Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

River class OPVs, NS, RN, etc

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Bravo20 View Post
    The downside to buying the River 1 class is that you are already 13 years into a notional 30-35 year lifespan.
    there are any number of downsides to buying River B1's - logistics, maintainance and training standardisation, the use of a third of their lifespan, the thing where i've written 50 times that the NS should never buy another vessel that doesn't have a flight deck... however, the judgement is not this vessel vs that vessel - we all know which is the better vessel (SB batch 2 with flight deck), the judgement is going to be would you prefer 1 SB batch 2, or 3 Rivers. we all know that the through life costs are going to be very different, but 3 vessels (that can do the job, not as well, and without much in the way of room for future cababilities..) for the same price as one Super SB is going to look very attractive to politicians.

    the question is, if the question genuinely comes down to one or two EPV's (flight deck etc...) or 3 River B1's with all their limitations, which should it be...

    Comment


    • #47
      I found it interesting how the RN funded the purchase of these ships

      "Tyne, Severn and Mersey[edit]
      The ships are significantly larger than the Island-class vessels and have a large open deck aft allowing them to be fitted with equipment for a specific role, which can include fire-fighting, disaster relief and anti-pollution work. For this purpose, a 25 tonne capacity crane is fitted. In addition, the deck is strong enough for the transport of various tracked and wheeled light vehicles, or an LCVP.

      Initially the three ships were not owned by the Royal Navy. They were constructed under an arrangement with the shipbuilder, Vosper Thornycroft (VT), under which the Royal Navy leased the vessels from the shipbuilder for a period of ten years. VT were responsible for all maintenance and support for the ships during the charter period. At the end of this, the Navy could then either return the ships, renew the lease or purchase them outright. In September 2012, it was announced by the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond that the Ministry of Defence had purchased the vessels for £39 million.[8]
      [edit]

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by danno View Post
        Spider, keeping expensive /low productivity yards in being because its a defence facility is nonsense given that the OPVs are lowend units and could be built abroad as is the case with the RFA tankers at a fraction of the cost now proposed. It is/was open to HM Gov to build another 1-2 T45s which would tick the boxes by getting value for the taxpaying subjects, keeping highend skillsets in being and most importantly letting the RN have a greater number of relevant hulls available for blue water ops. The policy of yard retention at any cost is going to come adrift in c.10 years time when the T26s are delivered with nothing else needing replacement. It appears to me that retention of the yards has a higher priority than the capabilities/orbat of the RN. Yet another dog gets wagged by the tail.
        Originally posted by danno View Post
        Spider, keeping expensive /low productivity yards in being because its a defence facility is nonsense given that the OPVs are lowend units and could be built abroad as is the case with the RFA tankers at a fraction of the cost now proposed. It is/was open to HM Gov to build another 1-2 T45s which would tick the boxes by getting value for the taxpaying subjects, keeping highend skillsets in being and most importantly letting the RN have a greater number of relevant hulls available for blue water ops. The policy of yard retention at any cost is going to come adrift in c.10 years time when the T26s are delivered with nothing else needing replacement. It appears to me that retention of the yards has a higher priority than the capabilities/orbat of the RN. Yet another dog gets wagged by the tail.
        You are of course entitled to your opinion Danno...but...

        Its not a nonsense...its a question of National Security...something HM Government takes rather seriously.

        And they're willing to throw money at it to preserve that capability.

        The Type 45 programme cost just over £6 Billion...maybe they could have produced two more for just under a billion each...but not much under.

        In any case an awful lot more than £348 million.

        Would you build and task a Type 45 with the type of deployments these OPV's are likely to be given...Caribbean / Falklands / Persian Gulf standing patrols?

        I've said it before and I'll say it again...the T45 are about the aircraft carriers. That's their reason for being.

        I's argue against your assertion that there won't be any ships to build in another ten years time.

        T26 plus the GP version are set to run into the early 2030's (the first T23 isn't due OOS until 2022 / 23)...by which time the Royal Navy's assault ships, survey fleet and minehunters will be due replacement, along with various RFA's. And by that stage I'd guess they'll be beginning to look at a replacement for T45...

        Anyway...Batch 1 Rivers x3 vs Sam Beckett x2...if it came to that I'd go with two new ships.

        Or alternatively...bite the bullet...spend some money on a design phase and design / have built your own class of CPV's suited to your requirements.
        'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by spider View Post
          Its not a nonsense...its a question of National Security...something HM Government takes rather seriously.

          And they're willing to throw money at it to preserve that capability.
          That is the excuse, the days of having the luxury of time to build more vessels in wartime are long gone!

