The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan

I agree with the ROK..It was some sort of unfortunate explosion in the main machinery spaces of the ROKN frigate. If it were anything else this would be a full blown incident.

edit..07.25.2010..I was wrong..very wrong.

Whether we will actually know the actual fact of what had happen to the ship... all will have rely on the the agenda for the governments of the South and North Korea...

Whatever it is, we have also to watch the attitude of Beijing and Washinton, for they are the two powers that might actually have some influence on what we will see and hear of North and South Korea.

It's possible that the ship was sunk by the North Koreans and for whatever reason no one wants to acknowledge it. Perhaps the South doesn't want a war to start. Perhaps the North fired on the ship, but got in touch with the South and told them that it was an accident, and it was covered up. I just think an engine explosion sinking a ship in that area, with North Korean ships nearby, quite possibly in the midst of a skirmish (nearby residents said they heard gunfire, and the other corvette that was out there engaged a NK ship shortly after the explosion), is too much of a coincidence.

sea mine?

Not quite an expert in the naval weaponry, but do the North Korean actually own anti-ship torpedo that can sink a corvette in a single strike?

I remember a couple of years ago, Iran fired a anti ship missile at an Israeli corvette and only managed to badly damage the ship... but not sink it.

Is the torpedo a more powerful weapon... unless the North Korean vessel managed more than one hit... however we only heard that there was a single explosion.

Originally Posted by rhino123

Not quite an expert in the naval weaponry, but do the North Korean actually own anti-ship torpedo that can sink a corvette in a single strike?

I remember a couple of years ago, Iran fired a anti ship missile at an Israeli corvette and only managed to badly damage the ship... but not sink it.

Is the torpedo a more powerful weapon... unless the North Korean vessel managed more than one hit... however we only heard that there was a single explosion.

Very good point.

I have done a bit more research and uncovered some pretty interesting history. Here is what I found on Cheonan's wikipeda article:

History
Cheonan was launched in 1989.[4] The ship's primary mission was coastal patrol, with an emphasis on anti-submarine operations.[1] The Cheonan was one of the ships involved in the First Battle of Yeonpyeong in 1999.[5]

The First Battle of YeonPyeong was a previous naval incident involving North and South Korean in 1999. One North Korean torpedo boat sunk during the engagement and 30 North Korean soldiers were killed.

Although I believe that the sinking of Cheonan most likely resulted from engine explosion I don't think we could rule out the possibility of North Korean involvement. Does anyone know whether the North Koreans operate a naval "marine animals" program? Sea lions and dolphins armed with explosives could, theroretically, sneak up to a ship without being detected by the sonar.

Originally Posted by rhino123

Not quite an expert in the naval weaponry, but do the North Korean actually own anti-ship torpedo that can sink a corvette in a single strike?

I remember a couple of years ago, Iran fired a anti ship missile at an Israeli corvette and only managed to badly damage the ship... but not sink it.

Is the torpedo a more powerful weapon... unless the North Korean vessel managed more than one hit... however we only heard that there was a single explosion.

A short story from my naval friends:

A junior rating asked a senior officer, after a missile attack simulation, why they did not practice being hit by a torpedo. The senior officer replied: "Why, do you want to practice being dead?".

Torpedoes are a considerably more powerful weapon; a missile attack, you can probably survive a missile hit and limp away. Torpedoes on the other hand will tear a very sizable hole in your ship, if not outright breaking the keel of the ship because the water acts to concentrate the blast towards the hull, magnifying the damage. It will throw everyone off their feet, injuring people, and severely damaging equipment as well.

Originally Posted by Pointblank

A short story from my naval friends:

A junior rating asked a senior officer, after a missile attack simulation, why they did not practice being hit by a torpedo. The senior officer replied: "Why, do you want to practice being dead?".

Torpedoes are a considerably more powerful weapon; a missile attack, you can probably survive a missile hit and limp away. Torpedoes on the other hand will tear a very sizable hole in your ship, if not outright breaking the keel of the ship because the water acts to concentrate the blast towards the hull, magnifying the damage. It will throw everyone off their feet, injuring people, and severely damaging equipment as well.

which actually mean (correct me if I am wrong), there is simply very few or no ways a ship of corvette size could withstand a strike from a torpedo. If that is actually the case, I am wondering if anyone actually came up with the idea of sending a missile at the ship, and at terminal phase, dive into the water to release or act as a torpedo to zoomed in at enemy's ship?

It seems that collision and a ROK mine were eliminated as potential causes of the incident (I think it was pretty obvious that it was not the former). The ship's officers and crew are saying that it was not an internal explosion, with one officer saying it was "impossible." Given what could go on that ship I really doubt it was internal, much less an internal explosion that occurred without warning.

