Fire - USS Bonhomme Richard LHD-6 - 12 Jul 20 [Archive]

ORAC

13th Jul 2020, 07:43

https://twitter.com/aviation_intel/status/1282570356398538754?s=21

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34772/uss-bonhomme-richards-bridge-engulfed-in-flames-as-fire-rages-into-the-night

USS Bonhomme Richard's Bridge Engulfed In Flames As Fire Rages Into The Night (Updated)

The USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) continued to burn after the sun had set in San Diego. It now appears that the fire has migrated to the ship's island superstructure with its bridge seen engulfed in flames, which is a verybad thing. Additional large booms were also heard as the blaze continued to rage aboard some 14 hours after it started......

The future of the vessel, which is in the middle of its service life, is likely more in question now after seeing that the fire is burning missionized spaces in its island, which also points to the fire now being far more widespread than originally indicated. This is despite the Admiral stating that the ship would be repaired and would sail again, which seemed like a dubious claim at this time.

The island is also packed with the ship's most critical electronics, including its radars, electronic warfare arrays, and many of its communications systems. Just forward of the island is a large structure that houses half of the ship's Rolling Airframe Missile and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile launchers. One of the ship's Phalanx close-in weapon systems is also mounted atop the island itself.......

The ship is listing now according to one source........

——————————————-

The planned 24 month maintenance, modernization and repair overhaul started in 2018 and supposed to end in May of 2020 but completion was delayed due to COVID-19.

Rumours are she is a write-off. Main reason they fighting the fire is to stop it reaching the 1M gallons of fuel on board.

In those circumstances is it safer to let her burn in port near the ciity or tow her out to sea? Is the pollution risk greater in port or offshore?

Buster Hyman

13th Jul 2020, 08:30

Sad to see. Took a few snaps of her on her last visit to MEL in 2017.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x758/dsc_0054_2__bc293112491c36e8dd27ea222503811fa883cce2.jpg

GeeRam

13th Jul 2020, 08:39

https://twitter.com/aviation_intel/status/1282570356398538754?s=21

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34772/uss-bonhomme-richards-bridge-engulfed-in-flames-as-fire-rages-into-the-night

USS Bonhomme Richard's Bridge Engulfed In Flames As Fire Rages Into The Night (Updated)

The USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) continued to burn after the sun had set in San Diego. It now appears that the fire has migrated to the ship's island superstructure with its bridge seen engulfed in flames, which is a verybad thing. Additional large booms were also heard as the blaze continued to rage aboard some 14 hours after it started......

The future of the vessel, which is in the middle of its service life, is likely more in question now after seeing that the fire is burning missionized spaces in its island, which also points to the fire now being far more widespread than originally indicated. This is despite the Admiral stating that the ship would be repaired and would sail again, which seemed like a dubious claim at this time.

The island is also packed with the ship's most critical electronics, including its radars, electronic warfare arrays, and many of its communications systems. Just forward of the island is a large structure that houses half of the ship's Rolling Airframe Missile and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile launchers. One of the ship's Phalanx close-in weapon systems is also mounted atop the island itself.......

The ship is listing now according to one source........

——————————————-

The planned 24 month maintenance, modernization and repair overhaul started in 2018 and supposed to end in May of 2020 but completion was delayed due to COVID-19.

Rumours are she is a write-off. Main reason they fighting the fire is to stop it reaching the 1M tons of fuel on board.

In those circumstances is it safer to let her burn in port near the ciity or tow her out to sea? Is the pollution risk greater in port or offshore?

If she's listing, pressumably its the water from being poured on to her, and not being able to be pumped out............isn't that what caused the SS Normandie to turn over in New York after catching fire during WW2 while being refitted as a troopship.

Asturias56

13th Jul 2020, 09:09

No deaths so far thank God.

Doing maintenance is often when fires occur - just look at major buildings - Windsor Castle, Notre Dame, the Art School in Glasgow (TWICE!), Cutty Sark ............... sloppy workers, not many people around, warning systems and fire fighting systems turned off

I'd guess as a heritage design and 22 years old it would be more effective to scrap and just order another "America" or rather a "Bougainville" with the well deck

NutLoose

13th Jul 2020, 09:44

All pretty open below decks, this shows the upper v etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g63UWBnxbzg

Less Hair

13th Jul 2020, 10:14

Forgive my ignorance but there will be no ammunition on board when works are done pierside?

Green Flash

13th Jul 2020, 10:22

Presume that all ammo etc will have been removed before the maint. work started but fighting a fire on top of 1M gallons of fuel? - braver people than me, thats for sure; please take care. I wonder if they have started to evacuate the docks area, if that lot goes off it will be one hell of a bang.

Auxtank

13th Jul 2020, 10:33

Forgive my ignorance but there will be no ammunition on board when works are done pierside?

It was in dock for a pre-planned 24 month maintenance cycle so hopefully nothing serious aboard apart from some small arms ammo.

Certainly nothing that would go up better than the 1,000,000 gallons of fuel down below. . .

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x450/fire_on_uss_bonhomme_richard_cover_pic_120720_credit_port_of _san_diego_harbor_police_3659e6b5d927e0894d9dd6b354158b75868 c9e22.jpg

KING6024

13th Jul 2020, 10:35

If she's listing, pressumably its the water from being poured on to her, and not being able to be pumped out............isn't that what caused the SS Normandie to turn over in New York after catching fire during WW2 while being refitted as a troopship.
Also the Empress of Canada in Liverpool in the 1950s and a Danish ferry the Kronprins Frederik at Parkeston Quay (Harwich) also in the 1950s.

Less Hair

13th Jul 2020, 10:41

How about towing her to some remote safe place and let her burn out there? Right now we have a major fire inside some huge military port with many ships next to her.

NutLoose

13th Jul 2020, 10:47

How about towing her to some remote safe place and let her burn out there? Right now we have a major fire inside some huge military port with many ships next to her.

Why not simply scuttle her where she is, recovery of everything will be a damned sight easier?

Video Mixdown

13th Jul 2020, 11:12

Why not simply scuttle her where she is, recovery of everything will be a damned sight easier?
Who in their right mind would go aboard to do that? Same with towing.

WB627

13th Jul 2020, 11:30

Why would they leave 1,000,000 gallons of fuel on board during a 24 month refit? Doesn't it go off like petrol?

stilton

13th Jul 2020, 12:00

Who in their right mind would go aboard to do that? Same with towing.

If it’s shallow enough it might prevent a capsize

Mad (Flt) Scientist

13th Jul 2020, 12:00

Why would they leave 1,000,000 gallons of fuel on board during a 24 month refit? Doesn't it go off like petrol?

Nowhere to store it? Is there an issue that you can't just stick it back into a general storage tank without potentially contaminating that fuel somehow? Does seem odd, I agree.

ORAC

13th Jul 2020, 12:29

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2020/07/12/uss-bonhomme-richard-burns-likely-a-victim-of-lax-fire-safety-practices/

USS Bonhomme Richard Burns, Likely A Victim Of Lax Fire Safety Practices

Less Hair

13th Jul 2020, 12:39

The boiler is said to have exploded due to over pressure for some reason. Not sure what that necessarily has to do with fire safety practices? Maybe better wait for the report?

NutLoose

13th Jul 2020, 13:13

Why would they leave 1,000,000 gallons of fuel on board during a 24 month refit? Doesn't it go off like petrol?

Possibly to ballast the ship?. after all if it wasn't a reason like that you would expct them to run down the fuel prior to refit.

If it’s shallow enough it might prevent a capsize

That's what I thought as they said it had a list on. At least if its sitting on the bottom it is stable as you rectify the problem, it could also be possible to refloat it in the future

ORAC

13th Jul 2020, 13:18

The boiler is said to have exploded due to over pressure for some reason. Not sure what that necessarily has to do with fire safety practices? Maybe better wait for the report? The main thrust of the article is the litany of previous dockyard fires and mishaps which have preceded this one. To quote:

”....America’s Navy has seen these scenarios play out far too many times. In 2012, America lost the multibillion-dollar attack submarine USS Miami (SSN 755 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Miami_(SSN-755))) because a shipyard worker, eager to leave work early, set the sub on fire. Last year, 11 U.S. sailors were injured in a fire (https://news.usni.org/2019/11/15/11-sailors-injured-in-5-hour-fire-aboard-amphib-uss-iwo-jima-3rd-warship-damaged-in-fire-during-maintenance-in-last-year) aboard the USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iwo_Jima_(LHD-7))), a critical Marine-toting mini-carrier. USS Oscar Austin (DDG 79 (https://news.usni.org/2019/06/04/uss-oscar-austin-fire-damage-repairs-will-stretch-into-2022)) also suffered a fire in November 2018, and subsequent damage will keep the ship out of the fleet for almost two years longer than planned. According to USNI News, the USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fitzgerald)) suffered a shipyard fire (https://news.usni.org/2019/11/15/11-sailors-injured-in-5-hour-fire-aboard-amphib-uss-iwo-jima-3rd-warship-damaged-in-fire-during-maintenance-in-last-year) as well. In 2011, a fire torched the stacks (https://navaltoday.com/2011/05/27/navy-continues-to-investigate-fire-that-torched-stacks-of-uss-spruance/) of the USS Spruance (DDG 111 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Spruance_(DDG-111))). Other recent shipyard mishaps have included over $30 million worth of damage to the future destroyer Delbert D. Black (DDG 119 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Delbert_D._Black)) after a collision in April 2019 (https://www.dailypress.com/business/shipyards/dp-nws-ingalls-mishap-20190422-story.html). These, along with other avoidable incidents—fires at sea, groundings, collisions and other accidents—have essentially sunk or sidelined an entire U.S. battle fleet.....”

NutLoose

13th Jul 2020, 13:20

That looks like its toast..

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x600/telemmglpict000234972280_trans_nvbqzqnjv4bqg_rvdzi5wpzrjlxbs icvl5ldymda9ihmjrfyq3ef5vk_jpeg_8bbdc03f396a81f3718b48bc7efc ae928c988a5d.jpg

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x818/ecyumaaxyaa_ea__83e8b9f513060d89c22579ea4bc8aa6970a479c2.jpg

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/american-assault-ship-uss-bonhomme-richard-on-fire/ and the Telegraph

NutLoose

13th Jul 2020, 13:28

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34772/uss-bonhomme-richards-bridge-engulfed-in-flames-as-fire-rages-into-the-night

lomapaseo

13th Jul 2020, 13:50

One answer seems to be the report that there were only about 160 crew on board: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/07/12/amphibious-assault-ship-ablaze-in-port-san-diego/

You'd also assume, in any case, that damage control parties, and especially those in command of them, would have different priorities and risk-assessments alongside, compared to at sea in combat.

Fair argument which I also considered.

But the DOD doesn't like losing assets for any reason and will find somebody didn't do their job. Whether it is easy to correct or not, remains to be seen

I'm really not interested in the accidental cause as much as I am in the reasons for the spread (ala the Midway Jap disaster)

NutLoose

13th Jul 2020, 14:09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCpXKzugVF8

From roughly when the fire started, go to 3.40 ish the radio conversations says there are munitions on board but not in the fire area but one floor above and some / good distance aft?. Appears to spread awful quick considering its a warship.

Auxtank

13th Jul 2020, 14:10

The good old Press;

KUSI TV (San Diego TV station) reporting; "Apparently, there are hover-jets on board that can land down horizontally..."

cavuman1

13th Jul 2020, 14:56

Here is an aerial photograph taken sometime yesterday:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/680x369/bonhomme_richard_fire_e28e1c3dfa00d6b557621755fb0180bac7515f b6.png

Sad to see such a proud vessel in peril.

- Ed

Less Hair

13th Jul 2020, 15:04

If an aircraft hangar would burn it would be "foamed up". Could this be done onboard a ship and would it help in this case?

dead_pan

13th Jul 2020, 16:09

safetypee

13th Jul 2020, 16:41

dead pan,
This one, on land, good access, many appliances, took 3-4 days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buncefield_fire

and this one, oil rig at sea, 3 weeks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Alpha

dead_pan

13th Jul 2020, 16:46

dead pan,
This one, on land, good access, many appliances, took 3-4 days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buncefield_fire

Yup, I remember being woken up by the blast, some 40 miles distant (and seeing the plume for a couple of days afterwards)...

Not really comparable though - that was a vast inferno in an oil storage facility.

RAFEngO74to09

13th Jul 2020, 17:05

Latest official statement from the USN https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=113524&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=100001397181900&utm_campaign=Fight

RAFEngO74to09

13th Jul 2020, 17:13

Local news coverage - shows multiple fireboats with water monitors trying to keep the hull cool due to the 1M gals of fuel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVc3wzMCN78

Auxtank

13th Jul 2020, 17:15

Seems incredible that they can't put it out - its in a navy maintenance facility FFS, not miles out at sea!

I wonder if a commercial oil fire fighting vessel could have dealt with this better/faster?

Ship fires are one of the most difficult fire fighting challenges.
Ships are basically space divided in to a series of (in this case, hundreds) of compartmentalised spaces.
The fire has to be fought as it emerges from those compartmnts - if it is unsafe for crews to enter and automatic fire suppression is unavailable or ineffective.
In this case there is a million gallons of JP-5 fuel in the bilges making it indeed most unsafe to hang around in there.

The fact that the ship was in maintenance most probably assumes that hatches, doors, fire doors were open, blocked by maintenance equipment, tools, etc. Hell of a mess basically and much compromised in terms of fire safety.

Just watch a couple of ship fire fighting exercises on youtube and you'll see how truly scary/ difficult/ horrendous the whole thing is.

RAFEngO74to09

13th Jul 2020, 17:20

Rear Adm. Philip Sobeck, commander, ESG 3, and Capt. Will Eastham, HSC-3 commanding officer, held a press conference at @NavBaseSD (https://twitter.com/NavBaseSD) Pass and ID (ie Main Entrance) at 11:00 a.m. July 13 to provide updates and discuss ongoing efforts to combat the fire on board USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6).
Over 400 sailors have been involved in the firefighting operations.
34 USN and 23 civilians treated in hospital - mostly for heat exhaustion and smoke inhalation.
Not speculating on extent of damage and future of ship until fire extinguished and extent of damage determined "making every effort to save the ship".
Fire is flashing up into tower superstructure and there is another source near the bow - the forward mast has collapsed.
Has burned through the forward skin - ship is listing.
"There is a good buffer between the heat source and the fuel - or at least we think there is" !
The HALON firefighting system was disconnected due to the maintenance work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkiSt86XxBY

SLXOwft

13th Jul 2020, 18:39

In his earlier press conference RAdm Sobeck mentioned the fire as having started in the Lower Vehicle Stowage (highlighted in yellow). This solved my confusion as to where the smoke was coming from. As it's reached the island, presumably it will have reached the huge open space of the LC Well deck (which is open at the stern so will allow oxygen to be drawn in) and possibly into the machinery space. Good job the magazines immediately below appear to be empty (according to RAdm Sobeck). I salute the high degree of commitment and bravery being shown fighting a fire over 1m galls of AVCAT. I pray there will be no serious casualties. As the admiral says, fire fighting on ship is one of the early skills drilled into sailors - in my experience the simulators make you very aware of the need for the training. As an LHD she is designed, obviously, to be able to take on board a lot of water - she draws an extra 7 feet when ballasted on top of normal full load displacement.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/831x565/lhd_1_66be1014d73fe0f8c3141a5cdd4280cb26229cb6.jpg
Source: fas.org (Federation of American Scientists)

Auxtank

13th Jul 2020, 18:49

A good diagram. One supposes the AVCAT (JP-5) was being held in Hold 21. There was a vid earlier showing pipework up the stern - maybe they were hastily pumping out.

