The Royal Navy’s newest Offshore Patrol Vessel HMS Spey has been commissioned into the Royal Navy during a ceremony alongside the Ross-shire town of Invergordon.
HMS Spey has been undergoing a rigorous programme of operational sea training to ready her for action.
According to the Royal Navy in a news release on Friday June 18th, Spey and her 45-strong crew were at their affiliated town of Invergordon where dozens of invited guests gathered to welcome her into active service with the Royal Navy.
Addressing the gathering at Invergordon was HMS Spey’s Lady Sponsor, Lady Alison Johnstone, and Commanding Officer of the ship, Lieutenant Commander Ben Evans.
“What a fantastic privilege to be able to conduct our commissioning ceremony in Scotland. This is a Scottish ship, built in Scotland with close links to this part of the country, and which will soon fly the White Ensign around the globe,” said Lieutenant Commander Evans.
For many here today this is the first time they would have seen the newest ship in the Royal Navy, and we are ensuring that the day is celebrated as safely as possible. I am proud to be here today with my amazing Ship’s Company. They have achieved so much and worked so hard to get us to this important milestone.
I would like to say thank you to all those who have supported this event today and made it a memorable experience, especially our friends in the Greenwich Hospital and BAE Systems. Finally, to our families I say a massive thank you for your support and understanding in these challenging times, and I look forward to welcoming you all on board very soon.”
Fantastic – frees up frigates for frigate work and is absolutely fine for anti piracy and costal protection duties.
1, 2, 3 who will be first saying it should be armed like a Visby and then who will patiently explain for the nth time the reason RN keep it simple but with plenty of space and top weight for other bits in the future?
it isn’t a warship and was never intended to be one.
Quite.
No dazzle scheme yet?
On mobile, now looking closer think it has, sorry.
She has dazzle. Maybe it dazzled you, mate?
As an aside, she was wearing the white ensign before she offically comissioned under QRRN 9142 – similar to other B2 ships.
She dazzled me. Guilty as charged your honour. .😏
I’m glad to see it’s working. 😉
I can’t wait to see you when Tamar and Spey sail in company for the Far East. Your poor eyes!
Under RN terminology, she *is* a warship. A reletively simple one, yes. Lightly armed, yes. But designed to fufill a specific role in the fleet and help free up escorts for other duties. The three that have already been forward-based are already proving their weight in gold in supporting operations and working with regional partners. I’m fine with them as they are, though I can’t wait for more dazzle. 😎
Look at the effect it had on me….trip to Specsavers incoming!
Specsavers? Don’t you mean Barnard Castle?
I guess they’d have a branch. Don’t believe DC used it mind.
Specsavers: don’t, just don’t.
‘Shouldn’t have gone to Specsavers’ should be their strap line!!
Fair point: well made.
I am curious what potential future upgrades can actually be made to the B2s.
She seems well enough equipped for pirates and French fisherman, but I feel anything more threatening requires some kind of anti-missile system like Phalanx or CAMM. Am I right in thinking that Phalanx can be bolted on just about anywhere, while CAMM would require a new radar and a canister launch system? How much of this is possible considering power requirements and ship stability? And how much would these upgrades actually impact our operations, would we actually send them anywhere we otherwise wouldn’t?
The 30mm cannon is actually usable, and very good, for CIWS and AA duties.
It is possible to add quite a lot of things as it is quite a big ship but as every the question is ‘why’?
Keeping them austere helps make sure the politicians don’t think they are frigates…..if you start putting cut down Ceptor and AShM then you have something looking like a modern T21 and we all know how well that went…..
“It is possible to add quite a lot of things as it is quite a big ship but as every the question is ‘why’?”
I agree!
In addition to potential politics, @Donald_of_Tokyo keeps making the good point on NL that simplicity of Rivers reduces crew and maintenance burden, thus allowing up to 300 days per year at sea. So the light armament can be seen as a deliberate decision.
This makes perfect sense IMO, for a UK based or forward deployed OPV, providing constabulary presence, in relatively benign environments. Especially since the small crew can easily be rotated.
