UK wins Indonesian export contract for new frigates

Yeah, it’s Gota mess with everything though lol, from training, maintenance, weapons

Give up. ‘Don’t confuse me with the facts i’ve made up my mind’ He’s just naturally cheerful.

Yes I am thanks 😊

☝ You remind me of someone. They lived to be 91 so if it works it works.

And Why would you tell someone to “give up”? I’m open to anything anyone has to say, i like to learn on here.
And the RN 31s are worse armed than most Corvettes and SOME OPVs. Their size is a positive though🥳

You’ve yet to show OPV that’s better armed than a Type 31.

Yeah, I’d really hoped the sight had moved past this discussion, but it seems every time the navy comes up there’s some *ahem* that needs to bash the Rivers, at least we haven’t broached the subject that must not be named.
edit, never mind, he went there further down in the thread.

My opv statement was basing it of RN type 31. And I suppose we will just have to wait and see the armourment of both 31s, but I already know the RN will be a worse off load out.

But BAE Bung Tomo class, is smaller than their cousin ships the River class OPVs. They have 16vls, 76mm Otto, two 30mm, two quad Exocets , two Torpedo tubes, all in a ship 1900tns.

Even the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandanti-class_patrol_vessel is better armed!! and even has helo with hangar.

Cool, never knew about these Italian OPVs. And smaller in tons than Batch twos…but has chopper and hangar. Just shows how we got screwed on the batch twos Steve M

Range is the big factor there. Weapons are relatively compact things to add. The Rivers (both batch 1 and 2) have almost double the range of these Italian ships. Food, supplies, stores, all require a bigger ship and that bumps up the cost. The Italian ship is technically fairly similar, if shorter range. Telescopic hangar and a 76mm gun could be fitted to the Rivers (B2 at least). They just don’t see the need for their required missions

B2’s have @50% extra range rather than double. 5500 nml v 3500. On mission etc….the alternative view would be that the B2’s are assigned the missions they have been because they are incapable of anything else. What frustrates many is that a lot of money has been spent on a relatively large leggy vessel that can be accused of being a one trick pony at a time when T23s are leaving the fleet and T45s have yet to have latent defects remedied. B2 can’t replace a T45 but could, if modestly up-armed, release type 23 from gulf escort missions etc.

We have ships in the Med, Falklands, Carribbean, and heading out to the far East. If we didn’t have the River B2s, we wouldn’t have that plus a carrier group with escorts. B2s are ideal for showing the flag in far off places.

Understand that….just a very expensive flag bearer with a pair of binoculars and not much else. It’s the utility for the price that gets me. They have given it the legs of a tour de France cyclist, the body of a 80kg weightlifter, the eyes and skills of a pentathlete and the arms…the arms of a Malaysian table tennis player. Very very little in the way of diverse utility other than what could have been achieved for 2/3 the price. Christ…a basic hanger and with that the option, subject to mission, of a wildcat or large UAV would be a utility multiplier.

Utility for price? The Rivers are the most active part of the fleet. They spend more days at sea than any other ship in the Royal Navy.

No arguments about uptime. However, for the price paid there are multiple commercial options that can ‘fly the flag’ and achieve or exceed the same uptime at significantly reduced cost. My comment on Utility relates to the lack of multifunctional military utility…for the price paid.

The Amazon’s class that the batch IIs are based on, same range, same weapons fit, but without the internal water tight compartment upgrades the RN vessels received and one tier down on sensors, were 1/3 the unit cost. I can rationalise maybe double the cost for RN fit but three times the price firxan order if 5 compared to the 3 for Brazil.

A fair comparison but a couple things you need to bear in mind:
1) The Amazonas where second hand buys, basically Brazil taking them off BAe’s hands after the original customers bailed. So I suspect they got a pretty good deal on them anyway.
2) The B2 Rivers where ordered primarily to keep Govan in business. And at first they where going to be 1-for-1 replacements for the B1’s (the fact that they and the B1’s are all in service now is evidence of how useful the navy has found them). So again, the price paid wasn’t for the ship, it was for a low operating cost, low fit out cost ship whose build could keep the skill set at Govan.

