The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the Royal Navy is reviewing options for replacing its Batch 1 Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs), which are due to retire in 2028.

Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the Navy “constantly reviews out-of-service dates to achieve maximum availability of its platforms for operational tasking.”

While specific decommissioning dates for individual ships remain classified, Pollard confirmed that “the class out-of-service date for OPV Batch 1 is 2028.”

The assessment forms part of a wider review of future naval capability needs under the Strategic Defence Review 2025 and the forthcoming Defence Investment Plan. Pollard stated that “the Royal Navy continues to assess its future capability requirements in accordance with the Strategic Defence Review and the Defence Investment Plan.”

The Batch 1 River-class OPVs, commissioned between 2003 and 2007, have served primarily in fishery protection, maritime security, and training roles around the UK and overseas territories. They were succeeded by the more advanced Batch 2 River-class vessels, which feature greater endurance, improved accommodation, and flight decks capable of operating Wildcat helicopters.

The decision will also tie into the “always on” shipbuilding model outlined in the Strategic Defence Review, aimed at sustaining the UK’s naval industrial base through continuous construction and innovation. Further detail on the potential successor programme is expected to emerge through the Defence Investment Plan.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

170 COMMENTS

  2. Buy an extra frigate or two, lose the Sea Ceptor launchers if they’re an issue and run them as large patrol frigates to replace the Batch 2 OPVs abroad. Bring the Batch 2 OPVs (some of them) home to replace the three Batch 1. Unfortunately, finding the crew for those newer frigates will be tricky, given that the crews from the three retiring vessels would only just cover a single new frigate.

    Or see if BAE are still able to build more Batch 2 OPVs. Something tells me that might be out of reach though.

    • So a T31, it you want to reduce capability and get it on the cheap
      I read Ireland might be after something like a T31, so we had best be quick

      • I’m thinking go the full ‘fitted for but not with’ route. Drop the Sea Ceptors, lose the 40mm and keep the 57mm. That way, if a conflict does occur, the ships can be rapidly rearmed to serve as standard Type 31 frigates.

          • Absolutely. In their defence, it’s not a perfect solution. They’d be more crew intensive, more maintenance intensive and less frequently deployed. That said, I don’t think there’s another viable solution to get new ships into service by 2028 (it’d probably be more like 2030 in reality), and hopefully stripping back some of the intensive systems like the missiles and a couple of the guns would reduce the required maintenance and crew somewhat.

            • Your best bet for OPV’s in service quickly would be something that’s small enough to be built somewhere like Appledore, I don’t think anywhere that can build a frigate sized hull in the UK will have the space to start building 5,000+t OPV’s before and get them into service pre 2030.

              • It’s sitting there empty. Don’t think Navatia are in any rush. Don’t think there is much of a work force though. The design would be Spanish, unless there was something tucked away in a drawer somewhere that a small DO team could knockout

          • I know. That’s the part where I said:

            ‘Unfortunately, finding the crew for those newer frigates will be tricky, given that the crews from the three retiring vessels would only just cover a single new frigate.’

            If you have a better idea, I’d love to hear it.

          • Agree, hence why it wouldn’t be a good idea
            Just knock out some more batch 2s. Twist BAEs arm and let Navatia knock out a couple in slow time alongside parts for for the support ships at Appledore

            • Does BAE have the capacity to produce any more OPVs until the Type 26 frigate run is finished? At current schedules, they have 13 frigates to build and will have to promptly transition over to the Type 83 destroyers after that to meet current targets (assuming they get the contract).

              I know you mention Appledore, but I think it’s exceedingly unlikely that the government commits to supporting a fourth shipyard at this point.

              So, that leaves you with Babcock as the supplier that best fits the problem. You could ask for a new design, or you could keep up production lines by just ordering a stripped back Type 31 hull or two.

              • But the headline is about continuous shipbuilding. They have to increase capacity. Small ships like these would be ideal to get Appledore going again, even if all the plates were pre cut by BAE

                • Yes, but the issue with that is that once these three hypothetical replacement vessels are finished, what does the shipyard then build. The Batch 2 OPVs have decades left in them. Export orders are far from guaranteed. It sounds harsh, but to maintain an always-on shipbuilding capability, you’re better off maintaining the three yards we have. It’ll be a struggle even to do that. Once the FSS ships are finished, Belfast will need a new order, likely to be the MRSS. BAE’s yards are safe – they’ll have exports and new destroyers to build well into the 2040s and maybe the 2050s. Babcock, though, don’t exactly have loads to do. Given the pace of the Type 31 builds, they’ll be finished by 2030-32.

