SHAH ALAM: More on the LMS, Part 2. It appears that the negotiations for the LMS is going well and its expected that the contract (or Letter of Award, the official term) could be signed at the next LIMA in Langkawi this March. The LOI for the project was awarded to Boustead Naval Shipyard last November.
RMN Chief Admiral Ahmad Kamarulzaman Badaruddin said this to Malaysian Defence yesterday in Kuantan when asked about the progress of the program. He said they were still negotiating over some equipment offered by China for the ship. He did not specify the items.
He confirmed that the LMS will be fitted with guns only, 30mm auto-cannons to be exact. “The guns are much better than our old Bofors guns, these can fire in all weather and night ” he said nodding in agreement when I said “the old Spray and Pray” in reference to the Bofors.
More importantly he said the ammunition for the China-made 30mm guns are “cheap”. He did not identify the guns however but it is likely that it will be either the H/PJ14(CS/AN2) or H/PJ17 both manufactured by China’s firm Norinco.
These guns – similar to the Aselsan SMASH 30mm (contracted for MMEA’s NGPC) and DSi 30mm (LCS) – are chambered for the 30 X 173mm long, the same ammo for the Denel cannon on the Gempita and for the cannon fitted on the USAF A-10 Warthogs (not the DU ones of course) as well as the SMASH and DSI guns.
Hopefully, the 30mm guns will be the secondary armament for the LMS as the main gun shown in the CGI of the ship released by RMN previously showed that it was a 76mm gun, most likely the PJ26 type 76mm naval gun.
The Durjoy class LPCs- from which the LMS is derived – operated by the Bangladesh Navy have two secondary guns, most likely 30mm guns, mounted port and starboard on the aft deck.
It will be weird to say the least if the LMS – a bigger variant of the Durjoy-class – has a smaller main gun.
By the way, our latest ship, KM Pekan will be among the first ship to carry the title “Malaysia Coast Guard” when it arrived in March, for LIMA 2017. I was told that the APMM/MMEA title will no longer be applied to the agency’s assets (aircraft and ships) as the designations were confusing to un-trained observers.
However, the Agensi Penguatkuasaan Maritim Malaysia will still be used as the agency’s official name as it is the name specified under the 2004 Act approved by Parliament.
* this post was updated to add the pictures of PMSA Hingol and the 30 X 173mm round.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (33)
BTW recently around christmas last year there was a visit to Kuantan naval base by some Durjoy-based ship design build for Pakistan Maritime Security Agency (PMSA), PMSS Hinggol and Basol. It is armed with a single H/PJ17 30mm. The visit was also attended by the Sultanah of Pahang.
Reply
Yes, I forgot about those two ships.
We expected the guns to be ''Made in China'' as cash is tight. The RMN will try to minimise as far as possible the amount of Chinese equipment and it remains to be seen where the CMS, radar and directors will be sourced from. If the CMS is Western; then we'll have to approach the EOM [needed because of the source codes] for help to integrate the Chinese stuff and this will cost. If integration costs too much then there'll be a major problem. If the CMS is Chinese but the radar Western then the same issue will arise. We can safely assume that the AC, distillation system, NBC [?] system and others will also be Chinese.
It's good to hear the Chinese 30mm will be better than ''our old Bofors guns''. If it wasn't then it would be a serious problem as the Bofors Mk1 was designed the late 1960's .... :]
I dont see anything wrong with 'Maritim Malaysia' designation.
It is well established and unic to our coastguard as the word Malaysia itself is sufficient enough to let all those so-called 'observers' know about our ships and planes, what else the emblem, which added to the authoritative images.
Reply
That's why I wrote untrained observers...
Was hoping for the Chinese made 30mm gattling gun to be installed..now that is what i call firepower
Why not use the same CMS as the one used for SGPV or our Meko's? We can save on some aspect of the cost which i think the local talents are able to support. However, the license cost of the software and the integration of the Chinese weapons would need some man days to be budgeted for the integration.
Reply
Those CMS you mentioned are Western made, unlikely we will be given the right to install on a China made ship and integrate them with China-made systems.
Good to heard there is some progress about LMS...
DSME, Korea is launching 3k ton Thailand Frigrte... their program is come late after our Gowind but they get the ship much faster than us.
I can see the logic in this. Not everyone on a freighter or a trawler [especially those who don't come into or near our waters often] will know what the APMM/MMEA acronym stands for or even what ''Maritim Malaysia'' means ''notwithstanding the fact that ''Malaysia'' is there. As Marhalim said : ''untrained observers''. Especially in areas near shared boundaries or disputed areas where the ship could just as easily be Singaporean, Thai, Indonesian or Filipino. Either way, when radio contact is made, everyone will know that the ship is Malaysian.
One thing I've noticed about the RTN is that they tend to order their ships in small batches, all different classes - 2 Naresuan class frigates, 4 Chao Praya frigate, 2 Pattani class OPVs, 2 Ratanakosin class corvettes and now a destroyer from Korea. All with minimal commonality.
Well if we save on the individual systems but spend more on integration, then it remains to be seen if we are really saving anything at all.
AM,
Precisely. That's the point I've been stressing on. With guns and stuff like that it's not so bad as they have a low footprint but if we buy missiles we'll have not only integrate those missile to the director and CMS [assuming both are Western] but will also have to buy all the related test and support equipment - whatever savings gained by buying Chinese will be spent on integration costs.
Given that a Chinese hull and some of the needed internal stuff will be cheaper than Western equivalents; there will be cost savings but compromises will be needed. At the end of the day will the LMS provide a fraction of the capabilities we lost after the MM-38s, Aspides and Otomats were retired or will the capability gap be filled only when the LCS enters service?
Faisal,
Having the cash for integration is one issue. Another issue is the willingness of Western OEMs to provide the needed source/object codes for integration to done. Using a similar CMS on the LMS makes sense from a commonality viewpoint but stuff like Setis and COSYS is not cheap and this will drive the overall cost of the programme up.