NFR-90 and other Pre-Horizon AAW Projects

RP1

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Senior Member
Joined
22 February 2006
Messages
490
Reaction score
551
Website
rp-one.net
(I wasn't sure if this should be included under the Horizon thread, as there were at least 8 projects between Type 42 and Type 45 in the UK alone, let alone any other nations, and Horizon was just one of those)

nfr90_marriott.jpg


(Note that the image is resized by the forum code and is actually 994 * 582 pixels)

Reference:

Marriott, L, "Royal Navy Frigates since 1945, Second Edition", London, Ian Allen Ltd, 1990, ISBN 0-7110-1915-0

A model showing the principal features of the NFR90 project. Armament of this version appears to consist of a 5in automatic gun, a VLS surface-to-air missile silo, two Goalkeeper CIWS, Harpoon SSMs and A/S torpedoes. A large hangar is capable of housing possibly two Merlin-sized aircraft and a bow sonar housing is plainly visible.

My notes:

There appear to be two VLS silos, fwd and aft, as in most of the NFR-90 and early CNGF studies. The latter divides the aft superstructure into two hangars. Note the generally American appearance of this version - presumably it was for the USN.
There appear to be three missile illuminators, two on the superstructure fwd and one aft. All four faces of the phased-array radar system are in the fwd superstructure. Note the large number of chaff launchers (8). This is retained in the Type 45.

RP1
 
RP1 said:
(I wasn't sure if this should be included under the Horizon thread, as there were at least 8 projects between Type 42 and Type 45 in the UK alone, let alone any other nations, and Horizon was just one of those)

nfr90_marriott.jpg


(Note that the image is resized by the forum code and is actually 994 * 582 pixels)

Reference:

Marriott, L, "Royal Navy Frigates since 1945, Second Edition", London, Ian Allen Ltd, 1990, ISBN 0-7110-1915-0

A model showing the principal features of the NFR90 project. Armament of this version appears to consist of a 5in automatic gun, a VLS surface-to-air missile silo, two Goalkeeper CIWS, Harpoon SSMs and A/S torpedoes. A large hangar is capable of housing possibly two Merlin-sized aircraft and a bow sonar housing is plainly visible.

My notes:

There appear to be two VLS silos, fwd and aft, as in most of the NFR-90 and early CNGF studies. The latter divides the aft superstructure into two hangars. Note the generally American appearance of this version - presumably it was for the USN.
There appear to be three missile illuminators, two on the superstructure fwd and one aft. All four faces of the phased-array radar system are in the fwd superstructure. Note the large number of chaff launchers (8). This is retained in the Type 45.

RP1
Click to expand...

I can see something that appears to be about the size of a 29/32 cell VLS between the superstructure and the 5 inch gun.

This model shows a more "Aegis-like" radar than other proposals I have seen. Signaal proposed a main radar that looked a bit like the Soviet "Top Plate." Perhaps it was a rotating predecessor to APAR?

The "definitive" NFR-90 ended up being 134 meters long with a full load displacement of 5500 tons - quite small for a modern AAW frigate.
 
From a 80's "popular science" Spanish magazine
 

Attachments

  • NFR-90.jpg
    NFR-90.jpg
    230.4 KB · Views: 1,066
Another artist impression of NFR-90.

Another image of the NFR-90 model.

Outboard profile of a NAVSEA NFR-90 proposal.

Outboard profile of NFR-90.
 

Attachments

  • NFR90_art_.jpg
    NFR90_art_.jpg
    42.7 KB · Views: 950
  • NFR90model.JPG
    NFR90model.JPG
    53.9 KB · Views: 968
  • NAVSEAsketch.JPG
    NAVSEAsketch.JPG
    25.4 KB · Views: 569
  • NFR-90.jpg
    NFR-90.jpg
    51 KB · Views: 594
This image depicts a model of the "French variant of the NFR-90," as originally posted by "matt" at the Shipbucket forum.

Displacement (full load) : 5,000 mt
Length : 131 meters
Speed : 25 knots
Range : 5,000 NM @ 19 knots
Crew : 201
Weapons : 1 x 100mm Compact gun, 48 VLS cells for Aster 15 (32 forward, 16 aft), 8 MM-40 Exocet, 2 Mistral launchers, 1 medium helo (NH-90 or EH-101)
Click to expand...