Latest on KUSI - San Diego TV station - shows a lot of white smoke now - which is is a good thing.

https://www.kusi.com/only-on-kusi/livestream/

Ancient Mariner

13th Jul 2020, 19:12

Why would they leave 1,000,000 gallons of fuel on board during a 24 month refit? Doesn't it go off like petrol?
1.000.000 gallons sounds like a lot, but this seaman ordered his bunker in m3 and then we're talking about 4.000 m3 which isn't a lot for a ship with this kind of power. All provided we talk fuel for the boilers. This would be heavy fuel oil which needs to be heated to flow, let alone ignite. Add in some marine diesel oil for auxiliaries and some Jet fuel for flying thingies. None if which is likely to blow up, just burn. I can't see any reason to remove the fuel, unless work was taking place in the bunker tanks or hot work nearby.
Fighting fires on a ship is no fun, I've had my share. Anyways, always sad to she a ship in distress.
Per

Bengo

13th Jul 2020, 19:53

Empty fuel tanks are much more dangerous than full ones. I doubt that the fuel tanks will be compensated (by being filled with water as the fuel is used) as that causes extra water in the fuel and can cause oil pollution when the tank is refilled and the compensating water is returned to the oggin. Fuel oil pollution would not go down well in California especially.

N

OldLurker

13th Jul 2020, 19:56

Why would they leave 1,000,000 gallons of fuel on board during a 24 month refit? Doesn't it go off like petrol?I think WB627 (whose location says he's in England) may have been using British idiom where to 'go off' can mean to decompose or deteriorate, rather than to explode. In that sense, petrol (gasoline) does 'go off' if stored too long, because the lighter fractions evaporate. But AFAIK that happens less with heavier products. The million gallons of fuel is probably bunker fuel (for the ship's engines) which is really heavy, and/or JP-5 jet fuel for the aircraft, which is roughly kerosene, heavier than petrol (gasoline) and somewhat heavier and with a higher flash point than the Jet A1 that civilian jet pilots know. I wouldn't think that either bunker fuel or JP-5 would deteriorate too much in 24 months if held in properly closed tanks.
In the sense of 'go off' meaning 'explode': kerosene (or Jet A1 or JP-5) doesn't explode like petrol (gasoline) – it just burns, as many aircraft incidents have shown. Bunker fuel certainly doesn't explode.

And by the way, those million gallons are US gallons, only about 3¾ litres – that much fuel doesn't move either an aircraft carrier or a jet fighter very far at all, so you need a lot of gallons to get anywhere.

NutLoose

13th Jul 2020, 20:06

Re the fire spread etc, one can imagine a lot of safeguards could be disabled due to the on going works, as an example, you wouldn’t want a fire suppression system live while welding is taking place in those areas. One just hopes they get it under control with the minimum of damage, I wonder if this may increase the US deployment on our carriers to compensate in the short term, it seems there is a worry about the contracts to build the support ships now due to the Covid costs.

Mariner9

13th Jul 2020, 21:36

jolihokistix

14th Jul 2020, 03:48

I'm a bit uncomfortable posting hindsight-20/20 and 2nd guessing. But, maybe earlier in the fire, would there have been possibility/consideration of towing the ship out to sea? Would that be a better place for the million gallons of fuel to burn/explode/leak than at the port location?
drw, suggested and discussed somewhat earlier in the thread.

Ascend Charlie

14th Jul 2020, 04:43

Towing it to sea is admitting defeat.

TBM-Legend

14th Jul 2020, 04:52

Ship fires are one of the most difficult fire fighting challenges.
Ships are basically space divided in to a series of (in this case, hundreds) of compartmentalised spaces.
The fire has to be fought as it emerges from those compartmnts - if it is unsafe for crews to enter and automatic fire suppression is unavailable or ineffective.
In this case there is a million gallons of JP-5 fuel in the bilges making it indeed most unsafe to hang around in there.

The fact that the ship was in maintenance most probably assumes that hatches, doors, fire doors were open, blocked by maintenance equipment, tools, etc. Hell of a mess basically and much compromised in terms of fire safety.

Just watch a couple of ship fire fighting exercises on youtube and you'll see how truly scary/ difficult/ horrendous the whole thing is.

I’ve served on a carrier as a naval officer and I can assure you that our fire training and damage control training was very rigorous and as realistic as can be. Fire fighting in darkened spaces with real fires involving ladders, multiple compartments and decks even with ‘fear naught’ suits and oxygen taxes one’s strengths.

Bravo Zulu to all involved on Bonnie Dick

ORAC

14th Jul 2020, 08:08

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x540/image_cfcbd3bd83a07e8746df8bb4feb0013184888aeb.jpeg

https://youtu.be/Q4YvnYXLIlI

NutLoose

14th Jul 2020, 09:06

It does look like they are winning the fight

https://youtu.be/BdsxELNRg8U

https://youtu.be/q-xsCZE4RFU

ORAC

14th Jul 2020, 09:23

Nutloose, she’s presently lying in her side. Not sure what that does to her internally, but has an snip in such a situation ever returned to service?

ORAC

14th Jul 2020, 09:32

What was left of the island before she rolled on her side.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x800/image_d7f73b568909cf49e6781797f9e3fa5bbb0dbb6b.jpeg

NutLoose

14th Jul 2020, 09:33

I seemed to have been proved partially right.

The fire was first reported in a lower cargo area where seafaring tanks and landing craft are parked. It appears to have started in a spot where cardboard boxes, rags and other ship maintenance supplies were being stored, Sobeck said.
A fire suppression system had been turned off because it was being worked on as part of the ongoing maintenance. The system uses Halon, a liquefied, compressed gas that disrupts a fire and stops its spread by cutting off its oxygen.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/politics/sailors-fighting-to-save-burning-san-diego-warship/ar-BB16HHbk

Islandlad

14th Jul 2020, 10:30

Nutloose, she’s presently lying in her side. Not sure what that does to her internally, but has an snip in such a situation ever returned to service?
On her side? Any photos or links? When did that happen?

NutLoose

14th Jul 2020, 10:42

All I can find are of her listing, had a look the other day, the draught? under a hull for the port is about 5 foot, which one wouldn't think sufficent to capsize, but that's only me guessing.

https://news.sky.com/video/chopper-douses-burning-uss-bonhomme-richard-in-san-diego-dock-12028080

Auxtank

14th Jul 2020, 11:23

She is slightly listing - maybe 10°
Being on her side means beam ends in the water - she's nowhere near that.

Islandlad

14th Jul 2020, 13:10

She is slightly listing - maybe 10°
Being on her side means beam ends in the water - she's nowhere near that.
Could that 10° be to drain water from one side and out the other?

Jhieminga

14th Jul 2020, 13:46

That may be a positive side effect, but I doubt if they have any say in how much it is listing.

ORAC

14th Jul 2020, 13:59

https://www.ibtimes.com/uss-bonhomme-richard-update-heavy-damage-ships-superstructure-two-decks-separate-fire-3011012

.......Firefighters Tuesday battled a blaze aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard at Naval Base San Diego (https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/13/us/uss-bonhomme-richard-fire-monday/index.html) that erupted during the weekend. “We've been at it for over 24 hours now and we're going to get it until it's done,” Rear Adm. Philip Sobeck told a Monday press conference (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34801/two-decks-are-thought-to-separate-fire-on-uss-bonhomme-richard-from-1m-gallons-of-fuel).

He said the superstructure and upper decks of the vessel suffered heavy damage and water was seeping into the lower decks, causing the ship to list toward the pier. Sailors and firefighters have been working to fix breaches and remove water to ease the listing.

Firefighters aboard the ship have managed so far to keep the blaze away from 1 million gallons of fuel still aboard the ship. Two decks separate the fire and fuel, with firefighters working to create a “buffer zone.” However, there still were concerns the ship may be damaged beyond repair due to the ferocity of the fire.......

SLXOwft

14th Jul 2020, 14:06

She's afloat, as far as we know she isn't holed below the waterline so they will pump it out - they will be concerned about contamination so maybe not into the dock. I would have thought rebuild will be a numbers game e.g.is new build more economic or restoring the capability at all too expensive? I don't know if the USN uses civilian contractors but if so and this was their fault, its going to be one expensive claim. Warships have comeback from heavier damage (from what we can see) - I can think of a number that lost their bows. I believe initially they were hoping to salvage the Shiny Sheff for rebuild. BHR isn't like the Vic which was due for the knackers yard within a maximum of five years and so a much smaller fire was a gift to a defence cutting government. I would have thought the hull integrity is prorbably still pretty good but I'm not an engineer - heating and cooling will have affected the metal though.

Admitedly, this is all guess work.

However, there still were concerns the ship may be damaged beyond repair due to the ferocity of the fire... (Orac posted while I was typing)

ORAC

14th Jul 2020, 14:08

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x405/image_1175f06b96906bc40a4fcba53e78edf80de55ec9.png

Paint? Gas cylinders? Whatever, a good decision to pull them out.......

https://timesofsandiego.com/military/2020/07/13/navy-doing-everything-they-can-to-save-the-still-burning-bonhomme-richard/

.....The fire began shortly before 9 a.m. Sunday in a part of the vessel where cardboard and drywall supplies are kept, according to the Navy and the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department.

After about 90 minutes, authorities decided to remove all firefighters from the vessel for safety reasons and battle the blaze by remote means, including water dropped from helicopters and sprayed onto the ship via firefighting boats surrounding it on the bay.

About two hours after the fire began, a blast of unknown origin shook the vessel.

“None of the (SDFRD) firefighters were on board the ship when the explosion happened, but the blast threw several firefighters off their feet,” the city department reported.......

lomapaseo

14th Jul 2020, 14:31

Could that 10° be to drain water from one side and out the other?

What's the difference between this action and a ship sinking on it's own?

NutLoose

14th Jul 2020, 14:53

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x800/f9oweve1jra51_d2183ef12607710f0cfc759c26a10f8d502dc3ca.jpg

NutLoose

14th Jul 2020, 14:55

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x800/xob2ppeyira51_f2c526ce923a8bc53ed6d5e308613523d14fcf2d.jpg

NutLoose

14th Jul 2020, 14:59

What's the difference between this action and a ship sinking on it's own?

I think what he means is to give the water being pumped on board higher up a chance to escape overboard through the myriad of openings as opposed to simply filling up the hull.

RAFEngO74to09

14th Jul 2020, 15:21

Latest USN video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiJZQcmNl_E

RAFEngO74to09

14th Jul 2020, 15:26

Additional collection of photos of firefighters at work in here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrzy9fCNOJc

Islandlad

14th Jul 2020, 15:30

I think what he means is to give the water being pumped on board higher up a chance to escape overboard through the myriad of openings as opposd to simply filling up the hull.
Could not have put it better myself. Flushing a hot deck could even cool the air from below. Even if it was a byproduct of the list it probably did something.

Old-Duffer

14th Jul 2020, 15:55

How many other ships are in the same class as the BHR? If she is well into her life span, it might not be sensible to recover her to service and if there is a later model vessel of a similar role, it could be better to build an additional ship of that class.

Sad to see.

Last evening I saw a programme tracking the recovery of a merchant ship which was sunk in the North Sea following a collision with hundreds of luxury cars on board and how the ship was cut up to make recovery of the wreck possible. Very interesting technologically but very sobering to see a huge ship turned into tin cans.

Old Duffer

LTCTerry

14th Jul 2020, 16:31

I’ve served on a carrier as a naval officer and I can assure you that our fire training and damage control training was very rigorous and as realistic as can be. Fire fighting in darkened spaces with real fires involving ladders, multiple compartments and decks even with ‘fear naught’ suits and oxygen taxes one’s strengths.

Bravo Zulu to all involved on Bonnie Dick
Ditto.

I was a damage control repair party leader on USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) 1985-1989. Excellent training. Excellent exercises. Scary as can be to imagine fighting a fire in those spaces. My General Quarters duty station was immediately below the LSO platform.

One time around 1987 we were off the coast of South Carolina doing ASW operations with Bonefish, a diesel submarine. They emergency surfaced due to a fire onboard. They abandoned ship, and we took the crew aboard. They were bedded down on the Mess Decks decks. (On the floor in the Mess Deck.) In the middle of the night came the announcement "fire, fire, fire, there is a class (something) fire in..." Can't imagine walking up to that after escaping a fire underwater.

The XO on JFK when I first reported aboard had been in an F-8 squadron on USS Forrestal when its big fire took place off Viet Nam. Foam was airlifted over from other ships nearby. Forrestal was almost lost due to flooding from fighting the fire. There is nowhere to go when the boat catches fire at sea.

Best wishes to all involved. I've been to that pier long ago.

Asturias56

14th Jul 2020, 16:32

The BHR is a Wasp class LHD - the class totalled 8 vessels.

They are being replaced by the America class LHA's of which there are 2 completed , one building and 8 more on order. Most of these will be like the 3rd vessel Bougainville with a well deck which was not installed on the first two, Far better to order an extra LHA I'd have thought - the BHR is well over 20 years old

SLXOwft

14th Jul 2020, 17:11

The third of the America class Bougainville isn't due until 2024.and the contract for long lead items on the fourth was only signed in May this year. So it would be a very long wait for a twelfth.

The America Class were initially orded to replace the 5 Tarawa Class ships and are based on the design of USS Makin Island the last of the Wasp Class (which entered service in 2009).

AFAIK two Tarawa Class ships are in reserve Peleliu only since 2015 so she might be a gap fill option.

As an aside I am sure others here may remember being told that, with nothing to inhibit free surface effect, 3 inches of water on the main hangar deck of the Mighty Ark or Big E could have caused capsize.

dead_pan

14th Jul 2020, 17:17

Footage of helo firefighting effort - dropping (and often missing) with thimbles of water:

https://youtu.be/D1gmLgZ_bT0

What they need is a CL-415 doing circuits in the harbour...

gileraguy

14th Jul 2020, 18:00

Islandlad

14th Jul 2020, 18:09

Footage of helo firefighting effort - dropping (and often missing) with thimbles of water:

https://youtu.be/D1gmLgZ_bT0

What they need is a CL-415 doing circuits in the harbour...
They may be a bit pissed off now the fire is out :eek:

SLXOwft

14th Jul 2020, 18:24

POI Melting point of Carbon Steel is around 2500-2800º F or 1371-1540º C I didn't pick up what unit the 1000º was big difference F or C.

Less Hair

14th Jul 2020, 18:28

The ship is toast but it looks like they got the fire out. No more smoke.
Cool thing and respect.

goofer3

14th Jul 2020, 18:38

As an aside I am sure others here may remember being told that, with nothing to inhibit free surface effect, 3 inches of water on the main hangar deck of the Mighty Ark or Big E could have caused capsize.
I couldn't remember the exact depth but I knew it didn't take many inches. When any hot work such as welding was being carried out on the ship they would always be accompanied by a man with a fire extinguisher, either in the same compartment or on the other side of the bulkhead, and would stay for another 30 minutes after the hot work had finished.

Waddo Liney

14th Jul 2020, 19:42

I live in San Diego although a good distance away from the Naval Base. Local news reports are that the fire is still burning. When I went outside this morning at around 8 am, there was a distinct smell of burnt plastic in the air.
Here's a report from our local Channel 8 news updated at 12:30 pm today https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/fire-continues-to-burn-on-uss-bonhomme-richard/509-c3196629-1877-4607-b6c9-ed37a99f494a

ORAC

14th Jul 2020, 19:52

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34819/navy-says-at-least-one-fire-continues-to-burn-on-the-uss-bonhomme-richard

Navy Says At Least One Fire Continues To Burn On The USS Bonhomme Richard

U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Philip Sobeck, head of Expeditionary Strike Group Three, says that the USS Bonhomme Richard is stable and structurally safe despite a still ongoing fire onboard the Wasp class amphibious assault ship. The vessel has now been burning continuously for more than 48 hours (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34801/two-decks-are-thought-to-separate-fire-on-uss-bonhomme-richard-from-1m-gallons-of-fuel) now and has produced sustained temperatures of at least 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas......The key new details from this latest press conference are:
...

