SHAH ALAM: STM Defence of Turkiye has released technical specifications of the LMS Batch 2 of which three will be built in that country. The Defence Ministry issued the LOA for the three ships to the state-owned company, in Ankara, Turkiye on June 10.
The release from STM:
STM LMS Batch-II Ship Specifications
STM, as main contractor, will be responsible for all phases of the project, starting from design to the performance, and from construction to delivery. STM will undertake the ship design, project management (including construction management), material/system procurements, integration design and assembly, testing and Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) activities, as well as the preparation of the design and ILS documents related to the Project.
The three corvettes, the design of which has been tailored by STM to meet the requirements of the Royal Malaysian Navy, will be construct in Türkiye within the scope of the Littoral Mission Ship Batch-2 (LMSB2) Project.
STM Littoral Mission Ship (LMSB2) is a highly flexible and proven platform that complies with modern naval norms, standards and classification society rules. The capabilities of similar combat platforms produced by STM in terms of safety, performance, reliability and ease of maintenance have been tested, and have proven themselves during operations in the open and coastal seas, and under heavy sea conditions.
LMSs can be tasked with a wide range of duties including ASUW, AAW, Asymmetric Warfare (ASYW) and EW, drawing upon the capabilities of the most advanced Sensors & Weapons Suite and Command & Control System.
The construction and outfitting of the ships will be carried out in Türkiye with the intensive involvement of Turkish defence industry companies. STM, in its role as main contractor, will turn to the Turkish defence sector for such equipment as the Combat Management System; the Gun Fire Control System, to be supplied by HAVELSAN; and the 3D Search Radar, Fire Control Radar, IFF, 30mm Gun, ESM and Chaff Decoy System, as well as other electronic sensors, to be supplied by ASELSAN. ROKETSAN will be supplying its ATMACA Surface-to-Surface G/M System.
Malaysian Defence was the first to report that the RMN version will be powered with four diesel engines in the CODAD configuration. Do note that the Babur class of the Pakistani Navy, another Ada variant also have four diesel engines in the CODAD configuration.
As mentioned in the first post, the RMN version is to be fitted with the Roketsan Atmaca surface-to surface missiles. And as mentioned in the infographic and the release above, the LMS Batch 2 will be fitted with the Aselsan CENK 3D radar and Akrep fire control radar.
It is unclear what SAM will be fitted on the LMS Batch 2 though as the two candidates for it remained in contention, the MBDA Sea Ceptor and LIG Next 1 K-SAAM are still in contention. Eight missiles will be quad-packed to two VLS on both sides of the hangar deck with sixteen in total. It is likely the South Korean one though as the Babur class VLS for the Sea Ceptor are fitted behind the main gun, just forward of the main superstructure.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Marhalim,
There is no anti sub weapon at all. Not light weight torpedo or anti submarine mortar. Is that correct?
yes no mention of them at all as the ship is not fitted without an ASW sonar nor a helicopter with such capability. I also believed having the VLS just aft of the helicopter hangar meant that the torpedo launchers seen on TCG Kaliniada (inside the helicopter hangar port and starboard) are not fitted.
Displacement 2500tonne,yet they dont put d vls behind the main gun?any idea why mr marhalim?
Baring the omission of ASW, it be ironic that LMS2 would have heavier weapons than LCS orz
Going for atmaca despite specifying for the longest time that the NSM was a requirement is extremely odds though.
Aneh lah. I would have thought even some basic ASW system like the anti sub mortars of the Hisar class would have been fitted. So it seem the LCS is the one going to do the ASW work.
NSM was the logical choice as it will be the cheapest solution as it has already been bought. I am guessing that the Turks drove a hard bargain for them.
The original design does not have a VLS behind the main gun. I believe the Sea Ceptor VLS is small enough to fit for the Pakistani variant. My guess we opt for the rear launcher for more VLS space really.
Tom Tom,
What is so “aneh”? Could be a costing issue. Could be something else.
Ujang,
Perhaps the below deck area aft of the A position is utilised; as part of the modifications we specified. Perhaps there was a technical issue which led to the VLS being mounted near the hanger. What difference does it make?
The Turks would have tried their best to include as much Turk stuff
as possible. Or perhaps it was found that
integrating /certifying NSM to the ship was more troublesome than originally thought or came at a price we were not wiling to pay.
It is what it is.
My biggest question is how much the cost per ship? And if new LMS already 2500 tons…what kind of specification is RMN looking for future Corvette Class
The big question is, if everything else is Turkish, why on earth are we contemplating for SK SAMs? Hisar not good enough??
No lah, they are putting the Ukrainian Neptune ASM on the Ukrainian Navy ships while Pakistan will be integrating their P-282 supposedly hypersonic cruise missiles on their ships. I doubt NSM which is a NATO standard weapon will be that difficult to integrate.
