You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Arabia
Pics: What nearly punched a hole in this Japanese oil tanker?
2010-07-31
For reference, this pic here is a clickable link to a higher-res shot of the damage to the USS Cole. Pics of the damage to that Japanese oil tanker can be found at the link. Looks like an explosion of some sort to me. It certainly wasn't a sub. Remember that the side of the cole was angled, not vertical. Seems to me the more vertical hull of the tanker vs. the angled hull on the USS Cole may explain the differences in the damage. If the hull were angled away from the bomb, it seems to me that there would have been very little damage, but towards the bomb is going to reflect/focus the blast energy in a way consistent with the picture. To me, it seems that part of the blast energy directed against the vertical wall of the tanker was reflected off the water, which would the cause maximum blast force to be several meters above the waterline, and a more-or-less spherical blast front.

Can anyone out there who actually knows something about explosives confirm or refute this idea?
The M. Star, a Japanese oil tanker, suffered ... something in the early-morning hours Wednesday as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz. Crew members heard a blast and saw a flash, windows were blasted out, ceiling panels in a dining room were shaken loose, and one crew member suffered minor injuries. And most significant, an enormous dent appeared on the tanker's starboard side, extending from the waterline more than halfway up the hull.
1) Crew saw a flash
2) Straits of Hormuz
3) Crew heard blast
4) Straits of Hormuz
5) Spherical compression wave damage above the waterline
6) Straits of Hormuz
7) The USS Cole's damage was mostly above the waterline, too
8) Straits of Hormuz

The only evidence I see against the idea that some jihadi did it is that none of the crew heard "Allahu Snackbar!" before the blast.

Pics and rest of article at link.
Posted by:gorb

#30  The only thing that makes sense to me is that it was a small anti-ship missile that failed and blew itself up just before hitting the ship. The effect would be an explosion off the side of the ship, above the waterline. There would be a healthy, focused concussion, but not much shrapnel.
Posted by: Bruce   2010-07-31 20:13  

#29  An enormous, semi-submersible, felt-covered, retractable, rubber mallet.

It's the Persian latest "secret weapon".

That, or flameless Greek Fire.
Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division   2010-07-31 20:11  

#28  Bobby noted: Mitsui maintains the explosion was "caused by an external attack," potentially by rocket missile, because a crewman reported seeing a flash on the horizon just before the explosion.

Could it have been an Iranian test run with a low-yield warhead? Anyone know the geography here and the situation to know what direction that missile may have come from? The guy on the tanker said "the horizon" I gather. Could it have been fired from another ship or sub?
Might just be something to get people a-thinkin', you know.
Posted by: gorb   2010-07-31 17:57  

#27  OS - nice Python reference :-)
Posted by: Frank G   2010-07-31 16:24  

#26  And in this case, its an unladen Oriental tanker, neither a European nor African one.

Was there a killer rabbit with great big nasty teethes involved? ;-)

Thank you for your professional analysis, Old Patriot. It's always a pleasure when you explain your thinking.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-07-31 16:22  

#25  Nice, OP. That's the only explanation that makes more sense than Moby Dick. Guess that's why you had the job.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2010-07-31 16:21  

#24  Talking as a photo interpreter, this looks like something very large hit the ship squarely in the side, but only over about three bulkheads. There isn't much scarring. Most of the dark area appears to be the way the light hits the paint where the side is bashed in. So many things stand out that make this extremely unusual: the area is virtually rectangular (bomb blasts, even mine blasts, are circular); rogue waves would have hit in a long arch along the side, not one specific point; most of the characteristics of an impact (caused by hitting another vessel) are missing (no paint scrapes, no punctures, no BIG dents caused by the bow of another ship hitting the side of the tanker, etc., and impacts are usually horizontal, not square); and so forth. There is one possibility: they could have hit a wooden, unpainted dhow running without lights (smuggling?) that was sucked into the side of the ship. The location of the impact point is one reason to consider this - the bow wave would push the other ship away along the front of the tanker, but suck it back in toward the stern. The impact could have caused the dhow's fuel tank to explode, and the dhow to completely break apart. If this is what happened, wood from the wreck will begin floating ashore in Oman or the UAE in a few days.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2010-07-31 16:13  

#23  Mitsui maintains the explosion was "caused by an external attack," potentially by rocket missile, because a crewman reported seeing a flash on the horizon just before the explosion.

The company said the explosion occurred on the ship's deck. One crewman was slightly injured when doors and windows from crew quarters were destroyed. The blast also caused a rescue boat to fall overboard.

A Japan Coast Guard official said chances were very low that another ship had collided with the tanker because the dent was higher than the waterline.

With almost no reports of piracy around the strait, a local media outlet reported that high waves damaged the tanker. Mitsui has refuted this claim, saying waves do not cause explosions.

The crude carrier M. Star was loaded with about 270,000 tons of oil at the time of the blast but no leakage has been reported.
link
Posted by: Bobby   2010-07-31 16:06  

#22  What is the water displacement difference between a fully laden tanker and an unladen one?

And in this case, its an unladen Oriental tanker, neither a European nor African one.
Posted by: OldSpook   2010-07-31 15:49  

#21  I need to ask, between Wednesday and these pictures, has the tanker offloaded, becoming lighter and therefore sitting higher in the water?

