BNS LMS Concept – DSA 2018 Shorts

LMS Batch 2 Concept

KUALA LUMPUR: Apart from the NGPV Batch 2 concept ship, BNS is also displaying its own conceptual design for the LMS Batch 2. Like the NGPV Batch 2 concept the LMS Batch 2 Concept is derived from conversations with the RMN on their requirements.

Unlike the first four LMS, the LMS Batch 2 will be build on an inhouse BNS hull. The ship will be longer than the LMS – two build in China and two by BNS – to accommodate a helicopter deck rated for a Super Lynx. The model is fitted with a 40mm Bofors gun with machine guns aft.

LMS Batch 2 Concept

It will have an enclosed mast similar to the LCS though it is unclear what type of radar to be used. Of course the final design will undergo further changes based on feedback from the end user. If the BNS proposal is accepted, the 14 further Batch 2 LMS will be a completely different from the China-made ones.

The lates China made LMS model

As for the China-made LMS, the steel cutting for the first of class is expected soon.

…graphic of a modified LMS with the current one. The top graphic is the CMN Combattante F65 concept

— Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1631 Articles
Shah Alam

23 Comments

  1. So the Second Batch of LMS Will have Missile right… It looks like The LMS and NGPV is The Only Have “Guns”… I Hope This is Not gonna Happen

  2. That LMS batch 2 design is almost as big as the Kedah class. That said it still has to fulfil tasks such mine coutermeasure and hydrographic survey. If you need big ships, use the PV, don’t spoil the LMS.

    Still the current LMS design is too poorly armed for the rm250 million price.

    And if the batch 2 of PV and LMS is totally different, then what is the point of 15 to 5?

  3. Mr Marhalim,

    Any idea on the unit cost? Hopefully cheaper than China LMS.

    Reply
    No idea, likely the same or cheaper

  4. What is even the point of buying the LMS from China? The BNS design is not even look close to what the China design is.

  5. It look like a drastic design change… i dun think it save cost. i believe RMN had decide earlier whether need a helicopter deck and not this last minute change. i think BNS just want copy SG concept only

  6. If BNS gets a contract to produce a LMS variant based on a different design to the Chinese one and fitted out differently; it’s basically another class despite sharing the same ”LMS” designation, which in turn means the 5/15 won’t be the 5/15 anymore.

    Looking at the design of the Chinese made LMS; makes me wonder how much say or input the RMN actually had. Then again, I suppose the RMN’s position is that a lightly armed hull is better than no hull; given the urgency to replace the aged and increasingly expensive and troublesome to support FACs and Laksamanas. The RMN also had to work on a very tight budget.

  7. Abu Muiz – ”Hopefully cheaper than China LMS”

    If they’re fully fitted out; doubt it will be cheaper. Bear in mind the Chinese LMS’s will enter service not fully fitted out; hence their ”cheapness”.

    Meh – ”What is even the point of buying the LMS from China?”

    The RMN convinced the government that costs saving from the retirement of older ships could be channeled into the 5/15 to fund new ships. The budget was tight to begin with and the Chinese yard was able to match the budget. What we will get however is ships not fully fitted out and the final figure will have to include not only the building costs of the 4 ships but also how much it takes to fully fit them out at a later date.

  8. … – ”That LMS batch 2 design is almost as big as the Kedah class.”

    Maybe, just maybe, its displacement was based on input from the RMN as to what it needs. I do know that the FACs and Laksamanas have a hard time going to sea beyond certain Sea States. How the Chinese design compares in this regards is unknown. Perhaps the RMN originally had something else in mind with regards to displacement but had little say in the matter and was forced to go with the Chinese design.

    … – ” use the PV, don’t spoil the LMS.”

    But that is based on the premise that the Chinese LMS’s are what the RMN wants and what suits its requirements. If however we go on the premise that this is not the case; based on input from the RMN, BNS’s LMS design will be better suited to the RMN’s requirements and will rectify fundamental shortcoming the Chinese LMS’s have.

  9. The RHIB launch/recovery system at the rear of the 1st batch LMS, any good reason to forego that? The latest USCG vessels have such a system, seems it allows easier launch and recovery of RHIBs compared to conventional methods.