I'm more than a little confused by the low quoted speed?
 

Attachments

  • NFR-90_FrenchVariant_Bourget1989.jpg
    NFR-90_FrenchVariant_Bourget1989.jpg
    70.2 KB · Views: 574
TinWing said:
I'm more than a little confused by the low quoted speed?
Click to expand...

It's quite a widely held opinion amongst naval architects that the last few knots are disproportionately expensive and pointless*. It's quite possible that the French Navy decided to heed their advice, for once.

*32 knots - or even 29 knots - in a flat calm is all well and good, but the hullform to achieve this isn't very seakindly, so you finish up flat out at 25 knots anyway. May as well have a 25 knot hull and a more comfortable ride...
 
RLBH said:
TinWing said:
I'm more than a little confused by the low quoted speed?
Click to expand...

It's quite a widely held opinion amongst naval architects that the last few knots are disproportionately expensive and pointless*. It's quite possible that the French Navy decided to heed their advice, for once.

*32 knots - or even 29 knots - in a flat calm is all well and good, but the hullform to achieve this isn't very seakindly, so you finish up flat out at 25 knots anyway. May as well have a 25 knot hull and a more comfortable ride...
Click to expand...

My point was that the listed speed was lower than for any other variant of NFR-90. This either suggests that a gas turbine was to be deleted from the French variant, or that it would have had CODAD propulsion like other contemporary French surface combatants.

Obviously, it does take a great deal more power, sometimes twice as much, to propel a ship at 30+ knots as opposed to 25. However, the NFR-90 wasn't meant to be a second line patrol combatant, like the LaFayette class, but a primary AAW escort akin the to current 29kt Forbin class.
 
Or alternatively, the 25 knots was end of life, deep and dirty, in some awful sea-state. Or they were just rounding down.

RP1
 
The french FREMM has CODLOG propulsion on fixed propeller and only italian FREMM has CODLAG propulsion on variable propeller.
 
enrr said:
The french FREMM has CODLOG propulsion on fixed propeller and only italian FREMM has CODLAG propulsion on variable propeller.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this mean that the Italian FREMM has the ability to reverse at full power while the French FREMM is solely reliant on the electric cruising motors for reversing?
 
The question about the FREMM propulsion raises a question, why did the French and Italians go with the LM2500 rather than adopting the WR21 of the Type 45?

I can understand the Italian reasoning as they already use the LM2500 for virtually all their major warships, but why did the French adopt it. They do not use the engine already, and have; due to the use of the Olympus as the boost engine of the F70 George Leygues class, a relationship with Rolls Royce.
 
1) FREMM = Joint French Italian programme: LM2500 is license produced by Avio in Italy (also I believe they are using one of the new + models).

2) T45 propulsion train is a very expensive procurement (arguably the best naval propulsion system afloat though) and FREMM (especially the French version) is designed to be cheap (by modern large frigate standards).
 
sealordlawrence said:
1) FREMM = Joint French Italian programme: LM2500 is license produced by Avio in Italy (also I believe they are using one of the new + models).

2) T45 propulsion train is a very expensive procurement (arguably the best naval propulsion system afloat though) and FREMM (especially the French version) is designed to be cheap (by modern large frigate standards).
Click to expand...

To bring the thread back to the topic of "NFR-90 and other Pre-Horizon AAW Projects," it should be noted that IFEP was anticipated in a number of stillborn American projects from the 1980s onward, such as the circa 1985 FFX that was the immediate predecessor of NFR-90, which should not be confused with the Carter era program of the same name. Of course, NFR-90, like the current Fobin/Andrea Doria, was a conventional CODOG design.
 
sealordlawrence said:
enrr, can you expand further on the propulsive differences of the two FREMM's ?

I am well aware that the Italian's are building a significantly better ship than the French as it is.
Click to expand...
Of course ;D

This difference was a news from the last EURONAVAL 2008 and post by Ezio bonsignore on an Italian forum Pagine di Difesa, the following is an automated translate by google ::)

The machinery of FREMM, Italian and French is commonly described as an accommodation CODLAG (Combined Diesel-Electric and gas turbines) with a gas turbine LM2500 + G4 32mW (34MW on surpower), four diesel generators from 2.1MW each , and two electric motors to 2.5MW each, aces lead pitch propellers on our frigates, and fixed on the French.

