River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by S M H »

It would be like history repeating it self. The original fishery protection Jurra was leased in 1975. Giving the navy a off shore patrol boat. So good were the assessment of the hulls seakepping it was the base line for the future patrol boat for fishery protection. The.navy then modified the propulsion system and hull subdivision to produce the island class.

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7248
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 18:35
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.
Thanks for the long reply :thumbup:

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

You're welcome

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Caribbean Wrote:
“Which is exactly what Marine Scotland could use their vessels for - they carry the prefix MPV - for Marine Protection Vessels.”

“Motor” Protection Vessels actually.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

Scimitar54 wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 23:04 “Motor” Protection Vessels actually.
Nope
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/d ... essels.pdf
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

I think we need to remind our self what the B1 are and could be

River B1 80 x 13 meters speed 20 konts range 5500 nmi crew 30 plus 25 RM weapons 1 x 20mm , 2 x GPMG ( B1.5 1 x 30mm , 2 x miniguns , 5 x GPMG ) the B1's have a 20 x 13 working deck capable of taking upto one LCVP or 3 ORC

the B1's like all RN ships are under armed for the size of ship ( not that they need more for there role) but they capable of a lot more like they could be fitted with up to 57mm 4 x 12.7 mm , 2 miniguns they could operate camcopter style UAV's from the working deck they could also be fitted with mine racks for mine lying

also the B1's have deployed overseas three times twice on AP/N and once to the Med/ Aegean

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Caribbean Wrote:
Nope
Trust the Sturgeonites to get the use of nomenclature wrong ! Same sort of thing as “No RN ships in Scottish Waters” or “The UK Government has gone back on its word about building 13 x Warships in Scotland”. :mrgreen:

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 09:14 I think we need to remind our self what the B1 are and could be
Whilst I really like the River class there is a world of difference between the B1 and B2s. The B1s are true OPVs, whilst perhaps a 30mm (like ex HMS Clyde) would be preferable to a 20mm it is sufficient for it's role in UK waters, anything more would be a waste.

Having said that, using it's work deck to launch unmanned boats from is something that does have merit.
”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 »

Where are the 30mm mounts from the retired T-23s going?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 03:27 Where are the 30mm mounts from the retired T-23s going?
Good question - though the CVFs are missing six…
”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: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 19:41
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 09:14 I think we need to remind our self what the B1 are and could be
Whilst I really like the River class there is a world of difference between the B1 and B2s. The B1s are true OPVs, whilst perhaps a 30mm (like ex HMS Clyde) would be preferable to a 20mm it is sufficient for it's role in UK waters, anything more would be a waste.

Having said that, using it's work deck to launch unmanned boats from is something that does have merit.
I did address this in bold in my post above

the fact is with its working deck and 24 ton crane the B1's could support the new unmanned MCM kit , ORC and a lot more also with its 5500 nmi range it can go places yes it is a true OPV but so is the Samual Beckett class and they have a 76mm . No we don't need to fit anything more than a 20mm that this time however in context of what replaces the B1's for me it should be more B2's to allow if needed them to deploy over seas as we have seen with the B1's

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 09:19 …the Samual Beckett class … have a 76mm .
Yes, but it’s the best the Irish Navy has, so not surprised they’d want a medium gun on it.
Tempest414 wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 09:19No we don't need to fit anything more than a 20mm that this time however in context of what replaces the B1's for me it should be more B2's to allow if needed them to deploy over seas as we have seen with the B1's
I completely agree with this - there absolutely need to be a minor flexible class or classes that can deploy globally when a FF/DD isn’t appropriate or even possible.
”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 »

Replacing the B1s with further B2s or even a B3 makes perfect sense for the RN, especially now they are getting the maximum usage out of the existing B2s which are showing their true versatility. The RN gets a more global image and the fleet expands in a very cost effective manner. Maybe this idea of "Pods" could be included in a River B3, surely a low risk way of seeing how the idea actually works in practice? The only real questing for me is do we replace the B1s one for one or buy more?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 22:32 The only real questing for me is do we replace the B1s one for one or buy more?
The secondary role of the MCMs is was to be patrol vessels, so I’d argue for another class of 5. Let’s call them B3s which would then become the forward deployed force so that the B2s remain focused on Fisheries, FIPS and WIPS (APT(N))
”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 »

Repulse wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 22:48The secondary role of the MCMs is was to be patrol vessels, so I’d argue for another class of 5. Let’s call them B3s which would then become the forward deployed force so that the B2s remain focused on Fisheries, FIPS and WIPS (APT(N))
Not convinced.

