SHAH ALAM: RMN has taken delivery of the second LMS, PCU Sundang, at Shanghai, China today. The delivery ceremony took place at the Wuchuan Shipbuilding Co. Ltd, Wuchang port in Qidong, Shanghai. The ship’s delivery was undertaken by the final delivery committee headed by the LMS team project leader, Kept Abdul Hadi Abdullah, RMN says in a press release.
The committee had conducted the documentation checks,physical inspection and a sailing demonstration of the ship prior to the signing of the handing over documents with the shipbuilder. The committee also handed over the documents to Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd to mark the delivery of the ship.
RMN said the ship which started her build on October 23, 2018 at the Wuchuan manufacturing base in Wuhan, was launched on July 12, 2019. The ship was supposed to be delivered to the RMN on April 12, 2020 but was delayed to today (January 14, 2021) due to the coronavirus pandemic which also forced work on the ship to be halted on January 23, 2020. Her crew only returned to Shanghai on October 16, 2020 to continue their training on the ship.
The ship is expected to sail home in the third week of this month to Kota Kinabalu naval base in Teluk Sepanggar where her commissioning ceremony is expected to take place. RMN chief Admiral Reza Sany is expected to be present at the ceremony at a date to be determined later.
The third and fourth LMS which were launched late last year is expected to sail home this September and November.
Based on the above statements, it is likely the Keris class 21st LMS squadron is expected to become operational late this year. As reported previously, KD Keris, the first of class China-made LMS was commissioned in early 2020.
— Malaysian DefenceIf you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Wanted to just not reply on anything for these few weeks, but it is so boring reading comments about malaikat and films, and nothing about malaysian defence.
Is the 2nd LMS68 still going to be called Sundang?
What about the current refit project of ex KD Sundang 3149 (KM Segantang 3133) overseen by the Tim Nukleus Patrol Craft (TNPC) ?
Will there be 2 KD Sundangs?
Yes it will be called Sundang, all of the old names have been struck out the RMN list once they are retired from service
Here’s something about “malaysian defence”. I was having a close look at this bayonet I’ve had for a long time. Always assumed it was an M7 for the M16A1 but have identified it as a BM59. Made by Beretta it was supplied with the small batch of AR70s we ordered
Does anyone know what bayonets were issued with the AUGs? For the M-4s were ordered Eickhorn blades; the Rolls Royce of blade makers.
Most of our SLRs were Enfield made but I suspect we also got ones made by Lithgow in Australia as I’ve examined an ex army SLR bayonet which is Aussie made.
What’s more interesting is how did you manage to acquire it? Is it a family heirloom?
*WARNING –> this got nothing to do with malaysian defence*
In my dad’s kampung house there’s a kukri which I assume to belong to British Army Gurkhas as it has a lion head at the base of the handle
someone was sellling malaysian army AUG bayonet in carousel last year. it was made in Austria
I have no idea if the Brit army actually issued khukris to Gurkha regiments but I know that troops were allowed to privately purchase their own khukris.
On Carousel? Interesting. The first batch of AUGs indeed came along with “Steyr” marked bayonets (either actually made by Steyr or contracted) but I suspect the last batch produced by SME may have come with another type. There were also plans for a cheaper Japanese scope.
Most of the M-7 bayonets we got at an early stage were Colt made but we also got others made by various other companies. My M8A1 sheath (for a non Colt made M7) is marked “PWH” (Pennsylvania Working
Company); made by the blind.
From purely killing tools; bayonets have long evolved to also being working tools. The AK47 bayonet (irrespective of where it’s made) can be used as a screwdriver, hammer, can opener and to cut wire. Certain AK bayonets have a rubber insulator fitted around the bakelite sheath to prevent electrocution when cutting wires.
The Malaysian army several years ago contacted a batch of “Swiss army knifes” from Victorinox.
The Swiss Army knives are mostly door gifts. The Army recently ordered a number of combat daggers complete with sheaths given to high ranking officers likely three and two stars
It seems like the first LMS made in China KD Keris needs some repair that i was told by a collegue who is doing it right now.
What a pity just a few month into service there is some problem with the ship. On the surface above the water everything looks shining like new but under, who knows.
Just enough with the things from China please.
All equipment used in harsh environments need constant upkeep and repairs
On the subject of blades. For a long time the MAF’s ceremonial swords were British made but over the years there have been cheaper Pakistani made ones.
I could be wrong but the commando daggers presented to newly inducted Gerak Khas people (with the MAF keris marking) are probably locally made – the keris motif is also applied in everything; from Jernas to the G-5s to ASTROS. As far back as the late 1970’s certain Ranger people were presented with commando
daggers for achieving a certain number of kills during a deployment in RASCOM.
Jacque – “What a pity just a few month into service there is some problem with the ship”
Problems can be encountered with all types of equipment; whether made in Switzerland, the U.K. or China. We’ve had certain issues in the past with Western stuff. Nothing’s written in stone that a Western hull will be of a higher standard than one made in China. As far as equipment goes; we’ve had numerous problems with Western stuff as well – some which doesn’t perform well in our climate and some which simply didn’t perform as advertised despite being sold by well known firms.
