River Class (OPV) (RN)

[donald_of_tokyo]

Forth is in long maintenance, still out of service, coming back soon.
Medway is as FIGS.
Tamar is at far east.
Trent is back in service as Gib guard ship.
Spey is also at far east.

I guess Mewday will go into maintenance, next.

Then, Tamar will get that maintenance where? Far east? I understand she is supposed to come back to UK in 2025.

Nothing is known yet, but anyway RN needs to live with 4 (not 5) RiverB2s for a few years.

[Repulse]

In the past they’ve used a B1 for WIGS, might be the case when Dauntless returns. Having said that the B2s seem pretty busy nowadays with a broader role, so might be easier to build a couple more

[Tempest414]

In the past they’ve used a B1 for WIGS, might be the case when Dauntless returns. Having said that the B2s seem pretty busy nowadays with a broader role, so might be easier to build a couple more

I would send a B1 to Gib

[Repulse]

I would send a B1 to Gib

Yep, that’s an option, my only thought is that the Gib ships area of operation is larger.

[wargame_insomniac]

[shark bait]

10/10 for flag waving!

[Ron5]

10/10 for flag waving!

That duty will be passed to the Type 31s when they report for deployment.

[Repulse]

10/10 for flag waving!

That duty will be passed to the Type 31s when they report for deployment.

Hope we get some more flags for the cost increase…

[Tempest414]

Always want more

Is a 90% increase in gun fit not enough
Is a 100% increase in missile fit not enough
Is 50% increase in range not enough
Is 100% increase in helicopter capacity not enough

No now you want more flags

[donald_of_tokyo]

Depends what you want your list is good if you want a HVU escort, if you are there to fly the flag the number of flags is pretty important

[Tempest414]

And only one flag really matters ah

[Ron5]

[tomuk]

We need a larger Batch 3 River so we can keep up with the Jonses.

[Poiuytrewq]

We need a larger Batch 3 River so we can keep up with the Jonses.

Sorted.

11F09784-6D7B-41AB-8544-63526803E25F.png

[Jensy]

We need a larger Batch 3 River so we can keep up with the Jonses.

The French used to know how it was done:

[Bongodog]

Forth is in long maintenance, still out of service, coming back soon.
Medway is as FIGS.
Tamar is at far east.
Trent is back in service as Gib guard ship.
Spey is also at far east.

I guess Mewday will go into maintenance, next.

Then, Tamar will get that maintenance where? Far east? I understand she is supposed to come back to UK in 2025.

Nothing is known yet, but anyway RN needs to live with 4 (not 5) RiverB2s for a few years.

Forth was out of Gib Dock and tied up at the Navy Wharf practising with fire hoses on June 21st

[donald_of_tokyo]

I am a supporter of River B1 replacement plan. Here I put some ideas on possible new-build candidates.

Vigilance Canadian new OPV


Looks like an enlarged Vard 7-072 design (https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-072/)?

The design follows the modern trend of "no helicopter hangar on 70-90m OPV/corvettes". Reasonable. Is shall be noted that these ships will replace Kingston class MCDV, routinely deployed to Caribbean. Even so, there is no requirement for helicopter (meaning that heli-UAV is enough). Note that the flight deck is also "only for UAVs", too small for a Wildcat. It follows the approach French patrol vessel took.

It has a side-open mission-bay, about 12m long, and designed to adopt PODS system. Notable is that the original Vard 7-072 has a Palfinger-type stern boat ramp. So, it is the result of trade-off study. Yet anther "side-access" mission bay design success. We all know Palfinger-type stern boat ramp is attractive, but apparently it does not dominating the world. It means there are pros and cons.

Can this vessel be a candidate for River B1 replacement? I think yes. As Canadian Navy has ordered detailed design and going to build it, it is no longer a power-point. So, say, Babcock can "buy" its detailed design and start building 3 of them for RN relatively soon. Commonality with Canada will also help.

For example,
- extend the River B1 life for another 2 years, until 2030-31.
- order 3 new OPVs on 2026 from Rosyth, with deliveries on 2029-30, with in-service date on 2030-31. This will also "save the day" for Rosyth, after T31 build end, and some new order...

[new guy]

I am a supporter of River B1 replacement plan. Here I put some ideas on possible new-build candidates.

Vigilance Canadian new OPV


Looks like an enlarged Vard 7-072 design (https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-072/)?

The design follows the modern trend of "no helicopter hangar on 70-90m OPV/corvettes". Reasonable. Is shall be noted that these ships will replace Kingston class MCDV, routinely deployed to Caribbean. Even so, there is no requirement for helicopter (meaning that heli-UAV is enough). Note that the flight deck is also "only for UAVs", too small for a Wildcat. It follows the approach French patrol vessel took.

It has a side-open mission-bay, about 12m long, and designed to adopt PODS system. Notable is that the original Vard 7-072 has a Palfinger-type stern boat ramp. So, it is the result of trade-off study. Yet anther "side-access" mission bay design success. We all know Palfinger-type stern boat ramp is attractive, but apparently it does not dominating the world. It means there are pros and cons.

Can this vessel be a candidate for River B1 replacement? I think yes. As Canadian Navy has ordered detailed design and going to build it, it is no longer a power-point. So, say, Babcock can "buy" its detailed design and start building 3 of them for RN relatively soon. Commonality with Canada will also help.

For example,
- extend the River B1 life for another 2 years, until 2030-31.
- order 3 new OPVs on 2026 from Rosyth, with deliveries on 2029-30, with in-service date on 2030-31. This will also "save the day" for Rosyth, after T31 build end, and some new order...