Thanks Sonic-san
I see nothing to add…. 😄
By the way, anyway these guns are evolving. In Falklands war, it was 40mm and 20mm guns, man-aimed. Now it is 30 mm gun with 3-axies stabilization with EO FCS with laser range finger.
Within 10-15 years, I guess, it will be a gun with
It could be 30 mm improved version, or I is more likely be 40mm 3P systems.
Anyway, “easy to maintain” is essential for OPV, I totally agree.
Questions with Phalanx become which ships will loose their Phalanx to have it bolton on to the Rivers?
Should QE’s deploy with only 2 so that 2x Forward Deployed Rivers can have Phalanx?
Should have hypersonic missles and 16inch guns minimum!
It is a warship, it’s just a warship that is incapable of fighting. If it wasn’t a warship it would be operated by the police or other non military agencies.
Good response!
Isn’t that contradictory? If it’s a warship then it should be capable of fighting, if it can’t fight then why call it a warship?
Because if you don’t call it a Warship you have to open it up to international construction bidding, and other legal frameworks that would enable it, for example, to be stopped and searched by foreign warships.
Good work. Nice to see a plan coming together. Spey completes the set of 5. Nice looking ships. The RN web site says Tamar is ‘available for tasking’ and then goes on to say that later in the year both Spey and Tamar will be assigned to the Indo-Asia-Pacific.
I’d be interested to understand why 5x River BII and 5x T31.
Why is 5 the magic number? It used to be 8 as the minimum that made sense for training stores etc…..then 6 T45…..
There will be a good thought process behind this…..or maybe not. As T31 numbers might only make sense with T32 numbers and T31 was about a 13 frigate pledge?
I think the five T31’s was to make it up to the magic number of 13 frigates that were ‘promised’ to Scotland in the Indy vote run up. It got turned into a political ‘thing’ instead of just the usual cut.
Yes, very likely I would think. My theory is that there was a point in time, an OMG low point in events, when review of the cost of the T26 program and the lack of Clyde shipbuilding skills met the political commitment to 13 escorts and the BAE fixed revenue deal head on; and that BAE rescued everyone from this mess by proposing a ship based on increasing the endurance and combat resilience of their Khareef / Amazonas hull; a design that could be presented as a skills rebuilding project and named as an OPV but was capable of being… Read more »
Not see the logic of that. I find these regular assertions boring.
We have 8 ASW T23s and 5 T23 gp frigates. We are getting 8 ASW T26s and 5 gp T32s.
Tonnage of a T23 is 4900, the length 133m .
Tonnage of a T31 will be 5700, the length 139m.
Go figure.
The logic of it is that there were initially 13 T26’s ordered. This order ended up getting caught up in the Indy ref as some kind of ‘promise’ so when the UK gov (inevitably) cut the programme from 13 to 8 there were cries of ‘foul’ by the SNP. The T31’s were (it seemed to me) an afterthought to ‘keep the promise’ (as it had become) of 13 frigates to be built in Scotland. As for the size of the cheap frigates, well, we’ve seen on here the debates on how under armed etc some consider them, for capability they’re… Read more »
I don’t agree with your logic.
Fair enough TrevorH, care to expand ???
Not really. They were not an afterthought.
Not really, the requirement for a High/Lo mix of frigates was seen long before the Type 26 was even called that. Initially the plan was for 8xC1 5xC2 and an unspecified C3. C1 was supposed to be a High End surface ASW combatant, C2 a more general duties surface combatant and C3 a utility/prescence ship. Eventually C2 and C1 got merged into the GCS, which in turn became the Type 26, of which 8 were going to be ASW variants and 5 were going to be GP variants, since there where not enough Sonars to equip all 13 (GFE from… Read more »
Tonnage doesn’t matter, what matters is capability. Warships are designed to do a job, which is fight and they have to be able to do that at a moment’s notice. The issue the RN has got itself into is the whole big enough to add capability in future story, which is clearly nonsense, the money will never be found and unless we see the next war coming years in advance, they won’t be upgunned in time.
“Warships are designed to do a job, which is fight and they have to be able to do that at a moment’s notice.”