                  • So 3 years to order and build something with a price point of £150-200m.
                    Dust the plans off and build more batch 2 with a hangar ? Or a commercial option OTS?

                    • It’s curious that the out of service dates are classified when the dates are known for other ships. I suspect the timeline will tighter than you think

              • I’m pretty sure that Appledore went to Navantia when they took over H&W, they’re producing some bits for the FSSS I think. so technically they wouldn’t be supporting any more yards than they already are- which is a bonus!

                • They’ve only making blocks to be floated to Belfast. Updated patrol ships would be the ideal first real ships to build.
                  We don’t have time to pussy foot around

                  • Again, as I’ve said before, Appledore would need investment for ships, unless you want them sitting in the mud. Its a very limited shipyard.

                    • Will they be upgrading the yard to support the block builds for FSSS though? I can’t imagine they’d want to be building them on the mud either….

                    • Sitting on a mud berth did no harm to Scott,Echo,Enterprise or the six OPVs built for the Irish Navy it would only be a problem if a sonar bulb was required below the keel line and that can easily be bolted on in any convenient drydock.

                  • This is a reply to Chris as well, since the commenting system still sucks.
                    For the record it did actually do damage to 2 out of the 4 P60 class ships delaying their entry into service as their shafts had suffered damage from being in the mud and winter storms. Appledore is fine for building blocks for other yards, but if they managed to screw up 50% of an order then I’m not sure you can claim its fine for ship building without investment.

              • You’d be better off ordering fully equipped T31’s and using the existing ones in the roles you describe.

                Saves messing around in the first CIP and keeps it shorter.

                I don’t think the crewing is such an issue as is being made out TBH there are plenty coming through training and new ships that actually work and have facilities will help retention.

                  • Because a lot of our legacy ships require a disproportionately large engineering crew, which is one of the specialisms we are particularly short of.
                    Things like T31 and the OPVs with modern propulsion are much easier to maintain, and we are currently having a healthy increase in the numbers going through training.

                    • Mostly this and the training pipelines are in good shape with retention improving.

                      The demand/provision curves, I’m told, show signs of cross over being achieved. There is a lot of focus on this at top level. As per the announcements of the capacity of pipeline accommodation at HMNB Clyde.

                      Retiring T23 is mainly because they are falling apart. Retiring Albions is a little more nuanced but was in part to do with the huge engineering crews that were needed plus the costs of regeneration.

                      There is a realisation that RN would look pretty silly with one of the best fleets of new shiny ships if it could not crew them. I think we will see T45 crewed and some of them with rotating crews so they can go on prolonged tours, to cover what were previously T23 taskings, without doing anything negative for retention.

                    • Even our laughable T31s need up to 100 crew, we don’t have more frigates crews or the cash for better equipped T31s lying around

                    • Just going to point out that a Type 31 has a crew of 110, a River B2 has a crew of about 35. You can crew 3 B2’s for a single Type 31.

                • Exactly, if the P60s were too big to be done inside I can’t see how an improved River could be done. Then you are back to the mud or a new fit out area or a barge type facility. And for what? Maybe 3 RN hulls and then back to hoping someone else orders something?

                  • Are we talking about Appledore still? Navatia clearly think there is a future, I’m sure some smaller ships can be slotted into the schedule in the mean time. Ideal in fact

      • The Eithne replacement has been dragging on for near 20 years, I don’t think it’s likely to impact any timeframe for the UK

    • They were going with exactly that idea for a bare bones, big empty box frigate for the S2C2 plan, nearly 20 years ago. And what happened?

      Exactly. Because it doesn’t work in Real Life.

  3. For me there should be an increased number of smaller OPVs. I know most people want bigger because Atlantic weather, increased endurance, etc, but I’d rather have quantity to work in collaboration with the P8s and Protectors. We shouldn’t have to send out frigates every time to monitor Russian ships.
    Perhaps going for a multi-hull design could help mitigate concerns over seaworthiness. If that can be done off the shelf.

    • Ultimately the shipbuilding capacity is finite.

      Do you continue building evolved T31s which can be done very efficiently or do you stop that and start something else and gave to get past the #1-3 learning curve again new design?

      T31 is the sweet spot because you have a very capable hull that can do a huge range of tasking and be heavily upgraded.

      If Babcock’s statements on lean crewing are true then it looks like the answer.

      RN needs mass that can fight but have a day to day role doing OPV stuff. There isn’t the capacity and money for both.

