The Royal Navy patrol vessel HMS Tyne has arrived at HMNB Clyde after a demanding year that has already seen her log more than 32,000 nautical miles – the equivalent of one and a half circumnavigations of the globe – without straying far from UK waters.
The Portsmouth-based ship, one of three first-generation River-class vessels still in service, has spent over 3,500 hours at sea in 2025, frequently tasked with monitoring ships and submarines transiting the Channel and the UK’s wider area of responsibility.
Her work has also included less-publicised missions supporting the survey of critical national maritime infrastructure.
In recent months, Tyne has served as a platform for Mine and Diving Threat Exploitation Group teams deploying autonomous underwater vehicles for detailed seabed assessments, as well as for Puma unmanned aircraft flights to extend her surveillance reach.
“River-class ships deliver week-in, week-out, across an array of tasking: homeland defence, supporting mine warfare and diving teams in underwater exploitation, to delivering future sailors and officers to the fleet through a multitude of training,” said Lieutenant Bailey Denyer, the ship’s operations officer.
When not engaged in front-line patrols, Tyne is used for intensive training, from basic seamanship for officer cadets to advanced navigation courses for future commanders of Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. Sub Lieutenant Paul Clark, currently undergoing specialist training aboard, said the ship’s tempo and variety of tasking offered “a clear insight of what to expect” in future roles.
Tyne’s duties this year have also included port visits in Northern Ireland, support for events in the Isle of Wight, and participation in the Shetland Islands’ commemoration of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe alongside the Royal Norwegian Navy.
We could do with a batch 3 of 5 vessels. These have really delivered value
It’s a no brainer, we need another batch to replace the B1s, perhaps as you say another 5 to even replace the current B2s in their role and bring them back for UK/NATO tasking.
Agreed, although I’d settle for a 1-1 replacement of the B1’s. A bronze solution would be a very similar design to the B1’s with no added capability, but if a landing pad and hangar could be added you might even bring 3 B2’s home like Smithy suggested.
I’d like to see a B3, with a hanger, not neccessarily for Merlin, as we are a tad short of them (or will be when T26/31 come on line) but maybe Wildcat as a permanant fixture. I reckon the Rivers have been a mighty success despite all the arguments.
Very much agreed they are a success. I doubt they’ll have a permanent Wildcat but the option would be good, and maybe we’ll get some UAV’s with Helicopter like endurance, so a hangar gives options (granted the B2’s could in theory have a containerised hangar for UAV’s too).
I would say a multirole mission boat bay / small helicopter hangar would make the most sense. A permanent deployment of a Wildcat would be unlikely, at least on all ships, but gives options depending on the mission.
Compare this vs the base T31 design – third to half the cost, third of the crew capable of delivering credible and appropriate constabulary global UK BOT defence, policing, presence and training capabilities. No brainer.
i still chuckle when they’re referred to as warships. they could/should be. leave the patrol duties to rivers or sweepers. or better still echo and enterprise could do everything that a river could do.
Minor warships is the term. The River class is different to the Echo class and much more capable in the role which it is designed for. However, if your point is that we should have a multi role MHPC sloop I agree.
could do worse by designing a new class of light frigate littoral inshore scholarships based on the batch 2 river. hull fitted with mk 41 torpedo 6 inch gun and a hangar( just kidding.
The Navy has no special power in government and I’ll be very surprised if the First Sea Lord goes into bat on this issue. So probably no new money. The inertial “solution” is to retire the B1s, deploy three or four B2s in the UK and to send out the T31s to do presence work. Unless another solution is actively pursued, this is what will happen.
Unfortunately, the default solution would be terrible for the Royal Navy. We could replace the B1s (£60m-ish ships) with £130m ships, and the £130m with £350m ships, the net result being that we would be using £1bn of ship to do a £180m job.
