Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I read that last night, but didn't post as you all are probably sick of my "reporting." ROFL.All those interested in a proper insight about the causal factors of this disaster and what can be done to dramatically reduce the risks should read this: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ost-vulnerable-in-port-and-how-to-change-that
I can personally vouch for every single point he makes.
Somebody help an old landlubber. Aren't battle type ships designed and built to not burn easily? What would have to happen for a ship like this to burn like this? This can't be normal. These ships must be better suited to sustain itself even in the event of a large fire. Help out an old dog and explain how this kind of damage can take place while at the dock.
One of the biggest problems is fire following cable trunks. The biggest question is what was stored in lower v that shouldn't have been.Check out the article linked above - in-port maintenance debris.
this is true. Not only the 'cables' themselves which are highly flammable, but all the dust/dirt/grime/grease/oils that accumulate in these tracts/ducts/passages. Whenever I had to do 'hot work' there always needed to be "spark-watch" on scene AND at each level. Said spark-watch was responsible for controlling and putting out anything that flared up while I/we were working AS WELL AS for a minimum of 45 minutes after said work was completed.One of the biggest problems is fire following cable trunks. The biggest question is what was stored in lower v that shouldn't have been.
Same thing of not waiting long enough is what ended Notre Dame. It actually takes a while for something to smolder and catch on fire. It's as if Bear Grylls is there cheating with his fire stick (which reminds me...I need one of those) and getting the fire started. 3/4-1 hour I think is probably reasonable. 1/4-1/2. Probably not.this is true. Not only the 'cables' themselves which are highly flammable, but all the dust/dirt/grime/grease/oils that accumulate in these tracts/ducts/passages. Whenever I had to do 'hot work' there always needed to be "spark-watch" on scene AND at each level. Said spark-watch was responsible for controlling and putting out anything that flared up while I/we were working AS WELL AS for a minimum of 45 minutes after said work was completed.
The point of that, is simply that it is incredible how long something can be 'hot' and then smoulder and then burst into flame LONG AFTER said hot-work was completed. I have stated previous, in different threads over the years as to how fighting fires with 3 two-man teams each on a 1 1/2" line can happen.
And all this is simply in a sawmill. Aboard ship, where there is so much more flammable materials as well as oils and whatnot, not to mention 'nooks/crannies/traces/ducts' and all that, let alone "fire-stops" and whatnot....
Worst case scenario, squared.
Somebody help an old landlubber. Aren't battle type ships designed and built to not burn easily? What would have to happen for a ship like this to burn like this? This can't be normal. These ships must be better suited to sustain itself even in the event of a large fire. Help out an old dog and explain how this kind of damage can take place while at the dock.
The ships cableways aren't the problem. It's all the shipyard's temporary cableways, air hoses, and various fluid hoses that are mostly commercial grade stuff.To landlubber: Cable insulation, once on fire burns quite well, and is quite toxic - think PVC pipe. Insulation doesn't necessarily mean fireproof. Once it starts it'll follow the cable - especially with all the grease, grime and other crap. However, I don't think cabling itself would burn long enough to catch the whole ship on fire (but I don't know). Obviously it sounds like a ton of boxes, rags, chemical and such were stored together. Bad stuff there and once that gets going - all the cardboard is going to become a raging inferno followed by the chemical explosion they heard.
Despite temps up to 1200 degrees they think it can be repaired. However, now the question becomes...is 3-4 BILLION better spent on cyber-warfare capability? Cyber-warfare is the next big leap along with hypersonics.
this is true. Not only the 'cables' themselves which are highly flammable, but all the dust/dirt/grime/grease/oils that accumulate in these tracts/ducts/passages. Whenever I had to do 'hot work' there always needed to be "spark-watch" on scene AND at each level. Said spark-watch was responsible for controlling and putting out anything that flared up while I/we were working AS WELL AS for a minimum of 45 minutes after said work was completed.
The point of that, is simply that it is incredible how long something can be 'hot' and then smoulder and then burst into flame LONG AFTER said hot-work was completed. I have stated previous, in different threads over the years as to how fighting fires with 3 two-man teams each on a 1 1/2" line can happen.
And all this is simply in a sawmill. Aboard ship, where there is so much more flammable materials as well as oils and whatnot, not to mention 'nooks/crannies/traces/ducts' and all that, let alone "fire-stops" and whatnot....
Worst case scenario, squared.
Agree 308!! Boots on ground wins military actions. Somebody forgot to tell W and Rummy. But to get there safely and not with an Iwo Jima type bloodbath, gotta lay the path down. Hence why it was critical to have a JSF carrying ship. Though I could also argue...isn't this why we have carriers?.The ships cableways aren't the problem. It's all the shipyard's temporary cableways, air hoses, and various fluid hoses that are mostly commercial grade stuff.
As the article I linked mentions, lax discipline turns a squared away ship into a raging shithole while in the shipyard.
Can it be repaired? Absolutely. Should it be? That's an expense vs benefit question for the Navy to answer.
