SHAH ALAM: UK company SEA has secured a contract extension with Lumut Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (Lunas) to supply its fixed triple configuration Torpedo Launcher System (TLS) for the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN). The agreement, the company announced on March 13, will see five Maharaja Lela-class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) equipped with the advanced lightweight torpedo launcher capability, significantly enhancing the littoral water defence of the RMN.
The contract for the TLS was originally awarded J+S Ltd in 2014, which was later acquired by SEA in the same year. The contract was for six TLS and its associated equipment.
According to a SEA press release published in 2017, the first TLS had passed factory acceptance tests. The company said it worked with Kuala Lumpur-based project engineering managers Budi Axis Sdn Bhd to achieve acceptance of the first weapons handling system in country. Budi Axis is the company that was awarded the contract to supply acoustic hailing devices for six CB90s fast combat boats attached to the Markas Wilayah Laut 2 based in Sandakan. Malaysian Defence story on the torpedoes for the LCS.
In the same release SEA stated that the delivery of the first system was scheduled for 2017 with the final system due for delivery in 2021. The torpedo launchers will comprise a pair of triple configuration, composite tubes mounted just aft of midships on the 111m ships. They are compatible with all lightweight NATO standard-sized torpedoes.
The company also said all six sets of handling systems will be manufactured in Malaysia, while production of the system electronics will also be progressively manufactured in Malaysia over the six ship sets (this was before the LCS numbers were cut to five). It is unclear though whether the local production of the TLS and its accessories were done in Malaysia.
The release on SEA website accessed on March 14.
SEA has secured a contract extension with Lumut Naval Shipyard (LUNAS) to supply its fixed triple configuration Torpedo Launcher System (TLS) to the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN).
The fixed triple configuration TLS will enhance the Maharaja Lela-class LCS anti-submarine warfare capability, providing a powerful, adaptable, and reliable system that ensures the RMN remains mission-ready. The TLS system is weapon-agnostic, allowing compatibility with a range of lightweight torpedoes, while its compact design simplifies maintenance and extends its operational lifetime.Chris Bennett, Head of TLS at SEA, said: “We are thrilled to partner with Lumut Naval Shipyard to deliver our advanced triple configuration Torpedo Launcher System for the Royal Malaysian Navy. This contract highlights our commitment to providing advanced, reliable, and adaptable solutions tailored to meet both immediate and longer-term needs for navies around the world. By enhancing Malaysia’s maritime defence capabilities and supporting the development of its domestic defence industry, we continue to strengthen our presence in the Asia-Pacific region and build strategic partnerships to meet the demands of modern navies.”
The TLS forms a critical part of a wider programme of upgrades to the Royal Malaysian Navy, as it continues to modernise its fleet in response to evolving maritime threats.
Captain Rosnizam Che Puteh, Director of LCS Project at Lumut Naval Shipyard, said:
“The integration of SEA’s Torpedo Launcher System will significantly enhance the defensive and operational capabilities of the Maharaja Lela-class LCS. We look forward to working closely with SEA’s experienced team to ensure the successful delivery of this advanced system. This partnership not only enhances the RMN’s capabilities but also supports LUNAS in delivering world-class solutions to Malaysia’s defence sector.”
— Malaysian Defence If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
IMO this is probably just a formality to change many of the original deadlines in the original contract (for example warranty dates, etc.) as the project has delayed significantly from the original plans.
But this is also a good reminder that most of the hardware for this project has been paid for in batches of 6.
So actually most of the hardwares for the 6th GOWIND is already paid for.
All we need is to cough up the money for the assembly cost of the 6th GOWIND.
IMO for the same/less amount of money to be spent to SLEP/Upgrade the LEKIUs, i would much prefer the money to be spent on assembling the 6th GOWIND instead.
A 6th GOWIND is much more advanced, with ASW and air defence capability, than any upgrade done to the LEKIUs.
If in RMK13 2026-2030 we do spend some money on assembling the 6th GOWIND, by 2030 TLDM Surface fleet would consist of
– 6x LCS GOWIND Frigate
– 6x STM Turkiye Corvette.
That surface fleet above are many times more capable than the current fleet of
– 2x Lekiu Frigate
– 2x Kasturi Corvette
– 6x Kedah OPV
So i believe that TLDM can pass all those ships to APMM to undertake EEZ policing patrols, without any effects to the overall TLDM warfighting capability.