I agree there will be a need for 2-4 Mine Countermeasure Logistic Support Vessels (depending on its size/capacity) to deploy the autonomous MCM kits. The vessels will also provide secondary patrol capability. And, combined with the "4 more OPVs", it is enough (*1)

Adding one River B2/B3 requires £80-100M. Five means £400-500M. I'd rather buy I-SSGW, improve T26 radar and add another 48 CAMM, increase CAMM on T31 and add a hull sonar on it.

I agree River B2 is doing great job. But, I also think RN is still facing significant lack of money. So I think a fleet of 5 River B2 is very good. Do RN really need much more?

But, I do agree current usage of River B2 looks "nice". I therefore prefer 2-3 cheap-cheap OPVs (£120-180M in total) to replace 3 River B1s in 2028, so that the 5 River B2s can deploy around the globe.

*1 : RN OPV fleet has grown from 4 hulls to 8 recently. An OPV can provide more than twice sea-going days than an MCMV, may be even "more than triple" for patrol. In other words, the "recently added 4 more OPVs" are already replacing 8-12 MCMVs equivalent on patrolling point of view.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 14:25 I therefore prefer 2-3 cheap-cheap OPVs (£120-180M in total) to replace 3 River B1s in 2028, so that the 5 River B2s can deploy around the globe.
If the Mine Countermeasure Logistic Support Vessels (MCLSVs) are capable of being secondary patrol platforms then I'd agree - my fear is that they will not be. I would still however build a (slightly) improved B2 version for the three vessels. The reason is that they can be used for the more demanding regions (EoS and Gib) releasing 3 B2 for home waters. It also, allows them to stay relevant as an option for future export orders.

Given that the MCLSVs are unfunded and will be probably in the order of £100mn each also, then of the estimated £2bn budget required for the T32, I would be allocating £1.1bn for 8 MCLSVs and 3 B2s, plus another £400mn for another T26 and then using the £1/2bn to maximise the T31/T26/T45 capabilities.
”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 »

Repulse wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 14:54If the Mine Countermeasure Logistic Support Vessels (MCLSVs) are capable of being secondary patrol platforms then I'd agree - my fear is that they will not be.
Why not? An MCMV is a 500-600t small FRP-hull, 12-14 kt slow vessel. If they can do patrol, a ~3000 t PSV-like MCLSV can surely do it?
I would still however build a (slightly) improved B2 version for the three vessels. The reason is that they can be used for the more demanding regions (EoS and Gib) releasing 3 B2 for home waters. It also, allows them to stay relevant as an option for future export orders.
Here I would like "the 3 OPVs for home waters" to be 2 cheap-cheap OPVs (actually, only 2 River B1s are used for patrol, another one is for training), and keep the 3 River B2s as is now.
Given that the MCLSVs are unfunded and will be probably in the order of £100mn each also, then of the estimated £2bn budget required for the T32, I would be allocating £1.1bn for 8 MCLSVs and 3 B2s, plus another £400mn for another T26 and then using the £1/2bn to maximise the T31/T26/T45 capabilities.
One idea, I agree. (but "£400mn for another T26" is not sure for me, too cheap, I'm afraid).

If the same £2bn budget for me,
- 3 MCLSVs (PSV-like vessel) for £300M
- 2 cheap-cheap OPVs to replace 3 River B1s for £120M
- and two more T26 for ~£1.6Bn
will be my choice :D

Just another idea...

