The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
hanqiang1011
New Member
This scenario where the SK warship sailed there and got sunk by NK is a bit similar to James Bond's: Tomorrow Never Dies.
"The villians in the film got a GPS encoder made by the American military, used it to send this HMS Devonshire, an UK warship's off-course and got sunk by Chinese Mig. Then the villians used the same ammo on the Mig to finish off the UK sailors. Thus near starting a war between Chinese and UK navies."
Some films maybe fictional but it does contains real-life scenarios. Who knows, there are really some sort of GPS encoder that we never know, some mad one's got it, set ROKN Cheonan offcourse, got sunk by NK submarine.
Some conspiracy on the way?
"The villians in the film got a GPS encoder made by the American military, used it to send this HMS Devonshire, an UK warship's off-course and got sunk by Chinese Mig. Then the villians used the same ammo on the Mig to finish off the UK sailors. Thus near starting a war between Chinese and UK navies."
Some films maybe fictional but it does contains real-life scenarios. Who knows, there are really some sort of GPS encoder that we never know, some mad one's got it, set ROKN Cheonan offcourse, got sunk by NK submarine.
Some conspiracy on the way?
ravenshield936
Banned Idiot
The Chinese didn't sink the British warship. A drill launched by the stealth boat sank the warship. Plus, if I remember correctly, the PLA don't have any Migs other than self-produced fighter jets. And the plane in the movie seemed to have a solid cone, and the only planes at the time in PLA would be Q-5, which 1. Isn't a Mig 2. Isn't for PLAN
Last edited:
Pointblank, I agree with your general gist, everything except the depth re USN/Western sub operations.
The friendly fire scenario is implausible for other reasons. The ROK Government would prefer it were friendly fire - tragic but not an international incident with DPRK.
All the conspiracy theories fail at the macro level.
Micro-analysing small details in the popular press and snippets from half way through an investigation is a sure way to find "inconsistencies" in any major event.
A bunch of people on the internet trying desperately to discredit an official report compiled by people who are experts and had actual contact with the wreckage etc, doubting the ID of a torpedo on the basis that they themselves know little about torpedoes as if no-one in ROK military service would recognise wreckage from a USN or ROK torpedo... is inevitable I guess.
The friendly fire scenario is implausible for other reasons. The ROK Government would prefer it were friendly fire - tragic but not an international incident with DPRK.
All the conspiracy theories fail at the macro level.
Micro-analysing small details in the popular press and snippets from half way through an investigation is a sure way to find "inconsistencies" in any major event.
A bunch of people on the internet trying desperately to discredit an official report compiled by people who are experts and had actual contact with the wreckage etc, doubting the ID of a torpedo on the basis that they themselves know little about torpedoes as if no-one in ROK military service would recognise wreckage from a USN or ROK torpedo... is inevitable I guess.
Last edited:
ROK does not use DM2A4, I think only Germany and Spain have them. Plus the fins are quite different from the wreckage.
The full-length schematic is indeed inconsistent with the wreckage, that's a f-up by someone. But this schematic of a CHT-02D is consistent with the wreckage:
Hi all,
(First post here)
Ive read all I can about the sinking of the cheonan, which is how I ended up here, and I have quite a few questions I hope some of you can help me with.
1) where can I find anything on this "CHT-02D" torpedo? I realize its not on sale at amazon, but I can not find a single reference even to its product name that predates the sinking of the cheonan. Not on janes, not anywhere else. Googling for it and restricting the date to before march 2010 gives not a single actual reference that predates the incident. Does it have another name its known by? Was its existence public knowledge or even rumoured?
2) where can I find the material that was presented at the press presentation of the investigation report? Is it online somewhere? id really like to take a closer look at the black&white schematics of the torpedo that they presented there. I can only find really bad pictures and some video footage.
3) Why was the large colored schematics of another torpedo shown? The one you see in most photographs and linked higher up in this thread with the motor, shaft and props colored; it clearly doesnt match the debris (the black and white one, does seem to match, but its hard to tell with no good images). The press conference was in Korean, so I didnt understand what they said when they unveiled this life size (incorrect) schematics. What torpedo was on that image and why was it shown?