While they may be called upon to fight, its not going to be at a moment’s notice unless things have gone terribly wrong. Its not like the Grey Funnel Line is closed up at Action Stations or even Defence Watches constantly.
Based on history, I would disagree. There wasn’t much notice ahead of suez or Falklands, ok they weren’t overnight but equally not long enough to design/build/integrate new weapons systems. There was some bodge jobs (some very successfully others less so and things like crowsnest too late) done but they would require a fair bit more than that these days.
“There wasn’t much notice ahead of suez or Falklands,” Yeah that just jumped out of nowhere for the Ship’s companies… That’s not what you were talking about though, you’ve shifted the goal posts. You said…. and I quote…… “Warships are designed to do a job, which is fight and they have to be able to do that at a moment’s notice.” That has nothing to do with how many bells and whistles a vessel (or any military unit) has. You go with what you’ve got, Rawalpindi style if need be but that doesn’t mean that naval vessels are cutting about… Read more »
The ships are captable, and in the context of the whinging of the SNP and the shipyards, there is just as much work building them as a T26. At 5700 tonnes they are imposing ships. I expect that as we build them we will get good value in selling them on as we replace them with new ones.
No, I meant T32.
if there are 5x follow on T32 that are the same hull and machinery as T31 then there is a big enough class to make sense for training and logistics.
Who knows at this stage.
Although given 1SL’s energy I doubt we will have to wait long to find out.
Hi SB, haha, yes, I’ve been wondering about the use of “5” too. It sounds like a “pre-cut” down number already. I think even with 6,7, or 8 we’ll always want a bit more. I’d like ten of everything. It sounds way more committed and reassuring. Lol. 😆
Great looking and very useful ships.
Is it because Rivers & T31 are simpler, so require less intensive maintenance? Add in dual crewing, forward basing, does the rule of three still apply? 1SL seems to think so:
https://youtu.be/Qdvxajw_vog?t=675
Seems like there may be some thought process in there somewhere.
Yes, a thought process but nothing evidences as to why 5 is a magic number.
For Rivers, I think it was always the idea to do more duty with less hulls.
With T31 it’s just one for one replacement for GP T23. But it was stated from the beginning, that lower cost of T31 might allow for more, and now we have T32 in the mix.
For Rivers I think “5” was the number to keep Govan in work until steel could be cut on the first City Class.
For the Type 31’s “5” was the number of Type 23’s without towed sonar arrays.
On the whole I think these are great little ships however and much needed by the RN, however I think the taxpayer/MoD were really screwed over financially by BAE. The first three ships, including spares cost £116 million each, a totally absurd sum for such small simple vessels. For just £250 million with T31 we will get a much larger vessel, proper aviation facilities with dedicated hangar, 57 mm gun, at least 12 SeaCeptor, 2 x 40mm, a decent command system and a semi-decent air and surface radar. I am however totally against the uparming of the Rivers as some… Read more »
Agree on weapons fit.
But would a rotary UAV be a fine addition, for example, or some sneaky beaky aerials.
I’m sure that’s coming mate.
Protector has hers (another random fact: they have been assigned the same numbers as Endurance’s old Lynx helos) and Albion has been experimenting with some recently. The B2 rivers would benefit greatly from UAV as a contanerised solution.
Also agree with the weapons fit, although I will say the good thing about them is that they offer the flexibility to allow for that, should there ever be the operational need or desire. There’s no need right now.
Agreed.
Those drones on Protector had passed me by, just looked it up on Navy News.
They are tiny, hope for UAV beyond model aeroplanes going forward.
Small, yes. But baby steps (literally) I guess!
Are far cry from firescouts the cousins have used for 12 years, 2200km range and range of weapons and sensor fits. Why are we so behind them?
These ships would be ideal platforms for firescout type rotary drones,
Ah, Firescout, I could not think of the name. That is what I was envisaging for the Rivers.