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: 09 Dec 2021, 14:54
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 14:25 I therefore prefer 2-3 cheap-cheap OPVs (£120-180M in total) to replace 3 River B1s in 2028, so that the 5 River B2s can deploy around the globe.
If the Mine Countermeasure Logistic Support Vessels (MCLSVs) are capable of being secondary patrol platforms then I'd agree - my fear is that they will not be. I would still however build a (slightly) improved B2 version for the three vessels. The reason is that they can be used for the more demanding regions (EoS and Gib) releasing 3 B2 for home waters. It also, allows them to stay relevant as an option for future export orders.

Given that the MCLSVs are unfunded and will be probably in the order of £100mn each also, then of the estimated £2bn budget required for the T32, I would be allocating £1.1bn for 8 MCLSVs and 3 B2s, plus another £400mn for another T26 and then using the £1/2bn to maximise the T31/T26/T45 capabilities.
I have said before that I am happy with ordering between three-five of River Batch 3's being slightly bigger than B2's with enclosed helicopter / UAV hangar and a couple more autocannons (ideally 1*40-57mm and 2*20-30mm), for the B3's to be deployed EoS.

If I have understood you correctly, then we would end up with 14 frigates? 9*T26, 5*T31 and 0*T32?
That still leaves the escort fleet incredibly stretched. If the T26's are going to be priotised to protecting the 2 CSG, and any remaining doing ASW patrols in the North Atlantic, that would leave just 5*T31 to cover the lower intensity missions in Carribean, Med, South Atlantic, Gul and Indian Ocean and Pacific. That is a lot of ocean for 5 ships to cover!!

The T31's were being built to a fixed budget of just over £250m. I thought currently that T32's were expected to be like T31 batch 2's - i.e I would assume that being built at similar cost. Not sure where the £2bn cost comes from?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

£2bn is just an gu-estimate based on £400 per unit for a T31 based on a 5 unit class.
”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

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: 09 Dec 2021, 17:45 £2bn is just an gu-estimate based on £400 per unit for a T31 based on a 5 unit class.
So if the actual Budget for 5*T32's is the same as current estimate for 5*T31's i.e. 5*£250m = £1.25bn,
then you are £750m short on your investment plans..

Then again it is all paper money until we have more concrete information on what the T32 will be.
But that is veering off topic re Riiver Class.

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: 09 Dec 2021, 22:34
Repulse wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 17:45 £2bn is just an gu-estimate based on £400 per unit for a T31 based on a 5 unit class.
So if the actual Budget for 5*T32's is the same as current estimate for 5*T31's i.e. 5*£250m = £1.25bn,
then you are £750m short on your investment plans..

Then again it is all paper money until we have more concrete information on what the T32 will be.
But that is veering off topic re Riiver Class.
Program cost for 5 T31 is £2B (or "£400 per unit for a T31" on average).

The "£1.25B" is just the amount of contract with Babcock. It does not include many things (such as CAMM integration). Typical Smoke and Screen, actually... Ref: NAO report.

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 three Bays due to be replaced by the MRSS maybe they could be kept on as motherships for forward deployed MCM operations. Their role would be to move to a friendly or allies port and provide MCM cover for a given area, rather like the one in the Gulf now.

To replace the B1 Rivers, I think we need a modular platform whole base hull is cheap, but to which various tool boxes could be added such as MCM. Therefore in its base form is would be OPV in UK waters but they would give the RN options dependant on what other assets were and what their availabity was like. Their levels of construction would be much more like the B1s than the B2s and would hopefully cost no more than the former to build. The various Tool Boxes could be purchased as and when funding is available and could be stored ashore or on the forward deployed Bays, as they would be available for overseas usage it the situation demanded it. One of the Modules would be to provide accommodation of additional Personnel, whilst another would cover UAVs. One could even by a TASS with a second module containing the controlling hardware. As I said above, this type of platform would be an ideal low cost and risk proving ground for the idea of "Pods".

