Latest PAC Report on LCS, November 14, 2023

Work on the LCS as shown during the PAC proceedings made public on November 14 2023. Screenshot from PAC report November 14.

SHAH ALAM: The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Dewan Rakyat has published its latest report on the LCS project today. The report covers the period of June and September, this year, is available on the Dewan Rakyat website.

The last report covered the period between October 2022 and May, this year. As there was no progress between the two period, the committee had determine that there was no need to publish its report every three months.

Anyhow, the latest report confirmed that the work – called remobilisation – on the LCS had started at Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) at Lumut on September 25. Newly appointed Defence Ministry secretary general DS Isham Ishak had also testified at the latest PAC proceedings.

The first summary of the PAC report on the LCS from June to October 2023.

The report also revealed that Naval Group had not completed the verification work of BNS design work as the company has not been paid. This means that the design work has stopped at 84 per cent due to the payment’s issue. This resulted in the progress of the LCS project is now behind by seven per cent though those who testified stated that they were confident that it will returned to schedule.
The Naval Group DCNS Panaromic Integrated Sensor and Mast (PISM). DCNS

It was also revealed that four of the PISM mast for the LCS are currently stored at BNS warehouses while the fifth one has not been ordered yet.
The second summary and recommendation of the PAC report June to October 2023.

The PAC was told that the nationalisation of BNS should have been completed by November 1. However, we know that it has not been completed.

It must be noted that the PAC stated that the cost of the LCS project now stands at RM11.2 billion due to the additional costs (RM2.098) signed with the sixth supplementary contract.

Work on the LCS as shown during the PAC proceedings. Screenshot from PAC report.

The report did not say anything about the other payments needed for the government to absorb BNS into its wholly-owned company – Ocean Sunshine Sdn Bhd.

HT DM
— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2186 Articles
Shah Alam

40 Comments

  1. Lets talk about possible LMS batch 2 configurations. They all will share the same hull,same FCR, same engines, same range of 3500-4500nm same main guns and same 30mm guns with other subsystems being different. Some of the such subsystems can be swap out from ship to ship to enable RMN to configure them depending of situations.

    Lets use LMS batch 2 specs as a reference/base line

    1 configuration for just OPV role (original LMS role)
    1 configuration for general purpose corvette (armed Kedah class role)
    2 configurations for special purpose role (ASW to supplement LCS and AAW)

    Cost savings in terms of operational cost hopefully could be achieved with LMS and NGPV sharing same hull and also able to use for limited ASW and AAW

    Low Tier:
    – Configured mostly as OPV with SHORAD and small numbers of AShM ie as cheap as possible
    – Have space for towed sonar
    – Thales NS50 x-band AESA or TRS-3d s-band PESA (whichever is cheaper, maybe even the LIG Nex1 SPS-540K x-bacd PESA)
    – 1x FCR (same as KD Perak’s new one)
    – 4x NSM AShM
    – 2×6 Mistrale in Sadral mount
    – 1x 57mm gun
    – 2x DS30 30mm gun

    Mid Tier:
    – Configured as general purpose corvette that could do what LCS can except for ASW and is shorter ranged, still have space for towed array
    that could be transfered from other ships, a second generation of Kedah but fully armed
    – Have space for towed sonar and extra 4-8 cells mk41 vls installed
    – Thales NS100 s-band AESA radar
    – Thales BlueWatcher bow sonar
    – 2x (same as KD Perak’s new one)
    – 8x NSM AShM
    – 16x ESSM block 2 in 4-cell mk41 self defence vls
    – 2×2 torpedo mount
    – 1x 57mm gun
    – 1x Millenium 35mm CIWS
    – 2x DS30 30mm gun

    High Tier ASW
    – Configured as special purpose corvette for ASW but can be repurpose as AAW by swapping ASROCs with SM2s
    – Thales NS100 s-band AESA radar
    – Thales CAPTAS-2 towed sonar/SEA KraitSense/KraitSearch towed sonar
    – Thales BlueWatcher sonar
    – 1x FCR Thales STIR 1.2 mk2
    – 1x FCR (same as KD Perak’s new one)
    – 8x NSM AShM
    – 16x ESSM block 2 in 4-cell mk41 tactical vls
    – 4x VL-ASROC in 4-cell tactical mk41 vls
    – 2×2 torpedo mount
    – 1x 57mm gun
    – 1x Millenium 35mm CIWS
    – 2x DS30 30mm gun

