SHAH ALAM: Defence Minister DS Khaled Nordin in his speech at Parliament on February 20 also spoke about the LCS. Among the highlights of what he said was that the project was delayed by some one percent due to the late delivery of equipment from the original manufacturer. As the project has been delayed by six years one cannot help but laugh at the irony of the statement.
Khaled did not identify the equipment and company though. He also did not say whether the company has been issued a liquidated ascertained damages for the delay. Perhaps it was the result of the delay in paying the OEM in the first place.
On the same day of his speech, RMN deputy chief Vice Admiral Shamsuddin Ludin also visited Lumut Naval Shipyard to see the development of LCS 1 and LCS 2. Not much details were released apart from affirming the delivery of LCS 1 is scheduled for August 2026. The rest will be followed in eight months interval.
From the pictures provided by RMN, it appears that the CMS workstation has been installed on LCS 1. It is still unclear whether the ship’s engines and generators have been turned on or whether the ship is relying on shore power to ran them and other functions.
Do note that although Shamsuddin was only made the deputy late last year, he is well versed about the LCS. He was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Planning and Development around 2011 and 2013 when the LCS project started.
Defence Minister speech at Parliament.
95. Seterusnya, YB Merbok dan YB Lumut membangkitkan tentang status pembinaan LCS.
96. Kontrak Tambahan ke-6 yang ditandatangani oleh Kerajaan dengan Lumut Naval Shipyard – LUNAS (sebelum ini dikenali sebagai Boustead Naval Shipyard – BNS) pada 26 Mei 2023 merupakan tarikh permulaan semula kerja-kerja pembinaan Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), selepas kerja-kerja pembinaannya terhenti pada 15 November 2019.
97. Projek pembinaan 5 buah kapal ini disasarkan dapat diserahkan kepada pihak Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia mengikut tempoh masa yang telah dirancangkan secara berperingkat mulai Ogos 2026.
98. Status kemajuan semasa pembinaan bagi perolehan Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) secara keseluruhan merangkumi elemen reka bentuk, pembinaan, peralatan serta ujian yang berakhir pada 25 Januari 2025 adalah sebanyak 71.29% berbanding perancangan iaitu 72.63% dengan perbezaan sebanyak -1.34%.
99. Kelewatan ini adalah disebabkan kelewatan penghantaran peralatan daripada pihak Original Equipment Manufacturer. Walaubagaimanapun, perkara ini tidak menjejaskan keseluruhan pembinaan LCS dan ia masih mengikut jadual yang dirancang.
100. Untuk makluman, LCS Pertama telah berjaya diturunkan ke permukaan air pada 23 Mei 2024 bagi membolehkan pihak limbungan menyiapkan keperluan integrasi sistem sebelum pelaksanaan pelbagai ujian platform dan sistem kombat sebelum diserahkan kepada pihak Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia (TLDM) pada Ogos 2026.
101. Bagi Kapal LCS kedua pula, ia akan turun ke permukaan air pada pertengahan tahun 2025 dan dirancang diserahkan pada April 2027.
102. Berhubung soalan YB Lumut berkaitan dengan status siasatan projek LCS dan tindakan yang disyorkan oleh Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Negara (PAC) yang lepas, Kementerian Pertahanan telah mengemukakan Laporan Tindakan Susulan Interim terhadap syor-syor PAC pada 10 September 2022 dan pada 6 serta 21 Disember 2023.
103. Secara keseluruhannya, terdapat 18 syor yang telah dikemukakan oleh PAC. Kesemua syor telah diambil tindakan kecuali bagi 3 perkara berikut iaitu:
a. Dua syor yang masih memerlukan tindakan Kementerian dari semasa ke semasa iaitu:i. Kementerian perlu membentangkan perancangan perolehan ketenteraan substantif kepada Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas Parlimen Pertahanan dan Keselamatan dari masa ke masa dengan melibatkan semua pihak berkepentingan demi kesiapsiagaan pertahanan negara; dan
ii. Kementerian perlu membentangkan laporan kemajuan projek LCS setiap tiga bulan kepada PAC sehingga projek LCS disempurnakan.
b. Baki satu syor adalah di luar bidang kuasa Kementerian ini di mana pihak Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia perlu mengambil tindakan ke atas segala penemuan Laporan PAC,Laporan Jawatankuasa Siasatan Tadbir Urus, Perolehan dan Kewangan Kerajaan (JKSTUPKK), dan Laporan Pengauditan Forensik dengan kadar segera. Oleh yang demikian, Kementerian Pertahanan menyerah sepenuhnya kepada Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) untuk melakukan siasatan serta mengambil tindakan sewajarnya jika didapati berlakunya ketidakpatuhan terhadap perolehan ini.
𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐀𝐍 𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐉𝐀 𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐁𝐀𝐋𝐀𝐍 𝐏𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐋𝐈𝐌𝐀 𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐀 𝐋𝐀𝐔𝐓 𝐊𝐄 𝐋𝐔𝐍𝐀𝐒
LUMUT, 20 Feb – Timbalan Panglima Tentera Laut, Laksamana Madya Dato’ Ts. Shamsuddin bin Hj Ludin bersama ahli Jawatankuasa Laksamana TLDM telah melaksanakan lawatan kerja ke limbungan Lumut Naval Shipyard (LUNAS) bagi meninjau perkembangan pembinaan projek Kapal Pesisir Pantai (LCS).
Kehadiran Laksamana Madya Dato’ Ts. Shamsuddin telah disambut oleh Laksamana Pertama Ir. Ts. Franklin Jayasekhar Joseph selaku Ketua Pengarah Projek LCS TLDM serta diiringi oleh Komander Jal Shazidi bin Bassari TLDM (Bersara), Ketua Pegawai Operasi LUNAS Lumut dan Kepten Rosnizam bin Che Puteh TLDM (Bersara), Pengarah Projek LCS LUNAS.
Di dalam rangka lawatan, Laksamana Madya Dato’ Ts. Shamsuddin bersama delegasi telah diberi taklimat kemajuan pembinaan LCS 1 dan LCS lain serta Shore Integration Facility (SIF) yang telah beroperasi.
Lawatan kerja ini membuktikan bahawa Pengurusan Tertinggi TLDM sentiasa melaksanakan pemantauan terhadap perkembangan fasa pembinaan LCS agar mengikut piawaian kualiti tertinggi mengikut spesifikasi dan dapat disiapkan mengikut tempoh yang ditetapkan.
Komitmen LUNAS dalam setiap fasa pembinaan sehingga ke hari ini juga membuktikan komitmen dan kerjasama jitu sebagai rakan strategik yang erat di dalam menyokong keperluan operasi TLDM.
LCS 1 dijadualkan untuk diserahkan kepada TLDM pada Ogos 2026 manakala kapal seterusnya dijadualkan diserah selang 8 bulan sehingga LCS 5 pada April 2029.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
I am not too optimistic that Lcs 2 can be launched in August. As for Lcs 1 i can see the progress is good but no confirmation on certain equipment such as the Mica. I am not sure if the towed array sonar already delivered and in storage. The NSM missiles already delivered right? The organic helos probably will be from the leased program. I do hope all is well because this is important we need the ship asap. It has become a laughing stock in the region. Maharajalela 2501 the ship that afraid of water, i do hope the best for you.
No lah, the leased helicopters will not be an organic to the LCS. Whether they even try to land them on board LCS is a big question. The government will have to decide in the next few years whether they will want the ASW version of the Seahawk. Not the Romeo as it is for surface action.
Can’t wait to see the stealth 57mm turret on these ships.
It will be small compared to the size of the ship.
No mica? I think the navy should go for Aster 30…
The launchers installed/to be install onto the ships are for MICA
The navy already purchased the luncher for mica or not?
The launchers have to be installed during the build process. Since LCS1 is ady in final fit out, its safe to assume the launchers are ady onboard and such it would mean the Govt would have bought it and for others beforehand. Its only the actual missiles MICA that we havent bought yet.
