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.
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.
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?
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.
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
So far it is the only tentera msia project i know that ever complete on time and budget lol.....
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.
If anything these rebooted LMS is more of a Kedah/Lekiu class replacement rather than a FAC replacement. .
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.
QUOTE(darth5zaft @ Sep 14 2021, 07:57 AM)
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.
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.
Menurut BHIC, pihak TLDM memerlukan sebanyak 12 kapal yang akan diberi peranan melakukan rondaan penguatkuasaan maritim dan Zon Ekonomi Ekslusif (EEZ) yang mencakupi penangkapan ikan secara haram, cetak rompak dan serangan seaborne lintas sempadan dari kumpulan bersenjata di Filipina.
Ini bermakna anggapan bahawa kapal generasi baru ini akan dilengkapi dengan sistem persenjataan yang canggih seperti peluru berpandu anti permukaan dan anti udara ternyata meleset. Dengan hanya meriam utama 57mm dan meriam 30mm dibelakang menjadikan anggaran harga NGPV batch kedua kurang dari RM500 juta (USD 128 juta) sebuah.
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
QUOTE
Digelar Kapal Misi Littoral Revolusioner, ia mungkin sedikit lebih panjang daripada LMS yang direka khas oleh China. Tambahan pula, ia mungkin mempunyai berat dalam urutan 750 tan, berbanding dengan 710 tan untuk empat unit batch asal LMS yang ditempah.
Model itu menggambarkan sebuah kapal dengan dek penerbangan tegar tetapi tidak ada hanggar, dan RHIBs yang di lancarkan disampingan kapal bukannya di buritan kapal. Dek penyimpanan di bawah dek penerbangan boleh menampung beberapa kontainer.
Persenjataan maksimum akan menjadi meriam 40mm, berbanding dengan 30mm RWS dipasang pada LMS asal.
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
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
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
QUOTE
The Tae Pyung Yang (Pacific) class is a class of large (3000 tons class) patrol vessels of the Korea Coast Guard. These vessel are only second (in size) to the two Sam Bong-class vessels of the agency (which are 5,000 tons). Tae Pyung Yang-class is said to be very survivable, as they were built following naval vessel standards.
Korea Coast Guard currently has 13 Tae Pyung Yang-class vessels in service (including one service as training ship). The first vessel (pennant number 3001) was built in 1994 and the last one (pennant number 3015) in 2015. The Eastern Regional Coast Guard only had one such vessel in its fleet thus far.
Ships in the class are not identical: They were built by two shipyards Hyundai Heavy Industries and STX Offshore & Shipbuilding. Their full load displacement ranges form 3,860 tonnes to 4,450 tonnes and their equipment configuration varies. For example their weapon systems consists in either Doosan DST ‘No Bong’ dual 40mm gun and Sea Vulcan 20mm mounts, or two Sea Vulcan mounts or a OTO Melara 40 mm and Sea Vulcan or a single Sea Vulcan mount.
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
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.
QUOTE
According to data, the China Coast Guard ship 5402 is a domestically produced ship with a displacement of 4,000 tons. The Malay Dagger-class littoral mission ship was also built by a Chinese shipyard with a displacement of 680 tons and was delivered at the beginning of this year.
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.
Personally i think your mission statement mostly describe
1)a brown water navy. Brown water navy pretty much relied on fleet of gunboat & missiles boat FAC, mines warfare & plenty of subs for a hit and run approach. Basically what sweeden navy current is. Off course sweeden play that game as they are so scared of Russia but they didn't join NATO and such need to be prepared to defense themselves all by themselves.
2) a civilian coast guard, basically prioritizing their police at sea mission. Instead of trying to balance between the dualism of a paramilitary organization. Off course being police at sea during peacetime but at the same time responsible to Coastal defense is what RMN used to do mostly from their 2 kasturi, 36 FAC & 18 FIC.
TLDM should be a green water navy, but without the long range amphibious pretensions. In limited wars, chasing around foreign submarines, our gowind ASW frigates would roam the south china sea in search of them. Long ranged small LMS reboot, can work alongside the gowinds with low cost containerised towed sonars, to work better in finding submarines (multiple sonar triangulations). Type 31 large frigates, replacing Lekius and kasturi in 10-15 years time would do long range patrol of our SLOC in protecting our maritime trade in the andaman sea, indian sea and beyond.
