Army.ca Forums

The Mess => Foreign Militaries => US Military => Topic started by: dapaterson on July 12, 2020, 15:54:32

Title: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: dapaterson on July 12, 2020, 15:54:32
More views of the #fire burning now on board US #Navy amphibious ship USS #BONHOMME RICHARD LHD6 at 32nd Street Naval Station in San Diego. Reports so far indicate 3 sailors, 1 SDFD fireman injured. At the moment the fire seems to be growing

https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/1282380677653176320

Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CloudCover on July 12, 2020, 15:58:03
Live feed of fire: https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/uss-bonhomme-richard-on-fire-at-naval-base-san-diego/509-6aec1280-f709-4e88-b9ee-2d393f942467
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 12, 2020, 16:08:05
Look where the fire-tugs are directing their water for boundary: Below the hangar deck. That is not a good sign - it would be a fire below the hangar.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CBH99 on July 12, 2020, 16:13:13
Ouch...

Was just watching the live feed...

Was hoping the smoke would lessen, and then that super black smoke just started erupting near the rear of the ship.  Genuinely wishing God speed for all of them - serious looking situation 
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 12, 2020, 16:23:02
The live feed does not paint an optimistic picture.  They have a major zone fire that appears to pretty much seems to be running 2/3 of the ship's length and involve multiple decks.

With the ship obviously under refit (see the sea cans and cranes on deck), it makes me wonder how many fitted systems were out of commission and how many water tight doors have been blocked open with temporary exhaust trunking, etc.  That would make it very challenging to isolate the fire(s) and establish any kind of boundary.

They will be lucky to save her, at this point, I think.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Brihard on July 12, 2020, 16:29:20
Jesus. That’s bad news. Reddit’s got people updating from emergency services scanners. Sounds like below the waterline, out of control, several explosions, all crew accounted for, and they’re trying to get other nearby vessels underway. All in all, bad signs. https://www.reddit.com/r/navy/comments/hpxodt/lhd_6_uss_bonhomme_richard_on_fire_in_san_diego/

LHD-6 Carries 6 fixed wing, 12 Ospreys, an assortment of other rotary wing, and around 1600 Marines. This is a big asset to lose.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2020, 16:31:34
Are they just trying to keep it cool?  Looks like they are spraying the side of it...
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CBH99 on July 12, 2020, 16:38:31
I was asking myself that same question Bruce, as the one tug on the bottom right (When I was watching a while ago) was just spraying the side of it.  Didn't look to be getting water in any of the openings.

I assumed that was for a reason   :dunno:
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 12, 2020, 16:38:52
Are they just trying to keep it cool?  Looks like they are spraying the side of it...

the fire boats are just there as a boundary- in other words, their job is to keep the hull plates cool enough so they do not lose structural integrity or so the paint doesn't light off and start an external fire. They are not there to put out the fire.  That is happening from the inside with some combination of fitted system and actual fire-fighters with hoses trying to put out the fire.  It is about the worst time you can ever be onboard a ship.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Brihard on July 12, 2020, 16:57:17
From fire scanners, a whole bunch of sailors fled the pier, made mention of the fire reaching the fuel lines, and at around that time the smoke got darker.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 12, 2020, 17:00:44
The Reddit post, sort the comments by new: https://www.reddit.com/r/navy/comments/hpxodt/lhd_6_uss_bonhomme_richard_on_fire_in_san_diego/?sort=new

The live feed on facebook (hel appears to have gone to refuel, image switched to a fixed camera feed ) has the expected shitshow commentary from the confidently ignorant drowning out those who know enough to try and correct the recurring misconceptions: https://www.facebook.com/ABC10News/videos/737711026963921/?v=737711026963921
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Colin P on July 12, 2020, 18:50:36
They are moving other ships away from it. Sounds like they may try the automatic systems and hope for the best and if not let it burn itself out. I am guessing weekend duty watch in port is going to be busy with drills using this scenario for awhile.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: dapaterson on July 12, 2020, 19:00:00
They are moving other ships away from it. Sounds like they may try the automatic systems and hope for the best and if not let it burn itself out. I am guessing weekend duty watch in port is going to be busy with drills using this scenario for awhile.

Can someone explain to a non-sailor why automatic systems aren't the default go-to approach?
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Brihard on July 12, 2020, 19:24:55
Can someone explain to a non-sailor why automatic systems aren't the default go-to approach?
.

Just from reading a bunch of sailors on Reddit they may not have been in service due to the yard work going on. Similarly, a lot of the hatches that help compartmentalism such disasters may have been open with venting and hoses running through them...
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 12, 2020, 19:50:37
By definition, automatic systems are the default go-to: They kick in automatically. Fitted systems remotely operated may or may not be used immediately - it's a command decision.

However, wether we are talking of automatic systems or fitted systems, many such systems are disabled during refits, just as many of the hatches and watertight doors are in a state where they cannot be operated. Refits are always very dangerous times onboard a warship, with many potential and actual incidents, accidents ... and disasters just waiting to happen.

The good news, if that is possible, is that being in refit, her airplanes and marines would have been landed and any tank not being worked on would likely have been topped up (I know, counter-intuitive, but a filled AVGAS or Diesel tank is less dangerous than an empty or near empty one, where the fumes are highly explosive).
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CloudCover on July 12, 2020, 21:05:49
Her state and status, until this morning, was  “in-service 30 day maintenance availability period”, not “refit” but whether that makes any difference about whether hatches are propped open and tanks full I really don’t know.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Brihard on July 12, 2020, 21:36:37
Her state and status, until this morning, was  “in-service 30 day maintenance availability period”, not “refit” but whether that makes any difference about whether hatches are propped open and tanks full I really don’t know.

Is that basically ‘30 days notice to move’?

Lots of equipment on her flight deck. I don’t know what such a maintenance period entails, but probably a fair bit of work.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 12, 2020, 21:41:23
This is what happens when troops use hot plates.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 12, 2020, 21:44:07
17 sailors are injured a nd 4 civvies I guess the fire is ongoing despite that it started at 9am PST. Glad there havent been any serious injuries. The USN has always prided itself on damage control.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/fire-uss-bonhomme-richard-naval-base-san-diego
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Chris Pook on July 12, 2020, 21:56:06
If she's at "notice to move" rather than at "refit", would her magazines be empty?
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Colin P on July 12, 2020, 22:01:22
One report said yes they are empty
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 12, 2020, 22:15:11
Keep the foam around the fuel tanks or a long refit will be in order.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CloudCover on July 12, 2020, 22:30:29
It doesn’t mean notice to move.  They can put all those trailers and equipment on and off in an afternoon.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Colin P on July 12, 2020, 22:57:03
News conference  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k0u9149f40
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 12, 2020, 23:48:11
Found the bio of Radm Sobeck.