Cyberwarfare is cool because you can flex it without going hot. Hypersonic weapons? School me on that. Ordnance on target never wins a war. Boots on the ground closing with and destroying the enemy do. The Bonhomme Richard and other ships like it exist for no other purpose than to put boots on the ground almost anywhere in the world within a few days and support and sustain them while they're there. While you can fly troops in from CONUS faster than you can land them from a ship, sustainment is a completely different matter.
We must have that capability.
Read the article I linked to in post 102 and then hit me up if you have any questions.
You are correct about one thing: ships in dockyard overhaul are in an abormal condition that requires a lot more discipline, vigilance, and attention to detail than when they are in an operational status (regardless of whether they are in port or at sea).
I served on two different ships over four and a half years (one a gas turbine powered frigate, the other a nuclear aircraft carrier). I was a qualified nuclear engineer on that carrier and my last year on it was all while the carrier was in overhaul at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
I probably should have been more specific. Yes, we won in Iraq but then didn't (controversial statement coming) occupy like we did in German/Japan and have a plan (Marshall) on WTF to do and as a result the ethnic factions/Iran resulted in chaos. You're spot on with that. Rainbow farts, unicorn pee,whatever - no plan. The shock and awe was a bit overrated as well - at least in Baghdad that first night.Boots on ground won Afghanistan and Iraq (2003). Problem in either case the head shed (AKA State, Pentagon, and 1600) had zero plans except unicorn rainbow farts on what to do once we won. While Afghanistan was kind of a reaction to events, we had 12 years to imagine a post Saddam Iraq and how to approach it.
Nothing that has been written or said in the press or social media about what started the fire or why it was so tough to fight is even close to being correct. Because none of them know fuck all about it.I believe I heard early on that was some type of large explosion onboard. Has anyone given a good explanation of what that explosion was?
I've read in Aviation Week about the chinese hypersonic missiles they are trying to develop to kill our carriers. Scary shit. Sooner or later those carriers are going to be as out of date as a battleship - my guess is 30 years. I'll be dead by then, most likely so not too concerned if indeed they become out of date.
That's not really anti-hypersonic (> Mach 5) though. Cruise missile are generally not hypersonic (yet). SM-3 is hypersonic itself. But that's not for ship defense. SM-6 could based on wikipedia numbers defeat this; but it'd be close based on speeds.![]()
RIM-174 Standard ERAM - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
We're nowhere near as defenseless against chink missiles as the breathless press and defense analysts make it out to be.
And we're not standing still.
That's not really anti-hypersonic (> Mach 5) though. Cruise missile are generally not hypersonic (yet). SM-3 is hypersonic itself. But that's not for ship defense. SM-6 could based on wikipedia numbers defeat this; but it'd be close based on speeds.
A U.S. Navy sailor is being questioned by investigators for possible arson after allegedly starting the massive fire on the USS Bonhomme Richard in San Diego in July, according to defense officials.
![]()
Sailor investigated for possibly starting fire on Navy ship USS Bonhomme Richard
The Navy is investigating if a sailor may have started the massive fire on the USS Bonhomme Richard.abcnews.go.com
Arson. Hmmm, adds a new wrinkle. Next question is the sailors name. Just to make sure this isn't a terror linked event, just a super disgruntled sailor.
Not saying it's not possible, just that it's harder. Actually though, building a hypersonic interceptor isn't exactly easy. Depends on where the intercept is taking place as well, maneuverability of target, boost phase, terminal phase, etc, etc. Lot's of variables as to what works best. No allegiance to Raytheon either - except I'll say most of their "technology" came from the acquisition of Texas Instruments in Lewisville, TX. Bet LockMarty wishes now they'd have combined their missile division with those guys.An anti-air missile does not need to be hypersonic to intercept a hypersonic weapon. Unless you served in the Navy in some sort of surface warfare combat systems capacity you're simply repeating internet BS.
Some of us actually have been there and done that.......
Not saying it's not possible, just that it's harder. Actually though, building a hypersonic interceptor isn't exactly easy. Depends on where the intercept is taking place as well, maneuverability of target, boost phase, terminal phase, etc, etc. Lot's of variables as to what works best. No allegiance to Raytheon either - except I'll say most of their "technology" came from the acquisition of Texas Instruments in Lewisville, TX. Bet LockMarty wishes now they'd have combined their missile division with those guys.
I interviewed with both TI and RTN a VERY long time agoSounds like you got some professional experience either on the systems side or the operational side. Mine's on the operational side. Which one is yours from?
Guessing this guy is still in jail wishing he had gotten away with his crime.....
![]()
USS Miami Arsonist Gets 17 years in Prison - USNI News
The admitted arsonist that set fire to the nuclear attack submarine USS Miami was sentenced to 17 years in federal prison on Friday, according to several press reports. Casey James Fury, 25, plead guilty in November to setting the May, 23 fire aboard the Los Angeles-class submarine that was...news.usni.org