Well, it turns out that is not true. On our Bergamini, the installation engine can actually function both as CODLAG that as CODLOG ( "Or" instead of "And"). Ie they are basically three possible speeds:
- The only diesel generators that feed the electric motors (power 2 x 2.5MW);
- The single gas turbine (32mW). In this case the electric motors are driven by the axes and function generators;
- The gas turbine + electric motors (of course powered by diesel generators) for a total capacity of 32 + 5 = 37MW.

The French Aquitaine hand, while having exactly the same engine installation MAY USE ONLY CODLOG MODE. Is therefore not possible to act on the axes the gas turbines and electric motors at the same time, and therefore the maximum power of only 32mW. Consequences

- As the maximum speed is given in terms of the contract to 27 knots in the French FREMM, it follows that our will forge ahead at least 28.5, maybe 29 knots;

- Electric motors are attached to the axles permanently and can not be disconnected. It follows that where the turbine is Aquitaine, electric motors (which in their case could not be used as generators) are dragged to the void, creating a lot of resistance as well (because they are permanent magnet motors) a strong and potentially dangerous magnetic field;

- Gas turbines are known as unidirectional (ie running in one direction). With the turbine propulsion and given the fixed pitch propellers, if a Aquitaine must stop quickly should a) remove the turbine, b) feed the electric motors c) wait until the rotational speed of the motors (driven by the axes) would fall slightly , and d) reversing the direction of rotation of the motors. Result: we want to stay 5-6 lengths. If you make a mistake the docking maneuver in Toulon, it is time to get to Paris by land. A Bergamini stops at a length and a half.

And all this why? To spend a few dollars less. The fixed pitch propellers cost less, a control system CODLOG costs a little 'less than a CODLAG, a non-reversible electric motor as generator saves a little bit, and an axis that has to absorb up to 16MW is lighter than a trickle one must digest almost 19.
Click to expand...

From an article on italian defense magazine we know that the FREMM can do up to 15/16 knots on diesel/electric with the hull optimized for 16 knot, instead the italian hull is optimized for 25 knots.
The italian FREMM, from the 3rd or maybe the 2nd, switch the 2,2 MW Isotta Fraschini standard diesel onto the newest IF 2,7/2,8 MW common rail diesel.

The other difference is know (armament and AAW system) and from that I read on Mer et Marine on FREDA I think they will have a similiar AA capacity of italian standard FREMM with SAAM-ESD.
 
TinWing said:
This image depicts a model of the "French variant of the NFR-90," as originally posted by "matt" at the Shipbucket forum.

Displacement (full load) : 5,000 mt
Length : 131 meters
Speed : 25 knots
Range : 5,000 NM @ 19 knots
Crew : 201
Weapons : 1 x 100mm Compact gun, 48 VLS cells for Aster 15 (32 forward, 16 aft), 8 MM-40 Exocet, 2 Mistral launchers, 1 medium helo (NH-90 or EH-101)
Click to expand...

I'm more than a little confused by the low quoted speed?
Click to expand...

A fascinating image, because apart from the main mast the ship does not look particularly French at all! Two RBU-style rocket launchers, a main gun which resembles the Russian A-190 as much as anything French, the bridge design and a helo that might just as soon be a naval Dhruv as a NFH - an Indian project, perhaps?!
 
Trident said:
TinWing said:
This image depicts a model of the "French variant of the NFR-90," as originally posted by "matt" at the Shipbucket forum.

Displacement (full load) : 5,000 mt
Length : 131 meters
Speed : 25 knots
Range : 5,000 NM @ 19 knots
Crew : 201
Weapons : 1 x 100mm Compact gun, 48 VLS cells for Aster 15 (32 forward, 16 aft), 8 MM-40 Exocet, 2 Mistral launchers, 1 medium helo (NH-90 or EH-101)
Click to expand...

I'm more than a little confused by the low quoted speed?
Click to expand...