The HISAR is still in development and its size meant that only four missiles could be fitted into that space.
It’s aneh because it’s such a big ship, surely a basic ASW weapon and sonar can be squeezed in..
Haiqal – “new LMS already 2500 tons…what kind of specification is RMN looking for future Corvette Class”
What “future corvette class”?
Less missiles per load means less cost to fully equip all the LMS2, then we wont end up in the similar situation with LCS where we bought the launchers but still not fund to buy the missiles for them. I rather we have less load capacity but the actual missiles are in our hands. As for naval development, since we are gonna pay SK-SAM integration anyhow I see no difference than paying for Hisar to be shipborne.
@Azlan
In RMN new 15 to 5 there is LCS, LMS and Corvette. The LMS suppose to be smaller than Corvette but now its not.
My suggestion for this 3 ships name following batch 1..KD tombak,KD Lembing,KD Tekpi..follow on ships if any KD Istinggar,KD Terakol,KD Pemuras,KD Rentaka
On the flip side; less loads equals to less capabilities. As a role of thumb; to increase the PK at least a couple of missiles would be launched against an incoming target and chances are it will be incoming targets rather than a target.
It is the LMS with the cheapest price tag what do u want a complete 4 dimensional Multi mission capability with this price? 2500 tonne surely they can fit Asw modules & equipment but the procurement cost would higher or the RMN can reduce to 2 hulls only if they go with a full fledge multimission corvette. Singaporean LMV also did not have Asw. If i remember correctly the LMS purpose is for coastal patrol, SAR, intelligence & maritime enforcement.
Actually if either Sea Ceptor or K-SAAM is selected for LMS2, is it still possible to fit the same SAMs on the LCS too? If it’s possible I belive that it will save cost in the long run. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong
I dont think the MICA launchers can be fitted with Sea Ceptors. Moreover if they changed the SAM they will need to order a new variation order which I dont think anyone will want to do after what happened last time around.
True Sg’s LMV only have Mica and not even SSM..And tyhpoon and hitrole RWS.But then LMV is not really comparable to this batch 2 ‘LMS’..Wait a minute are this 3 ships still considered as LMS or corvette?..Im kinda confused right now..That 4 700tonnes chinese is LMS..this 2500 tonnes ship also LMS? Same class? So confusing..and what about that CORV and OPV squadron?
Qamarul,
By right all surface combatants should have a sonar and triple torp tubes as a means of self defence.. I don’t think adding a sonar and triple torp tubes would significantly add to the overall price.
Anyway if the Batch 2s aren’t ASW fitted; it is what it is.
Qamarul – “If i remember correctly the LMS purpose is for coastal patrol, SAR, intelligence & maritime enforcement”
It’s intended for a wide variety of war and peacetime roles. The idea was/is to have something which can perform roles which don’t cal for a LCS and at a fraction of the cost. Having already received Batch 1s which were not fitted out the way intended; unsurprising that the RMN would want the Batch 2s to be as capable as possible.
Ultimately there is no pleasing everyone and a number of trade offs had to be made. Even if the Batch 2s were ASW configured and has other things; observers would still knock it.
It is just RMN naming convention. By other means, LMS Batch 2 is a corvette.
“On the flip side; less loads equals to less capabilities.”
But if we cannot afford it the point is moot no? Its like giving me option for car with standard 4cylinder engine or high end V6. If I can only afford the standard car, giving me the option for bigger engine that will give more capabilities is useless.
“adding a sonar and triple torp tubes would significantly add to the overall price”
Price and complexity, if the platform did not have a hull sonar before it needs to be redesigned for it and certified to use. And as pointed out by Marhalim, the VLS location precludes the inclusion of integrated torps unless these are jerry rigged somewhere else or else the hull enlarged to fit both.
@Qamarul
The original vision for LMS was to be a multiflexible ships class that could perform various roles once they take on the appropriate MCM module (ie minehunting MCM for that role).
Firdaus,
What is so confusing? This has been discussed to death. It is a “corvette” sized vessel designated “LMS”. Not complicated.
Also, what’s a “corvette” in one navy could be a “frigate” in another and as pointed out to “…” a “corvette” can be more heavily armed than a “frigate”. What’s a “frigate” in some navies could also be a “destroyer” in another. Not confusing or complicated.
Putting aside your car amplify; no idea if the “point is moot” but we’re talking about a national asset which entails resources to acquire. We’re not taking about a 96 cell here but a 16 cell one and as it stands there is no indication we can’t afford it.
I also have no idea if there’s any design/ engineering issues with regards to a sonar and triple tubes but adding them will not add significantly to the overall cost.
Is the ‘A’ gun still under discussion or is it already finalised?
Curious coz if im reading it right, MKE was not named as supplier for the 76mm gun. Getting leonardo 76mm seems like a cost-rising measure. But the infographic showed 76mm gun so it might not be the bae bofors 57mm.