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 15:12
Repulse wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 14:54If the Mine Countermeasure Logistic Support Vessels (MCLSVs) are capable of being secondary patrol platforms then I'd agree - my fear is that they will not be.
Why not? An MCMV is a 500-600t small FRP-hull, 12-14 kt slow vessel. If they can do patrol, a ~3000 t PSV-like MCLSV can surely do it?
I would still however build a (slightly) improved B2 version for the three vessels. The reason is that they can be used for the more demanding regions (EoS and Gib) releasing 3 B2 for home waters. It also, allows them to stay relevant as an option for future export orders.
Here I would like "the 3 OPVs for home waters" to be 2 cheap-cheap OPVs (actually, only 2 River B1s are used for patrol, another one is for training), and keep the 3 River B2s as is now.
Given that the MCLSVs are unfunded and will be probably in the order of £100mn each also, then of the estimated £2bn budget required for the T32, I would be allocating £1.1bn for 8 MCLSVs and 3 B2s, plus another £400mn for another T26 and then using the £1/2bn to maximise the T31/T26/T45 capabilities.
One idea, I agree. (but "£400mn for another T26" is not sure for me, too cheap, I'm afraid).

If the same £2bn budget for me,
- 3 MCLSVs (PSV-like vessel) for £300M
- 2 cheap-cheap OPVs to replace 3 River B1s for £120M
- and two more T26 for ~£1.6Bn
will be my choice :D

Just another idea...
I question the secondary patrol ability of the MCMs/MCLSVs. The Hunts have a speed of - what 16 knots? And they're plastic. North Sea Platform Supply vessels operate around 10 knots. Frankly I think the later is what MCLSV should be - robust, cheap as chips and can be bought now, not some 100million gold plated quasi frigate.

Here's a link :
https://grs.group/grs-offshore-renewabl ... e-results/

4,900 t PSV for sale for 4.3 million USD. Buy 3-4 of them, fit military grade comms kit and we're in business.

I'm also sceptical of the MCM capabilities of River batch 1s / their replacements. The systems are already quite large and they're only going to get bigger. As you say I'd suggest a direct replacement with 80m Vard based design for home waters constabulary including fishery protection, 30mm gun max or even a straight carry over of the 20mm. Shouldn't be more than 50million GBP each based on the Babcock contract with Irish Naval Service. River B2s would be way over the top for home waters IMHO unless we reallyare about to go to war with France.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 09 Dec 2021, 15:30 that would leave just 5*T31 to cover the lower intensity missions in Carribean, Med, South Atlantic, Gul and Indian Ocean and Pacific
But for the Carribean a B2 River and a RFA during hurricane season is sufficient. There is no need for a frigate no matter how light.

The South Atlantic is more complex, the threat is higher in terms of Argentina's ambitions, but their capabilities are v.limited and again a B2 River is a good answer as it remains at the constabulary level (and cannot be criticized as raising the tensions in the region).

Where I believe more is required is anything in the Eastern Med and EoS, though if China continues with ambitions to build a naval base in the west of Africa. My view is that the best approach for these regions is to have generally an unobtrusive presence, capable of training and surveillance and covert SF level ops, but backed by CSG / SSN globally deployable war fighting capabilities. Again, a slightly enhanced B2 River with a small hangar / mission bay for me coupled with the Survey ships is ok.

There is an argument that the RN should contribute frigates to global naval standing groups, but I don't believe that to be a priority. Being present and regularly deploying the CSGs to these regions IMO gives a bigger influence than draining resources on a frigate that would need to withdrawl at the first sign of a significant threat.
”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: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

maybe 4 Fassmer 80 OPV's would be a good fit the last ones where built for 54 million dollars each the fassmer 80 has a range of 8000+ nmi at 12 konts and top speed of 22 knots has a flight deck & hangar crew of 30 to 60 has 2 boat bays plus a stern ramp and can carry 2 containers under the flight deck they also do a 90 meter which has 4 boat bays and a 27 knot top speed

Post Reply