NK torpedoes SK Vessel

Hankyureh lied rather badly in the most recent fiasco of theirs, reporting on the conclusions of a Russian report when they didn’t have a copy of it, or a reliable source who had seen it. In short, it was a textbook case of why I call that particular paper a Hanguleh, or One Dirty Rag.

Interesting take:
http://www.naval-technology.com/features/feature90570/

“The numerous simulations the JIG team ran of the scenario agree – pointing to an detonation with a net explosive weight of 200kg-300kg, occurring at an underwater depth of between 6m and 9m, around 3m to the left of the centre of the gas turbine room.”

As the corvette was trying to get into deeper sea, the ship touched an antenna-shaped detonator of a mine, which triggered the explosion. It did not say whether the mine was North Korean.

Presumeably this is some kind of mistranslation?. Otherwise the question would have to be asked as to why such an obvious lie would be attempted and what good the Russians think could come from denying this was a torpedo?. After all they didn’t have to say that it was even a NK torpedo?!!.

Cheonan didnt hit a contact mine…such weapons dont explode in the fashion that caused the damage to the corvette and aren’t sown individually but in large fields. This ship wasnt in a minefield when it was recovered and it didnt have a damned great hole in one side…..as is what happens when ones ship hits a contact mine!.

http://navysite.de/lph/lph10mine1.jpg

The link shows the damage to the USS Tripoli from a contact mine strike. The same site shows damage to the USS Princeton after tripping a ground influence mine 16m under its keel. Neither damage replicates the weapon effects shown in Cheonans hull.

/

Russia says sea mine sunk Cheonan: report

July 28, 2010 =-0987

The daily newspaper Hankyoreh reported yesterday that Russia has concluded the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan was a sea mine accident, not a torpedo attack by North Korea.

If the report is true, Russia will be the first nation to try to absolve North Korea for the incident, which is considered the most deadly attack on the South’s military since the Korean War.

The Defense Ministry denied the newspaper’s report.

The Hankyoreh report was based on what the vernacular paper claimed is an official document from the Russian government. Titled “Russian Navy experts group’s review of the cause of the sinking of the South Korean ship Cheonan,” the document claimed the explosion that sunk the Cheonan was an accident.

The document was cited as saying that the Cheonan was cruising in a shallow area close to the shore when its propeller got tangled in a net. As the corvette was trying to get into deeper sea, the ship touched an antenna-shaped detonator of a mine, which triggered the explosion. It did not say whether the mine was North Korean.

A Seoul-led multinational investigation in May concluded that the sinking, which killed 46 sailors, was a torpedo attack by the North.

The ministry refuted the Hankyoreh dispatch and the Russian report it supposedly described. “There is no possibility that the Cheonan was exploded after hitting a mine,” said Defense Ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae at a news briefing held yesterday afternoon. Won said Russia has not informed Seoul of the result of its own investigation into the Cheonan case, which he said is still ongoing. “Currently, the Russian team is reviewing materials it collected on their visit to Korea,” he said.

A group of Russian scientists visited South Korea between May 31 to June 7 as a part of the Russian investigation into the Cheonan tragedy. A spokesman of the Russian Embassy in Seoul also told the JoongAng Ilbo that the Russian government has yet to inform Seoul of the result of its investigation.

By Moon Gwang-lip [joe@joongang.co.kr]

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2923819

Article in Russian military magazine-3

Translation is not well, but the basic questions are clear. As far as the information is correct? Whether there are new and interesting data?
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2010-06-25/8_chonan.html
Torpedo attack?
Sinking of Cheonan. Questions remain.
Sergei Chekulaev

Part 3

Questions

Perhaps, a mine is guilty in destruction of the ship? It was the main and most logical version during first moment. The set of various mines has been laid in this area within war 1950-1953. Mine-laying were rather probable the next years by both sides, including secret mining. Version of a bottom mine disappears because explosion took place 30 meters above sea bottom. A anchor mine is improbable because it cannot keep constant depth in strong currents in this area. Currents achieve 6 knots and change directions.

Theoretically there is an opportunity of application of more complex device – an floating-up mine or a jet-mine or even a mine-torpedo. In the latter case, the torpedo could be in mine container at sea bottom and to start therefrom after detection of corvette’s noise. ASW mine-torpedoes are well-known: American Mk 60 Captor and Russian PMR and PMK. In case of Cheonan, ASuW emerging mines KRM and RM, created in the USSR in 1957-1965, and also their Chinese analogues are most interesting. They could lie down on depths from 40 meters, carried a charge of 200-300 kg and blew up on depth about 10 m during emersion. However, the heavy hydrology should prevent work of complex systems. Besides torpedo container or anchor of emerging mine should remain at the bottom.

Why fragments of torpedo look such old? At first sight it seems that they have lain on a sea-bottom not one year and even have acquired with marine organisms. However, experts explain, that “shells” are the “explosive” oxides of aluminium postponed on the torpedo propellers. And the plentiful rust can be caused by electrochemical corrosion within 50 days which fragments were in sea water. To the accelerated corrosion promoted full “peeling” of sheetings and high-temperature “burn” at explosion, and also presence of different metals in torpedo design. By the way, eyewitnesses mark, that process of corrosion proceeds on air and now fragments of torpedo look even more rusty, than one month ago.

Why Cheonan has not found out underwater threat? Today there is no answer to this question. “Under the theory”, the ship equipped with sonar should detect a submarine, especially a torpedo and evades from them. However it has not taken place and explosion became unexpected. Perhaps, established on corvette old sonar has given failure. Perhaps, the hydrology was guilty or noise of tidal current and surf was too great. It is possible also that sub silently laid on bottom, the torpedo not fired but left the sub “self-swimming” and went to the target on quiet speed.

Whether it was possible to find out and track underwater objects by other facilities? In materials of JIG there are data of seismic service of South Korea which four stations have fixed explosion. However there are no records of hydroacoustic stations. The area has not been equipped with stationary systems of hydroacoustic surveillance or they did not work? It causes natural questions to the South Korean side. Despite of technical difficulties generated by small depths, currents and oozy bottom this important boundary area should be supervised in “underwater hemisphere”.

Whether small depths and bad hydrology to become an obstacle to torpedo attack could? Comparison of Cheonan’s destruction with a similar case sinking on December, 9, 1972 Indian frigate Khukri (1535 tons) is interesting. This remarkable episode of the Indian-Pakistan war has taken place in shallow area of Arabian sea, with depths less than 65 meters. Pakistan sub Hangor (1000 tons) attacked two Indian frigates from distance about 5000 meters 3 torpedoes E15 consistently, one of which has hit Khukri. E15 – export French sample with passive HS. Performance of the torpedo (weight – 1650 kg, charge – 300 kg, speed 25 knots at range 12 km) obviously is not better, than at its North Korean analogue. And taking into account that HS of torpedo Е15 was a little bit improved system of German torpedo of the WWII, comparison becomes not for the benefit of “French”. Let’s note, that passive systems of homing, as against active, with success work and on shallow water. So, the author observed delivery tests of export torpedoes 53VA on shallow range at lake Issyk Kul. The torpedo with the help passive HS always found its target – sound device simulating enemy ship, and passed from it on distance sufficient for operation of influence fuze.

Let’s sum up to our consideration some technical questions connected to the sinking of Cheonan. It is necessary to pay attention, that obvious deception and contradictions in version JIG are not seen. Or they are not found out yet? Can the Russian experts give new food for thought? Wherefore they went to South Korea?

Thanks, that was informative.

Article in Russian military magazine-2

Translation is not well, but the basic questions are clear. As far as the information is correct? Whether there are new and interesting data?
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2010-06-25/8_chonan.html
Torpedo attack?
Sinking of Cheonan. Questions remain.
Sergei Chekulaev.

Part 2

Torpedoes of North Korea

Shown on press conference in Seoul fragments of “torpedo-killer” contain part of electromotor, a shaft, a tail part so-called “flameless” type (with specific “clipped” lower rudder) and five-bladed screws of opposite rotation.

Under the statement of representatives of the South-Korean Ministry of Defence, North Korea is armed, makes and suggests on export torpedoes calibre 53 cm. Constantly called name «type CHT-02D» belongs to the export torpedo which description to valorous South-Korean special services swiped to be got somehow.
The following characteristics of the torpedo are declared: calibre – 53,4 cm; length – 7,35 m; weight – 1700 kg; charge – 250 kg; range – 10-15 km. It is informed about an opportunity of torpedo homing by passive method as well as by ship wake. It is usually considered, that ASuW torpedoes with passive HS have speed up to 35 knots. ROK have declared, that they have a practice (exercise) sample of one of North Korean torpedoes which has been found at coast of South Korea 7 years ago. Probably, it is the origin of the exact drawing of North Korean torpedo.