          It is about jobs and votes plain and simple




          The Type 45 programme cost just over £6 Billion...maybe they could have produced two more for just under a billion each...but not much under.
          the cutting of hull numbers and constant changes (like most MOD projects), must the cost and development time


          Would you build and task a Type 45 with the type of deployments these OPV's are likely to be given...Caribbean / Falklands / Persian Gulf standing patrols?
          Frigates and RFAs are currently being tasked

          I've said it before and I'll say it again...the T45 are about the aircraft carriers. That's their reason for being.
          which is an issue! The RN have forgotten (when deciding how many to order), that they potentionally have 2 CBGs, 2+ ABGs and replenishment groups etc.

          I'd argue against your assertion that there won't be any ships to build in another ten years.
          i'd agree (but those being built should have already been delivered

          T26 plus the GP version are set to run into the early 2030's (the first T23 isn't due OOS until 2022 / 23)...
          already in development since 1998

          Anyway...Batch 1 Rivers x3 vs Sam Beckett x2...if it came to that I'd go with two new ships.

          Or alternatively...bite the bullet...spend some money on a design phase and design / have built your own class of CPV's suited to your requirements.
          The P61 class is more capable that the River Batch 1s.

          Anyway, there will not be any additional OPVs (Rivers, P61 class or anything else) until the 2 CPVs are replaced (with new CPVs) and Eithne is replaced (with a MRV).

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by DeV View Post
            That is the excuse, the days of having the luxury of time to build more vessels in wartime are long gone!

            It is about jobs and votes plain and simple




            the cutting of hull numbers and constant changes (like most MOD projects), must the cost and development time


            Frigates and RFAs are currently being tasked

            which is an issue! The RN have forgotten (when deciding how many to order), that they potentionally have 2 CBGs, 2+ ABGs and replenishment groups etc.

            i'd agree (but those being built should have already been delivered

            already in development since 1998



            The P61 class is more capable that the River Batch 1s.

            Anyway, there will not be any additional OPVs (Rivers, P61 class or anything else) until the 2 CPVs are replaced (with new CPVs) and Eithne is replaced (with a MRV).
            Dev, I have no idea how to split up your post as you have mine, so forgive me... I'll have to deal with each point in turn.

            1. 'That is the excuse'...You're partly right...its about jobs...I did say that about eight posts back. But its more complicated than that. Have a read at this which will give you an indication of why HM Government are committed to retaining a sovereign warship building capability. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-ins...t-a-burden.pdf I will patiently await your reply once you've had a read at that for starters. Your assertion that it is about votes is interesting...because that hasn't really worked out for either Labour or the Conservatives up in Glasgow...has it?

            2. 'Cutting of hull numbers'...that doesn't really read properly but if you are trying to say that development costs led to hull numbers on T45 being cut then I'd agree, that's why I believe another two hulls could have been delivered for slightly less.

            3. 'Frigates and RFA's are currently being tasked'...well isn't that the point? That the five new OPV's will help take the strain off an over-employed escort fleet?

            4. 'The RN have forgotten'...now I'm Army not Navy but I'm pretty sure the Lords and Masters of the Royal Navy know exactly what they will or won't be able to do with all their shiny new toys. I'm happy to be proven wrong but short of a world war, in which case the Royal Navy will be operating as part of a global coalition, I can't see a conflict scenario where they will ever deploy more than one carrier group or amphibious warfare group at a time.

            5. 'I'd agree'...that's a little confusing...the only surface ships currently in build for the RN are the Queen Elizabeth Class and the Batch 2 River OPV's. They won't even cut the steel on T26 for at least a couple of years.

            6. 'Already in development since 1998'...I know...but what has that to do with the fact that they will be built on a rolling programme to replace the T23's up to the early 2030's?

            7. 'P61 class is more capable'...I'm sure they are...different role...10-12 years more modern...wouldn't doubt it.

            8. ' Anyway, there will not be any additional OPVs (Rivers, P61 class or anything else) until the 2 CPVs are replaced (with new CPVs) and Eithne is replaced (with a MRV)'...can we run a book on this? What odds are you offering?
            'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

            Comment


            • #51
              Spider, That report you listed is ,IMHO, very selfserving and is more appropriate to the UK-EEC debate than to defence strategies. The policy can have the benefits listed wrt highend technology programms but it is nigh impossible to suggest that crucial national security interests demand the retention of shipyards to ensure steelcutting and welding skills. A key recurring theme of the report was the huge value of exports ,the use of exports to shape the domestic policies of the purchasers (doesnt seem to matter to the Saudis) and to have an "agile" industry; none of which are relevant concerning UK hull production as matters stand. The RN will never get any VFM whilst BAE can give quotes safe from any meaningful competition. The money wasted is balanced by cutting manpower in the RN and ends up with the shareholders of BAE.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by spider View Post
                Dev, I have no idea how to split up your post as you have mine, so forgive me... I'll have to deal with each point in turn.

