KUALA LUMPUR: Apart from the NGPV Batch 2 concept ship, BNS is also displaying its own conceptual design for the LMS Batch 2. Like the NGPV Batch 2 concept the LMS Batch 2 Concept is derived from conversations with the RMN on their requirements.
Unlike the first four LMS, the LMS Batch 2 will be build on an inhouse BNS hull. The ship will be longer than the LMS – two build in China and two by BNS – to accommodate a helicopter deck rated for a Super Lynx. The model is fitted with a 40mm Bofors gun with machine guns aft.
It will have an enclosed mast similar to the LCS though it is unclear what type of radar to be used. Of course the final design will undergo further changes based on feedback from the end user. If the BNS proposal is accepted, the 14 further Batch 2 LMS will be a completely different from the China-made ones.
As for the China-made LMS, the steel cutting for the first of class is expected soon.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (23)
So the Second Batch of LMS Will have Missile right... It looks like The LMS and NGPV is The Only Have "Guns"... I Hope This is Not gonna Happen
That LMS batch 2 design is almost as big as the Kedah class. That said it still has to fulfil tasks such mine coutermeasure and hydrographic survey. If you need big ships, use the PV, don't spoil the LMS.
Still the current LMS design is too poorly armed for the rm250 million price.
And if the batch 2 of PV and LMS is totally different, then what is the point of 15 to 5?
Mr Marhalim,
Any idea on the unit cost? Hopefully cheaper than China LMS.
Reply
No idea, likely the same or cheaper
What is even the point of buying the LMS from China? The BNS design is not even look close to what the China design is.
It look like a drastic design change... i dun think it save cost. i believe RMN had decide earlier whether need a helicopter deck and not this last minute change. i think BNS just want copy SG concept only
If BNS gets a contract to produce a LMS variant based on a different design to the Chinese one and fitted out differently; it's basically another class despite sharing the same ''LMS'' designation, which in turn means the 5/15 won't be the 5/15 anymore.
Looking at the design of the Chinese made LMS; makes me wonder how much say or input the RMN actually had. Then again, I suppose the RMN's position is that a lightly armed hull is better than no hull; given the urgency to replace the aged and increasingly expensive and troublesome to support FACs and Laksamanas. The RMN also had to work on a very tight budget.
Abu Muiz - ''Hopefully cheaper than China LMS''
If they're fully fitted out; doubt it will be cheaper. Bear in mind the Chinese LMS's will enter service not fully fitted out; hence their ''cheapness''.
Meh - ''What is even the point of buying the LMS from China?''
The RMN convinced the government that costs saving from the retirement of older ships could be channeled into the 5/15 to fund new ships. The budget was tight to begin with and the Chinese yard was able to match the budget. What we will get however is ships not fully fitted out and the final figure will have to include not only the building costs of the 4 ships but also how much it takes to fully fit them out at a later date.
... - ''That LMS batch 2 design is almost as big as the Kedah class.''
Maybe, just maybe, its displacement was based on input from the RMN as to what it needs. I do know that the FACs and Laksamanas have a hard time going to sea beyond certain Sea States. How the Chinese design compares in this regards is unknown. Perhaps the RMN originally had something else in mind with regards to displacement but had little say in the matter and was forced to go with the Chinese design.
... - '' use the PV, don’t spoil the LMS.''
But that is based on the premise that the Chinese LMS's are what the RMN wants and what suits its requirements. If however we go on the premise that this is not the case; based on input from the RMN, BNS's LMS design will be better suited to the RMN's requirements and will rectify fundamental shortcoming the Chinese LMS's have.
The RHIB launch/recovery system at the rear of the 1st batch LMS, any good reason to forego that? The latest USCG vessels have such a system, seems it allows easier launch and recovery of RHIBs compared to conventional methods.
The addition of a heli deck on such a small vessel, I wonder how much it will affect costs.
Reply
I have no idea why they forego the RHIB launch recovery system
Merlin - ''I wonder how much it will affect costs.''
In a considerable way. Sure an argument can be made that a heli-deck is needed in case a helo is deployed for ops and for other stuff like MEDEVAC but personally I think a heli-deck is something the LMS can do without. Should there ever be a need for a MEDEVAC; the patient can be winched to a helo like what is done in emergency situations on ships without heli-decks. The space can be put to better use; maybe even for a UAS like Scaneagle. .
As to the design that is exhibited; sure it's based on the RMN's input but some aspects may have been added by BNS. As such if BNS ever gets an order for the LMS; the final design could turn out looking a bit different. I'm no expert on naval ship design but looking at BNS's model, including the funnel arrangement; one does wonder how the design compares to the Kedahs and other ships in terms of RCS and IR reduction. Another issue is that with the heli-deck taking up so much space; there doesn't appear to be much deck space left, even amidships, in the event modules need to be added at a later date. It will also be silly to have 4 LMS's with a 30mm gun and others with a 40mm. They should have the same gun for commonality.