As for multifunctional military utility and commercial options:
Commercial options can’t bring military utility to bear so if you want to do anything other than simply “be there” they can’t do it, that would make the UK be a nation that’s hiring mercenaries. Secondly if you are trying to “fly the flag” you can’t do that with a commercial solution, since those are effectively a non-commitment.
Not sure why roles like Constabulary Patrols, Fisheries protection, HADR, Local Knowledge and, yes, presence represent a lack of military utility though, far from a one trick pony. Just a lot of Low-End tricks, rather than high end ones, but that’s pretty universal for OPVs.

The blindingly obvious thing is while they can put RN crews in harms way, they are hopelessly incapable to defend themselves against anything other than a few fast small boats. Which enemy would ever allow an enemy minor vesssel to leave the area once conflict broke out. By their many covert actions including IT attacks & poisonings on our soil we’re not at much of a peaceful posture with Russia & PRC.
The Rivers are too often being used where a proper warship is required & that is a risk to the RN, the nation & all our allies. It’s not a presence that deters any of the major states. Just OPVs, but we need more warships or we allow every authoratarian bully to run rampant across the world. The AUKUS pact is a step in the right direction, but we need a stronger navy to back up our otherwise empty words on freedom & democracy.

Please, one example of a conflict zone that requires a proper Warship?
When has a RN crew on an OPV actually been put in Harms way?
Patrolling the Med in harms way?
HADR in the Carrib is in harms way?
Falklands Islands Patrol Ship is in harms way?
And if the Chinese decide to sink an OPV in the SCS it won’t matter if it’s an OPV or a Type 45, against the entire chinese fleet it’ll not last long, yet if we send a fleet there they suddenly have local knowledge from sailors that have been permanently stationed there.

I just think we needed to find a balance between the B2 and Sa’ar6 / bung Tomo. Especially for ships on long deployments

A lot of the seemingly heavily armed small figates/corvettes are for coastal defence only. They don’t have the range, seakeeping, stores, RAS ability and crew accomodation for blue water use. Ships like Khareef, Sa’ar and so on are in essence coastal defence ships. This type of ship has always been built and packed a heaviuer armament per/ton than blue water vessels, but they are of limited use in oceanic naval warfare.

i understand that just think that for ships being sent on long/distant deployment having something like the retractable hangar on the Commandanti class would provide a good additional capability. The references to Sa’ar and others were just examples of what we could have gotten out of 90m /2k Ton size.

We didn’t get screwed with the Batch 2’s, they’re simply built for a different mission, and with different design priorities, set than Commandanti.

Good luck going into bat on this one Dern, its like whack a mole though……

Its all about the guns and missiles apparently. 😒

It’s almost like people don’t actually understand that things are procured for a role, and that not everything has to be the superdeath dealer 9000.
Or that they think a small brown water navies highest end surface combatant should be an apt comparison to a large blue water navies lowest end surface combatant.

I have little hope of getting those types to understand, because they’re arguments are largely based in emotion not fact, but hopefully I can at least counter the narrative.

“I have little hope of getting those types to understand, because they’re arguments are largely based in emotion not fact”

Welcome to the internet mate. 😉

In fairness, we can all push our opinion as fact from time to time because it seems so obvious to ourselves.

Compare the Comandanti’s range and sea days with a River class and you have the answer to why that is.

Smaller, more guns, about half the range and less availability.

Hi Dern, yep which is why i said a ‘balance’ between them. i’m not a naval architect but i expect the additional length/beam and 500tons would allow for an increase in range. the way you always have go at anyone who says anything about the B2 design you must either work for BAE or DES. Dern way or highway 🙁 no other opinions count

Well Steve, unlike you I can get my point across without belittling or insulting the people I’m talking too.

500t won’t double the range of a ship, nor will it add 1/3 of the endurance, so no, that’s not the difference, it’s design philosophy and intended mission sets. (Btw the word “balanced” is nowhere to be seen in the comment I replied to, I just pointed out why the Commandanti, which you linked too are not what the RN needs, while the Rivers are).

