SHAH ALAM: On budget and schedule, that was the message by TS Kamarulzaman Badaruddin on the Littoral Mission Ship (LMS) project, that was conceived and contracted during his tenure as the RMN chief. The retired admiral contacted Malaysian Defence the other day- unprompted-following news that the third LMS had been launched in China. Asked whether I could share it to the public, he said yes.
Third LMS after her launch. RMN
“Alhamdullilah. Project on time (except for the three or four months delay due to crew recalled home because of COVID) and most importantly on budget! (despite a number of VO (variation orders). The LMS only cost 20 per cent of the LCS but can fulfill 80 per cent of the LCS role. Cost to operate is expected 20 per cent of LCS. Concept of “fit for purpose and 1st Government-to-Government programme (no third party or middle man involvement). Some people ask about capability – as I said its “fit for purpose” and easily can be upgraded based on the design “FBNW – fitted for but now with” for SSM and other special roles with containerized capability fit.”
Asked to explain further, Kamarulzaman said he was proud of the project
“because I proposed different approach – G to G and FIXED costs – must be on time to protect China’s image and pride! (that’s why now all 4 LMS progress very well – I’m so happy and proud as this project was my Baby!!”
He added :
“Chinese shipyards no longer what people think of it before. I visited our LMS program at Wuchang. Their work culture and tech is way ahead of us and even western. 1st time I saw they introduce fully automatic robots to weld piping works!! it can do 24/7 and perfect weld and no wastage!”
Kamarul also said the decision to have all four LMS manufactured in China was a blessing in disguise.
“They could hv build our LMS faster and a lot cheaper if all build there…… thats why the change of contract by new government wanting to save 10 per cent costs they can still deliver and even faster there. A blessing in disguise…… imagine if we follow the contract requirement to have the third and fourth LMS in Boustead Naval Shipyard!! OMG….. with the COVID19 and political challenges and Boustead Heavy Engineering Corportaion (BHIC) cash flow problems….. we will never know when and if we even get the ships delivered….. for now all good for the last 2 to delivered by next year…”
I know many of Malaysian Defence readers are critical of the project, the only thing I can ask is that, please be civil.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (29)
If the ships are on budget and schedule, credit should go where it should be. Also, quality-wise, I think we know the Chinese shipyards have improved massively; the issues would probably be (1) interoperability with Western equipment, and (2) whether it's wise to get mission critical equipment from a country that consistently breach our sovereignty
China certainly can deliver in term of cost, schedule, tech and quality. But the issues is more of security and secrecy of the product as we are in a dispute with China at SCS currently.
IMO, we shall consider South Korea shipyards and hardwares for new MRSS, NGPV upgrade and Laksamana upgrade. As alternative to Boustead, of course. A little bit of competition may be the medicine we need.
Thank you tan sri for allowing Marhalim to share your views on the LMS here. Thank you also for having the vision to have the 15 to 5 plan for the navy.
I understand that the LMS is fit for the purpose if the main purpose is just for peacetime EEZ patrols.
There is a few questions/concerns on this from me.
1. How do you calculate that the LMS can fulfil 80% of the LCS role? The LCS can do ASW, ASuW, destroy other frigates and submarines with missiles and torpedoes, able to shoot down aircrafts and also embark helicopters. Can the LMS do 80% of that?
2. Yes, it is great that it is on budget. But can there be an explanation on why a 68m 600 ton ship with a single 30mm RCWS build in china be more expensive than a 83m 1890 ton ship (practically 3 times bigger) also armed with a single 30mm RCWS designed in Netherlands and build locally in Selangor? Is the LMS price that we pay for reasonable for a chinese build ship? For example Nigeria got a 1800 ton OPV (P18N) with a 76mm gun and helicopter hangar also build in the same Wuchang shipyard for USD42 million.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LWA_84xrA4A/UucyuTCpKVI/AAAAAAAAXHc/amUZd-E5vwQ/s1600/094242k5thfx51t61p531b.jpg
Yes it is a ship fit for purpose. But is it a ship fit for the price?
3. Is using the LMS to intercept and shadow chinese navy and coast guard ships in our EEZ something that would be okay with the Chinese government?
As long as we’re willing to pay integration/certification costs then Chinese gear from that perspective is not an issue.
There is another issue however; buying Chinese gear - on top of the Western gear we already have - adds to our support/maintenance footprint. Requires the stocking of parts with zero commonality to what we already have and the training of people to operate and maintain the gear.
On the issue if QC/build quality thus is an issue that should be put to rest. Yes Chinese yards have come a long way and like buying from anyone else; what a customer specifies and what he’s willing to pay plays a big part. If a for example a customer specifies a certain grade is steel and high DC standards (‘x’ number watertight compartments and parts of the ship able to withstand ‘x’ level of damage: Chinese yards can oblige and deliver.
Wan,
Sorry but I fail to see how there would be any issues using a Chinese ship (with Chinese sensors and other systems) to detect and intercept Chinese ‘maritime agency” ships in a peacetime environment. It’s not as if we’re using Chinese sourced gear with niche capabilities and cutting edge capabilities for the job.
When a project has proper overseeing, this is what you get. On schedule and within budget.
IMHO it does sound like the idea for LMS with modularity is born from the ex-admiral rather than something pushed by the then Government onto his service (something many readers seem to think so). Since he is retired, there is no benefit for him to defend the project anymore (unless he is still involved in some other ways lah. Usually there is some disclaimer about these).
But if "no third party or middle man involvement", then what was BNS original involvement? Purely contracted to build the 3rd & 4th?
Reply
No BNS was supposed to be the recipient of the TOT part of the project where it was supposed to build two more of the LMS. It wasn't involved in choosing the design and other stuff, it just received the project lock, stock and barrel as the government mandated contractor
Marhalim, what’s the report recently about problems with the sensors of the LMS?
Reply
Yes mostly about the location of the sensors and other things, not really sure whether it's a deal breaker
Like many navies (some of which have adopted the concept and some which are convinced it doesn’t suit their needs- the RMN has been weighting it’s options with regards to modular payloads for a while now. As far back as the late 1990’s or the early 2000’s the RMN publicly announced it was looking at modular MCM payloads which could be installed on trawlers.
The inclusion of modular payloads in the 5/15 was primarily the efforts of the same people which came up with the 5/15: based on the realisation that funding for the foreseeable future will remain highly elusive and insufficient; thus certain compromises will have to be made.
Like everything else in the 5/15 whether or not the RMN actually goes down this route remains to be seen. Failure to resolve the LCS issue or the failure of the programme to deliver all 6 ships will have widespread implications; affecting various other things.
Well its not built for but not equiped with anymore. The NGPVs have become just built for but not ever to be equiped with. I cant trust all these built for but not equiped with as it will never become equiped with