River Class (OPV) (RN)

[Poiuytrewq]

For me the best thing that could be done is for BAE , Bofors and Thales to come together and design and build a new 40mm turret which houses the 40mm gun and 6 x LMM this would be a big step up if the RN made this turret the main support weapon of the patrol & escort fleet with the Rivers getting 1 turret and Type 26 , 31 & 45 getting two

Interesting idea.

Which 40mm?

[Tempest414]

For me the best thing that could be done is for BAE , Bofors and Thales to come together and design and build a new 40mm turret which houses the 40mm gun and 6 x LMM this would be a big step up if the RN made this turret the main support weapon of the patrol & escort fleet with the Rivers getting 1 turret and Type 26 , 31 & 45 getting two

Interesting idea.

Which 40mm?

For me the Bofors 40mm with 3P

Again for me a River with this turret would have 100 40mm rounds and 6 LMM ready on the mount plus 3 reloads held in the Mag

And if take this on we could see a Type 31 with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 12 LMM , 32 Mk-41 VLS and 8 x NSM or a Type 26 with 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 12 x LMM , 48 x CAMM , 24 Mk-41 VLS & 8 x NSM

[jedibeeftrix]

For me the best thing that could be done is for BAE , Bofors and Thales to come together and design and build a new 40mm turret which houses the 40mm gun and 6 x LMM this would be a big step up if the RN made this turret the main support weapon of the patrol & escort fleet with the Rivers getting 1 turret and Type 26 , 31 & 45 getting two

i'm a longstanding fan of the idea of OPV's being fitted with Bofors 40mm, a basic FCS/radar capable of addressing UAV/RPG/boghammer threats, and 3P ammo to prosecute such engagements.

given their forward deployed nature they would make valuable 'convoy escorts' (alongside a frigate) in chokepoints such as the Gulf/S'pore.

[Repulse]

No one should be under the illusion that these are anything more than patrol vessels for low threat environments. However, it is ridiculous how people are fearful to spend a few million to cheaply upgrade the B2s to bring them inline with USCG or other similar vessels, in case they show the T31 in its original form the folly it is.

Its nothing to do with that.

Current planning has three RB2’s coming back to the UKEEZ within 5 years with one remaining in the Falklands with the fifth in refit/reserve. If that changes then up-arming as a priority can be revisited.

It’s everything to do with that, the ships are meeting the requirement today, we need more escorts to work with the CSGs, Kipion and probably one to ride shotgun for the HADR / low threat LRG(S) group. There is no need to replace the B2s with T31s - there a better things to be doing with our resources and money.

[new guy]

No one should be under the illusion that these are anything more than patrol vessels for low threat environments. However, it is ridiculous how people are fearful to spend a few million to cheaply upgrade the B2s to bring them inline with USCG or other similar vessels, in case they show the T31 in its original form the folly it is.

Its nothing to do with that.

Current planning has three RB2’s coming back to the UKEEZ within 5 years with one remaining in the Falklands with the fifth in refit/reserve. If that changes then up-arming as a priority can be revisited.

It’s everything to do with that, the ships are meeting the requirement today, we need more escorts to work with the CSGs, Kipion and probably one to ride shotgun for the HADR / low threat LRG(S) group. There is no need to replace the B2s with T31s - there a better things to be doing with our resources and money.

I thought that that was what you where arging with me in a previous argument, about B1 replacements?

[new guy]

As for up-arming. Not a priority. Leave the investment for the T31’s.

Same argument can be made in why spend the money on the T31, spend it on more T26s.

No one should be under the illusion that these are anything more than patrol vessels for low threat environments. However, it is ridiculous how people are fearful to spend a few million to cheaply upgrade the B2s to bring them inline with USCG or other similar vessels, in case they show the T31 in its original form the folly it is.

Upgrade the T31, do whatever is needed to make them war fighting ships that can add value, but realise they are a stop gap only needed because successive governments delayed the T23 replacement.

To solve the issues the RN and other services have, a bud dose of realism is required - keep the B2s (with minor upgrades) where they are, they are doing a great job.

I don't argue against modest sensible upgrades for the rivers, I just point out the utter spiel that Nicholas Drummond is spitting.
they think that these are warships, and thus should have the whole fitt out, which I point out is utter folly.

Yes, I also see the need for T31 reaching it's potential.

The future frigate programme started in 1998. The first T26 comes into service 2028. T31 programme restarted 2019, conract signed the same year. If that doesn't signal that T31 is a stopgap for the T26's troubles, I don't know what is.