4) in the press you can find some indirect references to metallurgy and chemical analysis that Im sure the investigation team did (they show some in the video as well), but have those results been made public beyond stating it matches Korean torpedo's?
5) Likewise for seismic analysis. On April 30th, this was info was released:
This predates the finding of the torpedo, yet by "seismic" data it is concluded that a "torpedo ran at the Cheonan at the speed of 65.7 km/h and exploded underwater 2.3 m from the ship with power equivalent to 206 kg of TNT."
Furthermore and perhaps more importantly, it states:
This is in direct contradiction with the official report which states 7 or 8x that a bubble jet destroyed the ship. Have they shown evidence of this? And BTW, how would it be possible to determine speed and depth of a torpedo using "seismic" data?
You might understand by now, Im skeptical of the official story, but I want to keep an open mind. BTW, this theory that a US or SK sub also sank makes no sense to me at all, but one alternative theory that does fit is a rising mine. This blog posts makes a few good points (and a few bad ones):
Anyway, rather than speculating on alternative theories, I would appreciate any help with the above questions.
Thanks.
(First post here)
Ive read all I can about the sinking of the cheonan, which is how I ended up here, and I have quite a few questions I hope some of you can help me with.
1) where can I find anything on this "CHT-02D" torpedo? I realize its not on sale at amazon, but I can not find a single reference even to its product name that predates the sinking of the cheonan. Not on janes, not anywhere else. Googling for it and restricting the date to before march 2010 gives not a single actual reference that predates the incident. Does it have another name its known by? Was its existence public knowledge or even rumoured?
2) where can I find the material that was presented at the press presentation of the investigation report? Is it online somewhere? id really like to take a closer look at the black&white schematics of the torpedo that they presented there. I can only find really bad pictures and some video footage.
3) Why was the large colored schematics of another torpedo shown? The one you see in most photographs and linked higher up in this thread with the motor, shaft and props colored; it clearly doesnt match the debris (the black and white one, does seem to match, but its hard to tell with no good images). The press conference was in Korean, so I didnt understand what they said when they unveiled this life size (incorrect) schematics. What torpedo was on that image and why was it shown?
4) in the press you can find some indirect references to metallurgy and chemical analysis that Im sure the investigation team did (they show some in the video as well), but have those results been made public beyond stating it matches Korean torpedo's?
5) Likewise for seismic analysis. On April 30th, this was info was released:
This predates the finding of the torpedo, yet by "seismic" data it is concluded that a "torpedo ran at the Cheonan at the speed of 65.7 km/h and exploded underwater 2.3 m from the ship with power equivalent to 206 kg of TNT."
Furthermore and perhaps more importantly, it states:
This is in direct contradiction with the official report which states 7 or 8x that a bubble jet destroyed the ship. Have they shown evidence of this? And BTW, how would it be possible to determine speed and depth of a torpedo using "seismic" data?
You might understand by now, Im skeptical of the official story, but I want to keep an open mind. BTW, this theory that a US or SK sub also sank makes no sense to me at all, but one alternative theory that does fit is a rising mine. This blog posts makes a few good points (and a few bad ones):
Anyway, rather than speculating on alternative theories, I would appreciate any help with the above questions.
Thanks.
7sins, Welcome to the forum! Be sure to read the forum rules before you proceed.
FORUM RULES: Things to Remember Before Posting, important, please read!
And introduce yourself to the rest of the Forum!
New members introductions - New members Introduce yourselves
Your post was moderated because of an anti-spam feature when new members post. When a member post and has less than 15 total post and said member includes any link in his/her post that post is moderated as an anti-spam feature.
Welcome to SDF!!Enjoy the forum.
FORUM RULES: Things to Remember Before Posting, important, please read!
And introduce yourself to the rest of the Forum!
New members introductions - New members Introduce yourselves
Your post was moderated because of an anti-spam feature when new members post. When a member post and has less than 15 total post and said member includes any link in his/her post that post is moderated as an anti-spam feature.
