River Class (OPV) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 17:45 CGI of a River with a bigger gun & hangar ..
Image
the hangar looks good but it would lose its ability to operate a large number of other very useful kit like unmanned MCM , ASW , Survey plus ORC and the like

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 11:56
Ron5 wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 17:45 CGI of a River with a bigger gun & hangar ..
Image
the hangar looks good but it would lose its ability to operate a large number of other very useful kit like unmanned MCM , ASW , Survey plus ORC and the like
Personally, I would make the hangar wider taking up the full beam and make it more of a lite T26-style mission bay.

Let’s build another 5 of these and just buy 8 T31s and scrap the T32 instead :D
”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

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by abc123 »

Ron5 wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 17:45 CGI of a River with a bigger gun & hangar ..
Image
Nice. A shame they didn't build them.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

1: Measuring from the River B2 dimensions, and facing the fact that Wildcat cannot fold its tail, the hangar shall be as long as 15 m, and hence the flight deck shall be as small as 18 m or less, if no hull extention is done.

2: For blue water, a ship with length less than 110 m is reported to be not so efficient in helicopter operations (BMT's paper). Also, regardless of "mid-threat districts" existing in the world, there are also many "little threat" districts. Because of these two facts, "River B2 as it is now" has a good place to live.

3: BUT, it also means such up-armed/up-equipped River B2 can find good place, as well. Its sea going days will be shortened, and crew-size will increase (= cost much more to be "there"), up-arming/up-equipping, say, two of the five River B2 is a good idea, I think, if there are such tasks. It is also good for export promotion; adding 5-LMMs on the 30mm MSI gun, or replacing it with 40 mm or 57 mm 3P guns.

# If River B1s can find replacements (how about "two cheap 80m merchant-ship hull OPVs", such as Vard-7 80 design, specialized on fishery protection), two River B2 now sent to EoS can be used as an "up-armed River B2" show-case. Diversity of up-arming/up-equipping options can be there, depending on the tasks we want them to do. Among such candidates, this figure is surely one case (although the main gun must be 57mm, not 76 mm, for RN use = commonality with T31). :D

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Jensy »

Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 17:55 If only there was still a “Like” option !
:thumbup:
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 15:18 1: Measuring from the River B2 dimensions, and facing the fact that Wildcat cannot fold its tail, the hangar shall be as long as 15 m, and hence the flight deck shall be as small as 18 m or less, if no hull extention is done.

2: For blue water, a ship with length less than 110 m is reported to be not so efficient in helicopter operations (BMT's paper). Also, regardless of "mid-threat districts" existing in the world, there are also many "little threat" districts. Because of these two facts, "River B2 as it is now" has a good place to live.

3: BUT, it also means such up-armed/up-equipped River B2 can find good place, as well. Its sea going days will be shortened, and crew-size will increase (= cost much more to be "there"), up-arming/up-equipping, say, two of the five River B2 is a good idea, I think, if there are such tasks. It is also good for export promotion; adding 5-LMMs on the 30mm MSI gun, or replacing it with 40 mm or 57 mm 3P guns.

# If River B1s can find replacements (how about "two cheap 80m merchant-ship hull OPVs", such as Vard-7 80 design, specialized on fishery protection), two River B2 now sent to EoS can be used as an "up-armed River B2" show-case. Diversity of up-arming/up-equipping options can be there, depending on the tasks we want them to do. Among such candidates, this figure is surely one case (although the main gun must be 57mm, not 76 mm, for RN use = commonality with T31). :D
At this point, are we not effectively talking about a BAE/CL Leander concept with a reduced weapons fit, and no internal mission/boat bays?

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Indeed it's remarkably close to the original C3 'Global Corvette' proposal from VT. Which does rather show how long VT/BAE have been trying to shift River derivatives.

Image


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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

Jensy wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 17:38



At this point, are we not effectively talking about a BAE/CL Leander concept with a reduced weapons fit, and no internal mission/boat bays?
..

I think you'd be talking about a Khareef. But IMHO the reality is BAE are not building anything smaller than a type 26 again. River B2 was a make work program with a design inherited from VT built very expensively. Their overheads are way too high for that end of the market.

If there are no UK built exports for T31 then by about 2028 some capacity should be opening up at Rosyth and simple replacements for River Batch 1 along the lines Donald-san suggested, plus a couple of missile boats for Ukraine could keep Babcocks ticking over until T32 comes onstream. The Clyde is going to have its hands full with T26 / T83.

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: 30 Nov 2021, 17:45 CGI of a River with a bigger gun & hangar ..
Image
That makes me so happy. Do they comment on what additional length and/or tonnage are?

