Why not, that’s what it is isn’t it? Besides, it’s a more allround unit than the ASW oriented Spruance and the AAW oriented Ticonderoga (which is called a CG anyway). THe assignment didn’t state that only the lated models of ships could be included. Kidd is a KA destroyer in my book.

Yes, but the Kidd class is today quite old.

I haven’t. I have taken the classification given by the parent navy at face value

OK. Today’s classifications are really problematic. Not only the obviously ridicules ones as the Japanese DDH of the Hyuga class, but most CG, DD, DDG, FF, FFG classifications.

I am thinking about how future generations will classify the warships of the last decades. They will have to invent something more useful than “corvette”, “frigate”, “destroyer” and “cruiser”.

In the 1940s there were only some cases, where the classification in destroyer and cruiser were difficult, e.g. the Dutch Tromp class, the French Le Fantasque class, the Italian Capitano Romani class – but today?!

In my opinion the development of the cruising ship came into a blind alley with the big cruisers of the 1940s. They new cruising ships were developed from the smaller and cheaper destroyers – but where classified as cruisers, destroyers or frigates. The lower end of today’s cruising ships are frigates with similar tasks as the gunboats of the 19th century, e.g. the the French Floréal class. The biggest examples are the ships of the Atago and KDX III class – again slightly smaller than the biggest ships some decades before (e.g. the Slava class).

Two additional developments also contributes to the development of today’s crusing ships and somehow fused into the same development:
a) the slow escort vessels designed to protect convoys and hunt submarines (these ships were called frigates, corvettes, sloops and DE in World War 2)
b) somehow also the FAC, which grew to a size to be useful for blue water operations and fused to the lower end of today’s cruising ships.

Bremen frigates – with no direct replacement.

The F125 class is the replacement for the Bremen class – but 8 ships will be probably replaced by only 3. But the F125 class is much bigger, much more expensive and have completely different tasks.

The F122 (Bremen) class was designed as cheap escort vessel for convoys and to hunt submarines.

The F125 class is design for global “power projection” with the capability to act independent (therefore this frigate is more like a cruiser) and to attack land targets.

The FACs are considered not useful for global operations and the minesweepers are largely not necessary any more (actually they are sometimes used as patrol vessels).

The German navy is converted from her former task for convoy protection, submarine hunting and coast defence to global power projection (gunboat policies).

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!

Theoretically the NK mini sub could have been next to completely silent, stationkeeping on batteries only, emitting next to no sound emissions that a steaming warship could have detected on passive systems.

That is true – but still at least the torpedo should have been detected in advance (even it would have been detected to late). Up to now the mini sub story is only a speculation.

It’s just a statement.
If English is not your primary language, let me explain….
It was meant to satirize Wanshan’s (and others) willingness to take NK’s word on the incident.

I guess that is you who have problems with language – even it is your primary one. Nobody here was supporting North Korea or believing in their statements. Therefore your statement has no connection to the discussion here at all. You only try to discredit all those not supporting your opinion stating they would support North Korea, have illusions about North Korea etc.

But not believing North Korea does not mean automatically supporting everything what some media speculate or what the South Korean government published. Did they published all the communication with the Cheonan? Did they published the sensor data of the Cheonan (if they have access to it)? Why there are only statements that North Korean subs were leaving there harbour, but non about any detection of them anywhere else?

the North not being the peaceful workers paridise and not being quite what it appears

This is a pseudo argument, because nobody here thinks of North Korea being a peaceful paradise 😉

There are still a lot of open question in regard of the sinking of the Cheonan, especially about the exact circumstances. Was a North Korean submarine detected? Did the Cheonan react somehow? Or was she completely surprised – which would be very strange considering where she was patrolling.

Changing tack the list you put up of operators is interesting – certainly there are nations on there that have worked with Pyongyang before.

Pakistan? Or which country do thought about?

Bottom line the idea of it being an NK operation to sink a SK warship clandestinely is technically feasible. Question would have to be why?. Why go to such extreme lengths to sink one ageing corvette?. IF it is a German designed torpedo then it would seem that an operation to attack a RoKN vessel was specially planned. Is there any external factor that would make now an especially appropriate time for such an action?.

The question is not why they have sunk this corvette – it would be still the largest South Korean warship they have sunk ever and perhaps it was the only one “available” to be attacked. The question is why they should have used a special torpedo – where any torpedo of their own equipment would have been sufficient to sink this corvette.

The explanation that they used this torpedo to prevent them to be blamed is strange. It was obvious that North Korea would be blamed for an attack – does not matter what type of torpedo was used (see e.g. the discussion here).

BUT:
still it is not sure that it was this type of torpedo, it is not even sure that it was a torpedo at all:

“It’s true that RDX, a chemical substance used in making torpedoes, has been detected,” he told reporters. “The possibility of a torpedo (attack) has increased, but it’s too early to say anything.”

The explosive material was detected on the ship’s smokestack and in samples of sand from the site, said joint investigation team spokesman Rear Adm. Moon Byung-ok.

“Mines use RDX as well as torpedoes so we need to investigate further to determine which was responsible,” he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/north-korea-sub-suspected_n_569584.html

anyone know what her fate is after this it would be a shame to scrap her:confused::(

I guess she will be scraped – already the Colbert, which was a museum ship in Bordeaux, will be scraped.

This is a patch of open water. Unless a minefield was deliberately laid there why would unexploded ordnance be present?

We are talking about a region, which was the front line for years in the Korean War. On Wikipedia it written that they area was not regularly patrolled by Korean corvettes and was considered not to be save for such big vessels. This hints to navigational hazards, which could indicate that there was no systematic search for mines in the area.

You are right, though, in that if the ship had its sonar station manned they should have detected torpedo screws. Perhaps thats the reason why they weren’t hesitant in sending the salvage vessels into the area.

If there was a torpedo attack, they should had been cautious to send salvage vessels in the area – there would have been the possibility of another attack.

It would be really interesting what exactly was happening and what does the the sensors of the Cheonan did detected.

Oh I like this piece of logic.:p “I’m going to say a Japanese sub might have done this but I’m not really saying a Japanese sub did this.”

You still have no proof. I have written that you have no proof and your logic that only a North Korean attack was possible is false. There are several other possibilities. One theoretical possibility would be a Japanese sub. But my opinion is that this was an accident – which I have written several times 😉

Politics? Where did I say anything about politics? You didn’t read my words correctly. I’ve been talking about total, full scale, totally crush and destroy warfare.

War is your political method 😉 You are willing to kill thousand to millions based on speculation and complete ignorance and indifference for the fates of those endangered by your political methods. This is typical for right wing militaristic politics, the kind of politics responsible for the death of millions in the 20th century.