The RB2s are very successful at presence work and don’t need to be replaced at all. They need to be supplemented with proper warships to do a different job. The T31s should be able to project power, and with Mk41s and proper missile load, they could do that. However, government has the selective memory of a goldfish and T31s replacing RB2s will be seen as T31 being upgraded presence ships, and not that T31 are really replacing T23 frigates. It will pile onto the financial pressures to not upgrade the T31s “further”. We haven’t bought the Mk41s yet, have we? The increased power in the UK EEZ of having RB2s over RB1s will have a similar effect, reducing any pressure to fit out the B2s with UAVs. What need is there in home waters where we have P8s etc? Absent strong pressure to upgrade the ships, they simply won’t be and the money will go where the political winds dictate.
The effect on training/command of losing the RB1s and the Hunts together would be highly detrimental in the long term, not that anyone is thinking long term!
The obvious alternative is new ships. It’s to spend the £180m (that government will say we don’t have) in UK shipyards (that have no spare capacity) to produce a series of ships that will arrive years after the current OOS dates of the RB1s, and we’ll end up spending £250m on because we are bad at cost control and regenerating Appledore or Lairds will take time. Even the Navy might argue that it’s not worth it. I fear that if the price is too steep, the default solution will “just happen”. So we need to seek out not the best military solution, but solutions that we can afford with pocket change from behind the sofa cushions. LifeExing the RB1s will only kick the can down the road a few years.
So if not the disasterous default, what then? Either buying ships from outside of the UK that are not what the Navy want, probably built to commercial standards (Damen, Mitsubishi?). Or a PFI. The Vosper PFI worked for the B1s. Shame there’s no VT anymore.
Well argued. RIP VT, long live Navantia, who do have a range of OPV designs and own Appledore. Just a thought.
Given Appledore’s issues with the P60s for Ireland, using them for actual ship builds rather than modules seems a poor choice.
In facf, checking the H&W web site I read that Appledore are making the bow sections for the FSS ships.
Everyones profile is the same, there seems to be an issue.
OK, scratch that, George explained the issue.
32k nm in one year for 1 ship, wow!
how many crews per ship?
That was my yearly total on motorbikes up to recently.
Roughly 600 miles per week, 85 miles per day. I guess that’s what a Patrol Vessel is built to do.
yes but it says it didn’t stray from UK waters, so doing 32kn in the Channel is a lot of circles
and there are 8 River Class OPV, so it’s a lot for just one boat. it’s not like OPV are going sub hunting in the GIUK gap
I was giving a comparrison figure just as some sort of yardstick. A daily commute to work of 80 miles is not that high, allthough I’d not like the fuel bill each week !
In fairness: https ://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/chart-images/eez-map-2020.png
UK waters are quite large. (third times a charm)
Congratulations on posting a comment with a link. That’s a noteworthy achievement these days.
In fairness: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/chart-images/eez-map-2020.png
UK waters are quite large.
I feel the RN can learn a lesson from the Italian navy..
They are build a lovely new batch of OPVs via the PPX program.. 4 are building or ordered with 2 more waiting for funding.. the whole 6 patrol boats will cost about 1.34 billion pounds for the design development build and 10 years logistic and support for the 6 boats or about 220 million a pop..
These are full fat warships designed to fight and operate in rough seas, 2400 tons, 95 meters , hanger for a medium rotor and large class 2 drone side by side. It’s got CODLAD propulsion 24 knots, 10 knots under electric only drive, it’s got 2 compartment propulsion and power generation for survivability. Its for full naval combat management systems as well as sensors surface and air X band radar, OE turrets and a fire control radar, 76 mm super rapid cannon with guided rounds, 2 30mm remote weapons ( with air burst rounds) it’s also seemingly getting CAMM. They will then be ordering a further 6 European patrol corvettes which is going to be 3000 tons and 110 meters and will also include a full gun armament and anti air missile system.
So as well as their 23 major surface combatants Italy will have up to 12 2500-3000 combat capable patrol ships…
PPA are not patrol vessels, that is a translation misunderstanding. They are light frigates for second rate duties – much like T-31, Mogami and FDI. The Italian navy has actual OPVs just like us with the same capabilities as ours.
Sorry Rowan please re read it I’m taking about the PPX which is a 2500 patrol ship, not the PPA which as you say is a 6000 ton frigate. The Italians are building 6 PPX to compliment their 7 PPA, 12 FREM, 2 horizons and 2 new heavy destroyers.
