The Royal Navy’s River-class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) exemplify the fleet’s ability to maintain a robust operational presence in home waters and internationally.

As of the latest data via @TBrit90, OSINT expert and naval analyst, the entire River-class fleet is either active or deployed, showcasing these versatile vessels’ exceptional readiness and global reach.

The River-class OPVs are currently at sea or ready to deploy at locations worldwide, supporting the Royal Navyā€™s global presence.

Hereā€™s where the fleet is currently located:

  • HMS Tyne: The Channel.
  • HMS Severn: Work-up out of Falmouth.
  • HMS Mersey: TrainingĀ out of Portsmouth.
  • HMS Forth: Deployed in the Falklands.
  • HMS Medway: Operating out of Portsmouth.
  • HMS Trent: Deployed in the Caribbean.
  • HMS Tamar: Deployed in the Indo-Pacific, near New Zealand.
  • HMS Spey: Deployed in Singapore.

The River-class OPVs were first introduced in the early 2000s to replace the aging Island-class ships. The first three Batch 1 vesselsā€”HMS Tyne, HMS Severn, and HMS Merseyā€”were initially leased to the Royal Navy, with the goal of increasing operational availability to cover up to 300 days per year.

Three Batch 1 River class Offshore Patrol Vessels.

This allowed the new ships to efficiently fulfill the duties of multiple vessels they replaced. In 2012, the Ministry of Defence purchased these vessels outright.

Larger and more versatile than their predecessors, the Batch 1 vessels feature a flexible open aft deck capable of supporting a range of mission-specific equipment, making them well-suited for roles such as fishery protection and disaster relief. Despite initial plans to decommission these ships, the decision was made to retain them.

In 2017, the Batch 2 shipsā€”HMS Forth, HMS Medway, and HMS Trentā€”began entering service, introducing significant enhancements. These newer vessels, built with an extended hull and capable of hosting helicopters, were designed for global deployment. Their enhanced speed and larger displacement allow them to take on more complex, long-range missions, including counter-terrorism and anti-smuggling operations.

HMS Tamar, PSS Kedam and JS Kirimase off Palau

HMS Tamar and HMS Spey, the final two Batch 2 ships, were deployed to the Indo-Pacific region, reflecting the Royal Navyā€™s focus on extending its reach in key strategic areas.

The 100% operational status of the River-class OPVs highlights their crucial role in maintaining the UK’s maritime security strategy. With vessels stationed in regions from the South Atlantic to Southeast Asia, and of course home waters, these patrol vessels provide the UK with a visible and ready presence across the world.

Image Crown Copyright 2022.

With 100% of the fleet active or deployed, the River-class OPVs are a testament to the Royal Navy’s operational resilience and adaptability in an ever-evolving maritime landscape.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

103 COMMENTS

      • Nope if there was a way to fit them keeping costs down or use the teu method for at least some missiles capability. Maybe look at deploying uav or usv from them using them as a control node.

        It would at least let them do patrol duties like the middle east. I’m not saying they should be escorting the carrier quite the opposite, freeing more capable.ships to do more.

        There’s no money, we have to get creative

        • Oh dear, you where being serious? That’s really silly.

          Missile capability is very expensive, in terms of maintenance, fitting, crewing. The entire reason we currently have 8/8 Rivers at sea is because they are simple ships, that are cheap to crew and operate, that require relatively little maintenance. Adding a VLS system would just about be the single WORST thing you could do for these ships.

          • Simple ships, agreed but we need more hulls in the water. We need to look at how we can maximise their punch and adaptability.

            Distributed lethality, adaptability and thinking out of the box. Look at the Ukrainians, they’ve taken out the black sea fleet without a traditional navy. We need to take what ideas we can and adapt them to our needs. Could we take their usv’s and incorporate them into working either the type 31s or opvs? Could those then be used as sensor nodes for asw? For Aa? The simple ships then become far more effective, no?

            “Oh dear, you where being serious? Thatā€™s really silly”

            Why the passive aggressive piss take? I thought we were here to discuss military matters among the like minded?

