More Details on LMS Batch 2

SHAH ALAM: STM Defence of Turkiye has released technical specifications of the LMS Batch 2 of which three will be built in that country. The Defence Ministry issued the LOA for the three ships to the state owned company, in Ankara, Turkiye on June 10.

Infographic of the LMS Batch 2 specifications and other details. STM.

The release from STM:

STM LMS Batch-II Ship Specifications

STM, as main contractor, will be responsible for all phases of the project, starting from design to the performance, and from construction to delivery. STM will undertake the ship design, project management (including construction management), material/system procurements, integration design and assembly, testing and Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) activities, as well as the preparation of the design and ILS documents related to the Project.

The three corvettes, the design of which has been tailored by STM to meet the requirements of the Royal Malaysian Navy, will be construct in Türkiye within the scope of the Littoral Mission Ship Batch-2 (LMSB2) Project.

STM Littoral Mission Ship (LMSB2) is a highly flexible and proven platform that complies with modern naval norms, standards and classification society rules. The capabilities of similar combat platforms produced by STM in terms of safety, performance, reliability and ease of maintenance have been tested, and have proven themselves during operations in the open and coastal seas, and under heavy sea conditions.

LMSs can be tasked with a wide range of duties including ASUW, AAW, Asymmetric Warfare (ASYW) and EW, drawing upon the capabilities of the most advanced Sensors & Weapons Suite and Command & Control System.

The construction and outfitting of the ships will be carried out in Türkiye with the intensive involvement of Turkish defence industry companies. STM, in its role as main contractor, will turn to the Turkish defence sector for such equipment as the Combat Management System; the Gun Fire Control System, to be supplied by HAVELSAN; and the 3D Search Radar, Fire Control Radar, IFF, 30mm Gun, ESM and Chaff Decoy System, as well as other electronic sensors, to be supplied by ASELSAN. ROKETSAN will be supplying its ATMACA Surface-to-Surface G/M System.

Equipment configuration of the LMS Batch 2. STM

Malaysian Defence was the first to report that the RMN version will be powered with four diesel engines in the CODAD configuration. Do note that the Babur class of the Pakistani Navy, another Ada variant also have four diesel engines in the CODAD configuration.
More details of the LMS Batch 2.

As mentioned in the first post, the RMN version is to be fitted with the Roketsan Atmaca surface-to surface missiles. And as mentioned in the infographic and the release above, the LMS Batch 2 will be fitted with the Aselsan CENK 3D radar and Akrep fire control radar.
A mock-up of the K-SAAM. Wikipedia

It is unclear what SAM will be fitted on the LMS Batch 2 though as the two candidates for it remained in contention, the MBDA Sea Ceptor and LIG Next 1 K-SAAM are still in contention. Eight missiles will be quad-packed to two VLS on both sides of the hangar deck with sixteen in total. It is likely the South Korean one though as the Babur class VLS for the Sea Ceptor are fitted behind the main gun, just forward of the main superstructure.
A screenshot of a video by Asfat Shipyard which shows the MBDA Sea Ceptor VLS on a Pakistani Babur class corvette.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2200 Articles
Shah Alam

29 Comments

  1. Marhalim,
    There is no anti sub weapon at all. Not light weight torpedo or anti submarine mortar. Is that correct?

  2. yes no mention of them at all as the ship is not fitted without an ASW sonar nor a helicopter with such capability. I also believed having the VLS just aft of the helicopter hangar meant that the torpedo launchers seen on TCG Kaliniada (inside the helicopter hangar port and starboard) are not fitted.

  3. Displacement 2500tonne,yet they dont put d vls behind the main gun?any idea why mr marhalim?

  4. Baring the omission of ASW, it be ironic that LMS2 would have heavier weapons than LCS orz

  5. Going for atmaca despite specifying for the longest time that the NSM was a requirement is extremely odds though.

  6. Aneh lah. I would have thought even some basic ASW system like the anti sub mortars of the Hisar class would have been fitted. So it seem the LCS is the one going to do the ASW work.

  7. NSM was the logical choice as it will be the cheapest solution as it has already been bought. I am guessing that the Turks drove a hard bargain for them.

  8. The original design does not have a VLS behind the main gun. I believe the Sea Ceptor VLS is small enough to fit for the Pakistani variant. My guess we opt for the rear launcher for more VLS space really.

  9. Tom Tom,

    What is so “aneh”? Could be a costing issue. Could be something else.

    Ujang,

    Perhaps the below deck area aft of the A position is utilised; as part of the modifications we specified. Perhaps there was a technical issue which led to the VLS being mounted near the hanger. What difference does it make?

  10. The Turks would have tried their best to include as much Turk stuff
    as possible. Or perhaps it was found that
    integrating /certifying NSM to the ship was more troublesome than originally thought or came at a price we were not wiling to pay.
    It is what it is.

  11. My biggest question is how much the cost per ship? And if new LMS already 2500 tons…what kind of specification is RMN looking for future Corvette Class

  12. The big question is, if everything else is Turkish, why on earth are we contemplating for SK SAMs? Hisar not good enough??

  13. No lah, they are putting the Ukrainian Neptune ASM on the Ukrainian Navy ships while Pakistan will be integrating their P-282 supposedly hypersonic cruise missiles on their ships. I doubt NSM which is a NATO standard weapon will be that difficult to integrate.

  14. It’s aneh because it’s such a big ship, surely a basic ASW weapon and sonar can be squeezed in..

  15. Haiqal – “new LMS already 2500 tons…what kind of specification is RMN looking for future Corvette Class”

    What “future corvette class”?

  16. Less missiles per load means less cost to fully equip all the LMS2, then we wont end up in the similar situation with LCS where we bought the launchers but still not fund to buy the missiles for them. I rather we have less load capacity but the actual missiles are in our hands. As for naval development, since we are gonna pay SK-SAM integration anyhow I see no difference than paying for Hisar to be shipborne.

  17. @Azlan

    In RMN new 15 to 5 there is LCS, LMS and Corvette. The LMS suppose to be smaller than Corvette but now its not.

  18. My suggestion for this 3 ships name following batch 1..KD tombak,KD Lembing,KD Tekpi..follow on ships if any KD Istinggar,KD Terakol,KD Pemuras,KD Rentaka

  19. On the flip side; less loads equals to less capabilities. As a role of thumb; to increase the PK at least a couple of missiles would be launched against an incoming target and chances are it will be incoming targets rather than a target.

  20. It is the LMS with the cheapest price tag what do u want a complete 4 dimensional Multi mission capability with this price? 2500 tonne surely they can fit Asw modules & equipment but the procurement cost would higher or the RMN can reduce to 2 hulls only if they go with a full fledge multimission corvette. Singaporean LMV also did not have Asw. If i remember correctly the LMS purpose is for coastal patrol, SAR, intelligence & maritime enforcement.

  21. Actually if either Sea Ceptor or K-SAAM is selected for LMS2, is it still possible to fit the same SAMs on the LCS too? If it’s possible I belive that it will save cost in the long run. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong

  22. I dont think the MICA launchers can be fitted with Sea Ceptors. Moreover if they changed the SAM they will need to order a new variation order which I dont think anyone will want to do after what happened last time around.

  23. True Sg’s LMV only have Mica and not even SSM..And tyhpoon and hitrole RWS.But then LMV is not really comparable to this batch 2 ‘LMS’..Wait a minute are this 3 ships still considered as LMS or corvette?..Im kinda confused right now..That 4 700tonnes chinese is LMS..this 2500 tonnes ship also LMS? Same class? So confusing..and what about that CORV and OPV squadron?

  24. Qamarul,

    By right all surface combatants should have a sonar and triple torp tubes as a means of self defence.. I don’t think adding a sonar and triple torp tubes would significantly add to the overall price.

    Anyway if the Batch 2s aren’t ASW fitted; it is what it is.

  25. Qamarul – “If i remember correctly the LMS purpose is for coastal patrol, SAR, intelligence & maritime enforcement”

    It’s intended for a wide variety of war and peacetime roles. The idea was/is to have something which can perform roles which don’t cal for a LCS and at a fraction of the cost. Having already received Batch 1s which were not fitted out the way intended; unsurprising that the RMN would want the Batch 2s to be as capable as possible.

    Ultimately there is no pleasing everyone and a number of trade offs had to be made. Even if the Batch 2s were ASW configured and has other things; observers would still knock it.

  26. “On the flip side; less loads equals to less capabilities.”
    But if we cannot afford it the point is moot no? Its like giving me option for car with standard 4cylinder engine or high end V6. If I can only afford the standard car, giving me the option for bigger engine that will give more capabilities is useless.

    “adding a sonar and triple torp tubes would significantly add to the overall price”
    Price and complexity, if the platform did not have a hull sonar before it needs to be redesigned for it and certified to use. And as pointed out by Marhalim, the VLS location precludes the inclusion of integrated torps unless these are jerry rigged somewhere else or else the hull enlarged to fit both.

    @Qamarul
    The original vision for LMS was to be a multiflexible ships class that could perform various roles once they take on the appropriate MCM module (ie minehunting MCM for that role).

  27. Firdaus,

    What is so confusing? This has been discussed to death. It is a “corvette” sized vessel designated “LMS”. Not complicated.

    Also, what’s a “corvette” in one navy could be a “frigate” in another and as pointed out to “…” a “corvette” can be more heavily armed than a “frigate”. What’s a “frigate” in some navies could also be a “destroyer” in another. Not confusing or complicated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*