leonThe only possibility then let alone the NK’s, is a ground influence magnetic weapon, laid at random, that the corvette was just spectactularly unlucky enough to pass right overhead and trigger. The odds against that have to be astronomical.
I would consider it to bad luck – but not totally unrealistic. Do you ever lived on or nearby a former battle field? And do you ever had the situation that a complete quarter of a city has to be evacuated because a bomb, which did not exploded 65 years ago? We have this regularly…
One thing is for certain that the South Korean was an ASW hull. Thats why I said earlier it would be interesting to know what he was doing immediately prior to the ‘event’. If he was on an NK Romeo, giving it a lashing, for the sub to turn round on him and fire it would explain a few things.
They should have detected a least the running torpedo – and probably also the submarine itself, because such an old design is probably relativity noisy for a Diesel sub.
leonYeah, you aren’t quite getting this Leon. To get the effects that happened to the ship it has to be in less than 100ft of water, more like 60ft to get that kind of devastation, and the ship would have to pass DIRECTLY over it i.e not 100ft to port or starboard. Ground mines dont generally get laid in isolation either….they would be laid as a pattern. If this was a ground infuence weapon I see a strange lack of SK minehunters deployed to neutralise the rest of the field.
It could be an anchored mine which were missed by mine hunters.
You have seen any security measures against submarines during the attempts to salvage the wreck?
What parellel do you think exists between unexploded ordnance in a city and that in naval warfare?.
Such a city is certainly much more busy than this part of the sea in South Korea – and still regularly bombs were found which lay there for 65 years or even longer.
leonJust to pick up on the unexploded ordnance thing there….the chances of that are actually very slim. The detonation occurred at just the right point under the keel to break the ships back.
Which should be possible, if the mine has a magnetic detonator.
The chances that there is still unexploded ordnance are pretty high – if you see how often unexploded bombs are found in middle of European cities or how many mines are still in European waters…
leonFor sure there was and is a conflict between South Korea and Japan: the conflict about the Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima. I was not talking about an armed conflict. This was no argument that a Japanese sub was responsible – it should show you that you have no proof at all that it was a North Korean torpedo!
But you still argue for your kind of politics based on no proof and complete ignorance about the fate of those, who would be the victims of your political methods. Washington DC is a good example: obviously not only corrupt leader would be killed if the city would be destroyed by a nuclear bomb. As also a nuclear bomb would not only exclusively kill North Korean leaders.
leonYeah I hear Paraguay wants to see NK and SK duke it out so they can buy the Pay For View rights and market it all over the world in order to boost their sagging economy.
There is also the possibility that it was a Chinese sub, a Russian sub, a Japanese sub (there were also clashes between Japan and South Korea in the last decades) and a old mine.
There is still no evidence that North Korea is responsible.
And even if North Korea would be responsible to attack would be still stupid and criminal – because such an attack would cause a high number of civilian victims.
To react to such an attack with an small scale counter attack (blow up something North Korean) does not prevent new attacks – more likely is another attack to counter the counter attack.
The Korean War never ended. An armistice was agreed to but Syngman Rhee refused to sign and on May 27, 2009 NK withdrew from the armistice so a state of war is in place.
You should read what I have written đ There was no official end to the Korean War, but actually there is no war in Korea. There is no full scale fighting. There were some small clashes, but no war. Your list proofs my statement!
Therefore someone who starts a full scale war is also responsible for this action and for his refusal to consider the effects – e.g. the danger for the inhabitants of Seoul – and the North Korean civilians.
You think Kim Jong Il will just gladly give up his power (and possibly face criminal charges) if the US pulls out? Why would he do that? Because he’s a nice guy and reasonable? Yeah right.:rolleyes:
No one is talking about Kim Jong Il giving up his power voluntarily. But perhaps you have forgotten that all stalinist dictatorships were ended by revolutions (e.g. in all the east European states) – and not by invasions by western powers. Invasions of western powers resulted in the last decades only in poverty and new forms of oppression – but not in democracy and wealth.
leonAre there now any proof for something launching a torpedo? Or of the torpedo itself?
It is possible that the Cheonan hits an old mine from the Korean War, e.g. one with a magnetic detonator, which would cause similar damage.
leonAgain with the “where’s the proof?”. You think Zambia sent a sub to sink this ship?
An old mine (e.g. with a magnetic detonator) from the Korean War could also be responsible…
E.g. there still a lot of mines from the Second World War in Europe, e.g. in the Baltics (still regularly unexploded American and British bombs were found in European cities. These bombs still endanger the civilian population).
I’m looking to end over 50 years of a father then son dictatorship with an outdated military and broken economy making three of the best equipped and best trained armed forces in the world (ROK, USA and Japan) look like the Three Stooges.
You obviously forgot two points:
1.) there is currently no war in Korea. There is still officially no freedom, but actually there is no war. There were some small scale clashes at the border, but for most people in both Korean states and the neighbouring states there is peace. The people in Seoul are currently not endangered – they would be endangered, if people like you would start a new full scale war.
2.) you should not mention the dictatorship, starvation etc. in North Korea – because your choice of weapons (nuclear bombs – a weapon automatically causing not only those hit, at which it was targeted) and your ignorance about the Seoul people show that you don’t care about the people in Korea. These are only excuses for you to justify your politics (right wing militarism).
Personally, I want to pull all US forces out of SK and Japan and bring them home then I wouldn’t care what NK would do.