      • We keep on saying there’s no money or capacity, I just have to point to France which is very comparable to ourselves in terms of GDP and is even more in debt than us.
        Just for their smaller ships they are building, ordering or planning.

        16 OPVs in 2 classes (6 1600 tonnes and 10 2500 tonnes)
        6 European Patrol Corvettes to replace their old Floreal Frigates.
        6 MCM Motherships (versions of the Belgian / Dutch town class).

        On top of that they are replacing all their SSBN and SSNs and building a CVN !

        And we are just talking about replacing just 3 B1 Rivers and nothing else.

  4. Umm, lets see a bit heavier armed would be better, at least with air defence or anti missile defence for its self. Mind you knowing the things in the MOD might just gap them and do nothing whilst talking about it in MOD speak and dream up a project name and have a few meeting, paid industry open days but do nothing else like most of the Armed forces kit its just a foever, may be later, may be one day wish least.

      • Without an adequate air defence you might as well spend the money on sending folk on the dole queue to Spain for a month every year, as build new ships for the RN.

        The OPV hill shap appears to be a reasonable design so starting to build three copies of the batch 2 OPV and fitting with remote operated guns and missiles is a good start..

        Then follow on with repeats of the same hull with diesel electric drive enhanced redundancy and ability to be operated with small or zero crews.

        The large flight deck is important for maintenance crew to access the vessel which may well operate unmanned for 80% of the time as would some crew accomodation perhaps for upto forty people. Batch 2 OPV has accomodation for about 100

  5. I like the idea of a stripped down Type 31 as I have seen mentioned, just keep a single Bofors 40mm and that should give a decent enough defence against drones and fast attack craft of varying types. It’s relatively inexpensive and a large flexible ship with long endurance.

  6. Dear George-san
    Thanks for the post. Looking into the Defence Minister’s comment, I even thought that he is talking about early retirement of River B1. But you mentioned their possible replacements. Are there some “other” information, which made you think so?

  7. These are very useful vessels despite the hate they are a vital piece in island defence so hopefully they can be replaced, maybe 4-5 more B2s or dare I say a minimally crewed B3 with more adaptability with the upcoming unmanned systems. This option fits in with the shipbuilding strategy and would be relatively inexpensive compared to other ideas floating around plus the work would hopefully pass to the smaller shipyards.

    • What hate? I think all would agree the Rivers are useful vessels, the Batch 2 especially.
      Hate is too strong a word, but the general negativity and mirth around anything the MoD or HMG say is due to the MoD and HMG THEMSELVES, by their endless ability to delay, spend more than necessary with inefficiency, and leave things to the last moment gapping assets rather than having replacements arriving as kit leaves service.
      That did not happen in earlier years as far as I recall, until the late 90s and 2000s.
      Sentry. Sentinel. Hercules. Defender. Islander. Sea King HC4. Puma. Sea Harrier. Harrier GR5/7/9. Tornado F3. Tornado GR4. Jaguar. AS90 gun. CVRT. Wave Class. Fort Class. Older Fort Class. T22 Batch 3. LPDs. LPH. Argus.
      Just some examples of assets removed, cut, retired, rationalised, with no ordered replacement entering service, or the capability just gapped altogether.
      But, I suggest, that is the intent, as they make in year savings and ignore the costs down the road incurred by keeping assets going and extending build times for some other government.
      Just one of many reasons why so many are sick to the back teeth with it.

    • Hate is too strong a word.

      An OPV can’t go to war. A T31 can.

      RN needs fighting mass.

      That said there is a case for smaller cheaper commands for experience.

      • Wasn’t part of the justification for the batch 2 price tags ( double the price Brazil paid for their version of River) the beefing up of battle damage survivability on Batch IIs to RN expectations….. coughs….compensation for screwing up other orders.

        • The function of River B2 was to give the Govan staff something to do so that there was a core to build other things.

          Otherwise HMG would have been on the hook for redundancy etc.

          And restarting escort building from zero.

          It was all set out in the much maligned TOBA. If that TOBA hadn’t existed Govan would not exist.

          So TOBA might have been….a good thing….?

          • understand that. My point was the Rivers are engineered ‘to go to war’…at least to significantly higher level compared to batch I’s or the old Castles.

              • agreed..they arent intended to be ships of the line…but they are more robust than basic OPV’s and as earlier note, they potentially face more violent kinetic threats these days from Narcos, pirates and smugglers which they need to be able to deal with effectively. An extra 100 mil a pop should buy a lot of protection!.

