SHAH ALAM: LMS Steel Cutting this week. The steel cutting ceremony for the first of class LMS is to be held this week. RMN chief Adm. Kamarulzaman Badaruddin confirmed this to Malaysian Defence when met at Lumut for the decommissioning ceremony for KD Mutiara on Friday (July 20, 2018).
“I am going to China next week for the eremony” he says when asked on the status of the LMS and when the keel laying ceremony will be held. The first ship will be delivered by next year, he added without saying the exact day of the ceremony nor its location.
It is likely the ceremony will be held at the China Shipbuilding & Offshore International Co. shipyard in Wuhan. Apart from BNS engineers, 12 RMN personnel have been sent to the Wuchang shipyard late last year to oversee the final design and construction of the two LMS to be build there.
A CGI of the LMS.
He was asked whether the LMS project was subjected to the review announced by Tun Mahathir Mohamad shortly after assuming office as the seventh Prime Minister following the May 9 general election.
The latest China made LMS model
Mahathir announced a review of projects planned saying his government needed to ensure those pending or approved by the previous administration were above board and cost effective.
An earlier CGI of the LMS. TLDM picture
Kamarulzaman says contracts already signed would go ahead despite the review.
On 23 March 2017 , BHIC signed two formalised a contract worth RM1.17 billion with the Ministry of Defence to supply four units of Littoral Mission Ships (LMS) in collaboration with a partner shipyard in China. All three signings were witnessed by Dato’ Seri Hishammuddin Hussein
The current plan is to build 18 LMS as part of the RMN 15 to 5 transformation plan. Whether or not the plan to build the other 14 will be carrried out following the review is beyond me.
#An earlier version of the story says keel laying ceremony. I was informed that it will only be a steel cutting ceremony instead with the keel laying to be held at another time
–Malaysian DefenceIf you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Wait, wha…??? Was it after finding out that it will create more jobs for local shipbuilders that they put off holding the LMS project?
Considering the O&G marine building is still in the doldrums, this 18 unit build is a godsent to those in the industry.
Only four contracted are confirmed, the rest not yet.
3 units of MMEA Damen 1800 – RM738.9 million, about 250M per sample
4 units of LMS 68 – RM1.17 billion, 292.5M, or about 300M per sample.
6 units of Kedah, 6 + 1.2 Billion, about 1.2 Billion per sample
What’s the cost of Kedah after the TOT? Btw, I hate to use the term TOT, as if we can really master the Technology. Much like Mitsubishi ‘TOTing’ the 1982 Lancer to us as the Saga…
Military standard or not, I’ll just get the Damen. Not that the LMS 68 is able to withstand any extra punishment during actual war fighting.
LMS no3 and 4 is to be build by Boustead, which at the moment has its hands full with the Gowinds. Not as if those idle O&G yards getting the LMS build.
@ Hornet Lover
Which is exactly what I am proposing here
I understand that 4 is confirmed but the plan was to get 18, so plenty of years for the production line if TLDM vision is fulfilled.
What I meant to say is, more job opportunities for the marine shipbuilder guys. I know its solely Boustead that got the contract but if their in house workers cannot cope, they will outsource the works to external contractors, invariably those laid-off by the O&G downturn. A lot of these guys are local Malaysians that were working in Jurong & Tuas that time.
We still don’t know what the LMS are equipped with or the extent of their capabilities.
Hornet Lover – ”4 units of LMS 68 – RM1.17 billion, 292.5M, or about 300M per sample.”
Whilst I would agree with you that the Damens are better value for money than the LMSs [which will enter service ”fitted for” only]; in most other instances one can’t form conclusions from solely looking at published prices as it depends on various things. The LMS deal includes a ToT element [which we love so much] and the price of that, including training for BNS people and the RMN project team could have been included in the total amount. Similarly, people are fond of looking at what others paid for ‘x’ and automatically assume that others should also pay the same amount; without factoring in stuff like training, spares package, off-sets, ToT, etc. On top of that the decision to order from a Chinese yard wasn’t only because of pricing but because of politics.The RMN was desperate for hulls and was forced not to be too fussy.