I wouldn’t describe the PPX’s as “Full fat warships,” certainly if we tried to play them off as such there’d be outrage. A 76 and two 30mm’s does not make a frigate, or a full fat warship, and if they get CAMM (which I’m skeptical of) it’ll be an extremely limited number (just physically the design is so limited in space. So it’s not going to be going into harms way, but the first three ships cost 330 million each (that number might come down to 220 if all six are ordered but still, it’s an eyewatering price tag for an OPV, for comparison the first 3 Batch 2 Rivers came in at 350million£ for all three). Also with a crew of 70 the PPX’s aren’t going to be cheap to run. So a lot of money for a class of ships that don’t really belong in war zones.
Warship does not necessarily mean major surface combatant. They have built the PPX to be a warship.. it’s got a full set of systems and sensors as well as the ability to operate a full medium rotor small ships flight. The expense of giving it electric drive as well as 2 machine spaces is something you only put in a warship.
I specified full fat warship didn’t I? (And if you want to use a broader term of Warship then the Rivers are also built to be Warships). Yes, they’ve put a lot of money into things, and then used a hull that’s too small to give it a significant SAM facility, ASuW suite or Land Attack capability, so it is a very expensive OPV that can only really be used for OPV taskings because it isn’t fit for a combat role.
The rivers are essentially constabulary vessels, you cannot use them for anything else as they don’t have any self defence capability essentially. The PPX has that self defence capability with the 76 with dart rounds that essentially gives it a 10km kill radius for airborne targets including high G manoeuvring missiles, 30mm with decent proximity air burst fuses, it’s gun armament and guided rounds linked in with a fire control radar means it’s got adequate self defence..throw an antiship missile it’s way and it can shoot it Down ( dart is essentially as good as seawolf was ), a rivers cannot. With its sensor suite and solid small ship flight it can perfectly well perform a number of functions in a hot war.. it’s a hell of a lot better protected and has better sensors that a lot of frigates the RN were using in the 1990s.
Yes there are some missions you would not use it for in war, but control and oversight of your own seas and as a picket.. it’s good for that. If you want to monitor shallow waters, it’s good for that etc.
A balanced navy has a range of effective surface combatants from the cheap to to very high end.
The issue with the RN is it’s only commissioned major surface combatants ( frigates and destroyers of 6000 tons+) and ignoring the rest.. ( I don’t count pure constabulary vessels like the Rivers as surface combatants ).
But all the other reference navies do use a mix of major and small surface combatants.
So now we’re flipfloppin between “Warship” as a general term and “Warship” as a fully fit fighting vessel. Which is it? Because if it’s the latter then the PPX’s don’t count, and if it’s the former the Rivers do. “Throw in an anti-ship missile and it’ll shoot it down” sure thing, this has definitely been proven. Not. It’s not an escort, it can barely defend itself, it’s being built to replace in service Italian OPV’s, not join the escort fleet.
“It’s a lot better protected than frigates where in the 90’s” and Frigates where better protected in the 90’s than cruisers where during the 60’s, that doesn’t make the PPX a viable surface combatant. It isn’t. And it will never deploy into harms way. It is just a very expensive OPV that will cost a fortune to operate and do the exact same job as the ships they are replacing, the Rivers or the Commandanti class.
It can’t defend itself, it has no missile armament, if it does get an missile armament it will be single digit list of CAMM. Individually they cost similar to a un-upgraded T-31, with a crewing requirement closer to a T-31, and an armament that makes the original T31 spec look overpowered (and everyone was crying about how under equipped T31 was with considerably more CAMM and ASuM’s than PPX will ever carry). It’s also slow, 24 knot sprinting speed, so it will not keep up with a fleet, which is fine because, it’s an OPV.
Shock, there are things other than war you’d want a ship for? Yeah no sh*t, that’s why we have Rivers, and that’s why I was pointing out that a 300million ship with a crew of 70 is going to be way to much spend for what they’re going to end up using it for. As for “constabulary vessels” You might not want to count them, but that’s a you problem. Because again, we’re back to the flip flopping issue. If Rivers don’t count (and River B2’s btw are also a bit over engineered for constabulary roles) then PPX doesn’t count either.