                • The B2’s did not cost an extra 100mil each. The most expensive B2’s where the last two, coming in at about 143mil, the B1’s where only about 20-30mil cheaper.

  8. Means very little. At best they’ll designate the upcoming MCM motherships as dual purpose with an OPV role.

    So 3 ships (likely a version of the Norwegian Vanguard design) will replace 3 OPV’s and until recently 15 MCMV’s!

    • “ At best they’ll designate the upcoming MCM motherships as dual purpose with an OPV role.”

      I think you mean

      At best they’ll designate the upcoming MCM drone ships as dual purpose with an OPV role.

    • Yes to this. Something like the Vanguards that can be dual-roled, up-armed if needed and have a hangar for helo and drones. Good for littoral/regional patrols. Maybe 6+ of them if to cover MCM.
      There’s also the BMT Venari 85 if you want something home grown.

      • We are very short of escorts and cannot afford many more than the 19 currently planned. We have tried to get around that by using the River 2s as overseas gunboats but with only a little 30mm cannon.and no hangar, they have little wartime value. The River 1s are good only for coastal patrol and fishery protection. We need to be looking at replacing them with a more capable minor warship that can play a more useful wartime role.

        After building the River 1s and Clyde, BAE built a larger version for Oman, the Khareef-class corvette. 2,600 tonnes displacement, as opposed to River 2s 2,000 tonnes, 30′ longer, 3 kts faster, larger complement, but a complete difference in armament.

        Instead.of a 30mm popgun and some GPMGs, Khareef has:

        A 76mm cannon
        2 x 30mm cannons
        12 x VL MICA SAM
        8 x Exocet 111 SSM
        A hangar for a medium helicopter.

        Suddenly, it becomes a more useful addition to a fleet.

        That is not exactly the weapons fit we need, but add some basic sonar, TAS and a couple of UUVs and we would have a useful ASW capability that would be a bonus in Eastlant, a useful convoy escort if needed and a very capable patrol ship for the Gib/W Afria, Caribbean and Pacific stations.

        Other ENATO maritime nations are in the same boat and we could learn from them.
        Italy and France are replacing their older OPVs with a Common European Corvette, with half a dozen other NATO members participating in the planning and development. It will have a displacement of 3,400 tonnes and a far better weapons fit-out than the River 2. They are thus making up for their general shortage of escorts.
        I think we should be looking.at going down the same path, for the same reason. Basically, replace the Rivers as they get to their OSDs, between 2027 and 2040, with a class of 8 more capable corvettes. So bring the R2s back to the UK to replace the R1s, and replace them in the overseas patrol role by the corvettes.

        I can already hear Hugo gnashing his teeth ref cost and probably manning. But we need to factor in that, if the core budget increases to 3.5% by 2035, that will be a 50% increase on what we have now..So despite all the other claims on the budget, there will be some more money for minor warships, including corvettes, MCMVs and deep sea survey.

        We can’t just ignore the planned increase and say nothing can be done. The fast development of the Euro corvette and the buy-in to it is what we should be looking to match.

        • The Common European Corvette looks a little like the BAe Cutlass that they proposed for the T31 competition. Which I believe was based on the Omani khareef, which IIRC was based on the B2 River class.

          Perhaps something like the Cutlass could be a modern day Flower class. Where it can do convoy protection, support ASW, help with AAW along with all the other requirements for a OPV. But on a much leaner manned crew. But built by smaller yards around the UK.

          • I think that the Common European Corvette would be a good OTS purchase for the RN. . I know that there is the issue of having all warships UK built, but needs must. Or perhaps Appledore or similar could build them under licence, but the design seems sensible and with commonality with partner navy’s would be relatively cheap to run.

            • There’s something like 7 European Nations involved with the program now. So could be on to a good thing. The main point for me is that it not only has a helideck, but just as importantly comes with a hangar. Something the B2 Rivers are severely lacking.

            • I don’t mean that. If they’re doing OPV in UK waters then crew as per OPV’s…if you’re sending them to do what was Op Kipion or off Horn of Africa you may choose to up-man them.

              It would all be about the potential capability. If they were out away from the UK it would only take 1 C-17 flight to them to deliver additional crew, Wildcat…even a full load of missiles…

    • Probably not, as the intention was for the B2’s to replace the B1’s (with the B1’s even briefly going out of service in the 2010’s to that effect).

      • Go to the unemployment queues and find some people. If this is the weakest link in the chain what actions are being taken to get it fixed? Country of 70million people, I don’t get it. Things need to be done better.

