Thought RMN Don't want those setis too?.

Personally since we have pulled quite a komedi and signed things we shouldn't and we likely can't get out of it, since I heard we already prepaid for those things we shouldn't get in the first place.

Sending those MICA & setis to kedah do sounds like a bright idea. If that's can't be done, send it to the rebooted LMS?

This post has been edited by darth5zaft: Sep 13 2021, 10:52 PM

RMN bukan tak open to the idea of Setis, cuma waktu tu
most of fleet in RMN uses tacticos, tacticos siap ada setup local company lagi kat Malaysia ni jadi for that sake commonality tu is a plus.
MICA system pun now is much more mature, ada je study pasal the NGPV to be fitted with MICA and NSM but aku tak follow up with the paper tu.

LCS?
we have paid the amount, skrg ni up to Bousted la to deliver, PSCND dulu mungkin lepas dari law suit pasal entiti tu dah takde, tapi Bousted will not be so lucky. But from the words the building is now continue, how much of the progress kene tunggu la.

Rebooted Littoral Mission Ship should not morph into a helicopter carrying corvette/opv

We just need the rebooted LMS to be a 50-60m cheap, fast, long-range multi-purpose ship that is not a FAC and not a corvette. No need for complicated CMS. But have a large rear deck that can be fitted with modular anti-ship missiles, modular towed sonars, modular minehunting systems, modular electronic surveillance systems, HADR modules, Diving modules. Can be used as patrol ship, or shadow ship that will chase and follow every foreign warships in our EEZ. No need for twin RHIB stern launchers, as boardings are MMEA stuff.



Say a cap of RM100 mil for each rebooted LMS including AShM missile modules, i think it could be a good ship for TLDM.

If malaysia needs more OPVs, just give the money to MMEA and buy proper OPVs. TLDM should not be in the business of running OPVs.

the 1890 tonne 83m long Tun Fatimah class Damen OPVs are RM246 million each.

those 3000 tonne empty and 4000 tonne full load 140m long korean OPVs cost 38.5 million dollars each only, or around RM162 million.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/0...st-guard-fleet/

Compare to the money we wasted on the relatively smaller 700 tonne 68m long Keris class LMS of RM262.5 million each.

This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 14 2021, 12:10 AM

Setis is a big negative for us. UAE gowinds prove that the gowind actually can use tacticos. But we have paid for thise setis, and to change now and add more money into the bottomless moneypit is not a good idea.

MICA was a big negative when compared to ESSM that TLDM wants, but with the new MICA NG it is now comparable performance wise.

Right now we have no choice but to complete those Gowinds. Only way to recoup the investment is to actually order more, say in rancangan malaysia ke 13 2026-2030 another 3 with a lower fixed price as all the IP design/shipyard upgrade have already been paid for. But does the government have the appetite to dump more money into the gowind project?

Well steel are cheap. The equipment are not.

The bigger the ship, the more expensive it get got more to do with the fact that you could fit plenty of stuff in a big ship. Not nessesarily due to the cost of steel.

If you skim on equipment or get a no brand equipment or off the shelf non custom made equipment from reputable brands or go for 'fit for but not with' . You could get a big ship for cheap.


Modular stuff on an OPV is something that the darulsalam,river class,arafura & LMV are design to do. But the modules itself hasn't been invented yet. If we wanted our rebooted LMS to do what theirs can do, the it probably a good idea to have ship that's around their size displacement and not smaller.

You could see here how the Pakistani had choose for a fit for but not with approach on their Damen OPV.



Off course Damen ship are modular like a Lego block, their supply boat,OPV, fast craft are all basically just the same ship rearrange a bit to meet the clients needs.



See basically the same, just more streamline to reduce the radar cross section (probably not by much).

So even if RMN choose a sigma design but use the same equipment as tun Fatimah then expected almost similar price.

This post has been edited by darth5zaft: Sep 14 2021, 12:46 AM

Why not continued buy china LMS?

So far it is the only tentera msia project i know that ever complete on time and budget lol.....

Which part of LMS rebooted should NOT BE an OPV/Corvette that you don't understand where I am at? It is in my first sentence. 50-60m LMS reboot should NOT be a big ship. Staying small reduces cost.

Also which part of if we really need an OPV then just give the budget to MMEA to buy OPV. Why on earth do we reboot the LMS to be an OPV?? How to let MMEA grow when we continue to buy expensive crappy ships for TLDM?

This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 14 2021, 02:35 AM

Why we should not? It is a tiny 700 tonne ship the same price of a locally built 1890 tonne OPV !!!! Even koreans can build 4000 tonne large OPV bigger than our Gowinds for less than those chinese boats. Its performance also pales in comparison to cheaper boats like damen FCS5009.

You don't buy ships for the sake of buying ships.

What is the mission of TLDM?

What is the misson of MMEA?

Ships should be fit for those missions.

Again, your whole sentence "modular anti-ship missiles, modular towed sonars, modular minehunting systems, modular electronic surveillance systems, HADR modules, Diving modules" pretty much describe what the TNI-AL OPV, darulsalam, arafura & river class going to be eventually. Them all are doing their version of LMV. For now all of them are an OPV, pending the innovation of containerized module.

Going around build ship smaller then everyone else but intent of using the same containers module as everyone else isn't a bright idea.Limiting the size, would reduce the amount of module that can be installed nor the amount of equipment that can be add on nor the amount of electricity the generator can produce. It a whole lot of intergration sakit kepala if your ship is smaller then everyone else. Since manufacturer are going to invent their module to fit into those kind of 'standard' size ships.

Again, steel again are cheap. Equipment are not. You don't need to make your ship small to safe money. To safe money you skim out on the equipment for now rather than go around making the ship small.

it's basically a penny wise pound foolish approch if the rebooted LMS is smaller then the tun Fatimah. As you said yourself "You don't buy ships for the sake of buying ships. Ships should be fit for those missions" there's really no need to reinvent the wheels.

Ok lah, probaby them calling these rebooted LMS a rebooted LMS is a bit misleading & confusing. seem like the OG Chinese build LMS is originally design as their FAC replacement since they called it keris class and wanted 18 of it and all. Their FAC is afterall are being refurbished and are good for the next 15 years.

If anything these rebooted LMS is more of a Kedah/Lekiu class replacement rather than a FAC replacement. All of the supposed contender are offering something in the Kedah class tonnage range, doubt they do that if that's not what RMN RFI is asking for.

.

1. TLDM should not have a replacement for the Kedah class. OPV should be operated by MMEA. Not TLDM

2. Lekiu class should be replaced by NEW FRIGATES. Preferably Type 31. LMS rebooted should not be a Kedah/Lekiu replacement.




You don't buy ships for the sake of buying ships.

What is the mission of TLDM?

TLDM is the main force to defend and strike back at any enemy forces that attack malaysia from the sea.

What is the misson of MMEA?

MMEA is the main force to uphold the security and safety of malaysian waters and EEZ in peacetime.

If a rebooted LMS is an OPV, what can it do in war situation? Operating in confined waters of melacca straits and south china sea, with future profileration of anti-ship ballistic missiles, anti-ship hypersonic missiles, stealth fighters, how can such ships bring the fight to the enemy? Can TLDM afford to lose these large expensive rebooted LMS in war?

If the main function of your LMS rebooted is just patrol, it should not be under TLDM, and we should buy cheap large OPVs for MMEA instead. TLDM keeps buying ships that has little value in future war situation, like the LMS 68, FIC, and the rebooted LMS is just going in the same direction.


In this case, I disagree with what TLDM wants. What TLDM wants is a duplicate function of MMEA mission, and does not increase the future warfighting capability of TLDM.

All those ships design that responded to RMN RFI, capability-wise is exactly similar to the Tun Fatimah Class of MMEA but with at least double the price. Why do you want more expensive ships in TLDM with the capability of cheaper ships in MMEA?

Instead we could give MMEA 3000-4000 tonne 140m OPVs that would perform better than what TLDM RFI can do.

If warfighting capability is what TLDM wanted, smaller, faster, cheaper LMS can do much more warfighting than slow large OPVs. With more smaller ships, we can do distributed lethality operations, with targeting and missile firing from multiple different platforms to confuse the enemy, with the enemy cannot concentrate on just 1 big target. Missiles enemy wasted to destroy small inexpensive ships will be missiles enemy cannot use on our Frigates and MRSS.

