Hi,

Interesting. I wonder if M frigates were the Dutch alternative solution or it was a previous program.

I don´t think so though my initial idea was the same. That´s why I asked about the F80s in the first place. My understanding is that the 5 M-class unites originally were to replace the old Roofdier (US PCE-821) class. The project began in the late 70s/early 80s before or at least at the same time as the NFR-90 (which my guess is would have replaced the van Speijk class). Same is true I guess for the first 6 Halifax class ships and for the first 10 (?) Duke class frigates.

Nowadays if you ask to most of the Armada officers what they want to replace F-80’s they would say “more F-100”.

lol, my guess is that the price tag would make that unrealistic. Any news on the sixth unite, btw.? Personally while I can understand the decision itself and the benefit for the Spanish export industry I´d still have preferred an APAR/Smart-L version of the F100.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/Never%20build%20designs/SFFG-100lvarodeBazn0AU.gif

How about a hi-low mix fleet for the future with six F100 and six LCS type ships replacing the F80?

It seems that Navantia has a preliminary design of a 9.500 t DDG

Do you mean this? 🙂

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/The%20Last%20War/SDDG-71IZAR_Lepanto1TLW.gif

Regards.

Hi,

The design that you labelled like “NATO NFR-90 HSA Design 1986” appeared frequently in Spanish media in reference to the NFR-90 project in that years.

Yea, I think it was the most widely used illustration.

In fact, a frigate design that appeared in “Revista Española de Defensa” illustrating an interesting overview of the later defunct Plan Alta Mar (High Seas Naval Plan) showed a lot in common with it. Sadly, I think that I lost that number of the RED….:(

To bad. Please let me know of you find it anywhere.

Can you tell me more about the Plan Alta Mar, please?

Regards.

This is a short summery of the 1991/92 edition of Friedman’s World Naval Weapons on:

“NATO AAW Missile System (NAAWS)

NAAWS was a US-led project to replace the existing Sea Sparrow system. The primary requirements were quick reaction and multi-target handling, to deal with salvos (saturation attack) of very fast (supersonic) low-altitude weapons but also to counter steep divers. NAAWS was conceived to be a secondary system (Aegis being the primary) for ships intended primary for other than pure AAW purposes. The system had to be relatively small and inexpensive. In contrast to FAMS (which was conceived as a stand alone AAW system), NAAWS was conceived as an Aegis-like combat system, integrated with most ship sensors, countermeasure system and with the ship’s tactical data system.

The typical building blocks of the system were:
– a horizon-search radar (to pick up surface skimmers with very high probability, albeit at relatively short range),
– a hemisphere-search radar sufficiently accurate for fire control (generally termed MFR),
– one or more electro-optical or infrared sensors integrated with the radars,
– a combat system core (highly adaptable and modular computer combat system),
– a vertical launched missile (for very quick reaction, even at short range).

The original competing consortia were:

1) GE (RCA) with British Aerospace, CSC (which developed the Aegis tactical software), FMC, General Dynamics, Inisel (Spain), Marconi (Radar), Siemens, Signaal and Thomson-CSF

GE had recently absorbed the RCA division that build the Spy-1 radar. The team was however build around the FARS radar.

2) Martin Marietta with Hughes, ITT, Lockheed Electronics, Magnavox, Norden, HAS (Signaal), Bazan, Litton of Canada, AEG, Krupp Atlas and Plessey

Hughes suggested the improved version of its TAS mk 23 as a potential MFR.

3) Raytheon (Sparrow missile and X-band radar) with AEG (radar seeker, missile-guidance system, ship’s combat system integration), Fokker (missile-control system, shipboard launchers), Plessey Radar, Bristol Aerospace (missile motors), Martin Marietta (core architecture and vls), ERIA (combat direction software) and MBB (fuzes and warheads)

Raytheon planned to use its quad-packed, tail-controlled Sparrow derivate equipped with a combined X-band semiactive radar and IR seeker. A first sketch published showed a ship with two radars, a relatively low frequency rotating unite to detect and track long-range targets (the sketch seems to show stacked wave-guides) and a higher frequency fixed array to deal with shorter-range targets.

After the companies reinstating they planned an S-band MESAR, for volume search and target designation/track and a smaller X-band phased array for target illumination and horizon search. The two would be superimposed on a single rotating mounting.

4) Westinghouse (this group was also called UNISAMS) with Hughes Aircraft, LTV, Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas (Missile System), MCR, ORI (analysts), Vitro, Canadian Marconi, MEL, Oerlikon of Canada, SPAR, AEG, BGT (the German missile manufacturer), Contraves, Dornier, Philips (ELCOMA of the Netherlands), Bazan, Ceselsa (Spanish radar system house), Babcock Power (UK), Ferranti (data system of the WS500 series), Short Brothers and Thorn-EMI

UNISAMS proposed a new missile with a dual-mode active/passive seeker and able to quad-pack into a single mk-41 vls cell.

By September 1988, the Martin Marietta and Raytheon proposals had been dropped. However Raytheon protested and by early 1989 it had been reinstated in the NAAWS program. In late 1989 it appeared that 2 teams would be chosen for a 4-year demonstration and validation contract in June 1990. “

Hi,

thanks for your words.

In the side and plant view you posted of the “Baseline Design” of September 1989, the aft set of funnels seems a curious combination of to VL modules and the funnels between them.

Guess you are right. I noted them on your picture Santi but couldn´t spot them on the FAMS model and thought it was supposed to be the exhausts on the line drawing. I´ll see about it.

BTW. RP1 mailed me that he has found another reference. It is from the Naval Engineers Journal, Vol 103, number 2, march 1991, “Design of the NFR-90”. It gives 143m OA / 133m WL and 5,438t for the baseline design, which is shown by Santi´s picture. There is also a whole load of technical information on the design, including the fact that the main MFRs were
trainable but non-rotating.

Thanks RP1.

Regards.