    High Tier AAW
    – Configured as special purpose corvette for AAW with the most number of VLS cells but can be repurpose as ASW by transfer towed array
    – Thales NS100 s-band AESA radar
    – SEA KraitSense/KraitSearch towed sonar
    – Thales BlueWatcher bow sonar
    – 1x FCR Thales STIR 1.2 mk2
    – 1x FCR (same as KD Perak’s new one)
    – 8x NSM AShM
    – 16x ESSM block 2 in 4-cell mk41 self defence vls
    – 8x SM2 block 3c in 8-cell mk41 tactical vls
    – 2×2 torpedo mount
    – 1x 57mm gun
    – 1x Millenium 35mm CIWS
    – 2x DS30 30mm gun

  2. Personally, I prefer the 40mm gun instead of the 30mm gun. The same gun also be used instead of the CIWS if specialised rounds – air burst mode – is procured.

  3. Luqman – “Some of the such subsystems can be swap out from ship to ship to enable RMN to configure them depending of situations”

    On paper yes but as far as I’m aware we are not going with such an approach.

    There will be one design; one hull multi purpose class to perform a variety of wartime and peacetime roles; by themselves or alongside other assets. The idea is not only will it be able to perform certain roles not requiring a LCS [like the RMAF’s LCAs and MRCAs or the Kasturis and FACs in the 1990/80’s] but also at a fraction of the cost as the RMN has publicly alluded to.

    Whilst the possibility – on paper – of how it can be fitted out with is endless; alas the harsh reality is that it will be modestly armed; not only due to funding issues but also actual requirements. I for one will be happy if it enters service with a 57 and not a 30mm main gun and has something with longer legs than a SHORADs mount. Commonality is something the RMN would very much like to achieve but might not be attainable; if we go for a Turkish design.

  4. @Luqman
    Myself I prefer an evolved Kedah class as LMS2 using the same hull & machinery with a modernised stealth designed superstructure (akin to modern MEKO class). The FCS & sensors can be of the same TACTICOS focused or LCS biased SETIS. This will keep commonality with either NGPV or LCS. As per ordered they will come with the full complement of weaponry but for peacetime duties they will land their munitions, torps & majority of missiles stored in strategic warehouse docks to function as a FFBNW boat that can be rearmed anytime.

    The Kedahs should be upgraded to LMS2 specs, changing the Exocet for NSM launchers, but still FFBNW until they need to be rearmed, as with the LMS2.

    The current Keris class will be derated from LMS to MCMV & hydrographic roles.

    This will leave Maha as LCS, Kedah/Kedah evolved as LMS, and Keris as MCMV/hydro/support roles, amphib capable Makassar as MRSS, Scorpene/Scorpene evolved (with a 3rd boat after MRSS) as sub.

  5. ”Myself I prefer an evolved Kedah class as LMS2 using the same hull & machinery”

    The mystery is why the Meko-A100 design was not selected for the LMS requirement. Could have to do with the fact that there was still a bit of bad blood with the German Naval Group and BNS can’t construct any follow on Kedahs without German participation/involvement.

    ”their munitions, torps & majority of missiles stored in strategic warehouse docks ”

    The danger with this is that crews might not have the needed time required to gain the needed levels of proficiency.

    ”The Kedahs should be upgraded to LMS2 specs, changing the Exocet for NSM launchers”

    The directors and CMS would have to be integrated to NSM.

    ”current Keris class will be derated from LMS to MCMV & hydrographic roles.”

    It has free space on the quarterdeck for MCM gear but I doubt very much the design is suitable for survey work. As it stands the RMN has mostly divested itself of the survey role as far as hardware/ships go; privatised. This decision didn’t go down well but like many was a compromise; driven by economics.

  6. Marhalim,

    In terms of actual round performance [range and kinetic affect] the differences between a 30 and 40mm round are academic. We’ve already standardised with the MSI mount for the LCS, Kasturis and training ships anyway.

    Talking about MSI; it has come up with something very useful [mobile and self contained] for the C-UAS role and something seemingly ideal to replace the Oerlikons.

    Not in the habit of posting links for the sake of it but this is interesting.

    https://www.msi-dsl.com/products/msi-ds-terrahawk-vshorad/

  7. Been discussed and whipped to exhaustion that RMN is not keen on doing major upgrades to Kedah class. Any upgrades would be minimally intrusive (physically) and only if it doesnt affect funding for new ships, such as VSHORAD and rockets – check earlier topics and discussions. Forget about Kedah class as the template as it is an early 2000s design. All the upgrades proposed would be expensive and done on a hull that is close to 20 years of age. Navy likes Damen, and Korea (through HHI) eager to sell more. If any, it has to be a proven design and Damen’s business with Indonesia and HHI’s business with Philippines should put them in front of the Turkish, yet politics…

  8. Yes, I know about that but its currently its available in the air to ground version only. MSI has also installed LMM launchers on its 30MM RWS which it called Seahawk which could be an option if they decide to upgrade the Kedah class. Aselsan has also cleared the same VSHORAD launchers for its SMASH 30mm RWS.

