The fifth and final new patrol ship for the Royal Navy was recently formally named in Glasgow.
SPEY, the last of five River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) designed and built for the Royal Navy by BAE Systems, was named in front of gathered VIPs and employees at an official ceremony in Glasgow.
Construction and fitting out work is still ongoing on the vessel.
In keeping with naval tradition, guests watched as Lady Johnstone, the ships sponsor, named the 2000 tonne vessel by releasing a bottle of special blend Spey whisky from Speyside Distillery that smashed against the ship’s hull.
HMS SPEY is the last in a class of five vessels that have been built in Glasgow.
With construction starting on the first ship in late 2014, these vessels have provided an important opportunity to maintain essential design, construction and systems integration skills, while introducing new processes and technologies that are already being used in the production of the UK’s Type 26 frigates.
David Shepherd, OPV Programme Director at BAE Systems said at the event:
“Today’s ceremony is a truly significant milestone for the River Class Offshore Patrol Vessel programme and builds on our proud heritage of British shipbuilding here in Glasgow. There has been fantastic momentum on this programme and the naming of HMS SPEY serves as a great reminder of the importance of the capability and skills of our employees who are working together with the Royal Navy and partners to deliver these important ships.”
Defence Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan said:
“Our Offshore Patrol Vessels play a pivotal role in patrolling our coastline, protecting our domestic waters, and supporting maritime interests from anti-smuggling to fisheries protection. The naming of HMS SPEY is an exciting milestone for the OPV programme, demonstrating our commitment to UK shipyards while bolstering the Royal Navy’s capabilities.”
Constructing the vessels has directly supported 1,700 jobs north of the border and a further 2,300 jobs around the UK in the supply chain.
The Royal Navy say that the ship takes her name from Scotland’s third longest river, famed for its salmon and natural pearls – both reflected in the ship’s badge.
Spey will be used for general patrol duties, counter-terrorism/anti-smuggling missions, provide disaster relief where needed, act as the UK’s eyes and ears on the high seas “and fly the flag for Britain’s global ambitions”, say the Ministry of Defence.
I know that may on here decry the latest River Class vessels. For whatever the reason they were constructed, they re cracking looking boats, and despite not having a hanger, I am sure they will be used very hard in their life-spans.
They are cracking looking boats and not insignificant in size in the ‘beefed up’ RN Fleet. I am sure many will enjoy serving in the cracking little boats.
Don’t knock them too much, as they will plug a gap in the scary new world we are embarking on in a few weeks time!
“God speed Spey (Mack Sicker)”
Whole lot of cracking going on there !
They may be cracking looking but the UK tax payer isn’t getting much bang for their buck. At 2000 tons they are nearly Leander Frigate in size but only with a 30mm and some GPMGs. I know they are constabulary ships but with so large a platform it is crazy that they aren’t really able to do much in full hostilities.
They should have a main armament of a 40mm Bofors and developed the flight deck space to at least host UAV recce aircraft. They also have capacity to carry 50 troops but, outside the Falklands, what is the utility in this for fishery protection? This space could have been used for containerised mission specific equipment including MCM, SAMs, Unmanned Sonar Vehicle or even SSMs.
In other words it could have been designed for peacetime offshore patrol and in hostilities as a multi-mission sloop / corvette. Oh well, I suppose they just needed something to keep those BAE yards open…
This is like saying an MoD Landy or pick-up needs a 120mm gun just in case…..even though it will never be used.
The 50 troops business comes about as a result of the size of the ships and not really a design driver. I could think of a few reasons why being able to carry 50 passengers would be useful. Perhaps post October 31st we will need to carry spare bodies for boarding parties.
Extra kit costs. Extra kit that will never be used. Even leaving space for it isn’t really useful because if there is a need for it it will never be built quick enough.
There is more to maritime security than weapons.
I think putting it another way is we should have paid less for these, for the price we should have got more. I don’t think we needed more as you say these are patrol ships. So we should have paid less. Ultimately I think the government recognised it was being ripped off and hence the T31 competition. BAe’s short term view has lead to the loss of its position as the UKs only warship builder and perhaps even as the supplier of RN CMS.
Good Post Expat.
Rob Collins, no one here really “knocks” the boats as you repeatedly say, they simply point out that they were not very good value for money. A lot of people on here are very passionate about the royal navy and its equipment and want it to be the best that it can be. That said, the boat does look lovely, I am always heartened when we build boats in the UK. A lot more of them would be a fine thing.
What I find is a bit of a coincidence with these ships, is that their WW2 frigate forebears were of a similar size (better armed mind). I think the ship’s hull has a lot of potential and that the current layout is seriously under used, especially when you look at the similar hulled Kareef ships.
We have two different classes of mine countermeasures vessels, a mine hunter (Sandown’s) and mine sweepers (Hunt’s). These ships were first commissioned in the late 80’s and early 80’s respectively. So the Hunt class will be due replacement soon. To my mind the technology available today with unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV) negates the need for a plastic hull or the need for the ship to go anywhere near a mine/mine field. Today we have UUVs that can search for and accurately identify mines/objects in the sea. They can even neutralise them which further reduces the risk to the vessel.
These smallish vessels are a strategic asset are used to maintain the safety of sea lanes, but have very little self protection. When they were first put to sea we had an escort fleet of 30 destroyers and frigates so one was expected to act as a guardian, gone are those days. We cannot afford to have a frigate to act as a guard-ship. These vessels must be able to provide their own deterrence and defence.
Now we come on to the River batch 2 class, ok, I get why they are were expensive and that’s now water under the bridge, but these ships could be so much more. My thoughts are that the Batch 2’s hull should be used for the basis for the next mine countermeasure vessels. I’m pretty certain when the Hunts and Sandowns get replaced, it won’t be a one for one replacement. It will be something like 10 plus a couple more if we could afford it. Therefore as technology has merged the role of mine hunter and sweeper, why not also include off-shore patrol, fishery protection, anti-piracy/smuggling etc?
The hull of the Batch 2 is just over 90m long, with a Merlin capable flight deck. I’m not looking at making these ships into a quasi T31 general purpose frigate, but to incorporate all three ship’s roles into one vessel. Thereby giving the Navy a more flexible and adaptive ship.
If we wanted to keep the Merlin capability, then the area either side of the batch 2’s funnel and where the crane is abaft the funnel could all be replaced with a fully enclosed hangar and mission bays. The mission bays would be used to deploy and recover ribs and UUVs using a similar process as the T26/31. The hangar would house Scheibel type helicopter UAVs. This means there’s space available to maintain the UUVs and ribs undercover. The small hangar would probably be too small to house a Wildcat, but would be sufficient for at least a couple S-100 camcopters. This little helicopter can be equipped with a radar, electo-optic turrets and even armed with Martlet missiles. This would a significant force multiplier for the ship, providing area reconnaissance and with the ability to go fierce if required. If a Wildcat sized helicopter was required to be attached to the ship, you would need to eat into the flight deck to increase the hanger size.
Because the ship is really a strategic asset, it should have the necessary armament to deter threats when its clearing minefields. As such it requires more than just a 30mm auto-gun and a couple of miniguns. I’d propose that they’d get the BAe 57mm gun, and have a pair of DS30 mounts with a mix of Martlets and Starstreaks attached. These would require a radar upgrade for guidance, the current Scanter wouldn’t be able to provide the data for anti-aircraft or missile defence. The obvious answer for a similar lightweight radar would be Saab’s Sea Giraffe.
I truly believe the Batch 2 hull would be the answer should look at for replacing the current Sandowns and Hunts. It would provide the Navy with a rounded multi-purpose ship. But more importantly could fend for itself when searching for and clearing mines.
Davey I agree. I think you put the expertise and bones onto my idea that they could have been serious multi-mission ships that could do a variety of roles from Fishery protection to mine clearance and even offshore escort. When the Hunt’s and Sandown’s are replaced a multi-mission capable ship would seem the obvious choice (back to the Black Swan Sloop idea).
A bit left side but the present Rivers could be fitted with a GMLRs on that flight deck to support the Boots ashore whilst carrying a Platoon for landing in their RIBs. I’m sure that could be done in a shipyard pretty quickly if needed.
Davey, if I remember correctly, the Future Surface Combatant (FSC) programme (which lead to the Type 26) also included plans for a separate class of vessels dubbed Mine Countermeasures, Hydrography and Patrol Capability (MHPC), which would have done pretty much what you suggest.
