Two River-Class offshore patrol vessels, HMS Tamar and HMS Spey, departed San Diego for Hawaii after spending 6 days in port.

The pair arrived in San Diego on October 11th. They have been operating as Task Group 326.03, and will begin a new 5 year deployment to the Indo-Pacific region.

This article was submitted by John. John is a student at the University of South Carolina studying political science. He has also studied the Arab-Israeli conflict at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. John currently hosts ‘The Osint Bunker‘ podcast, a popular bimonthly production focusing on global events, you can read more about the podcast on our dedicated page here.

This port visit aligns with the operating doctrine outlined by the Royal Navy earlier this summer, as the task group will utilize “bases and ports in the Pacific region which best meets their needs and mission”.

Thank you to @WarshipCam and @cjr1321 for the use of their images below, I recommend you visit them and give them a follow.

Both ships are Batch 2 River-Class offshore patrol vessels, each armed with 1 Bushmaster 30 mm cannon, 2 Miniguns, and 2 General purpose machine guns. Additionally, both sport Merlin-capable flight decks.

According to the MoD:

“The crews will be joined by extra personnel – up to 52 Royal Marines or troops in a dedicated mess – or mission-specific equipment to deliver humanitarian aid or help with evacuations.”

The ships have been painted in a new ‘dazzle camouflage’ reminiscent of ship camouflages used extensively in World War I, and to a lesser extent in World War II and afterwards.

The mission comes on the heels of CSG 21’s visit to East Asia, during which it lead an international fleet into Chinese claimed waters. China has repeatedly warned British warships not to carry out any “improper acts”.

The deployment serves as a sign that tensions continue to increase in the region. Additionally, the Royal Navy is testing its ability to deploy ships for extended periods of time far from Britain.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

65 COMMENTS

    • If Draftie is working on Cree changes then San Diego Should be Time for her first Crew change ? Or in Hawaii Civvie Flight back on the Cards

  3. Could a B3 River type do the mothership role with the MCM kit? I asked this of the Hunts and GB told me why it was a non starter.

    I’d like to see more of these vessels.

    • You may well do, the concept seems to be dispersed legality. Use of containerised weapons is also going to become a reality but this needs careful consideration. But would fit a B3 concept complementing T32s. There’s even talk of the T45 replacement being main a sensor platform with weapons dispersed to other vessels.

      • I just hope with all the talk of “motherships” that these units/vessels are themselves well defended. If you knock out the mothership isn’t everything else attached to them then useless?

    • Hi Daniele,

      I agree, we need MCM motherships.

      Have you seen the latest on Navy Lookout? There is a nice graphic showing in-service, under construction, being negotiated, planned in the review and others. The others include a MCM mothership which apparently has been ‘mentioned’ recently – although no reference was given.

      A B3 River would do nicely, although at a lower price point please…

      Cheers CR

    • Maybe. They have two TEU slots and 2 boat slots – and a big flightdeck. The MCM set seems to includes 2-3 USVs and a command ‘POD’ and a UAV for ISTAR/comms relay. I suspect after 2028 three River B2s will return to UK to replace the B1s and be themselves replaced by Type 31s in the Med and Indo-Pac. Type 31 can certainly carry a MCM set.

    • Not sure why you would choose something based on a River over something based on an oilfield support ship. The support ship designs often have big open work decks and lots of cranes inc the clever heave compensated ones. You would end up with something that looked a bit like the D’Entrecasteaux class but ideally a bit faster.

      • Hi ATH,

        I have suggested oil support ships in the past, there were quite a few laid up in Sunderland Docks at one time. For all the reasons you describe perhaps a couple could be taken into the RFA to support long term deployments such as in the Gulf. These would not necessarily need to be fast but could be deployed as part of any post war clear up or as in the Gulf part of a deterent or local quick reaction posture.

        Some smaller, faster motherships based on the Rivers could be built for the RN. These vessels could also support patrol operations and relief missions when needed. It is not the same as having dozens of MCMV as we used to have, but I think flexible, multi-capability vessels are the only way a medium sized power such as the UK can maintain an effective force into the future.

        Another point to bare in mind is that during the first Gulf War the USN battleships followed RN Hunt Class into coastal waters to engage Iraqi shore batteries. Whilst I accept that such fire missions are unlikely in the future, there are plenty of other potential situations that might compel a commender to venture into potentially mined coastal waters against their better judgement.