In connection with the deep privacy surrounding military programs of North Korea, there are only sketchy data on its torpedo weapon. The first, together with torpedo boats G-5, from the USSR in NK had been put non-homing air-steam torpedoes 53-38. With them North Korean torpedo boats on July, 2, 1950 attacked cruisers of interventionists – USS Juneau and HMS Jamaica. And though boats could not approach to distance of confident shot and also torpedoes have not hit the enemy, this episode until recently was the most heroic page of North Korean Navy. Commander of group Kim Gun Ok and commander of one of boats Van Gyn was awarded rank of Heroes of the Korean People’s Democratic Republic. Who knows, whether new heroes will appear now.

Later, for arming ships, boats and submarines, NK had receive torpedoes from the USSR and China. Among purchases of torpedoes of calibre 53 cm were Soviet air-steam torpedoes 53-51, 53-56V (non-homing, influence fuze) and 53VA (passive HS). Also electric torpedoes SAET-60 (ASuW, passive HS) and SET-53 (ASW, three-dimensional passive HS) were delivered. There are data on possible purchases of newer export samples SET-65E (ASW, active – passive HS) and 53-65KE (oxygen, ASuW, wake HS). In NK Navy could act Chinese torpedoes Yu-1, Yu-3 and Yu-4 – copies and modernized variants of the listed Soviet torpedoes.

In due course, North Korea, on the basis of available foreign samples, began to carry out own researches and development on torpedoes and has their batch production. Drawings of these North Korean torpedoes, obviously, have been shown at press conference in Seoul. If to compare the submitted fragments directly they do not correspond to any Soviet torpedo though separate elements and remind our old samples.

Submarines

JIG has considered possible to connect with sinking of Cheonan two North Korean submarines – 300-ton boat such as Sango and 130-ton such as Yeoneo, one of which could approach to corvette on distance of launch and to fire a torpedo. These submarines have consist on arms NK Navy and can carry 53-cm heavy torpedo. Sinking of Cheonan has broken 14-years silence of Lee Kwang Soo, the waterman of North Korean submarine in 1996. He is only of members of crew, was taken prisoner and now lives in South Korea. On his data, if on Sango torpedoes are carry inside torpedo tubes, on smaller Yeoneo they can be placed outside of sub’s boards as on German midget submarines of WWII. And torpedo can be launched practically silently, as against noisy launch from torpedo tubes by air.

There is an opinion, that from small submarines it is impossible to apply “heavyweight” torpedoes. Certainly our submariners who use sub with displacement in thousands of tons are difficult to present opportunities a small torpedo sub and intuitively it seems that light torpedoes will better. However, battle experience of the WWII has shown, that absolutely small, even tiny, boats can apply heavy torpedoes with success. So, Italian CB (displacement 50 tons) have been armed two 450 mm torpedoes, charge 200 kg. Japanese sub “type A” (50 tons) at attack to Pearl Harbour carried 2 torpedoes 450 mm, charge 350 kg. Despite of ridiculous displacement of German submarines (Biber – 4 tons, Molch – 9 tons, Seehund – 15 tons), all of them carried 2 torpedoes 533 mm, charge 300 kg. And all of them sank enemy ships.

Article in Russian military magazine

Translation is not well, but the basic questions are clear. As far as the information is correct? Whether there are new and interesting data?
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2010-06-25/8_chonan.html

Torpedo attack?
Sinking of Cheonan. Questions remain.
Sergei Chekulaev
Part 1
…
Non-contact explosion

It is known, that explosion of a charge on some distance from the bottom of a ship usually is more effective, than contact explosion at board. The case of ship is influenced all over again with a shock wave, and then moving stream of water which have received energy from a gas bubble. Therefore on torpedoes, and then on mines and underwater rockets began to install influence-actuated fuze which first samples have appeared in 1930th years. The action range of modern influence fuze reaches 8 meters. For Cheonan’s beam in 10 meters, explosion in 3 meters from diametrical plane (i.e. through 2 meters from input of a torpedo in “shadow” of the ship) will quite be coordinated to algorithm of work of influence fuze. Installation of depth of torpedo 6 meters lower keel depth of ship is possible for antiship (ASuW) torpedoes with influence fuze.

Homing systems

Torpedo can hit a ship both at an aiming shot, and with help of homing system (HS). The aiming shot demands or exact definition of target’s distance and parameters of her movement, or shot from close distance, from “pistol range”. So there was the last sinking a surface ship by a torpedo. On May, 2, 1982, during the British-Argentinean war, nuclear submarine Conqueror has fire from distance less than 1300 meters 3 old torpedoes Mk VIII at ARA General Belgrano. Two torpedoes hit the cruiser and, despite of considerable sizes (displacement 13000 tons), the ship has quickly sunk. Was lost more than 300 Argentina seamen.