        • The point of an OPV is that it is a cheap ship to run, if a ship has a crew of 110 every time it sets sail, that is, on crew alone, much more expensive than a crew of 30, defeating the point of an OPV.

  11. A B3 run of 5 for the same price as a T26 would make sense to this Halfwit.

    Wildcat Hanger for the long term deployments.

  12. They could choose a rowboat and I can guarantee it won’t be in service before the current OPV’s are due to retire.

    • Yeah, that’s my feeling too. I’m not quite sure how they expect to produce three new, domestically built warships by 2028.

      • They won’t. 3 new MCM motherships are a stated requirement and will likely end up being a version of the Norwegian Vanguard design as part of the wider defence deal including T26 and Merlin.

        The Vanguards will have a secondary OPV capability so I imagine they’ll be touted as a replacement for the batch 1 Rivers despite being another cut in numbers.

        • Mmm the Vanguards are a very interesting option, but the design History just makes me very sad. Kongsberg bought out RR Marine 6 years ago and moved the design bureau from Derby to Norway. The Vanguard is nothing more than a developed version of the RR UT design. To be fair it’s a very good choice !

    • My prediction is it will either be the Norwegian Vanguards or do they just order a further evolved River B3 and use non primary yards to build them such as Appledore, CL, Fergusons and maybe even Portsmouth !
      Most folks on here are rabbiting on about the need for more surface warships (which is true) and using this to order something extra. The problem is that anything remotely useful in front line use will cost far more money than a River B3 and we still have a need OPVs.
      Just build 5 more Rivers, but do what Thailand did with their Krabi version and stick a 76mm gun at the front, put some Manpads in a locker and enable the work deck / flight deck to accept the RN PODs they are developing.
      The only reason the B2s were so expensive was because MOD screwed BAe over on the T45 and Astutes by cutting the orders and leaving BAe on the Clyde up the swanny with Scotlands Referendum looming.
      What no one seems to understand is Yes we need a bigger navy but to do so you need more fully trained and experienced Crews, its ships like the Rivers and other 2nd line ships that provide the stepping stone to gaining that experience.
      If no one thinks that’s important well they may want to look at the recent serious Accidents in the USN, RNZN and HNoMS, most of them were due to lack of experienced watch keeping officers, sloppy damage control or just plain incompetence.

      • The RN isn’t going to bring yet another gun calibre into service, same arguments were made back in the day for the Peacocks, it failed then as well.

        • The thing is back in the time of the Peacocks the 76mm was just a simple, reasonably lightweight medium gun. Nowadays the modern ones can do a hell of a lot more due to their ammunition options. I wouldn’t mind it being a 57mm but I just think the 76mm has far more options. I’d also think about ditching the T45’s MK8 for a 76mm as it has far more versatility (my first preference would actually be a 5” but ££).

          • I’m not saying that the modern 76mm isn’t a different animal to the Peacocks, I’m just pointing out that integrating an entirely different weapon system, supply chain, training program etc for even 5 ships makes no sense even if the RN sees budget increases.

      • ” The problem is that anything remotely useful in front line use will cost far more money than a River B3 and we still have a need OPVs.”

        ^ This. I don’t get why everyone seems so intent on not understanding that the point of an OPV is to use it’s low cost as a force multiplier. By using a really cheep ship it frees up your actual combat assets to be more useful.

    • Hey DM -how are tricks ? I’d be ok with the retirement of the River Batch’s -provided they commit to building the 5 Type 32 frigates. Seems to fallen by the wayside, the original plan to build the fleet back to 24 surface warships.

  15. We are very short of escorts and cannot afford many more than the 19 currently planned. We have tried to get around that by using the River 2s as overseas gunboats but with only a little 30mm cannon.and no hangar, they have little wartime value. The River 1s are good only for coastal patrol and fishery protection. We need to be looking at replacing them with a more capable minor warship that can play a more useful wartime role.

    After building the River 1s and Clyde, BAE built a larger version for Oman, the Khareef-class corvette. 2,600 tonnes displacement, as opposed to River 2s 2,000 tonnes, 30′ longer, 3 kts faster, larger complement, but a complete difference in armament.

    Instead.of a 30mm popgun and some GPMGs, Khareef has:

    A 76mm cannon
    2 x 30mm cannons
    12 x VL MICA SAM
    8 x Exocet 111 SSM
    A hangar for a medium helicopter.

    Suddenly, it becomes a more useful addition to a fleet.