@fardeman The navy already purchased the luncher for mica or not?
I believe it is Sylver A50 which is for Mica & cannot fit the Aster. Too small.
Edit- sylver A35
If not mistaken the launcher had been purchased bit whether it had been installed on LCS1 is unknown.
AFAIK its not officially known which launcher version was selected. The only obscure internet source I could find mentions it is A43. I believe this is possible as LCS is similar tonnage with Formidables mounting the A50. This A43 version can equip with unboosted Aster15.
malaysiandefence is a mine trove of resources for malaysian defence matters.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/run-to-the-hills/
From this article on 32st October 2018, the launchers for VL MICA already bought.
VL MICA can be launched from its own proprietary launcher, or from SYLVER launchers. I believe GOWIND does not have SYLVER, only VL MICA proprietary launcher.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FiyptbeVsAEBmNL.jpg
I really hope the RMN has plans to acquire atleast 3 or 4 larger frigates equipped with ASTER or Turkish long range SAMs in the dedicated area air defense role for our surface groups, highly doubt the VL MICA, even the NG variant can fill that role. I know it’s expensive but one can wish right?
So the future SAM lineup for RMN is VL MICA and K-SAAM…guess we’ll have to adopt the Type 64 strategy(see Falklands War)from our former colonial overlord when things go south
Jason,
4-6 units of FREMM or Type 31 would be nice as anything larger than 150m can be considered a destroyer. No, not locally made please.
Yes, sooner or later the RMN will need something larger than the 111m frigates, mainly for better SAM and endurance.
I have said the same many times before
Even using the current level of TLDM budget, we can have 4x Type 31 (aka Arrowhead 140) frigates by 2040
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GT8rHkNbMAAmwGX.jpg
I believe a decently armed Arrowhead 140 can be had for about USD500 million each. Some of the equipments, such as guns can be salvaged/cannibalised from our Laksamana class corvettes, kasturis and even kedah class to lower the ship cost.
So by 2040 TLDM could have :
– 4 new Scorpenes + 2 current Scorpenes as training/reserve subs
– 4 Arrowhead 140 (aka Type 31) Frigates
– 6 GOWIND class frigates
– 6 STM Turkiye Corvettes
All to be had with around the same amount of our current CAPEX allocation for TLDM. How can this happen? Yes, forget about the USD1.2 billion cost for 3x MRSS and reallocate those billions for Arrowhead 140 frigate and Scorpene submarines. Forget about expensive dedicated MCMV but get multi role OSV that can be used as MCM mothership, minelaying, underwater surveillance, SF force support, sub tender, salvage & repair ship.
… _”Forget about expensive dedicated MCMV but get multi role OSV”
That “expensive dedicated MCMV” enables a MCM capability which various navies are not convinced can be fulfilled by a multi role hull. A MCMV has basically two roles during peacetime – MCM and patrols. The crew of a multi role hull will be doing various things and might not get to spend as much time on MCM as needed. MCM is a very skill extensive game, requiring constant practice.
Also, one does not need a OSV for mine laying. Any ship with the space, rails and a GPS can do that.
The first rule for financial prudent is don’t be a penny wise pound foolish smart Alex and go buy thing that doesn’t exist.
One can’t just go buy an OSV and some minesweeper equipment and expected it to work without paying for any kind of integration work.
Dedicated minesweepers are expensive because someone had gone through the trouble of integration work, creating user, services l, operations and troubleshooting manual so on so forth. If anything it’s should be cheaper as there already existing economic of scale rather than having To do all the work yourself on the limited number of vessels you plans to buy.
Better yet,get hybrid ship that combine MCM and hydro survey roles.Pretty sure turkish shipyard have their proposal or the likes of bmt venari 85
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/venari-85-mine-warfare-hydrographic-ship/
OSVs can be build in Malaysia with no problems. We have decades of experience and has build hundreds of OSVs over the years for many PETRONAS contractors. This can be build at low costs by most of the local shipbuilders.