        I am not sure how far back any mothership can be, especially in the presence of signal jamming. So I would suggest some smaller motherships built to warship standards and capable of moving inshore behind their autonomous vehicles as part of a raiding, rescue or evacuation mission would add robustness and operational flexibility to the MCM capability.

        Cheers CR

          • Hi Paul,

            HMS and HMS Scott need replacements. However, I am not aware of any particular programme to achieve this. Given the importance their roles in support of the submarine fleet I suspect that there is something going on behind closed doors. Given the RN’s move towards autonomous vehicles and the fact that these are being used in the civil sector for maritime research and survey I wonder whether an underwater autonomous vehicle is being considered or even assessed quietly…

            Cheers CR

          • I think the MROSS ships are supposed to do oceanic survey work as well as sweep undersea cables. We share the task of Atlantic seabed survey with the Yanks, swapping data. So a short gap between Scott’s departure next year and MROSS operational in 2024 (in theory) is not a disaster. However, I’m not a big believer in MROSS being operational that quickly. There’s even no public agreement as to how many we’ll get. Wallace anounced 1, Gommit — I mean Radakin — announced 2.

            I hope they don’t sell Scott too quickly. It’s twice the size of a Type 26 with the crew levels of an OPV and that has to be good value. At 25 years old and worked hard, there’s probably not an awful lot of life left, but I’d still mothball it in case the MROSS project screws up.

          • I believe Echo, Enterprise and Scott all have secondary roles as ‘MCM command’ ships; and have exercised in this role, which I’m thinking is subtly different from MCM mothership?
            They have lots of sensors and black boxes and real time data transmission capability.

      • As CR says! Was thinking of the potential River B3 being able to switch to other roles when not doing its mother job. Multi capability on single hull.

        Whether it is feasible I’ve not the foggiest, just an idea really.

        • Hi Daniele,

          Just read an article over on Navy Lookout. Apparently the details of support contract for the Rivers has just been released with the B1 Rivers to be supported until 2028.

          This would mean that the B2’s will return home to replace to replace the B1’s in 2028 or leave the UK with no OPV’s in home waters. If the T31 programme can maintain the tight build schedule then the first of class HMS Venturer will enter service in time to replace the B2’s on forward deployments.

          If Navy Lookout is right about this then the T31’s will be forward deployed on frigate duties so what will be undertaking the MCM mothership role.

          My guess is that there is a discussion around this apparent ‘gap’ within the MoD, as I alluded to in my first response to your earlier post. Better late than never I suppose, but some kind of mothership for MCM may well be in the offing.

          Given the retirement of the last B1’s and the fact that the government will have grown ‘used’ to having a presence in far away places I think a B3 multi-role patrol / MCM mothership might be a good fit.

          We shouldn’t forget that the National Shipbuilding Strategy is due for refresh soon and could well see an expansion of the programme. At least that is the expectation / hope…

          Cheers CR

          • I thought the Type 32 were going to be motherships? Was reading article on Navy Lockout which was saying about missiles on QE’s and the current risk of having to have t26 / t45 in close to provide goalkeeper cover which will serverly hinder primary roles (Noise Carrier make hard to detect sub), we should get another 3-4 T31 with large fit of Sea Ceptor and poss 40/57 MM guns to goalkeeper for QE’s, that would allow the 2 -T26 & 2-T45s to be more effective

          • Hi Steve,

            The T32 are indeed intended to be drone carrying ships, however, the T31’s have been mooted as MCM drone support ships. Clearly, there is a lot of discussion on-going with in the MoD / RN as the recent mention of MCM specific motherships shows.

            In reality, nothing is cast in stone until it enters service and even then it can get ditched early… I hope that the T31 / T32 ships are free to operate in patrol / frigate roles rather than being tied down as MCM motherships – I suspect most on here would agree with that. Without a dedicated MCM mothership class the RN will see frigate availability actually fall rather than rise.

            Drones offer a huge potential. The Navy Lookout article I read even highlights that the T83 may be a smaller ship with sensors and command and control systems, controlling a number of other small ‘hulls’ with lots of missiles loaded on-board… Potentially large drones or minimally crewed ships. Interesting concept and I am sure there are plenty of others being kicked around as well, but my feeling is that the biggest challenge facing the surface fleet is keeping any threat at arms length whilst creating the opportunity to complete the assigned mission.