    That is not exactly the weapons fit we need, but add some basic sonar, TAS and a couple of UUVs and we would have a useful ASW capability that would be a bonus in Eastlant, a useful convoy escort if needed and a very capable patrol ship for the Gib/W Afria, Caribbean and Pacific stations.

    Other ENATO maritime nations are in the same boat and we could learn from them.
    Italy and France are replacing their older OPVs with a Common European Corvette, with half a dozen other NATO members participating in the planning and development. It will have a displacement of 3,400 tonnes and a far better weapons fit-out than the River 2. They are thus making up for their general shortage of escorts.
    I think we should be looking.at going down the same path, for the same reason. Basically, replace the Rivers as they get to their OSDs, between 2027 and 2040, with a class of 8 more capable corvettes. So bring the R2s back to the UK to replace the R1s, and replace them in the overseas patrol role by the corvettes.

    I can already hear Hugo gnashing his teeth ref cost and probably manning. But we need to factor in that, if the core budget increases to 3.5% by 2035, that will be a 50% increase on what we have now..So despite all the other claims on the budget, there will be some more money for minor warships, including corvettes, MCMVs and deep sea survey.

    We can’t just ignore the planned increase and say nothing can be done. The fast development of the Euro corvette and the buy-in to it is what we should be looking to match.

    • Sorry but France is replacing its old OPVs with 2 New Classes of OPVs. They are midway through building 6 POM (1300 tonnes) for use in the French overseas territories, and just starting to build 10 PH class (2500 tonnes) for various duties nearer home.
      They are going to order 6 European Patrol Corvettes to replace the old Floreal Frigates from 2030 onwards.
      In addition to that they also want 6 SLAM-F variants of the Dutch/Belgian MCM motherships.

      And I thought they were broke !

  16. 2028 leaves us no time to come up with a completely new design so their replacement would have to be completely OTS that represents an acceptable compromise design for the RN. With no further orders for ships through the yard in Rosyth (after the current 5 T31s), what existing designs could Babcock’s build for this requirement?

  17. More batch 2 Rivers would seem the obvious choice- they have proved pretty reliable. Does anyone know what they really cost to build, stripping out the TOBA subsidy.

    • The question is could BAE even build them at Govan/Scotstoun with Type 26….I doubt it.

      But…they’re about to do some work on the large build shed in Portsmouth….

    • The only reason I didn’t mention BAE, they have a pretty full order book and I don’t know where they’d create the ship yard capacity to build a follow-on B2 order.

  18. Get real, they will not be replaced. This is Liebour/Uniparty we are talking about. And anyway, they need to ask the Chinese for permission.

  19. In reality the RN needs decide what its future patrol and Mine warfare ships it’s going to build to cart around all its autonomous vessels.. essentially 2-3 tons with a flight deck, small hanger and crane would be ideal.. if they can get the type 9x ship working as both a 15 crew patrol ship and an unmanned high end asset that would work very well.

  20. Lots of suggestions, but who are going to build them? Last time I looked our shipyards are busy until 2045, building the type 26 and type 31, followed by additional overseas orders for same, presumably followed by type 45 and MRSS. Unless our yards can manufacture faster, or another two ship yards can open, we’re in for a long wait or they won’t get replaced.

  21. They need to arm them more to deal with swarms of drones and small boats effectively. Make them slightly larger than River Class 2 a 57mm Bofors up front and two 40mm Bofors per side, compared to missiles they aren’t that expensive, two guns per side, plus the main gun is more than enough to protect from swarms at all angles. If needs be stick a cannister of 2 or 4 NSM’s. A covered hangar deck for a Wildcat/drone depending on mission. Essentially creating a gun boat rather than the current underarmed OPV’s that get shoehorned into doing more dangerous jobs than they should be. It also means that these could add to the fleet in a meaningful way as Point Defence boats if needed.

      • These ones aren’t for the English Channel, they are the ones they keep sending to dangerous places as a full Frigate is too expensive mainly due to all the missile tech. As I pointed out aside from maybe a couple of NSM’s this would have guns and be ideal for things like escorting things through dangerous waters due to it’s point defence nature. Like it or not, the modern Bofors guns are cheaper than missiles and are less maintenance intensive.

            • They are struggling to do it for the 57mm. The smaller you go the harder it gets. A guided 40mm is currently too hard to get anything useful (even if you succeed). The 57mm designs would be much easier to do if they shifted up to 76mm. Guided 76mm rounds are all ready in use, but the 57mm designs are different enough to attract attention in 76mm form. Some form of SAM (or at least space to install some) is essential, along with a radar capable of cueing them & a hangar (even if it’s used as a gym most of the time). Something like the Fassmer 95m (a stretched mk2 version of their OPV 90).

