SHAH ALAM: The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Dewan Rakyat has published its latest report on the LCS project today. The report covers the period of June and September, this year, is available on the Dewan Rakyat website.
The last report covered the period between October 2022 and May, this year. As there was no progress between the two period, the committee had determine that there was no need to publish its report every three months.
Anyhow, the latest report confirmed that the work – called remobilisation – on the LCS had started at Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) at Lumut on September 25. Newly appointed Defence Ministry secretary general DS Isham Ishak had also testified at the latest PAC proceedings.
The report also revealed that Naval Group had not completed the verification work of BNS design work as the company has not been paid. This means that the design work has stopped at 84 per cent due to the payment’s issue. This resulted in the progress of the LCS project is now behind by seven per cent though those who testified stated that they were confident that it will returned to schedule.
It was also revealed that four of the PISM mast for the LCS are currently stored at BNS warehouses while the fifth one has not been ordered yet.
The PAC was told that the nationalisation of BNS should have been completed by November 1. However, we know that it has not been completed.
It must be noted that the PAC stated that the cost of the LCS project now stands at RM11.2 billion due to the additional costs (RM2.098) signed with the sixth supplementary contract.
The report did not say anything about the other payments needed for the government to absorb BNS into its wholly-owned company – Ocean Sunshine Sdn Bhd.
HT DM
— Malaysian Defence
View Comments (40)
Lets talk about possible LMS batch 2 configurations. They all will share the same hull,same FCR, same engines, same range of 3500-4500nm same main guns and same 30mm guns with other subsystems being different. Some of the such subsystems can be swap out from ship to ship to enable RMN to configure them depending of situations.
Lets use LMS batch 2 specs as a reference/base line
1 configuration for just OPV role (original LMS role)
1 configuration for general purpose corvette (armed Kedah class role)
2 configurations for special purpose role (ASW to supplement LCS and AAW)
Cost savings in terms of operational cost hopefully could be achieved with LMS and NGPV sharing same hull and also able to use for limited ASW and AAW
Low Tier:
- Configured mostly as OPV with SHORAD and small numbers of AShM ie as cheap as possible
- Have space for towed sonar
- Thales NS50 x-band AESA or TRS-3d s-band PESA (whichever is cheaper, maybe even the LIG Nex1 SPS-540K x-bacd PESA)
- 1x FCR (same as KD Perak's new one)
- 4x NSM AShM
- 2x6 Mistrale in Sadral mount
- 1x 57mm gun
- 2x DS30 30mm gun
Mid Tier:
- Configured as general purpose corvette that could do what LCS can except for ASW and is shorter ranged, still have space for towed array
that could be transfered from other ships, a second generation of Kedah but fully armed
- Have space for towed sonar and extra 4-8 cells mk41 vls installed
- Thales NS100 s-band AESA radar
- Thales BlueWatcher bow sonar
- 2x (same as KD Perak's new one)
- 8x NSM AShM
- 16x ESSM block 2 in 4-cell mk41 self defence vls
- 2x2 torpedo mount
- 1x 57mm gun
- 1x Millenium 35mm CIWS
- 2x DS30 30mm gun
High Tier ASW
- Configured as special purpose corvette for ASW but can be repurpose as AAW by swapping ASROCs with SM2s
- Thales NS100 s-band AESA radar
- Thales CAPTAS-2 towed sonar/SEA KraitSense/KraitSearch towed sonar
- Thales BlueWatcher sonar
- 1x FCR Thales STIR 1.2 mk2
- 1x FCR (same as KD Perak's new one)
- 8x NSM AShM
- 16x ESSM block 2 in 4-cell mk41 tactical vls
- 4x VL-ASROC in 4-cell tactical mk41 vls
- 2x2 torpedo mount
- 1x 57mm gun
- 1x Millenium 35mm CIWS
- 2x DS30 30mm gun
High Tier AAW
- Configured as special purpose corvette for AAW with the most number of VLS cells but can be repurpose as ASW by transfer towed array
- Thales NS100 s-band AESA radar
- SEA KraitSense/KraitSearch towed sonar
- Thales BlueWatcher bow sonar
- 1x FCR Thales STIR 1.2 mk2
- 1x FCR (same as KD Perak's new one)
- 8x NSM AShM
- 16x ESSM block 2 in 4-cell mk41 self defence vls
- 8x SM2 block 3c in 8-cell mk41 tactical vls
- 2x2 torpedo mount
- 1x 57mm gun
- 1x Millenium 35mm CIWS
- 2x DS30 30mm gun
Personally, I prefer the 40mm gun instead of the 30mm gun. The same gun also be used instead of the CIWS if specialised rounds - air burst mode - is procured.
Luqman - “Some of the such subsystems can be swap out from ship to ship to enable RMN to configure them depending of situations”
On paper yes but as far as I’m aware we are not going with such an approach.
There will be one design; one hull multi purpose class to perform a variety of wartime and peacetime roles; by themselves or alongside other assets. The idea is not only will it be able to perform certain roles not requiring a LCS [like the RMAF’s LCAs and MRCAs or the Kasturis and FACs in the 1990/80’s] but also at a fraction of the cost as the RMN has publicly alluded to.
