You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
China-Japan-Koreas
South Korean navy ship 'sinking near North
2010-03-26
A South Korean navy ship with about 100 personnel on board is sinking off the west coast near North Korea, possibly due to a torpedo attack, reports say.

The ship was sinking near Baengnyeong island, Yonhap news agency quoted navy officials as saying.

It also said the South Korean ship had fired shots toward an unidentified ship from the North.

There were no immediate reports of casualties, but a rescue operation was said to be under way, Yonhap reported.

The incident happened late on Friday night local time.
More from Yonhap news agency at 00:23 KST:
SEOUL, March 26 (Yonhap) -- A South Korean Navy ship was sinking off the west coast near its maritime border with North Korea, officials here said Friday. Officials also said South Korea fired a shot at an unidentified vessel toward the North.

The 1,500-ton ship carrying 104 crew members went down around 9:45 p.m. near a South Korean island in the Yellow Sea, prompting an emergency meeting of security-related Cabinet ministers.

Seoul's Navy officials refused to give details, but said a South Korean vessel fired at a ship toward the North later in the evening, indicating possibilities of a possible torpedo attack from the North. Local residents reported having heard gunfire for about 10 minutes from 11 p.m.

"The ship appears to have begun sinking after an explosion at the rear of the ship," the Navy said in a statement. "We have been unable to find the exact cause of the incident as of this moment."

The Navy said it has rescued 58 crew members during an ongoing rescue operation, but fears some may have died.

North Korea has said in recent weeks it is bolstering its defense in response to joint South Korean-U.S. military drills that were held this month. The North Korean army conducted dozens of artillery firing drills earlier Friday, according to Seoul's military officials.
Not clear if it was a Nork attack or some dreadful accident on the ROK ship.

Update at 1430 CST: from the Guardian, mostly op-ed so big EFL:
Late last night, the South Korean patrol ship Cheonan suffered an explosion and sank. As of midnight Korean time, 58 of the 104 member crew of the Cheonan had been rescued. The cause of the sinking of the Cheonan, a 1,300 ton missile corvette, is as of yet unknown. However, the South Korean cabinet has convened an emergency meeting to deal with the situation, and some reports suggest that a North Korean torpedo may have struck the Cheonan.

Details remain sketchy, and at this point it is unclear whether Cheonan sank as the result of an attack, or because of an accidental explosion.
Given the number of survivors the SKors should be able to figure that out pretty quickly.
Another South Korean patrol ship reportedly fired on North Korean targets in the area. The area in which Cheonan sank has recently seen several skirmishes between North and South Korean forces. In January, patrol vessels from each nation exchanged gunfire with one another. A similar exchange in November resulted in severe damage to a North Korean vessel, and the death of a North Korean sailor. The disputed area involves several islands that are claimed by both sides. South Korea recognises a UN-drawn line of demarcation, while North Korea does not.

If Cheonan sank because of an accident, the incident will serve as an example of the challenges presented by high tension situations like that between North and South Korea. In such situations, a lack of information can lead to considerable danger, as both sides face pressure to react without having a grasp of the full situation. If, on the other hand, Cheonan was destroyed by a torpedo, the situation must be considered extremely grave. Forty-six crewmen at last report have yet to be accounted for, and are unlikely to survive long in cold Korean waters. South Korea cannot ignore a provocation of this magnitude, and will likely be forced to respond in some fashion. South Korea's navy substantially outmatches its North Korean counterpart, but the North Korean response to any South Korean retaliation remains uncertain.

The problem of discerning North Korean intentions complicates factors. It is possible that the North Korean government ordered the attack in order to provoke the South, but the attack may instead have been launched by lower level local commanders. Even if this were the case, however, it would be impossible for South Korea to divine genuine North Korean intentions.
The Cheonan is a Pohang-class corvette commissioned in 1989.
Posted by:3dc

#30  yep - 32nd street, which saw the homecoming of the Nimitz strike group - the Nimitz Carrier arrived at North Island. There was a lot of rejoicing (we were pouring bridge deck by the Convention Center and saw several ships come in) - and no doubt new American patriots conceived tonight
Posted by: Frank G   2010-03-26 22:40  

#29  The USNS Hope, sister-ship to the USNS Comfort, is home-ported in either San Diego or Bremerton, Washington, can't remember which.