Jacque – “Just enough with the things from China please.”
Let’s make something clear.
Issues related to Chinese made stuff is commonality and integration and certification for non Chinese stuff. The RMN operates Western gear which is not compatible with Chinese stuff and will have to create a separate training/support and infrastructure for Chinese stuff. That’s the problem; not so much the build quality of Chinese hulls …
If a customer was willing to pay and specified a certain type of steel and specified tough DC and other standards; Chinese yards can deliver. Like with South Korean yards; Chinese yards have come a very long way.
The prohibiting factor is not what they’re capable of producing but how much a potential customer is willing to pay and what he specifies …
“In my dad’s kampung house there’s a kukri which I assume to belong to British Army Gurkhas as it has a lion head at the base of the handle”
In my late grandfather’s house, there’s a small keris made from a sharpnel which made a clean hole on the wall wooden plank, courtesy of Confrontation Indonesian shelling the kampung.
” The prohibiting factor is not what they’re capable of producing but how much a potential customer is willing to pay and what he specifies ”
We are willing to and paid for those LMS at a price much more higher than our locally built 1800ton OPV, those chinese built LMS should be faultless.
but i do understand all things need maintenance. regualr maintenance need is understandable but need to rectify problems? If there is any problems it should be fully settled and cost fully borne by boustead as the middlemen.
It is likely the repairs conducted will be covered by the warranty programme. Whether or not it will be FOC will depends on the type of failure and coverage as specified by the contract
nimitz- “ courtesy of Confrontation Indonesian shelling the kampung”
There were several instances of Indonesian shelling of the Tawau area. In response Model 56s fired in their positions on Nunukan island.
… – “We are willing to and paid for those LMS at a price much more higher than our locally ”
You sure about that? You sure the reason behind the price tag was because we specified certain things or a certain build quality? You sure we are actually “willing”?
… – “LMS should be faultless”
In the real world nothing is “faultless” or “defect free”; irrespective of how much it costs.
That’s precisely why yard trials are conducted during a period when the ship hasn’t been handed over to the customer and the reason why after it’s handed over there is a period where the OEM is obligated to fix whatever problems are encountered.
Even with ships which have long been produced; using systems long been operated; tech issues are still encountered.
The problem is if problems are encountered after the warranty period is void and if the OEM is unable to fix the issue – it has happened before but I won’t go into specifics.
Or the government or/and user refused to fix the problems
I think….The LMSs need to change their weapon such as bofors 40/57mm…and they need to put SSM/SAM on it.
There are no plans at the moment to put new weapons on the LMS
“The LMSs need to change their weapon such as bofors 40/57mm”
As mentioned before; the RMN has decided on 30mm to be its secondary calibre.
For what it’s expected to do; 30mm is sufficient. Going for 57 or 40mm doesn’t provide much added value.
“and they need to put SSM/SAM on it.”
Obviously but the priority at the moment is getting all 4 in service to augment the aged FACs and going for a 2nd batch.
Arming the 1sr batch also poses issues : getting Chinese gear (stuff with no interoperability with what we have) increases the logistical footprint but getting Western gear would entail the need for integration/certification.
As I had previously posted here no Western OEM will install anything military grade on the LMS. Maybe they will relent in 2030 or so
It seems like the first LMS made in China KD Keris needs some repair that i was told by a collegue who is doing it right now.
…i Reputation precedes them. We shouldn have to give excuses but its not the first time …i think the Naresuan and the previous Thai frigates have issue from rust to quality of wiring.
If only we can access actual cost figures to compare but only those involved in the bidding process knows better but you are right to conclude based on the “available” information that these 4 aint cheap. So, fair comment.
The good news…heck at least its gonna be delivered COVID or not unlike our LCS. Thats like a badly, awfully, horrendous written script.
The thing is what kind of “repairs”? Until we know; we’re really just speculating. “Repairs” per see or preventive maintenance due to being at sea? Or “repairs” due to issues with build quality?
A mentioned before; issues are encountered with all types of ships; irrespective of where they’re constructed. The RTN did have issues with its Thai ships (especially the Jianghus) but that was during a different period. They also found cracks in the armour of their Chinese MBTs due to poor welding but that was during a different period.
From time to time issues are also found on Western ships. I’m not a fan of Chinese ships but it isn’t because of the build quality inherent with Chinese built ships but for other reasons.
The days are long gone when Chinese yards were unable to compete with Western yards. Same goes with South Korean yards. We’ve had issues with our Western ships and so have others. The USN from time to time gas issues with newly commissioned ships. Doesn’t mean anything fundamentally wrong with them.
