Germany to equip new patrol vessels with BAE 57mm guns

So why are they being used to escort Russian Navy Vessels around our coastline? Yet another reason for a larger calibre gun.

Hi Nigel.

The Russians are not going to start WW3 firing on the FRE.

There is no need for an escort like for like in my view.

The main point is for Russia to be aware that NATO is aware and monitors them.

However, if the RB2 ( not the B1 ) is used further afield akin to the T31 would it need up gunning then?

I’m intrigued by this SF mention? Where did you get that?
I assume you mean the River B2s?

If you want SF support see SD Victoria, or in the future the LSS, if they are ever realised.

To make sure the Russian vessels obey the rules of the road in the busiest shipping lane in the world when they transit the channel, make sure they don’t stray where they might get into trouble (sandbars etc) and render assistance if they do face problems. Finally if they start to stray somewhere we don’t want them sniffing to remind them of where our territorial waters start.

Any Russian ship in that scenario will not be looking for a fight and will be more likely be buttoned down and only using navigation radars to avoid giving us lots of useful intel.

Absurd. As I have said before, we should blow a big raspberry at the Russian Navy and escort them through the channel with a tug and fly a flag signal asking “are you in distress is your captain too drunk to steer straight”

Aren’t the Rivers, particularly the batch 2s, massive overkill if all they are to be used for is fisheries protection in home waters? I don’t know enough to know what extra demands/capabilities are needed for “occasional jaunts to the Caribbean” but for instance the high density berths for something like 50 embarked troops and the installation of a CMS station would not seem worthwhile if these are to be their only roles.

Also, on the fisheries protection thing, what does a River bring that more cutters couldn’t do? Is that all down to sea keeping capabilities in higher sea states? Presumably though there’s a limit to what sea states need to be handled because if the weather gets too bad then fishing vessels aren’t going to need to be policed because they’ll either be in port or intent on getting themselves out of danger rather than doing any fishing in our waters.

Yes

(and a total waste of money)

I suppose Pacman, at least the River 2’s have the capacity to be up armed and used for other missions if required down the road.

If we talk fantasy fleets (or the minimum actually required) we might usefully use an up gunned River 2 with a 57 mm main gun, Martlet, phalanx , lightweight SAM system etc as a light escort, in the Gulf for instance.

Retaining the River 1′ s for general patrol use.

I’ve been mulling this over and came to the following surface fleet mix, affordable at 3% GDP on defence and making maximum use of River batch 2’s and upcoming affordable T31’s

6 X T45
15X T26 (three air defence variants)
12 X T31
5 X up gunned River 2’s

You are right John,

and they are not awful, I am just very unhappy at how they came about and their overall cost and was further enraged at the build quality as it really was airfix (or at least the glue bit was).

It is an example of failure for me on a lot of fronts, and I would sell them as fast as I can even though they have some utility.

On the positive side the RN got a new product, the army spent a fortune on FRES and got nothing except a large invoice.. suppose I should lighten up a bit.

Pacman, I am with you regarding poor management of the available resources.

As said before, a capability is required by the military, it’s then distorted, by running it through a politically acceptable filter ( Political industrial complex) before being ordered.

By this point, the delays kick in and the price goes through the roof!

The River 2’s were even worse, a classic example of the tail wagging the dog, the RN didn’t even request the bloody things!

Our defence budget could buy a lot more equipment if lateral thinking was employed and we gave the armed forces the kit they actually want and need.

I remember talking to an RAF Tornado F3 pilot
at a party back in the 1990’s, around the time of the proposed stop gap F16C order, he was excited about the prospect, but strong lobbying by BAE stopped that one in its tracks and we spent a fortune turning the F3 into the aircraft it should have been in the first bloody place!

Should the RAF have bought 36 F16’s, absolutely they should!

They would have been hugely useful assets and given the RAF a mature and capable swing role combat aircraft 10 years earlier…

Re SF- I had seen it mentioned some time ago in an article, presumably as this type of vessel would be a good fit for such a role.

Attached are other peoples views on how the Batch 2 OPV’s could operate, clearly, the Thai Navy has other ideas for their Crabi class.

A combination of the two (larger main gun) would make these a very capable asset rather than what we have at the moment.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/improving-the-capability-of-a-future-opv-squadron-part-2/

Thank you Nigel.