“500t won’t double the range of a ship, nor will it add 1/3 of the endurance, so no, that’s not the difference, it’s design philosophy and intended mission sets. “

Of course it can double. It can even more than double.
How much fuel do you think a ship like this OPV’s have?

A 3000t Frigate of 80’s had 350-400t fuel and 6000nm at 14kt range.

The 1980s you could also make the crew live in considerable discomfort so not a great point of comparison. However for what it’s worth:
F-122 entered service 1982, 3000t range 4000nm.
Type 21 entered service 1974, 3000t, range 4400nm.
OHP entered service 1977, 4000t range 4000nm
Lupo class entered service 1977, 3000t, range 4000nm
I could go on, the only Frigates that I know of from the 1980’s that have a 6,000nm range are around 5,000t.
But, assuming that you are right even 1,000 tonnes over a River (with all the associated crew discomforts of the 1980’s) bought… 500nm. Which is why it’s less about tonnage and more about what you are building your ship to do, as I stated in my response.

But just for fun, if it’s absolutely true that 500 extra tonnes will make the Comandanti as sea worthy as the Rivers, please name me a class of OPV’s that are 2,000t, have 5,500nm range, a hangar, a 76mm, multiple 20-40mm guns, and 35 days at sea endurance. (I’ll leave the at-sea-days per year out of it for you because that’s hard to look up).
Edit: The closest I can think of are the Holland class, and they’re nearly twice the displacement of a River, and still have shorter range and endurance.

Maestrale Frigate.

Lupo was 2500t
F122 has much more range than that. The range that is announced as +4000 nm is at 18kt

With +300t overall in size you probably can put the Comandanti range at 5000nm. Just 150t more fuel probably doubles the range.

So no actual answer to my challenge, what a surprise. and maybe 1 frigate that *might* have managed to squeeze 500 extra nm over a River 2 with 1000 extra tonnes… still not that impressive considering everything I pointed out about the 1980s (which you ignored too).
And btw the F122 doesn’t have more range than that.

500t won’t put the Comandanti at 5000nm (ignoring that that still less than a Rivers range) and 300t definitely won’t. Just because you state it doesn’t make it so. If it was we’d see plenty of heavily armed OPV’s at 2,000ts with 35days endurance and 5500nm range, which, given your lack of answer to my challenge, I see that we don’t.

The Bung Tomo’s are designed to be frigates, not OPVs, so please try again and name an OPV that can do those things (and even then the Bung Tomo’s fall short because they don’t have a Type 31’s range).

Anyway they are based off of a common design (F2000 aka Frigate 2000), and are built to military protection standards. It also cost 400million£ to buy each frigate new, more than a type 31 new (Indonesia got them for a bargain price btw because the original customer, Brunei rejected them). Oh and the “16 VLS” is 16 Sea Wolf Launchers, having to be refitted to MICA now because, even though the ships only just entered service with Indonesia, they are in fact nearly 20 years old.

Oh and they can only manage 5000nm miles, which is why they, and other F2000 derrived frigates are often classed as corvettes.

Still look like such a great design?

Now lets compare Bung Tomo with Type 31 instead of Arrowhead (remembering that Arrowhead is on sale not Type 31):
Bung Tomo:
16 Sea Wolf/MICA
76mm Otto Malera
2x DS30 (not a CIWS)
8x Exocet Block 2
Torpedo Tubes.
Range: 5000nm.

Type 31:
12-24 SeaCeptor
57mm
2x 40mm Bofors CIWS
8x NSM transferred from Type 23.
Range: 9000nm

Suddenly the Bung Tomo’s don’t look that great do they.