  9. kel – ”Been discussed and whipped to exhaustion that RMN is not keen on doing major upgrades to Kedah class. ”

    Yes but people have a tendency to discuss various paper options and look into them…

    kel – ”Forget about Kedah class as the template as it is an early 2000s design. ”

    Ok a 1990’s design but compared to a newer design how inferior is a Meko-A100? Less LO features; poor seakeeping, etc?

  10. Sorry should have made myself clearer. I think it’s possibly a sound candidate to replace GAPU’s Oerlikons.

  11. If one were to build new Kedah class or a variant of it, the designer wouldn’t be able to design nor build it because the MEKO 100 Kedah is a specific variant. One would have to call BNS to bring out the old blueprints and have BNS relearn how to update the design and then build the ships. One would hope the original design has for one, sufficient room for increased electricity load to power all the additional equipment the newer versions will have, internal designs that is able to accommodate the additional equipment, the necessary wiring, plumbing, HVAC, consider the impact of additional tonnage on balance, draught, speed, etc. If not, one would need to pay someone to modify the existing design. Should one decide to stay within the MEKO 100 family, the foreign yard has the newer and bigger MEKO A-100. Or choose a non-MEKO design from the same yard like the K130 which is also the basis of the Sa’ar 6 class. So yes, in many ways if given a choice, one would choose a newer design because an old design is an old design. It’s like asking why the US doesn’t upgrade and build new Flight I Arleigh Burke. Well because it’s an old design with limited upgrade pathways. So came the Flight II which structurally included a helicopter hangar but still had limited upgrade pathways. So came the latest and substantially larger Flight III.

  12. @Azlan
    “On paper yes but as far as I’m aware we are not going with such an approach.There will be one design; one hull multi purpose class….”

    It’s the same concept of having one hull that can be configured to be multipurpose or not, this is due to not enough budget for every LMS to have SM2, NS100 and towed for example. Much like US LCS but using already available systems with lower risks

  13. @joe
    “Myself I prefer an evolved Kedah class as LMS2 using the same hull & machinery”

    It would be the 1st thing RMN will consider (even me myself) due to we already having the design and experience building them. Slight modifications like adding more powerfull engines or change CMS or a raised deck for small VLS or put Mistral SHORADS etc, are still feasible.

    But maybe not preferred by RMN due to a few reasons, it could be still more expensive to build compared to Damen or Korean ones, some design flaws, or political. I believe the 1st PAC report might have mentioned this (I might be wrong). Also if you noticed, no MEKO design was displayed of publicly offered for LMS2 (maybe except for the unknown South African contender)

  14. “The mystery is why the Meko-A100 design was not selected”
    Could likely be due to pricing, being German is going to be expensive and AFAIK the LMS1 was on a low budget hence why we went Chinese. Other things like bad blood and German wariness of being in trouble again (quite rightly so!).

  15. “crews might not have the needed time required to gain proficiency.”
    They will only need to load up during live fire exercises. Other times during routine patrols, these will be stored.

    “The directors and CMS would have to be integrated to NSM.”
    Not really an issue, can be done. And the German Navy has selected NSM as their next gen SSM so an integration on their end might be possible for us too.

    “but I doubt very much the design is suitable for survey work.”
    I cant recall exactly, but I think that was one of the LMS1 roles, which was the reason for MCM slots to be multipurpose. Whether it will be suited or not I cannot say.

  16. @Luqman
    “Slight modifications like adding more powerfull engines or change CMS”
    That would have led to a lot more uncertainties, with the hull only common between the Kedah, so for me nope if we want to reduce risk & uncertainty. Keeping the key parts same (hull, machinery, CMS) while updating the superstructure with a stealth design and ability to fit modernised equipment.

  17. Kel – “If one were to build new Kedah class or a variant of ”

    BNS offered an improved Meko-A100 variant for the LCS requirement. Slightly lengthened and with a stack.

    Learn the art of paragraphs; as learnt in primary school.

    “Not really an issue, can be done”

    Many things are “not and issue and can be done” as long as there is funding: a problem we’re well familiar with. Integration and cer tification is not cheap.