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=1073
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CloudCover on July 13, 2020, 00:59:42
News conference  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k0u9149f40

Good catch:


- No ammunition
- 1,000,000 gals fuel not in vicinity of fire;
- "Shipyard work" was being done;
- Ships company fighting the fire along with FFS and SDFD.
- Training for firefighting in USN starts on day 1 of Bootcamp. 'Doing the Business"
- Agent on the fire- they've likely identified the main source and are putting it out;
- "Ash fire" Office spaces and berthing compartments primarily affected along with the V deck (where it started).

 
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 13, 2020, 10:26:48
There is video of uncontrolled fire in the island superstructure.  It was so hot that the masts have melted and are leaning.  The ship has taken on a pronounce list. Overnight, they were also using helicopters to Bambi bucket loads of water onto the fire.  That speaks of desperation.

I would say she is finished as a fighting unit.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Brihard on July 13, 2020, 10:29:36
The morning update describes ‘defensive’ firefighting. I have separately seen reference to ‘offensive’ firefighting. I’m interpreting that as they’re just trying to hold ground right now.

If they’re dumping from helicopters, that suggests against there being firefighter crews below...
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 13, 2020, 10:32:04
That language suggests they are merely holding what boundaries they have, but are not putting any attack teams on the fire.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: MilEME09 on July 13, 2020, 11:09:44
That language suggests they are merely holding what boundaries they have, but are not putting any attack teams on the fire.

For you navy types, what would need to change for them to go from defensive to offensive fire fighting? Aren't they risking serious structural damage the longer this goes on?
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 13, 2020, 11:16:29
That kind of contained heat for over 24 hours?   Even if the structure was saved I can't see the metal being of any value strength wise.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 13, 2020, 11:54:41
That kind of contained heat for over 24 hours?   Even if the structure was saved I can't see the metal being of any value strength wise.

Yep.  All of the steel in the fire zone will likely be compromised.  At some point, it is simply cheaper to scrap a ship and build new than to refit after a fire.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 13, 2020, 12:05:47
Cdr Salamander (a USN blogger) is reporting that BHR has a 33 degree list and in his opinion, she is a total loss.  The USN will be lucky at this point if she doesn't roll over at the jetty.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Navy_Pete on July 13, 2020, 12:18:05
For you navy types, what would need to change for them to go from defensive to offensive fire fighting? Aren't they risking serious structural damage the longer this goes on?

Offensive fire fighting would be using attack teams to actually put water directly onto the fire, but in this case it's a big huge furnace, so not really feasible, and would probably just keep spreading around the ship if they tried.  Usually that only works at the beginning when the fire is growing; once it gets to a certain size it's too big you can't get enough cooling on there with a single hose team. Lots of spaces won't have fitted systems either, so really depends where it starts on whether that was an option.

Defensive firefighting is basically closing a box around it and cooling the outside with water (like the firetugs are doing; officially known as boundary cooling). It's to limit the spread and hopefully let it burn itself out; really a huge challenge when a ship is undgergoing repairs as you have hoses running all over the place and can include removal of big doors and hatches to get big equipment in and out, so watertight integrity can be shot. Even with everything shut down properly when it's that hot fires will spread into adjacent compartments just from normal heat transfer through the ceiling, walls (and wiring, piping etc). It's can get pretty ugly.

If you are onto defensive fire fighting it means that it's just not safe to put crews in there. With it burning that long there has already been serious damage to some parts of the structure, but possibly easier to repair if it's mostly above the water line. Assuming it's starting to list from all the FF water, which is definitely an issue with extended fires on ships.

Generally a really bad day, but sounds like everyone got off safely at the start, so that's really a best case scenario for a fire this big. Aside from fire damage, there will be remote damage from smoke/water, plus stress to other bits of structure, but they may fix it anyway as a point of pride. Anyway, no one died, so pretty lucky.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CloudCover on July 13, 2020, 13:05:18
Another live feed: constant buckets from helo's.  It appears the parts of the superstructure have collapsed, and there are a few pics out there of flames totally engulfing the bridge decks now.  So it has burned quite extensively.

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/5-hospitalized-dozens-need-medical-treatment-as-navy-ship-burns-for-2nd-day/
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 13, 2020, 13:07:59
I am surprised that the fire hasnt been put out. At this rate the ship will be fit only for the scrapyard.
Commander Salamander has a link to a civvie mariner video across from BHR.

https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/

There are a few observations that have been top of mind over the last day.

1. We were not ready for the inevitable: I don’t care if it were a Sunday, the Navy was MIA from the information flow as one of our nation’s premier city was blanketed with smoke from a capital ship burning in the heart of the city. We almost seemed paralyzed and waiting for everything to be fully smooth and approved while the city and nation wondered what was going on. In San Diego especially, there is a special bond between the city and its Navy. We let them down by not showing in a very public way who was the face and voice of the Navy during this crisis.

2. We are not as good at safety as we think we are. Fires during maintenance availability are not uncommon for any navy. How and why was this fire allowed to spready so fast and so far? There are rumors, but I won’t repeat them here as they are just speculation, but this should be known far and wide once the investigation is done. The people of San Diego and the nation need to know. No overclassification issues here. Don’t even try.

3. Can you get underway: The USS FITZGERALD was right across the pier from BHR and was the first, under a blinding cloud of smoke, to get underway and out of the way. BZ to her crew. From the cheap seats though, that took way too long and not enough ships joined her. That story, along with the other ships close to BHR, sitting there soaking in all those toxic fumes, is another story I want told. That doesn’t even begin to discuss what would have happened if the fuel stores on BHR went.

4. We got lucky: we got lucky the ship was not full of Sailors and so far there have been no deaths. We are lucky that there were no weapons onboard. We are lucky this was not a nuclear powered ship. We are lucky, at least as of 11am Eastern, BHR has not sunk.

PACFLT has had a bad run the last three years, this is just another black eye. More to follow.

Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 13, 2020, 13:25:03
The number of personnel sent to hospital is now 34 sailors and 24 civilians.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/34-sailors-23-civilians-suffered-minor-injuries-in-uss-bonhomme-richard-fire-1.637345
By CAITLIN M. KENNEY | STARS AND STRIPES
Published: July 13, 2020

WASHINGTON — More than 30 sailors have suffered minor injuries from the fire that broke out Sunday and firefighters continue battle aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard at Naval Base San Diego, Calif.