This would be certainly better for both Koreas, because it would increase the chances for a change in North Korea. They would loose their main excuse for the existence of the Stalinist regime.
leonAfter you nuke Pyongyang then you launch a full scale attack and send troops across the DMZ as well as multiple air strikes and land troops on both coasts. Its called a full scale war. You’re not a West Pointer are you?
You would sent troops into a radioactive wasted desert? You are certainly not a humanist at all… Probably also a little bit naive?
As for Seoul being in artillery range that’s not my problem. Why the SK government didn’t move the seat of government well to the south is beyond me.
The problem is not the seat of the government. Seoul has c. 11 million inhabitants. If you think that this would be not your problem, I hope you will have never be in charge of anything!
I also can not see any reason to start a war – even if North Korea has really sunk this corvette for which there is no proof. Why endanger millions of people to revenge the death of 46? This would be as stupid as the last years of the Korean War – when a lot of people where killed, because there was no agreement over the fate of a far smaller number of Chinese prisoners of war.
leonWhy does it have to be a modern submarine or a particularly modern torpedo to defeat one small, austere, surface combattant operating on its own?
Because there is the statement that the torpedo exploded below the hull breaking it? Are to older torpedoes capable to do this?
North Korea’s submarine service has no shortage of old Romeo class boats that are capable, in Chinese service at least, of deploying Yu-3/4 type torpedoes which would fit the profile of the weapon that killed this ship. North Korea has, allegedly, been confirmed as having taken delivery of Yu-3G torpedoes for the submarine fleet.
What is the source of this statement?
leonNorth Korea has no modern submarine. It appears to have no modern naval equipment at all. Is there any prove that it has modern heavy weight torpedoes?
*sigh* So you don’t want to nuke Pyongyang and destroy the leadership and central command and control (and a lot of NK civilians) but your ok with this regime continuing to starve,torture and generally beat the crap out of its people like its has been doing since 1945?
There is no example in history that it is possible to end starving, torture and oppression by an air strike killing the leadership and central command. It is a very naive assumption that something like this is possible at all. It would be worth to remember to Korea War: the USAF and USN tried extensively to bomb the North Korean regime into submission – but failed to do it. But they certainly were able to cause the civilian population to starve. They could terrorize the civilian population – but not the regime. There is a misconception what air power can achieve. Certainly it can not end dictatorship…
leonSo it looks like a torpedo. So what? Sure that’s and act of war but are we all ready to launch a full scale war against North Korea? Actually a few well placed nukes will end this threat in minutes but no one has the nads to do that because of the NK civilian body count and therefore ol Kimmy will rattle his saber every so often and maybe sink another ship or shoot down a plane or two and we do nothing and he’s still in charge.
You are serious?! This bombs would not only kill NK civilians – victims of this regime! – but would hit also South Korea! And how would nuclear bombs stop someone to use torpedoes or mines? The thread of the nuclear bomb was already useless during the Korean War – and then the USN and USAF destroyed nearly everything in North Korea using conventional bombs (and still do not won the war).
leonAny “colonial” term were now TOTALLY OBSOLETE
Colonial cruisers or “Gunboat policies” were well know in the 18-until mid 19 th century
Colonial cruiser is today not perfectly fitting – except of those countries which conquered colonies (e.g. the USA Iraq).
But the term “Gunboat policy” fits exactly to the usage of most warships of the big industrial countries. Germany, China, UK, France, USA, Russia etc. all use their warships for power projection, “showing the flag”, “stabilisation actions” etc. Today only different words are used for the same thing.
The German F125 class is designed exactly for such duties. Also the Danish Absalon class is designed for such duties. Also the planned Mistral class ships for Russia would fit to such policies.
Certainly different types of ships are used for such policies. There are low costs gunboat style ships, e.g. the French Floréal class or the little more expensive versions, e.g. the French La Fayette class. There are very expensive warships with high capacities for land attack, e.g. the Arleigh Burke class or the new Zumwalt class and F125 class. And there are the different types of amphibious assault ships, e.g. the Danish Absalon class, the French Mistral class etc.
leon– French (Horizon or AAW F400 design), NO, I doubt, because the french is already in talk with greece navy for FREMM frigate….
– German (MEDO D or others design), yes, very probably the first “foreign option”
Both Greece and Turkey have MEKO 200 frigates đ
leonRadars are placed higher, giving a longer detection distance and larger engagement envelope against sea skimming missiles.
It would have been also possible to get the same advantage using a mast-like structure similar to the Spanish Ălvaro de BazĂĄn class – which otherwise has a low superstructure. Ok, the Japanese solution has this advantage plus the advantage of a bridge with good visibility (if this really important today) plus higher positions of other sensors, fire control radars (SPG-62) etc.
Is their any information about how the greater internal space in the hull and superstructure is used in the Japanese ships?
leonso they are heavier. Are the internal layouts similar?
There are even clear differences in their external layout, e.g. the position of the hangar (if present), the position of the VLS, the position of the boats etc. The position of the VLS is exchanged in Atago compared to Kongo and Arleigh Burke. Atago has the 64 cell launcher forward and the 32 cell launcher aft high in the superstructure. Therefore the forecastle of the Atago looks also different compared to Kongo.
The Sejong the Great has two 64 cell VLS – therefore a much higher capacity compared with the other classes.
The Arleigh Burke Flight IIA and the Sejong the Great have place for two helicopters, the Atago only for one.
The hangars and VLS space and position alone results in huge internal differences.
It would be interesting, why the Kongo and Atago class have such high superstructures. They are probably two decks higher compared to the Arleigh Burke class.
Sign In