Whilst the possibility - on paper - of how it can be fitted out with is endless; alas the harsh reality is that it will be modestly armed; not only due to funding issues but also actual requirements. I for one will be happy if it enters service with a 57 and not a 30mm main gun and has something with longer legs than a SHORADs mount. Commonality is something the RMN would very much like to achieve but might not be attainable; if we go for a Turkish design.
@Luqman
Myself I prefer an evolved Kedah class as LMS2 using the same hull & machinery with a modernised stealth designed superstructure (akin to modern MEKO class). The FCS & sensors can be of the same TACTICOS focused or LCS biased SETIS. This will keep commonality with either NGPV or LCS. As per ordered they will come with the full complement of weaponry but for peacetime duties they will land their munitions, torps & majority of missiles stored in strategic warehouse docks to function as a FFBNW boat that can be rearmed anytime.
The Kedahs should be upgraded to LMS2 specs, changing the Exocet for NSM launchers, but still FFBNW until they need to be rearmed, as with the LMS2.
The current Keris class will be derated from LMS to MCMV & hydrographic roles.
This will leave Maha as LCS, Kedah/Kedah evolved as LMS, and Keris as MCMV/hydro/support roles, amphib capable Makassar as MRSS, Scorpene/Scorpene evolved (with a 3rd boat after MRSS) as sub.
”Myself I prefer an evolved Kedah class as LMS2 using the same hull & machinery”
The mystery is why the Meko-A100 design was not selected for the LMS requirement. Could have to do with the fact that there was still a bit of bad blood with the German Naval Group and BNS can’t construct any follow on Kedahs without German participation/involvement.
”their munitions, torps & majority of missiles stored in strategic warehouse docks ”
The danger with this is that crews might not have the needed time required to gain the needed levels of proficiency.
”The Kedahs should be upgraded to LMS2 specs, changing the Exocet for NSM launchers”
The directors and CMS would have to be integrated to NSM.
''current Keris class will be derated from LMS to MCMV & hydrographic roles.''
It has free space on the quarterdeck for MCM gear but I doubt very much the design is suitable for survey work. As it stands the RMN has mostly divested itself of the survey role as far as hardware/ships go; privatised. This decision didn't go down well but like many was a compromise; driven by economics.
Marhalim,
In terms of actual round performance [range and kinetic affect] the differences between a 30 and 40mm round are academic. We've already standardised with the MSI mount for the LCS, Kasturis and training ships anyway.
Talking about MSI; it has come up with something very useful [mobile and self contained] for the C-UAS role and something seemingly ideal to replace the Oerlikons.
Not in the habit of posting links for the sake of it but this is interesting.
https://www.msi-dsl.com/products/msi-ds-terrahawk-vshorad/
Yes, I know about that but its currently its available in the air to ground version only. MSI has also installed LMM launchers on its 30MM RWS which it called Seahawk which could be an option if they decide to upgrade the Kedah class. Aselsan has also cleared the same VSHORAD launchers for its SMASH 30mm RWS.
Been discussed and whipped to exhaustion that RMN is not keen on doing major upgrades to Kedah class. Any upgrades would be minimally intrusive (physically) and only if it doesnt affect funding for new ships, such as VSHORAD and rockets - check earlier topics and discussions. Forget about Kedah class as the template as it is an early 2000s design. All the upgrades proposed would be expensive and done on a hull that is close to 20 years of age. Navy likes Damen, and Korea (through HHI) eager to sell more. If any, it has to be a proven design and Damen's business with Indonesia and HHI's business with Philippines should put them in front of the Turkish, yet politics...
kel - ''Been discussed and whipped to exhaustion that RMN is not keen on doing major upgrades to Kedah class. ''
Yes but people have a tendency to discuss various paper options and look into them...
kel - ''Forget about Kedah class as the template as it is an early 2000s design. ''
Ok a 1990's design but compared to a newer design how inferior is a Meko-A100? Less LO features; poor seakeeping, etc?
Sorry should have made myself clearer. I think it's possibly a sound candidate to replace GAPU's Oerlikons.
Yes it will be, actually. Even with the high cost of air burst ammunition.
If one were to build new Kedah class or a variant of it, the designer wouldn't be able to design nor build it because the MEKO 100 Kedah is a specific variant. One would have to call BNS to bring out the old blueprints and have BNS relearn how to update the design and then build the ships. One would hope the original design has for one, sufficient room for increased electricity load to power all the additional equipment the newer versions will have, internal designs that is able to accommodate the additional equipment, the necessary wiring, plumbing, HVAC, consider the impact of additional tonnage on balance, draught, speed, etc. If not, one would need to pay someone to modify the existing design. Should one decide to stay within the MEKO 100 family, the foreign yard has the newer and bigger MEKO A-100. Or choose a non-MEKO design from the same yard like the K130 which is also the basis of the Sa'ar 6 class. So yes, in many ways if given a choice, one would choose a newer design because an old design is an old design. It's like asking why the US doesn't upgrade and build new Flight I Arleigh Burke. Well because it's an old design with limited upgrade pathways. So came the Flight II which structurally included a helicopter hangar but still had limited upgrade pathways. So came the latest and substantially larger Flight III.
@Azlan
"On paper yes but as far as I’m aware we are not going with such an approach.There will be one design; one hull multi purpose class...."
It's the same concept of having one hull that can be configured to be multipurpose or not, this is due to not enough budget for every LMS to have SM2, NS100 and towed for example. Much like US LCS but using already available systems with lower risks