As for the RN “ignoring the rest” well clearly they aren’t because they’re building the T31 that’s relatively cheap. If your complaint is about Corvettes, again Corvettes aren’t much cheaper than a T31 (PPX is almost the cost of a T31 and is still a “constabulary OPV” that can’t go into combat, if you want something that’s actually useful you need to spend T31 money that’s it).
Sorry but a rivers is utterly incapable of essentially any task around kinetic warfare.. it will simply have to run and hope it does not die before it gets to the safety of port, This is For a few very good and well know reasons.. it’s sensor fit is shocking.. as in utter crap. That is why you cannot use it for essentially any wartime function at present. Give it some better sensors and give it a self defence suite and you can use it, until then its not a warship that can be used in war, it’s a constabulary vessel and you can go on and on about cost effectiveness but the world is no longer at peace and it’s very likely the worlds oceans will see widespread kinetic conflict.. the rivers at present don’t have any place in that particular Nasty future as they would not be able to track and engage an air threat beyond about 3-4 kms and cannot track and engage high speed high G manoeuvring threats at all, that means if it’s found and attacked, it’s dead and it’s crew are dead. The PPX would and is perfectly able to track air threats engage fast moving high G threats (missiles) out to about 10km.. so it can survive an engagement.
It’s also able to in a limited way manage submarine threats..actually better than a type 31. Because it has an electric drive and it can carry a fully equipped ASW helicopter.
So the PPX can actually engage and defend against all threat types.. clearly it’s not specialised in any way.. but it’s ASW is better in someways than a type 31 simply because it can at least hide from a sub with electric drives. a 76mm with dart rounds and 2 30mms with proximity fused airbust rounds is really not much less effective than a T31 anti air mix, other than a t31 has a limited short range area capability out to 25km and so can defend other ships with its 12 CAMM missiles.. but balanced against that’s is the fact the supper rapid 76 is a far better gun system than the 57mm.
What is and what is not a full fat warship, surface combatant and constabulary vessel is as you well know alway open to interpretation and is not fixed in any way, infact none of the ways we label warships are, the terms major surface combatants,small surface combatants, patrol ship, constabulary vessels, frigate, destroyer, cruiser etc are all completely loss and essentially contextual..infact the only fixed and defined term is “Commissioned Warship” as that is refined in international law..every other term and usage of terms is entirely contextual and can be flipped and flopped at will as part of discussions.. after all the US has happy had ships that were frigates, destroyer’s and cruisers.. some define corvettes as major surface combatants some don’t. But even the very solid definition of “ commissioned warship” is now being challenged.. the RN is essentially taking it to the very limit with is use of auxiliaries in essentially commissioned warship roles and china has pushed it even beyond that with its “Coast Guard Law of the People’s Republic of China” which essentially means the Chinese coastguard is ignoring the difference between a “commissioned warship” and government ship and its coastguard operate and run surface combatants essentially as a navy would.
As naming is essentially entirely contextual, It’s more about capabilities vs role, the need and scope of the role and the risk of the role vs capacity.. and when it comes to the rivers two their capabilities vs their role, the scope of their role and the risk attached to their role is frankly bonkers.. the RN had OPV for EEZ constabulary work ONLY for very good reasons..they did not have them patrolling across the worlds occeans as the rivers are forced to do.. the PPX are a bit expensive yes but they have the capability they need for the work they will be asked to do which is beyond constabulary patrolling of EEZs, they have ability to defend themselves as well as the sensors needed. Some of their cost is also related to other very specific needs the Italian navy had..like environmental clean up.. that capability is not actually that cheap.
But one question….if you were patrolling the eastern Mediterranean and the west suddenly ended up in a shooting war with Russia or Hezbollah decided it was going to fire an anti ship missile at a western patrol ship or your patrolling the pacific and china invades Taiwan and your facing sudden fast jet and or missile threat which ship would you want to be in.
1) the ship that could not effectively track air targets and only had a 30mm cannon without proximity airburst rounds and no fire control radar and had only a single engineering space.