What TLDM needs in the future

- Our Gowind frigates, to track and hunt submarines

- More Scorpenes, UUVs, as our underwater deterrent.

- A large multi-purpose frigate to replace Lekiu/kasturi. able to do long range patrol/escort of our Sea lines of communication (SLOC), with bigger numbers of missiles than what the gowind can carry.

- rebooted small LMS that is cheap, fast, able to carry modular missiles and other things. multiple ships running around at high speed from different directions to attack enemy forces at sea or amphibious landing attempts.

All of these things i put above can be bought by TLDM, with current TLDM budgets if we stop wasting money on expensive low performance ships like the Kedah class or LMS 68.

Just look at these 2 designs, Kedah batch 2 and RLMS. Slow, no missiles at all, expensive. What can these ships do that Tun Fatimah class OPV cannot?

https://militaryasset.blogspot.com/2018/04/...dua-rekaan.html



Kedah Batch 2



What TLDM wants? Yes, just a plain OPV that should be the task of MMEA. How much does it cost? RM500 million or 128 million dollars each! The 1890 tonne 83m long Tun Fatimah class Damen OPVs are just RM246 million each. And TLDM wants to waste RM6 billion on these 12 ships??

RM6 billion could buy 3 more scorpenes, with more firepower, more cheaper fuel and manpower costs than 12 more Kedah Batch 2.






RLMS




Again what can this RLMS do that the Tun Fatimah class OPV cannot?

Say you compare these 10 RLMS against 20 of my proposed smaller LMS reboot ships, which one can do more missions?

RLMS
More than 70m length
price same as current LMS RM262.5 million
40mm gun
helicopter
probably 2 containers under the helipad
speed 24 knots
range 2000 nm

ALEX LMS
50-60m length
price RM100 million with anti-ship missile module, RM60 million no modules.
30mm gun
Inflatable anti-ship decoy system
up to 4 containers
speed more than 28 knots
range at max speed at least 2500 nm


Inflatable anti-ship decoy system


This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 14 2021, 11:20 AM

Sos on price?

.



Google is your friend

TLDM China LMS Price - RM262.5 million each

https://www.malaysiandefence.com/lms-price-...-made-in-china/





MMEA 83m DAMEN OPV 1800 price - RM246.3 million each

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/dest...t-contributions





Korean coast guard 4,000 tonne 140m OPV. 2 ships for 90 billion korean won, or 77 million dollars. 1 ship 38.5 million dollars or RM161.7 million.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/0...st-guard-fleet/





With the money we spent on 4 LMS, we could have bought 6 of those large Korean Coast Guard ships, which would have been a better ship to confront with the equally big Chinese Coast Guard Ships in Malaysian EEZ.



This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 14 2021, 05:16 PM

Why u compare navy ship to civilian ship?

The Keris class in all purposes, is just a small patrol boat armed with a single 30mm gun.

The large Korean coast guard ship is build to naval specifications

So what kind of steel does make the 700 tonnes Chinese LMS ship cost so much more than a korean bulit 4,000 tonnes ship?

This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 14 2021, 05:36 PM

What can the TLDM Chinese built LMS do? shoot down fighters with missiles? sink enemy warships with missiles? attack submarines with torpedoes?

Nope, it is capable with none of that!

So what can the LMS do? Oh chase around Chinese Coast Guard ship right?

https://www.upstreamonline.com/politics/mal...ling/2-1-921637


This is the large chinese coast guard ship 中国海警 5402 that KD Keris is chasing in that article. It is a coast guard ship based on a salvage tug design.



Basically that is what Coast Guard OPVs are designed to do!

So why do we pay so much to have a subpar equipment?

This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 14 2021, 07:44 PM

So china build cheaper is a myth

Feels like we got Scammed

This post has been edited by Raddus: Sep 14 2021, 07:49 PM

China build cheaper is true. If jibby have not have asked china for favour to pay all the losses of 1MDB, and we did not buy those ships through Boustead.

The insane LMS price is a reflection of that.

As Long We have Corrupt Leaders in the Government, All the purchase will be PRICE JACK UP !!!!!!