    “I cant recall exactly, but I think that was one of the LMS1 roles”

    As part of the original plan we had looked at modular MCM payloads but survey work was intended to be outsourced.

    Luqman – “It’s the same concept of having one hull that can be configured to be multipurpose”

    I’m fully aware of the concept/idea. What I’m not certain about if whether the RMN is interested in this route.

  18. “Integration and cer tification is not cheap.”
    Naturally. As with all things. No different if we chose a platform but comes with equipment that were not onset designed for it ie NSM use on Gowind derived Maharaja. Integration can be covered under OE which is less of a hassle.

  19. “Naturally. As with all things”

    Precisely why I disputed your “Not really an issue, can be done”.

    A lot of things can be done on paper as long as funding is there and is seen as a sound long term exercise. Also even when funding is there integration and certification can still be an issue.

  20. Meko A100 cost is very high even as it is. Any modifications will make it cost more than even the Gowinds, which is why the design was not selected for the LCS program in the first place.

    Want to see how much an upgraded meko a100 cost? Read up on the Tamandaré class, and look at what it cost.

    If i really have a half billion euro budget, i would not choose a meko a100 but either a arrowhead 140 (1st choice) or FDI/Belharra frigate.

  21. … – ”Meko A100 cost is very high even as it is.”

    The prime question is whether BNS is in a position to construct any without German help. Also, anything these days sourced from a European or Australian yard is ”high” on account of well known factors.

    Ultimately an academic question as practically zero possibility of it happening.

  22. … – “Any modifications will make it cost more than even the Gowinds”

    “Any modifications” would not be done as follow on orders would be based on the slightly larger and lengthened variant which Thyssen via BNS offered for the LCS requirement.

    As it stands it’s safe to say that BNS by itself would face a huge and lengthy challenge if it decided to offer a modified variant without any help and if it did offer the slightly larger and lengthened it would necessitate German involvement as BNS did not acquire the rights for it.

    Either way it’s not happening as there’s practically zero chance of any follow on Kedahs being ordered or as likely as the RMN doing away with its squadron structure and going for composite flotillas or Saladin rising from his Damascus tomb.

    Kel – “ one would choose a newer design because an old design is an old design”

    It’s not as if we are going for a Leander or Type 21 and an “old design” is not exactly retrograde if it fits the requirement.

  23. The reason I am highlighting Uparmed Kedah class costs is because there seems to be a lot of people who thinks that reusing the Kedah class design for LMS Batch 2 could be the cheap solution. That is actually very far from the truth.

    Looking at the RM2.5 billion LMS Batch 2 budget for 3 ships, the budget due to exchange rate is just around USD178 million per ship now. The Kedah class, with all the FFBNW costs USD300 million each back in the early 2000s. Fully armed Meko A100 derivative, the Tamandaré class, costs EUR500 million each.

    Also you cannot have AAW ship based on a corvette hull design. There is just no space to fit all the sensors and effectors.

    As i said before, if we really need a frigate, then we need to buy a frigate, not a corvette. Best thing we can do is to put in more money to build the 6th Gowind Frigate.

    Complete all 6 gowinds, and later (2030-2040) replace Kasturis and Lekius with 4 larger Frigates, ideally with the Arrowhead 140. At the same time build up our submarine fleet.
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/pac-report-on-lcs-october-9-2023/#comment-879277

  24. …. – “Also you cannot have AAW ship based on a corvette hull design. There is just no space to fit all the sensors and effectors”

    You can but what constitutes a “AAW” ship for one navy; might not for another. If you’re referring to a hull with say a 36 cell VLS and other things [a hull with a long range radar; an area defence capability, etc] then you can’t but if your needs are more modest; you can.
    – I would think a more accurate statement is it depends on the size/displacement of the hull rather than the actual term which is a subjective; i.e. a “corvette” in one navy could be a “frigate” on another and what some would term a “destroyer” could also be a “frigate”.

    … – “As i said before, if we really need a frigate, then we need to buy a frigate, not a corvette”

    Putting aside what you’ve “said before” the RMN has identified the need for what it terms a “frigate” and a secondary type combatant based on a hull which would commonly be referred to as a corvette; that’s what’s it’s getting : LCSs and LMSs. It’s not as if the RMN is getting “frigates” but is under the the delusion that it will be comparable to a “frigate” …

    … – “. At the same time build up our submarine fleet”

    “At the same time” expand the shore support infrastructure and create a larger pool of trained and available submariners [challenging because the RMN is a small all volunteer navy and training and retaining submarines is inherently challenging] and also acquire various enablers to enable the suns to work in tandem to work alongside other assets.