With this acquisition, a closer relationship especially in defence, with Turkiye cemented..
Syabas diucapkan.
Personally i don’t think it matter much as Most navies lowest tier surface combatants be it the mogami, LMV, type 31,HDP2200 nor USN LCS comes with ASW suits.
“as it stands there is no indication we can’t afford it.”
Then what is taking so long to buy those LCS MICAs hmm? AFAIK funding for them wasnt release yet.
“adding them will not add significantly to the overall cost.”
When there is no space and trying to find space, there will be a not insignificant cost. Engineering doesnt come out of thin air.
It will be the Leonardo 76mm gun. During LIMA last year, I spoke to several Turkish companies representatives, they all said the MKE 76mm gun, which is a copy of the Leonardo gun, is not ready for the big leagues yet.
Do note I was told several years back the Leonardo gun costs around RM30 million while the Bae Systems gun cost around RM25 million, locally. Even with inflation the Italian gun might now cost around the same price as we are not paying the local agent mark up.
One ship cost RM920 million, RM30 million is peanuts.
Marhalim did say in a previous post that a MICA signing was imminent. Also, given that the whole programme was in limbo for quite a while and that MDBA was switching production to the NG variant; what was the hurry?
I’m well ware that engineering doesn’t come out of thin air thanks awfully but I was referring to the costs of the sonar and tubes.. Furthermore I have no idea if the lack of space is really the issue here.
On another issue the high costs associated with guns is not so much the gun but the ammo. 3P ammo for example costs up to a few thousand per round and dozens would have to be fired against an incoming target. The costs of a gun does however significantly increase when one goes for a 4.5inch or a 127mm gun.
In a previous post someone asked if the fact that the Batch 2scare getting a 76mm means the RMN is “reverting” back to that calibre. I replied that that is really a case of “reverting” given that we have no idea if the Bofors was the RMN’s choice for the LCS or BNS’s choice?
For the RMN the main wartime function of the main gun would be AA and apart from early warning; the right ammo and the right fire control; the certain ROF is needed. Bring a smaller round the 57mm Bofors has a slightly higher ROF than the 76mm Oto Melara.
Zek – “Syabas diucapkan”
Don’t start blowing the trumpets too early.
Continuity or consistency is the main key here. The Turks [like the Koreans] have been trying hard to form a strategic relationship with us since the 1990’s. The problem was us; funding issues and indecision. I remember in the late 1990’s when a high level MAF delegation attended a large Turk exercise and was given red carpet treatment. The Turks were deeply offended when the delegation visited the Mustafa Kamal tomb and refused to lay a wreath on the basis it was unIslamic.
The 1st ever defence kit we got from them were the ASKARAD ground radars for the Royal Intelligence Corps.
It was the BNS choice as the Gowind was designed for the 76mm gun.
BHIC Bofors Asia Sdn. Bhd. Talk about vested interests. Not that I’m complaining because it’s a good gun.
Whether 57 or 76mm calibre is “better” is academic as both have their plus points. Being a larger calibre 76 has the edge in range and in firepower for NGFS. The Super Rapid has been employed for NGFS by the Israelis on various occasions over the last few decades.
“what was the hurry?”
Its the only major piece of hardware we still yet to buy for some reason and that itself is not just weird but worrying. Not only does it breeds speculation that we could go other missiles (we cant as the launchers fitted are for MICA), it also meant the longer we waited the cost to procure is higher. Easily you can compare how much would it cost when the RM was much stronger if we bought earlier as today how much more we have to pay for the same damn thing.
“if the lack of space is really the issue here.”
This was pointed out by Marhalim in a followup comment “having the VLS just aft of the helicopter hangar meant that the torpedo launchers seen on TCG Kaliniada (inside the helicopter hangar port and starboard) are not fitted.” Its one or the other unless we go the ol WW2 era underwater tube launchers.
“high costs associated with guns is not so much the gun but the ammo”
If we dont fire that frequently it doesnt matter as much. For such a project with such strictly low budget, the price of the weapon is more important so the cheaper option wont likely be hobbling it financially.
“the only major piece of hardware we still yet to buy for some reason and that itself is not just weird but worryin
Like I said: with the whole programme in limbo for a long period; what was the point? To have the missiles delivered and have BNS store them at time when we had zero idea as to when anything would be delivered? Also, MBDA was ceasing production and switching to MICA NG. Ultimately, as Marhalim said the deal is to be signed imminently. If we don’t sign it this year or the next then it would be “weird” and “worrying”. Yes we should have signed it earlier but we didn’t and as things dragged on there was less reason to.
As for the main gun where did you get the impression “we don’t fire frequently”? Every RMN ship fires its main gun on a regular basis and it’s also done during exercises. On a routine patrol the CO has the discretion to issue ammo which is stored for the specific purpose of ensuring crews get the practice they need. It’s missiles which are not fired “frequently”.