          • It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the RN takes from the way the UKR have done things.
            We have seen the RN testing the autonomous RIB with a RWS. Packs of those around a mother vessel?

          • Not everything is about lethality. This is like saying “I can’t afford to drive the Hummer down to the shops, so let me put a V8 in my VW Polo to save money.”

            Adding VLS to a River OPV and acting like A) that’s a sensible idea, or B) that that would make them suitable for an active warzone is a silly idea at best, and I will call it what it is.

            If you don’t like it, I don’t really care.

          • If you look at what I said it wasnā€™t just about lethality but about hull in the water and having them used in innovative and new ways. Using them as part of a system. Both we and the Americans have been looking for years as to the possibilities of using containerised weapon systems. I donā€™t think a smaller distributed set up of vls is as outlandish as you think.

            Theres a view that the future of naval warfare is many smaller ships networked and less larger ones. Should one be taken out the overall system is still working and effective as opposed to the all the eggs in one basket method. Certainly when it comes to defensive screening be it saw or aa I can see that approach being effective.

          • I thought giving them a bit more credibility would be a good idea too but considering that the three River B1’s are supposed to be retired in 2027/28 and with the likelihood they will be replaced by Tamar and Spay, I would think more lethality might be a bit over kill for potroling UK waters?

          • You where litterally talking about adding a missile system. So how about not lying hmmm?

            And yes it is. For all the reasons I’ve pointed out. Adding a VLS does not make the Rivers viable surface combatants, steals funds from actual combat vessels, and reduces their at sea days as well as creating more crewing pinch points.

            As I said, it’s an incredibly silly, if not outright stupid idea.

          • It may be possible to deploy some additional weapons on the River Class. If said weapon systems are mounted in cargo containers. Self contained systems that need a power supply and could possibly connect to the ships radar systems. Its a logical development of the RN current containerised capability concept. Several nations have taken steps in this general direction and gone much further. With everything from missile air defensive capabilities to fully autonomous anti-drone systems and 40mm naval guns being accommodated.

            Rheinmetall have developed a real doozy cannon system. They have also collaborated with Halcon to mount 60 small Sky Knight missiles in a 20 foot ISO. Intended to be part of the SkyNex defence system. Some of those would strap nicely to a River Class. However, the top prize goes to the ChiComs. They have countless 40 foot ISO containers packing cruise missiles and all the associated widgets. Turning almost any container vessel into a first strike missile arsenal ship. Look out Taiwan. I digress as usual.

            An up gunned River Class is still no substitute for a properly designed Destroyer or Frigate but still better than a patrol tub. No insult intended to the fine peeps crewing the River Class. But the worlds oceans have become rather dangerous recently. The sight of the White Ensign alone no longer strikes fear into would be enemies. A 30mm Bushmaster, two miniguns and a 50 Cal Browning or three. Don’t count for much these days.

          • Good Morning George, Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the Brownings replaced the miniguns, not supplemented them?
            Kind Regards from Durban ( where we have just hosted a Russian Navy ship in Capetown rightly infuriating the Ukranians and many of us here in South Africa)

          • You could be right about that but I imagine both weapons could be carried onboard if needed. Pintle mounts are not difficult to install.

            As for visits from the Russian Navy. I suspect that could have something to do with being a BRICS member and geopolitical partner to several Axis of Evil countries.

            I wish you well Geoff.

          • I guess then if WW3 broke out, and money was no longer an issue, these containers could be fitted in short order? Don’t know what is required to alter the ships systems and assume they would still be kept clear of war zones.

          • I would hope container packing up-gunned River Class would be kept well clear of warzones. But of course potential enemies have a say in that too. I wonder how many times River Class have used Suez and the Red Sea before the Houthi jihadis started sinking ships with missiles.

          • Spey and Tamar have been deployed to the Indo Pacific. Didn’t they transit Suez. I’m certain they did.

