese navies. But as the T31 are currently due to be equipped they are a great big shiny box with insufficent weapons.

Again going back to the sheer scale of the geopgraphical locations I had suggested, I dont think it is overkill to have one T31 Frigate as well as one or two River B2's or B3's. Just think of the size of the South Atlantic from Falkland Islands and South Georgia up to Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha and then up to the Gulf of Guinea. Seems a big enough area to have two or three ships, especially given the likely availability of each vessel.

If you want to substitute 1 Frigate and 1-2 OPV with 1 Frigate and 2 Coastguard Cutters, I could live with that to patrol and police the various British Overseas Territories in Carribean and South Atlantic.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Dec 2021, 08:55
wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:29 There is ample difference in size / length to have a River B3 to be between the two.
The export potential should not be overlooked. Keeping the drumbeats going when UK orders are scarce will be crucial to maintaining skills and help ensure production costs stay at an acceptable level.

A blue water capable OPV with excellent speed and endurance, a hanger to embark a medium sized helicopter as well as space for multiple ISO’s or RHIBs that can also be substantially armed if required should be a major export success for UK PLC.

Many rival OPV designs have some of these attributes but very few would have the full package like an enhanced River class.

However unless RN put one in the water, the potential will remain firmly on the drawing board.
Agreed. Especially as we would need some smaller naval ship work to keep H&W Appledore open.
And export orders would help keep the costs to RN down if spreadover more hulls.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Ron5 wrote: 04 Dec 2021, 14:13
wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:29
The T31 are supposed to be 5,700 t and just shy of 140m long.
The River B2's are 2,000 t and just over 90m long.
There is ample difference in size / length to have a River B3 to be between the two.
I'm sure that's exactly the way the Navy decides on new ships :roll:
I was replying to a comment that a potential upgraded River B3 at around 100 m and 2,300 t would be too close to the T31's capabilities. My view is it should nt be one or the other - there is a clear use and requirement for both IMO.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me Type 31 getting the 57mm and 40mm is a good thing in that it closes the massive gap between the 30mm & the 114mm systems in service

Now this is never going to happen but once the 57mm and 40mm are in service the Navy could move gun systems around like it could take the 57mm off the type 31 and replace it with a 114mm Mk-8 or they could remove the 2 x 40mm's from type 31 and replace them with 2 x 30mm's and a Phalanx in both cases the removed gun system could be fitted to the B2's

A B2 with a 40mm or 57mm is always going to be better and a type 31 fitted with a 114m in place of the 57mm or 2 x 30mm and phalanx in place of the two 40mm's is still going to be a good ship

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Dec 2021, 08:55
wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:29 There is ample difference in size / length to have a River B3 to be between the two.
The export potential should not be overlooked. Keeping the drumbeats going when UK orders are scarce will be crucial to maintaining skills and help ensure production costs stay at an acceptable level.
Completely agree - but another important aspect is geopolitics. In the new multi-player Great Game, China is spreading significant influence through selling new warships with cheap finance, not only getting things in return (basing rights) but also becoming the key partner in training and support. For a lot of countries a T31 is too much, having something that meets their requirement envelope and also gives the RN a good Littoral Warship is important to remaining at the table.
”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 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 01:32 If we are using OPV for PURELY EEZ/fishery, then yes going for a merchant ship hull is fair enough. But they should be treated as (and painted as), Coastguard / border force rather than as a RN Warship. That will reduce the etndancy to be treated as a Warship.
Thanks for response. I do not agree here. As UK is not going to stand up US-like coast guard, the EEZ/fishery patrol OPV shall be painted as RN ship. No problem here.
What about anti-piracy patrols or dealing with Iranian militia? They are getting better armed with heavier MG and RPG. Those are missions that I would like to see either B2's being slightly uparmed or potential B3's introduced...
No objection. Three River B1s are doing EEZ/Fishery tasks, NEVER for anti-pirates. Using River B2 in place of River B1 is the current basic plan, looks like. Thus, by replacing River B1s with simpler OPVs, the two River B2 to be used for EEZ/Fishery tasks, can remain in global deployment.
Re T31, I don't want to get too off topic. ... I think it is a bad thing that they were so lightly armed with 1*57mm and 2*40mm, especially as neither gun were previously in use in RN, and thus further complicating logistics support.
FFBNW makes me nervious. How long would it take to upgrade T31 to give them ability to defend themselves against attacks on land, sea, air or undersea?
I think the current T31 armament is "perfect fit" for the tasks described in T31 RFI. The requirement is similar to those we/you think to be covered by "River B3". As such, if T31 remains as it is, there is zero need for River B3. It is too much an overlap.