I wonder for the B1's if it would just be better to get smaller vessels like french POM or Austal 60 considering their role.
I also wonder if this forfills the the larger hi-cap role. say 30m long main superstructure at front, 60 work deck on the rear. 2 spot 40m flight deck on top. moved to the rear to leave open air mid-ship of ~20m for missile launches. spot 1 on the flight deck turns into a hanger with usage of a telescopic hangar, spot 2 still operational. Main work deck below houses uses SH defence rail and twistlock system for moving PODS around.
As for babcock I think don't close T31 too quickly considering B2 potential, New Zealand, Ukraine, Norway.

[wargame_insomniac]

60m is quite short given the weather conditions in the UK EEZ and also what seems to be a trend to send these ships further to support JEF/NATO.

Having said that I think a combination of vessels is possible, especially if the requirement for LSVs is considered also.

My view is that diverting the T31s to cover the B2 Rivers (freeing them up to cover the B1s) is unaffordable and the up armed T31 are needed in other roles. As such, rather than talk about more expensive items like the T32, the RN needs to take stock and ensure it has a balanced fleet capable for its core roles.

As such RN should go for a rapid order of B3 Rivers (small enhancements - radar, gun and UAV hangar) and a similar sized fleet of PSVs with Patrol as part of their role.

[Tempest414]

I like the Vigilance design however we have a opportunity to build say 4 105m by 15m OPV's for overseas forward deployment in support of the T-31's and allowing the B2's to come back to home waters including the Baltic and Med

For me the RN needs to drop fisheries and just do patrols of UK and Baltic waters as said before both class should have the same 3D radar , 40mm gun and peregrine UAV's plus use POD's for any other kit as needed

Also as said the new 105m ship should keep the same main crew number but have a hangar plus up to 70 bunks for other teams working on the ships

[new guy]

60m is quite short given the weather conditions in the UK EEZ and also what seems to be a trend to send these ships further to support JEF/NATO.

Chuck Hill mentioned post WWII RN issued a paper asking the question what is the minimum length for seakeeping, the answer was 270 feet / 82.3 m, presuming waterline length.

https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2023/04/02 ... a-minimum/

[donald_of_tokyo]

60m is quite short given the weather conditions in the UK EEZ and also what seems to be a trend to send these ships further to support JEF/NATO.

Chuck Hill mentioned post WWII RN issued a paper asking the question what is the minimum length for seakeeping, the answer was 270 feet / 82.3 m, presuming waterline length.

https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2023/04/02 ... a-minimum/

"Minimum 80m for blue water operations", is referred elsewhere. The same are said "minimum 110 m for (efficient) helicopter operation in blue water". These two numbers are a bit famous now, and looking around the world, these two numbers are well "supported" by many procurement programs.

[wargame_insomniac]

I am a supporter of River B1 replacement plan. Here I put some ideas on possible new-build candidates.

Vigilance Canadian new OPV


Looks like an enlarged Vard 7-072 design (https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-072/)?

The design follows the modern trend of "no helicopter hangar on 70-90m OPV/corvettes". Reasonable. Is shall be noted that these ships will replace Kingston class MCDV, routinely deployed to Caribbean. Even so, there is no requirement for helicopter (meaning that heli-UAV is enough). Note that the flight deck is also "only for UAVs", too small for a Wildcat. It follows the approach French patrol vessel took.

It has a side-open mission-bay, about 12m long, and designed to adopt PODS system. Notable is that the original Vard 7-072 has a Palfinger-type stern boat ramp. So, it is the result of trade-off study. Yet anther "side-access" mission bay design success. We all know Palfinger-type stern boat ramp is attractive, but apparently it does not dominating the world. It means there are pros and cons.

Can this vessel be a candidate for River B1 replacement? I think yes. As Canadian Navy has ordered detailed design and going to build it, it is no longer a power-point. So, say, Babcock can "buy" its detailed design and start building 3 of them for RN relatively soon. Commonality with Canada will also help.

For example,
- extend the River B1 life for another 2 years, until 2030-31.
- order 3 new OPVs on 2026 from Rosyth, with deliveries on 2029-30, with in-service date on 2030-31. This will also "save the day" for Rosyth, after T31 build end, and some new order...

I agree 100%, apart from the fact that I think we need 4 such Patrol Vessels considering the size of the UK Maritime EEZ. I would be in favour of them being based spread around the UK at regional ports, one based in th English Channel and the other 3 to cover the "spikes" in EEZ (to the South West, North West and North East).

[wargame_insomniac]

I like the Vigilance design however we have a opportunity to build say 4 105m by 15m OPV's for overseas forward deployment in support of the T-31's and allowing the B2's to come back to home waters including the Baltic and Med

For me the RN needs to drop fisheries and just do patrols of UK and Baltic waters as said before both class should have the same 3D radar , 40mm gun and peregrine UAV's plus use POD's for any other kit as needed

Also as said the new 105m ship should keep the same main crew number but have a hangar plus up to 70 bunks for other teams working on the ships

No. The River B2s should be named as Ocean Patrol Vessels - they have a much better sea keeping and endurance and they are way too big for what we need in UK waters.

We need smaller, cheaper, simpler Patrol Vessels for UK waters.

[new guy]

I like the Vigilance design however we have a opportunity to build say 4 105m by 15m OPV's for overseas forward deployment in support of the T-31's and allowing the B2's to come back to home waters including the Baltic and Med

For me the RN needs to drop fisheries and just do patrols of UK and Baltic waters as said before both class should have the same 3D radar , 40mm gun and peregrine UAV's plus use POD's for any other kit as needed

Also as said the new 105m ship should keep the same main crew number but have a hangar plus up to 70 bunks for other teams working on the ships

No. The River B2s should be named as Ocean Patrol Vessels - they have a much better sea keeping and endurance and they are way too big for what we need in UK waters.

We need smaller, cheaper, simpler Patrol Vessels for UK waters.

French POM size?