          • Adding a VLS is nowhere near enough to make Rivers any sort of surface combatant. They have no CIWS, no decoys or soft kill systems, a rather basic radar suite that won’t cope with any sort of VLS, a low speed, I could go on, but the point is: Adding a VLS doesn’t make them viable. It would just be expensive.

          • Of course we should have containerised weapons for exactly the purpose you outline, I’d really like to see CAMM in a box, but if we’ve developed any aggressive NavyPODS, they haven’t been announced.

            The RB2s have two positions for TEUs without compromising the flight deck. I would hope these have been upgraded to NavyPOD standard for at least two of the ships, allowing power, data and possibly cooling water connections. However, I’ve read nothing to say that has been done. Without it, there would be no easy connection to the ship’s radar. Even if it could connect and could use the ship’s CMS, it’s arguable whether the Terma Scanta 2D radars are capable of targetting a missile against aerial threats.

            Any such containers might need to be self sufficient.

          • Indeed Jon. Any such containers would need to be self sufficient. Those things do exist. Houthi rebels notwithstanding, it’s a fast growing sector. With several manufacturers bringing their wares to market.

          • The 50s replaced the mini guns fleet wide. The mini guns have too much of an overlap with the gpmg in terms of range and they can’t be used for warning shots as they really chuck rounds about the place.
            The direction from above seems to be every thing with a cannon gets 40mm if possible. 20mm from the batch 1s may just be replaced with a pair of 50s on the bridge wings for instance.

          • The BAE Leander proposal that lost out to the A140/T31 is probably more like what you’re thinking. It’s a substantial muscled up and stretched B2 River with hangar, mk41 vls plus a mini CAMM farm 2×12 I think. If the RN ever wants a “recycled” class utilusing hand me downs i think this might be the design for it! LOL.

    • I tried to draw your attention to a Navy Lookout article a day or two ago, Brom, but maybe it was blocked because I provided a link to that website? Anyway, although my post hasn’t been accepted, there’s an article in 2020 that explores some possible upgrades to the OPVs, one of which incorporates an armed drone, which might might be of interest to you.

  2. Yet none have a basic anti surface, anti air or ASW capability, so are useless in the event of conflict & put their crews at dire risk.

    • They do exactly what they are designed to do. The Roles they are tasked to do. The unglamorous. Patrol duties, anti piracy flying the flag abd having a presence far from home. Disaster relief. This gets covered every single time these important vessels appear in a article.

      • And every time there are posts to have them turned into warships and armed to the teeth, at a cost to other things, when it is not necessary for their role, and would impact elsewhere by doing so.
        I’d be interested in just how many posters actually realize how much of the military/MoD is not at the fighty end, and has no need to be.

        • Agreed. Saying that though, I wonder if there’s a case for a batch 3 River class. , hangar equipped, 57mm gun, nothing too dramatic. With a few unmanned underwater drones they could augment underwater infrastructure protection and ASW duties.

          • The Batch 1’s are being retired in the not too distant future, and given the service the B2’s have given something should replace them. But I doubt we’ll get another batch of the River design. If the capability is kept, rather than just put to bed, it’ll probably a competition and a new hull form (It is a 20+ year old design now).

          • Yes, something to replace the B1’s was what I envisioned. Modest increase in size and armament. Permanent hangar though a helicopter wouldn’t always be embarked. I’d expect that by the time such a vessel was built the RN would be well versed in UUV/USV/UAV operations. The BAE Cutlass design for their T31 offering was my thinking on this.

          • My preference is for a decrease in size and cost for the B1 replacements. I think they are slightly over-specced for UK waters and a combo buy with Border Force of ships around 500t displacement would give us the best bang for the buck. As much as I would love B3 Rivers, we really can’t afford anything at all, and the alternative to super-cheap B1-replacement vessels will be exactly that, nothing at all. We’ll see the repatriation of four of the B2s, and the T31s used for presence work: a criminal waste of money.