Needs for "River B3" arises only when T31 were to be significantly up-armed (like adding Mk 41 VLS with HyperSonic ASM, as 1st SL hoped for), and basic ASW capability added. And, even in that case,
- using a River B2 for EEZ/fishery is overkill.
- and less armed = original T31 could be a better answer than "River B3".
This is the reason I am not opting for River B3 (although I agree it is a very attractive idea).

I think you misunderstand my proposal that these simple OPVs shall be used as now River B2s are used. No, I am simply proposing to replace three River B1s with two (or three) simple OPVs, as EEZ/fishery tasks will not disappear.

"Two simple OPVs to replace River B1s" will keep the two River B2s currently at EoS to be used at Persian Gulf/Oman, to counter fast-boat swarm type "gray-zone" threats. If needed, these two River B2s can be (slightly) uparmed to be optimized for these tasks. This is my proposal. (not saying this is the right answer, just saying this is surely one of the logical candidate solutions).

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

@ Repulse China only really has the Type 056 and 054 to offer

Type 056 Corvette at 90 x 11 meters with a 25 knot speed and fitted with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 30 , 8 x SSAM , 4 x SSGW , flight deck no hangar

Type 054 Frigate 134 x 16 speed 27 knots fitted with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 30mm , 32 VLS , 8 x SSGW

If we take HTMS Prachuap K K which is a B2 she is 90 x 13 meters speed 25 knots fitted with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 30mm , 4 x SSGW , flight deck no hangar

And we all know that a A140 is 138 x 19 meters speed 30 knots and can be configured with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 32 VLS , 8 x SSGW if the customer wants

so China is not building or selling the magic ship that we are not with the B3 in fact they have sold 6 type 056 in the same time we have sold 5 B2's

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

Personally, I think that even the Vard 7s are overkill for the River B1 replacements - if you look at the vessels being used by Marine Scotland, as they are now known - they use three very basic hulls (even Ferguson's were able to build one!), two of 80m and one of 47m and they seem adequate to the task. I suspect that we need very little more for the Fisheries and SAR functions - maybe the ability to carry two sea boats instead of one and some containers, integral UAV facilities, a low-end Scanter or similar radar, some basic military comms gear and a 20mm (much of which could be recycled from the B1s). I suspect they they could be built for considerably less (maybe even half) the cost of the B1s, allowing us to build more than three, if needed, as well as, if needed, a similar number of a smaller class (around 50m) for "inshore" work.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 01:32
If we are using OPV for PURELY EEZ/fishery, then yes going for a merchant ship hull is fair enough. But they should be treated as (and painted as), Coastguard / border force rather than as a RN Warship. That will reduce the etndancy to be treated as a Warship.

What about anti-piracy patrols or dealing with Iranian militia? They are getting better armed with heavier MG and RPG. Those are missions that I would like to see either B2's being slightly uparmed or potential B3's introduced.

When you talk about HMS Echo/Enterprise, have either of those been used on anti-piracy operations? As survey ships they should be getting into locations where they are being shot at.

I think we're splitting hairs a bit when we start drawing lines between Coastguard vessel and Commissioned RN ship. We have ships in commission as small as 24 tonnes! And in terms of HMS Echo not going to places where they could be shot at - these days that would rule out much of the planet. The grey zone is expanding everywhere - whether in the Gulf, the straits of Malacca, West Africa and yes Home Waters. Don't want to politicise, but terrorists have been known to hide among civilians.

There's also undersea cables to consider. If a quarter of our electricity generation is going to be offshore - up to 100nm - it could be a tempting target for the the Russian equivalent of South Georgia scrap merchants to accidentally trip over a few wires.