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: 01 Dec 2021, 15:18 1: Measuring from the River B2 dimensions, and facing the fact that Wildcat cannot fold its tail, the hangar shall be as long as 15 m, and hence the flight deck shall be as small as 18 m or less, if no hull extention is done.

2: For blue water, a ship with length less than 110 m is reported to be not so efficient in helicopter operations (BMT's paper). Also, regardless of "mid-threat districts" existing in the world, there are also many "little threat" districts. Because of these two facts, "River B2 as it is now" has a good place to live.

3: BUT, it also means such up-armed/up-equipped River B2 can find good place, as well. Its sea going days will be shortened, and crew-size will increase (= cost much more to be "there"), up-arming/up-equipping, say, two of the five River B2 is a good idea, I think, if there are such tasks. It is also good for export promotion; adding 5-LMMs on the 30mm MSI gun, or replacing it with 40 mm or 57 mm 3P guns.

# If River B1s can find replacements (how about "two cheap 80m merchant-ship hull OPVs", such as Vard-7 80 design, specialized on fishery protection), two River B2 now sent to EoS can be used as an "up-armed River B2" show-case. Diversity of up-arming/up-equipping options can be there, depending on the tasks we want them to do. Among such candidates, this figure is surely one case (although the main gun must be 57mm, not 76 mm, for RN use = commonality with T31). :D
River B1's were commissioned in 2003. So 25 years old in 2028. I don't know how long they can be kept in service until, but presume they would be fine serving in UK waters until at least either BAE and/or Babcock have fiished delivering their Frigate production run.

That would be the ideal time to fit in a River B3 mini production run of 3-5 ships. Either a 40mm or 57mm main gun, couple of 20mm/30mm secondary guns and enclosed hangar would make them more useful serving EoS and being advanced deployed to either Bahrain / Oman / Singapore. (Esepcially if could add Martlett LMM and a simple SAM like maybe RAM).

If that would free up one or more of River B2's to be similarly upgraded, the remaining un-upgraded B2's would still be perfectly usable as fishery protection / policing / humanitarian / patrolling EEZ for Home waters and Caribbean / Gibralter / South Atlantic British Overseas Territories.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 15:18 1: Measuring from the River B2 dimensions, and facing the fact that Wildcat cannot fold its tail, the hangar shall be as long as 15 m, and hence the flight deck shall be as small as 18 m or less, if no hull extention is done.

2: For blue water, a ship with length less than 110 m is reported to be not so efficient in helicopter operations (BMT's paper). Also, regardless of "mid-threat districts" existing in the world, there are also many "little threat" districts. Because of these two facts, "River B2 as it is now" has a good place to live.

3: BUT, it also means such up-armed/up-equipped River B2 can find good place, as well. Its sea going days will be shortened, and crew-size will increase (= cost much more to be "there"), up-arming/up-equipping, say, two of the five River B2 is a good idea, I think, if there are such tasks. It is also good for export promotion; adding 5-LMMs on the 30mm MSI gun, or replacing it with 40 mm or 57 mm 3P guns.

# If River B1s can find replacements (how about "two cheap 80m merchant-ship hull OPVs", such as Vard-7 80 design, specialized on fishery protection), two River B2 now sent to EoS can be used as an "up-armed River B2" show-case. Diversity of up-arming/up-equipping options can be there, depending on the tasks we want them to do. Among such candidates, this figure is surely one case (although the main gun must be 57mm, not 76 mm, for RN use = commonality with T31). :D
I would now like to see a mid life upgrade of the B2's to a standard fit of 1 x 40mm or 57mm , 2 x 20mm , 4 x miniguns , 20 x Hero 120 , 2 x UAV's plus 2 x ribs and 2 x ORC standard crew would go up to 50 plus a Platoon of RM = 76

The bit I have high lighted in red. Do the Thai navy B2's not show case a up-armed B2 with its 76mm , 2 x 30mm and SSGW

Edit ; The fact is we could see the B2's take on a standard fit of 2 x Ribs , 2 x ORC and 2 x UAV and 20 Hero 120 right now and they also seem to have a standard crew of 45 + 26 RM = 71

