# Could a conventionally armed cruise missle destroy an aircraft carrier? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 31, 2001, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646 "2001-10-31T02:40:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/1 "2001-10-31T02:40:21Z")
A [recent news article](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011030/wl/russia_kursk_dc_9.html) about the salvage of the _Kursk_ included this statement: > [@](#): > > …the Russian navy has ruled out any detonation of the Kursk’s 22 cruise missiles, which have a range of 300 miles and the power to destroy an aircraft carrier. Is this hyperbole? Could a cruise missle really take out a carrier? ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/2 "2001-10-31T02:57:25Z")
With a bit of luck, yes it could. The Soviet/Russian cruise missiles were designed to attack US carrier groups, and, while a carrier might survive one or two hits, a single hit in a vulnerable spot, such as the aviation fuel tanks or bomb magazines, would certainly do enough damage directly or through secondary explosions. The Americans played around with cruise missiles in the ‘50s, even building 4 conventional subs and a nuclear sub (USS Halibut) to fire the early Regulus I and II cruise missiles, but eventually dropped the whole thing and went back to torpedos and airplanes for 20 years. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/3 "2001-10-31T03:09:57Z")
It would seem the answer would lie in the warhead. And that info seemed hard to find until I came to this [SSGN OSCAR II CLASS](http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/oscar/) site. It says that the Oscar class subs carry SS-N-19 Granit (NATO codename “Shipwreck”) cruise missiles with 1000 kg warheads. I think you could sink a carrier with a 2200 pound bomb with a good hit. Others with other thoughts will be along, I’m sure. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/4 "2001-10-31T03:14:50Z")
In 1987, the USS Stark took 2 Exocet missiles and all it did was blow a hole in it. [http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-ffg.html](http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-ffg.html) > [@](#): > > Despite this, the FFG 7 class is a robust platform, capable of withstanding considerable damage. This “toughness” was aptly demonstrated when USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and USS Stark was hit by two Exocet cruise missiles. In both cases the ships survived, were repaired and returned to the fleet. USS Stark was decommissioned in May 1999. The Stark was just a frigate. But I dunno, maybe cruise missiles got more oomph to them nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/5 "2001-10-31T03:29:19Z")
The Exocet packs (there may be a heavier duty variant I don’t know about) a 165 kg (363 #) warhead, which does not begin to compare to the Shipwreck’s 1000 kg warhead. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/6 "2001-10-31T03:58:59Z")
Exocet is designed to attack much smaller vessels (destroyer/frigate size or smaller) and is limited by the weight restrictions required to allow it to be carried by fighter-size aircraft. Two British ships were sunk by Exocets during the Falklands (destroyer Sheffield & container ship Atlantic Conveyor), but both were destroyed by fire subsequent to the missile strike rather than the missile explosion itself. (The Sheffield missile didn’t even explode, it was the unused fuel in the missile body which spread fire extensively around the hit point.) However, even a non-fatal Exocet hit on a smaller ship would probably force it out of battle and back to port for extensive repairs. Certainly the Russian SSN ship-launched cruise missiles and larger air-launched missiles (Kitchen, Kangaroo, etc.) could do serious damage to or sink a carrier. ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/7 "2001-10-31T04:19:23Z")
Aside from the SS-N-19 Shipwreck–whose name says it all–another worrisome Soviet development are their new **supersonic** cruise missiles. Even worse is the fact that the Chinese now have them and are thought to be selling them to Iran/Iraq. Defending any surface ship against a cruise missile is difficult business. A supersonic threat is far more serious. The development of a laser-based defensive system couldn’t come too soon, though realistically it is thought to be at least two decades away. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/8 "2001-10-31T04:26:12Z")
What happened to the Sheffield is similar to what took down the WTC towers. And, is the Exocet considered a cruise missile? I had thought that general class of missiles was defined by their constant feedback navigation systems. For that matter, as long as we’re here, could a cruise missile’s DSMAC (digital scene-matching area correlator) be fooled if you, say, printed up a huge aerial photo of the targetted city and put it up on poles, like a big cammo cover, and sort of twisted it a bit so the part of the photo showing the Command and Control central HQ was actually hung over the old rock quarry? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/9 "2001-10-31T04:31:01Z")
As far as a carrier goes, it’s really going to depend on luck. The _Enterprise_ had an accidental fire on the flight deck a long time ago, and it almost sunk the ship. The heat started cooking off 500 lb bombs, which blew holes in the deck and allowed the jet fuel that was leaking out of all the planes pour down into the ship. On the other hand, the USS Princeton was destroyed by a single 500 lb bomb. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/10 "2001-10-31T05:12:20Z")
Sure, _with luck_ it could. _Any_ explosion might trigger a sufficiently powerful secondary. I guess what I was really asking is whether it’s reasonable to assume that a “typical” hit, or two, would destroy the carrier. Phrased diffently, in a non-nuclear encounter how many cruise missles (“Shipwrecks”) should be targted against the carrier to “guarantee” a kill? ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/11 "2001-10-31T05:34:39Z")
Let me just say, until our squids and their relatives show up, that a hit from an Exocet (363 pound bomb) could probably be handled by damage control teams several times over, but a 2200 pound bomb hit almost anywhere on the carrier could prove fatal. If they survived it, it would be a true wicked thing to handle. While a 250 pound bomb or a 500 pounder (typical bomb carried by WWII or Vietnam era fighter-bombers) can cause serious damage, that kind of hit was survived by carriers during both of those wars. A 2000+ # explosive charge can rip many a bulkhead that will be unaffected by the smaller loads. Let me just say here that, until tonight, I had not known there were such heavy-ass cruise missiles out there. I had generally thought of them as smart munitions with a limited punch. Wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/12 "2001-10-31T14:48:10Z")
The [USS](http://www.naval-air.org/education/know_supercarrier_vietnam.asp) [Forrestal](http://www.forrestal.org/fidfacts/page13.htm) had seven 500-, 750-, and 1000-pound bombs and numerous rockets go off on and in her during her fire, and she survived, despite the generally poor level of Damage Control training her crew had. In fact, she was capable of flight ops days after the fire (albeit in a highly limited manner), well before she reached any repair facility. These days, thanks in part to lessons learned from the Forrestal, Damage Control training is much better. A single 2200-pound warhead is unlikely to sink a carrier, and may not even render it incapable of launching and recovering aircraft, depending on the location of the hit: CVs are freekin’ _huge_. It will, however, send it to shipyard in short order. Two such warheads will very likely stop flight operations, and if _really well placed_ might sink her, but not likely. Three such hits, and you’re in trouble, although still not sinking, unless one or more hit near the waterline. Four such hits? Even if she stays afloat, she’s in the yards for a _long_ time. More than that? I hope the Abandon Ship drills have been run recently… Lesser vessels are far less likely to withstand the kind of punishment that a single SS-N-19 could hand out. Even if they survived the hit, they’d be combat incapable, and headed for the nearest shipyard. ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/13 "2001-10-31T15:32:22Z")
We may soon find out the answer to this question. News reports today say that the Chinese, despite earlier pledges to the contrary, are continuing to sell advanced missile technology to Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, perhaps including cruise missiles. Nothing quite like the Chinese. Embrace with Bush in a photo op one week, provide deadly weapons to known terrorist states the next… ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/14 "2001-10-31T16:03:28Z")
The incident on the Forrestal was primarily at the flight deck level, some sixty feet above the waterline. While the ship was at risk, bombs going off on the flight deck are not the same as a sea skimming cruise missle that strikes the hull. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/15 "2001-10-31T16:34:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Country Squire \* > **We may soon find out the answer to this question. News reports today say that the Chinese, despite earlier pledges to the contrary, are continuing to sell advanced missile technology to Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, perhaps including cruise missiles.** If true what complete and utter putzes. I thought the Chinese were supposed to have a better sense of history than many countries? How many times has the US and the former USSR found themselves staring down the barrel of their own weapons from past sales? Iraq certainly leaps to mind as one such case. China is attempting to build a blue water navy and while they may be a decade or more away it seems imprident for them to sell anti-ship missiles to neighbors who might be enemies someday. Certainly China already has their own problems with muslim extremists. As to the OP a carrier has two things going for it. As **Tranquilis** already mentioned they are bloody huge things and not easily sunk by virtue of their own size if nothing else. Second is their ability to not get hit in the first place. Given a screen of AEGIS cruisers and destroyers not to mention the carrier’s own defense batteries I always thought they were relatively safe from all but a very concerted, multi-axis attack. Unfortunately they may not be as safe as I once thought. (I posted the following in the [battleship debate](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=94232&pagenumber=3) over in GD recently but it seems relevant here as well.) > [@](#): > > There is a growing threat in that GAO lists at least 10 antiship cruise-missile systems that either are deployed by other countries or soon will be. And despite nearly $4 billion having been earmarked by the Pentagon for ship antimissile