                1. 'That is the excuse'...You're partly right...its about jobs...I did say that about eight posts back. But its more complicated than that. Have a read at this which will give you an indication of why HM Government are committed to retaining a sovereign warship building capability. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-ins...t-a-burden.pdf I will patiently await your reply once you've had a read at that for starters. Your assertion that it is about votes is interesting...because that hasn't really worked out for either Labour or the Conservatives up in Glasgow...has it?

                2. 'Cutting of hull numbers'...that doesn't really read properly but if you are trying to say that development costs led to hull numbers on T45 being cut then I'd agree, that's why I believe another two hulls could have been delivered for slightly less.

                3. 'Frigates and RFA's are currently being tasked'...well isn't that the point? That the five new OPV's will help take the strain off an over-employed escort fleet?

                4. 'The RN have forgotten'...now I'm Army not Navy but I'm pretty sure the Lords and Masters of the Royal Navy know exactly what they will or won't be able to do with all their shiny new toys. I'm happy to be proven wrong but short of a world war, in which case the Royal Navy will be operating as part of a global coalition, I can't see a conflict scenario where they will ever deploy more than one carrier group or amphibious warfare group at a time.

                5. 'I'd agree'...that's a little confusing...the only surface ships currently in build for the RN are the Queen Elizabeth Class and the Batch 2 River OPV's. They won't even cut the steel on T26 for at least a couple of years.

                6. 'Already in development since 1998'...I know...but what has that to do with the fact that they will be built on a rolling programme to replace the T23's up to the early 2030's?

                7. 'P61 class is more capable'...I'm sure they are...different role...10-12 years more modern...wouldn't doubt it.

                8. ' Anyway, there will not be any additional OPVs (Rivers, P61 class or anything else) until the 2 CPVs are replaced (with new CPVs) and Eithne is replaced (with a MRV)'...can we run a book on this? What odds are you offering?
                Just put [ quote ] the quote and [ /quote ] (without the spaces in the brackets - some don't like it but personally I think it makes more sense

                1
                I skimmed it, what danno said. For all the money put into the shipbuilders by the RN, how much has been exported.

                3
                It it use of spare capacity

                4
                If going over a hostile beach against a major opponent your going to have at least 1 ARG and 1 carrier in support with fast area. These hull numbers mean that the RN have to operate as a coalition (independent action will not be possible)

                5
                I know I was 2nd'ing what you said

                6
                Yes so something that could have been cutting edge at the start of the project, may now have already been fielded by others

                7
                No same roles - both are OPVs (both navies use them in the same roles)

                8
                Don't need to run a book, someone already has

                Page 66-68

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by danno View Post
                  Spider, That report you listed is ,IMHO, very selfserving and is more appropriate to the UK-EEC debate than to defence strategies. The policy can have the benefits listed wrt highend technology programms but it is nigh impossible to suggest that crucial national security interests demand the retention of shipyards to ensure steelcutting and welding skills. A key recurring theme of the report was the huge value of exports ,the use of exports to shape the domestic policies of the purchasers (doesnt seem to matter to the Saudis) and to have an "agile" industry; none of which are relevant concerning UK hull production as matters stand. The RN will never get any VFM whilst BAE can give quotes safe from any meaningful competition. The money wasted is balanced by cutting manpower in the RN and ends up with the shareholders of BAE.
                  Originally posted by danno View Post
                  Spider, That report you listed is ,IMHO, very selfserving and is more appropriate to the UK-EEC debate than to defence strategies. The policy can have the benefits listed wrt highend technology programms but it is nigh impossible to suggest that crucial national security interests demand the retention of shipyards to ensure steelcutting and welding skills. A key recurring theme of the report was the huge value of exports ,the use of exports to shape the domestic policies of the purchasers (doesnt seem to matter to the Saudis) and to have an "agile" industry; none of which are relevant concerning UK hull production as matters stand. The RN will never get any VFM whilst BAE can give quotes safe from any meaningful competition. The money wasted is balanced by cutting manpower in the RN and ends up with the shareholders of BAE.
                  Hi Danno...as I've said previously you're entitled to your opinion but that opinion seems to fly in the face of the UK Government...the Royal Navy and senior military academics.

                  As I keep saying...the ability to build warships (that's hugely complex weapons of war not just bits of steel welded together) is a key facet of UK Defence policy.