Hi Dern, I get your general point about the B2s, it’s a common sense approach, ‘horses-for-courses’, so to speak. Even with an increase in defence spending, funding and resources are still tight so a tight rein on where we spend the money and on what, with a robust but flexible specification are what is needed right now with defence procurement. Whether the MOD live up to this is another conversation. Given we’ll now be basing B2s in the Gulf and Far East the action they see might vary. Some B2s might never use their 30mm cannon in anger, just their sheer presence might suffice but some might, at times, need to use it more often or even rue not having something more meaty to impose themselves. Switching out a B2 for a T31 as needs suit might be one option but, as ‘The Navy Lookout’ has raised in the past, how flexible is the B2 spec in modifying individual vessels to suit specific environments? The Lookout fantasised about up-gunning to 40mm or indeed 75mm cannon, UAV from container and a retractable hanger space for a Wildcat. Would you know how adaptable the B2 design is for up-gunning? It strikes me the Gulf and Far East might be more hostile and a B2 there might one day need to engage multiple fast attack craft when compared to, say, the Falklands or Gibraltar where the existing spec would be perfectly suited, I imagine?

Why would you put an OPV up against fast attack craft? If, for example, a bunch of Iranian fast attack craft come in then they’ll be launching missiles from well outside the range of a 76mm. If you have a frigate that’s fine, that’s where CAMM, CIWS, and Decoy Launchers come in. But for an OPV, the only real hope is that any attack misses until they’re within the 76mm range.

UAV or Helicopter hangar is more realistic, though for it can already operate anything up to Merlin sized helicopters anyway, so it’s just extending what it can already do it. A collapsible hangar I don’t know, maybe possible, though I’m not sure a Comandanti style layout is possible. Containerised UAV is certainly possible, but again, what do you not get in order to put those on the Rivers?

Hi Dern, thanks for your reply. So, does your point about fast attack craft and an OPV possibly bring into question whether basing an OPV in the Gulf as wise, certainly without CIWS and/or Decoy Launchers fitted? If I were to name one place where we might see a hostile engagement between a RN vessel and fast attack craft it’s probably the Straits of Hormuz right now and, since we can’t pick and choose the moment the Iranians might engage us, having a more combat capable ship than an OPV would surely be prudent here, right? I dare say they might see one of our OPVs, in its current configuration, and fancy their chances to steal some kudos for the folks back home. As I said earlier, I can see our OPVs do have a role to play in our Navy, just not in the Straits of Hormuz perhaps.

I mean, we don’t base OPV’s in the gulf: The RN has a Type 23 frigate and a MCMV squadron fwd deployed in the gulf, so there’s that.
The OPV’s are based as follows:

• HMS Mersey, HMS Severn and HMS Tyne in Home Waters on fisheries protection.
• HMS Trent in Gibraltar to Patrol Med/E. Atlantic
• HMS Forth in the Falklands Islands on EEZ enforcement, S. Georgia visits, and supporting local population and training.
• HMS Medway in the Carib on ATP(N) counter Narcotics and HADR
• HMS Tamar and HMS Spey patrolling in the Indian and Pacific Ocean.

The interesting point though is that nobody is upset about the Hunts and Sandowns being deployed in the Gulf, even though they are:

• Slower
• Smaller
• Just as lightly armed
• Have a smaller crew

than the OPVs.

*edited because I typoed Severn instead of Spey.

I warned you.

khareef class is exactly how we should have armed the two OPVs heading east to stay.
Or maybe even the cheaper option ,of one 76mm up front and two 30mms each side of the Bridge.
But the Khareeef Corvette look good, if only the RN wanted 5 Corvettes for relatively cheap, and some more much much needed ships with firepower..

What would the RN gain from buying 5 extra 30mm’s and introducing a completely new calibre of gun for the Rivers?
And at what cost?
And given that the Khareefs lost both a large chunk of range and at sea endurance compared to the Rivers, where would you cut to get at least a 6th ship (so 7 extra 30mms now) to make up for the shortfall of patrol days?

You have the patience of a saint fella!

😂 Please, I’ve been known to have plenty of snapreps on here.

I’ve always suspected from the hull form that the River 2 is a derivative of Khareef: minus the weapons plus endurance , crane, deck and more combat hardening.

What was meant Mark was sometime ago the then Prime minister Gordon Brown stated about employment ” British Jobs for British Workers ” and was informed that he couldn’t say that as we were in the EU. That was all sorry mark