Personally I think everything bigger than a 10 metre police launch should be navy. They can embed immigration officers or fishery protection officers if needed for specific missions but the Navy should be running the show.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 01:52
Ron5 wrote: 04 Dec 2021, 14:13
wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:29
The T31 are supposed to be 5,700 t and just shy of 140m long.
The River B2's are 2,000 t and just over 90m long.
There is ample difference in size / length to have a River B3 to be between the two.
I'm sure that's exactly the way the Navy decides on new ships :roll:
I was replying to a comment that a potential upgraded River B3 at around 100 m and 2,300 t would be too close to the T31's capabilities. My view is it should nt be one or the other - there is a clear use and requirement for both IMO.
I understand that's what you think but it's not at all clear to me, why you (and those folk that agree with you) think that way.

For the kind of taskings that would require additional (or indeed, any) armament, the Rivers will be replaced with T31s. Why would you want to take money away from the Type 31 (and follow ons) program to build more River derivatives? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Caribbean wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 12:16 Personally, I think that even the Vard 7s are overkill for the River B1 replacements - if you look at the vessels being used by Marine Scotland, as they are now known - they use three very basic hulls (even Ferguson's were able to build one!), two of 80m and one of 47m and they seem adequate to the task. I suspect that we need very little more for the Fisheries and SAR functions - maybe the ability to carry two sea boats instead of one and some containers, integral UAV facilities, a low-end Scanter or similar radar, some basic military comms gear and a 20mm (much of which could be recycled from the B1s). I suspect they they could be built for considerably less (maybe even half) the cost of the B1s, allowing us to build more than three, if needed, as well as, if needed, a similar number of a smaller class (around 50m) for "inshore" work.
I think two Vard-7 80/85/90 will be a good choice. But, I do agree it shall be made as cheap as possible. If we look at Irish navy Vard-7 80/90 designs, it only carries civilian level navigation radars (not even Scanter) and not-military-grade communication. Very basic vessels, they are. Of course, there is no need to carry 76mm gun.

Scottish FPV Jura has 17 crews and 18knot top speed. At least, 20+ knots speed will be needed. I am also not sure "17" crew is enough for the operation. Boarding operations will be significantly restricted? If ~20 crew (compared to ~30 in River B1) is OK, I think RN can simply build Vard-7 80 with that requirement. It is just a ship with merchant hull standard. Rearranging/optimizing "what is within the hull" can vary.

On the other hand, crew rotation, good accommodation, long sea-going days will be essential for this task. It may differ from Scottish FPV here.

Also, RN River B1s performs "Russia vessels following" as non-negligible portion of their task, and thus 20+ knots will be mandatory.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

I tend to agree and don't think they should be seen as "Fishery Protection Vessels", they're navy assets that perform a variety of presence / constabulary tasks in Home Waters, shadowing Russian ships is one. If they're Fishery Protection vessels then I guess they shouldn't be in Scottish waters and frankly I wouldn't want to depend on Nicola Sturgeon for keeping an eye on the majority of Britain's coastline.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SD67 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 12:36
wargame_insomniac wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 01:32
If we are using OPV for PURELY EEZ/fishery, then yes going for a merchant ship hull is fair enough. But they should be treated as (and painted as), Coastguard / border force rather than as a RN Warship. That will reduce the etndancy to be treated as a Warship.

What about anti-piracy patrols or dealing with Iranian militia? They are getting better armed with heavier MG and RPG. Those are missions that I would like to see either B2's being slightly uparmed or potential B3's introduced.

When you talk about HMS Echo/Enterprise, have either of those been used on anti-piracy operations? As survey ships they should be getting into locations where they are being shot at.
I think we're splitting hairs a bit when we start drawing lines between Coastguard vessel and Commissioned RN ship. We have ships in commission as small as 24 tonnes! And in terms of HMS Echo not going to places where they could be shot at - these days that would rule out much of the planet. The grey zone is expanding everywhere - whether in the Gulf, the straits of Malacca, West Africa and yes Home Waters. Don't want to politicise, but terrorists have been known to hide among civilians.

There's also undersea cables to consider. If a quarter of our electricity generation is going to be offshore - up to 100nm - it could be a tempting target for the the Russian equivalent of South Georgia scrap merchants to accidentally trip over a few wires.