                  Have a look at this document please. Its a bit old (2013) and is dealing with the sovereignty issues around warship building in Scotland in the event of Scottish independence.



                  In it you will see set out clearly the reasons why it is highly desirable for the UK to retain a domestic warship building capability.

                  The Government are not willing to gamble with the security of this Nation by out-sourcing the building of warships to foreign countries.

                  RFA tankers yes...they are oil tankers...not warships.

                  Now to the BAE contract.

                  This all arises out of the building of the Astute Class Submarines.

                  The Government realised that the UK's ability to build submarines had slipped sufficiently...and that there was significant enough skill fade in this area...that the whole Astute Class programme was put at risk.

                  Recognising that there would be a delay between the completion of the QE2 Class...and the commencement of the building of T26...a contract was put in place with BAE to guarantee £200 million of work per annum...to maintain a core work force...to prevent skill fade and ensure that the Astute Class episode was not repeated.

                  That is referred to in the attached document as 'The Terms of Business Agreement'.

                  Interestingly, they are talking in that document (back in 2013) about the building of a new class of OPV's.

                  That's the state of play...like it or not...defence...national security...as I said before they'll throw money at it...what price for the security of your Nation?

                  Do the Royal Navy get best value for money out of the warships BAE are building for them? I don't know because I don't know enough about it and I have nothing to compare them with like for like.

                  But what I would say is that they are commissioning warships and submarines that are the envy of Navies around the world.
                  'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    The concept is quite sensible, while the UK retains its own totally independent military defence.
                    It is a matter of policy to them, they do not source any military equipment that is not built in the UK. Nothing. They will get H&K to tool up a factory in the UK to ensure they are getting their most basic of weapon made start to finish in the UK.
                    You cannot compare our building of warships with the RN building of warships. We build armed ships for our navy, the UK gets a weapon system that floats for its navy. We need a ship to patrol 200 miles off our coast, with occasional trips to sunny places. It needs ships capable of operating anywhere it flies its flag worldwide, in assistance of it's many protectorates, dependencies and colonies, not forgetting it's NATO commitment.
                    It is not something you can enter into lightly. The ship is a multiple of systems that must work together, with numerous redundancies. You need to keep skilled trades in this area.
                    It must be able to work smoothly with every other ship in the RN fleet, in addition to any other NATO ship it may end up working with.

                    The people who build these ships have been building warships for the RN since the change to ironclads was first made. The people who built our most recent ships have no such history of naval shipbuilding, and the snags experienced speak volumes about that.
                    In the past RFA tankers were little more than a commercial tanker painted grey, with RAS cranes added. The Decision to get DSME to build the Tide class is in my opinion a wise one, as DSME have great experience in building tankers well, and on budget.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by spider View Post
                      Hi Danno...as I've said previously you're entitled to your opinion but that opinion seems to fly in the face of the UK Government...the Royal Navy and senior military academics.

                      As I keep saying...the ability to build warships (that's hugely complex weapons of war not just bits of steel welded together) is a key facet of UK Defence policy.

                      Have a look at this document please. Its a bit old (2013) and is dealing with the sovereignty issues around warship building in Scotland in the event of Scottish independence.



                      In it you will see set out clearly the reasons why it is highly desirable for the UK to retain a domestic warship building capability.

                      The Government are not willing to gamble with the security of this Nation by out-sourcing the building of warships to foreign countries.

                      RFA tankers yes...they are oil tankers...not warships.

                      Now to the BAE contract.

                      This all arises out of the building of the Astute Class Submarines.

                      The Government realised that the UK's ability to build submarines had slipped sufficiently...and that there was significant enough skill fade in this area...that the whole Astute Class programme was put at risk.

                      Recognising that there would be a delay between the completion of the QE2 Class...and the commencement of the building of T26...a contract was put in place with BAE to guarantee £200 million of work per annum...to maintain a core work force...to prevent skill fade and ensure that the Astute Class episode was not repeated.

                      That is referred to in the attached document as 'The Terms of Business Agreement'.

                      Interestingly, they are talking in that document (back in 2013) about the building of a new class of OPV's.

                      That's the state of play...like it or not...defence...national security...as I said before they'll throw money at it...what price for the security of your Nation?

                      Do the Royal Navy get best value for money out of the warships BAE are building for them? I don't know because I don't know enough about it and I have nothing to compare them with like for like.

                      But what I would say is that they are commissioning warships and submarines that are the envy of Navies around the world.
                      They are also probably the most expensive (hence no exports and costs being pushed up further). There is little competition within the UK for building warships for the RN (the TOBA guaranteed that as BVT and BAe set up a joint venture).