… – “IMO for the same/less amount of money to be spent to SLEP/Upgrade the LEKIUs, i would much prefer the money to be spent on assembling the 6th GOWIND instead”
Does your opinion take into account that to avoid a capability the RMN is doing the bare minimum to keep these ships operational and to have some level of combat capability.
I realy positive the 6th LCS will be completed.
… – “That surface fleet above are many times more capable than the current fleet of”
From a totality perspective, how capable these ships actually are is dependent on the support the RMN gets from the RMAF and the ability of these ships to also have a certain level of networking. The combat effectiveness also “depends” on who they are engaging and under what operational circumstances.
… “So i believe that TLDM can pass all those ships to APMM to undertake EEZ policing patrols”
The issue as has, been done to death with, is that the MMEA will say “no thank you” . For one it already has a fleet which is a nightmare to support and even if stripped the aged RMN ships which will be even more aged when retired, will be maintenance extensive. As it is, as of 2025 the RMN is having issues which are age related [not confined to sensors/combat systems], yet the MMEA will supposedly have no issues?
Your “proposal” takes into account all the plus points but overlooks the cons. Ask any MMEA man what he thinks of this “proposal” and hear what he says. In case you again bring up the ex USCG ship which is decades older, the MMEA got it out of sheer necessity.
… – “A 6th GOWIND is much more advanced, with ASW and air defence capability, than any upgrade done to the Lekius”
From an objective perspective the LCSs will also have only a point defence missile system. Yes it has a great ASW sensor [you pointed this out on a multitude of occasions] but unless a ASW helo with the needed range, endurance, lift capacity and internal space is acquired, the LCS will have a somewhat limited ASW capability.
Rock – “I realy positive the 6th LCS will be completed”.
Your optimism notwithstanding; for starters I really hope we get the initial 5 on time without further delays.
P.S.
Recent works undertaken on the Lekius are intended to ensure they have some level of combat capability; essential given that the LCSs aren’t in service yet. I point this out in reference to your “than any upgrade done to the Lekius”.
We can’t decide to stop spending cash on the Lekius in order to spend on the 6th LCS as the Lekius constitute our main surface combatant at present. In another post someone asked why we are going through the expense and effort to fit NSM on a hull we only intend on operating for another decade. This is because that hull: together with her sister; makes up 50 percent of the total number of ASM armed surface ships we have at the moment.
As sure as day will turn to night or earth will continue to spin; retiring the Lekius and Kasturis will have zero affect on the service’s “warfighting capabilities”. This is clearly because when they are retired it will be at a time when replacements at are already in service. Not a case of anything being retired prematurely.
Retiring them prematurely will however affect the service’s “warfighting capabilities” [ currently modest they may be] but also its peacetime capabilities. All navies, even those with a well equipped and funded coast guard, have certain peacetime capabilities.
The question really is how moving aged and worn out assets which the RMN already finds expensive and maintainance extensive to support [not solely due to combat systems] assets; to the MMEA which already had a plethora of asets; many aged and with little to no commonality; affect it. Another question is how would the MMEA react? We know the answer to that and it’s based on practicality rather than “shame” in getting aged and worn out assets.
” We can’t decide to stop spending cash on the Lekius in order to spend on the 6th LCS as the Lekius constitute our main surface combatant at present. In another post someone asked why we are going through the expense and effort to fit NSM on a hull we only intend on operating for another decade. This is because that hull: together with her sister; makes up 50 percent of the total number of ASM armed surface ships we have at the moment ”
Wow
As a defence analyst, you sure have a limited understanding of the timelines of all the current running programmes for TLDM.
For KD Jebat, the RM99 million (USD22.3 million) refit is mostly for general repairs only, & from LUNAS updates, looks like the main engines are taken out for overhaul. The refit is scheduled to be completed in Sept 2025.
We are now already in mid of 2025. The current AShM capability of the 2x LEKIU class frigates will be replaced by 3 new Frigates / Corvettes in less than 20 months time. LCS1 is planned to be commissioned in August 2026, with LCS2 in April 2027. CORV1, CORV2 & CORV3 is all planned to be commissioned by end of 2027. The three STM Turkiye Corvettes are larger, heavier displacement, more heavily armed than the 2x LEKIUs.
