If I'm understanding you correctly, your question essentially boils down to "How do I run an active-passive K8S Service"? Because if I could give you answer on how to run an "active-passive service" for FEr1 / FEr2 then you could use the same technique for each pod in your "sets". So, to simplify my answer, I'm going to focus on how to have a single "active-passive" service. You can then you can extrapolate on your own how to create a chain of "active-passive" services.
I will begin with the fact there is no such native "active-passive" service object in Kubernetes or Openshift. It's kind of antithetical to most K8S design patterns. So you are going to have either change your architecture or you are going to have build something fairly customized.
When trying to find a link I could share to demonstrate some of your options, I found this blog post from Paul Dally which details most of the the options I was going to outline. It is a great exploration of active-passive services in Kubernetes. For convenience, I'm going to summarize here and add some commentary. But he goes into some great detail and I'd recommend reading the original blog post from Paul.
His option #1, and his recommended approach, is essentially "don't do that". He talks about the disadvantages of an active-passive approach and why K8S patterns generally don't take an active-passive approach. I concur: your best option is just to rearchitect your services so that they are not active-passive.
His option #2 is essentially another recommendation of "don't do that". I will paraphrase his second option as "if you are in a situation where you are forced to only have one active pod the more Kubernetes native approach would be to only run one pod". In this option you use only a single pod, but use Kubernetes native Deployments/Statefulsets and liveness probes to keep the single pod available. Obviously if your pod has slow startup, this has some challenges.
His option #3 is basically his option of last resort. To quote his article, "Make sure that you have fully considered and thoughtfully ruled out the preceding options before continuing with an active/passive load balancing approach." But then he details an approach where you could use a normal K8S Deployment/StatefulSet to create your pods and a normal K8S Service to route traffic between them. But, so that they don't have active-active traffic balancing you add an additional selector to the service e.g. "role=active". Since none of the pods will have this label, the selector will prevent either of the pods from being routed to.
But this leads to the trick: you create an additional Deployment (and Pod) whose sole job is to maintain that "role=active" label. It's perfectly possible to patch the labels of a running pod. So he provides some pseudo-code for a script that you could run in that "failover manager" pod. Essentially the "failover manager" is just checking for availability, by whatever rules you define, and then controls the failover from the active to passive pod by deleting and adding the label.
He does talk about the challenges of this. Including making sure it's hardened enough and has the proper permissions. I'd suggest that if you take this approach that you make it a full-fledged operator. Because essentially that's what this kind of approach is: writing a custom operator.
I will also, however, mention another similar approach that I'll call option #4. Essentially what you are doing with option #3 is create custom routing logic by patching the service. You could just embrace that customer routing approach and deploy something like your own HAProxy. I don't have a sample config for you. But active-passive failover is a fairly well explored area for an HAProxy. You are adding an additional layer of routing, but you are using more off the shelf functionality rather than patching services on-the-fly.