USNS Mercy is home-ported in San Diego.
Posted by: Pappy   2010-03-26 21:57  

#28  Ala FREEREPUBLIC/FOXNEWS AM > seems a SOKOR warship has fired on an unidentified vessel, ostens believed to be NOKOR at this time. SOKOR MIL OFFICIALS ARE DOWNPLAYING THE INCIDENT, claiming that it is dubious or inconclusive as to whether the NOKORS = DPRK is involved.

My first thought was that it was a NK CAPTIVE MINE given prelimar News reports on the stern blast. The SOKORS are very mindful of NOKOR Commandoes using Underwater, Riverine, andor Ooastal crafts to sneak over the LAnd-Sea DMZ = LoD.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2010-03-26 20:39  

#27  won't the Chinese just up and say "whatever, we don't care

I'm afraid not. Without going into a long explanation, China's policy (and I understand it is written into its constitution) is to regain all territory lost 'under duress' in 'unfair treaties'. North Korea was a vassal state of China for several hundred years prior to the rise of Japan in the 19th century. Historically its relationship to China was similar to that of Tibet and we all know what happened to Tibet.

My guess is that if push comes to shove, ie the alternative is NKor is lost to the 'West', China will annex N Korea.
Posted by: phil_b   2010-03-26 18:59  

#26  My father was an F-4 flyer off the USS Coral Sea during Vietnam.
They got a commendation after patrolling the coash of North Korea.
Those frakers are crazy.
Posted by: Mizzou Mafia   2010-03-26 18:50  

#25  There were quite a few naval vessels sunk by magazine explosions. These are just some significant cases from WWI - major vessels, battleships, heavy cruisers, etc.

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/thist24.htm

There have been many many more over the years, but rather few in recent decades (other than among Soviet and ex-Soviet vessels possibly)
Posted by: buwaya   2010-03-26 18:18  

#24  I'm back to the 48 rule, instead of 24. Not enough facts yet, and plenty of speculation.

As bad as the Iowa accident was, has any ship ever sunk itself by accident with onboard munitions, which discounts the Maine and Vasa events? Could the ROK have really done this to itself?

I don't know what Occam would say yet, so its back to a 2 day wait.
Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division   2010-03-26 16:30  

#23  
Fox I do not trust any more; its spinning things however the Saudis want it spun or else spinning to curry favor with the left.


I also have noticed this. That really bodes ill, because it will take some time before the less astute realize that fact. Some really nasty stuff, this way comes.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man   2010-03-26 16:08  

#22  All of the above is assuming it was an attack.

ASM not likely to cause catastrophic and immediate failure unless it takes out an ammo compartment.

Fox I do not trust any more; its spinning things however the Saudis want it spun or else spinning to curry favor with the left.
Posted by: OldSpook   2010-03-26 16:02  

#21  FYI: CAPTOR type mine satisfies both the mine and torpedo theory.

And the ship sinking so fast indicates that sort of an attack. ASM, even sea skimmers take a while to sink a ship. Mines similar. Torps on the other hand will sink a ship fast.

SKOR navy will be getting very very aggressive as long as their politicians don't choke them on s short leash.

In most times, this would be considered an act of war.
Posted by: OldSpook   2010-03-26 15:59  

#20  Has President Obama said that the South Koreans acted stupidly?
Posted by: Harry Elmatch8053   2010-03-26 15:42  

#19  The USNS Hope, sister-ship to the USNS Comfort, is home-ported in either San Diego or Bremerton, Washington, can't remember which. No need for the COMFORT to make the long journey around.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2010-03-26 14:53  

#18  I've seen quite a few guesstimates on what caused this attack, but one I haven't heard, and one that is probably the most likely, is a NORK sea-skimming anti-ship missile. The North Korean navy has quite a few small anti-ship patrol boats that carry Russian anti-ship missiles. Hide one behind an island, pop out for a minute, shoot,and hide again. A lot of those islands and land areas around that part of North Korea have tunnels carved in them for just such a purpose. Remember the damage a "Silkworm" did to the Israeli navy ship in 2006. The NORKS have "Silkworm" missiles.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2010-03-26 14:51  

#17  Fox news reporting an internal munitions explosion, not a North Korean attack.
Posted by: bman   2010-03-26 14:43  

#16  Navy type reporting, also. The Chinese and NorKs have sea bottom secured mines that will release upon detection of vibrations and/or magnetic signature. But they have to be "programmed".
Posted by: anymouse   2010-03-26 14:25  

#15  Thanks AP - don't know where I got UNSN - sounds like something the UN would include in their hypothetical naval revenue service.
Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division   2010-03-26 14:21  

#14  From what I read, the USNS Comfort left Haiti and is back in Baltimore, Halliburton.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2010-03-26 14:17  

#13  Thanks Redneck Jim - I sorta thought as much, but agree that a torpedo is more likely.

Still - not at all a good thing, seeing as how a sinking is now reported, and this was a very large ship. (Off to Jane's to check the ROK fleet).

As for the "diversion" idea - I dunno - how much more diverted can the Norks get? At some point won't the Chinese just up and say "whatever, we don't care"?

I expect we'll learn a lot about treaty obligations in the next few days, as well as chain of command. Is the UNSN Comfort still in Haiti? Ugh.
Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division   2010-03-26 13:45  

#12  So all we really need to do is glue antlers to all the north korean shipping.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2010-03-26 13:44  

#11  NKor was obviously provoked to violence by Sarah Palin and the Republicans.
Posted by: Iblis   2010-03-26 13:42  

#10  Unless the USN wants to go hunting, which it usually does, the SKOR will get their own payback, with interest.

They have three new Sohn Wonyil class (German 214 design), and nine Changbogo-class (German Type U-209s), against the Norks 26 Romeo class subs, built in the 1950s, and four Whiskey class Russian subs from the same period.

No idea what type of torpedoes the SKOR use, other than that they are 533mm, which is the same as the US MK-48.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-03-26 13:39  

#9  Wouldn't a homing torpedo typically go towards where the screws are? (Assuming it's not something really fancy or anything; assume it's a homing torpedo from WW2 or something like that. And yes, they had them back then.)
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2010-03-26 13:32  

#8  Navy Type, reporting as requested
It's possible for a mine to hit and explode on a ship's rear, they can be pushed aside by the Bow wave, and be pulled in by the suction at the stern.
That said, I go with the Torpedo theory, although this would be an act of war, it's very likely as a diversion from NOR-K's people Starving, we reported here that Kimmie was looking for a diversion, war is a good one.

Don't forget the War's NOT ended, Only an Armistice (Stop shooting a while) in effect, and can "Resume" at will.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2010-03-26 13:28  

#7  Has Obama surrendered yet and apologized to Kimmie?
Posted by: Silentbrick   2010-03-26 13:19  

#6  I saw a reference on the net; some of these ships are equipped for anti-surface-warfare, and some are equipped for anti-submarine stuff.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2010-03-26 13:15  

#5  this is how our enemies respond to weakness. we don't know this was Nork attack or not, but it was it is only the beginning. The enemies of freedom smell blood in the water and will be on the offensive strongly soon.
Posted by: abu do you love   2010-03-26 13:12  

#4  SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Military officials say a South Korean navy ship has sunk off an island not far from North Korea.

An official with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Seoul said early Saturday that the ship sank some four hours after it began taking on water. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, in line with department policy.

The official said at least 58 of the 104 crew members have been rescued. There was no immediate confirmation of casualties. A rescue operation was still under way.

The cause of the sinking was not immediately clear.
Posted by: tu3031   2010-03-26 13:01  

#3  Update. The sinking (sunk?) ship is the Cheonan (PCC-772) of the Pohang class.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2010-03-26 12:48  

#2  Now, Halliburton, you know it was your own hidden onboard bomb that did it, as part of your scheme to incite war between the Koreas so you can profiteer on it.
Posted by: Glenmore   2010-03-26 12:42  

#1  If not the 48 hour rule, at least a 24 hour rule to apply here?

RB Naval types - how about a mine? Any chance the NK's laid a mine? Would it possibly strike the "rear of the ship"?

I see no mention of air based attack, either missile or aircraft, so I guess we're down to self-inflicted accident, torpedo/naval gunfire, or mine.

Regardless, not a good result.
Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division   2010-03-26 12:36  

00:00