  25. P.S.

    It’s not as if the RMN is getting “corvettes” but is under the the delusion that it will be comparable to a “frigate” …

  26. PS.

    On the AAW Corvette, and LMS Batch 2 based on Kedah Class – I am referring to the list by Luqman as the 1st comment of this topic.

    Even the 3,700 ton HTMS Bhumibol Adulyadej Frigate of the Royal Thai Navy, could fit 8x Mk41 VLS launchers.

    His plan for a “high tier” “corvette” based on Kedah Meko A100 design, will not be a “low cost” design, but something that will cost much more than the Gowind-class Frigates. Which is why I commented as such previously, if Frigates is the ship that is wanted, buy a proper Frigate, not LMS Batch 2.

  27. P.S.

    APMM Tae Pyung Yang Pacific etc etc price just USD60 million each etc etc 3-4000 tonnes large OPV etc etc

  28. Actually I’m not even sure what’s the confusion tbh. Kedah, Maharajalela and LMS2 are in my view just Batch 1,2 and 3 of the original 27 ship NGPV program. Maharajalela was originally meant to be a sub 2.5k tonnage ship more in line with Kedah class and in fact was initially referred to as batch 2 of the NGPV – original DCNS propos was the 2.5k Gowind. LMS2 is just continuing that trend. Its just called LMS2 for the sake of civilian leaders. Don’t get confused by the 3.1k Maharajalela class being representative of RMN’s preferred tonnage as that ship is a BNS creation not Naval Group or RMN.

  29. @ Kel

    LMS batch 2 target cost per ship is USD 178 million

    LCS Gowind Ceilling was USD400 million per ship, before all the overruns.

    That is a very big gap. Dreaming of something much more heavily armed than the Gowind at the cost of and the tonnage of the LMS Batch 2 is simply out of touch with the reality.

  30. @hulubalang
    “His plan for a “high tier” “corvette” based on Kedah Meko A100 design”
    Where specifically did I mentioned hat my proposal will use Meko A100 design? Even I don’t think that Meko A100 is cheap, but BNS said before they could built OPV variant of Kedah for usd150 million back in the day (still expensive for an OPV but maybe not for a missile armed corvette relatively).
    Let me get this straight, for my LMS batch 2 proposal, I prefer a Korean or Damen Sigma hull.

    “Even the 3,700 ton HTMS Bhumibol Adulyadej Frigate of the Royal Thai Navycould fit 8x Mk41 VLS”
    3100t Barbaros and 3600t Anzac can fit 16x cells mk41 vls tactical version. I believe for HTMS Bhumibol there is extra space designed for another 8x mk41 vls cells for total maximum of 64 ESSM or mixture of any US weapons.

    “There is just no space to fit all the sensors and effectors”
    What? You seriously think a 2000+t design cannot fit the equipment I listed? Or were you meaning the sensors are 4 panel radars and 32x cell vls that constitutes an Arrowhead 140? For an AAW ship my proposal is a modest kind like what Azlan said, have long range missile at a lower quantity than an AAW frigate/destroyer (hence AAW corvette)

    @Azlan
    “What I’m not certain about if whether the RMN is interested in this route.”
    Yup I don’t think there is any public info about this. Let see how it goes

  31. Who said LMS2 is meant to be better armed than LCS? In fact everyone (it seems except some) understood the LMS2 is meant to be a cheaper (e.g. smaller, less armed) version of LCS. I thought the spec sheet for LMS2 is roughly known already, which is half the VLS and half the SSM of LCS and no hangar for an onboard helicopter? For LCS, did you factor in the wasteful costs associated with increasing ship size to 3k from the original requirements, and buying the IP rights for Gowind 3k, a ship Naval Group doesnt even offer? If I recall, at least RM1b was added to the cost to justify the increased displacement. Which translates into RM167m per ship or around USD50m at that time’s FX rates.

  32. Kel – “Actually I’m not even sure what’s the confusion tbh. Kedah, Maharajalela and LMS2 are in my view just Batch 1,2 and 3 of the original 27 ship NGPV program”

    “I’m not even sure” how on earth you reached this conclusion and who’s really “confused”.

    I’m sure however about the need for paragraphs.

    Kel -“Who said LMS2 is meant to be better armed than LCS”

    Some assumed it is meant as a temporary substitute for the LCS : no. Even if the LCSs had all been delivered on time the RMN still had a requirement for LMSs.

