SHAH ALAM: New hull for KD Laksamana Muhamad Amin. The third ship from the Laksamana class corvette – KD Laksamana Muhammad Amin (pennant number 136) is undergoing a refit at the Grade Marine One Shipyard Sdn Bhd in Lumut where she will get a new hull as part of the RMN’s Obsolescence Programme.
This is the same method as the OP programme for the FAC fleet. RMN chief engineer Rear Admiral Shaiful Adli Chung Abdullah explained the project in a social media post today.
Kππ¨π‘ππππ‘ ππππππ π₯ππππ§ ππ ππππ¦ππ ππ‘π π π¨πππ π ππ ππ ππ‘
KUALA LUMPUR, 24 Dis – KD LAKSAMANA MUHAMMAD AMIN yang merupakan salah satu kapal dari Skuadron Korvet Ke 24 kini sedang menjalani pasang pulilh (refit) di Grade One Marine Shipyard Sdn Bhd. Di atas inisiatif luar kotak (out of the box) warga the Navy People dan KEMENTAH, pelaksanaan refit KD LAKSAMANA MUHAMMAD AMIN adalah amat unik. Diantara keunikan yang dimaksudkan ialah pelaksanaan repowering serta penukaran sebahagian besar badan kapal (hull) menggunakan konsep re-hull.
Repowering adalah skop perkhidmatan selenggaraan melibatkan penggantian kesemua jentera utama, kotak gear, shafting, propeller dan set janakuasa termasuk switchboard serta kabel berkaitan. Manakala bagi konsep βre-hull, blok hull yang baharu dibina dan sebahagian peralatan yang terdapat di badan kapal yang lama dibawa keluar, dirombak pulih dan dipasang di hull baharu tanpa mengubah sepenuhnya reka bentuk asal. Dalam erti kata lain, sebahagian besar badan kapal yang lama akan dilupus sebagai besi buruk.
Pendekatan repowering dan re-hull ini telah mendapat perhatian berbagai Agensi Kerajaan yang lain. Ini disebabkan ianya lebih cepat, ekonomik dan memberi return on investment (ROI) yang baik kepada perkhidmatan. Pendekatan out of the box ini juga telah mendapat perhatian pihak juruaudit, di mana telah dilaksanakan pemeriksaan oleh pihak yang berkaitan. Buat masa ini, hasil audit ialah: Totally out of the box method. Seems that there are 2 KD LAKSAMANA MUHAMMAD AMIN, but actually not. The method is still in that box, BUT in a larger box and in accordance with current Government procedure.
Hasil inisiatif repowering dan re-hull ini bakal membolehkan KD LAKSAMANA MUHAMAMD AMIN diberi nafas baharu dengan peningkatan keupayaan beroperasi, jangka hayat lebih panjang, supportability yang lebih baik dan memberi ROI yang tinggi kepada TLDM/Kerajaan. Lebih membanggakan, kesemua aktiviti reka bentuk, pembinaan dan selenggaraan dilaksanakan sepenuhnya oleh anak tempatan yang mana dengan tidak secara langsung mendukung industri pertahanan negara.
Sebelum ini pendekatan repowering dan re-hull boleh dianggap MUSTAHIL untuk direalisasikan. Justeru, warga Navy People wajar berbangga dengan inisiatif luar kotak yang dihasilkan dan disaran terus berinovasi untuk meningkatkan keupayaan operasi Armada TLDM, khususnya dalam aspek Man, Machine and Method (Process).
Sumber : Markas Tentera Laut, Bahagian Kejuruteraan
Artikel : Laksamana Muda Datuk Ir. Ts. Mohd Shaiful Adli Chung
Foto : Lt Kdr Jeffery Daneil Ng TLDM
Under the 15-to-5 programme, both the FAC fleet and the Laksamana class corvettes were supposed to be paid off once their replacements are built. As the 15-to-5 was included in DWP 2019 – which expired in 2029 or replaced by a new one by the Parliament – I am guessing the replacement ships will not be available until 2030 or even later. Hence the need for the OP to ensure enough hulls are available to go to sea until then. This with even the LCS (six ships) and LMS Batch II (eight ships) coming on line by 2030.
HT to DM. Merry Christmas to everyone celebrating
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
With pressure on more hulls this is the best solution. Renew thw whole squadron in this way.