          • I had in mind that any B3 would be for more than just UK waters, I’d see them being utilised in North Sea and Atlantic operations, patrolling sub sea and offshore infrastructure as well as augmenting ASW work. With of course the option for overseas deployment as well, hence the hangar and larger gun. I wouldn’t add much more beyond the existing sensors and CMS, the versatility of these ships is their relative simplicity in systems and design.

            The funding is simply politics. They can find the money when they need to. 2.5% of GDP could be done tomorrow if there was a will. There’s just not enough votes in it.

            Until the Internet and online banking and electricity is suddenly cut off…….

          • Spay and Tamar are due back from the indo pacific in a couple of years and the Batch 1 ‘s are supposed to retire 2027/28 so seems logical that they will take up the baton in the UK waters and one or two of the T31’s will go to the indo pacific?

          • Sadly I suspect the replacement for the B1’s will be nothing. Fingers crossed, but I don’t see it happening.

        • I think there are two points of view here. Some are taking a traditional peace time navy which we have been fortuneate to have been able to have for nearly 80 years whilst other people are (I think) concerned that we could be at war at any moment and they want a visibly stronger navy to deter hostilities and if hostilities did materialise would want to be able to bolster the defences of our ships, quickly roll out drones etc.

          Both are valid arguments. The trouble with a peace time navy is that it sort of needs to easily expand to become a war time navy should thwe need arise.

          • Yes both are valid. I think if we make the peacetime part, so the Rivers, capable of being more fighty the actual fighting part of the RN is diminished? I think it needs a money no object stance to work.
            When we had 50 escorts, so the worlds third biggest navy at that time ( late 80s ) we also had our Castles and our Islands and our Peacocks.
            I think there needs to be a place for both.
            On Posse’s suggestion above of a River B3 with Drones, yes please. Again, always money. I see no evidence yet this shower will provide the funds.

          • This. The problem is a River OPV with a VLS is still a rubbish surface combatant. And the money to fit the River with said VLS would have to come from somewhere… (plus the training for the crews to operate the VLS) which means less for the actual fighty ships.

          • More like 40 years than 80. The serious losses and deficiencies of the navy in 82 is still in comfortable living memory and should be a constant reminder that a crisis can arrive at any time.

          • Ironically some of the deficiencies in 82 were down to the Type 42s not having the firepower to fend off the threat from Exocets etc. In some ways the Argentinians had moved on with their tech and we had not kept pace. If we had had T45s back then that might well have deterred the invasion in the first place. Certainly a landing would have been much much easier.

            Indeed a few River Class batch 2 with VLS capability might have tipped the landing in favour of the RN allowing us to make it home, potentially, with less if not no ships lost. Aster and/or Sea Ceptor can indeed discourage an air force. Argentina removed their fleet from the battlefield when we sunk the Belgrano – perhaps they might have kept their air force home as well.

          • We were blind to threats outside of our prime NATO role, North Atlantic anti sub. Air and missile defences were neglected. I have a nasty feeling we are heading into a new era of having a very narrow vision and neglecting having a well balanced capability. It takes seconds to cull something but many years to restore it. Something dumb politicians seem oblivious to

          • In theory the T45s, astute & new carriers have moved us back into worldwide role although your point is well taken. Politicians are easy targets however they are not supposed to be military experts – quite the opposite. The RN should be explaining in simple language what is needed and what will happen if they don’t get it.

          • I don’t agree we have had a peace time navy for 80 years. We only had peace for about 30 years after the cold war ended and now that the second cold war is taking place we need to get back to relevant capabilities to fight it.

            Plus the threat from cheap drones has multiplied by a hundred in the last two years.

            Anywhere in the world a merchant vessel could launch a serious drone attack on any UK vessel and we ought to be investing in giving all our vessels appropriate protection OPVs, tankers, assault ships, anything which might operate alone.

            To me that means radar, vision systems, guns and close range missiles all linked together to provide a creditable defense for the range of potential drones which could used to attack a vessel.

          • Agreed. True the cold war provided extra demands on the RN however bar the Falklands conflict there has been very little maritime conflict. Certainly there has been nothing sustained.

