KD Keris Commissioned

KD Keris crew getting ready to board their ship after the commissioning ceremony.

SHAH ALAM: KD Keris, the RMN first China made warship was commissioned into service today. RMN chief Admiral Reza Mohd Sany read out the commissioning declaration for Keris at Qidong, Shanghai today.

At the ceremony, Reza also put on the CO insignia for its fist commanding officer, Commander Mohd Zulkarnain Mohd Rawi. RMN said the first of class of ship designated as Littoral Mission Ship (LMS)
is expected to depart Qidong in January 8 and is expected to arrive on January 17 at the Kota Kinabalu naval base at Sepanggar.

Admiral Reza reading the commissioning declaration of KD Keris.

Keris is the first RMN warship to be built in China. RMN took delivery of the ship at a ceremony at Wuchuan Shipbuilding Industry Co Ltd at Wucang Port, Qidong, in Shanghai, China on January 6. The second of class LMS, Sundang, is scheduled to be delivered and commissioned in April.
Reza putting on the CO insignia on Keris first commanding officer. RMN

Work on the other two LMS are underway at the Wuhan shipyard where Keris and Sundang were built and are expected to be launched by mid of next year. The government signed a contract with Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) for the supply of the four LMS, in 2017. BNS contracted with China Shipbuilding & Offshore International Corporation (CSOC) for the design and manufacture of the LMS. Originally two of the LMS were to be built in China with another two built at the BNS facility in Pulau Jerejak, Penang.
KD Keris crew getting ready to board their ship after the commissioning ceremony.

However a revision of the contract terms in early 2019 saw the contract price reduced and the last two LMS to be built in China.
KD Keris crew with the RMN leadership in a group photograph.

Traditionally, RMN ships built overseas, are commissioned into service prior their homecoming so the ceremony today is a normal thing.

–Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1189 Articles
Shah Alam

15 Comments

  1. Congratulations to the navy.

    ‘If’ we will produce more of the keris class in our own shipyards (since i believe we already paid for tot of the design), will we have any problems integrating westerns equipments and software, politically?

    Since the thai naresuan and algerian c28a are using westerns equipments.

    Reply
    I think the reduction in the cost of the contract meant that BNS did not buy the IP rights to the ship. I am not sure about this though, hopefully I can clarify the issue when I go for the home coming ceremony for the ship in KK next week.

  2. Nihd – “ will we have any problems integrating westerns equipments and software, politically”

    Why would we face political issues? If the ship has a Chinese CMS the cooperation of the Chinese will be needed to share the software codes with the OEMs of whatever Western stuff we but but it’s not as if we’re integrating anything sensitive or revolutionary in terms of capabilities or something Western OEMs would not like to see on a Chinese constructed ship.

    Of far more concern is the need for long term planning – hard to do when the government is indecisive with regards to funding and timing – to ensure the first batch and the follow on don’t differ too much in their fit outs. Personally I’m not even convinced yet that the first batch will ever be fully fitted out as originally intended.

  3. PRC Navy is sending a few Coast guard ships to escort our Keris back. The ships will provide escort all the way to KK naval base, where the Keris will be homeported. The escort ships will then lepak2 at Luconia shoals 😉

  4. @…
    A 780ton LMS is going to successfully chase away a 12,000ton China coastguard behemoth? You gotta be kidding, right?

  5. First in class have been commissioned and we still don’t have a single clue what modular containerised module system it is using and what modules are available and whether we will be buying them in sufficient number.

  6. Lets get the hulls first as many as we can get..Module can come in later..IMHO the module for Hydrographic and MCM should come first to replace KD Perantau and MAHAMIRU..Then we can go to more offensive module like Patria Nemo Mortar, SAM or if possible SSM too..

    Reply
    I don’t think Western made modules will be allowed on the LMS

  7. Actually if we could convert a LNG tanker to a helicopter/auxiliary vessel no 12000 ton ship can stop it. Add 120mm cannons for naval/shore bombardment and there’s a complete package. OTOH are the Chinese still sending bombers to buzz the drillships in our EEZ?

  8. joe,
    I am nearly certain there are no modularised containers in the shipbuilding contract. Would be good if I am proven wrong in this.