            The main threats are air (including ship launched long range missiles) and subsurface threats. Drones offer the potential to push sensor arrays and ‘effectors’ forward without risking crews and I suspect this is the key area of interest. In the first instance I would expect to see sensor carrying drones and seperate weapons carriers – given the limitations of small and medium sized drones that can be carried by escorts in reasonable numbers (I cannot see the point of a mothership carrying one drone – unless it was a big drone being delivered into an operational area for a long duration mission).

            Given the inherent flexibility of a drone carrying escort and assuming the drones can provide sufficient effect to force an adversary to keep their distance there is the potential for the motherships to operate sufficiently far back from the contact battle to enable GP frigates such as the T31’s to take on in part at least roles traditionally undertaken by specialist ships e.g. T26 / T45. Even so GP frigates would remain ‘force multipliers’ not replacements for specialists, at least for the forseeable future.

            I am thinking in terms of escorts not carriers and peer on peer threats rather than asymeteric threats. Lots of FIAC’s with RPG and Heavy Machine Guns and the need gets a bit more traditional e.g. 40 and 57mm guns…

            Cheers CR

          • Hi CR yes agreed you could use T-83 as a master control (isn’t the Aegis? it can control all SM2 armed vessels and launch in ‘god’ mode) have smaller remote ships with large numbers of vls, but unless the sensors suite can see huge distances sure the range they can be pushed out is limited. maybe you could have remote towed array ships with torp or even torp carrying drones controlled by master ASw. For other things i think too carry enough drones you would end up with something Bay size to a: carry enough, b: be able to service/repair c: provide facilities to support crew for long periods
            loads of possibilities but i just hope what ever way we go we do it properly not just have measure that doesn’t quite do it really weel

        • Hey D, That’s was my idea! Seriously though. good you raised the point. I’m unsure what role the River’s are tasked with in a war situation (God forbid). It seems logical to fit them with a containerized MCMV systems fit. From a layman’s perspective there is plenty of aft deck space to accommodate .

      • ATH, we’ve used Oilrig support/duve boats before Stenna’s Inspector and Seaspread Falklands Seaspread was still down there in 88 as Fwd repair NP 2010 another Oilsupport bt was used by the Clearence divers for Sat diving as a stop gap between Reclaim and Challenger Great accommodation 2 to 4 man berth with en suite heads and showers big well decks for workshop ISOs large Top flightdeck had 4mnths on Seaspread easy draft She even had apart from 4 bars/ Rec spaces there was even a Sauna

  4. Did i miss posts about these 2? I would have thought would have been stuff about 2 RN ships transiting Panama etc? not just leaving San Deigo after being there for 6 days already. or did they get train? last i saw was regarding meeting up with Caribean ships.

        • Is aMerlin size flight deck big enough to put f-35 on? that would be good setup of course might need some heat resistant paint

          • Theoretically, you could fit an F35 onto the flight deck. It has a similar footprint to a Merlin, although it of course has a significant wingspan that you’d need to contend with, which can’t be folded up like a Merlin.

            However, the deck has been specifically designed with aircraft up to and including the size of Merlin. The F35 is significantly heavier than a Merlin, meaning that the flight deck itself might not support the weight of an F35. The ship itself might need to be ‘set up’ to allow for a landing and FlyCo trained in F35 operations, as both will only really be set up for helicopters and UAV operations.

            Furthermore, as you noted, the landing spot itself hasn’t been heat-treated. Now, this might not be a problem for the odd landing or for emergency purposes, but it will be a problem for prolonged operations. The Rivers are a valuable asset right now (to be fair, we need more!) and I wouldn’t want to see one taken out of service to repair a warped deck.

            Perhaps another consideration is weather conditions. I’ve said it before: it’ll take one ballsy pilot to drop a Merlin on one even in good conditions. An F35 pilot would need balls the size of Jupiter to drop onto one and even if it did happen, I could only see it happening in the most perfect of conditions. What I’m trying to imply is that the risks are likely too great to both the aircraft and the vessel, and in turn, the crews of both. It really isn’t worth it when you have ~£200m + in equipment and dozens of lives at stake!

            What I’d like to see is the B2 vessels fitted with and operating containerised UAVs, whilst retaining the flight deck for use with helicopters. They might not be able to hangar a helicopter, but they can certainly support ASW, maritime partol and even landing/boarding operations. Think of them as a lilypad. I’d also like to see some form of study or demonstration as to the F35’s ability to use alternative flight decks as you have suggested. It could potentially be done through the use of T45, T26 or the RFA vessels that form part of the task group. I must stress that this should be from a purely ’emergency’ standpoint, such as an equipment failure on the aircraft itself or God forbid, an accident on the carrier that compromises both the ship and flight deck. I’m a man that likes to future-proof as much as possible and learn from the past.

