The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan

Spartan95

Junior Member
I guess China has put a stop to all the posturing between the 2 Koreas:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Pressure on China to censure N.Korea fails
Posted: 30 May 2010 1233 hrs

SEOGWIPO, South Korea - South Korea and Japan pressed China Sunday to censure North Korea over the sinking of a South Korean warship, but failed to win its public support for the move after a three-way summit.

Host President Lee Myung-Bak and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama teamed up at the two-day summit to urge Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to hold Pyongyang responsible for the March sinking of the South Korean corvette.

But Wen gave no sign China is ready to back United Nations Security Council action against its ally over the sinking, which cost 46 lives.

"The urgent task now is to defuse the impact of the Cheonan incident, change the tense situation and avoid clashes," Wen told a joint press conference.

"China will actively communicate with relevant parties and lead the situation to help promote peace and stability in the region, which fits our common and long-term interests best."

South Korea announced reprisals against the North after international investigators reported on May 20 that a North Korean submarine fired a heavy torpedo to sink the Cheonan.

The North denies involvement and has responded to the reprisals with threats of war, fuelling regional tensions.

Wen, whose country is the North's economic lifeline, has been cautious since arriving in South Korea Friday.

At a meeting with Lee that day, he said Beijing would review the probe results before determining its position but would not protect whoever was responsible.

Lee told the press conference in the southern resort island of Jeju that he expects "wise cooperation" by neighbouring countries in handling the disaster.

Hatoyama, whose country Friday announced new sanctions on the North over the incident, said the three leaders agreed "that this is a serious issue related to peace and stability in Northeast Asia".

South Korea, at least in public, appeared fairly satisfied with the outcome.

"The inclusion of those remarks on the Cheonan in the joint press announcement in itself has significance," said senior presidential spokesman Lee Dong-Kwan.

But Paik Haksoon, of the Sejong Institute think-tank, said Wen's comments "indicate that China is still questioning the authenticity and authority of the investigation".

"There would be no point of taking this issue to the UN Security Council without securing support from China in advance," Paik told AFP.

Numerous countries have condemned the North for the sinking, one of the worst military attacks on the South since the 1950-53 war.

The North says the South's government faked evidence to incite tensions and boost its support before local elections this week.

South Korea, the United States and Japan need the support of veto-wielding member China to sanction -- or, at least, to censure -- the North at the Security Council.

The South's reprisals include a trade cut-off and preparations to resume cross-border loudspeaker propaganda broadcasts. The North has threatened to shell the loudspeakers now being installed along the tense frontier if the broadcasts go ahead.

The North has cut all ties with the South, scrapped pacts aimed at averting accidental flare-ups along their disputed sea border and vowed to attack any intruding ships.

It has threatened to shut down a jointly run industrial park at Kaesong, the last reconciliation project still operating.

The South plans to send a letter to the Security Council chairman this week, an unidentified official told Yonhap news agency. "If it's too late, we might lose momentum," the official.

Hatoyama promised Japan's "leading role" in mustering international support for the South at the council, according to Lee's spokesman.

At Hatoyama's suggestion the three leaders observed a moment of silence when the summit began Saturday to mourn the sailors.

In its latest response, North Korea again flatly rejected evidence that it torpedoed the ship. It said it did not possess the type of small submarine allegedly used for the attack, according to Pyongyang's official news media.

Other issues raised at the summit included a possible three-way free-trade agreement and November's G20 summit in Seoul. The leaders called for free-trade talks aimed at eventually creating a single economic bloc to be speeded up.


- AFP /ls

Wonder how much of this was pre-meditated. But I guess the behind the scenes diplomacy will remain firmly behind the scenes.
 

hanqiang1011

New Member
This scenario where the SK warship sailed there and got sunk by NK is a bit similar to James Bond's: Tomorrow Never Dies.

"The villians in the film got a GPS encoder made by the American military, used it to send this HMS Devonshire, an UK warship's off-course and got sunk by Chinese Mig. Then the villians used the same ammo on the Mig to finish off the UK sailors. Thus near starting a war between Chinese and UK navies."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Some films maybe fictional but it does contains real-life scenarios. Who knows, there are really some sort of GPS encoder that we never know, some mad one's got it, set ROKN Cheonan offcourse, got sunk by NK submarine.

Some conspiracy on the way?
 

ravenshield936

Banned Idiot
This scenario where the SK warship sailed there and got sunk by NK is a bit similar to James Bond's: Tomorrow Never Dies.

"The villians in the film got a GPS encoder made by the American military, used it to send this HMS Devonshire, an UK warship's off-course and got sunk by Chinese Mig. Then the villians used the same ammo on the Mig to finish off the UK sailors. Thus near starting a war between Chinese and UK navies."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Some films maybe fictional but it does contains real-life scenarios. Who knows, there are really some sort of GPS encoder that we never know, some mad one's got it, set ROKN Cheonan offcourse, got sunk by NK submarine.

Some conspiracy on the way?

The Chinese didn't sink the British warship. A drill launched by the stealth boat sank the warship. Plus, if I remember correctly, the PLA don't have any Migs other than self-produced fighter jets. And the plane in the movie seemed to have a solid cone, and the only planes at the time in PLA would be Q-5, which 1. Isn't a Mig 2. Isn't for PLAN
 
Last edited:

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Pointblank, I agree with your general gist, everything except the depth re USN/Western sub operations.

The friendly fire scenario is implausible for other reasons. The ROK Government would prefer it were friendly fire - tragic but not an international incident with DPRK.


All the conspiracy theories fail at the macro level.

Micro-analysing small details in the popular press and snippets from half way through an investigation is a sure way to find "inconsistencies" in any major event.

A bunch of people on the internet trying desperately to discredit an official report compiled by people who are experts and had actual contact with the wreckage etc, doubting the ID of a torpedo on the basis that they themselves know little about torpedoes as if no-one in ROK military service would recognise wreckage from a USN or ROK torpedo... is inevitable I guess.
 
Last edited:

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
OK, I just read the rather short unnamed and unsigned investigation report. (Strange). What are they afraid of ? Would this report even have any legal standing ?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Apparently, they identified it as a CHT-02D, from NK export brochures schematics, and cliamed that it was found at the site of the incident, with nothing else backing this up.

Because all they had was...


What was even stranger, is that they made no attempt to analysis and link the metallic debris and chemical residue from the wreckage to that torpedo. Won't this be important ? It would arouse questioning that it was of German construction and maybe not of North Korean origin.. wouldn't it ?

Further.. look at the attempted comparison to CH-02D officially by the SK.. they said it was a perfect match.

[qimg]http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/2391/torpedo4.jpg[/qimg]

Perfect match ???

[qimg]http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2450/torpedo5.jpg[/qimg]

Clearly, the stabilizers in the diagram above are clearly shown IN FRONT of the separation plate.

In fact, it looked very much like the german DM2 A-4. Very very similar to a perfect match.

Guess what ! The South Korean operates German Type-214 !! And Type 214 uses DM2 A-4 !!!

[qimg]http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8641/torpedo6dm2a3.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/0/7f231611-f034-43fc-a0f6-78c07fe42373.Large.jpg[/qimg]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


[qimg]http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1658/x610o.jpg[/qimg]

The report is a croc-a-nothing.

ROK does not use DM2A4, I think only Germany and Spain have them. Plus the fins are quite different from the wreckage.

The full-length schematic is indeed inconsistent with the wreckage, that's a f-up by someone. But this schematic of a CHT-02D is consistent with the wreckage:
610xem.jpg
 

7sins

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Hi all,

(First post here)

Ive read all I can about the sinking of the cheonan, which is how I ended up here, and I have quite a few questions I hope some of you can help me with.

1) where can I find anything on this "CHT-02D" torpedo? I realize its not on sale at amazon, but I can not find a single reference even to its product name that predates the sinking of the cheonan. Not on janes, not anywhere else. Googling for it and restricting the date to before march 2010 gives not a single actual reference that predates the incident. Does it have another name its known by? Was its existence public knowledge or even rumoured?

2) where can I find the material that was presented at the press presentation of the investigation report? Is it online somewhere? id really like to take a closer look at the black&white schematics of the torpedo that they presented there. I can only find really bad pictures and some video footage.

3) Why was the large colored schematics of another torpedo shown? The one you see in most photographs and linked higher up in this thread with the motor, shaft and props colored; it clearly doesnt match the debris (the black and white one, does seem to match, but its hard to tell with no good images). The press conference was in Korean, so I didnt understand what they said when they unveiled this life size (incorrect) schematics. What torpedo was on that image and why was it shown?

4) in the press you can find some indirect references to metallurgy and chemical analysis that Im sure the investigation team did (they show some in the video as well), but have those results been made public beyond stating it matches Korean torpedo's?

5) Likewise for seismic analysis. On April 30th, this was info was released:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This predates the finding of the torpedo, yet by "seismic" data it is concluded that a "torpedo ran at the Cheonan at the speed of 65.7 km/h and exploded underwater 2.3 m from the ship with power equivalent to 206 kg of TNT."
Furthermore and perhaps more importantly, it states:
"After the initial explosion, it was observed that a series of internal explosions occurred in the stern for about 80 seconds," he said. That suggests the Cheonan was not hit by a bubble jet, as previously assumed, but received a direct blow from a gunpowder explosion.

This is in direct contradiction with the official report which states 7 or 8x that a bubble jet destroyed the ship. Have they shown evidence of this? And BTW, how would it be possible to determine speed and depth of a torpedo using "seismic" data?

