The Netherlands and France are discussing the development of a common design for the Dutch Future Air Defender (FuAD) and the French Horizon-class successor, since both timeframes are aligned
A decision is expected in 2027.
Bear in mind these are well informed rumours, nothing is official yet.
France and the Netherlands are holding preliminary discussions about jointly developing a new generation of air-defence frigates to replace their respective Horizon and LCF ships during the next decade.
The two programmes have very closely aligned timelines (2034–2039 for the Netherlands and 2037–2040+ for France), potentially allowing continuous production for almost a decade with an 8 ship program (4+4).
France is now seen as the most natural partner, especially since Italy, Germany and the UK all already have air-defence programs underway. Also the early feedback from the Orka-class submarine program has also reportedly been very positive, particularly regarding the integration of Dutch companies and overall FR-NL coordination.
The MN's positive experience with the LCF Evertsen, particularly its role in coordinating the air defence of the French carrier group this spring, has reportedly reinforced French interest in a partnership.
This common design would probably build upon the early FuAD work, but Paris does not want to export a French frigate to the Netherlands, nor import a Dutch design.
They seem to genuinely want a jointly designed ship with an equal industrial workshare, with an aim for essentially identical vessels. Sounds more Horizon than FREMM.
A key point is the rumoured Dutch selection of Aster 30 instead of SM-family missiles for their FuAD program. The loadout would be ESSM + Aster 30 + probably HYDIS/Aquila, since the Netherlands is a partner in that project (or possibly HYDEF).
The dutch will probably also want Tomahawks on these ships, since they have just ordered almost 200 missiles… So Mk41 for NL and Sylver for France ?
The Dutch were planning on a Thales NL radar suite composed of:
Smart-L: L-band
SM400 Block 2: S-band
APAR Block 2: X-band
At a minimum, I would expect the French to ask for Seafire (probably a larger version than the one fitted to the FDI) to replace the SM400.
Thales NL and TNO have been working on an integrated AWWS (Above Water Warfare Suite) for these 3 radars.
But they were also willing to integrate the TRS-4D into AWWS for the German F126, so integrating Seafire should technically be feasible.
The French and Dutch navies also seem to have a similar concept regarding CCA + manned warships.
Basically, the need for large AAW warships remains, but they will be reinforced by 1, 2 or 3 OPV-sized USVs depending on the operational requirement.
Also, the delays of the ASWF program have probably raised some doubts about the Dutch ability to develop a first-rank AAW destroyer alone, on time and on budget.
Both the Dutch missile loadout and FuAD platform decisions have been delayed, with key parliamentary letters now expected around mid-2027… we'll probably know by then whether the Dutch go ahead with FuAD on their own or try to pursue something with France.
It still looks very German. All the best to them if they can pull it off. T'would be even better if the British decided they could make something out of it as well, buy this, and abandon the CCV.
Basically the Dutch MoD has decided to learn from current conflicts, and has changed the requirements for the ASWF. So there's redesigns going on, and the ships will be bigger. Good chance that there will be more VLS too.
So yeah, the ASWF is late. Because it is being redesigned on the wishes of the primary customer.
If the Belgians don't like that, then it sucks to be them. Maybe they should get their defense budget in order, then they wouldn't have to stick to fixed budget contracts.
Well then I'm one of them, and I've been following this project pretty closely from the start.
The changed requirements are understandable, but they can't explain the fact that the first of class won't be delivered before 2033.
We're probably talking about integrating more C-UAS systems, increasing the number of VLS cells (16 -> 32 cells?), and lengthening the hull by 5-10 meters ?
Significant changes for sure, but we're not talking about designing an entirely new class of ship from scratch.
I find it very hard to believe that Damen/COMMIT could deliver a new AAW class by 2035 as planned.
I believe that the bow shape is meant to allow for a longer length on waterline. by filling in the space between the weather deck and the sonar dome, while still providing for a fair amount of flare forward, as shown in the mark-up below. Whereas, on older ships, in addition to the vertical forefoot, the section shapes tended to be more vertical, with less flare, providing less ability to "push the waves outward" while riding through them.
I believe that the bow shape is meant to allow for a longer length on waterline. by filling in the space between the weather deck and the sonar dome, while still providing for a fair amount of flare forward, as shown in the mark-up below. Whereas, on older ships, in addition to the vertical forefoot, the section shapes tended to be more vertical, with less flare, providing less ability to "push the waves outward" while riding through them.
France and the Netherlands are holding preliminary discussions about jointly developing a new generation of air-defence frigates to replace their respective Horizon and LCF ships during the next decade.
Well this was officially confirmed for the first time by E. Macron in a press conference during his visit to the Netherlands
This is a partnership that we wish to develop further in order to address the identified capability requirements which, incidentally, are shared by our countries and, in some cases, by other allies in the region : an air defence frigate programme, the strengthening of our DIB …
Probably because they are member of the ESSM consortium, they have years of APAR-ESSM-SEWACO integration, ASWF uses ESSM …. but i would also opt for CAMM tbh.
80 to 96 VLS is being considered by the dutch iirc … i guess something like :
FDI is a light medium vessel, mainly made for export (the french top brass found the FREMM non very sexy for export... where Italy succeed....).
The french navy was forced to change some FREMM for FDI, but their heart choice was and is FREMM (for range, for training, for technical community)
imagine a FREMM+ with the FDI radar and some more Sylver.... a perfect 2026 choice.
FDI is not really a FREMM Lite, more like an upgrade to a stealthier design. It's actually a denser, highly lethal pack of weapons. And being less manpower intensive is a bonus.
Because FDI isn't suitable to be a Horizon follow-up without major changes which would border on a clean sheet design. To turn it into a large AAW surface combatant major components of it's battle management system, sensor suite and general weapons load-out and capacity would have to be reworked, it would need to grow in every dimension and also improve endurance for more crew.
Because FDI isn't suitable to be a Horizon follow-up without major changes which would border on a clean sheet design. To turn it into a large AAW surface combatant major components of it's battle management system, sensor suite and general weapons load-out and capacity would have to be reworked, it would need to grow in every dimension and also improve endurance for more crew.
Personally I like the idea of larger numbers of stretched FDI AAW rather than 2 extremely expensive cruiser-sized DDGs.
The 9m hull stretch option could provide a good starting point with room for additional crew, fuel, and VLS.
Sensor wise, fit an improved S1850M L-band long range search radar on top of the hangar (as on the De Zeven Provincen an Ivar Huitfeldt classes), and a boosted Seafire AESA radar... that would give good coverage especially if you can pair up FDI AAWs vs only having a single Horizon NG.
Missiles could be 32x Aster 30 forward and 24-48x smaller VLS midships for Mica VL or (ideally) CAMM-ER.
It would be a different approach vs other navies, cheaper and better aligned with future USVs that could add to the distributed sensor/shooter network.
That would definitely rule out a joint programme with the Dutch imo… I just don't see them agreeing to anything with less than 80 Mk41 or equivalent VLS cells.
It might be relatively easy for the French Navy to increase the number of ships if recruitment continues to go well, but that's not the case everywhere.
The Dutch need to make each ship worth the manpower required to crew it. An answer could be USVs but is technology really ready ?
I also think that if the Dutch agree to a large Seafire instead of SM400, they'll insist on keeping APAR (along with the Smart-L of course) ... the Swedes are also adding their X-band Giraffe 1X to the FDI after all.
Also, Amiral Vaujour stated during a Senate hearing in 2025 that the French Navy still needs large surface combatants, larger than the FDI.
He also implied that the replacement for the Horizon-class would be at least of the same size category (150 m / 7.000 tonnes).
The thing the French need to be able to regionally replace the US Navy is a big ABM-capable combatant that could match Burkes in defending Europe against up to IRBM and long-range HGVs. I think the natural fit for the French Navy is going to be something along the lines of the F127 or the DDX rather than something FREMM sized or even smaller. Primary weapons would be the Aquila and an exoatmospheric interceptor similar to the SM-3, plus Aster. Given the fact that the Dutch already use Mk 41 and Standard missiles and are buying Tomahawk and SM-3, it made a lot more sense for them to cooperate with the Germans than with the French, who would want to use all of their own systems. French production of a DDX variant like the way the FREMM program worked would probably made more sense than a Franco-Dutch program for the French.
FDI is not really a FREMM Lite, more like an upgrade to a stealthier design. It's actually a denser, highly lethal pack of weapons. And being less manpower intensive is a bonus.