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

If we follow these paths there is a danger people could see the B2 Rivers as light Corvettes, and the Royal Navy doesn't want Corvettes. What they need is an effective weapon to take out speedboats and similar at ranges greater then the latter can open fire at effectively. The existing 30mm is a start and having Royal Marines on board with a few Javelins could be added to the mix. If French Commandos can fir a MMP from a fast moving RHIB a Royal Marine can certainly fire a Javelin from the deck of a River. The last thing I would do is replace the L7 GPMGs and Miniguns with a couple of M2 .50cal Heavy Machine Guns with the options of night sights.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the 40 Mk4 with 3P rounds should be the base line as this would give a good base line defence against fast boats , drones , and cheap missiles as said if the B2's have 2 x Ribs and 2 x ORC fitted with 12.7 mm plus 2 x UAV's this would give good search track and stop capability now if we add 20 Hero 120 which would be part of the RM weapons the ship and RM also have a very good raiding weapon that can be used for ISTAR and strike out to 40kms

1) The ship picks up a target with its UAV it is tracked and the RM are sent to board it with the UAV allowing eyes on for the ships command. it is seen by the UAV that weapons are being readied by the target so the OPV fires warning shots from its 40mm they give up

2 ) the ship is using its UAV over the coast and picks up a land target the RM are sent using the ORC they take with them 8 Hero 120 they arrive and the rear set up with the Hero once the forward team reach the target the hero is launched as top cover with the UAV remaining on station allowing eyes on for ships command and RM

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Tempest414 »

If we take a UAV like camcopter witch can carry 2 x LMM witch are 13kg's each we should be able to fit 2 x Hero 120 witch are 14kg's as long the comm's link with the hero can be kept it could allow the UAV to fly say 60km from the ship and then launch the Hero out to 100km's form the ship

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Jensy »

SD67 wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 19:57 I think you'd be talking about a Khareef. But IMHO the reality is BAE are not building anything smaller than a type 26 again. River B2 was a make work program with a design inherited from VT built very expensively. Their overheads are way too high for that end of the market.
Yes...but not entirely.

Where the Khareef Class trades range for weapons and crew, the C3 seemed to favour range/endurance. Understandable as Oman is very much not a blue water navy.

Instead what I'd like is a bigger River Class with the boat handling and aviation stored inside. As Donald-san references above, effective helicopter ops benefit from a larger platform and with the lack of a mission bay on Type 31. If you free up the central area of the Leander, you're looking at roughly 14x20m of deck area, not dissimilar to Type 26. Though, to the best of my knowledge, lacking the link to the hangar/flight deck.

With Type 83 in the near-ish future, I'd say our more innovative focus should be there, and on the Clyde, like you suggest, as the centre of excellence for building big, complex escort ships. Emphasis being on 'exquisite' rather than affordability.

Rosyth, with their facilities, could be assigned the fairly extensive list of RFA/RN support and amphibious shipping that should be ordered over the next 10+ years. Should they get work for patrol and missile boats too, great.

If Type 32 is set to be a mothership with some local area defensive capability, and be simple/affordable enough to support two small raiding forces simultaneously, then we could do a lot worse than an almost oven ready design that was being promised for £250m a couple of years ago. Give it to Cammell Laird and we've even got some insurance against Scottish independence. I'd rather put any River B1 replacement money (if by some miracle it appears) into this programme and get an extra hull or two.

The River B2s could then live out their lives as designed, maybe with a 40mm and a 'kennel' for UAVs.

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

Jensy wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 00:30
SD67 wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 19:57 I think you'd be talking about a Khareef. But IMHO the reality is BAE are not building anything smaller than a type 26 again. River B2 was a make work program with a design inherited from VT built very expensively. Their overheads are way too high for that end of the market.
Yes...but not entirely.

Where the Khareef Class trades range for weapons and crew, the C3 seemed to favour range/endurance. Understandable as Oman is very much not a blue water navy.

Instead what I'd like is a bigger River Class with the boat handling and aviation stored inside. As Donald-san references above, effective helicopter ops benefit from a larger platform and with the lack of a mission bay on Type 31. If you free up the central area of the Leander, you're looking at roughly 14x20m of deck area, not dissimilar to Type 26. Though, to the best of my knowledge, lacking the link to the hangar/flight deck.

With Type 83 in the near-ish future, I'd say our more innovative focus should be there, and on the Clyde, like you suggest, as the centre of excellence for building big, complex escort ships. Emphasis being on 'exquisite' rather than affordability.

Rosyth, with their facilities, could be assigned the fairly extensive list of RFA/RN support and amphibious shipping that should be ordered over the next 10+ years. Should they get work for patrol and missile boats too, great.

If Type 32 is set to be a mothership with some local area defensive capability, and be simple/affordable enough to support two small raiding forces simultaneously, then we could do a lot worse than an almost oven ready design that was being promised for £250m a couple of years ago. Give it to Cammell Laird and we've even got some insurance against Scottish independence. I'd rather put any River B1 replacement money (if by some miracle it appears) into this programme and get an extra hull or two.