OSV (of around 90m in length) will be a multi-role platform that can do
– MCM mothership
– Special Forces support
– Submarine tender / support
– Hydrographic survey support
– Unmanned systems support
– Underwater infrastructure, undersea cable, pipeline security/surveillance
– HADR
Independent (vessel agnostic) MCM systems are already available, and has been deployed by multiple navies, including the Royal Navy. Such MCM system can be operated as an independent squadron, and deployed on board OSV or any other ships as required. This is similar to how helicopter squadrons or naval jet fighter squadrons deploy on board aircraft carriers.
Royal Navy OSV
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GVVfAjPbwAA88Qv.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GV-edWqaoAEao9s.jpg
Royal Navy MCM programme timeline
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GV-eXQ1WcAAw7ls.jpg
@ darthzaft
” go buy thing that doesn’t exist ”
things that you are not aware of does not mean those things doesn’t exist
Look at the Royal Navy Minehunting Capability Programme.
For TLDM i am proposing
– 3x ~90m OSV
– 4x MCM Mission Systems (Squadrons) in service, 2 based in Lumut, 2 based in Sepanggar or Bintulu
– This will be supported by 20x LMS-X FCS5509, and 2x JHSV/EPF
How would it perform as a submarine tender / support?
This is australian defence force OSV, one of a few that they have
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYe1g4AacAAOTuX.jpg
OSVs have dynamic positioning (DP), a system that can fix the position of the ship in the water without using anchors. It will stay in place even when hit with waves or currents.
That means it could stay in a position without drifting, in the middle of the ocean, or beside islands without any harbour.
The OSV could transfer fuel, food provisions, recharge batteries (battery packs in containers can be attached to the deck), even change the crew of the submarine. This could be done away from the main base, or in any harbour.
Example of US Navy dedicated submarine tender
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJJ6E4sbUAAcRR9.jpg
US Navy experiment using smaller platform supply vessels for submarine crew change and resupply
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJJ1o4KbEAAJDot.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJJ1solacAACKXh.jpg
… _ “How would it perform as a submarine tender / support”
The question was never whether it could perform as a submarine tender but whether the RMN actually needs a, subnarine tender. Just like how the RMN due to actual needsbhss zero requirement for a oiler, destroyer hospital ship, due to actual requirements it has no need for a sub tender. Not unless you see our subs operating as far as the Caribbean or the Denmark Straits.
Yes we do and have had a need for tenders to support surface assets but that’s different to subnarine tenders and is also driven by weather/sea conditions, not only actual replenishment.
For what we do with them, plus geography, we clearly have no need for sub tenders. This is in contrast with USN subs which can be away for months on end without docking and in out of area operations. Same reason why if we had a need for say a 6,000 tonne surface combatant, it would be because of the need to carry more things, nit range and endurance.
Our ships are rarely more than 3 data away to the nearest port/base and if they had to stay on station longer, have, reserve fuel, water and which can be used at the Co’s discretion. We also can get assets which we might have little use for in the off chance we are faced with another Ops Fajar situation which was an anomaly. We ant get assets for every single scebarios we might face. Or is that me speaking on “behalf of the armed forces” again it me supposedly basing everything on it “depends” which it does in the real world. Yes it may be a “proposal” as might be said again but it has to be based on reality. Explain to any RMN officer who know their jobs well, that we need oilers and subnarine tenders and see the reaction.
Navies have to decide what they need; what they can sustain;the necessary trade offs; what the government can afford and what has a higher chance of being used.
@hulu
You mean the stopgaps force upon them by politicians and they still wanted three ‘survivable, non-complex warships’ designed from the outset to be motherships for autonomous mine-hunting boats.?
Zaft – “Dedicated minesweepers are expensive”.
“Dedicated minesweepers” are expensive” because of the way they are constructed, i.e. special hulls which could withstand the shock of underwater explosions, etc, etc. The thing however is that now that modern MCMVs have no wire sweeps and thus are not required to go into “mine fields” there is less of a need for specialised hard and complex to construct hulls.
In short like everything else it “depends” on what a particular navy wants, its preferences, the trade off it’s willing to meet, what it can afford and the importance it places on MCM. Some see a modular approach as the way to go, others won’t touch it with a barge pole.
Many MCM and survey people are not convinced that a non dedicated platform to do what is very specialised work requiring hard to acquire and complex skill sets are the way to go. Pros and cons.
” we clearly have no need for sub tenders ”
I forsee that there will be a high probability of Sepanggar being destroyed witin the first few hours of hostility.
I forsee the need to resupply / rearm our submarines away from Sepanggar. Either around remote islands such as Banggi, Tioman, Natuna; or from harbours such as Kuching, Kuantan, Kuala Terengganu or even Singapore.
Having at least 1 of the OSV always out on normal patrols (say off the east coast of peninsular) but fully equipped as a sub tender will increase the probability of the sub force to survive the 1st strike when the hostility starts.
@ darthzaft
That “stopgap” that you mentioned is now a permanent plan. If that is good enough for UK, why isn’t it good enough for a navy that have drastically less budget than UK?
Why isn’t it good enough for a nation that has build hundreds of OSVs (can easily be 100% build locally)?
Zaft – “go buy thing that doesn’t exist”
For countries which want to go down this route, there are a number of companies offering MCM and ASW modules [in 20/40 foot containers] which can be operated standalone.
… – “mainly for better SAM and endurance*
Hardy. Unless our requirements significantly change and we intend on deploying and staying on station in the South Pacific or Gulf of Mexico for extended periods, no need for a larger hull for the endurance provided. If indeed we get a larger hull it will be because we need to place certain things on it which we can’t on a smaller hull.
As pointed out before the displacements of our ships are driven not just by funding realities but also actual requirements and threat perceptions. BTW those requirements and theat perceptions differ somewhat from Singapore, in case direct comparisons are made, again.
… – “I forsee that there will be a high probability of Sepanggar being destroyed witin the first few hours of hostility”
If you foresee that, do you also foresee that any tenders we have may be sunk or the subs themselves destroyed?
… – “I forsee the need to resupply”
I foresee the need for a very long list of things, which on paper can be possible but in reality even the likes of the U.S can devote resources to every single threat.
Do we take into account that chemicals might be used on our airfields, thus we should train everyone to operate on a contaminated environment and to decontamination everything.
Do we divert scare resources from things which have a greater utility, to spend on a ABM system to counter Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles? I know you are convinced China is a threat we can focus on with assymetrical warfare and deterence.
Do we foresee the possibility that even before a shot is fired that cyber attacks can paralyse the national power, IT and comma grid? Or spoof all our radars, GPSs, radios, cell phones and SATCOM?
Do we focus on every singke possible threat imaginable?
… – “Sepanggar being destroyed witin the first few hours of hostility”
By the nefarious Chinese no doubt. The same ones who worry the U.S and Japan. The same ones who have a much larger population, military and defence budget, the largest manufacturering capacity in the world, tertiary skills we can only dream off and a high tech industrial base?
Reality : some threats we can realistically handle, others we can’t even if we raided the budget by a tenfold, placed the economy on a warfooting and mobilised ever make from the age of 17 to 70.
Putting what you foresee apart, do you factor in that even if we adopted all your “proposals” which look good on paper and on PowerPoint slides, as a nation of 30 odd million and with a economy of a certain size, we aren’t able to sustain ourselves in a long drawn war? The economy would collapse. Never mind the stocks of ammo, missiles and spares, we don’t even have food security. Neither a high tech industrial base or a defence industry which can provide for certain needs.
On top of that as mentioned, the MAF like others in the region is not trained, equipped or structured or has the skill sets or tertiary capabilities to do certain things. Realty. Some threats we can handle, others we cant. Unless one subscribe to magical thinking. Even the U.S. military can deal with every single imaginable threat for crying out loud.
