Article

2010-03-28 China-Japan-Koreas

Survivors of Sunken South Korean Ship Speak

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 2010-03-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11136 views ] Top

#1 FREEREPUBLIC/FOXNEWS AM > are repor that US PERTS think it was a ANTI-NAVAL MINE.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-03-28 02:23|| na 2010-03-28 02:23|| Front Page Top

#2 Holed in the bottom means mine.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-03-28 10:38|| 2010-03-28 10:38|| Front Page Top

#3 From naval blog:

An NCO in the engine room suddenly found himself seeing everything two meters aft of his position simply gone. The aft third of the Cheosan broke off and sank within three minutes. The captain of the Cheosan had to use his cellphone to contact his headquarters as all power on the ship was gone. Then the remaining two-thirds of the ship developed a list and capsized.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-03-28 10:41|| 2010-03-28 10:41|| Front Page Top

#4 Looking at some analysis, this is almost surely a deliberate belligerent act (of war?) from North Korea:

1. It was a single blast, not a chain of blasts;
2. The blast was external, not internal;
3. The shock of blast was such that it lifted the whole ship by a foot then dropped;
4. The ship broke into two sections upon blast and the rear section sank in 3 minutes. This is the reason for high casualty rate, as the rear section housed sleeping/resting quarters;
5. The reason survivors jumped into water was because they believed that the front section too would go down within minutes;

At this point, torpedo or mine attack is the suspected cause, with the mine being the most likely cause.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-03-28 10:47|| 2010-03-28 10:47|| Front Page Top

#5 We're nearing the 48 hour limit, and Occam's razor offers several new aspects.

1 - Anyone hear a peep from NKor? Silence could mean nothing, could mean confusion (they're still checking their mine charts), or could mean they await a response.

2 - The ROK statements seem to clearly be both - considered, not rash, and very open-ended. They, too, seem to be deciding what's next - as in very open to the chances that this was not an accident, and certainly not self-inflicted.

3 - Per the original discussions, and links, it appears increasingly unlikely it was internal. Most of the sinkings were of ships at anchor - the Maine, the various cordite distasters during WWI, etc.. This ship was apparently on patrol under power. Also, not much discussion of the possible chain reaction needed to create an onboard explosion - and note the comments about a single large blast rather than a magazine cooking off.

As of today, I suggest Occam's law wants to know why is a mine not the most likely cause?

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-03-28 11:33|| 2010-03-28 11:33|| Front Page Top

#6 From my pitiful knowledge of naval warfare, a modern torpedo is designed to explode under the hull, breaking the keel. This is consistent with OldSpooks's point #4.

According to the interwebs, this ship class is equipped with hull-mounted sonar. If they were listening (seems foolish not to), they would hear a torpedo. But I wouldn't expect that info to be public.

Posted by SteveS 2010-03-28 12:18|| 2010-03-28 12:18|| Front Page Top

#7 'There is no possibility whatsoever that the ship sank due to an internal explosion or a collision with a reef. I guarantee that,'

OK, I'll buy the "no reef" thingy. But what about an act of sabotage? If so, who?

I'll bet it's a mine because it broke the ship clean in two.

Seeing as this is a South Korean ship, wouldn't it be able to hear an approaching torpedo? Would the sound of its screws make it impossible to detect?

If it's a NKor mine, there ought to be more of them. I'd be looking for more.

It could be another country looking to start a fight to draw attention away from them, too. If this is the case, I'd be looking for the more sophisticated kind that rise to intercept the target upon detecting its approach.

Posted by gorb 2010-03-28 13:04|| 2010-03-28 13:04|| Front Page Top

#8 Evil thought: what if this happens again, to another ship, in the next 24 hours?

Posted by gromky 2010-03-28 14:32|| 2010-03-28 14:32|| Front Page Top

#9 Some mines nowadays are really tubes with torpedoes inside. That's a possibility, too.

I would say "mine" of whatever type caused this with 90% certainty. The question is -- new mine or old mine. The report of the corvette firing earlier in the night is interesting. Perhaps the Norks sought to lure the South Korean vessel over a newly laid mine.

Posted by Pstanley 2010-03-28 14:36|| 2010-03-28 14:36|| Front Page Top

#10 I'm still betting on a mine. Maybe one of their own.

Posted by tu3031 2010-03-28 14:42|| 2010-03-28 14:42|| Front Page Top

#11 Certainly possible tu3031, but why? Perhaps training, I suppose, but I doubt the ROK is minelaying in this spot. On land, certainly, but too much risk at sea, not to mention it's an act of war - not that that has stopped the NKs.

Too many other bad possibilities - other navies, merchant shipping, so on, and not enough value.

Still, no witnesses to the original attack, if that's what it was, so that should rule out airborne acts - naval gunfire, missiles, aircraft.

Sounds like it's down to NK mine/torpedo, ROK accident, or the truly bizarre (how long are mines active - i.e. 60-80 year old Japanese/Chinese leftover?).

I recall the British remain vigilant of a munitions ship wreck sunk in the Thames estuary circa 1944-45?

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-03-28 17:14|| 2010-03-28 17:14|| Front Page Top

#12 Simple. They screwed up. It happens.

Posted by tu3031 2010-03-28 17:19|| 2010-03-28 17:19|| Front Page Top

#13 Mine. Could be one broken loose form the Nork side that drifted down there. News reports do indicate strong currents in the area. And the Norks are not exactly know for a high degree of expertise or motivation when it comes to maintenance.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-03-28 17:27|| 2010-03-28 17:27|| Front Page Top

#14 FYI, if its a WW2 era mine, then its a US one. We extensively mined chunks of the Korean and Chinese coastline as well as the Japanese "inner waters".

Posted by OldSpook 2010-03-28 17:29|| 2010-03-28 17:29|| Front Page Top

#15 great. Obama bows to BOTH Koreas

Posted by Frank G 2010-03-28 17:49|| 2010-03-28 17:49|| Front Page Top

#16 That's a good point. It could be a WWII/Korean era mine that never got swept up.

Posted by tu3031 2010-03-28 17:55|| 2010-03-28 17:55|| Front Page Top

#17 As for the hull-mounted sonar dome, there are two types of sonar: active and passive. The active sonar sends out bursts of noise (think PING). By listening for the return echo, you can tell if a submarine is out there, which direction it is headed, about how fast it is going. The problem with active sonar is that it gives your position away to anyone listening. Not as big a problem with surface ships, since they are relatively noisy anyway. A submarine is very quiet and rarely uses active sonar. I don't know if active sonar would pick up an approaching torpedo in time.
With passive sonar, you just listen for noise in the water. A trained sonar operator should be able to tell the difference between a submarine, a whale (biological noise is a big problem), a torpedo, and so on.
I have no idea if the SKors were listening, or if the sonarmen were trained well or not.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2010-03-28 20:47|| 2010-03-28 20:47|| Front Page Top

23:44 trailing wife
23:42 gorb
23:41 Pappy
23:32 trailing wife
23:31 tu3031
23:26 Pappy
23:10 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:55 wt
22:55 tu3031
22:38 Redneck Jim
22:15 Barbara Skolaut
22:04 crosspatch
21:44 Eric Jablow
21:39 Glenmore
21:37 logi_cal
21:33 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:32 Besoeker
21:28 gorb
21:13 JosephMendiola
21:06 Barbara Skolaut
20:57 Barbara Skolaut
20:57 ed
20:53 Eric Jablow
20:47 Rambler in Virginia