You might understand by now, Im skeptical of the official story, but I want to keep an open mind. BTW, this theory that a US or SK sub also sank makes no sense to me at all, but one alternative theory that does fit is a rising mine. This blog posts makes a few good points (and a few bad ones):
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Anyway, rather than speculating on alternative theories, I would appreciate any help with the above questions.

Thanks.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
7sins, Welcome to the forum! Be sure to read the forum rules before you proceed.

FORUM RULES: Things to Remember Before Posting, important, please read!

And introduce yourself to the rest of the Forum!

New members introductions - New members Introduce yourselves

Your post was moderated because of an anti-spam feature when new members post. When a member post and has less than 15 total post and said member includes any link in his/her post that post is moderated as an anti-spam feature.

Welcome to SDF!!Enjoy the forum. :D
 

Engineer

Major
Surface ships are much noisier than a submarine. Furthermore, a submarine has the advantage as it can tell where surface ships are. I would compare the situation to 2 people looking for each other. One person is heavily near sighted (the surface ship), and the other has normal vision (the submarine). The area they are looking for each other in is somewhat busy. Guess what, it is more likely that the person with normal vision will see the other person first.
I wasn't referring to a submarine, but the acoustic sensor on the torpedo. If the sensors on the Cheonan couldn't pick up the submarine, then the smaller and weaker sensor on the torpedo would certainly do worse.

As a result, a submarine can fire a torpedo to the position it guesses the surface ship will be, and let the sensor on the torpedo provide final guidance. All the launch platform has to do is to get the torpedo close enough.
It is questionable that a mini-submarine would be able to house any meaningful acoustic equipment. The most probable way for such a submarine to obtain a target is via an operator like the way it was done in WWII, but he would still be subjected to the same constraints experience by ASW equipments.

Ah, but I showed that no Western submarine would dare be in the area because of the shallow depth. That means that a mini-sub is the only answer as it is small enough to operate in the area submerged.
No. You argued that it is improbable for a US nuclear submarine to be in that area, but did not mention anything about diesel submarines. Also, by "no Western submarine", do you imply that a Chinese or Russian nuclear/diesel submarine would dare to sail in that area?
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
You might understand by now, Im skeptical of the official story, but I want to keep an open mind. BTW, this theory that a US or SK sub also sank makes no sense to me at all, but one alternative theory that does fit is a rising mine. This blog posts makes a few good points (and a few bad ones):
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Anyway, rather than speculating on alternative theories, I would appreciate any help with the above questions.

Thanks.

Hi 7sins, welcome to SDF.

I read the link you posted, and a few things stood out to me that damaged the author's credibility:
-He took a North Korean press release at face value. If you're willing to believe North Korean press releases, well, I've got some beachfront property in Oklahoma for you.
-"Since civilian traffic is not routed through the channel, the noiseless conditions are near-perfect for picking up the slightest agitation, for example from a torpedo and any submarine that might fire it." This statement indicates a severe lack of understanding about the nature of ASW. The author seems to think that there's no civilian traffic around, so there's no noise, so it would be easy to hear a sub right? Wrong. The area where the sinking took place is an acoustic nightmare. The fast moving and shallow water and the islands make ASW very very difficult, even without much civilian traffic.
-The author simply says that the USNS Salvor "must have been laying bottom mines", and offers no real evidence for that statement, which is a pretty big logical leap considering the whole article is based on that. Wikipedia doesn't list mine laying as one of the Salvor's capabilities, and it's not like that would be secret.
-The author misidentifies "Assassin's mace" as a type of rocket torpedo, which is a pretty big mistake considering Assassin's mace refers to a component of Chinese strategic thinking rather than a piece of equipment.
-The author seems to think that a laterally fired torpedo is not capable of breaking the keel of the Cheonan. I assure you, they are.
-Lastly the author expresses disbelief at the idea that North Korea could obtain high grade explosives because of sanctions. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that North Korea could get German explosives and reverse engineer them and then use them in torpedoes.

All in all it seems like some blogger tried to teach himself enough military things so that he could make a half-baked argument and still sound competent. This is a classic case of arriving at a conclusion first (America did it!) and then working backwards to find evidence to support your conclusion.
 
Last edited:

7sins

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Like I said, he made some bad points too :) A few more than you list in fact.

But the issue here is not if this blogger is right vs the official story being right.Without access to even the most basic evidence, one can hardly construct a bullet proof case. The issue here is did or didnt the south koreans provide iron clad evidence of north korea's involvement, and at this point, Id say they have not, at least not to me.

Lets keep in mind that whats at stake is potential (nuclear) war should this escalate, I would expect an investigation to live up at the very least to the same standards as a typical criminal court case (which would include innocent until proven guilty, right of defense, impartial judges, etc).

Anyway, its an alternative theory that is worth considering among others (cheonan running aground and/or involved in a collision) and those hypotheticals should have been ruled out by the results of the investigation. I have not seen that, but perhaps a few answers to my above questions would come closer.
 
Top