Personally I think everything bigger than a 10 metre police launch should be navy. They can embed immigration officers or fishery protection officers if needed for specific missions but the Navy should be running the show.
What for you is the cut-off point between a ship and a boat? Personally many of the smaller RN Commissioned vessels I would consider as boats. They do essential work in terms of security of naval bases but they are boats nonetheless.

I am fine with OPV being built to merchant shipping standard if they are some sort of Coastguard (even if just for British Overseas Territories in Carribean / South Atlantic / Gibralter), not if they are commissioned as RN warship. If they are to be commissioned as RN Warship then they need to be built to higher standards than merchant shipping. Because if they are RN Warships then politicians will order them to be deployed into areas without necessarily considering their suitability.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Ron5 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 14:58
wargame_insomniac wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 01:52
Ron5 wrote: 04 Dec 2021, 14:13
wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 23:29
The T31 are supposed to be 5,700 t and just shy of 140m long.
The River B2's are 2,000 t and just over 90m long.
There is ample difference in size / length to have a River B3 to be between the two.
I'm sure that's exactly the way the Navy decides on new ships :roll:
I was replying to a comment that a potential upgraded River B3 at around 100 m and 2,300 t would be too close to the T31's capabilities. My view is it should nt be one or the other - there is a clear use and requirement for both IMO.

I understand that's what you think but it's not at all clear to me (and those folk that agree with you), why you think that way.

For the kind of taskings that would require additional (or indeed, any) armament, the Rivers will be replaced with T31s. Why would you want to take money away from the Type 31 (and follow ons) program to build more River derivatives? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Ok - look at the areas and distances involved. There are six different British Overseas Territories in the Carribean. They are roughly in a triangle with Bernuda in the north being 2,188km from Cayman island to the south west, and 1,749km from Montserrat to the south east, and 2,034 km between Cayman Island and Montserrat. Add in Anguilla and British Virgin Islands and Turks and Caicos Island, and you have huge spread of area that the RN is responsible for protecting their respective EEZ.

The lets look at the five different British Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic. There are 1,550 km between Falkland Islands and South Georgia, 3,427 km between Ascension Island and Tristan de Cunha, and a whopping 6,366 km between Falklands islands and Ascension Island.

My point is each of those locations are too huge to patrol with just one ship, especially if you include patrolling the western North Atlantic and up to the Gulf of Guinea as I had mentioned in my initial post. Similarly for Mediterranean we are responsible for policing Gibralter's EEZ but there is still 3,458 km between Gibralter and Akrotiri base in Cyprus.

I had to google those dsitances, just because I did nt want to give you incorrect figures.

So I 100% stand by my belief that we need two or three ships to patrol such huge areas. One or two OPV's for more littoral patrols cloer to coast, anti-drugs, policing, fishery protection and general patrolling the British Overseas Territories' EEZ. Then you have one T31 General Purpose Frigate to patrol each of Mediterranean, South Atlantic, and western North Atlantic, conducting anti-piracy, patrolling shipping lanes, operations with allied Navies and generally flying the White Ensign.

As I have said many times the five River B2's are perfect for doing the above in those locations. East of Suez though I mantain that we need better armed warhips than River B2's. We have naval bases in Bahrain, Oman and Singapore, patroling those 3 geographical bottlenecks of Horn of Africa, Straits of Hormuz and Malacca Straits, to patrol shipping lanes and conduct anti-piracy.

Add in keeping one General Purpose Frigate for home waters. How are RN going to be be able to do ALL the above with just five T31's five River B2's? I have said in previous posts that simply adding maybe three River B3's would help RN do all of the above.

If you dodn't understand that, then there is no point in my trying further to explain.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

In practical terms, we don’t have a Coastguard apart from the SAR service, the Navy are the only organisation that can run any real ship and the overseas territories are a long way away. A coastguard in charge of the Falklands? Flower class corvettes, Q ships, auxiliary Escort carriers were built to merchant standards, Call it a home waters squadron if you want

