A 2200 pound bomb is a big bomb. While I have no doubt that a large carrier could survive a hit, it seems possible that something like the Shipwreck could inflict mortal damage. Now if you’re toolin’ around in your Oscar and get wind of a carrier that you feel needs sinking, you just might send along more than one of the 24 Shipwrecks you’ve got on board. It seems to me well within the realm of the conceivable that two Shipwreck hits could down a carrier.
And, in the short term an important fact is that, even if it doesn’t actually send it to the bottom, it is certainly conceivable that one hit from a Shipwreck could render the carrier 100% combat ineffective for months to come.
Okay, Tranquilis, you’ve picqued my curiousity. What did you mean when you said:
With regard to your points about the SS-N-19 and it’s attack attitude (however, see below), it’s true that my comments were really more general, and probably not even all that applicable to cruise missiles as a class.
All of the (non-Jane’s) sources I can find also quote the Shipwreck missile as having a 750 kg (1650 lb) conventional warhead, or 500 kiloton nuclear, warhead. According to this Jane’s page, Shipwreck missiles can use multiple attack trajectories:
I’ll note that the OP is a bit vague on whether the source meant that a single Shipwreck missile could destroy a carrier (although, honestly that would be my take).
[sub]Wow! On preview, I realize that this is one mess of waffling. Oh well…[/sub]
We had a fire-bug aboard. Never did find out who it was, either. Sonuvabitch set fire to a number of different stores and holds, including some that contained seriously flamable contents, such as the Damage Control Ready Stores Locker, containing among other things, several thousand OBA cannisters. An OBA (Oxygen Breathing Apparatus) uses a dry chemical, Potasium Super Oxide, to generate breathable oxygen, but it’s super sensitive to water and hydrocarbons, and is a cast-iron b!tch to put out. Usually, you just jetison it over the side, but in this ase, it wasn’t possible to do so, so we had to go in after that cr*p.
Nice info on the SS-N-19. I’d never heard of the “Ripple Fire” mode of attack IRT that missile.
I think you heard some bad scuttlebut Sofa King. While magnesium is light it’s extremely prone to corrosion, bad news for ship structures. Every carrier I was on was steel all the way up. I don’t think making the island out of lightweight materials would be significant in a 95,000 ton ship.
Tranquilis, you did some nasty firefighting. I was lucky to only be involved in one major fire on the Ranger. I’m glad I remembered how to use an OBA but having that can strapped to my chest and knowing what a bit of oil and water could do to it gave me a bit of concern. The Ranger fire would have been a strictly engieering matter but some putz tossed a mostly used OBA can in a trash can on the hangar deck. As soon as the can started smouldering the guy in the conflag station set off the sprinklers. &#$%^! There had been no problem in the hangar bay but now we had salt water foam drenching the cockpits and open maintenance panels on all the planes.
This is off topic I know but I have to ask what the hell the point of these Oxygen Breathing Apparatus things are for? I can certainly see the use of having oxygen available while in a smoke filled corridor and fighting a fire. However, if these things are super-sensitive to water and/or oil aren’t they a particularly stupid thing to have while fighting a fire? On a ship no less? You’ve got fire hoses spraying water and maybe sprinklers spraying water and it is reasonable to assume that some damage to ships sees them take on water so you might have water spraying from the hull or you’ll be wading or swimming through it. Oil? Well, if you are on a conventionally powered boat and anywhere near the engine room I’d imagine there’d be oil or fuel galore around. It wouldn’t surprise me if oil and fuel galore were in other places on a ship as well but I couldn’t say for certain.
I must be missing something because I can’t see why someone would willingly strap this to their chest while fighting a fire. Sure, it might protect you from noxious fumes but it also might burn a hole in your chest to boot if the guy next to you stumbles and sprays you with water.
Yeah, that DC Locker was particularly bad. A couple of others were hotter and bigger, but the DC Locker had the potential to remove the entire ass-end of the ship, and went to General Quarters. Not pretty. Fortunately, we got it knocked down before too many cannisters were involoved, or there’d have been no approaching it. We had guys (and gals) humping buckets full of steaming hot cannisters up to the flight deck, and down onto the pier. We couldn’t just dump them because harbor water is oily as all get out, so we had to spread them out and hose them down, hoping they didn’t rupture first. A couple did, but injuries were minor. There were more than a few medals handed out over that one, including several COMs. We also had NIS/NCIS crawling all over the ship for weeks. They found nothing besides the incindiary device.
An OBA fits the same gernal need that a Scott Air Pack does, save that it’s quickly rechargeable by the wearer, while he’s wearing it, the cannisters have a long shelf-life and take up very little space, and don’t require heavy compressed air cylinders. You can store several thousand cannisters in the same volume that would only hold a hundred air cylinders. Further, OBAs go through escape scuttles more easily than an Air Pack.