I first heard of such plans in 2013. One of issues faced with the clsss is the condition of the hulls which are worn out. Together with various other issues this is the reason why the RMN has no intention of upgrading them, preferring to save the cash on new assets.
@Azlan
“preferring to save the cash on new assets.”
As we all know, if possible in any ways RMN wanted new assets but unfortunately they had to extend the Laksamana’s life. This may also be indication that we may not get LCS batch 2 anytime soon even after all 1st batch were completed. Hopefully with this re-hull and re-powering, the maintenance cost of the Laksamanas will go down substantially.
Curious how they can copy out a new hull without the original blueprints. 3D scanning wouldn’t work as it will just copy out the imperfections. While they mention a high ROI, is this really a cost efficient method seeing as they are replacing a large part of the ship, with new propulsion system, & likely new wirings as well?
If yes, it is something even MMEA could pursue since they have quite some old boats which would have been sunk as reefs otherwise they could be relifed and continue service.
If we can build new hulls for those existing laksamanas, we can build more of the same for LMS batch 2 requirements. That laksamana hull design is much better in performance than the chinese LMS68 hull design.
Hopefully the OP for Laksamana Mohd Amin will come out better than what is done to KD Sri Perlis
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAIXL9QVQAYXqOV.jpg
OP rehull for KD Perkasa is also ongoing, and said to be complete by early 2022.
MMEA don’t have the OE money to do this
Luqman – ”but unfortunately they had to extend the Laksamanaβs life”
Plans to rehull the class was made as far back as 2013 which was when I first heard of it. The conundrum was was how much to spend based on the fact that replacements were nowhere in sight; the Laksamanas and FACs were still needed and that spending more than the absolute minimum was not a good use of funds/poor ROI [something I mentioned often in relation to various things we do].
The Laksamanas are a prime example of the end user and taxpayer having to pay the penalty when politics overides things. Time and again the RMN objected was was told to keep silent [Mahathir was adamant we get them]. The result is we got a ship unsuited to our operational requirements, had almost no commonality and was fitted with various 1980’s vintage systems. We also had various technical issues which were never resolved; amongst them issues with the Aspide and tracker. We spent millions to replace the CMS and EW suite on 2 of the ships; as well as millions on spares and to add various things but years later most of the electronics where inoperable due to obsolescence issues … At one stage only GPMGs were operable ….
gonggok – ”better than what is done to KD Sri Perlis”
Are there actually issues with the hulls itself? Also, from the pic it appears much more was performed than a new hull. The superstructure has been somewhat altered.
“out a new hull without the original blueprints.”
When the ships were bought every single blue print, documrtation and manual, relating to every aspect of the ship [from the weight and thickness of the keel, to the complete dimensions of the superstructure to the amount of water pressure the bulkheads can withstand]was provided.
“a high ROI, is this really a cost efficient method seeing as they are replacing a large part of the ship, with new propulsion system, & likely new wirings as well?”
If it wasn’t they wouldn’t be doing it now would they? Cheaper than buying a new ship.
Luqman – ”indication that we may not get LCS batch 2 anytime soon”
This is related to the LMS Batch 2 which if they come ; will replace the FACs and Laksamanas.
Luqman – ”maintenance cost of the Laksamanas will go down substantially”
Will go down but not necessarily ”substantially” given the engines, gearbox, shaft and various other things are aged.
gonggok – ”design is much better in performance than the chinese LMS68
You actually know this for a fact? The Laksamanas are notorious for their bad seakeeping; designed to be employed in the narrow confined Med and Persian Gulf. We employ them in the open waters of the EZZ, including during the monsoon season; on extended patrols. The Laksamanas may be a larger hull with a higher freeboard but isn’t necessarily better.
@Gonggok
“we can build more of the same for LMS batch 2 requirements.”
LMS batch 2 requirements were for a much larger ship am I right? So no need for more of these Laksamana hulls. Some commenters here before said that the Laksamanas were too small thus RMN opt to get bigger LMS than Keris (which is of around the same size as Laksamana)
The engines, shaft, generators and shafts will be replaced. Only the superstructure and gun turrets will be recycled
“If it wasnβt they wouldnβt be doing it now would they?”
Anyone pushing for a project would tell you its ROI is great, including the salesman for 1MDB, but is that the truth? Replacing nearly the whole ship, wouldn’t it make more sense (financially & long term) to make a new ship then reuse the systems?
Ahh but then it would be an entirely new ship and money has to come from DE budget (RM1.148 Bil), by rehulling they could unlock the larger OE budget (RM 3.7 Bil?) thereby getting 1to1 nearly new ships without touching DE which could be used to buy more new things or even to complete LCS. That’s genius!
So whether they really intended on the high ROI, which I doubt, or the purpose is to utilise money which normally cannot be used to get new things (or nearly new in this case)? Only they will know but that is a real out of the box thinking.
Luqman – “So no need for more of these Laksamana”
There is indeed no such intention. We require a hull better suited to our operating environment.
gonggok – “that the Laksamanas were too small”
It’s a corvette sized design which looks smaller than it actually is because every single space is utilised. It was marketed as having the firepower of a frigate but on a corvette, to certain navies.
@Azlan
“Will go down but not necessarily βsubstantiallyβ given the engines, gearbox, shaft and various other things are aged.”
As Marhalim and RMN had mentioned, the ship will go for both re-powering and re-hull which would drive the maintenance cost substantially.
“This is related to the LMS Batch 2 which if they come ; will replace the FACs and Laksamanas.”
Indeed they will replace the Laksamanas but not before 2030 as the Laksamanas will soldier on until 2030s together with LMS batch 2 which at the time would fill the shoe for the yet unbuild LCS batch 2 or Kedah batch 2. Just to show that older ships that should be replaced but would then need to serve for a little more time together with it’s intended replacements.
“Anyone pushing for a project would tell you its ROI is great,”
In this case it’s not a salesman but the RMN [not the yard] who looked at the possibility as far back as 8 years ago and examined all the figures. It was something they’d prefer not to do but had to eventually do.
They presented the figures to the government and said this is what we have to do if we have no alternative. Ultimately the whole exercise is still cheaper than buying a new ship and the costs are felt to be justified as it enables the class to stay in service indefinitely until replacements are funded. What was undisputedly not a good ROI was subjecting the class to a full upgrade, which is why it was never seriously considered.
“but that is a real out of the box thinking”
Indeed. Driven by sheer necessity and inly decided upon after years of contemplation.
Luqman – ” LMS batch 2 which at the time would fill the shoe for the yet unbuild LCS batch 2 or Kedah batch 2″
What will “fill the shoe” for the delayed LCSs will continue to be the Lekius and Kasturis.
LCS in its current form should be cancelled, partied involved drag to court and order from foreign shipyard two new frigates. Loss of 6 to 7 billion is inevitable anyway
The LCS builder is owned by the government, which guarantees the profit of the parent company itself.
In the Laksamana’s case, can we re-hull the ship (to a different shape) to make it more seaworthy in heavy seas?
As long as it meets the requirements
“In this case itβs not a salesman but the RMN”
It is the TLDM which is the salesman pushing this rehulling case to the Government that allowed them to use the OE for such purpose, otherwise they would have to either get 2nd hand ships or brand new, whichever the case will be funded from DE. But imagine taking an old car and replacing 70-80% of parts and expect to use it for next 10-20 years, could it be more cost effective than buying new? Maybe 20% cheaper than new, but high ROI(as described) it certainly isn’t!
There is no salesman pushing this rehulling project. It is the brainchild of First Admiral Shaiful Adli Chung Abdullah.
There is a few reasons why RMN has gone for this route.
1. Can use Opex budget, instead of Capex budget
2. Ships are not cars, saltwater is very harsh and refits are a norm for all ships. Building a new Hull for a very extensive refit costs just a little bit more, rather than repairing the existing hull. New hull cost is also straightforward upfront, unlike repairing where you can find more things to repair and pay after tearing the hull apart.
3. With new hulls, the ship will be almost brand new in all but name. Giving at least 20 more years of service, unlike if maintaining the worn-out hull.
4. Refit costs are lower than building new ships for RMN specific scenario, as newbuilds will have more political hands that will jack up the price many times over. Just look at how expensive RMN paid for each of the chinese LMS. Refits are mostly below politicians radar.
5. The delays of new build projects. RMN would not have gone with this route if their original plans for LCS went smoothly. More Capex money now need to be appropriated for the LCS, to save the project.
”It is the TLDM which is the salesman pushing this rehulling case to the Government ”
Look at the fine print before hastily reaching conclusions …. The idea to rehull was made years ago and was a feasibility study and was aimed at HAng Tuah. Within the navy the idea was a standing joke as it was an indication of how bad things had become. The government did not need as salesmanship as you confidently claim as it was very happy to rehull the class in order to avoid buying new. It was presented as a worst case scenario and one which was not actively pushed but had to be resorted to in order to avoid the class being retired with no replacement in sight.
” Maybe 20% cheaper than new, but high ROI(as described) it certainly isnβt!”
That is you opinion… If one could not afford to buy a new car indefinitely but absolutely needed a car and could only afford ”upgrading” the present car; in order to have a car; then for that person it is a good ROI……
gobggok – ” not have gone with this route if their original plans for LCS went smoothly”
It would not have resorted to this if sufficient LMSs had enetered service. Rehulling the Laksamanas and work performed on the FACs are related to the LMSs, delays with the LCSs have no bearing. What will have a bearing in relation to the LCS dekay are the Lekius and Kasturis.
And meanwhile while we are re-hulling our ships, Pinoy is ordering 2 new frigates from South Korea.
@gonggok
The idea comes from TLDM, certainly they sold that idea to the beancounters whom accepted it. If no one was pushing it, it would have died stilborn.
1. Exactly what I said.
2. Normal refits don’t include changing out nearly the whole ship itself, not even SLEP does that. Reusing the balance old parts comes with their own set of problems, much like trying to reuse parts of an old car even if nearly everything got changed.
3. Getting nearly brand new ships without touching DE. It was thinking out of the box. But nearly new, meant those reused items will be even more maintenance intensive than the ship overall.
4. Everything is political, mate, even for refurbs. Grade One Marine could easily remake a new boat and port just the systems over but that would have been classified a new ship and would have to be paid from OE. Hence see Point 3. But in the long run would have been longer lasting & less maintenance intensive than a half-half boat.
5. Even with full complement LCS, they might still go for rehulling since its the job of LMS fleet to replace the FACs & PCs. The fact that LMS2 isn’t on the horizon forced them to go for it. The stall of LCS only exacerbate matters. Indeed more capex will be needed to save LCS but on top is more to build further LMS fleet.
Zainal – ” Pinoy is ordering 2 new frigates from South Korea”
Good for the PN but also look at the context,the state of the current fleet, the number of modern assets its inducted into service over the past few decades, etc.
To use for another 20 years…Are they gonna upgrade the missiles system also?
Hazone,
Replacing Aspide will lead to the need to replace the radar and CMS. The intention has always been to spend as little as possible to keep them in service for EEZ patrols. Doubt if this will change.
Guys, Adli is a Laksamana Muda, i.e. Rear Admiral, not Laksamana Pertama ya….
This is a classic reinterpretation of the Repair-by-replacement method used by the RMN in many previous incidents, except previously it was used for equipment. An example would be KD KASTURI gearbox that was changed to a new one when it underwent refit in the 90’s.
I heard the hull form is a new design developed by a local naval architect firm. Cannot use the existing hull form as might have issues with Fincantieri.
Thanks for correcting me
API69 – “Cannot use the existing hull form”
If it is for KD Laksamana Mohd Amin, fully okay to build as per blueprint. But if you are building a hull for a new ship, yes need to modify. PT PAL did change the LPD width slightly when building follow on Makassars, as to not pay any royalty to Dosun.
azlan – “It would not have resorted to this if sufficient LMSs had enetered service”
Original LMS plan is for 2 ships to be build in malaysia for a longer lead time (2 build in china in RMK11, 2 build in Malaysia in RMK12 and 6 more batch 2 to be ordered in RMK12). As it is, the 4 ships now delivered by 2021 is as per original LMS timeline, even with Covid delays. So what do you mean by not have resorted to this?
joe –
2. ship “refits” over time will change out the whole ship, even the hull. US NAVY USS Constitution, the oldest floating commissioned warship at 220+ years old has gone through more refits than any frigates afloat probably has less than 10% of its original wood left. But it is still USS Constitution, not another ship.