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 11:27
wargame_insomniac wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 01:32 If we are using OPV for PURELY EEZ/fishery, then yes going for a merchant ship hull is fair enough. But they should be treated as (and painted as), Coastguard / border force rather than as a RN Warship. That will reduce the etndancy to be treated as a Warship.
Thanks for response. I do not agree here. As UK is not going to stand up US-like coast guard, the EEZ/fishery patrol OPV shall be painted as RN ship. No problem here.
What about anti-piracy patrols or dealing with Iranian militia? They are getting better armed with heavier MG and RPG. Those are missions that I would like to see either B2's being slightly uparmed or potential B3's introduced...
No objection. Three River B1s are doing EEZ/Fishery tasks, NEVER for anti-pirates. Using River B2 in place of River B1 is the current basic plan, looks like. Thus, by replacing River B1s with simpler OPVs, the two River B2 to be used for EEZ/Fishery tasks, can remain in global deployment.
Re T31, I don't want to get too off topic. ... I think it is a bad thing that they were so lightly armed with 1*57mm and 2*40mm, especially as neither gun were previously in use in RN, and thus further complicating logistics support.
FFBNW makes me nervious. How long would it take to upgrade T31 to give them ability to defend themselves against attacks on land, sea, air or undersea?
I think the current T31 armament is "perfect fit" for the tasks described in T31 RFI. The requirement is similar to those we/you think to be covered by "River B3". As such, if T31 remains as it is, there is zero need for River B3. It is too much an overlap.

Needs for "River B3" arises only when T31 were to be significantly up-armed (like adding Mk 41 VLS with HyperSonic ASM, as 1st SL hoped for), and basic ASW capability added. And, even in that case,
- using a River B2 for EEZ/fishery is overkill.
- and less armed = original T31 could be a better answer than "River B3".
This is the reason I am not opting for River B3 (although I agree it is a very attractive idea).

I think you misunderstand my proposal that these simple OPVs shall be used as now River B2s are used. No, I am simply proposing to replace three River B1s with two (or three) simple OPVs, as EEZ/fishery tasks will not disappear.

"Two simple OPVs to replace River B1s" will keep the two River B2s currently at EoS to be used at Persian Gulf/Oman, to counter fast-boat swarm type "gray-zone" threats. If needed, these two River B2s can be (slightly) uparmed to be optimized for these tasks. This is my proposal. (not saying this is the right answer, just saying this is surely one of the logical candidate solutions).
Okay thanks for clarifying in case we were talking at cross purposes - if you are talking about purely replacing the River B1's for EEZ/fishery protection in UK waters, and only for UK waters, then I am fine with your suggestion.

I was trying to focus more on the British Overseas Terrirories in Carribbean, South Atlantics and Gibralter. And for those locations the River B2's are fine.

But for EoS, I want three - five uparmed River B3's, with one main gun of say 40mm - 57mm, a couple of secondary guns of say 20mm - 30mm (ideally with Martlett LMM), and an enclosed helicopter hangar.

Add in spreading the five T31 General Purpose Frigate around those seven locations (home waters, Carribbean, South Atlantics and Mediterranean, Bahrain/Oman/Singapore), and that frees up T45 + T26 to be used for high intensity operations facing Russia / China, protecting the two Carriers and also patrolling the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

SD67 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 16:05 don't think they should be seen as "Fishery Protection Vessels", they're navy assets that perform a variety of presence / constabulary tasks in Home Waters,
Which is exactly what Marine Scotland could use their vessels for - they carry the prefix MPV - for Marine Protection Vessels. They are civilian, so don't carry out marine constabulary tasks, but that would not be an issue for an RN crew.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 15:12 Scottish FPV Jura has 17 crews and 18knot top speed. At least, 20+ knots speed will be needed. I am also not sure "17" crew is enough for the operation. Boarding operations will be significantly restricted?
They are actually larger than the River B1 (84m by 13.1m, displacing c. 2,200 tonnes) and capable of 30 days endurance so they have plenty of internal volume and stores capacity to carry supernumeraries. They would need higher speed, agreed, but a hull of those dimensions should easily handle engines of the required power. The current crews manage to operate two boarding boats simultaneously, so it's clearly not an issue (I suspect that the 17 are simply the core crew required to operate the ship, just as the 30 on the B1 are the core crew and a separate contingent is carried to perform boarding tasks)

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that we should use those specific hulls, simply that the role (even escorting Russian ships in the Channel) only requires a basic hull, of which the Marine Scotland ships are an example.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply