FREMM retains a strong ASW capability, but its French and Italian requirements spread design effort across more jobs. A rough comparison rates Type 26 as a 90 percent ASW solution and FREMM as a 75 to 80 percent solution that can also reach about 70 percent across other missions. Those figures are illustrative judgments rather than test scores. They explain why a navy seeking one balanced ship may prefer FREMM, while a force with separate air-defence and strike assets can afford a more focused Type 26. Portugal is given as an example of a customer that needs a broad, practical capability from each hull. Adapting a specialist hull for a broader mission mix can still make sense when strong ASW performance in demanding conditions is a requirement. Starting with that capability and then adapting the ship explains the choice of the Type 26 family for those needs.
Chapter · 16:32-19:24
FREMM trades some ASW specialization for breadth
Type 26 concentrates on ASW, while FREMM accepts a lower peak in that specialty to remain useful across a wider set of missions.