It seems that idea was dropped when the government decided it needed to order the Batch 2 Rivers to keep the Clyde shipyards busy.
Davey B, Maybe being picky but the Hunts are mine hunters that have the capability to sweep (or used to). The last RN sweepers were funnily enough the River class including the Spey (old boats me hearty).
I wouldn’t get too bogged down with the tonnage and the potential to stick weapons all over it. The larger displacement gives better sea keeping abilities and the larger deck space for the parafin parrot. I agree proper hangering facilities was a missed trick but for hey ho, it is what it is. The more weapons you stick on a platform means more other stuff like people, sensors etc. This is designed as a simple platform, aye you can pick holes in it, same as anything, but this isn’t really a warship as such, it gives the government the ability to send a ‘Grey funnel’ places, in a way, its almost gone back to ‘gun boat diplomacy’ in that regard.
“the u.k is too snobbish for that rivers upgrade “.
What a fantastic accusation Andy R. I can see the discussions in my mind…
“What about sticking a 76 mil on the Rivers old bean….”
“Absolutely not old chap, you know they’re made by the bally Italians and those chaps are beyond the pale !”
“Oh, that’s a dashed pity, there’s a frightfully bright chap online who thinks they’d be bloody wizard on the Rivers…. ”
“No, no, no, they’re made by those beastly Italians and you KNOW that they make rusty cars, they’re bloody foreign too, no, no, there’s a reason you’re still a Commodore Smudger old boy, no, no, its bad enough that the bloody things are made by the Scotch, that’s bad enough…..”
Is it something along those lines ?????
It would be interesting to understand the operating costs of B2 versus T31 A140, because the latter was designed from the outset by the Danes to have very low manning and operating costs. A140 based MCM capability would provide far greater flexibility for the RN, fitted with mission module based MCM with UUV and USV when in MCM role, but leading to an increase in frigate numbers for other roles when not required for MCM. Having a new generation of MCMV that are largely fixed in that role seems too inflexible for today’s world.
Upping the sensors and weapons fit for a B2 based MCM as described plus the extra required manning starts to close the cost gap with T31. But you still don’t have sophisticated organic air defense. Conducting MCM off a hostile coast with future ASM threats seems far more likely, so operating a ship with Sea Ceptor makes that more viable IMO and leads to using the A140 platform.
I believe the spaces either side of the crane (aft of the RIBS) are deliberately sized to take 2 standard 20′ ISO containers plus I think another 6 on the flight deck for a total capacity of 8 containers for stuff like humanitarian aid (it might be more than that on the flight deck). I’m pretty sure I saw a graphic for that somewhere a while ago. That total container capacity isn’t relevant to my point however, my point being that two containers can be secured either side of the crane with no encroachment on the flight deck and I believe that a Schiebel S-100 Camcopter could easily fit in a 20′ container with sufficient working space around it to fully maintain on board.
I assume the container fixing points are already in place (or if not that’s hardly a big and expensive modification) and with some power routing and maybe accessible data ports as well so that an embarked container (or pair of containers) could integrate into the ships power and command/comms systems as necessary that could effectively give twin UAV hangars that could be relatively quickly installed on a per-deployment basis (similar to Phalanx as-required installation) with very modest ship mods. The MoD does of course have to pick up that dropped ScanEagle ball and get going on evaluating and ultimately procuring suitable drones (not necessarily ScanEagle – I also like the look of S-100) but if all that came together it could greatly enhance the River B2’s capabilities in policing roles.
In my fantasy world I’d like to see things go even further with the MoD funding British industry to produce something just slightly heavier and more capable but in roughly the same size/weight category as the S-100. As you mention S-100 can even carry a couple of Martlet but from looking at published payload/endurance characteristics I’m not sure it could quite manage a good radar, electro-optic turret (with laser designator obviously) and Martlet all together. If I’m right on that and a slightly more capable UK UAV could be developed that could do all of that at the same time it could have great export potential as well as being hugely valuable to the RN.
On other armaments the fact that T31, if the rumours are true, will require the addition of 40mm and 57mm logistics/training/maintenance/etc into the RN does add some interesting options for modest up-gunning that on their own (i.e. without that stuff already being introduced due to the T31 choices) might have been non-starters.
