SHAH ALAM: RMN’s fourth LMS has been successfully launched in Wuhan, China today (Dec. 16, 2020). Like her other three sister ships, the fourth LMS – pennant number 114 – was launched at the Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group (WISG) shipyard in Wuhan, the RMN said in a release.
Like her sister ship – pennant number 113 – the ship would now undergo acceptance trials in Wuhan prior to delivery planned in November 2021. The third LMS was launched on October 28. Work on both ships had been delayed by the coronavirus pandemic which was first detected in Wuhan, in late 2019. The whole province was put on lockdown on January 23, this year and only emerged from it on April 11.
Fourth LMS at her launch in Wuhan, China today. RMN picture
RMN said the fourth LMS will be handed over and commissioned into RMN in November 2021, two months after the third LMS undergo the same process due to pandemic. It said the RMN crew assigned to the ship will travelled to China as early as April, 2021 to undergo familiarisation training.
Third LMS after her launch. RMN
I was told that the BNS and RMN personnel based at Wuhan to oversee were present at the launch ceremony. They returned to Wuhan after the lockdown on the province were lifted by the Chinese authorities.
Like its previous release, RMN did not state any developments on the delivery of the second LMS, Sundang, which commissioning had been delayed due to the pandemic. The ship was supposed to return to Malaysia in April. It is likely the ship is berthed at Qidong, Shanghai where she had been sent for her sea trials.
Sundang at its launch ceremony in July, 2019. RMN
The government signed a contract with Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) for the supply of the four LMS, in 2017. BNS contracted with China Shipbuilding & Offshore International Corporation (CSOC) for the design and manufacture of the LMS. Originally two of the LMS were to be built in China with another two built at the BNS facility in Pulau Jerejak, Penang.
However a revision of the contract terms in early 2019 saw the contract price reduced and the last two LMS to be built in China.
— Malaysian Defence
Must be ironic for the wuchang shipyard to deliver ships that will be used to shadow chinese coast guard and naval ships.
Anyhow great news for TLDM.
So the LMS68 programme comes to a close. Whats next?
I think we use China made ship to chase China coastguard/naval is more on political diplomacy.
Hi friend, this our area. Please leave peacefully. We can do more business with u and corporate some development.
If use Lekiu, it will be. Hi Kawan, cepat cabut la…..
…. – “Must be ironic for the wuchang shipyard to deliver ships that will be used to shadow chinese coast guard and naval ships.”
Hardly. For them it’s merely another business deal. “Business is business” so the cliche goes.
Would the Indonesians find it ironic if a CN was deployed at some point in the future to the Ambalat area? We’ve also used U.S. radars and aircraft to detect and intercept U.S. aircraft which mistakenly strayed into our airspace.
What was “ironic” was MALBATT deploying Yugoslav supplied – originally bought in the 1970’a – mortars to Bosnia and Indonesia requesting that the small stock of AKs captured by Malaysia during the Confrontation be returned because the TNI needed them for the coming invasion of East Timor.
… – “Whats next”
“What’s next” is the RMN going for another – fitted with – LMS; based on designs it has already narrowed down once or rather when the government actually allocates hard cash.
Michael – “think we use China made ship to chase China coastguard/naval is more on political diplomacy.”
Sorry but no.
Not sure if this is an attempt to generate humour but we bought the LMS because it was all we could afford with the budget we allocated and it was politically convenient.
We deploy it because we only have 6 Kedahs and not all are available at any one time and it makes more sense to deploy a LMS than one of our just 2 Lekius which are more expensive to deploy and are an overkill ….
But somehow bangladeshi got their durjoys cheaper than our lms but with full armament albeit chinese made
The high cost of LMS68 is to cover for China taking the tabs for Bandar Malaysia and other 1MDB losses.
Nigeria got a full sized OPV build in the same Wuchang Shipyard for less than the price of 1 LMS68.
@ azlan
” “What’s next” is the RMN going for another – fitted with ”
Whats next is for these types of ships to be bought for MMEA, not TLDM, at logical and reasonable costs (not USD61 million each like the LMS68).
OPVs by any other name shouldnt be planned for and bought for TLDM in the future. We dont have the time and money to be wasted on things like the LMS68 anymore.
@Firdaus
“But somehow bangladeshi got their durjoys cheaper than our lms but with full armament albeit chinese made”
That is why many of here questioned why LMS68 is expensive for the given size and capabilities. Something smells fishy. We already agreed and payed for it so no turning back now. The wise thing to do next is get what TLDM exactly what they wanted for their LMS.
… – “Whats next is for these types of ships to be bought for MMEA, not TLDM, at logical and reasonable costs (not USD61 million each like the LMS68)
You’re going offkey here …
My “what’s next” was in reference to the LMS …
I’ll say this again : ““What’s next” is the RMN going for another – fitted with – LMS; based on designs it has already narrowed down once or rather when the government actually allocates hard cash.” ……….
… – “OPVs by any other name shouldnt be planned for and bought for TLDM”
That is your opinion but there is no intention to buy “OPVs” for the strictly “OPV” role …… If you’re referring to the Kedahs planned under the 5/15: there’s zero possibility of it happening and in the unlikely it does happen; the intention is for them to be fully fitted out in order to perform secondary wartime roles; as has been explained on many occasions.
Thus the fact that they can be classified as “OPVs” doesn’t really reflect their intended purpose. Again; the plan (20 years ago and at present) was for them to be fully fitted out for certain wartime roles. Again : they were not included in the 5/15 so the RMN could have a class only or mainly for EEZ enforcement ..
One doesn’t need a 3D radar: a “obstacle avoidance sonar”; a helo deck system; a pair of trackers; plus many other things if the intention is for the ships to only or mainly perform EEZ enforcement as you keep insisting ………
… – “. We dont have the time and money to be wasted on things like the LMS68 anymore.”
So you say but in reality; just like how the RMAF desires a high/low end mix; so does the RMN …
The fact that a corvette or a OPV can’t survive in a high end fight should not arise at all as nothing should be placed in a situation where it has to punch above its weight … Just like how the traditional roles of “corvettes” and “sloops” called for them to be placed in specific operational conditions; the LMS is intended to be places in situations in line with its capabilities …… Same goes with the LCA; we’d be daft to deploy it where enemy MRCAs are present ….
Setelah bertahun2 membaca komen2 di page ni.. Kadang-kadang teringat kisah Eli Cohen.. Sesetengah komen/cadangan tampak je baik….
I see alot of comment on fb saying the combat system for lms was faulty
Any truth in that?
Reply
Ask FB