The fact that we paid more than we should for them is not a matter of dispute. What seems to be an issue with some id the ingrained misconception that Chinese ships are “inferior” – depends wholly on what a customer specifies and how much hrs willing to pay for. One can also get a Western ship with minimal build standards if one has a low budget.
“Thats like a badly, awfully, horrendous written script.”
What’s new? To as to a list of others. The question is whether we have the will and desire to not repeat the same mistakes over and over. Part of that process includes coming to terms that the way we go about things is fundamentally flawed and is in need of a major revamp.
People that harp on LMS facing technical problems/malfunctions failed to recall that our Western-made subs also cannot dive at one point. Shit happens regardless of make or geography.
Only one of the sub had that difficulty
Correct me if I’m wrong. From what I was told; the issue with the sub was not that it “couldn’t dive”
per see but that a decision was made not to make it dive; due to the discovery of a certain technical issue relating to the blower system.
As a caveat in case anybody comes up with unfounded statements/theories; other navies (much more experienced sub operators) have also had issues with newly built subs (some with a longer more mature history than Scorpene) as well as ones which just completed refits; including the ROKN, Bundersmarine, Greek Navy and USN.
Unfortunately; just like how some will continue insist the Scorpenes have defects; some will domestically and inaccurately insist the LMSs have defects or a low build quality merely because they were constructed in a Chinese yard when the plain fact is that ships can and do have issues; irrespective of where they are constructed.
And the fact that the RMN disagreed on why it should pay for it
The cannot dive clickbait statement was done by a reporter in an article with malay mail. The actual issue was just a normal safety measure that was done during trials. And that is picked up by indonesians to put down malaysians.
The fact is that the scorpene is still one of the most advanced conventional submarine in the world. Which is why now indonesia wants it after dissapointed with the korean submarine capability (and rumors are TNI-AL is looking to upgrade those new subs with western or turkish help as soon as this year)
I was the Malay Mail reporter. And it was not clickbait
… – “The fact is that the scorpene is still one of the most advanced conventional submarine in the world”
It is an “advanced” and “capable” design but I won’t add the “most” parr because it’s subjective and depends on what a customer needs/requires in a sub.
All current gen boats – whether single hull littoral ones or larger ocean going double hull ones – are advanced. Different designs will be better at various things: each will have their merits.
…. – “picked up by indonesians to put down”
No idea about the Indonesian part but it was “picked up” by Malaysian politicians and others with an axe to grind; who made statements without first bothering to check their facts. It gave the impression what it was only the RMN which experienced technical issues with newly delivered boats.
” I was the Malay Mail reporter ”
Yes I know. So in the hindsight, was that a good headline?
” it was “picked up” by Malaysian politicians and others with an axe to grind ”
That single article with a very bad headline single handedly put all the hard work and professionalism of our submarine boys down the drain and it never really recovered even up till now. Almost everybody that does not know much about defence when you speak to them about the scorpenes, the first thing that comes out from their mouth is ” tak boleh menyelam “. All thanks to that single article.
Reporters don’t do the headlines. I am still reporting on defence
“And that is picked up by indonesians to put down malaysians.”
Don’t worry. We are very good at putting down ourselves, often even better than outsiders. Case in point like how the current Government is handling the Covid situation while not completely halting the economy. Even the UN have commended how we are managing it but no surprises Malaysians are never satisfied with anything.
… – “ thanks to that single article”
That article reported the facts as it were; that is the job of the writer. It’s the prerogative of the editor or the sub editor to pick headline. It’s not as if the writer said something that was fundamentally incorrect or false. He merely reported that the RMN was facing technical issues with a newly delivered boat.
The fact that various people (opposition people and their apologists) were quick to form judgement and come to their own conclusions; without first checking their facts or knowing what they were talking about is no fault of the article or the writer.
The RMN even invited several opposition politicians to take part in a dive and the Agong also took part in a dive but that didn’t stop “enlightened” individuals with an axe to grind to continue saying things which were untrue. The RMN naturally would have preferred that the article never appeared but then which armed service wants negative attention brought upon itself?
“All thanks to that single article.”
All thanks to certain politicians, used it to gain mileage and they did succeed in their goal. Blame the users, not the messenger. Politicians can use such triggers to goreng (just as 1MDB) but if we are so easily taken in by what they said, the fault lies onto us.
the message can be better worded, points clearly explained and with better headlines.
i have a few times corrected marhalim on his articles (the B200T crash comes to mind), as a few vague words can totally change the context of the article.
…. – “the message can be better worded, points clearly explained and with better headlines”
– The message was clear as daylight : trials with the initial sub was delayed because the RMN discovered a technical issue and decided to postpone trials until the OEM could fix the issue; as per contractual obligations.
– The “headlines” is the prerogative of the editor or the sub editor. The writer has little or no say.
– The aftermath of the article; i.e. ill informed individuals and politicians with a political axe to grind: who formed their own judgements; is not the fault of the article. Nor was it because the article was “vague” or not properly “worded”.
… – “i have a few times corrected marhalim on his articles”