One area where b2 Rivers could be used that would potentially put them into frontline use is MCM. Mine clearance is moving to UAV’s, something the B2’s should be able to handle. However, operating in contested coastal & littoral areas armed with a non AAW capable 30mm is not ideal. Either 35mm (with AHEAD) or 40mm (with P3) would be a cheap alternative. Airburst also gives some offensive capability against troops & their handheld light anti-armour weapons. With the 30mm you need to be able to see what you are shooting at. Put the 30mm & LMM on the sides. The 57mm is good, but there is a noticeable price jump. The 40mm is a usable compromise (unless the T31 is going to go 57mm).

Well it was designed to do that but spends its time doing far more including escorting massive Russian warships in and out of our own back garden. The OPV will be used for tasks well in excess of its current physical capability and is, as many RN vessels are, very under armed for these tasks.

SF as in sustained fire presumably. Ie. Gun line, fire support

Yes, I’d misunderstood, thinking the other SF.

The problem with that argument with the B2 Rivers is there size. If things get serious, they will be utilised, regardless of armament. You don’t need to go overboard, but something like the BAE Bofors 40mm or Leonardo equivalent gives you a basis to start from for a reasonable cost. Not ideal, but not useless. Naval ships (RAN replenishment ship in 1990) have turned up to hotspots before with army MANPAD crews onboard due to lack of organic AAW defences of any sort. Trying to obtain better weapons like a main gun at short notice is not easy, because if you need to do it, you won’t be the only one & you likely can’t afford the refit time anyway.

Taking reasonable precautions shouldn’t be beyond the purse of the Royal Navy. So the Rivers don’t need the area air defence of of a Type 45, but the point defence of a CIWS such as Phalanx makes sense.
Similarly a high-end such as a 5” or 4.5” inch is overkill for the platform, but a 50mm or 76mm would be a more appropriate gun should a River have to face-down other OPVs.

As for the Rivers being suitably equipped for the role envisaged… Well battlecruisers were well equipped for their role; more powerful guns to kill cruisers and greater speed to outrun battleships. It didn’t prevent them from being used in other roles, such as going head-to-head with battleships. And that didn’t go well.

There is no plan to deploy the River class anywhere that it would need CIWS, it would also up the cost and increase the crew requirement to support it.

UK OPV are not intended to face down other OPV where we deploy them, biggest potential threat is a terrorist with an RPG making a 30mm perfectly adequate for its tasking.

The Battlecruiser was the result of faulty thinking in the early 20th Century and bares no relevance for the tasking and equipment requirements of UK OPV.

Up gunning UK OPV is a wasteful exercise not supported by the evidence of how they have been used over the last few decades.

No plan currently… But in a conflict where resources are stretched then they WILL be deployed in new roles. It’s happened before, it’ll happen again.
(As for CWIS, terrorist’s are fielding armed drones now, they’ve graduated beyond RPGs.)

There was nothing wrong with the battlecruiser concept, so long as they were used only for the roles that they were defined for. Deploying them against more heavily armed units in a slugging match was the problem

BTW why does every other navy feel the need to arm their OPV’s more heavily than we arm the Rivers…?

Maybe because in many cases the OPV /Corvette type of vessel is all they have, where’s the RN is a Blue Water Navy?

RN clearly believes it needs to be an ‘all water’ Navy covering both blue water; carrier strike groups, and littoral waters; OPV’s and the recently announced Littoral Strike Ships.

If the RN are putting P2000 into the Baltic already along with MCMs, do you really believe that B2s won.t find their way into the Baltic?

And there you have the perennial problem of the RN, T21 etc were never envisioned as operating in bomb alley, guess what? And sadly they paid the price.

The Baltics are a powder keg and it could go kinectic at any time. 2013/14 would have been his best opportunity however today as power slips from him he might feel pushed to go, national unity old chap, and a B2 would fast become fish feed.

Not everything needs to be a T26, but, a 57mm gun, as it becomes NATO standard, wouldn’t be the worst idea.

Hat Trick?, third time lucky you mean?

Well hat-trick with regards to kicking things off..,

Hopefully its been improved over the years, is there any similar system out there GB, as from a single platform it does offer a lot of capability for a smaller vessel?