2) the ship that had a competent 3D air search radar and had a weapon system with a fire control radar and guided rounds that could engage fast manoeuvring missiles out to 8-10kms with a high degree of accuracy ( 80-90% per round) and a final defence of 2 30mm cannons with proximity air burst rounds and also had is manoeuvre and power spreed over 2 separate engine spaces.
If you were in the eastern med or pacific and you were suddenly in a fighting war with Russia and or china and a Russians or Chinese has an electric or nuclear boat was in the area which ship would you want to be in
1) the ship with only diesel engines and no ASW helicopter
2) the ship that could shut down its diesel engines and run on quite electric motors that has a decent ASW small ship flight with sensors and torpedoes.
Answers on a postage stamp 😂
I’m sorry are you complaining that the B2 River Class Off Shore **Patrol** Vessel (extra highlights to the word patrol) is a useless vessel because it’s designed to patrol and nothing else?
Patrol ships are the corner stone of every navy because the main fundamental role of a navy is ‘patrolling’. Unglamorous but highly valuable, they do not fight because the job of every navy is more than just sinking ships – if you were actually aware of what goes on in naval news around the world. If you dump additional systems onto them they (that they will never need) you only drive up cost, crewing burdens and dramatically lower the availability rate. The B2s are brilliant because they are always available no matter when you want to send them to do something. If we replace them with a fighting warship you same people will come crawling out of the cracks complaining about how we are wasting valuable warships flying the flag in almost uninhabited islands or chasing drug smugglers around in the West Indies. No patrol ship has ever needed more than a token armament because the real power comes from what the flag they fly means, every navy and/or militarized coastguard has vessels specked just like the B2 class but I don’t see you criticizing them as well.
It be happy to whale on the Arafuras if you’d like, but not for the above reasons (that I generally agree with). I’d wondered if the UK could buy up second hand those Cape class that the Aussies were building to gap fill until the wonderful Arafuras came on stream. Unfortunately they spotted the Arafura weren’t wonderful at all and halved the ordered numbers without halving the costs, pushing the Arafuras from underspec & overcost, to underspec & “you can’t possibly mean each!” They’d have done better to order the last six as a stretched version with a decent gun.
Unfortunately I think the Arafura screw up will mean there won’t be any cheap Cape class available for us.
What I’m am saying is that they are not actually appropriate for the taskings that the RN is using them to undertake…
Navies use Patrol vessels in their own EEZ to patrol, they don’t use the to replace major surface combatant or if they are using a patrol ship in a place I could need to be a combatant they give it the appropriate self defence capability.
rivers class patrol, vessels are constabulary vessels designed to potter around our EEZ doing “CONSTABULARY” work , they are designed only for that level of threat.They are not designed for taking over the role of a patrol frigate in the south Atlantic or a major surface combatant functions in the pacific or west African patrol area… I’m also asking a key question..as we move from a benign geological environment into a world that potentially sub kinetic attacks can happen anytime and we could be at war at anytime.. with an RN that has around 35% of the major surface combatants it needs should we be have hulls that are essentially defenceless and can only do peace time constabulary work in places that are not our own EEZ or potentially benign, the rivers 2s are decent hull..but there sensors and weapon systems are bottom of the barrel for constabulary work.
Just take HMS Fort as an example.. the south Atlantic is geostrategically probably the single most important set of British property and resources outside of the Uk.. it’s not seem the APT(S) in a decade..so essentially Fort does the job of a patrol ship and a major surface combatant.
There is no way the RN would have ever sent out patrol boats on pacific or African tasking 20 years ago.. because it’s the job of a major surface combatant, not an OPV… presence is all very well but it has to have a point beyond just turning up and it needs to be able to manage the risk profile related to that presence.
So yes the rivers 2 are useful patrol ships..let’s use them as patrol ships, load them up with autonomous undersea and air ISTAR capabilities and use them to patrol and protect sub surface and surface infrastructure against asymmetric threats in our EEZ or even send them out to the western North Atlantic to catch drug runners and do disaster management work.. .. but east of suez the presence should be able to defend itself and offer deterrence and a contribution and for the south Atlantic you need a patrol frigate level presence.