    The addition of a heli deck on such a small vessel, I wonder how much it will affect costs.

    Reply
    I have no idea why they forego the RHIB launch recovery system

  10. Merlin – ”I wonder how much it will affect costs.”

    In a considerable way. Sure an argument can be made that a heli-deck is needed in case a helo is deployed for ops and for other stuff like MEDEVAC but personally I think a heli-deck is something the LMS can do without. Should there ever be a need for a MEDEVAC; the patient can be winched to a helo like what is done in emergency situations on ships without heli-decks. The space can be put to better use; maybe even for a UAS like Scaneagle. .

    As to the design that is exhibited; sure it’s based on the RMN’s input but some aspects may have been added by BNS. As such if BNS ever gets an order for the LMS; the final design could turn out looking a bit different. I’m no expert on naval ship design but looking at BNS’s model, including the funnel arrangement; one does wonder how the design compares to the Kedahs and other ships in terms of RCS and IR reduction. Another issue is that with the heli-deck taking up so much space; there doesn’t appear to be much deck space left, even amidships, in the event modules need to be added at a later date. It will also be silly to have 4 LMS’s with a 30mm gun and others with a 40mm. They should have the same gun for commonality.

  11. So is this a desperation move by BNS trying to overturn the situation to stay relevant, or was the 4 LMS actually just us “helping China’s economy” and totally not suited to our requirements at all?

    sounds like the latter to me

  12. Personally RMN should only have missile guided frigates like the LCS and submarines.Leave the patrolling to MMEA as currently seems to be more cost efficient. Number wise there should be at least 12 frigates and 4 subs

  13. Rather than the radar mass the rest of the design look outdated and awkward for lms batch 2 concept . Can see that bns come with the design based on meko class blue print. It would be better have the stretched china design lms for helo deck and keep the RHIB launch

  14. Totally way different design and requirement from LMS batch 1. It shouldnt be like this since BNS has opted the China design which i think looks better. Any different requirement by navy for batch 2 should only have some modification on the existing LMS batch 1 ei; make it longer for helipad or etc. This to save the cost and to achieve 15 to 5 class plan.

  15. @ azlan

    “Maybe, just maybe, its displacement was based on input from the RMN as to what it needs”

    As I said, if they need a bigger ship and they need a helicopter, they don’t need a LMS in the 1st place. They actually need more NGPV. Just buy more NGPV instead of buying a “LMS” which is as big as the NGPV.

    So buy more NGPV, say 24 and just don’t attempt that LMS batch 2.

    And seriously, if the only real warship that we have is just the Gowinds, we will have trouble fighting anything more potent than pirates in the littorals.

  16. I guess the China LMS will be used for MCMV, surveillance, hydrographic and while the BNS LMS will be used for anti-piracy, cross-border etc.

  17. I agree it sounds like more NGPV will be more useful than the LMS. Surely costs can be brought down by building more and not changing anything other than incremental upgrades.

  18. …. – ”And seriously, if the only real warship that we have is just the Gowinds, ”

    I agree. Assuming the Lekius and Kasturis go in about 10 years time and assuming the LMS and NGOPV Batch 2s enter service without guns; the LCS will be the only ones fully armed. Then again, the design is only a proposal. How it eventually turns out could be different.

    As I kept saying previously. It’s still too early to make any conclusions as to how successful the 5/15 will be in ensuring the RMN gets what it needs. Whilst the plan looks great on paper, there is serious doubt even from within the RMN. Too many factors at play.

  19. Gantzbyte – ”Can see that bns come with the design based on meko class blue print.”

    To be expected; given BNS paid for the IP rights.

    For the LCS requirement; BNS partnered with a German yard to offer a German dersign based on the Meko A100.

    Military Observer – ” It shouldnt be like this since BNS has opted the China design which i think looks better. ”

    Yes but does the RMN agree? Did the RMN have much say in the first place?

    Encik – ”I guess the China LMS will be used for MCMV, surveillance, hydrographic and while the BNS LMS will be used for anti-piracy, cross-border etc.”