              • Yes it would have been nice if the navy had gone with a 76mm water cooled super rapid for its medium gun of choice..as DART rounds and the super rapid in general have proven to be a very cost effective inner ring AAW defence out to the 8-10km range. Fingers crossed they get the effective DART type round for the 57mm.. the 40mm is a different fish and for that you simply want a good proximity airburts so you can put up a curtain of metal out to 3-4km and in front of an effector come at you. Then your final automated kiss your ass CIW at 1km.. an safe ship will have it all long range radar that can attack air platforms or effectors out to 100km , medium range missiles coving out to the 25-50km range, medium guns and guided rounds out to 10km (or a light missile option..RAM or LMM ) then a light gun option out to 3-4 km ( curtain of lead ) and a final CIWS… now that is the ideal most ships miss out 1,2 or even 3 of those.

                • Hi Jonathan, Just take a look at the HTMS Krabi, it’s just a River B2 with a 76mm gun, 2 x 30mm and a flight / work deck.
                  As far as I am aware the trials for Martlet mounted on a 30mm went well other than issues with efflux into the intakes for the GTs.
                  It’s cheap, reliable, lean manned and has room for PODS (if we ever get them).

          • I suggest you look at the new Bofors guns and read up on them, we aren’t talking about WWII vintage ones. The RN is already integrating both the 57mm and 40mm ones on the Type 31 Frigates plus they have the ammo already tested. Germany has had 35mm proximity ammo for the Gepphard for years.

              • I hate to point out but how do you think interception missiles work? they literally explode in proximity to the incoming missile showing it in fragments and tungsten balls that shred it or damage it’s control surfaces enough that it veers off course. This is exactly the same as proximity or smart munitions do but the munitions do it at a fraction of the cost and a lower range. These things fire fast and having multiple ones engaging simultaneously would wipe out drone swarms creating as you say a wall of flak.

                The fact of the matter is, we have to go back to cheaper ways of intercepting drones and missiles, as using using expensive missiles isn’t cost effective, not to mention you can’t carry enough to deal with swarms and they take up too much room compared to ammunition for guns. They could put 4 mk41VLS on each one and have them loaded as per mission, but mk 41 is apparently expensive.

                Plus these vessels are going to have to be more Corvettes than OPV’s as given the Royal Navy’s record with maintenance or lack thereof due to insufficient facilities. These will probably have to step into fill the gaps when Type 31’s aren’t available.

                The other added benefit of guns is dealing with fast attack boat formations, multiple guns can engage multiple boats simultaneously. The 40mm Bofors aren’t just for CIWS against airborne threats, but for boats too.

                • The missile can guide itself close to its target, the shells can’t.

                  Don’t be ridiculous, no one is sending an OPV to cover for a combat role of a frigate, and I don’t know where you get the idea these will be corvettes.

                  • Missiles can also miss, fail to launch and are ridiculously expensive compared to gun ammunition.. the idea that a couple of these OPV’s should be corvettes comes from the fact that Royal Navy through lack of maintenance facilities ends up sending OPV’s to do Frigate jobs as the Frgates are out of service.

                    I’m suggesting that the next batch be better armed to do this. To keep them in budget, you can’t festoon them with missiles as you would have,. You can’t carry enough missiles to deal with drone swarms or groups of fast attack boats. it’s just not cost effective, besides that would make them light Frigates. The Batch 2 Rivers are already 1,500-1800 tons.

                    I suggest you read and consider what I’ve written instead of nailing yourself to this “missiles are everything line”.

                    • The lowest intensity combat zone we’ve had in recent history is the Red Sea, most threats are drone poodling around with the occasional ballistic that is unlikely to hit a warship, but that doesn’t change that no sane navy will send a gun only warship to that area, missiles are a must for reliable defense

    • Yes, perfect; cut the middle section out of Arrowhead 140, retain a mission bay, flight deck and fwd gun, add a stern slipway: basically a Babcock ‘Kongsberg Vanguard’. 5 off.

        • But would you? How mature is the Arrowhead 120 design? And Babcock have published articles on their plans to reduce T31 crew requirement to around 89-90. How advanced are these plans? The Arrowhead 140 itself in its original patrol ‘frigate’ versuon might not be too far away.

                • Yes, I think that’s how it will play out. The R2s are (somewhat) combat hardened, very cost effective global, diplomatic gunboats. Some of them will be augmented or replaced by T31. The R1 are different. They are built to commercial standards and are more green water than blue water. Next, the RN have expressed a requirement for (at least) 3 MCM drone launching ‘motherships’: the UK sees a ‘clear and present danger’ to undersea assets so something like Kongsberg Vanguard is what is needed. Lastly, virtually any RN asset can do the fleet ready escort job on occasion, including Vangauard. The giveaway is that RN web site states that the Hunts have a secondary OPV role. QED.

  23. More Rivers is one option. Another would be to locally build the Damen Stan Patrol 6211 design as South Africa did with the Warrior class. Smaller and with less crew but still capable of rough seas, we could have 5 at least for the price of 3 Rivers.

    • They still look like they could go beyond 2028. Must be all that “beautiful plummage” dazzle paintwork! Why not keep them a tad longer in the meantime? Give them a comms/radar upgrade, replace the 20mm, make them Peregrine uav capable.

        • A UAV would be useful for an increased scope of surveillance and as the 20mm is being retired so something more modern might be a good upgrade and offer extra punch and defence against things like drones.

  25. Our enemies and potential enemies are buying, building and deploying their new stuff. We’ve started assessing.

    The world was playing a collective game of snakes and ladders, our government would have missed the first six turns while it thought about an expensive new way to throw the dice, then donate its first three goes to a random troubled country that doesn’t like us.

    • Let’s be fair the entire west basically decided it had unilaterally won and simply refused to play and sat around saying how wonderful it was for about 3 decades… before it had noticed the rest of the world had restarted the game about 15 years ago.

  26. I think the scope should be to add at least 1-2 more hulls so five to replace the River batch one vessels.
    An enlarged River batch 2 with the BAE 56MM gun, a multipurpose launch/ recovery deck for USV/ USSVs, a flight deck, ideally with hangar for wildcat/ UAVs, a space for two 20ft iso containers for PODS applications. NSM and a small sea Ceptor silo.
    So yes something a bit more fighty and akin to a corvette

    but not a corvette. By my estimate that could all be achieved on a sub 2500 ton hullform and be much more capable for a persistent long range deployment in low to mid level risk areas, as well as fishery protection and if needed a close carrier escort, surface action or special forces launch platform.

    • Adding a couple Sea ceptors won’t make it suddenly capable of deploying to hostile locations, and fat chance of NSM.

      And all that will do is massively inflate the crew requirement

    • Mr Bell, its “57mm” please…. There might also be more compact options for cannistered Sea Venom and Martlet rather thsn NSM and CAMM if required.

  28. They have left it very late for new UK built ships. Of course the B1’s were expected to be replace by the B2’s which in turn would be replaced by the T32’s in the forward deployed role. But presumed death of the T32 project and recent collapse in the number of T23’s has put paid to that 2020 plan, the B2’s are now pseudo major combatants! The obvious quick fix is an order for three B3’s to replace three forward deployed B2s, I wonder if the former H&W Appledore shipyard still has the capability to build whole ships – or is it now essentially closed down? Ferguson is another possibility, but BAE would have to give them close oversight. Of course by far the cheapest, quickest and probably most sensible solution would be build the hulls abroad – Italy, S. Korea, Turkey …. and get A&P or Cammell Laird to do the final fitout to UK military standards. The main design changes in the B3 over the B2 (other than the inventible replacement of now obsolete or no longer manufactured equipment) are in my mind a flight deck for landing helo’s, aviation facilities for a UAV drones, a few extra metres in hull length to improve sea keeping in Pacific swells as well as providing more space, and replacing the 30 mm cannon with the far more capable Bofors 40mm Mk 4.

      • Deployable Wildcat flights are very scarce, just four at the moment? I fear that upgrading an OPV B3 to be able to operate a Wildcat would involve a lot of money for a once in a blue moon event.

    • Procrastination is the Treasury’s secret weapon, adopted by much of the Civil Service. If you can delay things long enough they become impossible, so you don’t have to fund them. Someone has to fund something else far more expensive, but not during this administration.

  30. And isn’t Babcock building a opv type vessel for Ukraine? What type is that? Could that be adapted for the RN? Not sure if it has a hangar/flight deck?

  32. @S.B
    It would take months to re-equip a largely empty hull of a T31 stripped down as a OPV for war fighting,. Then there’s the issue of retraining the crews for all the extra kit of a full fat frigate!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

By submitting this comment, you agree to the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.