            In previous conflicts we had mass, possibly not the right type of mass but mass never the less. Now we have some ships which we will need to protect probably with drones against drones and more conventional threats. Personally I would like to see more drones around our fleet now and, as you say, capable of being deployed to any environment at pace.

  3. It was widely reported that RN leadership wasn’t keen on these ships. Now they are about the only ones that we can deploy. The ability of the 2 classes to sustain 300+ days at sea is a result of a simple and reliable propulsion system. A more complex weapons fit wouldn’t affect this ability much. So there is hope that their planned successors in the forward deployed role, the T31s, also diesel powered, will reach the same time at sea standard.

    • A more complex weapons fit absolutely would effect this.
      More complex weapons means more time maintaining those weapons, means more specialist crews required to operate and maintain those weapons (and more crew in general).
      Then you add in the systems to enable those weapons… yeah, don’t hold your breath about the Inspirations matching the Rivers at sea days.

        • The T31 came about as a cheaper GP vessel was needed. It is one of the last things I’d cut they will be valuable.
          Has the contract for 5 not already been signed?

          • Just thinking of of the box. Arrowhead 140 has a big flight deck and a lot of accommodation. If it were possible to revamp the mission bay ( ditch the Mk41) you might be able to make the equivalent of a 2 spot Enforcer with 57mm . Put more Ceptors in the B position.

          • Ha. Paul, I’m an ORBAT and infrastructure man, the pros and cons of that are beyond me.
            Why not just order 3 more further down the line, exactly the same. We need more GP hulls to keep T26 and T45 tied to the CSG and GIUK.
            We need people first, and the RFA properly funded.

          • Daniele, you are indeed the Orbat encyclopedia I and others rely on. I may be reading the runes all wrong but if it’s a serious proposal to cancel the last 3 T31 then something is up. Rosyth would not be idle so Babcock would be building something else. Agree on people and RFA.

          • I would guess it is misinformed speculation, nothing more.
            Like a lot of rumours pre SDR as the services plant stories in the media.

          • Yes, just speculation. But as they say, no smoke without fire. You mentioned in one of your posts that ā€˜weā€™ ( the MoD?) had a habit of gapping capabilities. You quoted MCM as an example. You made a good point. If big cuts are suddenly being demanded the RN might have to find a creative way to replace the MCM ships we have sold or given away. Itā€™s possible that they no longer have the money for T32 motherships they thought they had. The T45 upgrades and the T26 builds look to be going well; 8 or 9 T23s have survived Lifex, 4 with the PMGU upgrade. In other words they could well be looking to see whether they could skip over T31 and ask Babcock to jump straight to T32. No loss in ā€˜GPā€™ capability ( nice to have) but we get the strategic capability we must have. Is this the reason there has been a dearth of news on Venturer?

          • You’re getting a reputation with me as “the deep thinker” ….Paul!
            There were also suggestions T32 was a BJ misquote and never existed, or is just a T31B2.
            Where did the hard evidence T32 was some sort of drone launching MCM motherfrigate come from? I’ve read of it here for years, just thought it idle speculation.
            On MCM motherships, I thought that were to be the Castle class, once Stirling Castle had proven the concept and STUFT.
            Has she? It’s all gone quiet there too.

          • Ha! Idiot Savant more like šŸ™‚
            Read somewhere that the Sterling Castle trial were showing that you need a bespoke design. I can see though that a commercial ship might be ok for home ports but you would something more mobile to go with a csg.
            As to the link between t32 and mcm mothership I found a quote from 2020 by then minister of state for defence procurement Jeremy Quin, reported in Navalnews. ‘ further work is required to develop the operational concept however it is envisaged that Type 32 will be a platform for autonomous systems, adding to the navy’s capabilites for missions such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures’. So there you go. Enjoy the weekend.

          • The T-31 doesn’t have a mission bay in the same way the T-26 does. The closest equivalent is a space under the flight deck, but even that’s about 1/3rd of the T-26’s Mission bay.

