What limited info there is:

http://www.dcn.fr/medias/docs/DP_Cahier_progammes_112004.pdf

Regarding the ‘rush’ to corvettes as opposed to FAC’s – many small navies are interested in prestige and a corvette is a better ‘symbol’ than an FAC. Also with changes in designs and weapon system technologies many of the resources once limited to larger DD’s and frigates are available on a corvette platform.

Regarding the “face” issue.

Another serious consideration is that of local shuipbuilding. Most developing countries are able to build a small/medium missile boat and call it “a triumph of [insert country name here] shipbuilding”. Not many countries can have shipyards capable of building frigates. 😎

Also, what about this fashion of calling 500ton boats “corvettes”? OTOH, South African MEKO are called “corvettes” also… duh! :p

Another point worth considering: In contrast with 500ton “semi-corvettes”, perhaps a case could be made for smaller displacement craft, specially adapted for littoral warfare.

An example is the BR45 design by CMN. This is based on the smaller Kuweitian boats and sports a stealthy design. It is armed (I assume from the info I have) with a Raptor combination gun/SSM turret, a combination SAM/Decoy turret, 4 Sea Skua and… a UAV for OTH data gathering! What I like about this design is that it is the epitome of “attack craft” for the littoral/coastal environment. It doesn’t pretend to be something it’s not.

@plawolf

Several good points there. I especially agree on the defensive role of FACs (which is ironic, since they are “attack” boats after all!)

But I have some remarks:

If FACs are such cool prospects, then why every navy in the world move on to larger designs (500+ ton vessels). The manufacturers even call them corvettes!

The answer is simple: even in the calmest littoral waters, the seakeeping of a 90m vessel shall always be superior than that of a 60m one! With all the consequences on effective weapon use…

Also it is certain that a modern anti-ship missile shall completely obliterate a fast attack craft. There have been numerous test firings against obsolete vessels, of about this size. No ship can outmaneuvere even a slow moving, subsonic ASM. Not to mention using it’s defensive weapons in such conditions.

Helicopters are the No. 1 enemy of the FAC and in most conditions even complete air superiority is not enough to prevent them from accomplishing their mission. My views are of course biased towards the Aegean environment. Let me tell you this: 10 years ago, a well armed FAC was a most valuable asset at the Aegean. Tactics and continuous training were a guaranty for it’s lethality. Today things have come around. The introduction of modern naval helicopters, with IR and laser guided missiles have made things very difficult for the FAC. In the Aegean, only the 5 Roussen class Super Vitas of the HN may have a real chance of survival. All others shall be for target practice.

A helo is probably the most useful piece of kit a modern warship can carry, so a helo-capable corvette has got to be far more valuable, in the vast majority of circumstances, than a pair of FPBs with similar armament.

Tony you touch on an interesting subject here.

There is no “similar armament”, between FAC and corvettes, for the most part. Would you fit a Phallanx on a FAC? Some navies did (or Goalkeeper, doesn’t matter). Do you think it can adequately protect the ship from a missile attack on heavy seas? Even if the CIWS destroy the missile at 500m range, the kinetic energy of the fragments could do real damage to a small ship.

I think the only viable defence for such ships is a “fire and forget” missile (i.e. RAM and Mica Navale). Guns with programmable munition (Bofors 57mm wit 3P and Millenium with AHEAD come to mind) may be of use also.