The ship is stable and the structure is safe.
No major damage to the ship's four main engineering spaces.
No threat to the ship's fuel tanks at present.
The fuel tanks are well below any of the remaining active fires or heat sources, so any risk to them at this point is low.
The ship has salt water-filled compensation tanks that also help keep the fuel tanks cool.
There is at least one active fire in a forward area of the ship.
Firefighters had been unable to get to those spaces until today.
There is another heat source that could be another fire aft.
These two areas are isolated from each other.
Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron Three (HSC-3), based at nearby Naval Air Station North Island, has conducted more than 1,200 water bucket drops, in total.
In addition to other external firefighting operations, these drops have been essential in allowing firefighters to actually get on the ship.
61 personnel have been injured, in total, so far, 38 sailors and 23 civilians.
None of those individuals are hospitalized.
An explosion occurred while the crew was securing the space where the initial fire had broken out before they could safely energize the fire suppression system.
The fire spread rapidly from the front to the rear of the ship.
Navy is working with San Diego authorities to step up monitoring of potential adverse environmental impacts.
Coast Guard is prepared to respond to any potential environmental issues, including an oil spill.
No visible evidence of oil spill at present.
Hope that all fires will be out within the next 24 hours.
Too early to tell the full extent of the damage.

The Navy's position that the ship, which has been visibly listing (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34772/uss-bonhomme-richards-bridge-engulfed-in-flames-as-fire-rages-into-the-night), is stable and structurally sound is a significant and positive development. There had been concerns that areas that had been exposed to persistent temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit could be compromised.

Still, the pictures that have already emerged online show significant internal damage, as well as to the flight deck and superstructure. It will take the Navy a not-insignificant amount of time to just conduct a full damage assessment.....

https://twitter.com/thedeaddistrict/status/1282936154833260544?s=21

Auxtank

14th Jul 2020, 20:43

ORAC, nice PowerPoint Bullet Points but the ship is f**ked.

I hope there's a damn good inquiry in to how this happned and not just a white wash; "Hot Works means we turn off Fire Supression."
That's just not a good enough excuse anymore.
Contractors - dodgy tools - don't give a monkey's - Notre-Dame...

NutLoose

14th Jul 2020, 22:22

RAFEngO74to09

15th Jul 2020, 00:51

Article: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/13/the-bonhomme-richard-fire-deals-a-blow-to-the-navys-designs-in-the-indo-pacific/?utm_source=clavis"The amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard, which burned through the night (https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/07/13/bonhomme-richard-firefighting-efforts-continuing-monday-morning/) while in port in San Diego, was at the tail end of two years of upgrades supporting the integration of the F-35B (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights/), according to Navy documents.

That means the Navy will now have fewer options to deploy the next-generation fighter in the Pacific.

The Navy awarded the $219 million modernization contract to General Dynamics, National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. in 2018, which had options for up to $250 million. Bonhomme Richard is one of four large-deck amphibs to have received the upgrades. The Boxer was announced earlier this year (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/06/01/us-navy-upgrades-more-ships-for-the-f-35-as-the-future-of-carriers-remains-in-flux/) as the fifth big-deck to get the upgrades.

Experts said the loss of Bonhomme Richard, whether a total loss or just lost for extensive repairs, deals a significant blow to the Navy’s plans to have F-35Bs continually deployed in the Pacific. And with Monday’s announcement that the United States had formally rejected China’s claims (https://www.businessinsider.com/us-officially-rejects-many-of-beijings-south-china-sea-claims-2020-7) about the South China Sea, any accompanying boost in naval presence could be slowed by the fire.

The Navy’s deployment model is based on having permanent forward presence in vital regions, such as the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East. To accomplish that, the service needs enough ships to support one forward on deployment, one in an elevated status of readiness to surge in an emergency, one in maintenance and one in pre-deployment workups.

In other words, in an ideal world the Navy would have at least four ships to have one of them always on deployment. But with longer overhauls, such as the F-35B upgrades, it might require five ships to make one forward."

----------------------
What chance that after the USMC do their workup training later this year on HMS Queen Elizabeth - or after the CSG 21 deployment - and then start lobbying their corner on future requirements - that the USA gives the UK an offer too good to refuse for HMS Prince of Wales - buy, loan or exchange for a bunch of "free" F-35s !

ozbiggles

15th Jul 2020, 01:26

You could get a few F-22s for the price of the British carriers.

ORAC

15th Jul 2020, 05:38

Photo montage of the fire fighting.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2020-07-14/photos-the-battle-to-save-the-uss-bonhomme-richard

Photos: The battle to save the USS Bonhomme Richard

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x810/image_8181c70a9c7c33ebeed2604ae3989f447cc7f7cb.jpeg

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x773/image_41fe4f191aa6705eda8e5924736d7dd084c32054.jpeg

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x717/image_9c33bf9b8736887cf8d830c584a8230b63e70edc.jpeg

GeeRam

15th Jul 2020, 07:05

POI Melting point of Carbon Steel is around 2500-2800º F or 1371-1540º C I didn't pick up what unit the 1000º was big difference F or C.

The melting point is not the issue, a serious 1000C fire over 48 hours will have changed the structural properties of the steel. It will start to soften at only 450C and will loose 50% of its strength at 650C, which is usually the temp range that you stress relieve steel at.

The ship is toast.....well done toast at that.

Asturias56

15th Jul 2020, 07:15

"AFAIKtwo Tararawa Class ships are in reserve Peleliu only since 2015 so she might be a gap fill option."

Yes Nassau LHA4 has been in reserves since 2011 and Peleliu LHA5 only since 2015 - Peleliu is only a few years older than BHR and could probably be reactivated for a small part of the time & cost of a rebuild .

Even though they weren't a great success as a class she could operate Harriers and fill a gap if they feel they need to.

Imagegear

15th Jul 2020, 08:39

What chances an unwelcome visitor among the onboard contractors?

Fire starting in an unoccupied storage area with lots of cardboard pallets and other combustibles?

Significant F35 capability downgraded in the Pacific?

Anyone recently left the country?

There are some bigger questions here.

IG

Hot 'n' High

15th Jul 2020, 08:56

Footage of helo firefighting effort - dropping (and often missing) with thimbles of water ................

That took me straight back to the sight of those poor crews at Chernobyl back in '86. At least it was "only" noxious fumes in the smoke this time round!

On the issue of "things going wrong" I recall a Fire Exercise at sea once. A smoke canister was put in a small workshop compartment to simulate a fire. I was the first on the scene but I was immediately dragged away by the Damage Control WO - me being an Engineer. What he wanted to see was how the aircrew handled it as the "fire" was right next to their Briefing Room where they were all sat. I'd just finished my morning Engineering Brief to the Crews so was closest the door/"fire" waiting to head off to the Flight Deck once the Brief was over.

Smoke poured out from a vent while the guys (no gals involved on that day) sorted themselves out and started rigging hoses etc, etc, etc. I stood with the DC WO idly watching the fun. I then suddenly noticed the smoke was slowly turning from white to black so I nudged the WO and pointed it out - at which point he had a bit of an "Oh, bother!" moment - next pipe "Fire, Fire, Fire - Fire in 2XYZ, Standing Sea Fire Party close up at 2WXY! This is NOT an exercise!".

Unfortunately the lad setting the smoke canister up for the WO decided to hide the canister in a small store area off the workshop to make it more difficult to find the seat of the "fire". Took a little while to put the real fire out - and I can vouch for it that cans of paint burn with black smoke!!! It made a bit of a mess in 4 adjacent compartments too. Owch!!!! :eek:

Asturias56

15th Jul 2020, 09:02

A friend had a job once which involved observing (physically watching) ANY hazardous work (e.g. grinding or welding etc.) on a ship undergoing maintainance in port.

He couldn't believe what he was seeing once when a guy was grinding at a high level and stood on a 20 litre drum of thinners to reach the desired height...

To quote Barnes Wallis " it's hard to make things fool-proof as the fools are so damn clever at finding a way round any precautions"

I've seen a worker hitting a stuck valve with a hammer beside an open orifice - had he succeed there was 10,000 psi gas ready to cut him in half - that was an hour after a safety briefing. I've seen someone refuel a small petrol engine which was red hot while it was still running by pouring petrol into the tank on top of the engine without even a funnel, I've seen someone place an open box of detonators on top of a pile of explosives on a small boat right next to the boarding point where people often jumped into the boat.............

I of course have done nothing so stupid...... :rolleyes:

SLXOwft

15th Jul 2020, 09:56

NutLoose

15th Jul 2020, 10:44

The rear ramp shows the amount of list on her quite well.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x600/200713_n_un830_1002_800x600_0a5bd7bb9ee26676517c0be60ec8ac99 4906e141.jpg

NutLoose

15th Jul 2020, 11:11

Out of interest and I know its a daft suggestion, but given the possible weakening of the structure etc, the QE and P of W were built modular ( as in the picture below ) I realise the ships were fitted out after assembly, but could they not simply construct new sections if needed and then cut and insert those into the ship? that way the sections could be fitted out and built off hull as the hull is being stripped ready to accept them? Barking I know, but stranger things have happened in life.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x354/image_e29c5f9ad52c15fc7e8147a1beae47ad2b0c8033.png

lomapaseo

15th Jul 2020, 11:29

The melting point is not the issue, a serious 1000C fire over 48 hours will have changed the structural properties of the steel. It will start to soften at only 450C and will loose 50% of its strength at 650C, which is usually the temp range that you stress relieve steel at.

The ship is toast.....well done toast at that.

Agree about the metal weakening. However that does not all point to the repairability of the ship. Consider that the fire burns upward in a localized location., only the structural parts directly above it will be seriously damaged. I'm guessing that much of the damage is repairable. Of course that does leave the possibility that some critical parts are damaged to the point where it is too costly to repair. I'm sure the Navy has lots of experience in this over the last 100 years

TBM-Legend

15th Jul 2020, 11:31

Is she repairable? One only has to look at the proportionate damage to the USS Cole others plus go back to Forrestal and even Pear Harbor to see what American industry can do. Replacement $4Bn and 5 years or so, repair $1-2bn and 3-4 years is my guess. She is parked next to the GD shipyard who know her well.

ozbiggles

15th Jul 2020, 11:38

More than half way through her service life, probably better to put the money towards another America class ship probably. Sad to see but after that long in a hot oven I’m not sure it will be a viable fix.

SLXOwft

15th Jul 2020, 12:01

Nutty, the previous ship LHD-5 USS Bataan was definitely modular construction, don't know it LHD-6 was constructed the same way.

Not_a_boffin

15th Jul 2020, 12:37

They're all built that way. Ingalls were pioneers in that technique forty-odd years ago.

Any significant structural replacement would probably go that way in any case. The island (which is ally by the way) would be a new fabrication. The real cost will depend on how much cabling has been damaged / destroyed internally, particularly below the hangar deck where watertight integrity issues significantly affect the ease of replacement.

Personally think she's a CTL, but will depend on operational priorities. Digging any of the old LHA out of reserve would be similarly costly - particularly for F35 mods.

Imagegear

15th Jul 2020, 13:13

In my youth I studied metallurgy and had the opportunity not only to study grain structure and characteristics of different types of steel. I also spent time on the shop floor working with preheating furnaces and studying austenitic effects at different temperatures. We always worked on an austenitic temperature transition starting around 723 degrees C. The effects on steel at uncontrolled and variable high temperatures is unimaginable. (Think twin towers)

If you feel like swimming among crocodiles, this paper will provide you with sleepless nights: Steel - Austenitic variables. (https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-14392020000100206&tlng=en)

In my opinion, this vessel is almost totally compromised and should be decontaminated and scuttled. Even if the keel and bottom two decks/tanks, etc could be salvaged, it would not be worth the effort since the scrap value is limited.

IG

NutLoose

15th Jul 2020, 13:23

I see why the US are wanting the carriers after reading this

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/changing-tack-u-s-formally-rejects-china-s-sweeping-maritime-claims

Tailspin Turtle

15th Jul 2020, 13:59

To quote Barnes Wallis " it's hard to make things fool-proof as the fools are so damn clever at finding a way round any precautions"

Nothing is fool-proof. The best you can hope for is idiot-resistant.

Hot 'n' High

15th Jul 2020, 14:27

Imagegear, I was thinking of a possibility along those lines but probably just negligence. Not a military story but a paper factory, which was a client of my father's, was burnt to the ground by a blow torch "left" burning on the new roof, there was suspicion it was arson but nothing could be proved.
.....................

Same happened to the WRNS Quarters, HMS Daedalus, for exactly the same reason one evening I think in about 1979, tho the building survived due to the Fire Piquet expanding by over 5000% when the Tannoy announced the location of the fire!!! When the civvie Fire Brigade arrived the audience were 6 deep! There were WRNS bailing out everywhere dressed in various forms night of attire - so I'm reliably informed of course. :ok:

Re the ship, it will be like writing off aircraft or even a car after an accident; often there is much additional damage due to the fire fighting efforts in adjacent compartments, particularly if a ship is quite "open" as is often the case with extended refits. Water gets everywhere even when closed up properly as odd seals don't work/get damaged or a fire hose leaks and smoke damage can be widespread - especially if the ventilation is not crash-stopped. Lots of stuff like wiring, for example, will have to go, even if not directly affected by fire, but maybe simply due to the heat of the hot air perhaps venting through several compartments raising the temperatures in them to an unknown level. No obvious signs of damage but still now an "unknown" so will need replacing. With access open for heavy maintenance teams, it's a Damage Control Officer's worst nightmare as the spread of direct and indirect effects is far less restricted - across, up and down!

As I say, my story a few posts above of the Paint Store fire led to quite a bit of damage to adjoining compartments - bearing in mind it was (a) very small, (b) the Damage Control WO was actually stood about 4 m away from it when it started, and, (c) the aircrew had just run out a load of hoses for the "exercise" which were then used by the Ships Standing Sea Fire Party when they arrived so that meant water was on metal quite a bit quicker than expected. I'll leave it to you to decide why he felt it was better to delay the re-entry until the Ships Team had arrived rather than send the aircrew lads in as "Wave 1".....

And my job as allocated to me by the DC WO? "Sir, do me a really big favour ........ just get this lot out of here!" Duty sheep-dog herding aircrew away! :p

SLXOwft

15th Jul 2020, 15:22

I'm sure he didn't believe they were WAFU.:suspect: Far better to let the professionals do it for real.

Looking at the tour clip, I was struck by the large open areas, there seemed to be long runs without a hatchway (and an absence of built in trip hazards) but generally how shiny and uncluttered she was compared to Lusty in her later years.

