KM Bagan Datuk

KM Bagan Datuk sailing near Port Klang. The patrol boat is build by Destini subsidiary, Destini Shipbuilding and Engineering. APMM

SHAH ALAM: DS Rosmah Mansur officially launched the first NGPC today and named the ship, KM Bagan Datuk. The ceremony for the newest ship to join the MMEA service was conducted at the Destini Shipyard at Port Klang, just over a year after her keel laying on Nov. 18, 2015.

Rosmah was accompanied by her husband, DS Najib Razak, in the ceremony to break the labu sayong marking the entry of Bagan Datuk service with MMEA. Traditionally, women have always been the one to launch or commission a ship.

MMEA DG Adm Ahmad Puzi Ab Kahar being interviewed shortly before the launching and naming ceremony of KM Bagan Datuk. MMEA

The Prime Minister in his speech earlier said although the MMEA had some 255 ships in service from 59 at its inauguration in 2006, the agency’s leadership continue to ask for new ships. He said it was because of the continuous appeal, he had decided to approve the allocation for the NGPC and also the OPV.

“With a maritime area of 614,155 square kilometres and the nation’s strategic geographic location, it important for us to ensure the safety, integrity and sovereignty are intact,” said Najib.

Najib later visited KM Pekan, which had arrived from Japan on Tuesday. Both Bagan Datuk and Pekan are scheduled to take part at LIMA 17, next week.

— Malaysian Defence

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

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1188 Articles
Shah Alam

19 Comments

  1. the 2 donated vessel by japan are KM Pekan and KM Arau… This new vessel is KM Bagan Datuk…

    Pekan is Najib’s constituency, Arau is Shahidan Kassim’s constituency(minister in-charged of mmea) and Bagan Datuk is Zahid’s constituency…

    So,there is high probability that the next mmea vessel will be named KM Tenggara (hishamuddin’s constituency)

    Reply
    It will not be named be KM Tenggara if what you are implying as Hishamuddin constituency is Sembrong….:)

  2. dear marhalim.. i’m very appreciate if you can post some comparison about 2 last candidates mrca involved offset, hardware integration and ew capability..tq.

  3. hopefully this ship will no be same like PCU Gagah Samudera launched by pm wife…..

    Reply
    It’s already commissioned into service, so in that sense it will not be like Gagah….

  4. arif,

    You just have to Google to find out about comparisons on ”hardware integration and ew capability” with regards to Typhoon and Rafale. The information is all there.

  5. Off topic. Do RMAF release accident report finding for mb-339,cn-295,beechcralf-200t crash??

    Reply
    Nope

  6. Any news about the MMEA OPVs?

    Reply
    Sorry, I did not go for the launch even though I was invited, hence the lack of pictures. I expected that there will be too many people at the event as PM was present so I decided not to go. Hopefully, I will get some updates in LIMA, next week.

  7. tq Azlan..i just want to know that if our next candidates mrca choosed because of the factors..i’m just realize our f18 even was upgraded,but they have no ew capabilities such glower..i getting know just RAAF only user of US growler in this region and its quite supraising me because our south neighborhood are not equipped with that such thing..so how effective if they plans to preempative our defence if they have no capability in SEAD..thats why i asking about ew capabilities offered both of candidates..anyway,its hard to pass the amchpta filter.i try repeatly..tq

  8. @ Arif

    Even if someone puts out everything there is to know about EW to you, do you think you could really comprehend how the highly sophisticated system works and what EW can do and affect? I don’t think I can even comprehend how simpler electronics items like how the whatsapp works technically. You can google the Rafale EW capability which is the SPECTRA (Système de Protection et d’Évitement des Conduites de Tir du Rafale) or the Typhoon’s Praetorian DASS.

    SEAD does not equal to a Growler. EW does not mean SEAD. Israel and Singapore does not use the growler, but do you understand the EW capabilities of the F-16I Sufa and the Singapore equivalent for you to compare with the Rafale and Typhoon?

    And I haven’t even touched on the EW system of the Su-30MKM, with its KNIRTI SAP-518 DRFM jammers, Saab avitronics MAWS and LWS, and the internal PRGS-L-150 RWR

  9. As I said before, we do not need a 2k tonne patrol boat. Both NGPC and the OPV is a slap in the face to whoever that thought a 2k tonne corvette on steroid would had been any useful against regional surface combatant.

  10. “i’m just realize our f18 even was upgraded,but they have no ew capabilities such glower..i getting know just RAAF only user of US growler in this region and its quite supraising me because our south neighborhood are not equipped with that such thing”

    Simply put, the missions here, under the requirements here, don’t require it. Apart from Singapore, we barely have SAMs in this neighbourhood. Nobody has intentions to attack anybody that requires that serious EW support. And it’s a little early to be talking about such an expensive capability when most countries here barely have enough fuselages on wings or ordnance stocks in their bomb farms.

    “SEAD does not equal to a Growler. EW does not mean SEAD. Israel and Singapore does not use the growler, but do you understand the EW capabilities of the F-16I Sufa and the Singapore equivalent for you to compare with the Rafale and Typhoon?”

    Yup. For one thing, the USAF has long done without their own dedicated EW aircraft. If one is required they will have to tap the Growlers but you don’t see them doing it.

    Some air forces have a serious SEAD capability without maintaining anti radiation missiles. We have ARM but can’t say we have better SEAD than our neighbour. Which shows there are many ways to skin a cat.

  11. m – ” Both NGPC and the OPV is a slap in the face to whoever that thought a 2k tonne corvette on steroid would had been any useful against regional surface combatant.”

    Well you might think so but it’s not the case. The NGPC and the OPV are a result of our operational requirements; period. The MMEA desired and got a ship of that displacement because it needed a ship of that size with the needed range, endurance and seakeeping when operating in certain areas.

    arif,

    Singapore has F-16Ds with a dorsal mounted jammer [Israeli supplied] intended to deal with ground based radars. With whatever MRCA we buy there is a strong possibility we might buy jamming pods; intended to deal with the seeker heads of incoming radar guided AAMs. Our MKMs have anti radiation missiles but of course it doesn’t make the MKM a dedicated SEAD/DEAD platform per say – it can engage individual radars but can’t shut down a whole network. The RAAF has Growlers because the RAAF foresees the RAAF operating on foreign soil over hostile airspace in an expeditionary role; with or without partners who have similar capabilities.

    EW is a very expensive game to get into and also very expensive to maintain. Requires lots of training and steady investments. A major problem is that stuff that’s available off the shelf may not be suitable for ones unique requirements and buying stuff tailored to ones unique requirements is extremely expensive.

  12. The point here is that like anti submarine warfare, parachute/amphibious assault and a lot of other fields, buying something does not buy you a respectable capability in that field overnight. It takes years of practice and mountains of cash.

    You know the reality of our defence budget, we barely have enough for everyday training and operating needs. Even if we have the gear, funds for these capabilities will be the first to go when budgets are tight. It is better we train to answer the need with our existing gear and deepen our ordnance stocks while at it.

    The “buy this buy that gear” mindset among the comments here has to go.

  13. buying something to replace current capability and with a AFFORDABLE OPERATING COSTS to enable those assets to be regularly used for missions (like regular patrol, surveillance etc instead of preparing for a war) and training.

    that is why i propose commercial based ships, lms with 0 asw capability and supersonic single engine fighter trainers. so that regular training and missions could be done on costs that we could afford.

    as for our training and human resources capability, we have actually spend quite a bit in enabling our assets to be operated to the fullest. our ew capability, now shared with all 3 services have expanded considerably. we have training contracts with south africa, sweeden, turkey and czech in the area of ew, we have for a few years our own ew emissions threats library that we maintain on our own. we do have regular training, but it could be expanded further, with assets that could be regularly operated cost effectively

  14. @ am

    here you are advocating for better training while in the beechcraft post you are questioning it…

  15. Azlan,
    You just answered your own question. Operation requirement. MMEA is taking over the role that used to be Navy’s when the so called NGPV program would cover. You had just perfectly slapped them again.

  16. “here you are advocating for better training while in the beechcraft post you are questioning it…”

    Who says I was questioning the training? I was asking if the air force would reduce the number of pilots accordingly if aircraft are lost without replacement. As you know, we haven’t bought attrition replacements for a long time and budgets are tight.

  17. m,

    I’m not sure what question of mine you think I answered and how I ”slapped” the MMEA ‘again”. It was always the intention for the MMEA to take over a variety of roles the RMN performs; from the 1990’s when plans were first raised to form the MMEA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*