Homing systems for the first time have been applied in WWII. It were so-called “passive HS” based on definition on a source of noise which the moving ship is her screws and mechanisms. HS of active type with a sonar lidars a target or her wake have later appeared. The place of explosion under Cheonan’s turbine section explains occurrence of the version of a torpedo with passive HS as one of the main sources of noise on corvette was the gas turbine. All is interesting, that during time of the same British-Argentinean war, the German export torpedo SST-4 had launched from ARA submarine San Luis, had precisely hit … an acoustic decoy – radiator of noise which was towing by British frigate. Cheonan such protection had no.

So, scratch that alternative explanation.:diablo:

Yep.;)

US subs have been involved in collisions under ‘shallow’ waters, so is not impossible.

60-90ft depth?. Plus the ships they collided with were sheared at the keel in precisely the same fashion as a large capacity under-the-keel explosion generates?. Nope. You are inventing stuff that doesnt even match the damage pattern to the SK ships hull. Give it up.

The torpedo found is not a real evidence

Who cares?. The damage pattern is clear evidence.

The expert is saying the accident was caused by a collision, not by a explosion.

Then he isn’t an expert.

The ship did not detect any torpedo launching.

Or the ship wasn’t at action stations when the torpedo was launched and didn’t have a sonar watch set. Or, possibly, the sonar operator that detected high speed screws didnt survive the sinking and the watch leader that the detect was flashed to likewise.

Remember that there is no reason to expect every member of the crew to be aware of what happens on a ship. I know lads who were on Sheffield who were convinced they were torpedoed for days after the ship sank – simply because they believed the messdeck dits at the time that said there was an Argie sub in the area. Just because there is no published report of a torpedo launch doesnt mean there wasn’t one.

But people will still believe that it was a torpedo, why?, just because they ‘found’ (read seed) a torpedo nearby?

As I understand it the enquiry had already determined that the sinking was due to an under-the-keel heavyweight torpedo detonation well before the NK torpedo fragments were found. The reason is that the damage pattern is consistent with only one thing – a heavyweight torpedo.

There is no sense to make in that – other than as either a deliberate attempt at misdirection or as the utterings of a fool. The damage pattern is not consistent with a collision. A big ship hitting a little ship doesnt split it down the middle….it rides over the top, rips the superstructure off and capsizes it – you end up with a very clear damage signature with the impact side stoved in and lee side bowed out. IF its hit with such a speed differential to do the damage in the first place.

The comment about a lack of scorching on ship internals and bodies is indicative of the lack of comprehension by the writer here. Impact and blast effects would cause those factors to be evident. An under-the-keel detonation does not produce them.

So, scratch that alternative explanation.:diablo:
Not so sure there actually IS an SC Chin (we can all post a letter to Hillary online, if we so chose to do)

but understand that the damage was done by an under-the-keel explosion from someones heavyweight torpedo.

This is the problem of perception in this whole incident

The torpedo found is not a real evidence

The analysis over the damaged ship can be taken as evidence.

The expert is saying the accident was caused by a collision, not by a explosion.

The ship did not detect any torpedo launching.

But people will still believe that it was a torpedo, why?, just because they ‘found’ (read seed) a torpedo nearby?

US subs have been involved in collisions under ‘shallow’ waters, so is not impossible.

A US Navy submarine collide with the ship, and the SK authorities used it to troll the north.

US Navy submarine in those waters is on the surface. Too shallow for an SSN there. I know you are intent on grasping for any other possible answer, however remote and unlikely, but understand that the damage was done by an under-the-keel explosion from someones heavyweight torpedo. Not a collision, not a mine and certainly not a grounding.

The comment about a lack of scorching on ship internals and bodies is indicative of the lack of comprehension by the writer here.

A US Navy submarine collide with the ship, and the SK authorities used it to troll the north.

Can anyone make sense of this?

There is no sense to make in that – other than as either a deliberate attempt at misdirection or as the utterings of a fool. The damage pattern is not consistent with a collision. A big ship hitting a little ship doesnt split it down the middle….it rides over the top, rips the superstructure off and capsizes it – you end up with a very clear damage signature with the impact side stoved in and lee side bowed out. IF its hit with such a speed differential to do the damage in the first place.