As of Monday morning, 34 sailors and 23 civilians have been treated for minor injuries, said Lt. Cmdr. Nicole Schwegman, a spokeswoman with Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Of the 17 sailors who were hospitalized Sunday, five sailors have remained in the medical facility for observation and are in stable condition.

So far, minor injuries include heat exhaustion and smoke inhalation, according to Schwegman.

A fire was reported aboard the amphibious assault ship at about 8:30 a.m. Sunday while it was moored at the pier, said Mike Raney, a spokeThe cause of the fire is still under investigation and the origin of an explosion that also occurred on the ship Sunday is still unknown, The Associated Press reported.

Firefighting operations continued aboard the ship through the night and two helicopters with water buckets were brought in to help, according to the Navy.

At the time of the fire about 160 sailors were on the ship, which was undergoing maintenance, according to Raney. The ship typically has a crew of about 1,000.

Adm. Mike Gilday, chief of naval operations, called the fire “a terrible tragedy.”

"We are grateful for the quick and immediate response of local, base, and shipboard firefighters aboard USS Bonhomme Richard. Our thoughts and prayers are with our [Bonhomme Richard] sailors, their families, and our emergency responders who continue to fight the fire. Godspeed," he said in a statement.

Two nearby ships, the USS Fitzgerald and the USS Russell, had to move away from the pier Sunday afternoon because of the fire. The USS Fitzgerald had just arrived in San Diego July 2, according to U.S. Naval Institute News, after undergoing more than two years of restoration and modernization following the deadly 2017 collision that killed seven sailors.

Kenney.Caitlin@stripes.com
Twitter: @caitlinmkenney
 sman for Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet.


Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CBH99 on July 13, 2020, 15:49:04
I just watched a live news broadcast...

Holy crap, I can't believe that fire is STILL happening   :o
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 13, 2020, 16:52:21
I am surprised that the fire hasnt been put out. At this rate the ship will be fit only for the scrapyard.
Commander Salamander has a link to a civvie mariner video across from BHR.

https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/

There are a few observations that have been top of mind over the last day.

1. We were not ready for the inevitable: I don%u2019t care if it were a Sunday, the Navy was MIA from the information flow as one of our nation%u2019s premier city was blanketed with smoke from a capital ship burning in the heart of the city. We almost seemed paralyzed and waiting for everything to be fully smooth and approved while the city and nation wondered what was going on. In San Diego especially, there is a special bond between the city and its Navy. We let them down by not showing in a very public way who was the face and voice of the Navy during this crisis.

2. We are not as good at safety as we think we are. Fires during maintenance availability are not uncommon for any navy. How and why was this fire allowed to spready so fast and so far? There are rumors, but I won%u2019t repeat them here as they are just speculation, but this should be known far and wide once the investigation is done. The people of San Diego and the nation need to know. No overclassification issues here. Don%u2019t even try.

3. Can you get underway: The USS FITZGERALD was right across the pier from BHR and was the first, under a blinding cloud of smoke, to get underway and out of the way. BZ to her crew. From the cheap seats though, that took way too long and not enough ships joined her. That story, along with the other ships close to BHR, sitting there soaking in all those toxic fumes, is another story I want told. That doesn%u2019t even begin to discuss what would have happened if the fuel stores on BHR went.

4. We got lucky: we got lucky the ship was not full of Sailors and so far there have been no deaths. We are lucky that there were no weapons onboard. We are lucky this was not a nuclear powered ship. We are lucky, at least as of 11am Eastern, BHR has not sunk.

PACFLT has had a bad run the last three years, this is just another black eye. More to follow.

I don't think they got lucky or not but had they had a full compliment of sailors onboard in all likelihood the blaze would more than likely be contained quicker.

From the press conference

With that said, here are the main takeaways from the press conference:

It is thought that two decks separate the fire from the ship's fuel reserves. The Admiral says the Navy is doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't migrate there.

No welding was reported in the area of the fire when it broke out.

At least significant parts of the automated halon firefighting systems were offline at the time of the fire. Enhanced pier-side fire watch readiness posture was supposedly in place.

415 Bambi Buckets of water have been dropped on the ship by three MH-60S Seahawks from Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron Three (HSC-3) based out of nearby Naval Air Station North Island.

160 people were on the ship when the fire began.

400 sailors are now involved with fighting the fire aboard the ship.

The area where the fire started, which was the lower vehicle storage area, was filled with cardboard, rags, drywall, and other combustible material.

The fire is producing temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees.

Extreme heat in and under the island and in the bow.

There is a list that they are trying to correct via dewatering as part of a larger balancing act of keeping the ship stable while also fighting the fire

Five remain hospitalized and in stable condition out of 57 that have been treated at the hospital.

There is burn damage throughout the skin of the ship.

Due to the ship undergoing maintenance, there is debris scattered throughout the passageways of the ship making it challenging to safely fight the fire.

There are no plans to let the ship burn down to the waterline.

The Admiral is not aware of the fire being in the ship's critical engineering spaces.

Crews are keeping a close eye on the environmental air quality and so far it has been within EPA limits.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CBH99 on July 13, 2020, 22:24:55
Been keeping tabs on this regularly, via some live feeds...

That forward mast...  :(


Second picture, of fire blazing from the bridge area, taken only a few hours ago
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 13, 2020, 22:38:17
1000 degree heat ? 400 sailors fighting the fires but still burning. Too bad they didnt have halon which would have sucked the air from the fire,

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/1-000-degree-blaze-continues-to-rage-aboard-aboard-navy-ship-in-san-diego/ar-BB16H1yW?ocid=msedgntp
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: FJAG on July 13, 2020, 22:43:41
Short of the fuel (which I understand hasn't been compromised) and hydraulic lines and grease fittings/seals and the odd bit of furniture I didn't think there was enough combustible material on one of these ships to keep a fire this intense going this long.

Navy guys?

 ???
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 13, 2020, 22:55:40
Short of the fuel (which I understand hasn't been compromised) and hydraulic lines and grease fittings/seals and the odd bit of furniture I didn't think there was enough combustible material on one of these ships to keep a fire this intense going this long.

Navy guys?

 ???