A fascinating image, because apart from the main mast the ship does not look particularly French at all! Two RBU-style rocket launchers, a main gun which resembles the Russian A-190 as much as anything French, the bridge design and a helo that might just as soon be a naval Dhruv as a NFH - an Indian project, perhaps?!
Click to expand...

Please read the text, which will give you a very good idea as to what is depicted. For instance, the gun depicted is the GIAT 100mm Compact mounting, of the same type that is typically seen on a number of Malaysian ships, many Chinese ships, the F2000 frigates, and most recently, it was seen on the Sawari II frigates before being replaced with a 76mm mounting.
 
colombamike said:
a british 1996 version
horiz.jpg

;)
Click to expand...

An illustration of the then current UK derivative of the Horizon program, not the earlier NFR-90 or an immediate successor to that program.
 
Does anyone know how many vessels where to be procured by the participating nations ?

I remeber reading that the USN was planning to buy 53 ships, I don't remember where i read it but has stuck in my mind

Project Horizon was supposed to provide vessels for RN french and italian navies 12,6 and 4 respectively I wonder if that was the planned level of procurement for NFR-90 aswell

on a related note

Visiting Portsmouth awhile ago I saw the RN Type 45's the ultimate end product for this programme for the UK it got me thinking about NFR-90 and how it has taken over twenty years to reach this stage, the ships looked pretty amazing!
 
wasteland said:
I remember reading that the USN was planning to buy 53 ships, I don't remember where i read it but has stuck in my mind
Click to expand...

The US Navy was going to buy a foreign-designed frigate? Not in a million years.
 
blackstar said:
wasteland said:
I remember reading that the USN was planning to buy 53 ships, I don't remember where i read it but has stuck in my mind
Click to expand...

The US Navy was going to buy a foreign-designed frigate? Not in a million years.
Click to expand...

It was a NATO designed frigate, they would be part of the design solution and the ships would be built locally.
 
Thorvic

If you can get hold of the revised edition of Friedman's US Destroyers and Frigates updated in 2003 or so it has a whole section devoted to the NATO frigate programme from the US perspective and also explaining what NATO eventually got out of what seemed a daft enterprise (essentially decent air defence ships in the main European navies).

I agree with you that there is a gap in the British story between Type 44's cancellation and the work in the 80s on NFR 90 as well as the evolution of Horizon out of NFR 90. Much of this is probably still classified.

Although called that NATO frigate the programme was basically a vehicle for an air defence destroyer ship to replace a variety of units in NATO navies. The US were looking for a cheaper ship than the Burke class, while Canada (Huron) Germany (Rommel) France (AA70) Italy (Audace), Netherlands (Tromp) Spain (Baleares) and UK (Type 42) all needed about 2-14 ships depending on fleet size. The frigate also had asw capability but its main weapon was a new air defence missile system. This evolved into the two distinct Air Defence weapons (Enhanced Sparrow and Paams)
which equip the actual replacement ships. The US re-discovered that the Burkes were the smallest platform they could get away with.
 
I should have written Friedman's Books: Both the RN and US Navy Destroyers books have interesting sections on NFR 90.
Richard Beedall's excellent Royal Navy site has some background to the evolution of Type 45

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/daring3.htm

including a drawing of the Type 23 air defence ship which followed the demise of Type 44 and was given up in favour of collaborative programmes, first of all NFR 90 from 1985-90 and then the Horizon programme.
Friedman quotes a figure of 18 ships for the US Navy, but this was at a time when the USN still looked to replace its Perry class ships with a cheaper AEGIS carrying ship. He also makes it clear that for the US the main point of NFR90 was to get an AEGIS capability or equivalent onto European ships (Today's Spanish and Norwegian ships, Dutch and German alternative and of course the Horizon succesors). Canada is the last to develop such a vessel
 
uk 75 said:
I should have written Friedman's Books: Both the RN and US Navy Destroyers books have interesting sections on NFR 90.
Richard Beedall's excellent Royal Navy site has some background to the evolution of Type 45

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/daring3.htm

including a drawing of the Type 23 air defence ship which followed the demise of Type 44 and was given up in favour of collaborative programmes, first of all NFR 90 from 1985-90 and then the Horizon programme.
Friedman quotes a figure of 18 ships for the US Navy, but this was at a time when the USN still looked to replace its Perry class ships with a cheaper AEGIS carrying ship. He also makes it clear that for the US the main point of NFR90 was to get an AEGIS capability or equivalent onto European ships (Today's Spanish and Norwegian ships, Dutch and German alternative and of course the Horizon succesors). Canada is the last to develop such a vessel
Click to expand...