And no I don’t criticise other navies because I’m not a taxpayer in those nations and don’t have a stake in them other than as a potential ally or enemy of my own nation..so if china wants to send under armed patrol vessels to east Africa let them.. I’m more worried about the number of major surface combatants china is putting in the sea and the RN heading to 11 major surface combatants ….but just for reference on what our enemies are doing, the defecto Chinese coastguard patrol ship is now the type 056 corvette 1500 tons, 22 of which are armed with a 3D air and surface search radar, hull sonar, fire control radar, 76mm gun, 8 cell short range AAW missile, and light weight torpedoes… the Italians are giving their new patrol vessels 3D radars, 76mm guns with dart rounds, 30mm guns, medium rotor etc. The French are producing a lot of patrol boats with low armaments but they are a vast area of EEZ in the pacific that they need to undertake constabulary patrols around..
You say a navy is not only about sinking ships.. that is true it’s primary role is to protect the Geostrategic power and goals of its nation.. I suggest that a 2000 ton ship with no worthwhile sensors and zero meaningful armament has a potentially negative impact.. especially when everyone knows it’s replaced a major surface combatant that we no longer have available.
Navies send OPVs all over the world that carry just a chain gun, it is standard to do so – USCG, CCG and Marine National to name a few. The China Coast Guard does operate ex PLAN vessels, yes, however they have missile armaments removed. – the 056 corvettes have no combat systems installed.OPVs are not combatants, making them fighty is a bad idea (look at the T-21 performance for a real world example of why moderately armed patrol ships should not be confused for fighting vessels).
And just the finish the B2 OPV does have a very good sensor suite installed for an OPV. A full BAE CMS, 2D radar and various navigational systems as well as a command center onboard make them one of the more advanced patrol ships around – despite the fact they aren’t packing armament.
Rowan the USCG only operate in US EEZs, the marine nationale operate their poorly armed OPVs in their very extensive EEZ.. the point I’m making that people are sort of ignoring is that the UK is using its OPVs instead of frigates and large surface combatants the USCG and french EEZ patrol vessels don’t take part in the North Korean UN embargo work around the Korean Peninsula as an example the UK vs German example over the last five years
Germany has deployed the frigate Bayern and will be deploying the frigate Badden-wurttemberg in the same timeframe the RN has deployed HMS Tamar and HMS Spey…
My issue is not their existent it’s their use, due to the profound weakness of the RN surface fleet.. I have no issue with a rivers patrolling our EEZ under air cover as they are…as they were designed to do.. send them to do a frigates job and take the risks a frigate takes is asking issues.. if we want them to do a patrol frigates job we should give them the self defence of a patrol frigate.. that’s a good gun sensors that can engage all air targets out to 10km, that’s a small ship flight that can engage ships and subs… personally I think we should focus at present on Russia and its sub kinetic attacks on our EEZ critical infrastructure.. by using the rivers as patrol boats.. load them up with autonomous systems for ISTAR and infrastructure survey.. consider better self defence…. But using them as we are placing them as pieces in high risk geopolitical and geostrategic points with the defensive capabilities they have is actually really wrong.. at least the T21s had defences. And Uyes the sensors aThere rivers have are fine for an OPV patrolling your EEZ doing constabulary work.. but again that is NOT what the rivers 2s are doing, they are all doing the work of frigates, because a decade ago that is what we would have sent, a frigate or destroyer not an OPV.
@Jonathan
The USCG operates far outside of the massive US EEZ, including, Japan, the Pacific, the Caribbean, Europe and the Middle East. If the USN base ships somewhere there’s a good chance their coast guard is around too. Also in much the same way that our Rivers exercise with small navies and local coastguards around the world, the USCG does similar, so you might find them in the South China Seas exercising with the Philippines or in the Sith Pacific exercising with Fiji. It was only a couple of months ago I read an article about a USCG cutter in Korea — a Legend class cutter as I recall (4500-5000 tons, the one the USN were thinking of basing their new frigate on at one point).
The USCG does a lot more than most people think.
@jon that is fair but the ships the US coastguard send outside of US EEZ are essentially patrol frigates all with a 57mm or 76 mm main gun. Full soft kill, full sensor included decent fire control radars, secondary AAW guns 30mm and or CIWS…. They don’t send ships with a remote 30mm cannon into the western pacific, capability graded to risk.
Just a question.
There is a “Jonathan” here who is a SME on all things health and medical, and plenty else besides.
You are not him, are you?
Without a gravatar, it is difficult to tell.
Yep I’m having a “moment” around our OPVs and the proper use and protection of said OPVs.. had a really good research session on the radar set up of the Rivers 2 and realised just how blind and open the rivers 2s are outside of protected waters and benign environments. There sensor set up is really a bit 💩. I think the RN and HMG are now really chancing their arm considering the level of geopolitical instability and fact they are essentially acting as a world wide patrol frigate..
I think people forget what we considered acceptable even 15 years ago vs today and there is no way the RN would have sent an OPVs on an independent pacific single deployment 15 years ago.. after all in the late 1960s the type 82 was developed as a minimum standard for independent pacific deployment… now we consider it fine to send a ship armed with a only a 30mm cannon and no air search or fire control radar into the deep ogin and across the globe… it’s actually bonkers what we are asking of the OPV crews…and we are all going that’s “nice and global Britain “ , but forgetting what will happen if one of the worst reasonable risks occurs… after all someone even mentioned the flag itself protects them.. like Russia would not launch a deniable attack on an a British OPV..or North Korea if they could get away with.. and good forbid when the ballon really goes up..what are those far flung OPVs going to be doing other than dying or running for their lives… look at what has happened to the Russian fleets poorly protected ships..
Personally I would be ok sending the OPVs to a less benign environment and away from friendly EEZs if they at least had a 3D air search radar and decent medium gun and fire control radar that can engage an air target out to the 10km line..it’s not much to ask of a ship 10,000km from home and close to potential enemies.
But personally I think the best use is loading them up with autonomous vessels and using them to patrol infrastructure.., after all as one commentator helpful pointed out they are “ patrol vessels”.. and to me that’s looking for things on your EEZ not undertaking pacific tasking which should be the job of a frigate.
Oh.
Sorry mate. Somehow your post was different, more combative than your norm.
I have a bad belly and feeling reallly grumpy 😵💫
The River class OPV’s have been a huge success, albeit knowingly overpriced because the Government and MOD failed to keep to the terms of a Heads of Agreement with BAE on shipbuilding orders (e.g. cancelling T45-07 to -12) and had to effectively pay significant compensation instead. Critically they are very economical to run, easy to operate, and require only a small crew (and few of those need to be highly qualified and experienced specialists). If the Batch 1’s are still in a tolerable mechanical state, I wouldn’t be surprised if their service life is extended by another 5 years. The current plan is replace them in home waters with the Batch 2’s from 2028, but that obviously leaves a gapping hole in terms of a forward deployed UK naval presence. The hope was to use T31’s for this, but their construction is two or three years behind schedule, and the RN will also then have no choice but to use them as GP frigates given the unexpectedly rapid disappearance of knackered and economically unrepairable T23’s. An order for some River Batch 3’s (subcontracted to H&W Appledore?) would make a lot of sense, but there have been no hints that is even being considered.
Why not a few extra T31s and use the first 1-3 T31s for littoral and make the balance a higher level fit out? There’s that Protector(?) class ship being built by Babcock for Ukraine . Could that design be adapted for a B1 replacement? I think the B2s are too useful globally just to be on around the UK. What’s happening with the P2000s? Aren’t they due for replacement too? If the B1s are still good for another 3-5 years why not have an upgrade to 30mm RWS and able to operate the Peregrine UAVs?
It would be good to explore add on hangar options for the B2s and all those B2 options to upgrade, nothing has come of that so far. Their crane could be removed and or upgraded and put to one side. Shame they didn’t attract more exports or licence builds.
