A NATO frigate

[uk 75]

Wiki has quite a good summary of the abortive attempt in the 1980s to design a common escort ship for NATO navies

NFR-90 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The thread about the Kidds for the RN reminded me of this programme.

It ought to have been possible to design a ship flexible enough to handle different weapons and sensors on a common hull like the MEKO ship.

The NFR90 tried to start with a clean sheet of paper.

Problem was that the USN, the biggest potential customer had answered its own question already with the Burke class destroyer.
The RN needed up to 12 AA destroyers to replace its T42
The MN needed 4 AA destroyers to replace 4 Kersaint and 2 Suffren ships (2 Cassard already ordered)
The MMI needed 4 AA destroyers to replace 2 Impavido and 2 Ardito
The Bundesmarine needed up to 7 ships to replace 3 Rommel (US Adams type) and 4 Hamburg destroyers
The KNM needed 4 to replace 2 Tromp and 2 Heimskerk
I think Spain had only just got its Perry class but there were 4 Tartar equipped Knox types.
The Burke's would have been costly and had to be purchased in smaller numbers as happened with T45, Horizon, and the other national types eventually purchased.

 

[H_K]

@uk 75 What was the benefit (if any) to having a common hull though?

Given completely different combat systems, sensors and weapons… and production in national yards. What % of the total ship cost does that leave as addressable scope for savings from common design and procurement of systems?

This is apparently what happened on the €15B+ FREMM program… total savings of less than €50M for each country on only a handful of items incl. hull design items and procurement of some propulsion systems.

 

[uk 75]

H-K. You make a good point. The failure of NFR90 reinforces it.
The production of a single design with as much commonality as possible was seen in the context of the Cold War and ever increasing force competition with the Soviet Union. Being able to produce more of the escorts essential to keep the Atlantic sealanes open.
Post 1991 the national needs of industry and capabilities coupled with no clear threat made national answers the way to go.

 

[zen]

The thing is since Sea Dart mkII was abandoned along with the Type 43 and 44. The RN's pressing need for AAW ships was unfulfilled.
The legacy of NF-90 was FAMS and the WR.21 system.....and an AESA effort that has equipped just 6 Type 45 Destroyers.
Not only capped due to cost at 6 but powered by an orphan propulsion setup.

In retrospect, the way forward was either to develop an ARH version of Standard or develop GWS.27 and a different AESA set. On developments of Type 23 propulsion.