Lonewolf_50

15th Jul 2020, 16:37

We always worked on an austenitic temperature transition starting around 723 degrees C. The effects on steel at uncontrolled and variable high temperatures is unimaginable. (Think twin towers) I can hear my old materials science professor now, talking about that transition ...
In my opinion, this vessel is almost totally compromised and should be decontaminated and scuttled. That is an uninformed opinion, given that you don't know the extent of the area exposed to those temperatures. They are going to have to do a detailed assessment of what has to be cut away due to material structural degradation (which you rightly mention) versus what remains that isn't so affected. The info that you and I are exposed to is media reports. I'd hold off on suggesting that they turn it into razor blades until NAVSEA send out an engineering team and they do formal investigation and analysis.
(In the end, your guess might be on target)

Been not quite 30 years since I was in San Diego; it is doubly frustrating to me that they had apparently completed most of the mods during the availability period and then the holes in the cheese lined up and the fire started.
Not going to completely bet against one of your earlier posts suggesting sabotage - it's possible, but given how many known risks there are to overhaul and mod work in a shipyard, I'll offer that it is a very low ball bet, if any, on that being the trigger. But that needs to be looked into, IMO.
A couple of my friends served on that ship in the early 00's, sorry to see her suffer this :uhoh:

Imagegear

15th Jul 2020, 17:05

As you say, a decision will only be made after a qualified engineering team are able to assess the damage. How one can even begin to analyse every potential hotspot for what is effectively internal granular restructuring on a vessel of that size is well below my pay scale.

Sometime after I left her, the Sir Galahad slipped beneath the waves off Stanley and watching the news at the time, it was devastating knowing the conditions under which so many perished. Another, the old Ark Royal eventually went for "razor blades", not so much dying as fading away.

A long time ago for me, but still brings back memories.

IG

tdracer

15th Jul 2020, 18:29

The US did some pretty amazing repairs in the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack as outlined in this book: "Resurrection: Salvaging the Battle Fleet at Pearl Harbor" (I read it a couple years ago)
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Salvaging-Battle-Fleet-Harbor/dp/1591145406/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Resurrection%3A+Salvaging+the+Battle+Fleet+at+Pearl +Harbor&qid=1594837099&s=books&sr=1-1
In short, most of the ships sunk or badly damaged during the attack were repaired and returned to active duty before the end of the war (the most notable exceptions being the battleships Arizona and Oklahoma). It's hard to imagine the fire damage to the Bonhomme Richard is more severe that what happened the West Virginia or Nevada on Dec. 7 1941.
Now, if it is cost (and/or time) effective is a completely different question - I'm sure there are some bean counter types already looking at that aspect. But I don't think there is any question it can be repaired and returned to service if so desired.

Chu Chu

15th Jul 2020, 20:09

The famous Tempil chart says no grain growth below about 1300 F. If there was a concern, though, the amount of paint damage would probably be a reasonably reliable guide to the amount of heating. The biggest concern might just be distortion of the structure, both because steel isn't very strong at 1000 degrees F, and because of stresses due to differential heating.

NWA SLF

15th Jul 2020, 20:51

I haven't seen anything yet on what the Navy considers the value of putting a ship back to sea vs scrapping. I believe that some battle damage throughout the years was so bad that cost to repair was greater than the value of the finished product. Going back to WWII, all battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor other than the AZ and OK were put back into service. Was there a morale value in putting ships into action the Japanese had sunk? How about the Cole. Wasn't considerable value placed on putting the ship back into service therefore being able to say they dished out their best but we persevered. Franklin and Bunker Hill come to mind as ships that possibly have been let go saving sailor lives vs being able to say we brought her home. In this case we have an accidental fire while in port, not a ship suffering battle damage. Will this contribute to the decision whether or not to restore a ship that has served 2/3 of its design life? Sailors would hate to lose their ship while they are assigned but when is it time to cut your losses. I assume that only a detailed damage assessment followed by cost to repair estimate will be needed and wondered how maintaining the Navy's image fits in.

West Coast

15th Jul 2020, 21:03

I can hear my old materials science professor now, talking about that transition ...
That is an uninformed opinion, given that you don't know the extent of the area exposed to those temperatures. They are going to have to do a detailed assessment of what has to be cut away due to material structural degradation (which you rightly mention) versus what remains that isn't so affected. The info that you and I are exposed to is media reports. I'd hold off on suggesting that they turn it into razor blades until NAVSEA send out an engineering team and they do formal investigation and analysis.
(In the end, your guess might be on target)

Been not quite 30 years since I was in San Diego; it is doubly frustrating to me that they had apparently completed most of the mods during the availability period and then the holes in the cheese lined up and the fire started.
Not going to completely bet against one of your earlier posts suggesting sabotage - it's possible, but given how many known risks there are to overhaul and mod work in a shipyard, I'll offer that it is a very low ball bet, if any, on that being the trigger. But that needs to be looked into, IMO.
A couple of my friends served on that ship in the early 00's, sorry to see her suffer this :uhoh:

Regarding sabotage, I sure hope not and would bet against it, however it wouldn’t be the first time a warship was taken out in peacetime while at the docks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Miami_(SSN-755)

PAXboy

15th Jul 2020, 21:17

NWA SLF hits the nail. As an outsider, I'd guess that there will be a massive research project over three or four months, that will declare the risks and costs too high. We all understand the military desire to bring back their dead but this one would take so long to investigate and test and repair - no one could be sure that every plate and joint would hold up under maximum stress.

(I now risk a high level of response) The Americans might want more hardware in the Pacific but they cannot win against China. That is, not so much about 'win' a hot war - but the long term battle for 'top dog' status - for that is already lost. It's just that many Americans do not yet realise it.

Herod

15th Jul 2020, 21:32

but the long term battle for 'top dog' status - for that is already lost. It's just that many Americans do not yet realise it.

I very much hope you're wrong. I believe that America can retain (regain) "top dog" if they get their act together. If this world is still going to have one overarching superpower I know which one I want (no prizes for guessing).

NutLoose

15th Jul 2020, 22:15

MechEngr

15th Jul 2020, 23:05

The fate of the Ship of Theseus is in this boat's future, if a hull can be said to be lucky. Considering that it certainly appears all the most costly technology was incinerated along with the island the main savings will be in the lower hull. To get that is a significant cleanup and detailed engineering evaluation, at least as complicated as the original design analysis for the structure. So they save the keel and the engines and the fuel tanks. About 10% or less of the cost of the original build. If it costs them more than that in analysis and cleanup? All it saves is the name.

NutLoose

15th Jul 2020, 23:06

One handy thing is it’s location, it was built there, who better to carry out that work.

TBM-Legend

15th Jul 2020, 23:17

Stick to the North Atlantic. In WW2 the UK abandoned us to the Japs and it was only America that came to our aid in Australia....

ozbiggles

15th Jul 2020, 23:38

One handy thing is it’s location, it was built there, who better to carry out that work.

But they would also be the ones who probably burnt it down.

etudiant

16th Jul 2020, 00:50

Lonewolf_50

16th Jul 2020, 01:33

A warship in its home port, with all possible support systems,
Amount of time you spent in the Navy? Estimate is zero.
This ship was in a shipyard undergoing major maintenance. It wasn't just "sitting in its homeport." You really need to read the entire thread before you spout off.

It's still a shambles, no question, what with all of the lessons learned (allegedly) over decades about how you do things properly in a ship yard during a maintenance period. Obviously, not done in this case.

Let me give you an example of how a contractor/shipyard can cock up a wet dream.
USS Saratoga, Philadelphia shipyard. (going back 30-40 years) (Full disclosure: I was on ships in the Saratoga battle group on two different deployments to the Med).

In port, Saratoga had major maintenance done, including work on her boilers. The yard utterly screwed it up. Sorry Sara was a running engineering casualty for a few years while the Navy tried to get their money/pound of flesh out of the shipyard. Millions and millions of tax dollars pissed away. And it took millions more to sort out the cock up those cnuts in Philly did ...
It is incomprehensible to me
OK, you are ignorant and incredulous. So what?
Just because you don't believe it can happen doesn't mean it won't.
See also AF 447, PIA in Karachi recently, Max/MCAS ... need I go on? Cocking up is an element of the human condition. If that bothers you so much, I suggest emulate Warren Zevon's character
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TbfQPRgcS8

and wait for the double E...

Herod

16th Jul 2020, 08:02

Stick to the North Atlantic. In WW2 the UK abandoned us to the Japs and it was only America that came to our aid in Australia....

First off; if you recall, the UK was quite busy defending democracy. As an interesting thought-experiment, assume Britain had fallen to Hitler. Follow that line of reasoning, and see where it probably ends.

Second; if the US sticks to the North Atlantic, who will rescue your a*se next time?

Islandlad

16th Jul 2020, 08:27

Stick to the North Atlantic. In WW2 the UK abandoned us to the Japs and it was only America that came to our aid in Australia....
Major thread drift but I will just say this. POWs. Shame on you; shame on their memory.

According to the findings of the Tokyo Tribunal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East), the death rate of Western prisoners was 27.1%, seven times that of POWs under the Germans and Italians. The death rate of Chinese was much higher. Thus, while 37,583 prisoners from the United Kingdom, Commonwealth, and Dominions, 28,500 from the Netherlands, and 14,473 from the United States were released after the surrender of Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan), the number for the Chinese was only 56. The 27,465 United States Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) and United States Army Air Forces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces) POWs in the Pacific Theater had a 40.4% death rate. The War Ministry in Tokyo issued an order at the end of the war to kill all surviving POWs.

I’ve served on a carrier as a naval officer .... You must have a good reason for saying what you did.

Georg1na

16th Jul 2020, 08:32

TBM legend - Read this would you.........................and then shut up.

It was Allied policy to first defeat Hitler and then concentrate all their efforts on the defeat of Japan. The RN began to prepare in earnest for the latter in mid 1943 when RN squadrons of US made aeroplanes were acquired and formed in the USA in succession until mid 1944. This resulted in; from January 1945 the RN Far Eastern Fleet, which was the largest fleet ever deployed in the entire history of the RN that statement has to be read in the context that until the USN expanded after Pearl Harbour the RN was the largest navy the world has ever known and without taking up too much space again this the situation was as follows.
The Far Eastern Fleet came to its full strength in June '45 and was divided into two parts — The East Indies Fleet under the command of the Supreme Commander South East Asia Louis Mountbatten, and the British Pacific Fleet under the command of Admirals Nimitz and Halsey of the USN. In total there were some 720 RN ships including 17 battleships, (including the Free French 'Richelieu') 35 aircraft carriers, including 6 fleet carriers, 5 light fleet carriers, and 24 escort carriers. There were 14 second line and 50 front line RN squadrons, using both US and UK manufactured aeroplanes. There were 111 shore stations and base ships including 8 air stations, 6 mobile naval air bases (MONABS) 1 transportable air repair yard, 1 air station/transit camp and 2 RN bases with air sections. There were 47 Cruisers including 2 Dutch, 1 French, 1 Italian, 1 Canadian and 7 Australian. The remainder of the 720 consisted of frigates, sloops, submarines and a great miscellany of other ships such as landing ships, supply ships, depot ships, etc…

driblegin

16th Jul 2020, 10:10

On that topic - The Kamikaze Hunters, Fighting for the Pacific, 1945. Will Iredale ISBN 978-1-4472-2720-5

Auxtank

16th Jul 2020, 10:14

TBM legend - Read this would you.........................and then shut up.

In total there were some 720 RN ships including 17 battleships, (including the Free French 'Richelieu') 35 aircraft carriers, including 6 fleet carriers, 5 light fleet carriers, and 24 escort carriers. There were 14 second line and 50 front line RN squadrons, using both US and UK manufactured aeroplanes. There were 111 shore stations and base ships including 8 air stations, 6 mobile naval air bases (MONABS) 1 transportable air repair yard, 1 air station/transit camp and 2 RN bases with air sections. There were 47 Cruisers including 2 Dutch, 1 French, 1 Italian, 1 Canadian and 7 Australian. The remainder of the 720 consisted of frigates, sloops, submarines and a great miscellany of other ships such as landing ships, supply ships, depot ships, etc…

Aye lad. Them wer'e days.

Tanker

16th Jul 2020, 10:34

A warship in its home port, with all possible support systems, experiences an inextinguishable fire that lasts for several days.
That is not reassuring about the survivability of the USN's capital assets in any conflict. Do they build them stuffed with paper waste and other flammables?

It is incomprehensible to me that a maintenance period appears to have been a time of slacking off.
We all know that major structures undergoing maintenance are at elevated risk, Notre Dame being the prime example. Yet this seems to have been business as usual or worse.
Overall, a deeply depressing performance.
If you had read the entire thread you would have learned that a ship in shipyard maintenance is different than a ship at sea. Most of the hatches couldn't be closed due to cables running between compartments, a situation which wouldn't happen at sea. Additionally, and most important, the Halon fire extinguisher system was not operational due to it also undergoing maintenance, Again a situation which wouldn't have happened at sea. So to summarize if the ship had been at sea when the fire occurred all the hatches would have been closed to isolate the fire and the halon fire extinguishing system would have been activated to put the fire out.

TBM-Legend

16th Jul 2020, 10:36

Major thread drift but I will just say this. POWs. Shame on you; shame on their memory.

According to the findings of the Tokyo Tribunal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East), the death rate of Western prisoners was 27.1%, seven times that of POWs under the Germans and Italians. The death rate of Chinese was much higher. Thus, while 37,583 prisoners from the United Kingdom, Commonwealth, and Dominions, 28,500 from the Netherlands, and 14,473 from the United States were released after the surrender of Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan), the number for the Chinese was only 56. The 27,465 United States Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) and United States Army Air Forces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces) POWs in the Pacific Theater had a 40.4% death rate. The War Ministry in Tokyo issued an order at the end of the war to kill all surviving POWs.

You must have a good reason for saying what you did.

https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html

Not_a_boffin

16th Jul 2020, 11:00

Interesting to see their latest new carriers for the F35 are similar to the illustrious class, as in a mini carrier.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/us-navy-accepts-delivery-of-future-mini-f-35-carrier-uss-tripoli/

If by "similar" you mean over twice the size and primarily an amphibious assault ship.

One handy thing....

Nope. Built in Pascagoula on the other coast.

Not_a_boffin

16th Jul 2020, 11:10

If you had read the entire thread you would have learned that a ship in shipyard maintenance is different than a ship at sea. Most of the hatches couldn't be closed due to cables running between compartments, a situation which wouldn't happen at sea. Additionally, and most important, the Halon fire extinguisher system was not operational due to it also undergoing maintenance, Again a situation which wouldn't have happened at sea. So to summarize if the ship had been at sea when the fire occurred all the hatches would have been closed to isolate the fire and the halon fire extinguishing system would have been activated to put the fire out.

Indeed, well said.

One thing - suspect Halon is for machinery spaces only. Where the fire allegedly started (Well deck) is usually covered by HPSW-fed AFFF, as is hangar. Highly likely that due to nature of the works and the timing in refit, the HPSW system had not yet been set to work and that the AFFF containers not in-situ. That will be a major part of the swiss cheese and a likely change in Navsea instructions idc.

Chugalug2

16th Jul 2020, 11:39

TBM-Legend, I fully endorse Islandlad's condemnation of your outrageous post. If the UK 'abandoned' Australia then what is my Dad doing buried in a CWGC grave in Yokahama, alongside many other UK and Commonwealth dead? Are you saying that prioritising Germany's defeat before that of Japan was a betrayal of Australia? I suggest that reversing that primary strategic decision would have resulted in eventual Allied defeat, hardly a good outcome for Australia. The link you posted is pure anti-UK polemic. You obviously subscribe to it, I don't. That you chose to add it to a thread about a US warship fire simply points to you being a mere troll.

I apologise for adding to this unnecessary thread drift, but some posts have to be challenged. TBM-Legend's is such a post.

Georg1na

16th Jul 2020, 12:28

Well said Chugas - the man is a legend in his own lunchtime and is ignoring the facts. Your Dad needs remembering for all the right reasons.

Auxtank

16th Jul 2020, 13:45

Yes, I'd agree too. tbm_legend wins the "Out Of Order Post" and factually incorrect post of the year with his nonsense.

