Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: North Korea Sinking of US Cargo Ship Prompts China-Russia Deployments

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    965
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Hm.. So rather than stir up something with NK, we just 'claim' that cargo ship went down in the Hurricane?
    What objection to you have to talking an approach based on reality, rather than one based on heavy doses of LSD?

  2. #12
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ACME_MAN View Post
    Yep. If this occurred as the report claims it did, and I have no reason to doubt it, then it constitutes an act of war.
    This really shows a lack of understanding of capability by the North Koreans & reality.

    The North Koreans employ 4 classes of submarines, 2 are midget submarines incapable of transoceanic transit. Of the other 2 (Sang & Romeo) are diesel/electric and do not have the deployable range to get from North Korea to the Caribbean (where the FARO) was lost, especially since they would have to round the Tierra del Fuego on the southern tip of South America (cannot transit the polar ice cap and didn't transit the Panama Canal.) Even if they hand the range, they could not have transited that far in the time since they got underway to the loss of the FARO unless they traveled about 175% of their max (surface) speed (they go much slower submerged.)

    Which is all kind of mute since the submarines began returning to port within a week of the sortie (before the FARO was lost.)

    The problem with conspiracy theories is that they sound great to someone who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #13
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    I was being Sarcastic. It seems that site's Conspiracy theory machine is working overtime there.
    Ah, my bad.

    For some reason we have become an outlet for a Conspiracy Theory website. Reminds me of the Scottish anti-Royalist that used to post some really off wall stuff until he got so stupid about it he got banned.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    177
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    It looks like NOAA and the National Hurricane Center need to update the Mariner's 1-2-3 rule by adding yet another new rule/reason to avoid sailing your ship into a "Hurricanes" path. This new rule "number 4" will advise mariners of the high probability of being sunk by a North Korean Submarine if you are foolish enough to ignore Rules 1-2-3 and still sail into the path of a Hurricane.

    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/mariner123.html
    Excerpt; The Mariner's 1-2-3 Rule is the guideline mariners follow to keep out of a tropical storm or hurricane's path. The Mariner's 1-2-3 rule, also referred to as the Danger Rule, is an important guideline mariners follow to keep out of a tropical storm or hurricane's path. It refers to the rounded long-term National Hurricane Center (NHC) forecast errors of 100-200-300 nautical miles at 24-48-72 hours, respectively.

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    southern Collie-forn-ya
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    [QUOTE=Bos Mutus;359129]I don't think they are allowed to put it on the internet if it's not true.

    Good point. I just saw a piece on the internet about how vaccines are safe for everybody. Glad the internet is here to give us the truth.

    Like everything else, one has to exercise discernment and prudence as well as following those gut feelings. More often than not, the latter are the best thing to go by.
    Last edited by ACME_MAN; 10-27-2015 at 11:54 PM.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    southern Collie-forn-ya
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    This really shows a lack of understanding of capability by the North Koreans & reality.

    The North Koreans employ 4 classes of submarines, 2 are midget submarines incapable of transoceanic transit. Of the other 2 (Sang & Romeo) are diesel/electric and do not have the deployable range to get from North Korea to the Caribbean (where the FARO) was lost, especially since they would have to round the Tierra del Fuego on the southern tip of South America (cannot transit the polar ice cap and didn't transit the Panama Canal.) Even if they hand the range, they could not have transited that far in the time since they got underway to the loss of the FARO unless they traveled about 175% of their max (surface) speed (they go much slower submerged.)

    Which is all kind of mute since the submarines began returning to port within a week of the sortie (before the FARO was lost.)

    The problem with conspiracy theories is that they sound great to someone who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
    Here's a way around your presented obstacles. What if the North Koreans used a freighter to town the submarine to its intended destination? Did that ever occur to you? It's known as thinking outside the box(i.e. abandoning STATIC linear thinking). And midget submarines could easily be transported in a large transport plane I would think. Cuba would be a nice place for that plane to land. Those sub deployments happened nearly a month ago if I recall correctly.
    Last edited by ACME_MAN; 10-28-2015 at 12:04 AM.

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    southern Collie-forn-ya
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Ah, my bad.

