plawolf
Lieutenant General
Interesting, I thought one of the key destinguishing differences between the HQ10 and FL3000 was the presence of the MMW radar on the bottom of the FL3000, which uses IR+MMW compared to the more advanced IIR used by the HQ10.
So this could mean that the PLAN is giving the FL3000 a try, or they changed the seeker for the HQ10 to also add a MMW radar seeking capability.
As already pointed out, the HQ10/FL3000 is a last line CIWS which would primarily be tasked with taking on sea skimmers.
Mounting the radar on the bottom would thus make far more sense than top mounting it, since the launcher would be at a higher altitude than pretty much all sea skimmers, and you do not want to be pointing your launcher down into the sea to get your radar LOS on the incoming missiles. Aiming the launcher higher would also give your missiles a lofted trajectory, helping with range somewhat.
Not mounting the radar flush with the launcher is probably due to missile launch back blast considerations, as radomes are generally delicate structures not well suited to taking repeated missile jet blasts full on in the face.
So this could mean that the PLAN is giving the FL3000 a try, or they changed the seeker for the HQ10 to also add a MMW radar seeking capability.
As already pointed out, the HQ10/FL3000 is a last line CIWS which would primarily be tasked with taking on sea skimmers.
Mounting the radar on the bottom would thus make far more sense than top mounting it, since the launcher would be at a higher altitude than pretty much all sea skimmers, and you do not want to be pointing your launcher down into the sea to get your radar LOS on the incoming missiles. Aiming the launcher higher would also give your missiles a lofted trajectory, helping with range somewhat.
Not mounting the radar flush with the launcher is probably due to missile launch back blast considerations, as radomes are generally delicate structures not well suited to taking repeated missile jet blasts full on in the face.
