So destroyers and frigates wouldn’t protect them while operating with them?
If there's a destroyer or a frigate there, the OPV is superfluous and should be steaming at its top speed of 25kts (they're no FAC) in the opposite direction.
Lmao, why should a ship with offensive missiles be running away just because a destroyer is present?
The River B2s have significantly worse damage control than fully fledged warships. While they're likely better than Falklands-era frigates they are not designed for survivability in a war environment. A 'batch 3' could do nothing about that limitation without spending nearly as much money as a frigate. I assume you would understand this concern given the USN obsession with warship construction standards.
I see the US is coming to help us with their vast experience of winning wars against smaller countries.
Argentina cannot invade the Falklands today because of several reasons:
So, what's the point of loading them up with extra anti-ship missiles if they're going to be tied to a larger combatant anyway? You could put those missiles onboard a destroyer or frigate (or on a smaller, unmanned vessel) and achieve the same effect, without risking the OPV's crew.
Because your hypothetical AShM-armed OPV cannot provide sufficient protection to its crew members, nor any particular military capability, within a major conflict zone.
It just confused me. The thing that a manned warship can do that a LUSV can't, is cart around a massive radar (and sonar), along with the analysis, command and control systems to interpret and use that data, and the data that comes in from various LUSVs.
Funny, the USCG has either 25 or 30mm Mk38s or even clear up to a 57mm on their cutters doing this exact mission.
All the dudes with RPG-7s laugh in your general direction from 8~900m away.
Part of the RN's mission set is stuff the US gave to the Coast Guard. So yes, they do need a bunch of OPVs/Coast Guard cutters.
You mean "dudes armed with RPG-7s or even ATGMs"
I would propose that the ships of the type you are proposing be fitted with the UK equivalent of Sea Giraffe or SPY6v2 (9 RMAs on a rotating mount) and space for two towed arrays (floating array and VDS) in the stern. Of course, you do have to actually buy the towed arrays to install when the war breaks out.It just confused me. The thing that a manned warship can do that a LUSV can't, is cart around a massive radar (and sonar), along with the analysis, command and control systems to interpret and use that data, and the data that comes in from various LUSVs.
That makes it by necessity a large vessel in terms of size, in order to be both stable enough, and have enough power generation capability, to operate those large sensors.
At the same time, if your CCV is also being used for fisheries protection and counter-narcotics, having that massive radar and sonar seems like horrendous overkill, even if crewing is slashed to just 100.
Anyway, these are questions for two decades or so in the future.
And 25-30mm is still over kill.
You still need a stabilized weapon. Which means Mk38s in the US or DS30 for the UK. Or even Millennium guns.
It's still a damn Coast Guard cutter, which by definition is an OPV.
They airburst at ~950m, so I'd assume pirates would take advantage of that well-known fact for their "hey, dumbass" shot. In this case you're not trying to hit, you want the round to airburst in front of the bridge.
African pirates, mostly. East Coast and West Coast.
RSWs for CSW exist.
Yes, but are they marinized (adapted for salt water) and are they armed with only a .50 instead of a Mk19 or M230LW?
Yes. Their mission was that of an OPV. Those 5" gun cutters were grossly overgunned for the mission, but they worked as OPVs.
The Heritage class is described by the USCG as an "Offshore Patrol Cutter"
Yes, naval RWSes for CSW are resistant to salt water
"The NSC Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection suite will includeunderwater sonar that will allow the cutter to scan ports, approaches, facilities and high-value assets for underwater, minelike devices and detect swimmers."
If this is the argument you're making, are you sure you're winning this debate? A vessel, doing offshore patrol, is not an offshore patrol vessel?
I don't know what passes for politeness on your side of the Atlantic but this isn't acceptable behaviour on the forum.
So why do the Legends have 57mm Mk 110? You need something to put a shot across a trawler or drug-runner's bow if it refuses to stop.
You really don't understand the presence role, do you? You seem remarkably unaware of how OPVs work for someone intent on telling us how we're doing it wrong.
You persistently demonstrate that you don't have the first clue about naval roles, whether wartime or peacetime. The fisheries protection role doesn't go away during wartime, because it also covers protecting the fishing fleet in time of war, support for the oil rigs, SAR, and protecting nukes entering/exiting the Scottish bases. Look at what France is buying for exactly the same role: the Patrouilleurs Hauturier/Trolley de Prevaux class, which look remarkably like a Batch 2 River with a French accent.
Except that doesn't seem to be proposing a common hull design, or perhaps just a common hull design, it's proposing a common command node for a constellation of USVs/UUVs that changes with the strategic situation. We're perhaps at the point where we need to stop thinking in terms of a single hull.
How remarkably convenient for your argument to ignore 85% of the roles they are built for.
Yes. Just as the Castles were a deterrent before them. Just as the RN and HMG do. You don't seem to understand the political dimension of the guardship role. It's purpose isn't to die heroically (though it might), it's to force the other guy to realise just how serious a mistake he's about to make, because if you sink an RN ship, you have to be prepared for the likelihood of SSNs hunting down every ship you have. The guardship's political role is to force the other guy to ask that question of themselves.
So you want a ground to air weapon that outranges let's say Spike LR, so the ability to take out a helicopter at beyond 10km, which means RAM or Sea Ceptor, and the sensors and operations room to support that. For no benefit whatsoever to the likely needs of her mission.
Of note, among the ships being replaced by the Patrouilleurs Hauturier are the remaining D'ESTIENNE D'ORVES class, which were originally armed with Exocet missiles and torpedo tubes. Those were removed when the ships were assigned as OPVs.
Oh I’m sorry, I meant to say “learning disability”
It’s the only role that’s an actual military role and not a law enforcement role.
Link has gone dead.
Or are deleted.
Ahem.
Excellent suggestions. The WW1 C Class cruisers and WW2 C Class destroyers offer a lot of additional cool names: Centaur, Ceres, Conquest, Caprice, Cavalier, Chieftain, Comet, Cossack .........
C-class DD names:
The name Bellerophon is currently borne by one of the cadet training yachts at Gosport, but I don't think that will be a problem. Basilisk is also an excellent one as well as Boadicea.
Comet a good one. Centaur and Chieftain too, but Conquest and Conqueror I suspect would get turned down by the committee regardless of the Falklands reference. Cavalier is still a museum ship, it was confusing enough with Belfast. Cossack probably not, unless we spun it to refer to the Ukrainians.