    Luqman – “Yup I don’t think there is any public info about this”

    As far as modular payloads go the RMN went for it out of necessity; not choice. It works for some; less so for others. On paper it’s great; costs savings and flexibility. On paper.

  33. @ luqman

    “You seriously think a 2000+t design cannot fit the equipment I listed?”

    As someone from a technical background, no you can’t, especially the high end AAW version. NS100 radar cannot illuminate for SM2 long range missiles. All those items also cannot be had with USD 178+ mil budget.

    Also on the cost. All of the gowind 2500 corvettes sold to date costs more than usd400 million each, which is more than our original ceiling cost.

  34. … – “if Frigates is the ship that is wanted, buy a proper Frigate, not LMS Batch”

    News flash … The RMN is getting a “frigate” sized primary combatant designated “LCS” and a corvette sized secondary combs tent designated “LMS”.

    Kel,

    The Kedah class as originally planned was to play a supplementary role to the Lekius. The plan then was 6 Lekius and a number of Kedahs; previously it was the Kasturis and FACs and at present the LCSs and LMSs.

    Kel – “I thought the spec sheet for LMS2 is roughly known already, which is half the VLS and half the SSM of LCS and no hangar for an onboard helicopter”

    Yes no landing deck but for the rest; we’ll see. Like I said : will be modestly armed and count ourselves lucky if an integrated V-SHORADs mount and a 30mm mount aren’t selected. It was also mentioned somewhere that it won’t have a ASW capability – bummer.

    Kel – “in fact was initially referred to as batch 2 of the NGPV”

    The key difference is that the NGOPVs weren’t intended to be primary combatants; the LCSs are.

    Kel – “Its just called LMS2 for the sake of civilian leaders”

    Bit more nuanced than that and do we have non civilian leaders?

  35. Another option for a lower tier LMS B2 (or even B3) that Marhalim had pointed out before

    – Use the hull of Gagah Samudera class as a basis (if RMN can accept a smaller ship that is 1200t)
    – SPS-540K x-band pesa radar (or Giraffe 1x radar that is cheaper but lesser range)
    – 2x FCR same as on KD Perak
    – Thales TACTICOS or the local CMS
    – 1x 57mm gun
    – 1x DS30mm
    – 8x Mistral in 2x Tetral mount
    – 4/8x NSM or CAKIR if really want to save money (possibly enough space for 8 missiles)
    – No ASW sonars and torpedos but spaces are available for both

    All this can be had for usd70 million (additional usd30 million on top of Gagah Samudera’s usd40 million). If configure to higher spec still is less than usd100 million. So 2.5 Gagah Samudera LMS can be purchased for 1 LMS B2

    The downsides to the design without major redesign changes to the hull is that it have lower range and lower speed than other LMS B2, no hangar and no vls. Also not sure if RMN able to accept the sea keeping capability of the hull.

  36. @kel
    ” LMS2 is meant to be a cheaper (e.g. smaller, less armed) version of LCS”

    What if LMS B2 finally end up smaller, cheaper, but more armed/same armed compared to LCS (which is feasibly possible)? Again it is possible for LMS to be smaller, cheaper but more armed than LCS but will still suffer from limitations of the hull size which cause lower range and limited to certain hardware and less growth potential ie cannot fit a 400km range radar or 16x NSM. Heck a Gowind 2500 is exactly this…..

  37. Luqman – “What if LMS B2 finally end up smaller, cheaper, but more armed/same armed compared to LCS (which is feasibly possible].

    Possibly, at a stretch. The thing is even the LCSs are modestly armed; in terms of load outs aren’t a step up from the Lekius.
    Another factor is that as the intended the Batch 2s will be more lightly fitted our compared to LCS; the unfortunate reality. One way of looking at is that as secondary combatants they are not supposed to be as heavily armed as the LCSs.

  38. No one is going to buy a 2000 tonne ship and expect it to have upgrade pathways to fit equipment meant for a 3000 tonne ship. The LMS2 is meant as a financially feasible choice to recapitalise the missile fleet quickly – RMN doesnt even have proper AAW cover for its own fleet and only possess fleeting SSM offensive power. RMN cannot afford (time and cost) a strategy based on building a fleet of LCS type vessels. RMN initially estimated approx RM4.8b for 8 LMS2. Now its RM2.4b for 3 ships. Coincidentally, there is a RM2b incremental cost to the LCS program. Have to focus on tne goal the objectives instead of spec sheets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*