3. The hull, engines, gearbox, electrical systems are all new. Reused items is just the superstructure and weapons. Even western navies, such as US Navy and Royal Danish Navy recycle their weapons. For example Iver Huidtfelt Frigates uses 100% weapons recycled from previous ships.
4. That boat will be a new boat mate, just with the identity of the old one.
5. Does a future RMN facing future threats need FAC with guns only and PCs? What is RMN future threats?
In the end, if all 4 Laksamanas to be rehulled (first is Mohd Amin), plus all 4 Handalan Spica M (first is Perkasa) also rehulled, and existing 2 Vospers (Johor and Perlis) plus 2 ex MMEA vospers (Sundang and Panah) also undergoing OP programmes, also refit repower now completed for 5 FACs (KD Jerong, KD Todak, KD Serang, KD Baung, KD Ganas); does RMN need a LMS batch 2 in the near future (before 2030?)
As all of these (and also the LMS) are basically patrol boats, with all missiles removed, isn’t it better for them to be actually operated under MMEA jurisdiction? China PLAN is currently transferring twenty relatively new 056 class corvettes to the Chinese Coast Guard.
@gonggok
2. Replacements for Old Ironside is more to do with history & heritage pride rather than economic sense. Take their serving ships for example, the oldest vessels, Nimitz class, will be replaced with Gerald Ford class rather than a rehull despite still being the most potent ships on water.
3. If you have to replace 70-80% of something, your ROI goes down the drain.
4. Yes, they are getting almost new but funded from DE rather than OE, which traditionally goes to replacing obsolete or worn parts, typical repairs & refits, base maintenance & upkeep, the usual things… but now they can use it to a new boat, in a way.
5. The rehulls are just to tide us over until we get sufficient LMS2s in the meantime TLDM still need to show presence hence they had to continue using existing assets. In peace time, not having missiles is not a dealbreaker to do their job.
To face future threats, Marhalim have mentioned LMS2 is expected to be better armed for war time purpose. As for the rehulled vessels, when time comes, they can be handed down to MMEA as per their predecessors before.
gonggok – ” isnβt it better for them to be actually operated under MMEA jurisdiction?”
On paper yes. In reality [1] With no replacements in sight you seriously think the RMN will readily hand them over? [2] The MMEA does not have the manpower, nor the shore support infrastucture or the budget to absord 14 FACs and 4 Laksamanas- it doesn’t[3] For extended patrols in the EEZ – a primary role of the MMEA – FACs have extremely poor seakeeping and habitability. Together with their age [upgrades can’t overcome all inherent limitations], as well as other issues the MMEA would fight tooth and nail to avoid being stuck with the FACs and Laksamanas [which also have poor seakeeping and habitability].
gonggok – “So what do you mean by not have resorted to this?”
I’ll tell you ..
Thank you for the detailed timeline on the LMS but it’s not needed and is only part of the narrative. The FACs were supposed to have been replaced years ago, the addition of just 4 LMSs does not meaan they can be fully retired and the LMSs also came late, as in years after a FAC replacement should have arrived..
Which is why the RMN had no choice but to perform certain work on the FACs and Laksamanas to keep them in service for the forseeable future.
If the FACs and Laksamanas had been replaced on time as originally planned the RMN would not have had to resort to what it’s doing…
@gonggok
“does RMN need a LMS batch 2 in the near future (before 2030?)”
Lets take a look back at 15 to 5 plan, RMN needs more ships (and much bigger ships) than what it have now that the plan was to have 12 LCS, 18 NGPV and 12 LMS that is 42 ships that are much larger and more capable than the current FACs. The fact that RMN want those LMS batch 2 right now shows that they really need those extra ships to fulfill their operational requirements. Of course as time goes on the upgraded FACs and Laksamanas will be replaced by either more LMS or more NGPVs. Delaying the LMS batch 2 will also have consequences down the line for example need to spend more money on getting more ships in shorter timeframe as compared to the current plans.
What I meant was
Original plan in 15 to 5 was for additional 6 LMS batch 2 within 2021-2025. The original plan for LMS batch 1 was to replace the Laksamanas 1 to 1, which is why 4 was ordered, built and now all delivered to RMN.
But now all 4 Laksamanas will be put through thorogh refits that amounts to basically a new ship, along with many other existing ships.