    For some reason we have become an outlet for a Conspiracy Theory website. Reminds me of the Scottish anti-Royalist that used to post some really off wall stuff until he got so stupid about it he got banned.
    The "In Other News" section CLEARLY indicates under the heading that conspiracy posts are welcome in this section. I just had a thought about "stupid" right now, but but being older and wiser than some, I know that when I have nothing nice to say about someone I generally don't say anything. Some people could clearly learn from that.

  8. #18
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    As much as I hate to be trolled, this is quite ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by ACME_MAN View Post
    Here's a way around your presented obstacles. What if the North Koreans used a freighter to town the submarine to its intended destination?
    How would they do that and:
    1. Complete the towing operation in the time window between the sortie & the loss of the FARO? Even averaging 20kts (which wouldn't work if towing a submarine on the surface doesn't given that you are talking over 18k nautical miles days using shipping lanes (most direct route) in 30 days. Deviation from the shipping lanes would take even longer.
    2. Remain undetected? I don't know if you have ever been at sea but the shipping lanes are like highways and you cross paths with other vessels pretty regularly including Naval vessels. If you avoid the shipping lanes you attract attention for being outside the shipping lanes. Is it possible, sure but so unlikely and based on the time / distance not at all plausible.


    Quote Originally Posted by ACME_MAN View Post
    And midget submarines could easily be transported in a large transport plane I would think. Cuba would be a nice place for that plane to land.
    How would they:
    1. Drydock and transport a 25m or 32m submarine to an air facility to onload and conduct subsequent offload without detection?

    Do you know how many airfields in Cuba are in proximity to the coast to allow offload of a submarine for transport to a drydock facility? Do you know how long it takes to drydock a vessel? Do you know how a submarine handles in hurricane weather (being round hulled, not well at all) ... especially the smaller ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by ACME_MAN View Post
    Those sub deployments happened nearly a month ago if I recall correctly.
    Over a month ago (late Aug) almost 50 subs got underway. Also, within a week over almost all had returned to home port (open source). The FARO was lost 01 Oct, after reporting its position inside the NW quadrant of the storm (the worst place for a storm moving NW) and that it was listing in excess of 15 degrees, taking on water and had lost propulsion.

    It may be static linear thinking in this case to look at the facts, the time / distance math and the capabilities of the vessels, the logistical issues and match that with: experience at sea (on submarines and surface vessels), familiarity with the NK platforms, familiarity with drydocking operations as well as airlift and say that in this case 2+2 does = 4. I have a lot of experience in special operations and thinking outside the box, but it is overtly ridiculous to come up with a scenario that rivals a Tom Clancy novel so that North Korea could sink a merchant vessel.
    Last edited by Mjölnir; 10-28-2015 at 09:23 AM.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  9. #19
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ACME_MAN View Post
    The "In Other News" section CLEARLY indicates under the heading that conspiracy posts are welcome in this section. I just had a thought about "stupid" right now, but but being older and wiser than some, I know that when I have nothing nice to say about someone I generally don't say anything. Some people could clearly learn from that.
    Older maybe, wiser ... based on this type of discussion ... :\
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Absinthe Anecdote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,669
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ACME_MAN View Post
    Another interesting report. North Korea apparently trying to provoke us into doing something. Hopefully we had a couple of dozen rowboats following the Chinese and Russian ships. We have our pride to uphold you know. ; ) All kidding aside, it's nice to see militaries cooperating because when that happens you have less of a chance of something catastrophic happening.

    http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1931.htm
    Yet another reason your theory holds no water.

    If North Korea's goal was to "provoke us into doing something" then why secretly sink a ship on the other side of the world?

    They have the means to provoke a conflict at their finger tips, if that was their goal.

    They can fire artillery at Seoul, launch scud missiles at Osan Air Base, shoot an SA-5 at one of the near daily U-2 or Global Hawk missions.

    When a country tries to provoke a response, they do it overtly.

    If they want to be provocative they can, but not in the Caribbean Sea. I spent a chunk of my career studying North Korea's military forces. Their Navy does not have the capability to operate in the Caribbean.

    None of what you are saying makes sense.
    Last edited by Absinthe Anecdote; 10-28-2015 at 01:30 AM.
    All behold that fancy strutting peacock, the bake sale diva...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •