SHAH ALAM: In the last post on the LMS Batch II I wrote about whether or not we can afford to build them while at the same time salvaging the White Elephant aka LCS project.
Well I have been told that the original budget for the LMS II was something around RM2.5 billion (RM312 million per ship) for the whole project. That was the reason the ship was supposed to be around 80 meter long, armed with guns, surface to surface missiles and MANPADs. Its basically a pimp up Keris class without any involvement of China.
From the budget allocated we know that the LMS Batch II will cost some RM1.2 billion more from the Keris -class ship. The Keris class was supposed to cost RM1.17 billion but it was cut to RM1.048 billion (RM262 million per ship), after a review by the then PH Government. The four ships were also built in China instead of two there and and another two in Malaysia as off the original plan.
Now, the new plan for the LMS Batch II which is supposed to be fully armed (though SAMs are still to be fitted for but not equipped) have seen the original budget (RM2.5 billion) meant for the first three ships, to be built during this RMK. The other five is expected to be build in RMK13 with an expected cost of RM4.1 billion. That is the reason the ship’s specifications have been tweaked so it will be a hull from 85 meter to 100 meters, a beam from 11 meters to 14 meters and a top speed of 28 knots.The armament is similar to previous smaller design – a 57 mm main gun, two SSMs, a VL SAM or VSHORAD (Fitted For But Not Equipped) and twin 30mm guns (could be a CIWS type).
With a budget of RM2.5 billion, the fully equipped LMS Batch II should cost around RM833 million per ship which is still lower than the average price of 900 to 2500 tonnes corvettes, according to AMI International, a defence consultancy had said. AMI stated that average cost of such corvettes for the last ten years is around US$250 million (around RM1.05 billion) per ship.
Could we get a ship around 2500 tonnes for less than RM1 billion? If we get the hull and its equipment below RM500 million, of course we can. But the bigger question whether the government can afford it especially with the current world economic environment with many people predicting a world wide recession is coming.
Furthermore, with the government need to pay RM3 billion for the LCS in this two RMKs, will be any more money to pay for LMS Batch II?
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (72)
It is the job of the people in the government to work the budget out. There are many options sometimes we need to break it into several phase instead on 2. Or reduce the numbers or even fine tune to get as required thus reduced the cost per ship. The LCS yes needs more money and again the budget has to be workout while ensuring that the budget still meets the requirement for government to run. Pepatah kat setiap Ada jalan Ada jawapan.
Before we buy a ship, first the mission for such a ship must be very clear from the start.
Firstly, why do we need a fully armed corvette? What is the primary mission for it? How would it fit in the overall RMN plans and other ships?
Secondly, what about the original intent of the LMS project, which is to cover the primary mission set of FAC's, MCMV's and Fast Troop Vessels (FTV's)? What ships are now going to take up those missions in the future?
Thirdly, in the near term for the next 5 years, there will be 9 big ships that will need new crews (6 LCS Frigate and 3 LMS batch 2 Corvette). There is no major plans for any ship to be retired for the next 5 years, so that is around 1,200 new recruits to be trained.
Setting that aside for a moment, we look at the budget and the suitable ships available off the shelf for the budget.
Ringgit value has been steadily declining now. The conversion rate is now nearly RM4.40 to a single US Dollar. If we conservatively plan for RM4.50 to 1 US Dollar, the allocated RM2.5 billion is valued at around 555 million dollars. That is about 185+ million dollars for each ship.
It still means that the best value vessel for the money is still the Hyundai built Jose Rizal Class Frigates. The 107.5m 2,600 tonnes ship costs 168 million dollars each (nearly half the cost of our Kedah class OPVs). Costs could be further reduced if the 76mm main gun and TRS-3D radar from Kedah Class ships is transferred, as they are the exact same equipment as the Jose Rizal class ships.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/BRP_Jose_Rizal%28FF-150%29.jpg
So a budget of RM2.5 billion in RMK12 and a further RM4.1 billion in RMK13 could indeed get RMN eight of the very capable Hyundai Jose Rizal Class ships.
But back to the original question. What will be those ships main Mission? Just to mainly patrol the EEZ? Will they be able to be used, or even survive in a major shooting war in South China Sea? What are the odds for these ships to survive Hypersonic Missile attacks?
If those ships at best, only survivable as patrol ships, do we really need fully armed corvettes then?
Would the same budget better used for buying 8 fit for purpose OPVs for MMEA like the DAMEN 1800 OPV, or the HYUNDAI 3000 tonne OPV, plus getting 2 more Scorpene submarines instead?
gonggok - ''Firstly, why do we need a fully armed corvette? What is the primary mission for it? How would it fit in the overall RMN plans and other ships?''
gonggok - ''What will be those ships main Mission? Just to mainly patrol the EEZ? Will they be able to be used, or even survive in a major shooting war in South China Sea? What are the odds for these ships to survive Hypersonic Missile attacks?''