Pretty much anything will burn once a fire gets to that sort of heat, insulation, , mattresses, personal effects etc.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Brihard on July 13, 2020, 22:56:16
Oof, yeah, she’s done.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Colin P on July 13, 2020, 22:56:58
Paint, floor wax, wire insulation, secret supply of porn mags, etc
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: YZT580 on July 13, 2020, 23:16:26
After lessons learnt in the Falklands they wouldn't have used Aluminium would they?
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: FJAG on July 13, 2020, 23:48:43
After lessons learnt in the Falklands they wouldn't have used Aluminium would they?

Reminds me of a board of inquiry I was involved in in the early 70s with a trailer from 2 Bunch of Guns Sigs Tp going up in flames. Lots of naptha, oil and gasoline on board together with personnel kit and lots of radio gear. Most of our radios in those days were an aluminum alloy with magnesium based batteries which burn very well. We identified most pers gear by the zippers and steel components which survived.

That said, re paint, wasn't that one of the lessons learned from the HMS Sheffield?

 :cheers:
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Brihard on July 13, 2020, 23:57:15
Reminds me of a board of inquiry I was involved in in the early 70s with a trailer from 2 Bunch of Guns Sigs Tp going up in flames. Lots of naptha, oil and gasoline on board together with personnel kit and lots of radio gear. Most of our radios in those days were an aluminum alloy with magnesium based batteries which burn very well. We identified most pers gear by the zippers and steel components which survived.

That said, re paint, wasn't that one of the lessons learned from the HMS Sheffield?

 :cheers:

I bet the amount of personal kit claimed as destroyed in that fire exceeded what the truck would carry.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 13, 2020, 23:59:53
Oof, yeah, she’s done.

Good thing I'm not in charge as I'd scuttle her...

....just so I could go down with the ship (until it hit bottom and I could step neatly off onto a tender :) ).
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 14, 2020, 00:00:34
Fire suppresion system had been turned off at the time of the fire. Dockyard will get the blame or maybe sabotage.

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/admiral-firefighting-system-turned-off-when-blaze-started-on-navy-ship/
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: FJAG on July 14, 2020, 00:03:54
I bet the amount of personal kit claimed as destroyed in that fire exceeded what the truck would carry.

It was a 3/4 ton trailer, but yeah. Hard to prove anything when all you can do is stir through the ashes with a steel rod from a 105mm ammo box looking for zippers and unmelted innards from radio gear. Mostly all we could do was say that "we can't disprove what's in this statutory declaration".

 :cheers:
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: MJP on July 14, 2020, 00:05:36
I bet the amount of personal kit claimed as destroyed in that fire exceeded what the truck would carry.

LOL reminds me of the amount of Ipods, CD players and gucci clothes in a destroyed LAV in Afghanistan.  Seemed like everyone in that LAV was rockingat least two of each item!
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: FJAG on July 14, 2020, 00:35:06
This recent video feed seems to show things are under much more control now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-xsCZE4RFU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-xsCZE4RFU)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CBH99 on July 14, 2020, 00:41:21
 ^-^
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Colin P on July 14, 2020, 01:23:33
I just surprised no one pushed the LCS against her in hopes it would catch fire as well
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CBH99 on July 14, 2020, 01:35:26
There's quite a few LCS nearby, they really did bank on those things filling the fleet!   The visual puts the numbers in perspective.  Counted quite a few
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 14, 2020, 01:45:30
This recent video feed seems to show things are under much more control now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-xsCZE4RFU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-xsCZE4RFU)

 :cheers:

yeah, things look better but you can bet the fire will reflash for days as they overhaul. IIRC DC school correctly, it will take at least 7 days before you can declare a fire of this magnitude out.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CloudCover on July 14, 2020, 01:58:30
Watching the helicopters dump water down the stack reminds me of the Soviet choppers flying loads of concrete into Chernyobol.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Ludoc on July 14, 2020, 05:17:16
Spotted this on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/hqu825/the_island_of_uss_bonhomme_richard_lhd6_as_viewed/):The island of USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) as viewed from an MH-60 that was dumping water to assist the firefighters battling the now day old fire. July 13th, 2020
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 14, 2020, 05:49:45
At least the ship isnt nuclear powered or they might be dumping concrete.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Brihard on July 14, 2020, 07:51:43
Given that this is believed to have started in a deep cargo hold and flames came all the ay up through the superstructure, probably the inside is mostly gutted. The fact that it burned hot enough for the mast to collapse is suggestive of structural weakening.

Hope the yard’s got good insurance...
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Colin P on July 14, 2020, 13:14:11
I am sure their lawyers are lining up to do battle already.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Navy_Pete on July 14, 2020, 15:02:06
Given that this is believed to have started in a deep cargo hold and flames came all the ay up through the superstructure, probably the inside is mostly gutted. The fact that it burned hot enough for the mast to collapse is suggestive of structural weakening.

Hope the yard’s got good insurance...

Usually insurance is capped at a max value, as the customer pays it as part of the work anyway. We have a max cap around 40 or 50 million and self insure for anything beyond that; that's a standard clause/value for overhaul work that I think applies across the GoC. It's not cheap, but a full value insurance policy would cost more then the DWP.

I think it's at Naval base San Diego though, and believe it was undergoing an alongside work period by the dockyard. From what I understand, it's their giant equivalent to our FMFs under NAVSEA that does that for them.

Still burning though; at this point would be a win if they can keep the fuel from lighting off/spilling into the bay and get the fire out.  Just crazy.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Hamish Seggie on July 14, 2020, 17:02:57
At least the ship isnt nuclear powered or they might be dumping concrete.

One question: Will this ship be a total write off?

OK two questions - What type of ship is this? Infantry here.....  [:-[
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: FJAG on July 14, 2020, 17:22:34
One question: Will this ship be a total write off?

OK two questions - What type of ship is this? Infantry here.....  [:-[

A Wasp Class Amphibious Assault ship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bonhomme_Richard_(LHD-6) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bonhomme_Richard_(LHD-6))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 14, 2020, 17:55:41
Somehow the fire suppresion system was turned off so that may help the insurance company.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 14, 2020, 18:03:00
Somehow the fire suppresion system was turned off so that may help the insurance company.

I was turned off, because it was being worked on.  It is hard to say at this point if there is any contractor culpability. BHR was in USN custody, at a USN base, conducting work under the supervision of NAVSEA.  Now, maybe a contractor screwed up, but no way is anybody but the US taxpayer paying for a 4 billion dollar ship.

And, in my opinion, she is done like dinner.  Cheaper to build new. Which they might not even have to, given the pivot in role the USMC is undergoing right now.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 14, 2020, 18:57:11
I was turned off, because it was being worked on.  It is hard to say at this point if there is any contractor culpability. BHR was in USN custody, at a USN base, conducting work under the supervision of NAVSEA.  Now, maybe a contractor screwed up, but no way is anybody but the US taxpayer paying for a 4 billion dollar ship.

And, in my opinion, she is done like dinner.  Cheaper to build new. Which they might not even have to, given the pivot in role the USMC is undergoing right now.

Speaking as a self-interested scuba diver, would it be too soon for these guys to give them a call? :)

ARTIFICIAL REEF SOCIETY OF BC​
CREATING STABLE LONG TERM MARINE HABITATS

https://artificialreefsocietybc.ca/index.html

Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Navy_Pete on July 14, 2020, 21:23:51
Speaking as a self-interested scuba diver, would it be too soon for these guys to give them a call? :)

ARTIFICIAL REEF SOCIETY OF BC​
CREATING STABLE LONG TERM MARINE HABITATS

https://artificialreefsocietybc.ca/index.html

lol, good luck. Prepping the ship for an artificial reef means total environmental scrub down and costs a fortune. All kinds of weird stuff happens in fire chemistry, especially when so many things are burning together, it will be a huge hazmat cleanup. Plus, ITAR.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Colin P on July 15, 2020, 01:53:05
lol, good luck. Prepping the ship for an artificial reef means total environmental scrub down and costs a fortune. All kinds of weird stuff happens in fire chemistry, especially when so many things are burning together, it will be a huge hazmat cleanup. Plus, ITAR.

Depends on the era, the navy when they sell a ship for scrap, have to certify it as PCB free, on the DDE, that means all the wiring had to go and then certain types of insulation. The good news is that asbestos is not considered a hazard underwater, so asbestos panels can be secured into an compartment or tank and sunk with the ship. That saves a lot of money. The PCB and asbestos would be an issue even if you scrap the ship. The ITAR stuff would likely be removed prior to sale. You are correct that after the fire it would be impossible to met the environmental standards though. However the navy can get around that by sinking her as a target with a somewhat less stringent standard.   
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Underway on July 15, 2020, 09:49:53
Somehow the fire suppresion system was turned off so that may help the insurance company.

Its not a conspiracy or an error.  When a ship is undergoing work such as grinding or welding you turn off the fire suppression and detection systems.  This is because the heat of the grinding/welding will set them off in or near the space you are working on.  Alarms going off or halon just randomly discharging is exceedingly irritating if not unsafe.

RCN policy is that when there is hot work you also have a fire sentry with an extinguisher on guard, and perhaps a charged hose ready.  Plenty of fire sentries have put out minor paint fires due to heat.

As for how can a fire get that hot without combustables.  It can't but a ship is full of combustables despite our best efforts.  At 1000 degree F many things burn: copper electrical cables, paint, beds, blankets, printers, paper, desks, staplers, potato chips, clothes, fuel lines, fibre optics, grease on doors, fittings, anything with a battery explodes, rubber, keyboards, fire hoses, the deck coating on the vehicle decks is probably non-slip and combustible at a high temp  etc...

Then add to that its an enclosed space where the heat gets trapped...

The fire on HMCS Toronto last year was put out fairly quickly but caused structural concerns to the uptake floor that needed repair (no visible damage but the RCN wasn't going to take the risk).  The few aluminum tools in the uptake were melted, the bronze refulling bell was melted and all the paint and wiring were gone.  The fuel spill soak pads were of course burnt.  And that was put out fairly quickly by the duty watch (proper overhaul required the fire dept and adjacent ship help).  When they start to burn, it can get nasty very quickly.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 15, 2020, 12:12:05
During the PRO fire, I am told, the fire got so hot that the glass melted out of the gauges in the engine room.  Fire on a ship is no joke.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Navy_Pete on July 15, 2020, 13:40:28
During the PRO fire, I am told, the fire got so hot that the glass melted out of the gauges in the engine room.  Fire on a ship is no joke.

There was some steel decking that burned through and girders that warped, but paper on a bench right under the fire along the ceiling was fine. For context, that wasn't considered a 'fully involved' space  fire, and still wrote off a ship.

This one appears to have multiple compartments fully involved (basically all fuel sources burning). Will be interesting to read the reports; the USN is excellent at putting out detailed public reports on these kind of incidents, and learn a lot from them.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Navy_Pete on July 15, 2020, 13:55:03
Depends on the era, the navy when they sell a ship for scrap, have to certify it as PCB free, on the DDE, that means all the wiring had to go and then certain types of insulation. The good news is that asbestos is not considered a hazard underwater, so asbestos panels can be secured into an compartment or tank and sunk with the ship. That saves a lot of money. The PCB and asbestos would be an issue even if you scrap the ship. The ITAR stuff would likely be removed prior to sale. You are correct that after the fire it would be impossible to met the environmental standards though. However the navy can get around that by sinking her as a target with a somewhat less stringent standard.

On our end the environmental standards for a target are comparable to a reef. For example the fuel lines and tanks on Huron were emptied and steam cleaned, and in general the POLs were removed as much as practicable.

It's surprising what stuff gets labeled as ITAR; in lots of cases it's commercially avaiblable, but as soon as it gets catalogued and given an NSN it can become ITAR if the classification rolls down from the system it's used on. Have seen all kinds of bolts and other fasteners and other weird things labeled as ITAR and had to be demilitarized as a result. There is a process to get the classification changed, but is heavily bureaucratic and can take years. Usually by the time that we get rid of it, it's so far behind the current technology it doesn't actually matter, but is faster/cheaper to just destroy it then try and push the staff work required to get it declared non-ITAR (which they likely will tell us to pound sand anyway).

Other bits can be integral to the ship (like the shaft seals), and cataloging, removing and demilitarizing them can be a lot of expensive work. That's a big part of the reason that we stopped giving ships to reef societies/museums. It costs too much, and we've been bitten a few too many times with rusting hulks that we had to take back. It's reasonably more cost efficient to do it as part of the ship breaking process, where whole components are removed and run through a big metal shredder, but is all tracked down to individual NSNs line by line.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: stellarpanther on July 15, 2020, 13:57:49
Would all of the weapons (bombs, missiles etc) have been removed or do they just assign people to guard them while the contractors are onboard doing their job?  If so is there a risk of them exploding causing real damage to the base?
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: dapaterson on July 15, 2020, 14:08:50
Normally, the magazines would be empty when a ship is undergoing a lengthy refit.

As well, some explosives will burn, not explode, when exposed to high heat.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Underway on July 15, 2020, 14:15:52
Would all of the weapons (bombs, missiles etc) have been removed or do they just assign people to guard them while the contractors are onboard doing their job?  If so is there a risk of them exploding causing real damage to the base?

It depends.  It wouldn't be the first time that a ship had some refit work done while still carrying ammunition.  But thats a case by case basis.  If the work was being done far from a magazine then they might not have de-ammo'd.  I don't know the US policies for a ship like this.

Assuming the magazines could be locked then no guard would be required.  Also magazines can be flooded in case of a fire nearby.  In this case it likely won't explode.  Missiles/torps are a bit different as they carry very energetic fuel which is much more dangerous in a fire then their warhead would be (as modern explosives are electrically activated and generally burn in a fire vice explode).

Normally, the magazines would be empty when a ship is undergoing a lengthy refit.

As well, some explosives will burn, not explode, when exposed to high heat.

Curses, ninja'd...
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: NavyShooter on July 15, 2020, 22:00:41
I think the words you're seeking are "Detonation" vs "Deflagration". 

Detonation means a rather energetic release resulting in an Earth Shattering Kaboom.

Deflagration means a rather energetic release, but at a slower rate of expansion resulting in a really big plume of really hot fire.

The class of the ammunition has an impact on this - ammo is broken down into 4 main classes - 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and, 1.4.

There are sub-classes within those (1.4S) denoting specific characteristics, however, the only munitions that I would think they'd leave onboard during a refit such as this would be small arms ammunition, and possibly some pyrotechnics such as flares and such.  These fall into 1.3 and 1.4 classes. 

1.1 and 1.2 is the real energetic stuff - the "High" explosives that we enjoy watching go boom.

I do not have any knowledge about what the capacity of one of these ships is, but I can imagine that it is an order of magnitude larger than what we carry on our ships, particularly since it's a ship designed to support troops going ashore, plus helicopters and aircraft dropping bombs, firing missiles and guns.  If the ship was fully loaded with HE, they'd be either fighting the fire madly, trying to get to the magazines before they blew, or, evacuating blocks of space.


Consider.  Here's a 'guess' at what a single magazine might contain:


500 lb bomb x 200
Sidewinder missile x 50
Hellfire missile x 500
20mm HE ammo x 50,000


The Net Explosive Quantity on these items would be:
87 Kg x 200 = 17,400 Kg
9.4 Kg x 50 = 470 Kg
8.2 Kg x 500 = 4,100 Kg
0.010 Kg x 50,000 = 500 Kg


That's a total NEQ of 22,470 Kg. 


https://www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/explosion-danger-area/ (https://www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/explosion-danger-area/)


Plugging that in, the MINIMUM distance to clear the public from is 2,359 meters...so they'd be clearing a pretty large space of the town for this one magazine example....and a fully loaded warship designed to support ground and air elements would have a lot more than that. 


If the ship was loaded up with ammo, they'd be clearing the area for literally miles in case it blew up.


The good news is that some of the ammo would 'only' burn - rather than detonate.  It would depend considerably upon the type of ammo though, and what it's being exposed to.  Once something goes 'high order', the shockwave would likely cause sympathetic detonations amongst ordnance that was destabilized.


Or something like that.


From my perspective, having been a magazine custodian for a ship - they are not treating this like they would a ship that had magazines full of HE.


NS




Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: dapaterson on July 15, 2020, 22:05:25
See also: December 6, 1917.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Blackadder1916 on July 15, 2020, 22:34:03
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a33298675/bonhomme-richard-navy-ship-fire-san-diego/
Quote
The Navy also says no munitions are stored aboard the ship, although small arms ammunition is present.


(https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/slcp-lhd-3/x-2.gif)
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 15, 2020, 23:18:51
I bet the Navy will get funds to buy a replacement this year.Although it will take years for it to see service.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CBH99 on July 15, 2020, 23:59:24
The USMC is in the process of a very drastic reorganization (As someone else mentioned in this thread previously) - with less focus on big, manpower & equipment heavy ships - and more about distributed operations, and providing capabilities that aren't overlapped with the Army.

This might turn out to be the fastest self-divesting asset they have under the new plan   ^-^



(Although the USMC doesn't seem to waste any time... they just held a final parade while the last of their M1A1 tanks were loaded onto trains and trailers & driven off about a week ago)
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CloudCover on July 16, 2020, 01:12:17
USS Tripoli (America class LHA) commissioned today.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CloudCover on July 16, 2020, 01:23:15
I think the words you're seeking are "Detonation" vs "Deflagration". 

Detonation means a rather energetic release resulting in an Earth Shattering Kaboom.

Deflagration means a rather energetic release, but at a slower rate of expansion resulting in a really big plume of really hot fire.

The class of the ammunition has an impact on this - ammo is broken down into 4 main classes - 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and, 1.4.

There are sub-classes within those (1.4S) denoting specific characteristics, however, the only munitions that I would think they'd leave onboard during a refit such as this would be small arms ammunition, and possibly some pyrotechnics such as flares and such.  These fall into 1.3 and 1.4 classes. 

1.1 and 1.2 is the real energetic stuff - the "High" explosives that we enjoy watching go boom.

I do not have any knowledge about what the capacity of one of these ships is, but I can imagine that it is an order of magnitude larger than what we carry on our ships, particularly since it's a ship designed to support troops going ashore, plus helicopters and aircraft dropping bombs, firing missiles and guns.  If the ship was fully loaded with HE, they'd be either fighting the fire madly, trying to get to the magazines before they blew, or, evacuating blocks of space.


Consider.  Here's a 'guess' at what a single magazine might contain:


500 lb bomb x 200
Sidewinder missile x 50
Hellfire missile x 500
20mm HE ammo x 50,000


The Net Explosive Quantity on these items would be:
87 Kg x 200 = 17,400 Kg
9.4 Kg x 50 = 470 Kg
8.2 Kg x 500 = 4,100 Kg
0.010 Kg x 50,000 = 500 Kg


That's a total NEQ of 22,470 Kg.
...

0.02 Megatons sounds scarier!!!
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CBH99 on July 16, 2020, 01:23:33
USS Tripoli (America class LHA) commissioned today.


That timing couldn't have been better   ;D
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: FJAG on July 16, 2020, 02:14:21

That timing couldn't have been better   ;D

It looks like the yard can build one at a time and they do take a long time from "laid down" to commissioning. There seem to be plans to build up to 11 of these so it's not like it's easy to fit a new one into the schedule.

As a Type 0, the Tripoli does not have a well deck like the BHR so it's not a one-for-one here. It's a Landing Helicopter Assault (HLA) rather than a Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) amphibious like the Wasp Class.

 :cheers:

Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CloudCover on July 16, 2020, 02:45:05
To well deck or not to well deck. Which LHA design fits better to the new USMC mission models? Don’t forget they have ~15 of the brand new SAN Antonio class LPD for gator work.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 16, 2020, 11:44:10
Conclusion of an article at War on the Rocks:

Quote
...in the past few days, some have raised the question of whether this fire is just one more in a series of events over the past few years that indicates something is wrong with the Navy on a systemic level. There have been collisions of ships and reliefs of Navy secretaries, would-be chiefs of naval operations, and aircraft carrier commanding officers and program managers. Now, there is also a ship burning at a pier. The mounting record of scandal, buffoonery, and bad news seems to point at something fundamentally wrong with the Navy — and it is getting harder to refute this charge. But refute it I will.

I spend a lot of time thinking about the Navy — its direction, character, design, reputation, and mistakes. I have also spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about the last three years of bad news. In doing so, I have wracked my brain in order to find common elements in the disasters and scandals that lend themselves to pre-conceived solutions. Some will dismiss my thoughts as the ruminations of a hopeless advocate, too close to the problem to see that there is one. So, here are a few questions for those who point at the systemic failure argument:

What are the systemic issues you believe are at the heart of the Navy’s problem?

Can these systemic issues be decomposed into discrete contributors that a reasonable person would agree can be directly tied to actual setbacks?

If what we see is a problem of culture, which elements of the culture contributed to that problem? How would you go about changing these elements? Where are these enhancements most efficiently and effectively focused to achieve the desired changes? How would you ensure that the positive elements of the culture are retained?

If what you see is a leadership problem, which leaders are implicated? At what level? What could they be doing better? Is it because the Navy picked the wrong leaders? How do you know? If the Navy did pick the wrong leaders, how would you alter the process to achieve your desired results?

There is a certain blithe incompleteness bound up in the systemic failure argument unless one is willing to do the hard work of decomposition into actionable approaches tied to observed problems. I have not seen much in the way of good thinking on this subject.

Where does this leave Navy leadership as it deals with perceptions of incompetence and the recent record that seems to support it? Try this: Assume that no matter what it is you are doing — at whatever level of command you operate — that you are not quite as good at it as you think you are. Moreover, take immediate action no matter how small that action might be to remedy it and tell your subordinates that this is what you are doing. There is no level of authority in the Navy that is beyond this approach. It is not a mindset that requires vast infusions of resources and it promotes a fundamentals-based response to problems of great complexity. What it requires is brave self-assessment and a fearless dedication to improvement. Until such time as an internally consistent systemic argument for the Navy’s ills surfaces, this is a sound guide to the first steps to improvement.
https://warontherocks.com/2020/07/more-than-just-a-fire-the-implications-of-the-bonhomme-richard-catastrophe/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 16, 2020, 12:13:55
That is a great article, Mark.

And since the CAF tends to mindlessly import every management trend/technique/fad from the US military, I would say their problems are also our problems.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: FJAG on July 16, 2020, 14:57:18
To well deck or not to well deck. Which LHA design fits better to the new USMC mission models? Don’t forget they have ~15 of the brand new SAN Antonio class LPD for gator work.

There are only two Type 0 the Tripoli being the last. The rest of the America Class are to be Type 1's which are the "dock" with well deck version. Interesting question though. With the step back from the USMC "heavy" elements will there be such a need for "docks" or will the replacement systems such as more HIMARS also require the well decks?

 :dunno:

Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: reveng on July 16, 2020, 15:14:19
There are only two Type 0 the Tripoli being the last. The rest of the America Class are to be Type 1's which are the "dock" with well deck version. Interesting question though. With the step back from the USMC "heavy" elements will there be such a need for "docks" or will the replacement systems such as more HIMARS also require the well decks?

 :dunno:

I'm under the impression that they hope to procure much smaller, lighter amphibious ships to shuttle HIMARS or small groups of Marines around in.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: FJAG on July 16, 2020, 15:55:37
I'm under the impression that they hope to procure much smaller, lighter amphibious ships to shuttle HIMARS or small groups of Marines around in.

I'm still having trouble with the concepts. If you want a small ship to shuffle HIMARS around, why not just attach the launchers to the ship in the first place? Something like this only a lot more modern and precisionish:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/LCT_Launching_Rockets.jpg)

Landing Craft Rocket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Tank_(Rocket))

Maybe this:

(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Type-022-Houbei-Class-Fast-Attack-Missile-Craft-stealth-catamaran-hulls-Peoples-Liberation-Army-Navy-PLAN-or-PLA-Navy-test-firing-8-YJ-83-anti-ship-missiles-1-2.jpg)

Chinese Type 022 Fast Attack Missile Craft Houbei Class firing antiship missile (https://news.usni.org/2015/09/02/report-russian-arms-sales-give-china-a-better-chance-in-competing-with-u-s-ships)

I tend to understand Marines as assault capabilities to take a land based installation, but have some problem with semi-fixed Marine land-based installations (like HIMARS) that could be more easily handled by a small ship mobile weapons platform.

I'll wait to see the papers as they developed to see if this is a good meld of capabilities or just looking for a new reason to find a job to justify the USMC.

As an aside: Maybe a role for our MCDVs?  ;D

 :cheers:
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: reveng on July 16, 2020, 16:16:03
Definitely. Perhaps something they are (or should be) looking at for the NECC. Or have the NECC role absorbed by the USMC.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 16, 2020, 20:21:12
The fire is out according to the USN.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/navy-says-fire-has-been-put-out-aboard-uss-bonhomme-richard-in-san-diego/ar-BB16PA46?ocid=msedgntp
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Colin P on July 16, 2020, 20:49:58
While the US does Damage Control well already, I suspect there will be new lessons learned from this as well. I bet that duty watches in these refits will be beefed up in the future, to allow for a more aggressive early response and more fire patrols.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 16, 2020, 20:50:14
The fire is out according to the USN.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/navy-says-fire-has-been-put-out-aboard-uss-bonhomme-richard-in-san-diego/ar-BB16PA46?ocid=msedgntp

There will be reflashes for days. Trust me.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 16, 2020, 22:11:31
From the Stars and Stripes.

https://www.stripes.com/news/navy/fire-aboard-uss-bonhomme-richard-extinguished-after-more-than-four-days-1.637835

(https://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.637836.1594940508!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_900/image.jpg)
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CBH99 on July 16, 2020, 22:21:20
I don't know anything about ships, but I'd say she's done for... in one of these photos, even the walls are warped   :(
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Colin P on July 17, 2020, 01:30:03
Notice though the cable runs held, which makes moving around the ship easier.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Underway on July 17, 2020, 10:43:25
I don't know anything about ships, but I'd say she's done for... in one of these photos, even the walls are warped   :(

When you have all that pressure from hot air and combustion gases I would have been surprised if the walls were not warped.  I've seen photos of the flight deck wherehuge holes appeared from collapsed structure.  So much damage...
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 17, 2020, 13:57:31
BHR was in the rotation to provide F35B's in the Pacific. Now how to fill the gap ? The Tripoli was just commisioned so it has a couple of years of workups. The article I linked to offers 2 solutions dip into the Reserve fleet and activate a Tarawa class LHA or extend the deployments of existing ships.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/13/the-bonhomme-richard-fire-deals-a-blow-to-the-navys-designs-in-the-indo-pacific/
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CBH99 on July 17, 2020, 15:47:40
I suspect they could redeploy an asset from the Persian Gulf with minimal impact on operations there.


We aren't going to war with Iran anytime soon.

Between bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain, etc - there is PLENTY of airpower and places to deploy airpower in the region.  The US could redeploy an amphib from the Persian Gulf, and unless a flown blown war with Iran kicks off - I imagine there would be minimal impact in the area.   :2c:
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CloudCover on July 17, 2020, 21:24:00
UK CSG will be online next January and is deploying to SCS.  The USMC has qualified their F35B* on HMS Queen Elizabeth, and have also flight deck qualifies the Osprey and the CH53.  I believe the operational intent was that  USMC would usually operate off her decks in some capacity. The carrier has +++ room for RM Commando’s who I think are deploying with her.  The USN will be escorting and probably resupplying the ship anyway. Timing probably couldn’t be better to take on-board USMC air assets and flex those inter-op muscles the RN has promised with the carrier.

* the UK F35B has some peculiarities to make their aircraft more sortie efficient.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Colin P on July 18, 2020, 00:58:07



We aren't going to war with XXXX anytime soon.


Famous last words  :whistle:
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: FJAG on July 18, 2020, 01:38:52
I suspect they could redeploy an asset from the Persian Gulf with minimal impact on operations there.


We aren't going to war with Iran anytime soon.

Between bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain, etc - there is PLENTY of airpower and places to deploy airpower in the region.  The US could redeploy an amphib from the Persian Gulf, and unless a flown blown war with Iran kicks off - I imagine there would be minimal impact in the area.   :2c:

I expect that these days it must be an interesting risk analysis as to what are the "must do operations", "should do operations", "could do operations", and "no need to do operations".

 :cheers:
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 19, 2020, 01:26:50
Several sailors who fought the fire have tested positive due to sharing fire fighting gear.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/sailors-test-positive-for-coronavirus-after-sharing-firefighting-gear-during-uss-bonhomme-richard-fire-1.637985
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Colin P on July 19, 2020, 04:32:46
That sucks, lets hope they only get minor symptoms.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 27, 2020, 13:25:05
National Interest article about the aftermath of the disaster. At a cost of $750m this ship type is a bargain.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/burning-uss-bonhomme-richard-could-mean-problems-us-navy-165497
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: NavyShooter on July 27, 2020, 13:44:59
Reading more carefully, that was when the ship was built - now they cost on the order of $4B, while the Ford cost almost $12B. 

This will definitely send ripples through the planning offices...
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: Hamish Seggie on July 27, 2020, 17:09:01
Reading more carefully, that was when the ship was built - now they cost on the order of $4B, while the Ford cost almost $12B. 

This will definitely send ripples through the planning offices...

That is a pretty hefty sum.
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: CBH99 on July 27, 2020, 17:51:18
Reading more carefully, that was when the ship was built - now they cost on the order of $4B, while the Ford cost almost $12B. 

This will definitely send ripples through the planning offices...




Does it suck to lose a large capital ship, especially with those types of capabilities?  Absolutely.  To lose that type of ship and not lose a single crew member is an absolute blessing. 

Is it a total "We can't do this mission now, because we don't have this ship..." equation?  No, not when you are the USN anyway.



Like we've discussed upthread, and in other threads, they may have to readjust resources from one theatre to another.  But it isn't the end of the world. 

Do they NEED a carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf at all times?  I'd argue not.  Not when you have air bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey (possibly write that off though, not reliable) Qatar, Bahrain, etc.  There's no shortage of US military bases in the region to launch aircraft from, and you can still take out key Iranian targets with Tomahawk strikes via other surface ships.

The LCS, as useless as it is without being tasked as a designated ASW ship, could actually be ideal for the Persian Gulf.  Distances aren't too far, they can whip around the area pretty quick, and they already have the weaponry to deal with Iranian small boats using the same weapons the larger destroyers would use.  (Deck guns, .50 cal machine guns, hellfire missiles, etc.)



Will they have to adjust their near term plans?  Yes.  Does it suck that the ship was just finishing a massive upgrade & overhaul?  That's rubbing salt in the wound, ouch.  But, is it a mission killer for the USN?  No.

If anything, they may be forced to adjust their deployment structure to be a little more conservative than they are used to.  Aka, welcome to the rest of us   ;)



*Lets not forget, the new USMC doctrine actually calls for fewer large capital ships.  This ship went in for refits long before the new doctrine was announced, and the day after the fire was out, a new ship USS Tripoli was commissioned.  The USMC isn't wasting any time at all in rapidly adjusting their units to match their new doctine, with tank units and artillery units both losing their tanks & guns already.  So while it was a sad ending to a proud ship, this ship may have been on it's way out of their ORBAT anyway.   :2c:
Title: Re: USS Bonhomme Richard on fire
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 27, 2020, 02:20:42
Well, that's not something I would have thought might happen...

Defence official: Arson suspected as cause of Navy ship fire

SAN DIEGO — Arson is suspected as the cause of a July 12 fire that left extensive damage to the USS Bonhomme Richard docked off San Diego, and a U.S. Navy sailor was being questioned as a potential suspect, a senior defence official said Wednesday.

The sailor was being questioned as part of the investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the official said, adding that defence department leaders were notified of the development. The official, with knowledge of the investigation, spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to provide details not yet made public. The sailor was not detained.

https://www.timescolonist.com/defence-official-arson-suspected-as-cause-of-navy-ship-fire-1.24193065