The River B2s could then live out their lives as designed, maybe with a 40mm and a 'kennel' for UAVs.
Interesting- so you're thinking let's the Leander proposal into a kind of Global Sloop. So River derivatives would have been built in three places, that would be some kind of record :-)

It'd be a big step up for Cammells but then again the RRS Attenborough was seriously complex. Levelling up etc.

FYI I'm doing a job in Aberdeen right now and the feeling towards Sturgeon seems to have turned seriously negative so hopefully Indyref2 is off the agenda for a while

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote: 02 Dec 2021, 13:34 could see the B2 Rivers as light Corvettes, and the Royal Navy doesn't want Corvettes
I would see them more as multi-role sloops, but I am splitting hairs. I agree the RN has chosen in the world of limited resources and politics to go for "frigates" and also to maximize their size / endurance. However, there are significant RN initiatives going in the other direction such as Forward Basing and the FCF that are actually taking the RN in opposite direction with a focus on distributed Littoral force structures. This requires more numerous and smaller ships - you also do not need a global frigate if you have something forward based (in say Brunei) that needs to be able to navigate and operate in the shallows of the South China Sea.
Jensy wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 00:30 If Type 32 is set to be a mothership with some local area defensive capability...
If the T32 ends up being towards what we are discussing I would support it. But we need numbers above size and things that can be called frigates on wall charts.
”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 »

BAE / CL talked about Leander being able to come in 99 , 107 & 117 meters but lets not kid our self that a 107 dumbed down Leander with the mods talked about would cost that much less than a type 31

Also the River class design has already been built in 3 places and if built at CL would make it 4

We really need to max out the B2's

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

Any follow on class should either be an evolution of the B2 with minimal changes to the design or a new class. I still think there is mileage in the adapting the current design, as the last thing the RN needs is another completely new class to onboard.

The fact that it has been built overseas under contract, does give it a clear advantage in that the process has been proven to support a new yard build.

A small order to build three to replace the B1s would be a good start, coupled with attractive export financing.
”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 »

The navy could be in a good place if it built 4 x updated Absalon's as type 32 and 4 x 107 meter B3 Rivers. Upgrade the B2's to have a 40mm and give the B3's 2 x 40mm fit the B3's with a 25 ton crane and clear the deck between the funnel and the hangar to make a 15 x 13 working deck. with a force of

5 x type 31
4 x type 32
5 x B2's
4 x B3's

We could deploy them in groups

group 1) 1 x type 31 + 2 x B2's home waters
group 2) 1 x type 31 + 1 B2 AP/N
group 3) 1 x type 31 + 1 B2 AP/S
group 4) 1 x type 32 + 1 B3 Med
group 5) 1 x type 32 + 1 B3 Indo/ Pacific
group 6) same as above
group 7) 1 x type 31 + 1 B3 Gulf

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

Tempest414 wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 09:49 BAE / CL talked about Leander being able to come in 99 , 107 & 117 meters but lets not kid our self that a 107 dumbed down Leander with the mods talked about would cost that much less than a type 31

Also the River class design has already been built in 3 places and if built at CL would make it 4

We really need to max out the B2's
Forgot Thailand!

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Repulse »

@Tempest414, personally I would not have the T31s in the groups. For me the concept should be low level forward presence, coupled with the ability to surge / scale warfighting units as required on a more temporary basis.

This is primarily due to a disagreement over what the T31 should be - for me as a T23 replacement it should be a warfighting unit, not a halfway house between a T23 and a B2 River. It should be a real escort with significant ASW capabilities to escort the CBGs giving more flexibility to the use of the T26s.

With another 3 B2+ sloops as we are describing, 5 MRSSs, 1 Ice Patrol ship and 8 Mine Countermeasures Logistic Support Vessels (MCMLSV), the "regional" groups could look something like:

Home Group: 3 x B2s + 4 x MCMLSVs
APT(N) (covering the Artic and Baltics also): 2 x MRSS + 1 B2 AP/N + 2 x MCMLSVs
APT(S): Ice Patrol Ship + 1 x B2
Med: 1 x MRSS + 2 B2+s
Indian Ocean / East Africa: 1 x MRSS + 1 x B2+
Far East / Pacific Region: 1 x MRSS + 1 x B2+
Gulf: 2 x MCMLSVs plus a frequent T26 visit
”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

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

My point of view is that the RN is using the Rivers to do frigatey things is because they do not have enough frigates. A stopgap so to speak.