“number of companies offering MCM and ASW modules [in 20/40 foot containers]”
This was an idea I broached on converting Keris class into MCMV via adaptable modules and turning the Ada class into our sole LMS fleet.
… – “of Sepanggar being destroyed witin the first few hours of hostility”
By a very powerful enemy who enjoys a major overmatch over us in a major war rather than say a limited one with a neighbour over an overlapping claim, no doubt. I ask because it “depends” on the nature of the conflict.
As for Sepanggar “being destroyed within the first few hours” sounds dramatic. Yes I mention dramatic because you have a clear tendency to be overly dramatic and excited. Would the Chinese need to destroy the base? Sepsnggar is not Yokosuka or Pearl. They would save their missiles for the Americans and Japan. Who are we? Plus they don’t need to fire anything. Cutting us off from their economy would lead to our capitulation. Or place a few mines off Sepanggar which would take effort to clear and when we do, they lay more.
As for getting a tender based not on the need to support subs operating thousands of NM away [the traditional role of tenders] this is similar to the claim that with an oiler, even if we hardly deploy far and wide and when we do it’s far more practical to refuel from a foreign port, we can support our allies, as you said, does this make sense? We can hardly support ourselves, never mind better resourced allies.
… – ” If that is good enough for UK, why isn’t it good enough for a navy that have drastically less budget than UK”
Context. Justike how direct comparisons can’t be made between the MMEA and the USCG and the RMN and the RSN and Vietnamese navy, sun wise, can be made with the RN which is has different requirements, etc.
… – “Why isn’t it good enough for a nation that has build hundreds of OSVs (can easily be 100% build locally”.
It might becaude that nation’s navy for various pertinent reasons does not see OSVs doing what other assers can. Please don’t say that just becaude others see a need for OSVs that the RMN shoukd by default do so too. That would be silly. And no I’m not speaking on behalf of anybody. The RMN actually plans and has a good idea as to what it needs and doesn’t. The fact that it has no need for RoRos, OSVs, hospital ships, oilers, carriers, a fixed wing jet capability and other things is self explainatory . Like I said, tell a serving RMN we need oilers and RoRos and sub tenders and that with assymetrical tactics we can send the PLAN running back to Hainan, see how loud he laughs.
Hulu “That “stopgap” that you mentioned is now a permanent plan. If that is good enough for UK, why isn’t it good enough for a navy that have drastically less budget than UK?”
If It’s so good then why the RN wanted three more ‘survivable, non-complex warships’ designed from the outset to be motherships for autonomous mine-hunting boats?
“I forsee that there will be a high probability of Sepanggar being destroyed witin the first few hours of hostility.”
Here’s a simpler and cheaper solution. Go build another subs base on the peninsular.
Azlan “For countries which want to go down this route, there are a number of companies offering MCM and ASW modules [in 20/40 foot containers] which can be operated standalone.”
If the RMN want to for the next 30-40 years hunt mines the good old way. Sure.
If not they would require a mother ship type vessel that can carry all the mine hunter UAV,USV and UUV
“This was an idea I broached on converting Keris class into MCMV via adaptable modules and turning the Ada class into our sole LMS fleet”
That was the idea, that’s why there’s a deck aft. The problem is the Chinese don’t produce modular mission modules. For Western stuff integration and certification is verboten, as Marhalim mentioned.
Zaft – “If the RMN want to for the next 30-40 years hunt mines the good old way. Sure”.
What on earth are you on about? Who said anything about a wire sweep? Mission modules to control USVs and UUVs….
… – “. Go build another subs base on the peninsular”
Well, he would say that that base could also be destroyed “destroyed witin the first few hours of hostility”.
Zaft – “Go build another subs base on the peninsular”
Well, he would say that that base could also be destroyed “destroyed witin the first few hours of hostility”. A tender makes sense of our subs are operating for long periods away, but getting one just in case Sepanggar is hit? Can’t cater for every possibility.