The max water level line suggests the dent could be equal distance over and under the water level; stronger suggesting a ramming by a sub perpendicular to the tankers hull.
Posted by: Bacon in the Mosque horror   2010-07-31 15:35  

#20  wanna thpose iranian speedboats/gunboats might
Posted by: chris   2010-07-31 15:29  

#19  Would a drone crashing into the hull do that kind of damage?
Posted by: badanov   2010-07-31 15:16  

#18  You know, the damage to the M. Star is a big weird. I don't think it was a bomb. Absoultely no charring or blast streaks or evidince of fragmentation. It's also compeletly above the water line. Well, the damage starts just above the water line, and goes up.

The other weird thing is, if it was a collision, where are the streak marks of the object that collided with it? It doesn't look like to large object moving in different directions collided and glanced off one another. I couldn't see any scraping of the paint. It looks like some thing punched the tanker or through a very large ball at it. I would expect even a cannon ball to leave scarring.

The current theory is it hit a Chinese sub, but would that have scraped the bugger out of the side of the vessel? Also, wouldn't a conning tower get the worst of it? It is a double hulled tanker after all.
Posted by: miscellaneous   2010-07-31 15:13  

#17  A good point. Kilo class subs do not have anechoic tiles on their conning tower, but *Chinese* subs do.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-07-31 13:37  

#16  looks like the same damage the USS Colessuffered too many likenesses not too be.
Posted by: chris   2010-07-31 12:29  

#15  Does conning tower 'A' about match dent 'B'?

If the strike was perpendicular, you would expect the hull to punch a hole in the tanker below the waterline.

If the strike was parallel, I would expect the vertical hull of the tanker to impact the hull of the sub, not the conning tower.

In any case, what about the flash and explosion?

As for the charring, I can't tell. The paint is dark, so it wouldn't show charring much. The red paint looks a bit darker on the right side, but I can't tell if that's some kind of stain or what. Looks suspicious. And wherever there is a metal rib under the metal plate, you can see that it looks like the paint has been somewhat removed. I can't tell if where the paint has been removed is charred.
Posted by: gorb   2010-07-31 11:37  

#14  When ships collide there's always "Paint Transfer" (Paint is scraped off and onto the other ship).
I see NO paint transfer, that one fact pretty well eliminates a ship collisionehatevr hit this tanker was NOT painted OR unpainted(No rust steaks) That leaves an unfotunate whale with a hell of a headache.
Even a wooden vessel is painted.
Salt is corrosive as hell.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2010-07-31 11:23  

#13  furthering #12 why shouldn't this be an Israeli sub to have collided? Subs are covered in rubber so this is very possibly the source of the dent.

Tests will tell if there is explosive residue on the oil tanker.
Posted by: Bacon in the Mosque horror   2010-07-31 11:09  

#12  Russian-built SSK Kilo. Iran has three of them.

Japanese tanker damage

Does conning tower 'A' about match dent 'B'?

Now, granted, other submarines also have conning towers. The #1 Persian Gulf player right now is the USN, but Israel and Europe have interest, China(*) wants to watch the flow of oil and to watch US naval ops, and even Russia would want at least a few boats in the area.

The other big question, more an assumption, is that if a US submarine bumped into it, why would the US do a disinformation campaign, unless it was operationally significant? That is, if the damage was minor, the US boat *had* to stay there, because it was going to go 'live' shortly.

(*) China is close to numerical parity with the US.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-07-31 10:39  

#11  Looking at the article again in the morning, with some working neurons, and actually reading for comprehension, I see the pic I thought as the tanker turned out to be the Cole instead.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2010-07-31 10:36  

#10  The paint is still there. Explosions are VERY hot and would blacken the paint job.


Doesn't look like a sub collision either. Although that is much more common than you'd think.

Bubble jet device like the one that sank the Cheonan? I never saw damage photos, plus like Phil, I don't know anything about explosives either. Just the physics.
Posted by: bigjim-CA   2010-07-31 06:49  

#9  Secret North Korean nuclear microburst tsunami?
Posted by: Besoeker   2010-07-31 06:46  

#8  There's a radial pattern of streaks on the hull centred at the middle of the hole at or just below the waterline.

I can't imagine what other than an explosion could have caused these streaks.

Note, I don't know anything about explosives.
Posted by: phil_b   2010-07-31 06:39  

#7  Or it was an explosion some distance from the hull. Like something with a proximity fuse that exploded too early.

Posted by: crosspatch   2010-07-31 05:04  

#6  That dent is well above the water line. The center of the dent is above the top of the red water line marker. It was not an underwater collision that caused that. Looks to me like it was rammed by a surface vessel.

Posted by: crosspatch   2010-07-31 05:00  

#5  Maybe if it flapped its fins a bit harder . . . .
Posted by: gorb   2010-07-31 04:38  

#4  This one did. Or tried to...

Posted by: tu3031   2010-07-31 03:30  

#3  Whales don't fly. :-)
Posted by: gorb   2010-07-31 02:47  

#2  Mines and torpedoes don't just make dents.
Any whales in the Straits of Hormuz?
Posted by: tu3031   2010-07-31 02:04  

#1  Perhaps a mine floating on the surface?
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2010-07-31 01:40  

00:00