    Nihd,
    Agree with Marhalim that the cost does not look like it contains any IP rights. Why would we want it anyway. From past experience, no one really cares about it anyway. BNS bought the IP rights for the NGPV from the Germans as a step towards building in-country capability. And what does the Government and Navy do? Use a French design for the LCS! LOL! NGPV IP rights down the drain!

    As for the next batch of LMS, just use the APMM OPV DAMEN design. Get significantly more bang for the buck.

  9. @ joe

    “A 780ton LMS is going to successfully chase away a 12,000ton China coastguard behemoth? You gotta be kidding, right?”

    Well it has to as it costs more than the MMEAs DAMEN OPV1800s!

    @ Api69

    If you want OPVs, just give enough budget for APMM to buy more DAMEN OPV1800s. I am all in for batch 2 of the DAMEN OPV1800.

    But for ships to fulfill the functions of LMS, I dont think an OPV design would be ideal. My take on the LMS concept:
    – Must be strictly be defined by its operating area. Malacca Straits and ESSCOM would be its main operating area, preferably under the radar coverage of coastal surveillance radars.
    – To excel in asymmetric warfare with non-state actors, terrorists and pirates. To be able to engage and fight a swarm-type attack (something like 12-20 fast boats) comfortably. Not to fight submarines or large frigates. Not to be seen as a lower cost LCS/SGPV/Gowind frigate but an optimized ship concept for asymmetric warfare in littoral and near shore areas.
    – Seaward Defence, to prevent non-state actors to reach Malaysian shores (preventing another Lahad Datu type of mass landings)
    – Able to do sea denial (blockade, ship raiding, minelaying) and also anti-sea denial (MCM, striking fast boats and enemy FACs)
    – To have specialized VBSS teams and RHIB for rapid ship boardings.
    – Manned areas armored to take hits from small caliber arms (AK-47 and similar)
    – Low end versions to be able to do multiple tasks such as logistics, HADR, SAR, Dive support, troop ferrying (subtype) and Hydrography (subtype)

    I would prefer the LMS concept to be continued as my proposed LMS-B concept based on the Damen FCS 5006 Security. Just keep the LMS68 capped to the 4 ordered.
    http://www.malaysiandefence.com/another-perspective-lms/
    http://www.malaysiandefence.com/another-perspective-lms-2/

    Off topic.

    What happened to the plan for the Navy Museum? No need a grand museum. Something a bit better than this would be good.
    http://seoulbattleshippark.com/en/index.php

  10. @ASM
    You should never be using your mothership, in this case your auxiliary vessel, as a force projection by itself. In any situation with China, it would quickly be swarmed and escorted out quickly and neither do we have sufficient support ships to back it up as a force projector. Whatmore the cumbersome nature of such ships make it slow to respond in quickly escalating situations (boarding, ramming, aggressive turn maneuvers, quickly retreating when untenable).

    @Api69
    The crux is, the LMS are only as capable as the modules they can carry and w/o knowing that, we are unable to make that judgement.

    As for its ToT, I would still go for local build eventually. Yes, the initial ToT is way too pricey but that can be nego. The LMS and OPV are going to make the bulk of TLDM and with volume it would make sense to build locally (politically & economically). With such simplified nature of the basic LMS, I am confident we could build it entirely by ourselves and not rely on China sourced parts. We can build more ships independent of China support/non-support by then.

    As for NGPV, understandable that it was different era of leaderships whom decided on NGPV and Gowinds. The problem is, the NGPV Meko100 is a 80s ship design and modern naval stealth ship architecture & tech have made the Meko obsolete in any front line warfare other than minor role as a gunboat patrol ship, which it is overpriced for that purpose. It is like comparing the fighting capability of legacy Hornet vs F-35.

  11. Api69,
    I still think that it’s not an exercise in vain. Boustead did gain some experience nonetheless. IMO if they use NGPV for both MMEA and Navy the operating cost should be reduced in the longer. Obviously the vessels should be kitted out differently, with the Navy having more offensive firepower (missiles, torpedoes etc) and MMEA having short range armament (cannons, rockets). Dunno why they went for Gowind instead of adding more NGPVs….

    Also Air Force chief officially confirmed the Nuris are to be phased out. News just came in The Star.

  12. Quite rare to me,RMN servicemen kitted out in their black dress,is it a norm when taking possession of asset overseas,or is it for cold weather?

    Reply
    It’s for the cold weather

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*