FM-90 missile is much newer than original Crotale copy.
but still over 10 years older than the fl3000n, not to mention the fm-90 is an upgrade of an old missile while the fl3000n is newly designed.
that what we'll be talking about below
Inherent in any CLOS guided missile (Barak and Sea Wolf are also CLOS, are they poor systems?)
ahh but heres the thing, those are being replaced by newer missiles that are autonomously guided. there is a reason for that, and that is all the advantages i have said already, multiple target engagement at a very fast rate which also means much greater protection against saturation attacks that something like the sea wolf would have great trouble against. case in point the aster on the new type 45's and the US navy's use of the sea-ram. not to mention newer missiles are design to be able to combat low flying anti-ship missiles something which the HQ7 has a rather mediocre performance against.
As I understand it, FL3000 is IRH + RFH and essentially fire and forget. Which means all it needs is initial info from a surveillance/traking radar. No elop or radar director needed, no radar illuminator needed. But that in itself doesn't make the missile performance better. It does allow rapid successive engagement of different targets coming in on different vectors. Still, a VLU would be even greater to tackle that kind of attack (and I see no reason why you couldn't fire either HQ7 and then guide the missile in the correct direction). THe issue of HQ7 is not the launcher though but the single fire control channel. THen again, HQ7 has much greater range and that somewhat compensates for this particular shortcoming.
first part is correct, but again, heres another advantage of the FL3000N, it is also capable of being directly guided by the ship in addition to being capable of being fire and forget, and not only that, it can be controlled by are greater number of ship sensors than the HQ7, meaning any benefits the HQ7 might have from using ship sensors the FL3000N has as well and more. and longer range is true but its range is not long enough to be an area defence weapon, and the limit of attacks on one or 2 targets at a time is a sever and perhaps deadly handicap when faced with multiple incoming targets, where as the FL3000N can engage all incoming target as quickly as it can fire and ammo limits allow. now combine all this with the greater success chance of the FL3000N against targets and its greater maneuverability, especially against other maneuvering low flying targets,means that Fl3000N is superior in nearly every-way even if the range is shorter.
just a placeholder name for the next frigate china may make, we know that a new universal VLS has been developed for the 052D meaning its only logical to put that universal in the next generation frigate as well. thus pakistan might as well wait a bit longer for the next gen system rather than the current HQ16, as that system would be vastly supiorer to the currently system being able to fire many different missiles allowing one ships to be outfitted for any role the navy deem necessary.
Point is, why shoehorn in a chinese VLU when there is a bigger and better Chinese ship available that already has it. It is different in relation to some Western VLUs as the nations that could provide the VLU (e.g. US, South Africa, France) are not likely to also provide a complete frigate.
i dont avocate the F-22p be fitted with the hq-16. in a hurry the Pakistan could get the 054A which would be a vast upgrade for them, but i was saying if time is not super tight, then it may be better to wait for the new VLS to become available or they could make do with the FL3000N in their next version of F-22P as its superior to the HQ7(in nearly every way, and range doesn't make much difference in this case) and is already developed in many versions(cell numbers, with or without auto-reloaders) and on top of that it doesn't penetrate the deck(some versions), meaning as long as the ship remains balanced, weight wise, its relatively easy to add the FL3000N