Normally, the cannisters are quire safe to handle, being hermeticaly sealed, with those seals covered by a fairly ingenious cap, which is easy to remove, and keeps oil avay from the seal. Once a cannister is inserted, you only need breath to start the reaction that provides all the oxygen you need for up to an hour, depending on how hard you’re working. Usual usage is to replace the cannister after a half hour of firefighting. The OBA seals air-tight one the cannister is seated, so there’s no risk to the user while it’s in place.
However: You have to reach fairly clear air to change cannisters, and you have to be d*mn carefull not to touch the seal after teh cap is removed and before you’ve seated the cannister in place. Also, the reaction is very exothermic, so you can’t use an OBA in explosive atmospheres, and you can burn yourself pretty badly if you handel a recently used cannister with bare hands. Teh cest piece is well insulated, so burns while you’re using it aren’t much of an issue. It’s just on changeout that you need to be paying attention.
One cruise missile of any sort will not sink a carrier. With a lucky magazine hit that starts off fires and such, it might eventually happen, but in general, no way.
However, a cruise missile hit, particularly from a large missile like y’all have been discussing, is a “mission kill” – that aircraft carrier is not going to be doing much in the way of combat operations for the next 24 hours, if at all in the next six months.
Actually -sinking- the thing isn’t really all that important except in a strategic perspective. But you’re better off using torpedoes or many many missiles if you wanna do that. Of course, “many many missiles” is exactly how the things are used, to try to overwhelm antimissile defenses.
its not so much the sinking of it just getting a hit which is a major moral killer in the ranks of who was on the recieving end , course russians use the SS-N-22 Sunburn nuclear warhead capable mach 2.3 missile
After reading this thread and the original article, I also thought that the author might have meant that 22 missiles could sink a carrier.
Additionally, I’m not sure that the quoted portion is neccessarily refering to a US carrier. A Russian carrier is about half the size of a US carrier. And has anybody seen those cute little boats that the Brits call carriers?
apparently americans call them baby carriers but they are ok for what we use them for however the UK is getting a few super (though not super compared to the 70 aircraft+ carriers the US has) (2) carriers to carry the JSF and possibly navalised EF2K that can carry about 20-30 aircraft compared to current 8-12 sea harriers
russians don’t have much money and the SU-33 doesn’t need a catapult its powerful enough to launch on full burners
though numbers are limited and launching is alot slower than a US carrier launching the entire wing that is
The USS Princeton detonated two Italian-made seabottom mines, and suffered extensive damage, but regained the ability to fight (actually resuming command and control of the mine-clearance group’s anti-air warfare measures) within two hours, and could have, if called upon, fired Standard, TLAM, and Harpoon missiles, or guns. Mind you, she’d have been nothing more than a missile-firing barge, but she was prepared to fight. At last check, the USS Princeton was still in commission, and serving proudly.
Mine warfare is a totally different beast from air warfare, bringing with it entirely new issues, considerations, and threats.
So, with a bit of feedback behind us, much of it from those far better militarily educated than I, and accepting that apparently more sources give the Shipwreck a 750 kg warhead than the one I cited that gives it a 1000 kg warhead, and further accepting that the final measure does not have to include actually sending the thing to Davy Jones’ locker, I would say that yes, cruise missilescan apparently effectively destroy a super carrier’s ability to operate as an offensive unit for both a tactically and a strategically significant period of time.
You have to understand that our supercarriers are built to
take damage… bad damage and not only stay afloat but
also function as normal… Like I said before, even the
island can go and after the clean-up, planes can still be
launched…
In some areas there is a bulkhead inside the ship called
the “missile shredder” designed to force the missile to
explode sort of ‘outside’ instead of riding well into the ship
and doing more damage that way…
Ah, I see the issue: You’re looking at the WWII Light Carrier USS Princeton (CVL23) (these were notoriously vulnerable and in no way comparable to today’s carriers) from 1943.
I thought he was referring to the USS Princeton (CG-59), a modern cruiser, built to the same naval architecture standards as today’s carriers.
This is a reminder to myself, Sam, and everyone else, that when you’re talking naval vessels, many ships use the same name down the years, and it helps to be specific. I, of course, should have known better, and I appologise.
Sorry, I should have made that more clear. I also specifically said “Destroyed” instead of “Sunk”. That was intentional, because I’m aware that it didn’t sink because of the bomb - it basically just burned itself out.
What’s interesting is that the way in which the Princeton was destroyed was almost identical to what happened on the Forrestal. The Forrestal was much bigger, and had more effective firefighting equipment, but she still came awfully close to being completely destroyed by a deck fire that went horribly out of control.