SLXOwft

16th Jul 2020, 13:58

Apologies for another thread drift post. Unlike Chugalug2's father, mine survived to wear the Pacific Clasp on his Burma Star and I hence feel able to play the ball not the man. Also as far I remember TBM's posts are normally measured, if sometimes reflective of the Aussie tendency to give it to you straight.

TBM - (The article is) a wonderfully myopic piece of Pommie bashing:), however, it is a historical view Britons should be more aware of. In December 1941 Britain was on a knife edge of survival as the Battle of the Atlantic was beginning to swing back to the Germans, the Battle of Britain a respite, victory at El Alamein was nearly a year away. Defeat could only be stopped by an influx of American manpower and machinery. The Royal Navy had lost more than third of major units it began the war with. Low spending since WW1 meant many ships were worn out and obsolete. Throughout the war British tactics designed to keep down casualties continually frustrated the Americans but were a necessity due to the constraints of available manpower and resources. Churchill like any good war leader was merely accepting reality in private while attempting to maintain morale in public, don't forget Churchill had expressed the intention to fight on and recover the UK from German occupation if necessary but I am sure realised the remaining Empire couldn't or wouldn't do it. Territory can be regained, lives can't.RN 1939 Losses end '41
Capital Ships 15 5
Carriers 7 4
Cruisers 63 13
Destroyers 184 59
Submarines 60 36
Total 329 117
Doesn't include 4 RCN/RAN losses and new builds.

Until it flip flopped in the 1920s Britain expected its ally Japan to protect its colonies and protectorates in the Indian and Pacific Oceans - don't forget the USA planned how to fight an Anglo-Japanese enemy. In November 1941 Churchill's policy was still one of deterrence, using limited available resources to persuade Japan not to enter the war. He knew Britain could barely fight a war on one front never mind three (Europe, South Asia, Pacific) and frankly India, Ceylon and Burma were more important and had the manpower. He was reaching out to Stalin as there was no formal co-operation - the outcome of the Russian front was uncertain.

In December the US's recent forced entry into the war had changed things but as that had come via a Japanese attack he had, naturally, to ensure the Pacific didn't become the main or sole focus or Britain might cease to exist. Just before the Arcadia Conference the RN had just lost two of its three major units in the Indian/Pacific theatre, HMSs Prince of Wales and Repulse, and was to lose the remaning one HMS Exeter not long after. This is reflected by General of the Army George Marshall's views, who though sympathetic to Britain's need for war materiel before the Pearl Harbor attack was deeply concerned that the US was transferring what it would shortly need itself to a lost cause.

Fleet Admiral Ernie King, brilliant though he could be, was a rampant anglophobe, and had spent his entire career studying how to fight a war against Japan. Roosevelt had to overrule him to make him accept the British Pacific Fleet even when the resources were available. His initial reponse to the U-Boat war was a disaster as he refused to accept British advice on convoys and seaboard blackouts until losses were unacceptable. Don't forget there was a strong belief among many leading Americans, including George Marshall, that the conduct of the war should hamper any attempt by Britain to regain its colonial positions. By the time the resources were available the US didn't want them all - my father's ship, HMS Newcastle, reached NSW only to be sent away as surplus to requirements.

Chugalug2

16th Jul 2020, 14:46

Not sure what point you are making here SLXOwft. My point is that Australia was not 'abandoned' by anyone. It was the obvious jumping off point for rolling back Jap occupation of the territories that lay to its north. The USA took command of that under General MacArthur, hence the US reinforcement presence in Australia. You might just as well say that Egypt was 'abandoned' by the US when it was clearly the responsibility of the Brits to defend it. If TBM's attitude is widespread then all the more reason to call it out. The important thing was to achieve victory over the Axis powers, not to avoid offending anyone's finer feelings. Oh, and I 'played the man' as you put it because he saw fit to do his 'bashing' in a thread that has nothing to do with the Brits, WWII, or Australia.

Can we close this mega drift off now, before the wrath of the Mods falls about us all?

Video Mixdown

16th Jul 2020, 15:26

Contrary to what's been suggested earlier in this thread, heavy fuel oil (bunker) tanks can certainly explode. (Over the course of my career, I've surveyed many ships on which this has happened). The flash point of HFO is usually specified at 60C minimum but typically around 70-100C. If the fuel is heated in excess of this by adjacent fire, flammable vapours will be produced, and the mixture in the tank ullage space will tend towards the flammable range. If an ignition source is then introduced, there will be an explosion.
One for any firefighters here. Would such an explosion be considered a BLEVE, or is that term reserved for pressurised fuel like LPG? During a GDT lecture many years ago we were shown film of a derailed railway tanker truck suffering this fate. I think the remains of the truck were found several hundred yards away!

SLXOwft

16th Jul 2020, 15:37

I crave the Mods indulgence for a clarification and apology.

Chugalug2, please accept my apologies, I was aiming a nudge at Georg1na. I felt your loss gives you a right to be aggrieved. However, honestly I thought you did play the ball.

I was offended by the post but accept all countries have their myths based on different perceptions of the facts, what I was trying to say was Britain was in no position to provide additional help to any of the Dominions or Colonies threatened by the Japanese but had an ally in the US that was. The intention was to hold the line much further North - MacArthur only ended up in Australia because the Japs kicked him out of the Philippines. The war was a global one and required each ally to uses it resources where it could to best effect. Frankly, the UK was losing at that point and the defeat of Germany was as you imply essential. To Australians, obviously, the defence of Australia was paramount; to Churchill it was one issue among many and I suspect he felt the threat of invasion was limited and quite probably intelligence was available that confirmed it. One of my wife's grandfathers served in the SANF defending Durban from the threat of Japanese attack. It may seem ridiculous to us now but at the time the threat was felt to be real.

British casualties in the Gallipoli campaign were: Killed 3 times ANZAC losses and Wounded 10 times ANZACs, more Frenchmen were killed than Aussies. I suspect most in all three Commonwealth countries don't even know that British and French troops were involved.

SLXOwft

16th Jul 2020, 15:53

Back to the thread. I wonder if the Presidential election will have an influence? Could the current POTUS feel a commitment to rebuild or name LHA-9 BHR bringing forward it's construction with a stated intention to build additional America would appeal beyond his core vote? Would a Biden victory mean all bets are off regarding USN force numbers?

etudiant

16th Jul 2020, 15:57

Indeed, well said.

One thing - suspect Halon is for machinery spaces only. Where the fire allegedly started (Well deck) is usually covered by HPSW-fed AFFF, as is hangar. Highly likely that due to nature of the works and the timing in refit, the HPSW system had not yet been set to work and that the AFFF containers not in-situ. That will be a major part of the swiss cheese and a likely change in Navsea instructions idc.

Apologies for not stating up front that I recognize the ship was not in wartime configuration, so that normal fire fighting methods were not available.
That does not explain why the maintenance procedures instituted obviously totally compromised the safety of the vessel, which looks to be a total loss.
The spread of the fire indicates the ship was stuffed with flammables, presumably maintenance related materials. If that is SOP, it is asking for disaster.
Does no one accept that maintenance intervals are the time things are most likely to go wrong and prepare accordingly?

GlobalNav

16th Jul 2020, 16:41

Isn’t it possible to express a technical response without resorting to personal insults?

West Coast

17th Jul 2020, 00:40

https://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/130677?fbclid=IwAR0ENcZMVE_rFDzVnPBhB6WKMVOWvHpy07kHYrKccvCT LDUn8zIzZjo6FU4

Time to see what its fate will be and what adjustments will be made to fill the gap.

Old Boeing Driver

17th Jul 2020, 01:01

Actually, she was built in Pascagoula, Mississippi at Ingalls Shipyard.

RAFEngO74to09

17th Jul 2020, 01:30

July 16 Press Conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myhqLCIOAQQ

harrryw

17th Jul 2020, 04:19

If you had read the entire thread you would have learned that a ship in shipyard maintenance is different than a ship at sea. Most of the hatches couldn't be closed due to cables running between compartments, a situation which wouldn't happen at sea. Additionally, and most important, the Halon fire extinguisher system was not operational due to it also undergoing maintenance, Again a situation which wouldn't have happened at sea. So to summarize if the ship had been at sea when the fire occurred all the hatches would have been closed to isolate the fire and the halon fire extinguishing system would have been activated to put the fire out.
A ship at sea could be compartmented and a decision made to deploy Halon knowing all in the section will die from it. In port there is no way that decision could be made. It is standard everywhere to switch off halon when workers are in the area. Many have died because this was not done.

esa-aardvark

17th Jul 2020, 14:08

A ship at sea could be compartmented and a decision made to deploy Halon knowing all in the section will die from it. In port there is no way that decision could be made. It is standard everywhere to switch off halon when workers are in the area. Many have died because this was not done.

Not quite, I did not, nor others in the same area. (Nov 1st 1984)

lomapaseo

17th Jul 2020, 14:37

quite a few assessments here of why the ship burned so long. But loosing resources that way isn't the navy way. So what is going to be done to correct that?

J.O.

17th Jul 2020, 15:02

Is the navy even responsible for the care and control of a ship while undergoing major refit, or does that belong to the contractor?

etudiant

17th Jul 2020, 15:58

Is the navy even responsible for the care and control of a ship while undergoing major refit, or does that belong to the contractor?

Seen that this happened in a Navy facility, it was surely a Navy responsibility.
That said, you point out a very possible dilution of authority, the contractor crews must have freedom to do their work but are not Navy.

Asturias56

17th Jul 2020, 16:04

"That does not explain why the maintenance procedures instituted obviously totally compromised the safety of the vessel, which looks to be a total loss. The spread of the fire indicates the ship was stuffed with flammables, presumably maintenance related materials. If that is SOP, it is asking for disaster."

if you've ever been in a shipyard when a ship is being worked on you wouldn't be surprised at all - as I pointed out earlier the same thing happens with buildings and civvie ships. The workers want the maximum amount of open space , they want to be able to move things around easily, they don't want enclosed spaces with fumes where people all to often die.. You have cutting, welding, painting, wiring all going on. The client wants the job done as fast and as cheaply as possible and lacks the detailed knowledge to supervise and control the work (anyway that's the shipyards job). You do have risk assessments but the devil here is always in the small details.

RAFEngO74to09

17th Jul 2020, 16:33

CNO visiting San Diego today to view the damage and no doubt discuss the future.

Big Pistons Forever

17th Jul 2020, 22:53

Re shipyard ****-ups.

A civilian shipyard, one side of a bulkhead full of water for integrity test, other side removing the bulkhead by cutting it out with torches. Bulkhead collapsed and number of people drowned.

One of the ships I served in came out of refit with the oily water separator hooked up backwards. When turned on fresh water went into the sullage tank and oil went over the side. QHM was very unimpressed ......

RAFEngO74to09

18th Jul 2020, 00:37

Update from CNO - 17 Jul 20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sEmd3J0pm8

ozbiggles

18th Jul 2020, 04:59

Very well spoken senior officer who hits all the right notes.

harrryw

18th Jul 2020, 05:42

Not quite, I did not, nor others in the same area. (Nov 1st 1984)
I am glad you did but these did not
https://mashable.com/2016/03/14/bangkok-extinguisher-death/

Ancient Mariner

18th Jul 2020, 09:45

Not quite, I did not, nor others in the same area. (Nov 1st 1984)
Probably CO2, which kills. Halon not so much.
Per

jimjim1

18th Jul 2020, 14:45

But loosing resources that way isn't the navy way. So what is going to be done to correct that?

Nothing effective?

https://www.propublica.org/series/navy-accidents-pacific-7th-fleet

I have read official reports where available (the two destroyer collisions where people died) and there is nothing that I noticed in these articles that disagrees with the reports.

https://www.propublica.org/article/marines-hornet-squadron-242-crash-pacific-resilard
Faulty Equipment, Lapsed Training, Repeated Warnings: How a Preventable Disaster Killed Six Marines

https://features.propublica.org/navy-uss-mccain-crash/navy-installed-touch-screen-steering-ten-sailors-paid-with-their-lives/
The Navy Installed Touch-Screen Steering Systems to Save Money. 10 Sailors Paid With Their Lives.

https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/us-navy-crashes-japan-cause-mccain/
Years of Warnings, Then Death and Disaster
How the Navy failed its sailors

https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/
Death and Valor on an American Warship Doomed by its Own Navy

Many more relevant articles linked from top link here.

lomapaseo

18th Jul 2020, 15:19

Nothing effective?

https://www.propublica.org/series/navy-accidents-pacific-7th-fleet

I have read official reports where available (the two destroyer collisions where people died) and there is nothing that I noticed in these articles that disagrees with the reports.

https://www.propublica.org/article/marines-hornet-squadron-242-crash-pacific-resilard
Faulty Equipment, Lapsed Training, Repeated Warnings: How a Preventable Disaster Killed Six Marines

https://features.propublica.org/navy-uss-mccain-crash/navy-installed-touch-screen-steering-ten-sailors-paid-with-their-lives/
The Navy Installed Touch-Screen Steering Systems to Save Money. 10 Sailors Paid With Their Lives.

https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/us-navy-crashes-japan-cause-mccain/
Years of Warnings, Then Death and Disaster
How the Navy failed its sailors

https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/
Death and Valor on an American Warship Doomed by its Own Navy

Many more relevant articles linked from top link here.

rather than to cite historical deficiencies, I would appreciate reading about some possible corrective actions. That way we can act more cohesively in this thread to support some or the other

Mariner9

18th Jul 2020, 17:00

One for any firefighters here. Would such an explosion be considered a BLEVE, or is that term reserved for pressurised fuel like LPG? During a GDT lecture many years ago we were shown film of a derailed railway tanker truck suffering this fate. I think the remains of the truck were found several hundred yards away!

No. For a BLEVE to arise, the liquid has to be contained within a sealed tank so that it can be heated above its atmospheric pressure boiling point. As pressure (and temperature) rises, the tank eventually fails, and the liquid rapidly boils when pressure is suddenly released, causing a BLEVE. Bunker tanks on ships are fitted with vents, so can't pressurise, so no BLEVE.

msbbarratt

18th Jul 2020, 19:38

etudiant

18th Jul 2020, 20:26

In my experience the wiring in US naval vessels is far from ideal for the prevention of spreading fire. Up in the ceiling of the major corridors there has been, on all the US naval vessels I've been on, a complete rats nest of cable, covered in paint, held in with plastic cable ties. If that lot catches fire it would spread along all the corridors leading away from the seat of the conflagration, and also start filling up the corridors with hanging, burning cables and thick, toxic smoke.

This would make it harder for firefighters to get to the seat of the fire, never mind contain it.

I wonder if this has been a factor in this incident?

Most likely it was.
I toured one of the earlier LHDs under construction during a visit to the Ingalls shipyard long ago, it was indeed a rats nest of wiring.
I've no idea whether there are any Navy specific fire resistance requirements now, but all the stuff looked commercial grade, judging by the labels on the spools.

If memory serves, the US had a nuclear plant under construction essentially wrecked because the wiring caught fire while a construction worker was using a candle to check for air leaks .
So cabling fires are a real risk and often hugely destructive. But I'd have thought the military would by now have switched to non flammable cabling

TBM-Legend

18th Jul 2020, 22:50

Most likely it was.
I toured one of the earlier LHDs under construction during a visit to the Ingalls shipyard long ago, it was indeed a rats nest of wiring.
I've no idea whether there are any Navy specific fire resistance requirements now, but all the stuff looked commercial grade, judging by the labels on the spools.

If memory serves, the US had a nuclear plant under construction essentially wrecked because the wiring caught fire while a construction worker was using a candle to check for air leaks .
So cabling fires are a real risk and often hugely destructive. But I'd have thought the military would by now have switched to non flammable cabling

Naval ships use a NATO coded standard and they have upgraded wiring. Bonnie Dick was built 25 years ago...

https://issuu.com/magazineproduction/docs/cable___wiring_0812_ezine

etudiant

19th Jul 2020, 00:37

Naval ships use a NATO coded standard and they have upgraded wiring. Bonnie Dick was built 25 years ago...

https://issuu.com/magazineproduction/docs/cable___wiring_0812_ezine

Thank you, a very interesting and informative link. Was intrigued that they even mention EMP shielding, although I saw nothing related to fire resistance.

saislor

19th Jul 2020, 19:34

Amount of time you spent in the Navy? Estimate is zero.
[... deleted ...]
Let me give you an example of how a contractor/shipyard can cock up a wet dream.
USS Saratoga, Philadelphia shipyard. (going back 30-40 years) (Full disclosure: I was on ships in the Saratoga battle group on two different deployments to the Med).

In port, Saratoga had major maintenance done, including work on her boilers. The yard utterly screwed it up. Sorry Sara was a running engineering casualty for a few years while the Navy tried to get their money/pound of flesh out of the shipyard. Millions and millions of tax dollars pissed away. And it took millions more to sort out the cock up those cnuts in Philly did ...

I have a family history with CV-60. My father was a plank owner on the Saratoga. My Uncle had the dubious distinction of being an officer on watch when Saratoga sank at her dock in Mayport, FL. They opened a sea chest and could not close it. ... during an engineering inspection ... by a 3 star Admiral. A lot of Navy careers ended that day.

Machinbird

20th Jul 2020, 05:23

In my experience the wiring in US naval vessels is far from ideal for the prevention of spreading fire. Up in the ceiling of the major corridors there has been, on all the US naval vessels I've been on, a complete rats nest of cable, covered in paint, held in with plastic cable ties. If that lot catches fire it would spread along all the corridors leading away from the seat of the conflagration, and also start filling up the corridors with hanging, burning cables and thick, toxic smoke.
This would make it harder for firefighters to get to the seat of the fire, never mind contain it.
I wonder if this has been a factor in this incident?

Except for the plastic cable ties, this exactly describes what happened aboard USS Saratoga CV-60 during a 1973 overhaul. Trash had accumulated in the operations office below the flight deck. A disgruntled sailor ignited the debris which cooked the dense cable runs in the office overhead (ceiling) which conducted the heat away from the fire and melted the vinyl insulation on the wiring. Vinyl is normally self extinguishing, but in this case the heat caused the vinyl to drip in narrow strands which gave enough surface area to support combustion and the fire followed the cable runs forward and aft along the port and starboard passageways. Those in the fire fighting parties reported dense smoke with dripping plastic falling on them and being unable to see the source of the fire they were trying to fight.
When the heat pattern on the flight deck revealed that the fire was following the cable runs, holes were cut in the flight deck and the cable runs were severed to stop the fire.

West Coast

20th Jul 2020, 05:52

I have a family history with CV-60. My father was a plank owner on the Saratoga. My Uncle had the dubious distinction of being an officer on watch when Saratoga sank at her dock in Mayport, FL. They opened a sea chest and could not close it. ... during an engineering inspection ... by a 3 star Admiral. A lot of Navy careers ended that day.

Can you elaborate on the “sinking” of the Saratoga dockside?

msbbarratt

20th Jul 2020, 08:15

Naval ships use a NATO coded standard and they have upgraded wiring. Bonnie Dick was built 25 years ago...

https://issuu.com/magazineproduction/docs/cable___wiring_0812_ezine

Well, I don't know what grade of cable is commonly fitted to US warships, but the coating of paint renders any good fire properties of the insulation redundant. The paint will burn quite happily regardless.

The RN Navel Engineering Standards got updated for improved wiring practises after the Falkands War, where fire spread by cabling was a significant hinderance to firefighting on HMS Sheffield. Vessels built since then have (or are supposed to have) immaculately neat cabling, laid in with metal straps, properly labelled, using LSZH insulation, etc. Heaven help you if you tamper with it. And it's always looked good whenever I've seen it.

This was all back in the 1980s. 25 years ago is 1995, some 13 years afterwards. Last time I was on a USN vessel was 2005, on a brand new ship, still with the rats nest of painted cabling. I'm wondering whether the USN's architects ever chat to their colleagues across the pond...

That link is interesting. I note that they're stimulating the idea of more fire resistant cable, as an upgrade from cable that just won't create billows of toxic smoke.

esa-aardvark

20th Jul 2020, 09:48

Back when I worked (on land) we had many kilometers of data cables.
Then we had a very major fire. After that most cables which passed through
walls and similar were coated in white stuff, which was supposed to turn
into ceramic if heated enough. My understanding was it was a practise
borrowed from the British Navy.

MightyGem

20th Jul 2020, 20:42

Can you elaborate on the “sinking” of the Saratoga dockside?
Well, nothing appears here:
https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NavalAccidents1945-1988.pdf

West Coast

20th Jul 2020, 20:54

Well, nothing appears here:
https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NavalAccidents1945-1988.pdf

Nothing elsewhere either. Quite an interesting and comprehensive doc you posted, much appreciated.

Bksmithca

21st Jul 2020, 00:14

According to Wikipdia the Saratoga was sunk in 1946 as part of Operation Crossroads which tested some nuclear explosions

West Coast

21st Jul 2020, 00:27

According to Wikipdia the Saratoga was sunk in 1946 as part of Operation Crossroads which tested some nuclear explosions

There was more than one Saratoga. The link below is for the one in question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saratoga_(CV-60)

Below is to the one you’re referencing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)

TWT

21st Jul 2020, 12:13

CV-60 had a chequered history including the accidental firing of a couple of live Sea Sparrows at a Turkish destroyer, one of which went through the bridge

Museum (http://www.damagecontrolmuseums.org/Ship_Cas_history/SARATOGA/SARATOGA_n.html)

saislor

21st Jul 2020, 23:25

Can you elaborate on the “sinking” of the Saratoga dockside?

I only know what my Uncle told me and that is not much. Fortunately Mayport was not that deep so she only rested on the bottom a few feet below the waterline. Divers were able to close the sea chest and they pumped her out. A bit of clean up and maintenance and she was good as new (only about two years old at the time) with a new Captain and several officers.

[edit] Upon reading the link from TWT it may have been the incident in 1958 since the timing is close, but my Uncle never mentioned an explosion.

scott967

22nd Jul 2020, 15:58

WRT Saratoga, the problem was Philly Naval Shipyard developed a new method to retube propulsion boilers that would save a lot of money if followed. NAVSEA HQ signed off on it. But after the ship left overhaul and in service the repair method proved to be a failure.

For BHR -- the ship was in an industrial availability. Part was done at NASSCO (right next door to 32d St naval station) including the dry-docking. Then the ship was moved to 32d street for the remainder of the availability. In any repair period there is a negotiated agreement between navy and repair contractor over who is responsible for what. A general problem is that the ship has no direct control over the contractor (there is a concern of creating a "constructive change order" that results in a claim against the gov't). The responsibility is with the Navy Regional Maintenance Center. Every contract I've seen had specifications for fire responsibility. But it's always a hassle and ship's force is always unhappy that yard workers don't take good care of the ship, in particular house-keeping. It appears ship's force was moved off-ship for the availability (typical in big ones). If no particular yard work was scheduled for that Sunday, it would have been typical in-home port duty section. I'm just guessing, but at this point I would expect there to be equipment or system level testing, some might have been scheduled for the weekend. It appears that fuel had been onloaded prior.

Note that US Navy has not used "bunker fuel" since the 60s/70s. (Also BHR is one of only a few conventional steamships left.) All ships now carry either/both "diesel fuel marine" or "JP-5". There isn't that much difference (JP-5 has a higher spec for entrained water and contaminates. Typical is JP-5 system is available as emergency fuel for main propulsion.) The characteristic is a minimum flash point of 140 degrees F. I don't know BHR configuration, but common practice now is to use compensated fuel tanks meaning tanks are always full with fuel or sea water. The tanks are built in "banks" with sluice pipes between tanks in the bank, with a final tank open to the exterior hull (discharge) and a pressured connection to the sea water service system that maintains a static head pressure on the tank bank.

As far as cabling, historically ships have been built to the "general specifications for ships" and that in turn invokes the Electrical Plant Installation Standard Methods (EPISM). In the 60s the navy moved away from armored cable to PVC-jacketed cable (weight savings). But then in the 80s there was concern about toxic smoke from PVC in a fire and the navy switched to a low-smoke cable. Don't know if there have been changes since. There's standards on the through-boxes / stuffing tubes where cableways transit water or fume tight barriers. But it was decided "GenSpecs" was too expensive and now the navy has invoked a modification of civilian maritime ABS construction standards. There has been considerable concern about the damage resilience of these specs (N/A to BHR).

After Falkland Islands, the navy began a massive review of firefighting procedures, much based on lessons learned from the RN. In fact the Chief Engineer of the HMS Sheffield came over and spent a year or two at NAVSEA HQ to advise. A lot of stuff I see in the BHR pictures are a result of that review (eg fire fighters ensemble).

Don't know current practice, but in the past navy installed Halon 1301 systems in manned machinery spaces. At the required concentration, it was supposed to be non-toxic. at least so crew could egress the space. Other, unmanned primarily electronic spaces (typically small) had Halon 1211 systems. This stuff was supposed to be bad for you. But, at least in the 90s, Halon was a no-no because it is an ODS. So it was being removed in some cases or no new installations in others. But Halon has to have the right concentration so I don't think it is applicable to the large open spaces in BHR (well deck, upper vehicle storage, hanger). In those places at least in my day they were always protected by fixed foam (AFFF) systems. Of course during a yard availability, those systems might be inop from time to time. But any time a fire fighting system is inop, you have to have an assessment of risk and mitigating procedures. Storing amounts of combustible materials in those places (not really designed for it) is an obvious question. Moreso, is the reported "explosion" not long after the initial report of fire. We need to find out what that was about as it appears to have halted all firefighting.

Hope this helps.

scott s.
.

cavuman1

22nd Jul 2020, 21:00

Very educational post, scott967! My Dad, who was a Carrier guy (BSME1933, Georgia Institute of Technology, MSME Annapolis, Naval Architecture, 1939) was the lead hull designer of CV-9, the first modern Essex class ship. I believe that was the most reproduced carrier hull in the history of the U.S. Navy. I am certain that those vessels helped us to prevail in WWII!

I expect that there were few features designed to abate fire way back then, but I am sure that my father would buy you as many drinks as you could consume as long as you talked carriers or good-looking women.

His first fiancée was Eugene Ely's daughter. She left him for a guy with a smaller, errr, brain!

- Ed

etudiant

23rd Jul 2020, 03:10

Very educational post indeed, scott967. Thank you for the added insight.
What is surprising to me is that the ship burned so extensively, with even the island on fire. Obviously flames travel upward, so a fire with explosion on the well deck will be a worst case, but even so, a warship would be expected to be more fire resistant. Perhaps it will turn out that as with the World Trade Center, where the fires were fed by the masses of papers and furnishings once the fuel oil was gone, the gear was more flammable than expected.

Bing

23rd Jul 2020, 08:06

I expect that there were few features designed to abate fire way back then, but I am sure that my father would buy you as many drinks as you could consume as long as you talked carriers or good-looking women.

- Ed

The RN's armoured carriers had a number of protective features against fire, some of which reduced the amount of fuel and munitions that could be carried*. Initially the USN didn't think these features were desirable as they ate into the capability of the air group, this changed after one of the major battles in the Pacific, I forget which one but Prof Alexander Clarke has a channel on YouTube where he goes into the detail which is worth a watch.

*E.g. petrol for the aircraft was stored in cylinders in side water filled compartments which ~halved the amount available.

Green Flash

23rd Jul 2020, 09:58

Initial look at the BH (spoiler alert - its a mess, flight deck buckled amongst many other probs) and fires on the Kearsarge and one of the new Fords too. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35046/navy-chief-uss-bonhomme-richard-fire-damaged-most-decks-gutted-island-warped-flight-deck

tdracer

23rd Jul 2020, 19:37

The RN's armoured carriers had a number of protective features against fire, some of which reduced the amount of fuel and munitions that could be carried*. Initially the USN didn't think these features were desirable as they ate into the capability of the air group, this changed after one of the major battles in the Pacific, I forget which one but Prof Alexander Clarke has a channel on YouTube where he goes into the detail which is worth a watch.

Much has been made over the years regarding the armored flight decks on the British carriers vs. the unarmored flight decks on the Essex class carriers. At least according to an exhibit on the Intrepid in NYC, the lack of armor was an conscious design trade off - an armored flight deck would have impacted the hanger deck area and would have sharply reduced the max number of aircraft the carrier could handle. Instead, the hanger deck was armored (to protect the guts of the ship) - accepting the potential damage risk in order to carry many more aircraft.
While a few Essex class carriers suffered horrific battle damage, I don't think any were sunk.

Bing

23rd Jul 2020, 20:49

Much has been made over the years regarding the armored flight decks on the British carriers vs. the unarmored flight decks on the Essex class carriers. At least according to an exhibit on the Intrepid in NYC, the lack of armor was an conscious design trade off - an armored flight deck would have impacted the hanger deck area and would have sharply reduced the max number of aircraft the carrier could handle. Instead, the hanger deck was armored (to protect the guts of the ship) - accepting the potential damage risk in order to carry many more aircraft.
While a few Essex class carriers suffered horrific battle damage, I don't think any were sunk.

Oh this was separate from the armoured flight decks, it was protection of the petrol and ammunition stowage from shock and fire. I think this is the video where he goes into detail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2CO8zmpL74. Of course the Essex class were a generation later than the Illustrious which were still designed to stay within the Washington and London treaty constraints so not really comparing apples with apples.

Dryce

24th Jul 2020, 13:31

While a few Essex class carriers suffered horrific battle damage, I don't think any were sunk.

The proponents of the RN approach would point out that the armoured carriers could take big hits and recover to continue operations without needing to return to a maintenance facility - whereas the likes of the Essexes could take big hits but would be more likely to be forced to retire for repairs.

An objective analysis of the RN vs USN approaches to compromises and tradeoffs is interesting. Both organisations had a lot of smart people.

etudiant

24th Jul 2020, 13:52

21st century and this sort of toss is still happening. . . . if they want to take on all comers on the high seas US Navy's going to have to tighten-up their act (Understatement).

Symptomatic of there being no half decent dockyard operational protocols incorporated in these contracts i.e. after each shift all loose, partially used inflammables paints, solvents, adhesives, gas cannisters to be secured in one portable air tight container, say on the hangar deck and all uncollected waste inflammables in another portable airtight containers. . . Air tight containers to be provided by the contractor and to come equipped with their own fire suppression system and wireless CCTV, monitored 24/7 in the dockyard/contractors control room.

Same applies to tools.

And work-in-progress screened-off.

Each dockyard worker to wear a "Talking broach" camera so that the supervisor/control room can see what they are doing at any time of day.

Responsibility for overseeing that all materials (And tools) are properly stowed at the end of each shift allocated to designated team/shift leader on each team.

A two man patrol, composed of one ranking naval person + contractor, to tour ship to after each shift to ensure that all's ship shape.

Summary dismissal for any breach.

How difficult's that ?

N.

May be quite challenging to implement. as a lot of this stuff is bulky, often in out of the way places and not easy to stow. Plus there is a real cost to breaking down and setting up at each shift, as suggested.
Like the idea of a two person supervisory/inspection team though, it keeps people honest when they know their work is under scrutiny.

Vzlet

24th Jul 2020, 14:00

NutLoose

24th Jul 2020, 14:28

It might sound stupid but when working on the likes of a carrier with large open areas, surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility to build several fire "stations" on wheels that contain large quantities of foam or Halon and that automatically discharge or can be manually operated either by hands on or remotely, Thus when an area has the normal fire suppresant systems disabled for maintainance, these mobile units could be positioned in areas of risk to operate in an emergency.

NutLoose

24th Jul 2020, 14:33

Something like this but self contained

https://www.environmental-expert.com/products/luf-model-60-robotic-fire-extinguishing-vehicle-684649

Not_a_boffin

24th Jul 2020, 16:37

The proponents of the RN approach would point out that the armoured carriers could take big hits and recover to continue operations without needing to return to a maintenance facility - whereas the likes of the Essexes could take big hits but would be more likely to be forced to retire for repairs.

An objective analysis of the RN vs USN approaches to compromises and tradeoffs is interesting. Both organisations had a lot of smart people.

The big difference was the number of aircraft carried. Essex carried twice the number of aircraft that Illustrious could, which also reflects the operating philosophies of the two navies. As Bing rightly points out, Illustrious was constrained by treaty limits, whereas Essex wasn't.

Bing

24th Jul 2020, 21:26

This interesting article covers advantages/disadvantages and the decision rationale behind the decision to armor the flight deck or not: Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile? (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.php)
By Stuart Slade and Richard Worth.

(Hosted on NavWeaps | Naval Weapons, Naval Technology and Naval Reunions (http://www.navweaps.com/), an intriguingly in-depth naval weapons site.)
There's a counter to that article on the excellent Armoured Carriers website. https://www.armouredcarriers.com/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays/2014/5/30/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays

Bing

24th Jul 2020, 21:28

Armoured decks of British Fleet Carriers had the disadvantage that in the event of a kamikaze hit the projectile aircraft hardly penetrated and careered along the flight deck taking all before it. This happened to the No 2 of my dad's squadron, killed whilst preparing to take off. Similarly, a dispensible wooden flight deck might help dissipate damage to lower decks from a torpedo hit by providing a point of least resistance to the explosive pressure wave. Ultimately, it boils down to who do you want to put at risk Top-Side or lower decks ?

N
To be fair, terrible though that was for the No 2 of your Dad's squadron it was a much better outcome than penetrating through to the hangar would have been.

Hot 'n' High

27th Jul 2020, 15:22

May be quite challenging to implement. as a lot of this stuff is bulky, often in out of the way places and not easy to stow. Plus there is a real cost to breaking down and setting up at each shift, as suggested.
Like the idea of a two person supervisory/inspection team though, it keeps people honest when they know their work is under scrutiny.

Not sure how you would achieve any of it tbh - including a 100% sweep of a ship of any size. Even a fairly small ship has 100's of compartments, and, especially below the waterline, there is often no lateral or fore/aft access (or only within a small zone) before you have to come back up several decks to then go down into the next area. Of course, you could say only compartments being worked on, or adjacent to, need be inspected - but even so - in a major refit, that would be constantly changing and not insignificant. Not sure how wireless would work given the construction of ships either.

Again, as mentioned, much of damage control relies on compartmentalization which is often impossible to enforce as compartment hatches and doors are often open for access with "temporary" cable runs/hoses/ventilation passing through which probably took days to set up in the first place. We are not talking about the odd extension lead here or there. Certainly in the RN, there is a fire-watch mandated to monitor specific high-risk tasks where dedicated members of the ships' staff are present in all compartments that could be affected during, and for a pre-determined time after, any "hot works" or similar have been carried out. They have, generally, portable fire appliances for 1st aid/immediate response + the risk assessment will see that you have the best main-stream fire fighting system you can have to back up your immediate response from the portable extinguishers. Any downtime on fire systems will all be risk-assessed and mitigated for as best you can before it is switched off.

Your only real hope is to prevent a fire; as proven here, if you get one which gets established, you are pretty well stuffed given the open access during refits. It's more a case of apply the current rules which usually work, better education, and yes, proper supervision by Dockyard supervisors based on risk-assessments backed up by random spot checks. All should happen anyway. Of course, all adds to the cost so, where refits are bid on a commercial basis, maybe corners will be cut on supervision for example. Ultimately, unless a genuine accident (equipment failure or similar), such events are due to people not doing what they should do and, has been recently implied in the Karachi crash thread, if you make something idiot-proof, a bigger idiot will simply come along and see that as a personal challenge!!!

'Sides, we've only been doing this Refits thingy since the early 1500's so bound to be some teething problems with it! :ok:

SLXOwft

27th Jul 2020, 18:51

Looks like Adm. Gilday is getting Administration backup in his determination to get the USN's house in order.

“Could there be another Bonhomme Richard waiting to happen? If you go back to 2017, who would have predicted we’d have had two collisions of that magnitude within a month?” Gilday said in a July 16 interview with Defense News. “So, I’m not waiting for ‘No. 2’ to decide we have a trend here. In a situation like this, one incident is enough for me to determine that there could be a trend and I’m not going to leave it to chance that there might be.”

In a letter to shipbuilders and contractors on Friday, James Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) is reported by Defense News as saying ""Anyone who steps aboard our ships must be ever vigilant about ensuring fire safety, I urge you to use [the recent fire] to ensure that our work spaces are clean, that unnecessary clutter is removed, that all fire safety measures are being followed and that there is unrestricted access to firefighting and damage control equipment."

The Navy has launched dual investigations into the fire: A safety investigation, which are generally not released to the public so that witnesses can feel free to speak openly, and a more formal administrative investigation, which generally comes with disciplinary recommendations and are releasable to the public.
Source: DefenseNews 25JUL2020

Full text of article here:
a far-reaching crackdown on fire safety (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/25/after-the-us-navys-bonhomme-richard-catastrophe-a-far-reaching-crackdown-on-fire-safety/)

Hot 'n' High

27th Jul 2020, 22:06

Looks like Adm. Gilday is getting Administration backup in his determination to get the USN's house in order.

Full text of article here:
a far-reaching crackdown on fire safety (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/25/after-the-us-navys-bonhomme-richard-catastrophe-a-far-reaching-crackdown-on-fire-safety/)

Yep! Do your job! No magic here - just do what you should do. Clearly, if there are more lessons to be learned, fine. Lets learn but, the above points at "complacency" rather than new lessons. Good "Starter for 10"!

West Coast

27th Aug 2020, 01:24

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36028/navy-investigation-into-uss-bonhomme-richard-fire-now-has-an-arson-suspect-report?fbclid=IwAR0BPOX-8YhjvNQXQk70JAeFAFl7DsICzBtbsVHbof2Y3V4V8LMjobsYz_U

May have been arson

BEagle

27th Aug 2020, 08:14

TBM-Legend

27th Aug 2020, 08:37

And there was this is days of old when a sailor set fire to a hangar full of 12 RAN S-2E Trackers and nine destroyed with the hangar:

https://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/4338557/40-years-on-massive-albatross-fire-remembered-photos/

West Coast

27th Aug 2020, 15:37

Until the law was repealed in 1971, the crime of 'committing arson in HM dockyard' was the last offence in the UK for which the death penalty was still available.

If arson is proven to have been committed by that unnamed sailor, West Coast, what sentence could he/she face?

No idea Beags.

The USS Miami was a Nuke attack boat, a civilian worker intentionally started a fire on it as he wanted to go home early. Below is extracted from the wiki entry about the boat.

“civilian painter and sandblaster Casey J. Fury was indicted on two counts of arson after confessing to starting the fire. Fury admitted to setting it by igniting some rags on the top bunk of a bunk room. He claimed to have started it in order to get out of work early.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Miami_(SSN-755)#cite_note-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Miami_(SSN-755)#cite_note-11)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Miami_(SSN-755)#cite_note-12)[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Miami_(SSN-755)#cite_note-13) On 15 March 2013, he was sentenced to more than 17 years in federal prison and ordered to pay $400 million in restitution.”

Asturias56

27th Aug 2020, 18:12

"ordered to pay $400 million in restitution"

Why do they add such things to the sentence - he'll never have $ 4 mm never mind $ 400 mm

tdracer

27th Aug 2020, 18:36

"ordered to pay $400 million in restitution"

Why do they add such things to the sentence - he'll never have $ 4 mm never mind $ 400 mm
While I doubt it would be applicable in this case, some criminals have received multi-million dollar book and/or movie contracts for telling the story of their crimes. This practice is particularly galling to the victims and their families (it is somewhat common for mass-murders/rapists).
Such orders basically make sure the criminal will never financially benefit from their crimes.

Chu Chu

27th Aug 2020, 20:18

Hope the investigation's better than the one on the Iowa turret explosion . . .

layman

1st Dec 2020, 05:03

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940302619/navy-will-dismantle-uss-bonhomme-richard

Seemingly not mentioned elsewhere on pprune

USS Bonhomme Richard to be decommissioned. It was estimated that restoring the ship would cost $3 Billion while re-purposing would take $1 Billion.

ORAC

1st Dec 2020, 05:42

Also here in USNI News

https://news.usni.org/2020/11/30/navy-will-scrap-uss-bonhomme-richard

Navy Will Scrap USS Bonhomme Richard

.....“After thorough consideration, the secretary of the Navy and the chief of naval operations have decided to decommission the Bonhomme Richard due to the extensive damage sustained during that July fire. In the weeks and months since that fire, the Navy conducted a comprehensive material assessment to determine the best path forward for that ship and our Navy,” he said.

Three main options were considered: rebuild and restore the ship to its original function of moving Marines and their gear around for amphibious warfare; rebuild the ship to a new configuration for a new mission, such as a submarine or surface ship tender or a hospital ship; or decommission and scrap the ship.

Ver Hage said restoring Bonhomme Richard to its original form would have cost between $2.5 billion and $3.2 billion and taken five to seven years. That work would have taken place in the Gulf Coast, he said.

Rebuilding the ship for a new purpose would have cost “in excess of a billion dollars” and also taken about five to seven years. Though cheaper than rebuilding to the original configuration, Ver Hage said it would be cheaper to just design and build a new tender or hospital ship from scratch.

Decommissioning the ship – and the inactivation, harvesting of parts, towing and scrapping the hull – will cost about $30 million and take just nine to 12 months.

“Examining those three courses of action, we reached the conclusion that we needed to decommission the platform,” he said.....

The Navy will now be down an amphibious assault ship – and one that had been recently upgraded to accommodate the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter – which will be a blow to operators. However, Ver Hage said the comprehensive assessments looked at what would happen to the industrial base and new ship construction for the fleet if the Navy opted to rebuild Bonhomme Richard, and the price – not in dollars, but in burden on the industrial base – was too great to justify.......

Ver Hage did not want to comment on what this could mean for future Navy procurement and trying to insert another amphibious assault ship to help replace Bonhomme Richard.

He said the current America-class LHAs cost about $4.1 billion apiece and that Ingalls Shipbuilding has a hot production line, simply saying that the Navy is in a good place for LHA construction for now.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Dec 2020, 16:20

Well that's disappointing. :( (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/11/30/navy-will-decommission-fire-damaged-bonhomme-richard.html?ESRC=navy-a_201202.nl)

They'll need to commission a new Bonnie Dick soon, though.
Kind of an important bit of USN heritage there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bonhomme_Richard_(1765)).

There have been three ships to bear that name.

etudiant

2nd Dec 2020, 22:26

Asturias56

3rd Dec 2020, 07:29

"It seems obvious that the US Navy fleet is poorly prepared for on board fires.. ......................... The Bonnie Dick showed what happens when a fire happens under other than USN conditions."

Those two statements are a bit contradictory - as you say when the fire happened she wasn't under USN control..............

lancs

3rd Dec 2020, 13:09

Quite, she wasn't under USN control, so normal USN active suppression was not available, and neither was passive suppression through design / build...

sandiego89

3rd Dec 2020, 19:39

No mention of a 'lessons learned' panel unfortunately.
It seems obvious that the US Navy fleet is poorly prepared for on board fires. The USN apparently relies on active crew intervention to block the fire from spreading. The concept of passive fire retardation seems to be unknown.
So the wiring remains flammable, the ducting remains large and generously supplied with oxygen and the crew is expected to block the ducts when fires arise.
The Bonnie Dick showed what happens when a fire happens under other than USN conditions. Not sure anyone is listening however.

As others have alluded, you are contradicting yourself and jumping to conclusions about shipboard fires. The ship was in a major dock period, with a skeleton active duty crew aboard, wide open with poor compartmentalization (miles of cable through hatches and scuttles that can't be easily closed), tons or material that would not normally be aboard, or be openly stored the way it was, if the ship was at sea , key systems were shut down or inoperable... Numerous comments have already been made that the fire would likely have been easier to contain, isolate and fight if the ship had been fully manned, operational and at sea.

Were mistakes made and lesson learned? Absolutely. Are vessels difficult to design, build and upgrade for maximum fire protection, while still being affordable? Yes. Can we jump to all your conclusions? No

Lonewolf_50

3rd Dec 2020, 20:19

It seems obvious that the US Navy fleet is poorly prepared for on board fires. .
On behalf of two men with whom I served - Kirk Lippold (USS Cole) and Paul Rinn (USS Samuel B. Roberts) - you ought not to speak where you have no knowledge.

etudiant

3rd Dec 2020, 22:28

The issue is not whether a fully operational ship could have dealt with this fire, but rather that the system obviously was very vulnerable, with no passive fire resistance to speak of.
Obviously periods of construction are periods on extra vulnerability, even the Notre Dame experience underlines that.
Similarly, many years ago the TVA lost a nearly complete nuclear facility because a workman using a candle to check for air leaks ignited wire runs in otherwise sealed channels.
I believe the nuclear industry changed its standards, but obviously the USN did not. Flammable wiring in a warship is a poor idea imho, even if it is cheaper. Non flammable or self extinguishing insulation is not new.
Counting on the crew to throw themselves into the breach created by poor specifications seems wrong.

NutLoose

3rd Dec 2020, 23:34

I agree with you.
It does seem odd in a modern warship that is filled with electrics and electronics and reliant upon those systems to survive they skimp on the wiring which is in essence the circulatory system of the ship. One potential hit in an area that may be minor in the scheme of things could potentially disable the ship and all its protection and offensive capability. The fire has shown how not only can it cause untold secondary damage, but it can in effect write the ship off.

NutLoose

6th Dec 2020, 00:13

https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/prism/prism_8-3/prism_8-3_Obering_36-46.pdf

Kiltrash

6th Dec 2020, 09:59

Everything including safety hss a price, depends how much you are prepared to spend.
There are "things' that you design to be 'safe' however when it goes wrong lessons need learning, Kings Cross, Grenfell, BA38, Challenger, Valley Parade for example. Improvements are made
I remember a re fit I was involved in and we had Fire Wardens 24/7 even though the fire systems were not offline. For the cost of a bit of man power everyone slept better

West Coast

6th Dec 2020, 18:42

Asturias56

7th Dec 2020, 11:08

Everyone is entitled to an opinion - after all didn't Lord Melbourne say

"What all the wise men promised has not happened and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass"

etudiant

7th Dec 2020, 14:16

You seem to offer up opinions on a wide range of military topics. Care to share your background?

Just a Navy League lifer trying to make sense of things.
Refits are particularly dangerous efforts, think of the Normandie burning in NY harbor or Notre Dame getting refurbished. Does anyone even remember?
In this case, clearly responsibility for fire safety was diffused, as the ship was in the hands of the contractor, albeit in a naval facility.
But no contractor actions gave the fire the fuel to fry the island, afaik, that was there by design. .