In RMN own words
” Bagi mempertingkatkan kesiagaan aset, beberapa inisiatif dan program yang telah dilaksanakan pada tahun lalu akan diteruskan secara berperingkat sehingga tahun 2024 yang merangkumi:
β’ Program menangani keusangan atau Obsolescence Program (OP) untuk KD PERDANA, KD GANYANG, Skuadron Korvet Ke-24 dan Skuadron MCMV Ke-26.
β’ Pemasangan 14 buah Indigenous Combat Management System (iCMS) untuk kapal Skuadron FAC dan;
β’ Program Repowering 6 buah kapal serta 5 buah bot tempur. ”
So all the Laksamanas, FACs and MCMVs will be thoroughly refit/repowered/rehulled/rebuilt, that will give them at least 15-20 more years of service. So there are now about 26 ships that was originally planned to be retired by now (4 Laksamanas, 14 FAC, 4 Vosper PC, 4 MCMVs), now refitted/going to be refitted to almost new condition. All of this is not in the original 15 to 5 plans.
So with that much investment on existing ships to prolong their lives, will we ever actually see the need for LMS batch 2 before 2025 or even 2030? How would all this extended usefulness of existing ships (nearly all that are only fit for patrol purposes only) fit into the RMN future plans?
As part of the original plan 27 Kedahs were supposed to replace the Vosper PCs and FAC fleet. As time went by it became apparent that there would not be enough Kedahs. Thus, plans to replace the FACs gained momentum. In the 1990’s the RMN had submitted proposals to upgrade the fleet with the view of retiring them in the early to mid 2000’s.
Delays however forced the RMN to look at other options and the 4 LMSs came on time [minus Covid related delays] but were still very late and insufficient.
As such the RMN had to resort to various means to keep the FACs and Laksananas operational indefinitely but to spend the bare minimum.
The plan is for LMS Batch 2, the only issue here is whether funding will be made available despite it being part of the DWP 2019. There is no issue whether the RMN need them or not. The OP is the back up plan which may well turn into the only plan that survives contact with the enemy, the lack of money.
Well said Marhalim.
From the words of Laksamana Muda Adli himself (from his FB)
” Selagi LCS tak siap, sukar dari bajet baharu (Capex)…. merudum Navy ”
Would be interesting to know what is the cost of KD Laksamana Mohd Amin rehull, when compared to an all new ship like the Chinese LMS.
Anyway has MINDEF finally decided on the fate of the Maharajalela LCS? Or still No Action Talk Only??
“despite it being part of the DWP 2019”
DWP2019 is made by a government separate & opposed the current one. I doubt the Government of 2021/2022 would put much stock to DWP2019, besides, the DWP itself is flawed with zero commitments & no timelines. Like all other PH Government policies it was just for shiok sendiri with little to no outcome.
The DWP 2019 was approved by the Parliament and it remains the guidance for the Defence Ministry unless its repealed by Parliament or when it expires in 2029. Of course if they don’t fund any of the things mentioned in DWP it is OK though if they deviate too much from the DWP they need to explain it to Parliament. That’s why whenever the Defence Ministry talked about any plan of procurement they will refer to the 15 to 5, CAP55 and the Army 4thGen as all of these are mentioned in the DWP
gonggok – ”4 Laksamanas will be put through thorough refits that amounts to basically a new ship”
Yes but only fit for low threat roles. The CMS, radar and other things are long inoperable. Also, the new hull and other new things does not mitigate seakeeping and other issues inherent with the design. The class was intended for the Persian Gulf; we use in for extended EEZ patrols and bad weather including the monsoon season.
gonggok – ”on existing ships to prolong their lives, will we ever actually see the need for LMS batch 2 before 2025 ”
Of course….. The FACs and Laksamanas – despite new hulls and other stuff are fit only for low key taskings. Both also have poor seakeeping and habitability. In the case of the FACs – to be fair – we have long used them for roles they were not designed for. They are originally intended for littoral sea denial which does nit require them to be at sea for weeks or in adverse weather.
As such; fully fitted out LMSs Batch 2s are urgently needed. They will be better armed and have better seakeeping and habitability : absolutely no question they are needed.