In future all out war, when surface ships would be easily blown out of the water (imagine the sinking of repulse and prince of wales incident in 1941, but magnified 100 times over), TLDM should rely on submarines and UUVs to strike back at the enemy. with the multiple LMS and army NSM coastal batteries blockading our choke points in melacca straits, pulau banggi and tawau waters.
MMEA doesn't really need to do coastal defence like fighting those who want to land in malaysia. It will do all encompassing policing of the waters, FICs and patrol boats intercepting illegal immigrants, smuggling, piracy, illegal fishing etc. With OPVs policing our EEZ out to 200 nm.
QUOTE(darth5zaft @ Sep 14 2021, 11:01 PM)
RMN 15 to 5 seem that the navy are still confused as to what kind of navy they wanted to be. Brown water or green water. Seem they wanted to be both But. If TUDM finally decided to be a green water, best if TLDM to copy RAN homework
After nearly 2 decades of the establishment of MMEA, TLDM still cannot coordinate its future plans that take MMEA into account. The continued planning of buying minimally armed OPVs and getting LMS that are nothing more than expensive patrol boats is the proof of this inability.
This is the actual current TLDM 15 to 5 plan
There is still a plan for 18 OPVs!!! A waste as TLDM OPVs costs are crazy when it is better to just let MMEA to get bigger cheaper OPVs instead.
The plan for 12 Frigates is a good one. I would go for 8 gowinds and 4 Type 31s.
18 LMS, if it is exactly the same as RLMS concept, would not bring any increased lethality to TLDM, while wasting more money. Which brings me to my cheap, fast, long ranged, small missile capable LMS, of which around 24 would be good.
Subs numbers is too little. I would want 6 scorpenes plus the same number of large UUVs.
Having at least 2 replenishment tankers to replace BM5 and BM6 capability. A capability that we could also contribute to allies operating around our waters. Example of how Canadian Navy MV Asterix is now the most deployed ship of the canadian navy. https://www.stm.com.tr/en/our-solutions/nav...cs-support-ship This turkish designed replenishment ship was built by pakistan for 80 million dollars.
TLDM should also get 2-3 OSVs, preferably used ones. This can host special forces, as our platform to sow mines and also be the mothership for TLDM future minehunting capability (OSV + small LMS + USV + small UUV minehunting combination)
Royal NZ Navy OSV that is bought secondhand recently
French Navy version
QUOTE(darth5zaft @ Sep 14 2021, 11:01 PM)
But those others that reply to the RFI are pretty good. 500 mil a piece for the LMS to me seem like a fair price, remember someone post the calculation to fully equipped Kedah class to the teeth at Marhalim blog goes for 250 mil or something like that. Add in 250 mil in the cost of a tun Fatimah size ship then you get 500 mil.
As for why, probably the rebooted LMS would work like the LMV. Remember that LMV is a full Corvette but with the CIWS,ASUW,ASW weapon put in storage with space below heli deck for modules. For now it's parade around as a not too threatening AAW capable OPV since their missiles are pointed to the sky and not to the ship they are shadowing/tailings. But it would be a full Corvette the moment the need for a full Corvette appears.
500 mil a piece for LMS with zero missiles, just guns is not a fair price!
Singapore has completed the 8 LMV that are supposed to replace the Fearless-class patrol vessels, but operational experience sees those ships too big for its intended missions. Which is why Singapore quietly retaining 4 Fearless-class patrol vessels.
Large LMV is nice to have, but in our case we can do without. if we can get 5 smaller but anti-ship capable multi-role ships that can be distributed widely around the archipelago for the same price of 1 LMV, which one is better? which one is more troublesome for the enemy to kill and waste missiles at? When we run around near shores, why do we need a helipad on the ship? Also remember that malaysia has limited budget. More spent on a large expensive LMS, corvettes is less for more submarines, UUVs, Type 31.
QUOTE(darth5zaft @ Sep 14 2021, 11:01 PM)
.
4) MRSS Is in itself unneeded if all we care bout is self defense, it's more cost effective to use commercial vessels if we need to send asset between the east & west MY. Even if we need it, we don't need anything more than a glorified ferry like the Makassar class. But seem like the navy budget for MRSS is twice the cost of Makassar.
What we need is a sea logistics bridge between west and east malaysia. Not to do amphibious landing on other people's territories. A MRSS based on large fast RORO without wet amphibious dock would be ideal. A few commercial RORO could also be used to supplement the MRSS.
TLDM getting 2 new MRSS and 1 used RORO like Spanish Navy would be adequate to support the sea logistics bridge between west and east malaysia.
QUOTE(darth5zaft @ Sep 14 2021, 11:01 PM)
I think ATM show a lot of intension to be part of an alliance while TNI want to be their own man, abilities to do stuff alone or with another like the french. Being your own man like what ID intend to do come at a steep price. You need to purchase free to use as you wish platforms like Scorpene, FREMM & Raphael to have such capabilities. Despite our residents singkie love to shit on them, i say they are doing exactly what they needed & wanted to do. If anything our residents Sinkie are being overly nationalistic applying sinkie logic to ID and comes out unimpressed and think they are dumb. Never bothered giving them a 2nd look and rethink why they act the way they does.
Even singkie logic restricted their recent USA weapons buy to only fighter jets. They don't want to be seen tied to USA too. They got french frigates, Swedish and german submarines, Swedish LMV tech, Israeli missiles and plenty of home built weapons.
QUOTE(darth5zaft @ Sep 14 2021, 11:01 PM)
F35 like type 31 are cheap. But good luck being your own man if you buy it. Being cheap in itself has a price, there's no such thing as a free lunch afterall, in this case you are trading Abit of self interest for some monetary savings.
What is the big issue actually of buying British??
Where did we get our Lekius? Our Lynx? Our Jernas? Our Starstreaks? Our Hawks? Have we ever blocked in any of our operations in using our UK sourced hardware? UK has always been behind us, even protecting us long afer we got our independence. We are still linked to UK with the FPDA treaty. Even in the future the royal navy will have 2 OPVs permanently deployed to Asia Pacific, later to be replaced by Type 31 frigate when it enters service. Having Type 31 of our own will be beneficial to our long term defence relationship with UK, and a good optics publicly as we will replace the UK built Lekiu with hopefully locally built Type 31.
Did you graduate from naval college ? Did they teach you this principle of missile boat usage ?
so are you a naval college graduate?
principle is one thing
how you do it is another.
how much difference does it make when you compare a diesel powered missile FAC/corvette like the Laksamana class for example, compared to this thing that uses 5 jet engines?
if you like the absurdity of running ships that is powered by 5 jet engines, yeah by all means please join the Indonesian navy.
If you know malaysian history, TLDM has used jet engine powered missile boats 58 years ago in the 1960s. It was even faster than the boat Indonesia wants to buy, a top speed of 57knots!!! They were one of the fastest missile boat in the world at the time. So we have done that, and we are not repeating it for obvious reasons.
This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 15 2021, 01:11 PM
need of mMEA being mostly a police at sea & aren't responsible towards coastal defense Then the NAVy do need those 18 small size LMS + 18 OPV to defend the coast while MMEA need those 14 NGPC to do law enforcement exclusively.
If MMEA are responsible towards law enforcement during peace time and coastal defense during war then there's no need for those 18 LMS. Just transfer out the 4 Chinese LMS and buy MMEA some time to acquired 14 NGPC through RMN SLEP of their FAC.
Of course that's would mean MMEA NGPC may need to be fit for but not with ASUW missiles. Or they don't, just let TD took care of it with land based ASUW missiles.
You like to throw out words. But what do you really mean by this thing:
Coastal Defence
What is coastal defence that you understand?
We need to defend our coasts from whom? What kind of war will they bring to us?
Why TLDM OPV - "Offshore" patrol vessels that are designed to operate near to the 200 nm limit of our EEZ are needed for your so called coastal defence?
TLDM wants 18 large LMS (the RLMS) with helipad and 40mm gun, plus 18 large OPV of Kedah class with just 57mm gun and 30mm gun. All TLDM RFI points out to ships with no missile fitment at all with the very high costs. For example the Kedah Batch 2 is devoid of any FFBNW systems to reduce the cost from original batch 1 cost of 1 billion ringgit to the proposed 500 million ringgit. What can those ships without a single missile or even fitted for them can do in your so called coastal defence scenario?
Again I want to ask you what can the kind of ships RLMS and Kedah Batch 2 that TLDM wants can do differently when compared to the MMEA Tun Fatimah class?
Also what do you think a future conflict in South China Sea will look like?? Knowing how a possible future conflict will roll out is important to plan what kind of response we are going to prepare for.
This post has been edited by alexz23: Sep 15 2021, 11:56 PM
Sep 13 2021, 11:47 PM
Quote
But. If TUDM finally decided to be a green water, best if TLDM to copy RAN homework
0.1062sec
0.50
7 queries
GZIP Disabled