The comment about a lack of scorching on ship internals and bodies is indicative of the lack of comprehension by the writer here. Impact and blast effects would cause those factors to be evident. An under-the-keel detonation does not produce them.

Yeah, it smacks of a Chinese source which is uncomfortable with blaming NK, frankly. Where are the photos of the damaged destroyer which was involved in the collision? Radar track recordings? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, that SK was initially reluctant to accuse the North is very understandable for obvious reasons of Realpolitik.

Author is one Matthew Reiss, a freelance journalist based in New York and possibly also a teacher at Rutgers – State University of New Jersey (New Brunswick) at the department of Journalism.

As for SC Chin: http://www.seoprise.com/~bu/dk/Letter_to_Hillary_Clinton_US_Secretary_of_State.pdf

As for the truth of this story: no idea.

Yeah, it smacks of a Chinese source which is uncomfortable with blaming NK, frankly. Where are the photos of the damaged destroyer which was involved in the collision? Radar track recordings? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, that SK was initially reluctant to accuse the North is very understandable for obvious reasons of Realpolitik.

Came accros this article for something else and found it contained a relevant bit of news:

South Korean defense and intelligence officials initially said that the sinking of the Cheonan – with the loss of 46 lives – did not involve North Korea. An international investigation, however, blamed Pyongyang for the incident. It was followed by a crackdown against the report’s critics, and concerns persist that Seoul may be drifting toward rigid tendencies thought to have been abandoned when it ended one-party rule in 1987.

Civil investigator SC Shin, assigned by the Korean National Assembly to participate in the Cheonan investigation, found no evidence of damage to the interior of the ship, no burning of cable housings, nor any signs on sailors’ bodies of pressure, burns or shrapnel from the alleged torpedo explosion.

He reported that the ship radioed naval headquarters and the Coast Guard that it had been grounded. Shin also reported that four Aegis destroyers of between 6,800 and 9,600 tonnes were participating in a naval exercise 130 kilometers from the scene, and he described the 1,200 ton Cheonan being split in two as the likely result of a collision with a much larger ship. After he made his findings public, he was charged with defamation by defense officials who blamed the wreckage on a North Korean torpedo, and he was questioned by the Seoul Prosecutor’s office. A member of the National Assembly who contradicted the report’s conclusions was also charged with defamation.

Can anyone make sense of this?

judging by the postings in this thread, it is clear that you are the sole person who is denying North Korea’s involvement. You have posters from a variety of countries who believe the evidence against North Korea is strong. The fact that you are grasping at straws by posting links to conspiracy theory sites, or selectively choosing links that agree with you, indicates that your logic is strongly driven by your pre-existing bias favoring N.Korea and against S.Korea. This can be seen by you pointing out my posting history, even though it should have no significance to the issue of why the ship sank. (note that the Russian statement you quoted above, tries to downplay N.Korea’s involvement, but offers no reason or evidence to why they came to that conclusion).

either you mature yourself and acknowledge the flaws in your logic, or come back with better evidence to support your theories and conspiracies

I think you need to calm/tone down a bit. The SK report point in the direction of NK, for sure. However, respected posters here all realize that it may not reflect the whole story. After all, you need to view this in the context of the global political game of chess. The Russian statement doesn’t downplay anything, it – quite correctly by the way – states there is no absolute certainty that NK was involved. That doesn’t mean it says that the report isn’t in the right general direction. It does mean recognition that the evidence is to an extent circumstantial.

judging by the postings in this thread, it is clear that you are the sole person who is denying North Korea’s involvement. You have posters from a variety of countries who believe the evidence against North Korea is strong.

There are certainly a lot of open questions with the official explanations – see above!

Typical newbie behavior, not obeying the story I am telling you, you are anti-x/y/z or nationalist. What’s new except the id?

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/06/10/2010061001164.html

judging by the postings in this thread, it is clear that you are the sole person who is denying North Korea’s involvement. You have posters from a variety of countries who believe the evidence against North Korea is strong. The fact that you are grasping at straws by posting links to conspiracy theory sites, or selectively choosing links that agree with you, indicates that your logic is strongly driven by your pre-existing bias favoring N.Korea and against S.Korea. This can be seen by you pointing out my posting history, even though it should have no significance to the issue of why the ship sank. (note that the Russian statement you quoted above, tries to downplay N.Korea’s involvement, but offers no reason or evidence to why they came to that conclusion).

either you mature yourself and acknowledge the flaws in your logic, or come back with better evidence to support your theories and conspiracies