Another area which needs addressing are the MCMVs. At one point we had the most capable MCMV fleet in the region and the first GRO hulled ones. Now that capability has atrophied; the Mahamirus are aged and their primary means of deal with certain types of mines remains the wire sweep/oropesa.
gonggok – ”is the cost of KD Laksamana Mohd Amin rehull, when compared to an all new ship like the Chinese LMS.”
True but we can make an educated/fairly accurate guess given that the Laksamanas will receive a new hull and various components related to its propulsion and machinery. A new ship will incluse the costs of sensors, electronics, weapons, etc.
gonggok – ”Anyway has MINDEF finally decided”
What MINDEF decides and what the MOF and other agencies decide can be profoundly different.
azlan – “Yes but only fit for low threat roles”
Even the brand new Chinese LMS is only fit for low threat roles. Which is totally fine for peacetime use, but are we just gearing RMN to be fit for low threat roles only? Isn’t such low threat roles should be properly undertaken by MMEA instead? What are the realistic future threats that RMN need to prepare for?
Azlan – “fully fitted out LMSs Batch 2s”
Fully fitted out against what kind of threats? Still for low threat roles?
Azlan – “What MINDEF decides and what the MOF and other agencies decide can be profoundly different”
Okay, so right now what is the whole of government decision on the LCS?
The 15 to 5, CAP55 and the Army 4thGen were the ideas from TLDM, TUDM & ATM respectively during last BN rule, way before DWP2019, and were supported by BN until then hence the current Government should see no reasons not to reconnect with those plans, since they supported them in the past. But there is little, or rather no, reference about DWP2019, rite?
As it is, even 15 to 5 have been changed drastically from what originally specified in DWP2019, and if it were to follow the spirit of a DWP, that would not have been allowed. A new DWP would have to come out and replace the previous one, thereby legitimising current actions (UK’s 1957 DWP cancelled nearly all manned aircraft which got reversed by a 1966 DWP). Just that, unless questioned, the current Government seem to give a ratsass about a DWP that was not their creation.
The current government might have other thoughts about the DWP, but the civil servants especially the bean counters at the Finance Ministry, will try to adhere to the goals of the DWP as much of possible. They dont care if no money is given to any DWP related stuff but if there is something to be funded outside the scope of the DWP, they will balk and resist. And they will have something to hide behind which no amounts of surat sokongan and surat kuning are signed and forwarded to them
gonggok – ”Even the brand new Chinese LMS is only fit for low threat roles”
The difference is the Chinese LMSs can be easily fitted out. albeit with Chinese stuff whilst the Laksamanas will require a new radar, new CMS, etc – that’s the key difference…
”but are we just gearing RMN to be fit for low threat roles only? Isnβt such low threat roles should be properly undertaken by MMEA instead?”
Why are you asking questions which are plainly obvious and have answers for which you already know?
To answer a question you keep asking [again] : until the MMEA has the sufficient funds to acquire the assets it needs; plus the needed funding and shore support infrastructure for those assets to be operated and maintained; the RMN is the only agency able to do the MMEA’s job…
gomggok – ”so right now what is the whole of government decision on the LCS”
MINDEF decides and recommends a point of action but approval is with the cabinet; with the MOF, PM’s Department [EPU Planning Unit] and other stakeholders having a final and major say…
gonggok – ”Fully fitted out against what kind of threats?”
This issue has been discussed extensively in the past. Here is your answer; the idea is for a smaller and cheaper to operate LMS to perform various roles not requiring a larger and more expensive frigate. As part of the 15/15 [partly dead as a dodo bird in terms of force structure]; the LMS’s are intended to be fitted with modular payloads to perform ASuW, ASW and MCM. That is the plan; whether or not the RMN is successful with the modular payload approach remains to be seen. Some navies swear on it; some don’t touch it with a barge pole; depends. Unlike other navies the RMN decided on the modular approach not because it was convinced it was the answer but out of sheer neccessity…
gonggok – ” Still for low threat roles?”
You are assuming…The FACs and Laksamanas are intended for low threat peacetime roles in which their limitations will not be a factor; situations where a gun for self defence will suffice… If a conflict arises the obviously they will not be placed in a situation where they come up against better equipped enemy surface units.
The LMS Batch 2s are intended for various type of roles which they can perform on their own or alongside other more capable assets; whether it’s ”low threat” or not”. That’s the difference…