          • 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Lusty that is one hell of a reply. it was just a possible alternative to Strike length MK41 VLS as would give a variety of options from AAW to long range strike and a good ISAR ability all in 1 optional package that could be deployed if required 😀

          • Just trying to show I can think beyond the ‘upgunthemnaow!’ brigade. 😉

            Personally, I think we should also add four 20″ guns in a quad turret. 😀

        • Your all so cynical but what happens if they come up against those extra terrestrials from Battleship. Then you’ll be sorry.

        • I was reluctant to mention that as the official secrets act is for life not just for christmas, but I can divulge the boffins are working on how to accelerate say a Hawkeye to flight speed in the length of the River B2 flight deck. Basically that subjects a 2G airframe and 9G crew to maybe 100+G. also the superstructure might get in the way….

  6. according to Jane’s the B1’s will stay in service until 2028 now, reminds you that the River-class will eventually need a replacement. I think that a common hull should be developed for replacing Echo’s and Rivers and potentially MROSS?

    • I think you are more likely to see more T31esque ship than more Rivers.

      Crewing is not that different – in an austere config they won’t be crazy expensive to run and they are, when up armed, suitable for hot situations.

      Also R&R space on a T31 is better which is vital for retention.

      • I understood a single crew for T31 to be over 100. Wouldn’t dual crewing be twice that? Whereas B2s need between 65 and 70 for the rotating triple watch. I may have misunderstood something, but wouldn’t Type 31s require three times the crew to achieve a similar percentage of sea days?

        • As ever it depends on what departments are fully manned.

          I think the B2 crew is really bigger than that.

          A B2 is a big ship IRL which has had the ‘interesting bits’ taken off to increase uptime and decrease crewing. If you put the ‘interesting bits’ back on you would end up with about the same sized crewing requirements.

          A T31 would have the same crewing requirements as T26 if you out all the buts that go bang and sonar onto her.

      • Heads are going to a new role – likely

        Or

        Heads are going to a roll – also likely

        Or

        The heads are getting some more rolls…. – always

        I’ll stop be a pedant now before I annoy George….

  9. How times have changed! There was a time that if the Royal Navy sailed into an American Harbour, then the ships would be welcomed by cannon fire….aimed directly at them!

    • 😂 and when the British Army visited Washington for the first time after Independence, they set fire to the place😆

      • To be fair the British Army got it’s butt kicked in front of New Orleans in 1815 – all in the interests of balanced posting, of course 🙂

        Cheers CR

        • Haha CR-I am all for objectivity and our special relationship. This has been a light hearted exchange and one of my best pals is a retired US Navy nuclear sub First Engineer, so all good.
          I remember that wonderful exchange in A Fish called Wanda when John Cleese told Kevin Kline that”..they(the Vietnamese) whipped your ass” with him replying ” No they didn’t-it was a draw..!”😂
          God Bless America!
          PS We were playing an away game in New Orleans-they’ve never beaten us at Home! 😂

          • Hi geoff,

            My post was intended to be tongue in cheek as well – sorry if I didn’t achieve that.

            Cheers CR

          • You did achieve that CR-on the same page and have enjoyed chatting to you guys. Cheers from sunny(today!) 24 degrees Durban

          • I’ve told French colleagues we won the 100 Years War in exactly the same spirit. We only lost afterwards.

          • 😂 Perfect Jon. I got into trouble here some time back when a French gentleman replied irately to my comment-So apart from Waterloo,Trafalgar, Agincourt,Blenheim, Quebec….

          • almost as good as Kevin Kline’s character thinking the London underground was a political movement !

          • Howsit Klonkie! Ya, desert island movie. Maybe one of the Rivers will make the long trip down to you guys in NZ as long as Jacinda doesn’t ban them for being part of a Navy that has Nukes😂

          • Cheers Mate – I’m patiently hoping fo the day when QE pays a visit! Enjoy that sunny Durbs by the sea weather, bucketing down here (just for a change)

  11. OPV’S in san diego?!! i went there in 1978 it was a great run ashore.to see batch river patrol ships so far from home is a real eye opener another opportunity to perhaps do some business after all brazil,oman and the thais have their own batch 2 derivertives.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here