Offshore Patrol Vessel HMS Severn has returned to her homeport of Portsmouth for the last time, the vessel is due to be decommissioned at the end of the month.

In April this year in a written answer to a question raised by Sir Nicholas Soames, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence Harriet Baldwin stated Severn would be decommissioned on October the 27th 2017.

Severn recently sailed for a final visit to her affiliated town of Newport.

The vessel is being replaced by one of the new Batch 2 River class vessels being built on the Clyde.

The new Offshore Patrol Vessels were ordered to fill a gap in orders after the second carrier and before the Type 26 frigates begin construction. Critics, the UK Defence Journal included, have raised concerns that they’re severely overpriced and lack important features, such as a helicopter hangar that other, cheaper vessels of the same type have.

The names of hulls four and five came to light the morning before they were officially announced.

The Strategic Defence & Security Review states:

“We will buy two further new Offshore Patrol Vessels, increasing the Royal Navy’s ability to defend UK interests at home and abroad.”

The vessels will be used by the Royal Navy to undertake various tasks including border protection roles, including anti-smuggling, anti-piracy, fisheries patrols, and immigration law enforcement.

The order and construction of the new OPV’s will help sustain hundreds of skilled jobs on the Clyde until the Type 26 build begins, ensuring that the yards remain viable.

The vessels were described at a Defence Select Committee meeting a vessels “the Royal Navy does not want or need”.

 

36
Leave a Reply

avatar
15 Comment threads
21 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
21 Comment authors
Stuart WillardChrisPaul.PSjb1968Gary Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Ross Hopwood
Guest
Ross Hopwood

Perhaps she could be given to the UK Border Force, they seem to be lacking good vessels.

Mr Bell
Guest
Mr Bell

Surely with Brexit around the corner and the need to enforce our maritime EEZ, we need to retain the river class batch 1 vessels?
seems madness to be getting rid of a perfectly good vessel that still has 10-15 years active service still left.
Can these ships not be refitted as mine hunters as a drone mothership or some other worthwhile tasking?

Lee H
Guest
Lee H

The RN just doesn’t have the manpower to do it. They are far too busy spending lots of money on shiny new ships which politicians can point at and say “see, we are investing money in BAES”. The new ships may be over priced but it is a good way of disguising state subsidies to a worldwide multinational company. I am sure Boeing et al are watching. Besides launching a new ship gives a nice photo op and keeps the Sec Def wife busy (nice hat though). Imagine if the money had been invested in manpower so we would have… Read more »

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

another hull bites the dust.

Chris
Guest
Chris

Lee – you say “Imagine if the money had been invested in manpower”. I wonder if you could explain that more? I mean we have a continuous recruiting campaign and an internal policy to keep and reward long serving and skilled ranks. That, surely, is ‘investment in manpower’?

Short of bringing back Press Gangs I am not sure how you would magically create hundreds of new sailors

dadsarmy
Guest
dadsarmy

Volunteers with no call-up, unlike reserves. Weekend sailors basically, but at least the skills are there in an emergency, as long as they volunteer for active duty.

Stuart Willard
Guest

Oh come on Boeing amongst other US companies receive massive subsidies filtered through defence work which are impossible to determine accurately, which is how they can get away with it. Not that anyone would dare confront the US government beyond pointing out the principle as Airbus has defensively when themselves accused of it by the US. Sadly Bombardier has no such power base to fight back against this hypocrisy.

Rover10
Guest
Rover10

Yet another perfectly serviceable asset sold off, typical MOD nonsense.

Rob
Guest
Rob

Commissioned in 2002, its just nuts. She only has a crew of 30 and no advanced systems so how much can it possibly cost to run a ship like this per year?

We should be keeping all the River 1s, then perhaps slightly up arm the 2s so they can perform more of the tasks typically assigned to frigates.

Stuart Willard
Guest

I thought it was 2003. The US are keeping 1980s built horrendously expensive aircraft carriers in service well into the 2020s yet we can’t keep a simple 14 year old vessel in service and instead replacing it with something very similar and very costly. Yes I think we can see where all the money goes.