defenses since 1906, only two relatively minor classes of Navy vessels have seen any improvement in their ability to counter an attack, reports GAO. The Navy “overstates the actual and projected capabilities of surface ships to protect themselves from cruise missiles because the models used in the assessment to determine capabilities include a number of optimistic assumptions that may not reflect the reality of normal fleet operations,” says GAO. > > - \ \* > > Moreover, reports GAO, though the Navy since the Cold War has shifted its focus from fighting on the open ocean to near-shore waters (where its ships face an increased threat from missiles), it currently lacks any comprehensive strategy for improving its capabilities in response to the mid- and long-term threat it faces from the increasingly sophisticated missiles that potential adversaries fire deploying. > > Source: [Insight Magazine](http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1571/30_16/64426346/p1/article.jhtml?term=%22USS+Stark%22) NOTE: That ‘1906’ date looks weird in the quote above but it is dutifully copied from the link. I wonder if that was just a typo (maybe supposed to be 1986) or if they really meant 1906? ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/16 "2001-10-31T16:53:56Z")
> [@](#): > > The incident on the Forrestal was primarily at the flight deck level… True. However, even with “sea skimmers”, _where_ the missile strikes is kinda important, as is how far above or below the waterline, and what’s behind the point of impact. On a ship as large as a carrier, you have to consider just how _much_ damage is required to sink it. The risk of a “Granit” missile striking at the waterline is less than you might think. While it has a lower flight profile then it’s evolutionary predecessor, the SS-N-12, it still isn’t a sea-skimmer: > [@](#): > > The SS-N-19 is launched by solid fuel booster, which is jettisoned, and then cruises at an altitude of over 20 kilometers, followed by a terminal dive onto the target. \<_“SS-N-19 ‘Shipwreck,’” Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems._\> It’s interesting to note that [_Janes_](http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/rusnukes.html#ssn19) only credits the SS-N-19 with a 750kg (1650lb) conventional warhead. Cruisers and destroyers are at _immediate_ risk of sinking from even a single hit from a such a large missile, while carriers would likely absorb three or four (depending on placement) before being at serious risk. ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/17 "2001-10-31T17:02:47Z")
**Whack-a-Mole** : I agree that the 1906 date looks fishy. That would be still relatively early in the torpedo era, and shortly after the development of “destroyers” as a class of anti-torpedo ships. The Sea Sparrow anti-missile system was deployed in 1976, but USN anti-missile development goes back earlier than that. While it is true that anti-missile systems are pretty effective, nothing is ever 100% guaranteed. As the Patriot system demonstrated during Desert Storm, no automated defence system is ever fool-proof. New ECM systems, gaps in coverage (ships are lumbering beasts at the best of time, and in heavy weather might have a great deal of difficulty maintaining the screen) and a host of other factors could allow a single lucky missile to hit the carrier. I hope fervently that we’ll never have to deal with such a tragedy, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility. **Tranquilis** : while it’s true that the Forrestal survived the bombs that cooked off on her deck (132 crew dead, 62 injured, 2 missing [_??_], 26 aircraft lost, 31 damaged), she burned for more than 12 hours and it was only through heroic efforts of the crew that she wasn’t destroyed. A 2000lb cruise missile, striking lower on the hull (as **Padeye** pointed out) would have a far more devastating effect. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/18 "2001-10-31T17:09:16Z")
Sure, assuming a waterline hit. The SS-N-19 isn’t a sea-skimmer: It takes a steep plunge towards the target from altitude (see above post). It’s not a flea-bite, but it’s not a sure-fire killer, either. That’s why Russian doctrine was to saturate the battlegroup with missiles: To ensure multiple hits on the carrier. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/19 "2001-10-31T17:36:52Z")
I’ve heard rumbles among my cephalopod friends that nobody has yet seen what sort of damage could result from a hit on our post-_Forrestal_ carriers. Apparently, they incorporate a lot of magnesium in the superstructure and have the potential to burn out of control. Just a rumor, though. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646/20 "2001-10-31T18:18:00Z")
For a while, we were building warships with aluminum-alloy superstructures. That’s part of the reason the Stark was so badly damaged. Interior partitions and non-watertight bulkheads are also sometimes aluminum, which doesn’t help the Damage Control (DC) situation any. That said, I’ve fought fires on the submarine tender (including some that were deliberately set), and never had an issue with the non-structural partitions lighting-off. Dunno what might happen with a missile, though. The Princeton had the same materials, and despite a mine hit, had no insurmountable DC issues. Of course, that was below the waterline, so, again, I dunno. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-conventionally-armed-cruise-missle-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier/90646.md?page=2)