I’d like to see Martlet/Starstreak mounts also integrated on 40mm, not necessarily for River B2 but, again assuming T31 choices put all the 40mm logistics in place, I would love to see that begin to replace the DS30s on the RFA defensive fits not to mention QEC. Particularly on the RFA vessels as I understand it (and please someone correct me if I am wrong) the DS30s although non-deck-penetrating are permanent fits whereas Phalanx are fitted on a per-deployment basis. Were a Bay for instance to be deployed without Phalanx and then find itself in a more tricky situation than the planners (i.e. the people who decided the deployment didn’t need Phalanx) anticipated I would feel far happier if it could fall back on a couple of 40mm rather than the current DS30s although maybe the existing sensors and other systems on RFA vessels aren’t up to integrating 40mm vs “point and squirt” (as described to me by someone on this forum) DS30s?
Here’s a thought – seeing as the T31′ design won’t be needing the Recycled Artisan radars off the 5 GP T23’s how about using them on the B2 River’s ?.
The B1 Rivers are fantastic ships. I wish they had all been constructed with a flight deck, but heck.
Andy – compare HMS Forth to the Italian Paolo Thaon De Revel – now that is a very large Patrol Ship.
I think at least one ‘member’ will be aroused by those…..
Hi Andy
Remember, for the early-build of OPV B2, the workforce on the Clyde was still busy with construction and assembly work at Govan and Rosyth of two 65,000 ton aircraft-carriers. By all accounts, they don’t seem to have done a bad job. No reports of glue being used!
Back on the Clyde, production was later ramped-up, and from August 2017 – four OPVs were launched in 22 months.
The ships were used to plug a gap in orders between the draw-down of carrier work – and completion of the T26 design/and belated ordering by the MoD. They also allowed the government to meet its contractual obligations to BAE.
I think “Save The Royal Navy” has a fair assessment of the controversy.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/costs-controversy-and-context-update-on-the-royal-navys-new-opvs/
Andy, I don’t disagree that it’s partly about politics – but that’s the case for most defence deals. Incidentally, Barrow-in-Furness (Astute) or Warton (Typhoon) are hardly beacons of productivity.
Scotland has lost a lot of industry in the last 40 years, but Scottish civil society (not the SNP) has been very vigorous in support of these yards, and indeed a very effective campaign was mounted to save the Govan shipyard from closure in 1999. Unfortunately, with the contraction of the Royal Navy, English yards have not had the same support – and I’ve been very sorry to read about recent closures.
I know some of the workers in the Govan yard: they are highly skilled, and proud of the association with their Navy, proud of the ships they produce – and proud to follow in the long tradition of Clyde ship-building.
I do hope orders for T31e and FSS will allow for a regeneration of ship-building in England. I see Cammell Laird is doing some great work on the “Sir David Attenborough”.
LOL – yes, all 15, 000 tonnes of it!
My only comment would be can we have some more please, another three would increase our options and at 2000 tons thats equal to a world war 2 destroyer
Yeah and old offshore patrol boats used to only be a few hundred tonnes.
Yes. For now, being realistic, 6 Rover B2 and 6 T31 to do our constabulary, port visit, flag waving roles.
Agreed Daniele, I’m still holding out hope for the 6 T31’s, we’ll see what the future brings!
I’m sure they will Andy. For the 5 GP T23’s at least. It does not help the RN’s situation much as the 4 T22’s cut by the Tories and the 3 T23’s cut by Labour are not being addressed by just 5.
My concern is the T26 order for 8.
In my opinion it will be 6. Just like the T45.
Daniele – I’m still confident that all 8 T26″s will be built seeing as all of them have been named,I think a Government U-turn on that might be a bit too hard to deflect, but saying that negotiations are still ongoing for the second Batch.If the price is competitive it’s a no-brainer to me, but if the T31’s can indeed be built for the target price I would have thought some serious questions would be asked as to why the huge difference.
I hope I am wrong Paul. I really do.
What an utter total irresponsible waste, there is no excuse for this, it’s is utterly beyond the pale…
Blast no one took the bate and commented, bang goes my waste of good whisky joke….
I must say I didn’t have a clue what you were on about Jonathan!
Lol I was doing a nasty troll impression hoping someone would bite and I could make a comic response about smashing that really expensive and lovely bottle of malt whisky against the side of a ship…which is by the way a sin against humanity.
No.