Welcome to SDF!!Enjoy the forum.
Engineer
Major
I wasn't referring to a submarine, but the acoustic sensor on the torpedo. If the sensors on the Cheonan couldn't pick up the submarine, then the smaller and weaker sensor on the torpedo would certainly do worse.
It is questionable that a mini-submarine would be able to house any meaningful acoustic equipment. The most probable way for such a submarine to obtain a target is via an operator like the way it was done in WWII, but he would still be subjected to the same constraints experience by ASW equipments.
No. You argued that it is improbable for a US nuclear submarine to be in that area, but did not mention anything about diesel submarines. Also, by "no Western submarine", do you imply that a Chinese or Russian nuclear/diesel submarine would dare to sail in that area?
Hi 7sins, welcome to SDF.
I read the link you posted, and a few things stood out to me that damaged the author's credibility:
-He took a North Korean press release at face value. If you're willing to believe North Korean press releases, well, I've got some beachfront property in Oklahoma for you.
-"Since civilian traffic is not routed through the channel, the noiseless conditions are near-perfect for picking up the slightest agitation, for example from a torpedo and any submarine that might fire it." This statement indicates a severe lack of understanding about the nature of ASW. The author seems to think that there's no civilian traffic around, so there's no noise, so it would be easy to hear a sub right? Wrong. The area where the sinking took place is an acoustic nightmare. The fast moving and shallow water and the islands make ASW very very difficult, even without much civilian traffic.
-The author simply says that the USNS Salvor "must have been laying bottom mines", and offers no real evidence for that statement, which is a pretty big logical leap considering the whole article is based on that. Wikipedia doesn't list mine laying as one of the Salvor's capabilities, and it's not like that would be secret.
-The author misidentifies "Assassin's mace" as a type of rocket torpedo, which is a pretty big mistake considering Assassin's mace refers to a component of Chinese strategic thinking rather than a piece of equipment.
-The author seems to think that a laterally fired torpedo is not capable of breaking the keel of the Cheonan. I assure you, they are.
-Lastly the author expresses disbelief at the idea that North Korea could obtain high grade explosives because of sanctions. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that North Korea could get German explosives and reverse engineer them and then use them in torpedoes.
All in all it seems like some blogger tried to teach himself enough military things so that he could make a half-baked argument and still sound competent. This is a classic case of arriving at a conclusion first (America did it!) and then working backwards to find evidence to support your conclusion.
Last edited:
Like I said, he made some bad points too A few more than you list in fact.
But the issue here is not if this blogger is right vs the official story being right.Without access to even the most basic evidence, one can hardly construct a bullet proof case. The issue here is did or didnt the south koreans provide iron clad evidence of north korea's involvement, and at this point, Id say they have not, at least not to me.
Lets keep in mind that whats at stake is potential (nuclear) war should this escalate, I would expect an investigation to live up at the very least to the same standards as a typical criminal court case (which would include innocent until proven guilty, right of defense, impartial judges, etc).
Anyway, its an alternative theory that is worth considering among others (cheonan running aground and/or involved in a collision) and those hypotheticals should have been ruled out by the results of the investigation. I have not seen that, but perhaps a few answers to my above questions would come closer.
A few more than you list in fact.But the issue here is not if this blogger is right vs the official story being right.Without access to even the most basic evidence, one can hardly construct a bullet proof case. The issue here is did or didnt the south koreans provide iron clad evidence of north korea's involvement, and at this point, Id say they have not, at least not to me.
Lets keep in mind that whats at stake is potential (nuclear) war should this escalate, I would expect an investigation to live up at the very least to the same standards as a typical criminal court case (which would include innocent until proven guilty, right of defense, impartial judges, etc).
Anyway, its an alternative theory that is worth considering among others (cheonan running aground and/or involved in a collision) and those hypotheticals should have been ruled out by the results of the investigation. I have not seen that, but perhaps a few answers to my above questions would come closer.