I do wonder if one of the reasons we seem to be constantly short on crews is that we have a number of OPV’s and a Frigate forward deployed and we keep rotating crews out to the ships,
All three watches of all five forward-deployed B2 Rivers put together with the crews of the three B1s is a smaller total complement than that of HMS Albion and the recently phased-out Sandowns (by more than 100). And far more ships have gone since 2022 than those!
So no, Jim. That’s not the reason. Not even close.
I seem to recall there was a discussion at the time as the whether the order for R B2 should be for 5 or 6. Looking at how the T23 lifex has gone you could argue that another R2 say with 57mm and a hangar would be an acceptable replacement Lancaster in the Gulf. However, overall I think it was the right decision to switch resources to T31.
Let’s be honest, the B2 Rivers have enabled the RN to survive as a global presence. We need to be grateful to whomever it was that brought them into being. I agree they are lightly armed but my understanding is that, internally, are constructed to warship standards i.e. to expect combat damage. The radars and systems suite can detect and target anything they are likely to come up against out to the horizon. You can do a lot of damage with a 30mm cannon. They can carry containerised UAV to extend their awareness of surface threats. Their comms are fully networked into a larger RN or allied force; they can refuel Merlin; they can rearm Wildcat and, notwithstanding the absence of a hangar, support full helicopter operations for meaningful periods. Wildcat with Sea Venom poses an over the horizon threat to a frigate. They provide civilised accommodation for a crew of 1/2or 1/3 of a frigate and best of all, do not require the eye watering purchase of F-35Bs. Bargain!
Good post Paul. 👌
Hi Paul, unfortunately it’s not the case on the sensors, they have surface search capability but no specific air search and not 3D so air targets are a big weakness for the B2 they can only really target slow moving air within a handful of Kms.its a very low end sensor capability sadly.
I don’t know how clever the BAE CMS is but might it not be possible to merge data from the Terma Scanter radar and the Kelvin Hughes Sharpeye to produce a 3D picture.
Another 3 hulls due to go with no replacement builds.
Along with the 6 Hunts.
So 9 more Hulls going.
With 3 Mothers due to come in, and MOSS 2 if it is ever built.
Jon makes an excellent point on junior command experience before moving onto bigger ships. Which begs the question, how do SSN commanders get round that with no SSKs?
Meanwhile, Chagos deal is said to be 35 Billion, not 3.5 Billion, and HMG are still talking tough while doing very little as the forces mass slowly withers away.
So there is money, it is directed elsewhere.
The Chagos deal is a National Disgrace.
I could suggest that all RN command experience worries will be solved by the imminent abolition of the RFA. It’s just that I can’t face thinking through the litany of other issues that would cause. I’m a couple of wine glasses into the bottle. I’ll probably feel less maudlin and cynical when I’ve had a couple more.
There is always money, the simple fact is even 10billion pounds is small change to a government with a budget of over half a trillion pounds. Let’s be really honest with ourselves around defence spending, if we ended up in an existential long war ( essentially a war with china and Russia ) we would be burning around 30% of our entire GDP to survive and try and win, so something like 1.2 trillion dollars a year and we would and could afford it, yep it would hurt like hell but, you pay for the things you must have. We choose at present to only spend 46 billion on defence, that is the choose we have come to on the balance of deterring war and not spending money on essentially something without benefit beyond deterrence of war or fighting it if deterrence fails.. the problem is our nation and the west have ignored the change in risk profile since 2010 …essentially living a lie and now war is coming and the reality is our leaders don’t know what to do, so they do nothing and continue as before and hope the storm does not come.
@Rowan Maguire. Very well expressed post. The main role of a navy is ‘patrolling’. The B1 Rivers are basic, virtually unarmed patrol vessels for UK waters. The longer legged ‘global’ B2 Rivers are more robust but still simple design with ‘constabulary’ armament, some combat resilience, more sophisticated global comms and systems and a flight deck; they have HADR and intelligence gathering capabilities and would be given supporting roles in a combat scenario. The original T31 ‘patrol’ frigate spec is designed to deter aggression from both state and non-state actors and defend merchant shipping. In a war scenario or littoral raid they would screen other RN / RFA vessels and might insert some RM. Seems to me the RN have thought things through pretty well. All these types are excellent value for money.