          • Thx. As you say, the Arrowhead / T31 might not be a practical basis for an LSD. But to extend my thinking a bit; if you are going to cancel the last 3 T31s what you might still consider is building the last 3 ships as something like a 2 spot Enforcer with some Sea Ceptors and a 57mm. Such a vessel could be crewed by say 90 when deployed as a patrol frigate ( the original role for T31) and with a larger crew when used as a LSD. Just a thought.

          • OK, Now I know where you are coming from, having looked up “Enforcer” ļ»æšŸ™„ļ»æ And cancel the MRSS program? As these would in effect be the MRSS?
            That would end up a cut, as we lose more Frigates but get the 3 MRSS that are firm, when the requirement is for 6.
            So 11 ships reduced to 5…I’m sure HMT will love that!!

          • Hi Paul, there was also that MRP a modified A140 concept from Babcock for a possible T32 role that had a T26 mission bay in it but I think that this has died too?

          • Thatā€™s curve ball. Not sure the timing works. The Kiwis have just upgraded their present frigates. That said T31 might suit them. It could be a win-win arrangement which would fit with the build for export aspirations of the national shipbuilding strategy.

          • Yes, I think so.
            Have to admit my line of thinking is probably leading to where the RN actually decided not to go in the recent discussions with the Dutch: they wanted a ship to replace both their Holland OPVs and their large LPDs….a sort of ‘patrol LPD’. Bit of a chimera so we pulled out of the talks. I think we want something bigger – more like an Albion / Bay replacement. All of that said I can understand how budget pressures for limited number of hulls could force you to consider designing a ship with ambitious merging of roles. After all the RN Caribbean ship has often been an opv or a frigate or a Bay whatever is available.

      • No chance. Contract for all 5 signed and sealed. With T23s in worse condition than feared, the RN would be reduced to 6 T45 and only in due course 8 T26, the last of the latter not until 2035.
        I predict the Albions will go, no T32., no more F 35, so one carrier in reserve or used in amphibious role and at most 2/3 cheap and cheerful MRSS, eventually.
        There isn’t much else to cut.

          • I was surprised by the suggestion and think it’s the least likely thing to be cut. I wasn’t very impressed by the quality of analysis on the podcast. Were you?

          • No I wasnā€™t,TBH when that ā€˜expert ā€˜ pops up on sky news I tune him outšŸ˜€I suppose I was being a bit naughty bringing it up really! The only thing was he could well be right in his rough figure of Ā£5 b but we will have to see šŸ‘

    • Exactly what I’m hoping. The T31 is a good hull with (potentially) a credible weapons fit. Hopefully these are serviceable, reliable platforms that are readily deployable.

    • It was the other way around: Trent has been covering for Medway in the Caribbean while Medway was in Gibraltar for a refit. There has been no operational OPV covering Gib. Last month, after post-refit trials (when there was a mechanical failure to sort out), Medway returned to Portsmouth, and I expect she will go back to the Caribbean sooner or later. I’m also assuming Trent will be going for a refit at some point soon, presumably also at Gibraltar, and hopefully after the Hurricane season.

      • Interesting a refit can be carried out at Gibraltar, if only for an OPV.
        Any scope for expansion? I’d read the facilities at HMNB Gibraltar became disused after the Cold War.
        That’d please the Spanish! Any good dry docks at Gib?šŸ˜ˆ

  7. ‘Despite initial plans to decommission these ships, the decision was made to retain them’ – this isn’t quite right, according to Naval Lookout HMS Severn was formally decommissioned and then recommissioned.

  8. Good to note! Would like to see these vessels carrying a bit more of a punch and providing that extra bit of security when required.

  9. Can’t be that good can’t even stop rubber boats invading the county from france that should be there main reasonability at the moment turning back the invasion

  10. It would be interesting to know what sneaky black boxes they can be fitted with to hoover up signal intelligence in the areas they patrol and its far cheaper than sending a complex ship with 200 crew to wave a flag.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here