So the idea of building a replacement stopgap seems a little strange. The Rivers doing frigatey things will eventually be replaced with real frigates.

Well as "real" as the Type 31's get :(

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

Re: River Class (OPV) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 14:12 My point of view is that the RN is using the Rivers to do frigatey things is because they do not have enough frigates. A stopgap so to speak.

So the idea of building a replacement stopgap seems a little strange. The Rivers doing frigatey things will eventually be replaced with real frigates.

Well as "real" as the Type 31's get :(
I share your view.

We say "up-armed River B2 with helicopter hangar and even enlarged hull" to fight against mid-level threats. If you enlarge the hull a bit more, add a minimum number of CAMM to handle "Hoiti rebels ASM", with good damage control and slightly better endurance/range (River B2 is already good here), it is exactly the T31 itself.

As such, I do not think a Leander-like hull is good here. Too much duplication with T31. If any such money exists, better to buy I-SSGW for T23/45/31, add "more CAMM" to T31, or/and buy ASW-version of ARCIMS USV.

For River B1 replacements, if any, I prefer very cheap Vard-7 80/85/90 designs. Different from River B2s, Vard-7 is just a merchant ship with OPV-like shape and armament (That is the sales point. The concept is the same for Japan Coast Guards Patrol ships, which are very cheap). Babcock or Cammel Laird can build it. It will be perfect for EEZ/fishery and even boader 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 »

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

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, 12:39 @Tempest414, personally I would not have the T31s in the groups. For me the concept should be low level forward presence, coupled with the ability to surge / scale warfighting units as required on a more temporary basis.

This is primarily due to a disagreement over what the T31 should be - for me as a T23 replacement it should be a warfighting unit, not a halfway house between a T23 and a B2 River. It should be a real escort with significant ASW capabilities to escort the CBGs giving more flexibility to the use of the T26s.

With another 3 B2+ sloops as we are describing, 5 MRSSs, 1 Ice Patrol ship and 8 Mine Countermeasures Logistic Support Vessels (MCMLSV), the "regional" groups could look something like:

Home Group: 3 x B2s + 4 x MCMLSVs
APT(N) (covering the Artic and Baltics also): 2 x MRSS + 1 B2 AP/N + 2 x MCMLSVs
APT(S): Ice Patrol Ship + 1 x B2
Med: 1 x MRSS + 2 B2+s
Indian Ocean / East Africa: 1 x MRSS + 1 x B2+
Far East / Pacific Region: 1 x MRSS + 1 x B2+
Gulf: 2 x MCMLSVs plus a frequent T26 visit
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:
-Home fleet / eastern North Atlantic
-Caribbean / western North Atlantic
-South Atlantic (including Falklands / Ascenion Island / west Africa)
-Mediterranean (including Gibralter / Cyprus / Black Sea)
-Middle East (Bahrain / Oman)
-Pacific (Singapore)

We have to patrol the EEZ for the first four, so having Rivers there for policing / fishery protection etc and also a General Purpose Frigate as proper warship presence feels about right. Even if these six General Purpose Frigates were forward deployed, they would be unlikely to be at sea as much as the Rivers' supposed 300 days per year. If the GP Frigates can manage 67% - 75% availability, having an OPV at sea will be useful for the times when the GP Frigate is in port.

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, 16:09
Ron5 wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 14:12 My point of view is that the RN is using the Rivers to do frigatey things is because they do not have enough frigates. A stopgap so to speak.

So the idea of building a replacement stopgap seems a little strange. The Rivers doing frigatey things will eventually be replaced with real frigates.

Well as "real" as the Type 31's get :(
I share your view.

We say "up-armed River B2 with helicopter hangar and even enlarged hull" to fight against mid-level threats. If you enlarge the hull a bit more, add a minimum number of CAMM to handle "Hoiti rebels ASM", with good damage control and slightly better endurance/range (River B2 is already good here), it is exactly the T31 itself.

As such, I do not think a Leander-like hull is good here. Too much duplication with T31. If any such money exists, better to buy I-SSGW for T23/45/31, add "more CAMM" to T31, or/and buy ASW-version of ARCIMS USV.

For River B1 replacements, if any, I prefer very cheap Vard-7 80/85/90 designs. Different from River B2s, Vard-7 is just a merchant ship with OPV-like shape and armament (That is the sales point. The concept is the same for Japan Coast Guards Patrol ships, which are very cheap). Babcock or Cammel Laird can build it. It will be perfect for EEZ/fishery and even boader tasks.
If 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.

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 2*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.

Post Reply