So in less than 20 months time, TLDM will have 5x ships that will be more than capable to replace the 2x LEKIUs capabilities.
Upgrades on both Jebat & Lekiu will probably take longer time than that.
So why do we want to spend more on the LEKIUs when less money can get TLDM 1 more GOWIND Frigate, for a total of 6 GOWINDs before the end of 2030?
Not upgrading the LEKIUs doe not mean the end of those ships. Stripping off all the obsolete weapon systems from the ship, painting it white and passing it off to APMM will mean that they will still be performing defence operations for the country. KD Jebat for example, with all the out of hull engine overhauls done, it would probably not need any major overhauls/refits (just general refits) for the next 10-15 years. So even if we don’t upgrade/SLEP its weapon systems, it still can do patrols as OPV for many years to come.
China has done the same. Quite a number of Vhina Navy frigates and corvettes has been converted to OPV and passed to China Coast Guard.
https://thediplomat.com/2015/07/how-china-is-expanding-its-coast-guard/
… – “As a defence analyst”
Never said I was.
… – “China has done the same. Quite a number of Vhina Navy frigates”
Thanks for the obligatory link. Direct comparisons again? Like the MMEA and the USCG? Like how the RMN can perform magic, subs wise because Vietnam and the RSN can? Like how RMN ships should surface to warn off the neferious Chinese because the RN does too?
… – “you sure have a limited understanding of the timelines of all the current running programmes for TLDM”
You “sure” have a tendency to obfuscate and go off tangent. Yes the RMN is only spending what’s needed to keep them in servive and to have a certain level of combat capability, yes the RMN can’t retire them prematurely, yes the Lekius make up 50 percent of the number of missile armed ships the RMN has and yes both are getting increasingly expensive to run.
The way you go on about “upgrades” one would think we’re embarking on major works on the class as opposed to replacing what needs replacing and doing other things to ensure both can remain in service.
So before you get into your off tangent pontificating and claiming others don’t understand things, perhaps get on the right page of the discussion.
… – “Not upgrading the LEKIUs doe not mean the end of those ships”
Since you missed it. The RMN has taken certain steps to ensure it has a level of capability. Not replacing certain things would mean it does not have a certain level of capability and will be dicey to keep operational. Can’t explain in easier to understand language.
… – “Stripping off all the obsolete weapon systems from the ship”
Doing that does not mean they won’t be troublesome to maintain as they still have other components which need maintenance. As it is the RMN wants to get rid of them as soon as it comfortably can yet you’re pushing the magical narrative that the MMEA will have no issues as long as the combat systems are taken off.
… “So even if we don’t upgrade/SLEP its weapon systems, it still can do patrols as OPV for many years to come”
On paper and on links all looks good. The MMEA would disagree. Have you asked anyone or would you know better? As expected again the notion that the MMEA won’t want the ships or might not find them suitable is totally beyond you.
A objective sobered and dispassionate analysis involves looking at both the pros and cons. Not just the part one takes a fancy for…
… “So in less than 20 months time, TLDM”
Assuming all goes to plan… “Depends”.
Have no idea why hulu think of an either or ultimatum situations particularly as SLEP are done under OE while procurement are done under DE account. The money in neither account can’t be used for other purposes
The jebat like the Kedah aren’t gonna be obsolete nor facing end of support problems anytime soon. While the Kedah can take advantage of k130 batch 2 the jebat can take advantage of the work ID on upgrading their bung tomo class.
the cost of repowered and rehulled would cost the same either the boat are in RMN or MMEA services but in MMEA services you are gonna lose the equivalent of 1 bil per ship loses on opportunities cost as you get rid of all the equipment to turn it into a gun only boat.
Anyway a lot of navies in the region are planning to have a surface combatants fleet of around 20. If we wanted quantities parity then continued using old ships particularly one that ain’t gonna be obsolete soon like the jebat and Kedah are an easy cheap way to achieve those.
OE and DE money can be used for both, when there are reasons for it though most of the time it will be DE funding that is used for OE. It is just they need to account for it in the accounts but at the start the funding is divided between OE and DE needs. The recent example was the supplementary funding for aircraft maintenance. Money for DE was used for it though maintenance funding should come under OE.