North Korean warship heavily damaged during ceremonial launch

Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
13,829
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Not sure what the deal is where they're calling it a "side launch". I guess where it was pushed off the dock (I guess it's called a slipway) rather than built in a drydock that then gets flooded to launch. This was the example I found of what it's supposed to look like when successful:







https://apnews.com/article/north-ko...aged-nuclear-9f66685ad8f34d5bef027750a0678370
During a launching event at the northeastern port of Chongjin on Wednesday, the newly built 5,000-ton-class destroyer became unbalanced and was punctured in its bottom sections after a transport cradle on the stern section slid off first and became stuck, according to the Korean Central News Agency.​
KCNA didn’t provide details on what caused the problem, the severity of the damage or whether anyone was injured.​
According to KCNA, Kim, who was present at the ceremony, blamed military officials, scientists and shipyard operators for a “serious accident and criminal act caused by absolute carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism.” Kim called for a ruling Workers’ Party meeting slated for late June to address their “irresponsible errors.”​
In a very rare move, the incident was quickly confirmed by North Korea, perhaps in an effort to get ahead of the news cycle once satellite imagery of the warship put any question about what had happened beyond doubt.​
Pyongyang’s state-run KCNA news agency provided the following details of what happened:​
“Due to inexperienced command and operational carelessness, the parallel movement of the bogies could not be guaranteed, resulting in the launching sled in the stern detaching first and causing the ship to capsize. The ship’s balance was destroyed due to a rupture in the hull in some sections, and the bow section was unable to detach from the keel.”​

The ship is apparently on its side now and partially covered with tarps where it's grounded on the dock.

 
Malnutrition is a real problem over there. People can't think straight when they're being starved to death. This is one of those problems that's solving itself.
 
The side launch method is a widely used and well understood launching method. Absolutely every technical aspect of the method is well known. This was either a design engineering error or an execution error.
 
They will round up some low level dock workers that were standing around and blame them. Like the Russians did after Chernobyl.
Except what really happened at Chernobyl was the director of the plant (Bryukhanov), the chief engineer (Fomin) and his top assistant (Dyatlov) were blamed, tried, and found guilty for the accident, and served several years of time in a Soviet gulag. Considering the amount of damage that they did (which is still a mess 40 years later), and that they unintentionally may have triggered (or accelerated) the failure of the Soviet Union... they got off easy.

They screwed up so big, and it ended up that the world was watching... it saved them all from simply getting a bullet to the head.
 
Except what really happened at Chernobyl was the director of the plant (Bryukhanov), the chief engineer (Fomin) and his top assistant (Dyatlov) were blamed, tried, and found guilty for the accident, and served several years of time in a Soviet gulag. Considering the amount of damage that they did (which is still a mess 40 years later), and that they unintentionally may have triggered (or accelerated) the failure of the Soviet Union... they got off easy.

They screwed up so big, and it ended up that the world was watching... it saved them all from simply getting a bullet to the head.
If you read the book "midnight in Chernobyl", which seems well researched and is critically acclaimed, the USSR industrial machine division, which were responsible for the design and operation of these things, knew about the shortcomings of that reactor design and its instability under those conditions, and they had another reactor almost do the same thing not more than a year before, but they shared those risks with no one since it would show the USSR reactors being inferior (which they were). So the operators had no clue of the potential issues.

It would be like putting 100mph speed limit on a road, then saying the driver was at fault for going too fast.

Plenty of blame to spread around for sure, but those at the top were sheltered.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom