AllTop Viral!

The most viral news stories that you need to know about.

Here’s what an anti-ship missile does to a ship [video]

Posted by / August 2, 2015

Military technology is advancing so rapidly it’s almost hard to keep things straight. This video is a way to keep things straight. Here’s what it looks like when a modern anti-ship missile hits a modern ship.

Full story at YouTube.

More amazing military stuff.

Photo credit: Canva

Comments are off for this post.

  • Dean

    So who owns the missile and the ship?

  • omegatalon

    This is reason why the US is rushing to develop megawatt lasers to destroy anti-ship missiles.

  • I wonder how much trash the US Navy had left over the past 50 years!

  • FredZ

    A Congressional committee once asked ADM Rickover how long our aircraft carriers would last in a real war. His answer: about 48 hours.

  • So…. Don’t Fock with us!!

  • Oh…it blows part of the ship up! I’ve always wondered about that.

  • Bill Puller

    Guessing it is a Norwegian Penguin or Naval Strike Missile. Funny thing is by the standards of modern cruise missiles, neither is especially powerful. They are really designed to destroy warships in the 1,000 ton to 5,000 ton range (destroyers and frigates), and hit with the power of an 8″ shell from a WW2 heavy cruiser. By comparison a number of Russian and Chinese cruise missiles are much larger and faster and designed to be able to wreck a large warship like a 1000,000 ton carrier. They hit with 2x to 3x the force of a shell from a battleship’s 16″ gun as they are both heavier than such a shell and are traveling much faster when they hit their target.

  • what a strange question and why should anyone care? Don’t believe anyone owns the target; who would want to?

  • Eh, cosmetic damage. Fixed in a day. 😉

  • Mr. C

    I saw Diamond Head in the background. I didn’t know they test these missiles off the coast of Hawaii.

  • you can read right? Try a Norwegian missile and obviously they are not gonna hit anything other than a ship they want to sink as a target so their own. SHEESH

  • thumper

    you mean owned

  • Clint.W.

    Fire and forget anti ship missiles spell inevitable death to any ship. Defenses can be overwhelmed by simultaneous multiple shots. Something will get through Phalanx and other defenses. It will take a real shooting war for the powers that be to learn that, then it will be too late.

  • Lokir

    the taxpayers

  • Lots of debris and smoke but hitting a reinforced bow did not appear to put the ship in danger of sinking. Too bad the computer guidance technology couldn’t target the ship amid-deck.

  • Hmmm… not looking good to be navy. ANd yet the US is building the largest Aircraft carrier ever, the Gerald Ford… is it just going to be a huge sitting duck…. looks that way.

  • Expattaffy

    Makes you wonder, what is the point of making warships today, one strike and yea our out

  • I think its a Norwegian Skjold-class corvette armed with Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile .

  • put a 20 kiloton nuclear warhead on the Chinese anti-ship cruise missile and with one shot you can take out a carrier and its complete escort battle group.and you only have to put the missile within a 5 mile radius of the mother ship.

  • Dean- According to the original YouTube post, it’s a Norwegian missile test

  • David H

    Short answer: Norway.
    Longer answer: On June 5, 2013, the Royal Norwegian Navy test fired an NSM missile carrying a live warhead against a target vessel. The decommissioned Oslo class frigate HNoMS Trondheim was hit.

  • Norway apparently. Normally anti-ship missiles use a directed charge warhead. The explosion looks much too large for a single anti-ship missile. Normally the warheads vary from about 100-200+ KG, about 250-500 lbs. you can look the missile up on wikipedia. They are decent with that kind of info.

  • Kat

    Norway

  • What does a missile look like when it hits a Scammed Parenthood butcher shop? Or the Clintoon’s exclusive Georgetown home?

    Should we keep defensive measures available (like on naval ships?) or just throw in the towel and sing “c’est la vie ?”