    They will all be used for a variety of roles that don’t call for a LCS.
    The problem really is how successful we’ll be in managing our requirements with regards to mission modules – this remains to be seen. The concept was successful for the Danes but then it was tailored made to suit their specific doctrine and requirements and the Danish navy had a bigger say; with the support of the industry. At the end of the day however, the Danes hardly swapped mission modules.

    Another issue is that the bulk of mission modules currently on offer are Western made; integrating them to a Chinese CMS [assuming one will go on the Chinese LMS] will be an issue; in terms of costs. The biggest issue remains that a ship fitted with a specific module has to be at the right place at the right time; e.g. a ship fitted for MCM will be useless if it encounters another type of threat and will have to head back to base to swap modules. How proficient a crew will be in ASW or MCM will also be dependent on how much training they get at sea; dependent in turn on how regularly the modules are swapped.

  20. A suggestion to TLDM.

    Forget about thinking too much about patrolling the EEZ in peacetime. You are not the police. Leave this task to the MMEA. The are going to have those excellent Damen designed OPVs for less than RM250 million a piece. Give MMEA the budget for 6-9 more OPVs and they are good to secure our EEZs.

    What TLDM really needs is a plan to have a holistic warfighting capability in the littorals. What is that? The ability to wage war on our enemies, to effectively deny the use of littoral areas for our enemies, or to clear a littoral area that is denied by our enemies.

    How?
    Read up on my original concept for the LMS
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/another-perspective-lms/

    Some of the points:
    – To excel in asymmetric warfare with non-state actors, terrorists and pirates. To be able to engage and fight a swarm-type attack (something like 12-20 fast boats) comfortably. Not to fight submarines or large frigates. Not to be seen as a lower cost LCS/SGPV/Gowind frigate but an optimized ship concept for asymmetric warfare in littoral and near shore areas.
    – Seaward Defence, to prevent non-state actors to reach Malaysian shores (preventing another Lahad Datu type of mass landings)
    – Able to do sea denial (blockade, ship raiding, minelaying) and also anti-sea denial (MCM, striking fast boats and enemy FACs)

    And that is what a LMS should do, not a stand in for duties that MMEA can do.

    So concentrate on getting ASW Frigates, Submarines, Fully armed LMS, and Amphibious ships. Plan ahead to recapitalize the excellent CB90 capabilities with more capable platform when the time comes. Pass most of the patrolling tasks of NGPVs and FAC(G) to MMEA.

  21. … – ”Forget about thinking too much about patrolling the EEZ in peacetime. You are not the police. Leave this task to the MMEA.”

    The RMN would love to do that but it’s easier said than done. Just like how the RMAF wanted to concentrate on having its helis do stuff like special forces insertion, CSAR, etc and leave the unglamorous role of troop lifting to the army; the RMN would love to focus on dealing with possible external threats. The problem for the RMN is that until the time comes when the MMEA is fully equipped to do what it’s supposed to do [dependent on the government] the RMN will have to continue performing various peace time roles that should be the MMA’s responsibility.

  22. @ azlan

    Continue performing various peace time roles that should be the MMEA’s responsibility and planning to buy more than 2 dozen expensive cannon-only armed brand spanking new ships to specifically do what MMEA is supposed to do is two totally different things.

  23. …. – ”Continue performing various peace time roles that should be the MMEA’s responsibility and planning to buy more than 2 dozen expensive cannon-only armed brand spanking new ships to specifically do what MMEA is supposed to do is two totally different things.”

    Actually, they are related.

    Yes, peacetime constabulary roles performed by the RMN should be performed by the MMEA but the hard fact remains that the MMEA is unlikely to gain the needed funding for the assets needed, nor the manpower to man those assets; anytime soon. The problem for the RMN is that in order to continue performing these constabulary type roles; it needs new assets. We can argue that these assets need to be smaller than the designs offered or lower spec but then the displayed designs are conceptual and I wouldn’t put too much thought into them.

    Sure they are based on RMN input but still proposed by BNS and subject to change; whether financial, political or for other reasons.
    If and when BNS gets an order; the ships could well turn out to be very different from the models displayed. Ironically in the 1990’s the RMN opposed the formation of the MMEA on the grounds that funding would be diverted. Fast forward 2 decades later the RMN still has to perform certain roles due to the government’s inability to properly fund the MMEA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*