What “old WW2 era underwater tube launchers”? Fitted on what?
“If we don’t sign it this year or the next then it would be “weird” and “worrying”.”
Why is it weird & worrying to you if its not signed this year or next but not last year or before? What would change since all the ships will still take time to complete and commission? It cant be some time is right for you and other time is not right for you? So where is the logic there?
Mine is very simple. Pay up back in 2017/2018 where RM is much stronger than today and we would to pay less. We already bought everything else, guns, NSM, sensors, etc.
“where did you get the impression “we don’t fire frequently”?”
Which ship in our fleet ever required a main gun barrel change due to wear usage?
“What “old WW2 era underwater tube launchers”?”
An example HMS Hood had underwater torp tubes. Many WW2 contemporaries are similar.
“ The primary asw ships for RMN should be LCS right with hull mounted sonar and towed array sonar
As I said : the whole programme was in limbo with no indication as to when work would be start. Now we get MICA NG. That’s the “logic” you mentioned and was clearly laid out irrespective of whether you agree or not and think the subject warrants further discussion. I don’t see the “logic” in having something delivered but it being stored indefinitely; requiring periodical checks like many things bought but stored.
Now that work has commenced there is urgency. Urgency which was lacking at a time when even the RMN has no idea as to how things would pan out. If we don’t sign for it this year or the next with the lead ship scheduled for deliver my in 2026 then to me it’s “weird” and “worrying”; to quote you.
As for barrel change; does the fact we’ve never read about it indicates it never happens? The 1st Mk1s entered service in the 1970’s and together with others had barrels replaced as part of refurbishment programmes at Naval Dockyard/BNS. Same with the L/70s. You will also notice that every 3-4 years more or less at there are tenders placed for gun ammo; not because older stocks have expired but to replace spent stocks.
The firing of main and secondary guns – unlike missiles – takes place regularly; on routine patrol there is ammo which is stored for the specific purpose. Note that I said “regularly”; not suggesting we fired tonnes of rounds but we do “regularly”.
There are also exercises in which certain guns have to be fired – and some simulated missiles launches performed – in order for a few to be certified. There is also the point that there’s a big gap in prices with say 57mm HE or illum and “smart” ammo like 3P. Hrmvr my mention of it in a previous post; the main issue with guns is not the actual gun but the ammo and I will add the spares and the needed director.
Had no idea Hood – a WW1 design – had underwater tubes. The bulk of ships in WW2 had deck mounted tubes; i.e. Long Lance.
“I don’t see the “logic” in having something delivered”
Neither do I see buying everything BUT that missiles is anything but weird and worrying. You buy everything for your new house but the furniture, maybe for you its not weird to sit on the floor but it is for any regular person. Whether work has now gained urgency doesnt change the fact that MICA were planned to procure later for some reason while NSM is already here. Maybe for your logic its weird we bought them as the project commences eh?
“every 3-4 years more or less at there are tenders placed for gun ammo”
And that is called frequent? Come back to me in 3-4 years time.
And mind you frequent is not necessarily means regular. I fire once per quarter is also regular in your definition but is it frequent? Nope far from it. For our peace time firing exercises, the cost difference would be negligible at best. There are pros & cons going for either calibre but cost factor isnt high on that list.
” maybe for you its not weird to sit on the floor but it is for any regular person.”
”Maybe for your logic its weird we bought them as the project commences eh?’
That is your ”logic” because nothing I indicated supports such an assumption.
As I said; unlike in the past when the whole programme was in limbo; ordering MICA made no sense because nobody – not even the RMN – knew when the ships would be delayed; made no sense ordering the missiles only to have them stored indefinitely. Now; with a clear schedule and the lead ship scheduled for delivery in 2026; the missiles should be ordered this year or the next in order to be ready for the lead ship when she commissions. The silver lining is we now get MICA NG and as Marhalim clearly said in a previous post; signing is imminent. As far as I’m concerned the topic is done and if you need the final say or feel the subject warrants further discussion; so be it.
”And that is called frequent? Come back to me in 3-4 years time.”
No I don’t have to ”come back” to you because the topic was on how frequently guns were fired NOT [taking a cue from you on upper case] not how ”frequent” ammo is ordered.
Main and secondary guns are fired quite ”frequently” both during exercises and during routine patrols. On routine patrols crews can be considered not ”ready” if practice firing is not performed and spare ammo is always carried for practice and can be utilised at the discretion of the CO. The fact that orders for ammo [from a small peacetime navy] are made every 3-4 years is because ammo has to be restocked.
”I fire once per quarter is also regular in your definition but is it frequent? ”
That is your ”definition” because I clearly said that we fire guns ”regularly/frequently” during exercises [both RMN and multilateral ones] and also during routine patrols.