Sadly the website appears to have disappeared or moved, does anyone have a more up to date link?
 
Trident said:
TinWing said:
This image depicts a model of the "French variant of the NFR-90," as originally posted by "matt" at the Shipbucket forum.

Displacement (full load) : 5,000 mt
Length : 131 meters
Speed : 25 knots
Range : 5,000 NM @ 19 knots
Crew : 201
Weapons : 1 x 100mm Compact gun, 48 VLS cells for Aster 15 (32 forward, 16 aft), 8 MM-40 Exocet, 2 Mistral launchers, 1 medium helo (NH-90 or EH-101)
Click to expand...

I'm more than a little confused by the low quoted speed?
Click to expand...

A fascinating image, because apart from the main mast the ship does not look particularly French at all! Two RBU-style rocket launchers, a main gun which resembles the Russian A-190 as much as anything French, the bridge design and a helo that might just as soon be a naval Dhruv as a NFH - an Indian project, perhaps?!
Click to expand...

Trident said:
My bad, I missed the Mistral launchers and got carried away.
Click to expand...

Very late to the party, but those "RBU-style" launchers are SAGAIE, the French Navy's long-range decoy launcher from this era. The Mistral launchers (6-round Sadral launchers) are the small mounts just ahead of the bridge and probably on the hangar roof.
 
Last edited:
This paper is interesting, apparently the
radars (possibly from the Raytheon-led NAAWS consortium?) of NAVSEA sketch version my not be early versions of SAMPSON, as identified by Norman Friedman, but are instead trainable (but not rotating, suggesting they're not for volume search like SAMPSON) Multi-Function Phased Array radars, each complete with their own independent Infra-Red search systems atop the array, with a Volume-Search radar atop the foremast.

Looks like the NAVSEA sketch and the first image from post#5 may well have the same combat system, the masthead arrays do look like they may be capable of training, and Figure 2. from the paper has the same arrangement.

Does anyone know why such an unusual arrangement might have been adopted?
 
Can't access the paper -- can you post the sketch you are talking about?
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
NAVSEA sketch version my not be early versions of SAMPSON, as identified by Norman Friedman, but are instead trainable Multi-Function Phased Array radars
Click to expand...
Multi-Function Radar was also the early name given to the SPY-3 program. Not sure if they’re the same in this context though. Maybe SPQ-9B, seeing as that can do both GFCS and ESSM control?
 
TomS said:
Can't access the paper -- can you post the sketch you are talking about?
Click to expand...
NAVSEAsketch.JPG
NFR90_art_.jpg

I've just noticed the illuminators in this image, it may be a different combat system, but as far as I'm aware three different types were proposed, FAMS which led to Aster, and two different variants of NAAWS (NATO-Anti-Air-Warfare-System) on of which used SPY-1F, and this image seems to closest to the others I've posted, so I think it may be the same combat system.

EDIT: This is an early version of the Raytheon-led consortium's combat system, the other images in this post are the Westinghouse-led consortium's combat system.

From the paper:
NFR_90_Figure_2._Design_of_the_NFR_90_Schaffer+Kloehn.png
Anti-Air_Warfare_p44_Design_of_the_NFR_90_Schaffer+Kloehn.png.png

Sorry for the poor resolution, but you can see a phased array face on the structure atop the mainmast:

Mainmast_MFAR_Array.png


EDIT: According to this thread, the combat system with the unusual trainable phased arrays is the Westinghouse-led UNISAMS consortium's combat system , the second image in this post, with fixed arrays, is an early version of Raytheon's NAAWS system (later developments had rotating S and X-Band arrays superimposed on a single mount).

EDIT No.2: According to this site the MFARs of the Westinghouse design were derived from the APQ-164.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom