Fire - USS Bonhomme Richard LHD-6 - 12 Jul 20
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.a...mbered-photos/
https://www.southcoastregister.com.a...mbered-photos/
Until the law was repealed in 1971, the crime of 'committing arson in HM dockyard' was the last offence in the UK for which the death penalty was still available.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?
If arson is proven to have been committed by that unnamed sailor, West Coast, what sentence could he/she face?
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][11][12][13] On 15 March 2013, he was sentenced to more than 17 years in federal prison and ordered to pay $400 million in restitution.”
"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
Why do they add such things to the sentence - he'll never have $ 4 mm never mind $ 400 mm
Such orders basically make sure the criminal will never financially benefit from their crimes.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/94030...nhomme-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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Also here in USNI News
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/30/nav...nhomme-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.
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/30/nav...nhomme-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.
Well that's disappointing. 
They'll need to commission a new Bonnie Dick soon, though.
Kind of an important bit of USN heritage there.
There have been three ships to bear that name.
They'll need to commission a new Bonnie Dick soon, though.
Kind of an important bit of USN heritage there.
There have been three ships to bear that name.
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.
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.
"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..............
Those two statements are a bit contradictory - as you say when the fire happened she wasn't under USN control..............
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,946
Received 2,852 Likes
on
1,220 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,946
Received 2,852 Likes
on
1,220 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
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"
"What all the wise men promised has not happened and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass"
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. .