No idea if you are asking rhetorically or otherwise but the answer is plainly obvious : to perform in certain operational conditions/scenarios which don't call for a larger LCS - this has not changed. So no; we don't need them ''just to patrol the SCS'' as you mentioned....
gonggok - ''What are the odds for these ships to survive Hypersonic Missile attacks?''
Unsurprising you'd ask a question of this nature. Let me ask; what are the chances of them being fired upon by a hypersonic missile; as it stands even the likes of a Burke or Type 45 would struggle against a hypersonic missile.
Using your logic I could also ask why even buy 3 MALES when at some future point someone could come up with a way of spoofing; that would make it impossible to operate the sensors of MALE... Why even bother buying aircraft when in the future someone will enable lasers to be widely deployed... Note that like the hypersonic missiles you mentioned; lasers and certain EW means to neutralise UASs are available and are in various forms of development; just not widely widely operational or reached a certain level of maturity yet...
gonggok - ''If those ships at best, only survivable as patrol ships, do we really need fully armed corvettes then?''
What on earth does ''only survivable as patrol ships'' even mean? Do you even know? Depends on the type of conflict doesn't it? In the right circumstances even a LCS or a Kirov for that matter would be vulnerable ....
gonggok - ''Would the same budget better used for buying 8 fit for purpose OPVs for MMEA like the DAMEN 1800 OPV, or the HYUNDAI 3000 tonne OPV, ''
Apples to oranges comparison; we are [if you didn't notice] on the subject of naval ships; not MMEA ships. Furthermore LMSs [or ''corvettes'' if it floats your ship] are intended for different purposes compared to a OPV as such any comparisons [which you very well know despite the question you asked] or which is ''better'' should not arise. Last but not least; the MMEA has no intention of getting 3,000 tonne OPVs for the simple reason that ships of that displacement are superfluous to operational requirements. No doubt you know better [or are convinced you do] but the MMEA [whilst not infallible] has a pretty good idea as to what it needs; what it doesn't need , etc, etc.
Much more pertinent and interesting [for me at least] questions to be asked if whether these ships still have the needed free deckspace to mount modular payloads of if they are intended to be operated in a conventional way? As it stands we have no idea what design will be selected; contrary to assumptions; design showcased at DSA are there because it was thought to be of interest to the RMN; whether the RMN actually wants or is intrested to designs which have so far appeared; is the question ....
I have been told that the RMN likes the ones that had been displayed so far at DSA but no ship is a favourite. Most of the ships have the attributes that the RMN had asked so far.
Might as well make this 8 unit LMS batch 2 as OPV and transfer/convert existing Kedahs as LMS + 4 existing LMS,keris Class.That the only way to justify this decision again at least from my perspective..In future 8 brand new fully equipped OPV/corvettes (LMS batch 2) + 10 LMS (6 kedahs + 4 keris)
Azlan,
"answer is plainly obvious : to perform in certain operational conditions/scenarios which don’t call for a larger LCS"
As always, the open ended answer that is not really an answer. Always that certain something but until now, what that certain scenario is still undefined.
Malaysian maritime security involves every service : RMN, MMEA, Police and even TDM. A fully armed Corvette, stuck at port in event of a major shooting war, is similarly not useful as a lightly armed MMEA OPV. If a scenario does not call for RMN LCS Gowind capability, can that scenario use MMEA OPV instead? Or a smaller less than 35 million dollar 50m modular multi purpose well armed ship that is true to the original LMS intent (do FAC(M), MCMV, light logistics, hydrography support and adding ASW support) rather than a full blown 185+ million dollar corvette? My idea of a LMS batch 2 concept that is not a full blown 185+ million dollar corvette.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/cabinet-approved-resumption-of-lcs-project/#comment-506849
To me, this is the scenario that RMN need to be prepared for :
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/et-tu-lms-batch-ii/#comment-518962
For other low level maritime border conflicts, any small boats, FACs, or even corvettes could be cost effectively be countered by my proposed small 50m modular multi purpose LMS supported by armed UAVs. Which is the Bayraktar TB2 is by far the most cost effective equipment to do it. What RMAF currently budgets for 3 MALE UAV could buy a whole squadron of TB2s.
http://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1521068198287880193
http://mobile.twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1523248496954032128
The way I see it, the LMS2 are effectively taking over the position previously allocated to Kedah Batch2 in the ori 15to5 plan. Very similar in size, armament(fully fitted), & tonnage. I am still uncertain what their role would be defined, or perhaps TLDM had amalgamated the LMS & Kedah Batch2 roles into 1 type with LMS2. Another uncertainty is how much of the changes is what TLDM wants or what the Govt wants as the previous plan laid out a clear distinction in vessel sizes & role between the LMS, Kedah & LCS classes. I am speculating that Govt could be overbudgeting LMS2 project to a tune up to RM 3Bil just so that BNS could use that money to complete LCS while waiting for its resolution that would unlock the extra budget intended for it to be used instead for LMS2.
