Hong Hunkin: exocet is designed for air to surface (including ships), so DUH!!!!
Ty Kirton: Possible, but not likely. Just as a single torpedo is unlikely to sink a carrier, because they do not pack enough whallop to sink the ship by themselves unless nuclear armed. A single Exocet would have to strike precisely the critical point of the ship to cause a catastrophic failure, and the probability of that in a ship as large as a carrier is pretty small.Recall that it was an Exocet missile that hit the USS Stark during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's. The Stark, a patrol frigate, is far smaller than a carrier, and it survived (although just barely)....Show more
Buddy Ardd: Not a single missle. But it could jack it up enough to take it out of any fight.
Christiane Cattano: The second part of your question: were they needed in Afganistan? has been answered correctly by patrickmcc55However... Patrick, Exocet missiles are NOT SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles). th! ey are ASCMs (Anti Ship Cruise Missiles). And NO. SAMS cannot sink most any ships. Though some SAMS can be used to target surface ships in a limited role. While not impacting and exploding like an ASCM would, their Air bust warhead (designed for attacking planes) would cause a great deal of personnel and equipment casualties in topside areas. (possibly causing a "Mission Kill")To the first part of your question: Do you think exocet is able to destroy aircraft carriers? Those who said not a single missile are correct. An Exocets warhead is very small. And by-the-way, Dave... the USS Stark was hit by TWO Exocets and still survived. One warhead failed to detonate and was recovered. My Instructor at EW "A" School at NTTC Corry Station, Pensacola. Florida was a crewmember aboard the ship during the attack.Blazs' answer is very misleading and would only have SOME relivance if we were talking about World War II. We are not.Most warships today. even our Cruisers are constructed of ! 3/4" Aluminum armor. NOT the heavy 16" Steel of the WW II Batt! leships. An Exocet WOULD penetrate the hull and explode. It's just that as he did point out correctly, an exocets warhead is too small to cause enough damage to that size of a ship. And no Dave, they did not open the "Seacock" valves at the bottom of the ship because of the fires. They suffered from flooding caused by their own shipboard firefighting hoses pumping water into the ship to fight the fires. this is a danger even in the modern Navy. you have to keep pumping the water out that you are using to fight the fires or you will sink your own ship while trying to save it from fire.Also there are no battleships left (USS Missouri was the last and is now a museum moored near the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor. and the Mk-15 Phalanx C.I.W.S. fires at 3000 rounds per minute and fires a 15mm subcalibre discarding sabot round from the 20mm gatling barrels....Show more
Oscar Wieland: SAM's can sink any watercraft, depending upon where they strike. An aircraft carrier ha! s a better chance of surviving a single hit than a destroyer would, but it is definitely possible.Aircraft carriers were a key component in the Afghan invasion. The US had no air bases in the region from which they could launch the massive airstrikes they used to crush the Taliban.
Jerrod Guilfoil: The armor of the larger vessels, like cruisers were already hard to sink in WWII with conventional artillery guns (with up to 800 mms caliber !!!), because of the massive steel hull (instead, the attacker destroyed the whole superstucture of the vessel and kept on firing with incendiary shells rather than armour-piercing, forcing the crew to sink their own ship by opening the valves at the bottom of the hull, otherwise they would be cooked alive). Aircraft carriers novadays are virtually indestructible with conventional weapons, including projectiles. 1. The AM-39 Exocet anti-ship missile's warhead (160 kg) doesn't have what it takes to penetrate the hull.2. Most battleship! are equipped with computer-guided sentry-gun systems, like the Phalanx! (based on M61 Vulcan 20 mm canons with a firing rate of approx 4000..6000 rounds/min). They are designed to take out the missile even a couple of hundred metres before impact.To destroy an aircraft carrier, you need a nuclear weapon.RegardsPS: CG23SAILOR, you are certainly right for you know more in this topic than any of us. I make my statements based upon my best knowledge, without the intention of misleading anyone. I didn't say that there are still battleships in service nor they are still made from 16" coating. About scuttling battleships: in WWII the german cruiser Bismarck was scuttled by her own crew after the vessel has become unmaneuverable and unable to fight back....Show more
Cedric Grimstead: It is much more difficult to hit a moving target. An aircraft carrier can move at over 40 knots. An aircraft carrier usually has many support ships, most with anti-submarine and antimissile weapons. The aircraft on a carrier also have defensive weapons. Can it be su! nk, yes. Is it easy, no.
Loriann Carrigan: SAM (surface to air missle) would be nearly useless against a ship, as it uses a proximity shrapnel burst for aircraft. The excocet, singularly is too small to do any real damage to an aircraft carrier. If there were some way to swarm hundreds of them, you might cause enough damage, but by virtue of sheer bulk, an aircraft carrier requires a lot of killing. Not even the US Navy's AGM 84 Harpoon would do serious damage. You would need a Tomohawk or Russian Equivalent, such as the AS-4 Kitchen....Show more
Patricia Bolduc: yeah...why not
Jayson Brod: I love the answer from the 1st guy "SAM's can sing any watercraft"Sure...I think you mean SSM's not SAM's...SAM stands for Surface to Air Missile, it is for shooting down aircraft. The warheads are tiny, and would most likely just scratch the paint or put a small dent or hole in a ship.SSM's or Surface to Surface Missiles are what he is talking about. Missiles launche! d from Ships, Subs or land intended to attack ships.Unless an Excocet o! r Silkworm got off a lucky hit, or perhaps smacked into a fully fueled and armed plane sitting on the deck, I think it would take multiple hits to sink an aircraft carrier. The armor belts on the Nimitz class ships are quite impressive and I think it is more likely a series of missiles would take the carrier out of commission, and prevent it from launching aircraft, but it would likely get back to a base for repairs....Show more
Fermin Tara: If it was just one hit probably not, they are to large and compartmentalized. The carries were probably needed to launch air strikes. I believe they were closer to Afghanistan than countries that would be willing to allow us to use their air base's for offensive operations
Alden Sabio: Well...these missiles can damage an aircraft carrier...but i don't think it can destroy it completely...unless it hits the real weak point.
Heidi Creselious: NO
