River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Jun 2022, 09:42 I would say building 10 patrol boats something like the 62 meter Stan 6211 4 for the RN and 6 for Boarder force fit the RN boats with RWS 12.7 mm and 2 x GPMG
Many ideas can come. For me, Fishery protection and EEZ patrol is the main aim of River B1s, in which case good sea keeping in harsh water will be the key. Then, a simple Vard7-80 like or even an BAE OPV-80 (River B1 itself) can be a good replacement.

For migrant handling, I think Archer-class patrol vessel replacement could be merged with BF cutter. As noted, Damen stan 3307 or 4008 or 5509 could be good candidates. With "axe bow" design, these vessels are famous for having smaller shock compared to conventional boats at speed in high sea. Its lowish draft is also good for migrant handling.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

The thing for me is that the RN is and will be increasing in need of fleet of small MCM/Survey/ASW off board system motherships, alongside I’d add small amphibious platforms to support the FCF ambition of distributed ops. Adding to the requirement to provide coastal / near shore EEZ/Fisheries patrolling seems a small increment to me.

Looking at the big picture, I’d argue the RN needs a common platform of 20+ of these which can switch from role to role as the demand requires.

The platform itself has to be small (<=50m) to ensure it can operate in shallow and restricted waters. It needs to be lean on base crewing (<12) with the ability to host additional mission specific personnel (say up to 18). It needs to have a large work deck with a crane for small boats/USVs, capable of handling a couple of mission pods, and a small winch deck / UAV pad. It has to be cheap (<£20mn per unit) and has to have a reasonable range / endurance and a level of damage control and sensors / basic weapons.

I’d say variants of the Damen Fast Crew Supplier 4208 or the Strategic Marine 42m Gen 4 Fast Crew Boat.
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

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

I would say that there are three requirements to be addressed, not all resolved by a common design.

a) URNU replacement
b) Offshore patrol in Atlantic waters
c) General purpose design for offboard systems mothership/ command skills development/ inshore patrol

URNU replacement could be met by building 14 new 15m SEA-class boats, all with the Officer Training module. These have a standard crew of 3 or 4, but could carry extra crew, for extended patrols, using the bunks and facilities in the training module. They are said to be good in open waters, so should be capable of inshore patrol tasks in good conditions, .when not involved in URNU training.

Offshore patrol in Atlantic waters requires a ship of at least 75-80m, so a direct replacement for the RB1s (assuming that the RB2s remain allocated to overseas service). As Donald-san suggests, something like the VARD-80 could fill the role, though it could be even simpler, closer to the Scottish Fisheries MV Hirta. Helicopter and small boat handling facilities would be needed, however. I would hope for 4 or 5 of these

The General purpose design is, by its nature, a little more difficult to define - in general, I agree with @Repulse. Not sure about the overall length, but agree with the need for a large working deck, ability to carry PODS, un-crewed systems and range/ endurance requirements. I would add low freeboard/ rescue zones and reasonable speed (20kts or thereabouts). Again, not sure about numbers, but 10 would not be unreasonable.

I would give both the two larger designs 30mm ASCG and standard secondary weapons. Sensors should be similar to the current minehunters (so a Sharpeye equivalent) and they should also have a basic CMS and navigation/ mine avoidance sonar (maybe basic ASW for the OPV).

The SEA class boats would be unarmed and would have civilian mass-market sensors, unless specifically required for training. If they ever needed additional capabilities, it would probably be simpler to design a new module to accommodate that and swap out the training module.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

HMS Forth at Falkland island, for ceremonies to mark "40 years since the Falkland Islands were liberated".

from twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1536640803463905282
Image

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jeremy Quin MP visiting HMS Forth.


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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

From mobile.twitter.com/hms_tamar/status/1540594167692378113

HMS Tamar at sunny Darwin port. Beautiful tropical blue sky and sea.

Image
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Completely agree with Sir H on this - keep the B2s deployed as is, and build the T31s as real escorts to HVUs. Just need to build a few more to replace the B1s.

https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/?m=1
”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: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 07:32 Completely agree with Sir H on this - keep the B2s deployed as is, and build the T31s as real escorts to HVUs. Just need to build a few more to replace the B1s.

https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/?m=1
Have to say that article is a great articulation of why the vessels should not be there at all.

He states wanting to forge diplomatic links and gain influence with friendly governments that the most valuable work is when the ships are in ports. If this “ Will the members of the Government drive for an hour or more down to the container port for a reception? It is less likely than if a ship is moored alongside the harbour of the Capital” is there benefit then you may as forgo the boat and expand the embassy presence across the region and engage with people that make the policy, that would be a good place to start.

if you want to connect between the various countries of the regions do what all the people of the region do, get on a plane and fly between them, maybe offering favourable terms for the purchase of a350s or ba flights to London maybe a better use of funds.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

None of this should be seen in isolation and broader economic, political and military ties need to be part of a balanced package. However, the ability to be present on an enduring basis across a large region, bringing real value is where the B2s as part of the RN contribution hits the mark.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyowargame_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

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by jimthelad »

I would propose all B2's be modified (at little expense) to be able to accommodate a modular armament upgrade. This would involve a side sponson on each side of the bridge, fitting points for a telescopic retractable hangar, and also upgrade the existing AS/SS radar, and fit an additional 3 WMC to the bridge/ops room.

Therefore, each vessel could be retrofitted in theatre (in any reasonable small shipyard) following delivery by A400M any of the following (some or all):

. 57mm Bofors (non hull penetrating)
. 2x 30mm Sigma MCW
. 2 x 9 cell XLS in modular bolt on silo (up to 72 CAMM, Brimstone, SPEAR-3, SPEAR EW, Switchblade 200).
. 1 x rotary UAV or Wildcat.

This was proposed a while back in a similar form(can't find the link) and was estimated to cost about £7.8M for the refit and about £23M per kit. This would mean they could go from defence diplomacy to a very fighty littoral warfare ship in 1 week.
These users liked the author jimthelad for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacScimitar54

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 10:35
Repulse wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 07:32 Completely agree with Sir H on this - keep the B2s deployed as is, and build the T31s as real escorts to HVUs. Just need to build a few more to replace the B1s.

https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/?m=1
Have to say that article is a great articulation of why the vessels should not be there at all.
Disagree.

UK was so much "absent" in Pacific, so it was almost losing influence here. Sending HMS Spey and Tamar make a big difference.
It doesn't matter that much, if it is an OPV or a Corvette or a LPD or a Frigate. Most of the people there does not care. For example, OPV vs Corvette is difficult to distinguish.

OPV staying there is much more than a reception, not just embassy say hello. Its an asset which can work there, which can fly the Union Jack (white ensign), and in which UK has sovereignty. Local police can stop the Ambassador in peace, but OPV cannot be stopped in peace, because its free voyage is assured by international law. Stopping OPV shall cause a war against UK. Stopping Ambassador does not.

Big big difference.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Repulse

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 13:50
SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 10:35
Repulse wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 07:32 Completely agree with Sir H on this - keep the B2s deployed as is, and build the T31s as real escorts to HVUs. Just need to build a few more to replace the B1s.

https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/?m=1
Have to say that article is a great articulation of why the vessels should not be there at all.
Disagree.

UK was so much "absent" in Pacific, so it was almost losing influence here. Sending HMS Spey and Tamar make a big difference.
It doesn't matter that much, if it is an OPV or a Corvette or a LPD or a Frigate. Most of the people there does not care. For example, OPV vs Corvette is difficult to distinguish.

OPV staying there is much more than a reception, not just embassy say hello. Its an asset which can work there, which can fly the Union Jack (white ensign), and in which UK has sovereignty. Local police can stop the Ambassador in peace, but OPV cannot be stopped in peace, because its free voyage is assured by international law. Stopping OPV shall cause a war against UK. Stopping Ambassador does not.

Big big difference.
Diplomatic passports, diplomatic immunity and the sovereignty of an embassy are sacrosanct in international foreign relations. You need only look at the past year and scenes in the embassy’s of Afghanistan and Ukraine to see that.

An embassy by its nature is a location of presence and enduring relations with the people in power in a foreign country. Expanding those missions and the business and diplomatic engagement that flow from them would be what will count.

if the reason being given for the ships being there is diplomacy and getting close to the people with influence a la the same argument for a national flagship then we can agree to disagree as I think they offer little that can be achieved better by other means.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

jimthelad wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 11:12 I would propose all B2's be modified (at little expense) to be able to accommodate a modular armament upgrade. This would involve a side sponson on each side of the bridge, fitting points for a telescopic retractable hangar, and also upgrade the existing AS/SS radar, and fit an additional 3 WMC to the bridge/ops room.

Therefore, each vessel could be retrofitted in theatre (in any reasonable small shipyard) following delivery by A400M any of the following (some or all):

. 57mm Bofors (non hull penetrating)
. 2x 30mm Sigma MCW
. 2 x 9 cell XLS in modular bolt on silo (up to 72 CAMM, Brimstone, SPEAR-3, SPEAR EW, Switchblade 200).
. 1 x rotary UAV or Wildcat.

This was proposed a while back in a similar form(can't find the link) and was estimated to cost about £7.8M for the refit and about £23M per kit. This would mean they could go from defence diplomacy to a very fighty littoral warfare ship in 1 week.
Interesting idea, but it will never be so cheap, I'm afraid. For example, you need to significantly improve the CMS on River B2 to handle any of the "up to 72 CAMM, Brimstone, SPEAR-3, SPEAR EW, Switchblade 200". A dedicated good FCS will be needed for the 57mm gun.

Alternatively, I will just think (or dream) of
- thinking about adding kits made of 2x 20ft ISO container, and 2x 10ft ISO container, all could be mounted on the River B2's waist. The kit may be a UAS kit, or a COYOTE (or alike) anti-UAV UAV system (20ft as a hangar, and 10ft as the command modules).
- adding 30mm x 173mm airburst and proximity fused ammo (already available) for anti-UAV defense.
- adding "mount point" of LMM or StarStreak triple launcher on both sides of the bridge wing.
- adding options of increasing the 7.62mm miniGun mount point, so that, if needed, the RiverB2 can be armed with 6x 7.62mm miniGuns and a 30 mm cannon.

This option will require no significant modification to the River B2 hull, which will keep the base hull to be "cheap to operate". This is critically important, because "cheap to operate", " long sea going days" are the strong point of the OPVs.

Note that even added with those kits, River B2s will not be a war-fighter. But, it will be a drone-fighter and close-distance "gun boat" to some extent.

If more war-fighting is needed, another idea is to put a 20 mm CIWS mount in place of the two 10ft ISO containers on her waist. In this case, the up-armed River B2 will carry, 2x Phalanx CIWS, 1x 30mm cannon, 4x 7.62mm miniGuns.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

I thought the Sir H piece was either a satire or completely delusional. There’s a war brewing in the South China Sea and Humphreys talking about cocktail parties and water delivery to Pitcairn. We have the FPDA, an increasingly deep defence relationship with Japan, and around 5 million UK citizens living in the region. There’s a reason Australia is going for SSNs. Even something as simple as fishing rights has become weaponised - swarms of Chinese “fishing vessels” making regular incursions.
There should be a carrier and a T45 based in Singapore as of yesterday and we may just help avoid “Maritime Ukraine”

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SW1 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 14:37Diplomatic passports, diplomatic immunity and the sovereignty of an embassy are sacrosanct in international foreign relations. You need only look at the past year and scenes in the embassy’s of Afghanistan and Ukraine to see that.

An embassy by its nature is a location of presence and enduring relations with the people in power in a foreign country. Expanding those missions and the business and diplomatic engagement that flow from them would be what will count.
Sorry, I should have made it clear. OPV can steam as they want. Embassy can be PEACEFULLY stopped by local government. The sovereignty is allowed ONLY within the Embassy = cannot move. It is allowed in international law that the local police (even of small nations) lock the gate of the embassy "for safely reasons". No problem. But, stopping an OPV is technically very difficult for a small nation, and also NOT allowed in international law.

Thus, sovereignty on warship and sovereignty in embassy differs a lot.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SD67 wrote: 10 Jul 2022, 14:51 I thought the Sir H piece was either a satire or completely delusional. There’s a war brewing in the South China Sea and Humphreys talking about cocktail parties and water delivery to Pitcairn. We have the FPDA, an increasingly deep defence relationship with Japan, and around 5 million UK citizens living in the region. There’s a reason Australia is going for SSNs. Even something as simple as fishing rights has become weaponised - swarms of Chinese “fishing vessels” making regular incursions.
There should be a carrier and a T45 based in Singapore as of yesterday and we may just help avoid “Maritime Ukraine”
Hot war is only one type of the conflict. Sending a frigate equates to sending 6 to 10 OPVs in its man-power and cost, and still only gives upto ~150 sea-going days there. The 6-10 OPVs can provide 1500-2500 sea-going days. If it is against low-level ships (such as "fishing vessels"), which is better? Surely OPVs. If its is PLAN frigate, a frigate is needed there. It is all case-by-case. In other words, sending OPVs is far from meaningless, I think.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacCaribbean

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: 10 Jul 2022, 14:51 I thought the Sir H piece was either a satire or completely delusional. There’s a war brewing in the South China Sea and Humphreys talking about cocktail parties and water delivery to Pitcairn. We have the FPDA, an increasingly deep defence relationship with Japan, and around 5 million UK citizens living in the region. There’s a reason Australia is going for SSNs. Even something as simple as fishing rights has become weaponised - swarms of Chinese “fishing vessels” making regular incursions.
There should be a carrier and a T45 based in Singapore as of yesterday and we may just help avoid “Maritime Ukraine”
If you send "a carrier and a T45" then you would be shortly looking at the modern equivalent of Dec 1941 Force Z when HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse got sunk by massed Japanese - this time it would be massed Chinese anti-ship missiles. Ideally to counter both that and Chinese SSN, you would want 5-6 escorts despatched with CSG including allied escorts. So that if 1-2 of the escorts were either out of action or deployed on other missions then you would still have 4 escorts remaining to protect the carrier. So in all likelihood the RN would need to send 1 carrier, 2*T45, 2*T23 ASW and 1-2 allied escorts.

Currently the RN has 18 escorts, due to be 17 when Montose is retired. Allowing for those T45 undergoing PIP, those T23 ASW undergoing LIFEX and sundry smaller refits and maintenance, and the RN has far less escorts practically available. By the time you subtract TAPS / FRE and RN contributon to both Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 and Operation Kipion, not to mention escorts protecting the other carrier based in UK waters, we don't have huge nuber of ships available to be deployed semi-permanntly in Pacific.

And that is BEFORE the UK has committed a carrier and more aircraft to support NATO at the last NATO summit.

3 of the River B2's are deployed to Carribean, South Atlantic and the Med to protect BOAT's. Spey and Tamar are pretty much the only spare RN ships that could be sent to Indo Pacific. When the 5 T31's are commissioned into active service then they will replace the then 3 remaning T23 GP and then Spey or Tamar. So we are looking at sometime in 2027-2032 for T31's to become available for deployment to Indo Pacific (depening on the perceived urgency of the tasks of T23 GP / Spey / Tamar).

In the meantime all we can do is work with our allies - definitely US and Australia but also France, Netherlands, Singapore, Malaysia and hopefully the likes of India, Japan and Korea. We might at times be able to spare one escort but that would be to work with our allies forces in the region.

Should we be doing more to counter Chinese naval aggression, including the use of large numbers of large fishing vessels that almost act as an armed militia? Prsonally heck yes, I 100% think we need to do more. Does the Government think likewise? Not so far as there has been minimal additional spending on Defence since Russia invaded Ukraine other than maybe backfilling some munitions sent to Ukraine.

So yes we do need more ships, better armed, fully equipped with missiles to cover Land Attack, Anti-Ship, Anti-Air/BMD, ASW, and increasingly over time UAV/USV/USuV. But we are a long away from that happening in reality and for now we have to rely on Tamar and Spey hlping us renew relationships with allied navies that we have long ignored.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

I still think a weapons upgrade is needed for the River B2's which wont upset its sea going days and this what I would like to see

1 x 57mm this will not effect on sea going days but will give the ship better anti air & surface
4 x 12.7mm again this will not effect sea going days
Add 20 Hero 120 loiter weapons this will give the ship 60km loiter strike capability and will not effect sea going days and using the RM and a Pacific 950 160km strike
Add a Camcopter fitted with I-master Radar will add a few more crew but will give every good OTH search
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
RepulseRAF>FAN

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 11:04 I still think a weapons upgrade is needed for the River B2's which wont upset its sea going days and this what I would like to see

1 x 57mm this will not effect on sea going days but will give the ship better anti air & surface
4 x 12.7mm again this will not effect sea going days
Add 20 Hero 120 loiter weapons this will give the ship 60km loiter strike capability and will not effect sea going days and using the RM and a Pacific 950 160km strike
Add a Camcopter fitted with I-master Radar will add a few more crew but will give every good OTH search
Broadly agree. But I think NavyLookout article on OPV+ / OPV Max mentioned that 57mm gun was deck penetrating unlike the 40mm gun.

In which case the 40mm gun would require less work to add to River B2's than the 57mm, and thus would be best option if RN want to maximise B2's time at sea.

But the rest ,of your suggestions should give them more firepower vs Fast attack boats and drones and thus suited for their lower intensity missions without too much added costs (whether up front acquisition costs, annual maintenance costs or crew requirements).

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by tomuk »

Tempest414 wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 11:04 I still think a weapons upgrade is needed for the River B2's which wont upset its sea going days
Some small upgrades may be desirable for the Rivers (Radar\Drone\AA Missile) but to deny that the upgrade won't decrease sea going days is naïve. Any upgrades will require more maintenance, support and crew whether that be at dockside or while underway this will reduce days at sea.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 19:21
Tempest414 wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 11:04 I still think a weapons upgrade is needed for the River B2's which wont upset its sea going days
Some small upgrades may be desirable for the Rivers (Radar\Drone\AA Missile) but to deny that the upgrade won't decrease sea going days is naïve. Any upgrades will require more maintenance, support and crew whether that be at dockside or while underway this will reduce days at sea.
True, but it would be interesting to see the maintenance requirements of a 57mm vs the existing 30mm gun.

For the rest, then the approach should be modular (in “pods”) which could be maintained away from the ship, minimising the impact to sea going days.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyowargame_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

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

tomuk wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 19:21
Tempest414 wrote: 11 Jul 2022, 11:04 I still think a weapons upgrade is needed for the River B2's which wont upset its sea going days
Some small upgrades may be desirable for the Rivers (Radar\Drone\AA Missile) but to deny that the upgrade won't decrease sea going days is naïve. Any upgrades will require more maintenance, support and crew whether that be at dockside or while underway this will reduce days at sea.
What I have put in my list will not effect sea going days

57mm this will replace the 30mm which already has a maintenance plan which is in line

12.7mm these will replace some of the small arms already in place

20 Hero 120 loiter weapons these are self contained and can be carried on the ships by hand stored in the ships magazine and carried to the flight deck for use as needed they can also be given to the RM Platoon for off board ISTAR and strike

Camcopter comes in a container which can be lifted on or off the ship which means if the system needs maintenance that effects the ships sea going days it can be off loaded and a serviced one loaded this should only be needed very 6 months this system will need 3 extra crew so across the ships model it would need 9 crew which would take the ships crew from 60 to 69 with 48 on board at any time

Apart from the 57mm everything is stand alone and loaded on or off the ship yes it may cost a bit more but wont effect sea going days

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Interesting. No more England Fishery protection tasks on River B1. Didn't know it, to date.

Does it just mean, RN can happily disband them?

The contract was providing some money from DEFRA to RN, which was lost. But, RN is operating 3 River B1 OPVs for at least six months from the loss of contract. At the same time, RN disbanded HMS Echo. Echo needed 72 crew (by default, in rotation). 3 River B1 needs 30 crews each = 90 crews at least. If "3/2 manned" for longer sea-going days, RN needs 135 crews there. I guess it is 90 now. As such, RN is keeping the 3 OPVs (which was to be disbanded pro-Brixit), "in place of" HMS Echo (which was to be kept until late 2020s, in pro-Brixit plan).

Very interesting decision.

These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

Now it means they will carry out boarder control as part of HMG's failed attempt to take back control from Viking hoards rampaging across the Channel in there rubber dinghies to rape our women and take our jobs
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
SD67

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 12 Jul 2022, 16:34 Does it just mean, RN can happily disband them?
They have been rebranded as part of the Overseas Patrol Squadron:

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... l-squadron
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

Post Reply