We always end up with model aeroplanes that “inform future decisions”
Ideal intelligence and even fire support or anti ship capabilities lot cheaper than wildcat. Especially fires out b
The Rivers do seem expensive but I don’t think that’s necessarily BAEs fault. They are built to full warship survivability standards, with all the system redundancy, compartmetation, fire systems etc. that entails. That’s why they were more expensive than the similar design Amozonas class sold to Brazil. We can argue about if it’s necessary for Patrol Vessels to be built to full warship standards, but that was RN choice not BAE.
Not built to full naval survivability standards. Yes certain design aspects were up graded from the Amazonas class, bur relatively low key and should have been low cost. When you contact a company like BAE to design and build any warship it will always be expensive compared to other companies
Chapter and verse here…
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2016/06/thoughts-batch-2-river-class/
Thanks for sharing that Paul, while there was a fair bit of speculation, it was a good read and explained some of the ‘optional extras’ that turned the off the shelf OPV into the Rivers.
No problem. The piece reads like a checklist list with explanatory notes. You can almost hear the foreman lecturing the apprentices….’listen up, this ship is for the Royal Navy not for tootling up and down the Amazon’.😉
Was intrigued by the reference to the OR group modelling of the 30mm and mini guns. I would think this group has also modelled the effectiveness of the T31 gun / missile package
Very enlightening. Thanks for this.
I totally agree on the value for money being very poor. But we all know about TOBA. And that is all down to the slow T26 main gate that we got River II at at all.
T31 is an awful lot more ship that can be taken an awful lot further in all respects. And is great value for money.
Up arming T31 would make far more sense as defensively it is already pretty good.
I suspect that we will see the Inspirations uparmed anyway. If we get 5 sets of cannister launched interim ASM’s, which apparently is the intention, then those will almost certainly be migrated from the retiring dukes onto the Inspirations as they come online.
It’s not really a fair comparison. Under the 2009 agreement with BAE, they got funding to restructure shipbuilding and a guarantee of work to keep yards operating until the Type 26 replaced the work on the carriers. So included in the apparent cost of the OPVs is a large element of subsidy to maintain workforce skills. Presumably, if the Type26 programme had been agreed and started earlier, the headline cost of River2s would have been lower. The Type 31 isn’t as cheap as often reported. The MOD equipment plan now includes a programme cost of £1950m including gov furnished equipment.… Read more »
But that will include the cost of a concrete warship, spares, training program and munitions?
The £1950m includes GFX (almost SeaCeptor) and others, in addition to the basic hull and guns = ~£1250m.
So, if you say £250m average, it does NOT include CAMM. If including CAMM, it is £1950m = £400m average.
To my understanding, this “£1950m for 5 hulls” is equivalent to “T26 is £3.6B for 3 hulls”, as the latter also included many stuffs.
The question is, with T26, does the price tag include GFX or not?
I mean there is Artisan, Ceptor and Sonar off the T23’s to recycle?
To my understanding, for the first 3 hulls of T26, nothing is planed to be transferred from T23.
# Only thing not sure is CAPTAS4. Three additional something were ordered from Thales, but not sure if it includes the VDS and TASS arrays.
It does seem a bit strange as there are about to be 2 x sets of T23 gear that will become available from the hills that are being taken out of service.
Maybe it will just go into the stores pool to increase availability on the other 11 units?
It has been widely announced that higher availabilities are mandated from the top. And better spares pool is a big part of that as well as, of course, manning.
Consider this; the Rivers can defend themselves but are less confrontational than fully armed warships. They can be deployed in the Caribbean and more diplomatically delicate locations without upsetting regional interests. Sometimes a little stick is better than a big stick.
How can they defend themselves against anything but a few terrorists in small boats?
AShMs-no defence, Air attack-no defence, Warships- no defence, Submarines-no defence.
I’m guessing you’ve not seen one of these 30 mils fire Frank.
They’re great at what they’e designed for, but virtually useless against aircraft or other warships(even most other OPVs who are armed with generally a minimum of 76mm guns outranging the 30mm & packing far more punch. Then of course there’s AShMs from warships, air or land based launchers which would take the ship out before it ever got close enough to use the 30mm.
Call them what you like & justify it by presuming they’ll never be put in harms way, but the reality of war exposes their extreme vulnerability.
Not convinced. If we follow your argument, all RN ship must be armed with 2 Merlins and Captas-4, full-set of Sea Viper and CAMM, and 16 NSMs. This shall include MCMVs, Survey ships, RFAs, and OPVs. I do not think so. Looking around the world, there are plenty of OPVs/cutters as much as armed as (or even less than) River B2. Look at Japan coast guard’s patrol vessels. I think these OPVs/cutters are vital assets. They are very efficient, effective (for their job), and therefore can be on station very long, up to 300 days a year. No escort can… Read more »
That’s not quite my argument Donald. I’d primarily wish for more proper escorts, 25-30 or more. But regarding the Rivers; a 76mm OTO would give basic anti surface, anti-air & NGS(anti-missile too possibly if the sensors were fitted) plus be a greater deterrent to criminals or terrorists in constabulary roles. A Starstreak launcher would also help. Survivability is what I want to see.
Thanks. On River OPVs, not sure why 76 mm gun is enough while 30 mm gun is not? “76 mm better than 30mm” works only when the enemy is in very niche field, like current Argentina Navy alike. As I understand, there are no “clear line” on armament levels. If River OPVs were armed with a 57mm 3P cannon, some may also say, “why not add CAMM and 20mm CIWS”? The clear line level for stabilized 30mm gun is, it is the smallest stabilized naval gun RN has. I think this make it a good rationale. River B2 is more… Read more »
But T31 is almost sure to end up with canister Intermediate AShM – that has been widely announced and was the rational for buying 5 sets. Nothing fuzzy about that. I’d say that if the Intermediate AShM has land attack mode (as has been announced in the requirements) and T31 has some drone ASW (hull too noisy for proper ASW) and a drone radar spotter and maybe ASW torpedo carrier T31 would be more than useful. ASROC etc are a waste of time (too short range and out of date torpedo) so you’d be better of getting drones to do… Read more »
Those OPV’s also have less endurance, and fewer days at sea per year, and are more expensive to operate than a River….
They will not be going up against those types of threats. Nations don’t just randomly decide one morning to start attacking a RN warship our of the blue. International relations and politics don’t work that way.
Many warships of many nations have been attacked “out of the blue”. It may be occasional but it does happen & could happen.
Who is going to go to war with them?
Terrorists, smugglers, etc in small boats is exactly the type of task these vessels are designed for. Patrol and surveillance, not high end warfare
For those wanting these vessels to be up armed into all singing, all dancing, sub hunting, ship killing, air warfare OPV’s the biggest risk is a civil servant in the Treasury, or some other government department deciding that actually, there’s your type 32, so no need to go ahead with a new class of frigates, money saved and escort numbers fall again.
Spot on
Why do you think we should send a constabulary vessel into WW3?
Lovely looking ships, very useful and built as warships, with all the “extras” that entails, to include comms and survivabilty. Able to be up armed in the future, if required, but as of yet, not needed. Love the dazzle scheme, bit ally!
I think @gunbuster made the point that at least one T45 was a veritable listening station for sigint etc. How much could these shipsbe improved to hoover up intelligence from,ahem, hostile States?
At 2000tns they are not small and could serve as a great force multiplier by providing intel.
You can put anything in a G3 Container and bolt it down on the aft deck which has space for containers away from the flight deck.
https://www.g3-systems.co.uk/what-we-do/equipment-and-infrastructure-solutions/
All you need is a power supply to plug into the container. There are lots of bespoke container solutions around . You could do local analysis onboard or uplink back to to the UK for deeper analysis.
Thanks @gunbuster.
Agree. THIS is what I have been suggesting. Far more useful giving them an additional meaningful role while loitering about than trying to arm them to the teeth.
I’ve read that innocent looking Endurance used to put in to ports while hoovering up all and sundry. I know we have embassies and other assets that do it but more the merrier.
Knowledge is power!
Maybe Captain. But you’d need the intel first to fire first and to know where the enemy is and when he is coming! 😉
Patrol force is looking healthier now. Just need some more frigates, submarines and aircraft. Then in a better place
Oh Captain, you’re POW photo was removed??
Disregard. Wrong thread..Muppet!