On ”military standard” there are no set rules. A naval ship can enter service having been built along commercial standards and registered commercially; only to have its registration changed at a later date. Also, ”military standard” doesn’t always mean a ship has a superior build. There are ships used by O&G companies and for exploration that are built to commercial standards but have a superior build quality to naval ships built to ‘military standards”.
With Tun M’s pending visit (to pay homage) to China, top priority on the agenda is to discuss issues surrounding the Chinese mega projects and offering assurances to continued Chinese investments in Malaysia, maybe the cost of LMS project can be discussed as well (maybe offering some special discounts/financial assistance/freebies?). Anyway, sincerely hope the LMS project will be successfully executed and pave the way for future procurement of Chinese weapon systems for MAF. Wishing Tun M a successful visit to China.
“On ”military standard” there are no set rules. A naval ship can enter service having been built along commercial standards and registered commercially; only to have its registration changed at a later date. Also, ”military standard” doesn’t always mean a ship has a superior build. There are ships used by O&G companies and for exploration that are built to commercial standards but have a superior build quality to naval ships built to ‘military standards”.”
I think a prime example would be RMN’s so called auxiliary vessels, which are patched up from some rickety container ships? Or perhaps the PN’s ‘flagships-frigates’ which are rusty, hand-me-down US Coastguard vessels ripe for the scrapyard?
“…pricing but because of politics.” Agreed. Previous govt put it not to waste, used itfornational interest in palm-oil.
hope we can see soon the price we pay for this LMS. esspecially the equipment.
also good luck to Tun M to make China investment stable as they could. since if Malaysia is able to make it fair for both side,other nation which also in the China mega project will try to leverage. this will shape further the new govt policy.
An aside. Are we buying our MRSS from PT Pal Indonesia?
The MRSS are one of the projects under review
The true sucesor to P3 Orion has come:
On of P8 main competitor – Q400 MMA
1) Queit comparabel to turbojet
2) Internel bomb bay for torps and misel
3) abiliti to fly frm short runway
4) Speed comparable to turbofan plane like boeing 737
5) 12 hour endurance wit 45mins extra flight time
6) Long renge
7) modular – up to customer
8) Looking at plane – i think ard 8 hardpoint (4 to 5 internal payload bay), 2 external attach to conformal fuel tanks and 2 more at wings
9) cheaper then P8
10) unlike P8 allow customerziation..very useful if u want to add ur own elecktronik
Turboprops are fuel eficient at low speed. Can fly slower and lower for beter surveilence. Suitabel for litoral area and patrol coastline and islands.
Open sea=P8 is bettter. Litoral=Q400 MMA is better
It will be a good competitor to the ATR72 MPA but lacking the numbers in service in the region.
kerberos ”maybe the cost of LMS project can be discussed as well (maybe offering some special discounts/financial assistance/freebies?).”
You serious? It probably won’t even be discussed. Much. much ”bigger”” things, in terms of cash value and political significance than a small deal for 4 ships.
kerberos – ”Anyway, sincerely hope the LMS project will be successfully executed and pave the way for future procurement of Chinese weapon systems for MAF.”
Not if the MAF has its way. Also depends on what we buy. A lot of stuff [if bought] will not only have zero commonality but will require integration and certification work to be performed. No point buying something ”cheap” if ”expensive” integration and certification has to be performed in order for it to meet our requirements or be able to be used with whatever we already have.
Tomahawk – ”Turboprops are fuel eficient at low speed. Can fly slower and lower for beter surveilence.”
Yes and a jet powered platform can get to where it needs to be faster and can fly higher. Pros and cons.
No further news on this?
Quiet also on TLDM’s official media platforms.