Jack
Guest
Jack

Give her to the Border Force to complement the cutters.

Paul.P
Guest
Paul.P

Seems a shame when we need more hulls but seiing HMS Severn and replacing her with HMS Forth is the NSS in action so we had better get used to the idea. If she doesn’t go to the Border Force she will be a bargain for someone; Bangladesh?

BB85
Guest
BB85

There is talk of the Irish putting in an order for two more opv’s but with three perfectly good Wave 1’s coming onto the used market fairly soon they’d be mad not to snap them up. They could get all three for half the price of one new build.

Baz
Guest
Baz

Cant understand why no one believes SecDef when he says we have a growing navy
Ha Ha Ha
Ill have some of what he’s on

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

‘gun them up and make them c corvettes or light frigates.

Paul.P
Guest
Paul.P

That’s what Bangladesh did with the Castle class patrol ships.

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

growing navy? my ar** another hull gone, could have been ‘gunned’up and based in gib, or port stanley.

BB85
Guest
BB85

As stupid as it looks when HMS Scimitar chases off Spanish frigates, it probably only has a crew of 5. It hardly worth sending one of these vessels out of port every time the Spanish navy reads its map wrong.

Will
Guest
Will

Agree with comments on here – seems nuts to be retiring a ship with plenty more to offer.

Mr Bell
Guest
Mr Bell

TH how much did the polit bureau pay you for these comments? I am sure you are Putin’s man in the UK.
Hopefully you will get a knock on your door from the nice men in Mi5.
utter Muppet!

dadsarmy
Guest
dadsarmy

Stupid. And if they kept her it means Fallon wouldn’t be “economical with the truth” when he says the navy is growing. Yes, “gun her up”, it’s a young hull still. What I don’t understand is why the UK is cutting down to 2 FPV, when Scotland has 3? We do have half the waters, so it would seem 3 for 3 would be more sensible. Actually I guess we have more than half the waters, and with Ireland having OPV with fisheries as one of their duties, and Holland on the other side, is the UK now going to… Read more »

sjb1968
Guest
sjb1968

TH you are totally out of touch if you think UK and indeed European politicians are somehow facing up to financial reality. They are addicted to spending money (and wasting it) the country does not earn and playing around the edges of the defence budget is peanuts, compared to our yearly deficit and most on here now that. Hence many quite rightly express concern about treasury driven cuts that have no strategic vision, which weaken us and embolden our potential enemies. Don’t forget deterrence is much cheaper than fighting wars something that seems to escape you probably because you are… Read more »

Harry Nelson
Guest
Harry Nelson

I think this article more worrying than the loss of HMS SEVERN:

http://www.janes.com/article/75174/brazil-chile-eye-potential-second-hand-acquisitions-from-uk

Paul.P
Guest
Paul.P

Disconcerting article if true. Losing the LPDs would be the loss of an entire capability. Losing two Type 23s before Type 31 are on service would be manageable if we keep HMS Tyne in addition to the 5 new River 2s which could handle our responsibilities in the N Caribbean, S Atlantic and Somalia, leaving 3 OPVs for UK fisheries.

Paul.P
Guest
Paul.P

Losing Albion and Bulwark might also be manageable if the proposed Mars FSS vessels are big enough and have a well deck. Cheap Korean build and smaller RFA crews would cut running costs. Albions command and control capability would be taken up by HMS QE. If we have to make cuts I would rather keep the RMs rather than the LPDs. But we would have lost the capability to take a defended beach.

Sjb1968
Guest
Sjb1968

Paul sorry but in the real world exposing a super carrier to support and offer c&c to amphibious ops is madness. We have also just spent £90m on refitting a modern LPD! There is no strategic argument that convinces me that the UK should suddenly give up having a small but highly effective amphibious capabity and lets stop pretending there could be an alternative.

Paul.P
Guest
Paul.P

Very well. If what you argue is true then the choice is starkly political. Our credibility with our US allies and our own ‘Hornblower’ historical identity rest on the RM.