# Could terrorists sink an Aircraft Carrier? Is it within the realm of possibility? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 31, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571 "2004-03-31T17:59:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/1 "2004-03-31T17:59:38Z")
Could scuba divers approach an aircraft carrier from underneath without being noticed and plant an explosive on the hull at a vulnerable point? Could you crash an airliner into one 9-11 style or would jets intercept you? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/2 "2004-03-31T18:28:01Z")
There’s no way SCUBA divers would be able to carry enough explosives to scuttle a carrier. > [@](#): > > Could you crash an airliner into one 9-11 style or would jets intercept you? There might be a brief window of opportunity when the entire crew is watching _Oprah_. Other than then, it seems pretty doubtful. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/3 "2004-03-31T18:33:35Z")
A sufficiently large sub-surface nuclear device detonated under the keel may create a large enough void that the “back” would be broken. I would say the ship would have to cruise over the device already placed in a choke-point area, it would be harder to approach the carrier while it is underway in the CBG’s defensive spead. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/4 "2004-03-31T18:36:20Z")
> [@UncleBill](#): > > A sufficiently large sub-surface nuclear device detonated under the keel may create a large enough void that the “back” would be broken. I would say the ship would have to cruise over the device already placed in a choke-point area, it would be harder to approach the carrier while it is underway in the CBG’s defensive spead. What about scuba delivered plastic explosives attached to the hull at various points? ---
**Author:** ![Doomtrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/0ea827/32.png) [@Doomtrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doomtrain)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/5 "2004-03-31T18:42:27Z")
Let’s break it down some. You have two basic shots: When the carrier’s at sea and when it’s in port. When the carrier’s at sea, it’s going to be carrying aircraft, probably running Combat Air Patrols, probably escorted by a battle group. A low flying civilian airliner would definitely stir questions and, if it was swooping towards the carrier, I don’t think they’d hesitate to intercept and shoot it down. Even if it DID hit, I don’t think the damage would be sink-worthy. Carriers are huge ships and designed to take a pounding to begin with. Maybe if terrorists had an old Soviet sub, they could sneak in close and fire some torpedos, but the escorts and ASW patrols would hunt them down and destory them afterwards. It’d probably take a nuclear torpedo to sink a carrier. Not outside being possible, of course, but a bunch of terrorists aren’t likely to be able to take “Driving a Foxtrot Class Sub” for a couple months and then be able to sneak past a carrier battle group. In port, you could maybe sneak in some bombs like the USS Cole attack (but even the Cole was damaged, not sunk, and it was a lot smaller than a carrier), but divers carrying explosives? They’d need hordes of em. So is it within the realm of possibility? Certainly, but really unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/6 "2004-03-31T18:42:40Z")
I don’t know too much about it, but I’m pretty sure any threatening/unknown aircraft that got too close would be “neutralized” before it got close enough to do any harm. An aircraft carrier would be a fairly “opptomistic” target and for even the most over-achieving terrorist. Sounds like the plot to the next Steven Segal movie. * * * Plans? We don’t need no stinkin’ PLANS! ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/7 "2004-03-31T18:52:05Z")
Rather than trying to sneak a horde of scuba divers carrying 10 lb. packs of explosives, I think your modern terrorist would try to get his hands on one or two Exocet missiles and find a suitable way to launch them. The Exocet proved surprisingly effective during the Falklands war. Even then, a modern carrier is not just a big box floating in the water. With watertight compartments and whatnot, it would take several direct hits to cause enough damage to sink one. ---
**Author:** ![LordVor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90ced4/32.png) [@LordVor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LordVor)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/8 "2004-03-31T18:55:23Z")
I doubt a team of people could carry enough conventional explosives to do much of anything to it. As others have mentioned, a scuba diver couldn’t even catch it unless it was in port. As for 9-11 style, aircraft carriers are heavily invested in anti-aircraft measures. I would wonder if it would be more possible to, say, disable it by going after the screws… -lv ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/9 "2004-03-31T19:02:42Z")
Back in my squidly days, it was posited that it would take up to six [Mk. 48 ADCAP](http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-torp.html) torpedoes to sink a Nimitz class carrier. That’s a 650 lb(292.5kg) warhead time six for a total of 3900 lbs (1755kg). That’s a lot of scuba divers. ---
**Author:** ![back\_online](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@back\_online](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/back_online)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/10 "2004-03-31T19:03:10Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Could scuba divers approach an aircraft carrier from underneath without being noticed and plant an explosive on the hull at a vulnerable point? Could you crash an airliner into one 9-11 style or would jets intercept you? I was in the Navy so might have a slight inside perspective (more than the average Joe (and 'cause read Tom Clancy 😉 ) , and here is my unofficial opinion. No, divers are not a threat to a carrier. 1st, every ship in our Navy is compartmentalized. This means each is room is water tight, and can be closed off to prevent excessive flooding and secure off areas which are damaged etc. 2nd the hull of our carriers is quite thick and would require an enormous amount of explosives to cause enough damage to put it a ship of that size in a serious hurt. 3rd Every Carrier is escorted by submarines, whose job it is to identify all motor craft in the vicinity of it’s fleet. (I realize you said “divers” but divers are like ants to elephants in relative size to a Carrier. They could not move this amount of explosives within range of a carrier to cause it significant harm) I am not sure of the exact thickness of the hull, but I think it would amaze most of us. I am trying to remember, if it’s neat a foot thick in critical areas (near the propulsion plants). – Perhaps while dockside (where the sub escorts could not venture) a few dozen divers with underwater propulsion devices (called sleds) could manage something of the sort, but most of that is “Hollywood” kinda stuff and doesn’t really happen. The " passenger-airliner into a carrier" would not cause nearly the damage as it did to our brittle World Trade Centers. Keep in mind: Steel ship built to withstand high-speed travel, etc vs. Glass Building with a hollow honeycomb steel structure. The WTC was an issue of burning jet fuel into a very open environment which weakened its superstructure. [USS Enterprise](http://http://nuke.co.kr/aboutNuke/application/nu_weaphone_ed/aircraft_carrier/images/Enterprise.gif) If it the ship were in “hostile” area, yes there would be an escort of fighters in the air. My two cents… James ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/11 "2004-03-31T22:15:57Z")
Imagine a [747-400ER](http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/technical.html), a couple of hundred kilometres into a flight, with a take-off weight of 400,000 kg (allowing for a slightly less than full aircraft, and shy of a full load of fuel), cruising at 900 km/h. Assuming you could drop that much mass at just 900 km/h on the carrier, you’re looking at kinetic energy of something like 1.62E17 joules, or the equivalent of about 54.4 megatonnes of TNT. Think that might do it? Consider that not having to worry about the condition of the aircraft, other than the bulk of the mass hitting a tiny spot on the ocean, means that your velocity is really the maximum you can achieve with your engines and the aid of gravity. Your CIWS is pretty much useless at stopping the aircraft from hitting the boat, and even multiple anti-aircraft missiles are going to have to hit before the plane is on its terminal vector to avoid a potentially fatal impact. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Slant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mr.Slant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Slant)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/12 "2004-04-01T00:04:16Z")
> [@Cerowyn](#): > > Imagine a [747-400ER](http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/technical.html), a couple of hundred kilometres into a flight, with a take-off weight of 400,000 kg (allowing for a slightly less than full aircraft, and shy of a full load of fuel), cruising at 900 km/h. Assuming you could drop that much mass at just 900 km/h on the carrier, you’re looking at kinetic energy of something like 1.62E17 joules, or the equivalent of about 54.4 megatonnes of TNT. Think that might do it? > > Consider that not having to worry about the condition of the aircraft, other than the bulk of the mass hitting a tiny spot on the ocean, means that your velocity is really the maximum you can achieve with your engines and the aid of gravity. Your CIWS is pretty much useless at stopping the aircraft from hitting the boat, and even multiple anti-aircraft missiles are going to have to hit before the plane is on its terminal vector to avoid a potentially fatal impact. I guess my question here is precisely how far away the aircraft is going to be from her target when the Navy destroys the aircraft. If they noted you pointed on a direct intercept for the aircraft carrier, there’s a certain range where you’d pick up a fighter escort or inbound SAM. If you’re a mile away and you get hit with a missile, I’m imagining your aerodynamic profile is going to change dramatically, and quickly. It doesn’t have to change that much for you to change your approach such that you won’t hit. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/13 "2004-04-01T00:07:33Z")
> [@Cerowyn](#): > > Imagine a [747-400ER](http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/technical.html), a couple of hundred kilometres into a flight, with a take-off weight of 400,000 kg (allowing for a slightly less than full aircraft, and shy of a full load of fuel), cruising at 900 km/h. Assuming you could drop that much mass at just 900 km/h on the carrier, you’re looking at kinetic energy of something like 1.62E17 joules, or the equivalent of about 54.4 megatonnes of TNT. Think that might do it? > > Consider that not having to worry about the condition of the aircraft, other than the bulk of the mass hitting a tiny spot on the ocean, means that your velocity is really the maximum you can achieve with your engines and the aid of gravity. Your CIWS is pretty much useless at stopping the aircraft from hitting the boat, and even multiple anti-aircraft missiles are going to have to hit before the plane is on its terminal vector to avoid a potentially fatal impact. You’re saying a fully fueled 747 has the explosive power on impact of a 54 megaton atomic bomb? Are you sure about that? ---
**Author:** ![3.885AM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/58956e/32.png) [@3.885AM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3.885AM)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/14 "2004-04-01T00:16:23Z")
Does this trip anyone else’s BS detector? ”equivalent of about 54.4 megatonnes of TN”. from just an airplane? ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/15 "2004-04-01T00:41:59Z")
> [@bbbill](#): > > Does this trip anyone else’s BS detector? ”equivalent of about 54.4 megatonnes of TN”. from just an airplane? 54.4 megatonnes of Tennessee? I believe that that would be the maximum instantaneous force possible on a single point. p=mv is a pretty general equation. It gives me 3.6x10^11 joules, though. I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/16 "2004-04-01T00:43:25Z")
> [@bbbill](#): > > Does this trip anyone else’s BS detector? ”equivalent of about 54.4 megatonnes of TN”. from just an airplane? Hmmm… guess my critical thinking filter was off when I figured that out. Should have written it out. :o K=mv[sup]2[/sup]/2 m=400,000 kg v=900 km/h=900,000 m/h=250 m/s (is that right?? In any event, I forgot mentally to convert to m/s) K=400,000 \* 250[sup]2[/sup] / 2 =12.5E9 Joules In other words, 4.2 megatonnes of TNT. ---
**Author:** ![Doomtrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/0ea827/32.png) [@Doomtrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doomtrain)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/17 "2004-04-01T00:45:28Z")
It trips my BS detector. Most of the hazard would be burning fuel (which is what brought down the WTC, IIRC), which carrier crews are trained to deal with. I recall someone in another thread saying that the USSR thought they’d have to go nuclear to even consider taking out one of our carriers. I don’t see an airliner doing a lot of damage. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/18 "2004-04-01T00:45:41Z")
> [@Ilsa\_Lund](#): > > 54.4 megatonnes of Tennessee? I believe that that would be the maximum instantaneous force possible on a single point. p=mv is a pretty general equation. It gives me 3.6x10^11 joules, though. I dunno. Ah, those aren’t joules. Those are kg\*km/h. :o ---
**Author:** ![Thaumaturge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/858c86/32.png) [@Thaumaturge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thaumaturge)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/19 "2004-04-01T01:17:16Z")
A diver in port making a large circle with prima-cord could possibly sink one, but carrying enough cord to the site and laying it properly without being detected would be incredibly difficult IMO. ( Also I’m unsure if prima-cord would detonate under water, but above water it cuts through steel columns in building demolitions with ease) About the hull thickness- I remember reading about the new liner Queen Elizabeth ( or was that Mary? whichever one is newest) II that it has 2 inch thick steel plate on parts of the hull, and that was as thick as an aircraft carrier. 2 inches is a very thick skin considering it is made of steel. You could probably get away with not needing any other structural supports if it was an immobile object. ---
**Author:** ![ltfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@ltfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ltfire)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571/20 "2004-04-01T01:19:52Z")
> [@LordVor](#): > > I doubt a team of people could carry enough conventional explosives to do much of anything to it. As others have mentioned, a scuba diver couldn’t even catch it unless it was in port. As for 9-11 style, aircraft carriers are heavily invested in anti-aircraft measures. > > I would wonder if it would be more possible to, say, disable it by going after the screws… > > -lv Disable it to what end? Swarm up and over like pirates, to take on a 5000 member crew with long swords? You’re funny. 😃 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-terrorists-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-is-it-within-the-realm-of-possibility/237571.md?page=2)