It seems they are starting to throw around the idea of the Korean War era DPRK mine as being the cause, either one that has been drifting all the while or one which has recently come loose from its mooring. This is certainly possible, as is a more recent deliberate release of one or more mines (by submarine most likely); I don't believe a torpedo attack by surface vessels or submarines has been completely ruled out, either.

The whole explanation they tried to give after the initial reports has from the beginning sounded very fishy to me. ROK ships do not fire for 15 minutes at unidentified radar contacts; whether a flock of migratory birds (the only type which might be out at sea at night) would be mistaken as a surface contact for such a prolonged period is also questionable. Given the amount of friendly traffic there, I can't think of any navy comparable to the ROKN that would give such relaxed ROE. It makes no sense. If two ships were firing at the same target(s), this makes the claim all the more suspect (some reports state that the sunken ship also briefly opened fire).

It really sounds like an external explosion not the result of a blue on blue incident (and thus likely triggered somehow by the DPRK) was the culprit, and by now sufficient viewing if the wreckage should have taken place to be able to confirm or deny this. I think that the current approach by the ROK and US governments may be the result of political considerations, or even military ones (or both). The ROK and/or US may not want to have to retaliate against the DPRK or to see things escalate, and by placing the blame elsewhere, they can try to have this effect, although I am not sure how well it could really be kept a secret. Another possibility is that it is being used to buy time to consider all of the options while also trying to let the ROK public cool off. If the former is the case, then the blaming of the incident on a mine that was released or sewn a long time ago by the enemy would be ideal, as it prevents the government from having to escalate the situation or face the domestic political consequences of failing to do something about the attack, while also preventing the political fallout that would occur if this was blamed on poor maintenance or personnel incompetence. It would also probably end much of the speculation that has continued due to a failure to provide a concrete explanation so far and also due to the poor cover story the ROK government tried to give about flares, flocks of birds, and accidental explosions.

Originally Posted by Pointblank

A short story from my naval friends:

A junior rating asked a senior officer, after a missile attack simulation, why they did not practice being hit by a torpedo. The senior officer replied: "Why, do you want to practice being dead?".

Torpedoes are a considerably more powerful weapon; a missile attack, you can probably survive a missile hit and limp away. Torpedoes on the other hand will tear a very sizable hole in your ship, if not outright breaking the keel of the ship because the water acts to concentrate the blast towards the hull, magnifying the damage. It will throw everyone off their feet, injuring people, and severely damaging equipment as well.

Outside of the very large warship classes, torpedoes designed to explode under the keel are quite devastating and probably almost always fatal to the ship and most of its crew. I think there is more leeway for survival, though, in cases where torpedoes desigend to impact on the side of the ship or the stern are used and I think that the DPRK has far more of this type than the former. Either way, torpedoes are certainly the most lethal conventional naval weapon, regardless of what form they take, provided they are of a suitable size for use against surface ships.

Since the ship sank in relatively shallow water with apparent easy access, the South Korean and American governments will know all the specifics fairly rapidly. Even though the ship has been under water for days, specific chemical residue from all explosive sources will remain embedded in the steel for years.

Simple spectral analysis will reveal the exact explosive components. Every weapon type's specific elemental and chemical composition is like a fingerprint uniquely traceable to single weapon production lines. This spectral analysis will reveal, in the case of the mine theory; if the mine is a old mine using outdated explosive compositions; or a newer mine using elements only modern explosives contain; the "nationality" of the mine, whether North Korean, Chinese, American, etc...

If the ship exploded internally from an accident, spectral analysis would find no "foreign" chemical markers that shouldn't be present in the ship. The governments with access to this data will have a good idea about the what-dun-it & who-dun-nit. Whether this information is shared with the general public would be a political decision.

I may be sounding really noob in saying this, but could it be the result of the ship's magazine exploding? This has happened a few times in the past, but I don't recall any specific cases in the last few decades. Anybody know where the magazine storage is on Cheonan?

This area is a close to a real James Bond situation as you are likely to find anywhere on Earth and there are so many possibilities, ranging from the plain and obvious to the more plausible conspiracy theories and beyond, that you could drive yourself mad trying to fathom them.

It is fair to say if it just a coincidental accident, it could not have picked a worse place to have one and that few Intelligence chiefs or Strategic Planners are usually prepared to accept the idea of coincidence until it is the last possible option and proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

The interesting thing for me though is the reports of ROK ships opening fire on the flock of birds. I note that nobody has said which types of weapon were used, but the implication is that they were surface to surface weapons of some sort. The fact remains that the implication is also there, that two modern warships opened fire at a target they believed to be there but could not see!

Hmmm maybe time for the Lithium pills already

These are suppose to be pics of the ship fished out of the water.







If it were a torpedo or mine... a ship that size... wouldn't you see more damage even if it were hit on the other side?