                      Will that ever give value for money (when they can't even go to others for a quote?)?



                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        They are also probably the most expensive (hence no exports and costs being pushed up further). There is little competition within the UK for building warships for the RN (the TOBA guaranteed that as BVT and BAe set up a joint venture).

                        Will that ever give value for money (when they can't even go to others for a quote?)?
                        it depends on what you want to qualify as 'value for money'...

                        the ability to build what you want, when you want it, without anyone else having the ability to say 'no', or 'not yet, our rearmament programme is first in the queue' might well turn out to be vastly more valuable than the £200m we give BAE every year to keep the skills ticking over. or, to put it another way, if you think having a sovereign build capability is expensive, try not having a sovereign build capability when you need it.

                        the lack of exports for UK warships is no surprise whatsoever - the only countries that either want/need the capabilities they come with, and that can afford those capabilities, and that we would consider exporting those capabilities to all have their own domestic shipbuilding industries to maintain.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          The days of the NS taking hand me downs from the RN are past

                          the rivers will probably go the same way as the island and castles Classes off to Bangladesh

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Evening Dev,

                            A couple of more well informed posters than I have dealt with many of the points we have been discussing.

                            Quickly however I'd like to reply to your comments at #52 and #55.

                            #52 first.

                            1. There is not (as has already been stated above by another poster) a huge market for the type of vessels BAE have built for the RN recently. BAE have been and are building and exporting OPV's and Corvettes though, and are hoping that they may achieve export sales for T26 and the as yet un-designated GP Frigate. Will that happen...don't know we'll have to wait out on that one. I hope it does as it will be excellent news for the UK economy.

                            3. Yes the new OPV's will give the RN much needed spare capacity.

                            4. I don't quite understand what you're saying Dev but I am confident that the RN has the air defence capability it requires in T45 to support any amphibious operation it will ever need to mount independently.

                            5. OK Thank You.

                            6. Dev, I'm quite sure the design of these ships will have evolved since 1998 and will continue to, probably even as they are being built.

                            7. I know they're both OPV's. But they aren't intended for the same roles. That's why the Irish Navy built more capable OPV's than the Royal Navy. NGFS for the Irish Army for example.

                            8. We'll wait and see...I see this is being discussed over on the other thread. All I can say is that I hope the Irish Navy get the best equipment for the job. I hope they don't end up with the Batch 1 Rivers, because that would in my opinion be a retrograde step and they'll only find themselves having to begin the process of looking for three new ships in about 15 - 20 years time. Which will be around the same time that the P51 class will need replacing also.

                            #55

                            You say that there is 'little competition' in UK Shipbuilding.

                            Can I please re-phrase that...there is 'no competition' when it comes to building these types of vessel for the Royal Navy.

                            The skill set and capacity to deliver complex warships for the Royal Navy sits with BAE.

                            And has done for quite some time.

                            The UK Government recognises that and wants to preserve that capability...for the reasons outlined above.
                            'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              River OPV Batch 1

                              Originally posted by paul g View Post
                              The days of the NS taking hand me downs from the RN are past

                              the rivers will probably go the same way as the island and castles Classes off to Bangladesh

                              The ultimate destination of the River Batch 1's is not set in stone. I would not regard them as hand me down's, our last acquisitions caused major upset within the RN Training establishment. This type of vessel in it's Batch 3 mode is capable of filling tasks currently undertaking by frigates, destroyers etc.
                              Lone duties such as Falklands needed a vessel with the versatility(Flt. Deck) of HMS Clyde. I think ,given the nationhood meltdowns in the Middle east and North Africa , emerging piracy/terrorist incidents, helped the judgement to select New Build OPV's as first call units.

                              The British Defence Establishment always aspired to build frontline assets such as Submarines and major equipments at home for security and skills reasons. It is a fact that due to the wind-down of heavy industry in the UK viable sources have shrunk giving a very narrow range of choices for ship, aircraft, and other heavy Defence items. The Batch 3 OPV's will aid in maintaining skills at the chosen yard.

                              Naval crews are largely interchangeable between surface ships, where on-the-job-training still features for junior ratings. Specialist jobs are done by the relevant tradesmen and engineers in their own departments. In Aircraft Carriers, flight crews and technicians come on board with their Aircraft, and have to be absorbed by constant programmed training and work-up. A watchkeeping officer on an OPV could find himself as a watchkeeping officer on any other surface ship.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                our last acquisitions caused major upset within the RN Training establishment.
                                as in our last acquisitions from the RN or our latest acquisitions from Appledore.?
                                Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X