Illustrative ISC title card. A sourced image will accompany the published edition. ISC open-source assessment, 14 June 2026.

Royal Malaysian Navy EOD Team Destroys Seabed Unexploded Ordnance off Pulau Mamutik

Technical Summary

The Royal Malaysian Navy (Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia, TLDM) Eastern Fleet Command has confirmed the disposal by controlled demolition of a suspected item of unexploded ordnance (UXO) recovered from the seabed close to Pulau Mamutik, within Tunku Abdul Rahman Park off Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. The object, described as heavily corroded and approximately 25 cm in length, was located on 9 June 2026 by a snorkelling guide and reported to police and park management before the task was passed to naval explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) specialists.

The render-safe action was conducted jointly by the Eastern Fleet Diving Branch (MPA Timur) and the Eastern Ammunition and Explosives Depot (DPBLT), under the direction of Lieutenant Commander Ahmad Firdaus Zikaria. After a technical evaluation, the team executed a controlled demolition in situ rather than attempting recovery to shore. Waters around the island, a popular marine-recreation site, were subsequently declared safe for tourism and maritime activity.

Initial assessment found the object had the potential to be an old explosive that could still pose a risk to public safety. RMN Eastern Fleet Command statement, 13 June 2026

Analysis of Effects

Without positive ordnance identification the item can be characterised only by its physical signature. A corroded ferrous object of roughly 25 cm is consistent with a range of legacy natures, from a medium-calibre projectile or a light mortar bomb to a small aircraft bomb or sea-dumped store. Borneo saw extensive Second World War action, and jettisoned or sea-dumped ordnance of that era remains a recurring find in Sabah coastal waters. If the fill is a Second World War filling such as trinitrotoluene (TNT), amatol or picric acid, decades of immersion and corrosion raise the prospect of exuded or crystallised explosive and, in the case of picric-acid fillings, the formation of sensitive metal picrates at the casing interface. Any of these conditions increases initiation sensitivity and supports a dispose-by-detonation decision over manual handling.

A controlled underwater demolition places a donor (counter) charge against the item to drive a high-order detonation of the main fill. The net explosive quantity (NEQ) for an item of this size is not stated; on the assumption of a medium-calibre projectile or light mortar bomb the main charge would plausibly fall in the order of 0.2 to 2 kg TNT equivalent, a figure offered only as a scale indicator and not independently verified. Underwater detonation couples a near-incompressible shock front into the water far more efficiently than an air blast couples into air, so the surface exclusion zone and the assessment of risk to marine life and nearby vessels are governed by water-shock and bubble-pulse effects rather than fragmentation alone.

Personnel and Safety Considerations

Maritime EOD doctrine, reflected in International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) 09.30 and equivalent naval procedures, treats any unidentified immersed item as potentially live until proven otherwise. The public guidance issued alongside the disposal, not to touch, move or attempt to destroy suspect objects but to report them to the authorities, is the correct ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) response. Legacy fillings can be impact, friction or electrostatically sensitive, and amateur intervention is the principal cause of casualties from this category of find. Controlled demolition in place also removes the transport hazard that recovery to shore would introduce.

Data Gaps

Key technical parameters remain unconfirmed: the nature, calibre and country of origin of the item; the explosive fill and its condition (exuded, crystallised or stable); the fuze type and armed state; the net explosive quantity; the size of the donor charge employed; and the depth and standoff at which the demolition was conducted. The RMN statement does not state whether the item was positively identified or disposed of as an unidentified suspect store. These gaps preclude a definitive hazard classification; pending identification the item is most prudently treated as Hazard Division 1.1.

Corrections & updates welcome. If you hold open-source data that refines or corrects any parameter in this article, please contact [email protected] citing the specific claim and your source. Verified corrections will be incorporated and credited in the revision history. AI-assisted technical assessment based on open-source material. Not a formal intelligence product.