Asturias56

16th Apr 2021, 15:12

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/04/15/navy-decommissions-fire-damaged-uss-bonhomme-richard.html

15 Apr 2021
The Associated Press | By The Associated Press (https://www.military.com/author/associated-press) SAN DIEGO — The U.S. Navy (https://www.military.com/navy) on Wednesday decommissioned the USS Bonhomme Richard docked off San Diego nine months after flames engulfed it in one of the worst U.S. warship fires outside of combat in recent memory. The ceremony at Naval Base San Diego was not open to the public, with the Navy citing concerns over the spread of the coronavirus.

The amphibious assault ship is expected to be towed to a ship yard in Texas for dismantling. The ship that ignited July 12 burned for four days and was left with extensive structural, electrical and mechanical damage. A Navy official said arson was believed to be the cause.

The Navy estimated that repairing the ship would run more than $2.5 billion. Dismantling the ship is expected to cost about $30 million.

sandiego89

16th Apr 2021, 18:36

I am sure in fine Navy tradition they painted her before the decommissioning and scrapping....on a more serious note a significant impact to the LHD/LHA fleet and schedules with her decommissioning, and others getting lengthy upgrades. I noted 2 LHD's in the yard on way into work today on the East Coast, I am sure the fire watches must be quite robust.

uffington sb

30th Jul 2021, 03:54

US sailor charged over massive USS Bonhomme warship blaze in 2020 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58021390

NutLoose

30th Jul 2021, 10:21

Crikey, I would hate to think the fine if found guilty.

Ninthace

30th Jul 2021, 12:10

Crikey, I would hate to think the fine if found guilty.
If guilty, perhaps they should find a deep dank dungeon and an amnesiac keyholder.

Video Mixdown

30th Jul 2021, 12:27

Crikey, I would hate to think the fine if found guilty.
Oh he can go to the chair for that.

10 U.S Code § 910 - Art. 110. Improper hazarding of vessel or aircraft.
(a) Willful and Wrongful Hazarding.
Any person subject to this chapter who, willfully and wrongfully, hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel or aircraft of the armed forces shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

sandiego89

30th Jul 2021, 16:58

If the dock half the sailors monthly pay, that will take a loooonnnngggg time to pay it off.....

SASless

30th Jul 2021, 17:57

My old outfit and the ATF are the lead investigators of the fire.

I sure hope they do a better job on this one than they did on the USS Iowa Turret Explosion and a couple of other notable investigations.

Updated article:

https://news.usni.org/2021/07/29/navy-charges-bonhomme-richard-sailor-in-devastating-2020-fire-of-amphibious-assault-ship#more-87630

.

NutLoose

30th Jul 2021, 21:38

I’d love to know the evidence, after such a fire you’re going to have to really struggle to find the cause, yes you might find the base of the fire and whatever set it off, but to try and nail that down to one person in the ship has got to be bloody hard, I would imagine several have an access to the area and I wonder what evidence is there to pinpoint one person, heck you’ve got the civilian construction crews plus the Navy personnel on the ship.

SASless

30th Jul 2021, 23:01

Arson on ships is not a new thing and in the past NCIS Agents were given excellent training re investigating such events and the Navy put a very high emphasis upon the importance of solving those cases.

The ATF also are very good at those kinds of investigations.

The Forensic Evidence in a fire of this magnitude and intensity shall be very hard to secure.

As Nutty notes the human side of the investigation probably shall provide the most useful information.

Reportedly, there were less. than two hundred Sailors aboard the Ship as it was undergoing repair and modifications in the Yard thus the majority of the people aboard the Ship were civilian yard workers.

Identifying possible suspects would require quite a bit of gardening to develop information that might offer some insight into a motive and also show opportunity once the general area of the origin of the fire was determined.

Those not involved but aboard the ship could upon being interviewed would surface some names and Watch Assignments would identify yet more names....and after that it is just eliminating possible suspects till you have but a few to carefully consider.

I am curious as to what information was found that revealed it was a case of Arson and not an accidental fire.

ORAC

5th Aug 2021, 07:32

https://nypost.com/2021/08/04/seal-training-dropout-ryan-mays-accused-of-torching-uss-bonhomme-richard/

‘Bipolar’ SEAL training dropout Ryan Mays accused of torching USS Bonhomme Richard

etudiant

5th Aug 2021, 21:23

https://nypost.com/2021/08/04/seal-training-dropout-ryan-mays-accused-of-torching-uss-bonhomme-richard/

‘Bipolar’ SEAL training dropout Ryan Mays accused of torching USS Bonhomme Richard

Just thinking that the guy who should be in the dock is the person who gave the psychiatric evaluation for this man, who was clearly not well.

ORAC

19th Oct 2021, 21:56

https://twitter.com/USNINews/status/1450513804052283396

NutLoose

19th Oct 2021, 22:10

Wow, good to see a no holds barred, regardless of rank accountability, we could do with some of that in the U.K.

Conn singled out 36 individuals, including five admirals, who were responsible for the loss of the ship due to either their actions on July 12 or lack of oversight leading up to the alleged arson.

In his investigation, Vice Adm. Scott Conn identified 36 individuals who contributed to the loss of USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) on July 12, 2020. U.S. Pacific Command commander Adm. Sam Paparo will now determine further punishments and accountability actions for the loss of the ship.

Bengo

20th Oct 2021, 13:49

Wow, good to see a no holds barred, regardless of rank accountability, we could do with some of that in the U.K.

C'est un bonne chose, de temps a temps, a tirer un admiraux pour encouragé les Autres.

Or something similar, after Admiral Byng.

N

Fortissimo

20th Oct 2021, 17:25

Wow, good to see a no holds barred, regardless of rank accountability, we could do with some of that in the U.K.

On the face of it, perhaps, but only if you want to follow the Blame Society route. What is the incentive now for anyone to tell the truth to an investigation? The cause of the fire was allegedly arson, and this investigation reeks of hindsight bias. Finding fault with people all the way up the chain whose actions would have been acceptable but for a deliberately started catastrophic fire seems unusually 'holier than thou'. There may well have been shortcomings in individual responses, but the inevitable consequence of this attitude to responsibility will be the absence of any form of delegation and the need for people at all levels to become inextricably entwined in detail.

I am reminded of a Bulldog accident some years ago when the aircraft hit a wall during a forced landing after the engine stopped. The cause of the engine failure was loss of oil pressure, and that was because all the oil had departed via a sump plug that had been poorly secured during maintenance; the Board found the cause to be Aircrew Error (remember those days?) because the QFI screwed up the forced landing! Nonsense, I think we might agree. And without wishing to reopen the Mull debate, regardless of failings at senior levels (Chug's beloved VSOs) there were plenty of people in the Mull chain who did their jobs to the best of their ability but would probably have been found culpable by the sort of investigation conducted by the USN here. Echoes too of the RAF's 1970s policy whereby station commanders were fired for an accident on their unit even when it was plainly for circumstances beyond their control (technical failure, birdstrike etc.).

There is a USN institutional/organisational issue here, but this investigation seems to have been determined to find someone to punish rather than ensure the lessons are learned by the whole fleet. It will be very interesting to see exactly what lessons are learned, and by whom. All I can say is that I am glad the investigation system in the UK (AAIB and MAIB) does not work this way.

SLXOwft

20th Oct 2021, 19:08

From line one of the USNI report of the investigation's findings onwards, it's is clear it was a systemic failure leading to 'an inability to extinguish the fire'. I infer that failure was caused by those at many levels of the chain of command failing to discharge their duties including ensuring their juniors were aware of, and capable of performing theirs. To me that smacks of the VSOs tolerating a slack safety culture. It remains to be seen if punishment is inflicted at the top and corrective training lower down.
A cascade of failures – from a junior enlisted sailor not recognizing a fire at the end of their duty watch to fundamental problems with how the U.S. Navy trains sailors to fight fires in shipyards – are responsible for the five-day blaze that cost the service an amphibious warship

Although the fire was started by an act of arson, the ship was lost due to an inability to extinguish the fire,” Conn wrote in his investigation, which was completed in April and reviewed by USNI News this week.
“In the 19 months executing the ship’s maintenance availability, repeated failures allowed for the accumulation of significant risk and an inadequately prepared crew, which led to an ineffective fire response.”

The training and readiness of the ship’s crew were deficient. They were unprepared to respond. Integration between the ship and supporting shore-based firefighting organizations was inadequate

Trite I know, 'fail to prepare and you prepare to fail'. It would appear there was a failure to keep damage control training and awareness up to the appropriate levels and standards proscribed. Complacency kills and looses ships. The USN Damage Controlman training used to, and I expect still does include instuctions to practice in port damage control scenarios. I don't know if this regularly includes preparing for maintenance periods with minimal crew.

NutLoose

20th Oct 2021, 19:21

I am amazed the RAF were still using the sump plugs in the Bulldog, most light stuff replace them with a quick push drain that is a permanent fit in the sump plug hole between overhauls. Though I do know of one failure, on retracts the push bit pulls off and is clipped to the firewall, one company fitting a new engine and with out thinking fitted a normal push drain as there is lots of clearance around the engine….. or there was until it took off retracted the gear and the leg pushed the drain open…. One forced landing later and another engine change..

Anyway, sorry for the thread drift.

You mention the Station Commander can lose his job over an incident, it happens in civi street too, I believe I know of one case of an accountable manager who lost his as he was prosecuted following an incident, even though he didn’t even work on the same site, but couldn’t hold the position with a conviction.

It does appear all the holes sadly lined up and resulted in the loss of the ship.

…

Asturias56

21st Oct 2021, 07:24

" fundamental problems with how the U.S. Navy trains sailors to fight fires in shipyards "

When they make up the list of training tasks I'll bet that comes near the bottom in terms of chance of occurrence

But its much the same in Civvie Street - how many buildings burn down when they are under repair? Windsor Castle, the art gallery in Glasgow (twice), the opera house in Venice (twice), a couple of office blocks I've worked in in London.................

ORAC

21st Oct 2021, 09:14

Notre Dame cathedral…

RAFEngO74to09

21st Oct 2021, 12:51

USN Official report & endorsement / actions:

For Release Major Fires Review (18 Oct 21).pdf (navy.mil) (https://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/HotTopics/BHR%20and%20MFR%20Investigations/For%20Release%20Major%20Fires%20Review%20(19%20Oct%2021).pdf )

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/HotTopics/BHR and MFR Investigations/For Release BHR Command Investigation (20 Oct 21).pdf (https://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/HotTopics/BHR%20and%20MFR%20Investigations/For%20Release%20BHR%20Command%20Investigation%20(20%20Oct%20 21).pdf)

Old-Duffer

21st Oct 2021, 16:34

Burnt Down - HQ Training Command (Brampton) autumn 1985 whilst being repainted!!!

OD

tdracer

21st Oct 2021, 18:04

When they make up the list of training tasks I'll bet that comes near the bottom in terms of chance of occurrence

Yea, but I'd bet they were all up to date in the diversity and inclusion training.
Got to make sure you prioritize the important stuff. :rolleyes:

etudiant

21st Oct 2021, 22:04

Notre Dame cathedral…

Spot on!! Thumbs up

Asturias56

22nd Oct 2021, 07:29

Suspect D&I was immediately above "Dockyard Fires"...................

I guess on the issues with "repair" fires is that often the regular crew/clergy/galleristas/royalty/office drones aren't there - just a bunch of guys from outside fixing things and that's their priority. HSE has probably gone on holiday as well

NutLoose

22nd Oct 2021, 12:41

https://news.usni.org/2021/10/21/navy-board-set-to-improve-fire-safety-after-report-finds-sailors-unprepared-to-fight-blazes-in-port

After losing an amphibious warship to a fire, the Navy will elevate the head of service safety to a two-star billet and create a new oversight board meant to improve fire safety throughout the fleet.

In response to findings from a Navy investigation into the fire aboard the former USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) and multiple fires aboard other ships in the last few years, the service will have the elevated two-star billet take charge of the non-nuclear surface force safety standards and report directly to the Chief of Naval Operations, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Lescher told reporters on Wednesday.

In addition, Lescher has established an oversight board to help identify changes to improve the fire safety posture of the service.

Two's in

22nd Oct 2021, 17:36

Lonewolf_50

22nd Oct 2021, 21:19

https://news.usni.org/2021/10/21/navy-board-set-to-improve-fire-safety-after-report-finds-sailors-unprepared-to-fight-blazes-in-port
Life is a funny old dog, Nutty.
Bill Lescher was the CO of the USS Inchon, based in Ingleside Texas, around the time it had a fire in 2001.
I guess he may know a thing or two about amphibs and fires. (I do not remember if it was before or after the Change of Command though).
Hadn't realized he's still serving until I read this article. (Getting a bit long in the tooth, he is, but VCNO's a nice final tour).
Helicopter pilot. All around good egg.

SLXOwft

9th Feb 2022, 17:19

The investigation appears to be having concrete results with the Naval Safety Center being upgraded to the 2* Naval Safety Command which reports directly to the CNO.

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2924066/naval-safety-command-established/

The CNO Adm Mike Gilday has not been pulling his punches:

“We are not operating to our full potential. Over these last few years, I think we have learned some hard truths about ourselves,” Gilday said in a speech broadcast to the Surface Navy Association symposium.“We have seen examples of significant organizational drift – instances of unsatisfactory unit performance, late completion of shipyard maintenance availabilities and failure to deliver game-changing, innovative technologies and concepts at pace.”

Gilday highlighted the inconsistency in performance from unit to unit. Those faults contributed to public failures, like the 2020 fire aboard the former USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6), which showed that sailors and their commanders weren’t ready to fight a fire on a ship undergoing maintenance.

https://news.usni.org/2022/01/11/cno-blames-culture-of-poor-self-assessment-for-major-navy-problems-swoboss-unveils-new-surface-vision

“The gap between our most and least capable performers is too large. There is unacceptable variability in our performance. This variability cuts across different units, organizations, and communities, both at sea and ashore,” Gilday said.
“At the lowest end of the performance spectrum, we see tragic results like the Bonhomme Richard fire – along with 14 other major fire events in the last 12 years and excessive cost and schedule overruns in key acquisition programs.”

Gilday’s proposed fix is to have commanders and sailors be more realistic about their performance and not ignore or minimize problems.

“The solution lies in focusing on how we can be more self-assessing and self-correcting so that we identify problems before they grow into larger, more systemic issues,” Gilday said.
“Every Navy leader must be ruthlessly honest in how they self-assess and understand their unit’s performance. They have to act boldly and embrace professional risk, elevate problems, welcome transparency, clearly articulate their challenges and leave their egos at the door. If our performance is not as good as we thought, we do not hide our assessment or ‘keep it inside the lifelines.’”

Part of that effort will be to install a two-star – who reports directly to the CNO – in charge of the emerging Navy Safety Command. Creating this new position is one of the recommendations from the Major Fires Review report following the Bonhomme Richard fire investigation. Gilday also alluded to coming Navy organizational changes that will contribute to the cultural shift.

“The critical imperative here is that the self-assessment culture and tools must be widely adopted across the Navy. I expect every sailor to adopt this mindset. Anything less would shortchange our team and our teammates,” he said.

https://news.usni.org/2022/01/11/cno-blames-culture-of-poor-self-assessment-for-major-navy-problems-swoboss-unveils-new-surface-vision

<pre-emptive strike> There are plenty of aviation focused items on NAVSAFECOM (https://navalsafetycommand.navy.mil/)website e.g. "One of the most common things we see at the Naval Safety Center, when it comes to aviation ground mishaps (AGM), is aircraft being damaged during an aircraft move. There are several factors that contribute to aircraft move mishaps, but in most cases it is complacency and lack of oversight by highly experienced senior leaders. So how can we reduce the number of aircraft damaged during a move? It all starts with an effective aircraft move brief." https://navalsafetycommand.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/2900133/blog-how-to-create-an-effective-aircraft-movement-brief/ </pre-emptive strike>