Stealthier? no data available. maybe only because smaller...
it's main weakness versus FREMM is a shorter range (at least 1000 NM less), and less space available for upgrade. I'm sure french navy would have prefered a FREMM+ with the 4 plan AESA radar of FDI.
same manpower (109-110 in the 2 cases)
Given the fact that the Dutch already use Mk 41 and Standard missiles and are buying Tomahawk and SM-3, it made a lot more sense for them to cooperate with the Germans than with the French, who would want to use all of their own systems
That's the thing, the latest rumour from the Netherlands is that they are abandoning SM family for Aster on FuAD, but keeping ESSM (not CAMM sadly)
Also the dutch are one of the 3 main members of Aquila/HYDIS consortium, alongside France and Italy, so definitely no SM-3.
And the germans wanted AEGIS+Spy-6, while the dutch need to keep ThalesNL busy.
The thing the French need to be able to regionally replace the US Navy is a big ABM-capable combatant that could match Burkes in defending Europe against up to IRBM and long-range HGVs.
I think the natural fit for the French Navy is going to be something along the lines of the F127 or the DDX rather than something FREMM sized or even smaller. Primary weapons would be the Aquila and an exoatmospheric interceptor similar to the SM-3, plus Aster.
Not convinced a handful of ship-based interceptors is an efficient way to provide regional coverage over Europe and handle mid-course intercepts (whether endo- or exo-atmospheric) which will tend to be somewhere over Eastern Europe or the Balkans.
If you remove that regional use case, then having more AAW ships can provide more coverage against traditional air and missile threats (including terminal defense), even if each ship is individually less capable. The FDI's Seafire + Giraffe 1X combo looks quite good for medium range detection and terminal engagement, add SMART-L/MM with full AESA beamforming capability and you'd be ahead of a T45/Horizon MLU destroyer.
That would definitely rule out a joint programme with the Dutch imo… I just don't see them agreeing to anything with less than 80 Mk41 or equivalent VLS cells. It might be relatively easy for the French Navy to increase the number of ships if recruitment continues to go well, but that's not the case everywhere. The Dutch need to make each ship worth the manpower required to crew it.
I honestly doubt that the Dutch will get 4 ASWF and 4 new large AAW destroyers. So perhaps if the choice is between 2-3 AAW destroyers or 4 FDI AAW they would see the benefit of the smaller, more versatile platform? (But agree it doesn't appear to be an option currently under consideration)
I honestly doubt that the Dutch will get 4 ASWF and 4 new large AAW destroyers. So perhaps if the choice is between 2-3 AAW destroyers or 4 FDI AAW they would see the benefit of the smaller, more versatile platform? (But agree it doesn't appear to be an option currently under consideration)
AAW should have priority in numbers over ASW for the Netherlands, since Belgium is complementing the ASW fleet.
Probably better to have 4 FuAD + 3 ASWF, especially now that Belgium seems committed to 3 ASWF (or equivalent). So a 10 ship fleet for BeNeSam (4 AAW + 6 ASW).
Because FDI isn't suitable to be a Horizon follow-up without major changes which would border on a clean sheet design. To turn it into a large AAW surface combatant major components of it's battle management system, sensor suite and general weapons load-out and capacity would have to be reworked, it would need to grow in every dimension and also improve endurance for more crew.
Not just a plan. It's on order for the Swedish FDIs. It's a cold-launch only VLS with 24 cells in the footprint of an 8-cell Sylver A50. The Swedish FDIs wll have 3x8 Sylver A50 holding 24 Aster 30 & 1x24 Sylver CL holding CAMM-ER.
Then why did you ask why a new ship has to be designed for this crucial mission when you arrived at the conclusion that FDI is inadequate all by yourself?
When it's impossible/costly/difficult to enlarge an existing design to make it suitable for high end AAW, then a clean sheet design is necessary to fulfill the various needs that arise with that mission.
And it's well within the ability of Naval Group to deliver such a system within our liftime (unlike their UK and US neighbors *cough*)
Not convinced a handful of ship-based interceptors is an efficient way to provide regional coverage over Europe and handle mid-course intercepts (whether endo- or exo-atmospheric) which will tend to be somewhere over Eastern Europe or the Balkans.
No reason why an Aquila missile battery couldn’t be on trucks - easy to move around as needed. The sensor network would be fixed of course, but to protect all of Europe you only need 2-3 long range radars. No need to worry about ships going into refits or being needed elsewhere for other missions.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