[new guy]

I thought that that was what you where arging with me in a previous argument, about B1 replacements?

I’ll need to find the context, I believe I’ve been consistent in my view.

[new guy]

I just point out the utter spiel that Nicholas Drummond is spitting.

Absolutely - he’s not renowned for his knowledge and sense when it comes to the Navy.

[new guy]

I thought that that was what you where arging with me in a previous argument, about B1 replacements?

I’ll need to find the context, I believe I’ve been consistent in my view.

amphib thread.

[Repulse]

https://x.com/navylookout/status/170453 ... AEmCklKdgA

[Repulse]

I thought that that was what you where arging with me in a previous argument, about B1 replacements?

I’ll need to find the context, I believe I’ve been consistent in my view.

amphib thread.

This bit?

3) T31's (Originally T26) is to replace the T23GP's.

It’s not about what they replaced, it’s about what they are going to do - if you believe the hype they will be forward based replacing a number of the B2 Rivers to replace the B1s. The T23 GPs aren’t doing this today, and it’s questionable whether it’s a priority.

[new guy]

I thought that that was what you where arging with me in a previous argument, about B1 replacements?

I’ll need to find the context, I believe I’ve been consistent in my view.

amphib thread.

This bit?

3) T31's (Originally T26) is to replace the T23GP's.

It’s not about what they replaced, it’s about what they are going to do - if you believe the hype they will be forward based replacing a number of the B2 Rivers to replace the B1s. The T23 GPs aren’t doing this today, and it’s questionable whether it’s a priority.

close but elsewhere, you proposed 4 MRSS instead of 6 MRSS, 3 LSV, and RB1 replacements.

I do agree that all the B2's should maintain being forward deployed, but that is only possible with a B1 rep

[jedibeeftrix]

I thought that that was what you where arging with me in a previous argument, about B1 replacements?

I’ll need to find the context, I believe I’ve been consistent in my view.

amphib thread.

This bit?

3) T31's (Originally T26) is to replace the T23GP's.

It’s not about what they replaced, it’s about what they are going to do - if you believe the hype they will be forward based replacing a number of the B2 Rivers to replace the B1s. The T23 GPs aren’t doing this today, and it’s questionable whether it’s a priority.

close but elsewhere, you proposed 4 MRSS instead of 6 MRSS, 3 LSV, and RB1 replacements.

I do agree that all the B2's should maintain being forward deployed, but that is only possible with a B1 rep

Thanks, Tbh - my view is if the B2s are replaced then it should be either by a B3 or whatever the Dutch are looking at for replacing their OPVs - it shouldn’t be a T31

[Tempest414]

I thought that that was what you where arging with me in a previous argument, about B1 replacements?

I’ll need to find the context, I believe I’ve been consistent in my view.

amphib thread.

This bit?

3) T31's (Originally T26) is to replace the T23GP's.

It’s not about what they replaced, it’s about what they are going to do - if you believe the hype they will be forward based replacing a number of the B2 Rivers to replace the B1s. The T23 GPs aren’t doing this today, and it’s questionable whether it’s a priority.

to Just come back to this we know the main reason the T-23 are not forward deployed is they are being nursed to the end

Of the the 5 T-23 GP 2 have gone leaving 3 one is forward deployed in the Gulf one I think is still in major upkeep and one just got back from escort duty with LRG-N

The RB2's are doing good work but we should not start to think they are warships. T-31 will become a good GP frigate if it gets its Mk-41's add to this that the new ships ( T-26 & 31 ) will have more sea going days than the T-23's they replace

For me as said time and again we should bin off type 32 build 3 extra T-31's plus 4 x 105 x 16 meter OPV's with the view to having 4 x Type 31 and 3 x new OPV's in the Indo-Pacific this should be our core commitment to the region leaving 18 escorts and 6 OPV's to cover 2 x CSG's and 2 x LRG,s with view to having 1 of each at high readiness at all times

[shark bait]

The River B2 exists at a convenient time. In a high performance navy the River Class would have little utility, but they have found a valuable role in a crumbling fleet where the Frigates are knackered, the Destroyers have never worked properly, and the only serviceable ships are uninspiring patrol vessels.

Long term the B2s should be replaced with something more interesting (T31/T32) and the B1 can be retired.

[Scimitar54]

shark bait wrote:-

Long term the B2s should be replaced with something more interesting (T31/T32) and the B1 can be retired.

Absolutely Spot On!

[donald_of_tokyo]

The River B2 exists at a convenient time. In a high performance navy the River Class would have little utility, but they have found a valuable role in a crumbling fleet where the Frigates are knackered, the Destroyers have never worked properly, and the only serviceable ships are uninspiring patrol vessels.

Long term the B2s should be replaced with something more interesting (T31/T32) and the B1 can be retired.

Disagree. OPV is anyway needed. It is must. T31 will never be able to beat River B2 in its sea-going days. Very very inefficient for basic patrol task.

[donald_of_tokyo]

A candidate for River B1 replacement. 75 m long.

Personally, I think it is too high grade. For River B1 replacement, it must be more simple. But, I like this idea, anyway.

[Poiuytrewq]

Personally, I think it is too high grade. For River B1 replacement, it must be more simple. But, I like this idea, anyway.

I really don’t think a direct RB1 replacement is a priority.

Far better to recall 3x RB2’s back to the UK EEZ to replace the RB1’s and build 3 of these for the global patrol role.

https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-313.pdf

[new guy]

Personally, I think it is too high grade. For River B1 replacement, it must be more simple. But, I like this idea, anyway.

I really don’t think a direct RB1 replacement is a priority.

Far better to recall 3x RB2’s back to the UK EEZ to replace the RB1’s and build 3 of these for the global patrol role.

https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-313.pdf

Mate, a 100 crew, 130m long, 24m vide vessel isn't a OPV.

[Poiuytrewq]

Mate, a 100 crew, 130m long, 24m vide vessel isn't a OPV.

Whats an OPV?

[Tempest414]

Mate, a 100 crew, 130m long, 24m vide vessel isn't a OPV.

Whats an OPV?

Japan have a 150 by 16 meter OPV / CG Cutter

[tomuk]

The River B2 exists at a convenient time. In a high performance navy the River Class would have little utility, but they have found a valuable role in a crumbling fleet where the Frigates are knackered, the Destroyers have never worked properly, and the only serviceable ships are uninspiring patrol vessels.

Long term the B2s should be replaced with something more interesting (T31/T32) and the B1 can be retired.

Disagree. OPV is anyway needed. It is must. T31 will never be able to beat River B2 in its sea-going days. Very very inefficient for basic patrol task.

Sea-going days isn't the only metric though. The Navy needs more than just a vessel that can do a basic patrol task. A frigate can do a basic patrol if needed inefficiently but an OPV can't do the opposite.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The River B2 exists at a convenient time. In a high performance navy the River Class would have little utility, but they have found a valuable role in a crumbling fleet where the Frigates are knackered, the Destroyers have never worked properly, and the only serviceable ships are uninspiring patrol vessels.

Long term the B2s should be replaced with something more interesting (T31/T32) and the B1 can be retired.

Disagree. OPV is anyway needed. It is must. T31 will never be able to beat River B2 in its sea-going days. Very very inefficient for basic patrol task.

Sea-going days isn't the only metric though. The Navy needs more than just a vessel that can do a basic patrol task. A frigate can do a basic patrol if needed inefficiently but an OPV can't do the opposite.

Yes, and no.

With similar resources, there will be 4 OPVs at sea (with 6 OPVs commissioned) while only one T31 be there (with 3 T31 commissioned).

They differ, so why not mix them?

[tomuk]

The River B2 exists at a convenient time. In a high performance navy the River Class would have little utility, but they have found a valuable role in a crumbling fleet where the Frigates are knackered, the Destroyers have never worked properly, and the only serviceable ships are uninspiring patrol vessels.

Long term the B2s should be replaced with something more interesting (T31/T32) and the B1 can be retired.

Disagree. OPV is anyway needed. It is must. T31 will never be able to beat River B2 in its sea-going days. Very very inefficient for basic patrol task.

Sea-going days isn't the only metric though. The Navy needs more than just a vessel that can do a basic patrol task. A frigate can do a basic patrol if needed inefficiently but an OPV can't do the opposite.

Yes, and no.

With similar resources, there will be 4 OPVs at sea (with 6 OPVs commissioned) while only one T31 be there (with 3 T31 commissioned).

They differ, so why not mix them?

I'm not really following your maths but the point is the capability that can be provided is part f the equation. Just being present isn't always good enough. The RN have 8 OPVs falling to five when the B1s go that is more than enough. Noting that I think a more capable Archer Class would be useful and the UK sorting out a more integrated coastguard would be a good idea.