If history serves me right. the gowind design was pick by 2011 and construction only start by 2025 right?
So how can the LMS batch 2 be built this RMK?
It started construction in 2014 lah. If money is available, we can even built three LHDs this RMK
This is the official current RMN requirements for the LMS Batch 2
General specifications
Length overall 80-100m
Beam 10-14m
Speed(max) 28knots
Speed(cruise) 14knots
Propulsion System CODAD (combined diesel and diesel)
Main engine 4
Shaft line 2x CPP (constant pitch propeller)
Endurance 4000NM/21days
Weapons
– A gun 57mm
– Y gun 30mm CIWS
– 2x NSM Launcher
– surface to air missile or point defence missile system
This is the specification that is put up by RMN at DSA 2022
http://pictr.com/images/2022/03/31/BThWXZ.jpg
This is some specs of the Jose Rizal
http://pictr.com/images/2022/03/31/BThQhn.jpg
This is the specs of SIGMA 9113 promoted by Gading Marine, as Marhalim says, liked by RMN and have the attributes that RMN wants.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gading2.jpg
There latest RMN requirement is basically to have a conventional corvette/light frigate. No requests to include any modular spaces. No requests to be able to do mine countermeasures or other things that originally the LMS project wanted to be able to achieve. Still, is the requirement really tailored to a possible mission set that RMN needs to accomplish? How would the MCMV be done in the future if we buy these fully armed Corvettes? How survivable is a corvette with just point defence missiles against future anti-ship capabilities like hypersonic missiles, or even loitering munitions that is starting to proliferate?
''Very similar in size, armament(fully fitted), & tonnage. I am still uncertain what their role would be defined, or perhaps TLDM had amalgamated the LMS & Kedah Batch2 roles into 1 type with LMS2.''
The LMSs will have a shallower draught compared to the Kedahs; useful for certain areas. As it stands the proposal to include follow on Kedahs in the 5/15 is dead. The idea is for the LMSs to perform roles such as AsuW, ASW, coastal escort and other things in operational circumstances which do not necessarily require a LCS. Of course it's also driven by the fact that the RMN can't afford to have the number of LCSs it needs.
gonggok - ''As always, the open ended answer that is not really an answer. ''
It is the answer but to you - ''as always '' - it's not because it clashes with another one of your misconceived assumptions.
Since you missed it the past few dozen times around I'll oblige by pointing this out again : the LMSs are intended for certain roles [including niche ones] in a purely or mainly littoral setting [compared to the LCSs which also can operate in a non littoral setting] in operational circumstances which do not require a larger and more expensive LCS.. Depending on the threat environment and operational circumstances the LMSs can work alone or alongside other assets, performing stuff such as coastal escort; ASuW; MCM, etc in operational conditions suitable for a ship this size and fit out. If this is still not an answer let me know and I'll try to put in in a much simpler form for your benefit.
gonggok - ''my proposed small 50m modular multi purpose LMS supported by armed UAVs.''
''Your small 50m modular multi purpose LMS supported by armed UAV'' is great for certain operational circumstances; contrary to your assertion is no ''better' or a one size fit all solution . You mentioned ''low level maritime border conflicts'' - what was ''low level'' now can be profoundly different to what it commonly was in the past. Your ''small 50m modular multi'' may be inadequate and your ''cheap'' TB2 may not be able to fly if deployed in contested airspace or if the target has AD systems with a certain range; even in a ''low level' conflict.
gonggok - ''A fully armed Corvette, stuck at port in event of a major shooting war, is similarly not useful as a lightly armed MMEA OPV. ''
In the 'event of a major shooting war'' [to quote you] a ''lightly armed MMEA OPV'' would also not be able to put to sea. As for your ''not useful'' yes you have a penchant for apples to oranges simplistic comparisons; why don't you tell me a GPMG is more useful than a rifle or a IFV more useful than a MBT? Or you going to make the spurious claim that hypersonic missiles [which aren't even yet widely in service] pose a threat to our ships when even a Tico cruiser would struggle against them.
gonggok - ''What RMAF currently budgets for 3 MALE UAV could buy a whole squadron of TB2s.''
In case you missed the point or the plot; the current requirement is for a MALE UAS for ISR; it's not for a UAS with a strike capability. Might be news to you but people tend to buy things which fit in line with their operational requirements.....