  • Mike

    This is a subsonic “naval strike missile”. 276lb explosive charge is small considering the size of the targets it’s intended for. Water tight doors can be closed keeping it floating. Nowhere near as big of a threat as older soviet designs. Such as Ramjet powered P270 moskit Mach 3 capable 710lb explosive warhead. Why design an outdated missile Norway?

  • It’s easy to hit a ship that is dead in the water, unmanned and not defending itself. When I retired from USN 31 years ago our destroyers were capable of defending themselves against these weapons. Our anti-ship missile capability has improved greatly over the years. Problem with Anti-ship missiles is if you are close enough to shoot me, I’m close enough to shoot you. As far as fire and forget – Harpoon has been able to do that for several decades now and it’s good out to about 80 miles or so. Also, navy is playing with being able to use a Tomahawk in that capacity.

  • Squib Kick

    The iceberg did more damage to the Titanic than the missile to this cargo ship. Lots of smoke, but the ship didn’t sink.

  • Donald Trump

    Compared to what a Jap Zero could do to a US aircraft carrier in WWII, the damage is much less.

  • The irony is that there is no one to shoot at. Terrorist are ISIS and they are doing good so far or cyber attacks that are doing just fine too. Those misiles are to show off only. They will be used only for training but I do not see them being used in real combat, no one is investing in marine stuff and the ones are allies. My point is: waste of time, resources and money.

  • warfish13

    they so wpuld loose if they ever went to war against the ys would be like a highschool football team v.s. the nfl

  • Mike

    P-800 Oniks and Brahmos kick the crap out of anything we have. Including this “naval strike missile subsonic.

  • enough death already

    Great, Now we have more poison in the ocean!!! Thanks for all the fish

  • john gould

    The ship is an ex british navy Leander frigate, in a wartime scenario, lifetime expectancy would be with luck 20 minutes from leaving port, but would have achieved its aim in that time. Would have served as a part of a battle group so would not be on her own, so a missile attack would with luck be countered by other ships in the group combined.I served on this class of ship. J

  • Goose Vs24

    so none of you have Naval experience? a Carrier is designed to “CARRY” aircraft, so when you have fighter jets/ sub searchers like the S3a vikings and H2 helos and E2 hawkeyes , no one can even get close enough to hit it. in the 80s the Nimitz shot down 2 Libyan Migs when they got a little to close. that new “island” of a ship will be just that , an ISLAND to launch our fire power from. IMO

  • L

    Who cares except the sobs that man the ships?

  • justtireofitall

    I wonder how much damage would be done to a WWII Iowa class battleship?

  • Michael

    when the cost of maintaining a ship gets to high because of its age they sink it or crap it . when they sink it.it is cleaned and sank in a location to provide an artificial reef for fish to breed and to prevent beach erosion . what would take nature decades to do they do in minutes and where its needed . being able to test weapons to do it is just a benny . they also sink them with Explosive charges when testing a weapon would not be safe or practical . some people may want to get some facts before they jump to criticize because they assume incorrectly .

  • CAPT (RET) TAIWAN NAVY.....HSU LUNG MOH GAGO

    photo shop as always..only a monkey would believe thats for real…

  • Shizzam

    And that’s why you never say that sailors and pilots are the cowards of the armed services. Ships meet less than the foot soldiers, but when they meet, it shakes the ocean around them. When they hit each other, people die by the dozens. Nobody who serves is a coward and free of risk.

  • Paul Ories

    Actually, it’s an anti-aircraft Stinger missile/MANPAD (likely American made, but pilfered from Libya, Syria or Iraq) used a few weeks ago by the Sanai division of ISIL targeting an Egyptian frigate off the Mediterranean coast.

  • SF

    Is it a documented video?

  • WEM

    That is a relatively small ship like a frigate or mine sweeper. It did not appear to be nonoperational after that hit. We proved during WW2 that our aircraft carriers can take one hell of a pounding. It would take a nuclear or kinetic hit from a ballistic missile to take out an aircraft carrier in one shot, and that means WW3. This video did not contain any new information, a torpedo does a lot more damage and is harder to stop.

  • So? It does what anti-ship missiles have always done, and what big guns, torpedoes and bombs did before that. It blows a big hole in them.

  • Simon

    Boy. Looks like someone dropped a dumb bomb here.

  • Lousy shot

  • Brian

    While it may look catastrophic, it needs to hit at, near or below the hull at water level. Unless it can rupture the hull from topside. Some hulls can take in water and still function but if you open a big enough hole on the side you can perhaps make it take on enough water that it will list to one side making it virtually useless

  • Pretty Explosion?
    But did it really Sink?
    Thats the real Question , Isn’t it?
    Did the Missile really Work or was this another Government Overrun cost Fail?

  • So typical of a Bully to pick on a defenseless ship..

  • mike J.

    There sure are a lot of comments left on here by people who know nothing about what they are talking about. Also sounds like a bunch of cowards crying that its a waste until something like that is needed then they will be screaming about why are there not more of them.

  • No need for ships….no need for complicated and expensive war machinery…..bank on nukes….whomever decides to f… w/US…..there’ll be no winners…..MAD (mutual asured destruction)or the ultimate weapon.

  • If the target was a thin skinned LCS the results would have been far more dramatic.

  • Wayne Knight

    No, this is what an anti-ship missile does. http://wn.com/rgm-84_harpoon_anti-ship_missiles

  • No industry has identified a deterrent for incoming high tech kill shots. So, in a conflict, it will be a war of attrition.
    and the country with the most vessels may win. Not a good defensive stratagy.

  • a true world war with anti ship missles will last 12 hours once the nukes are fired .. then it won’t matter if any carriers are left to be on top of the water .

  • Chance

    Love how many people commented thinking this was a USA video, when if you go to the youtube video and translate the description, it clearly states its “The missile is produced by the Norwegian Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace”.

  • James L Miller

    I would not count out any of our carriers from damage sustained by this type of missile. Look at the footage from WW2 that our carriers took from bombs and direct hits by Japanese aircraft . I think we lost one fleet carrier at the battle of Coral Sea and one at Midway and we had to finish off the one at Midway. The new carriers are three times the size of WW2 carriers and much better defended. Torpedoes on the other hand pose a much bigger hazard. By the way fleet operations at sea are not”bunched” up so that one small nuke device can wipe out the whole fleet and they are capable of securing and sealing their selves from the outside environment.

  • Prickover was a Boat Rider who dispised any other Service besides the other Boatriders. He personally picked his C.O.s and fired them if necessary. Know a couple of his former C.O.s and they are the bone’s who lovingly named him PRICKEROVER becquerel of his singlemindedness. Know a Doc who did his retention physical in the 60’s. Told him that if he failed him that he would personally write his orders to Nam. Passed easily.

  • BLS

    That’s nothing compared to a submarine launched Mark 48 ADCAP Torpedo. Don’t know why we waste money on little firecracker weapons!

  • Our military technologies hav e always been impressive. What worries me the most is that we will provide these technologies to other nations, thus ensuring that we can never have absolute security at home or wherever U.S. forces are deployed. We need to keep our military secrets secret and secure.

  • John

    What worries is that China has developed a subsonic anti ship missile that is the fastest in the world so far, 9 Mac or something like that, can be found on youtobe, so now the US navy are working on developing Laser gun, it may be working already, available only on the new ships. it will be the only think that can stop this missiles.
    We are enteing a new era technology.
    And No i’m not chisese or anything like that.

  • I keep forgetting ISIS has a huge fleet. Russia’s military machine is almost non-existent, we had them chasing their tails and building up their forces during the whole “Star Wars” bluff in the early Eighties which bankrupted them – Now they are trying to do it to us, only they do not have the technology, manufacturing ability or money to pull it off. But since we are so paranoid and fearful of our own shadows and with our politicians getting huge kickbacks from the military machine and feeding you the “GREAT LIE”, we are only alienating ourselves from the rest of the world.

  • I wached and waited for it to hit the boat. Not too sure we got our moneys worth?