Navy Warship Is Still Ablaze, and Now Tilting to One Side | Hacker News Reader

Navy Warship Is Still Ablaze, and Now Tilting to One Side

nytimes.com

42 pointstosh62 comments

I have none of the knowledge and all of the curiosity about at what point is it cheaper to just commission a new one.

A fire burning that long must be pretty hot. Does that compromise the steel? Is the wiring and electronics basically gutted by now?

Also curious. It was being refitted. Would they have removed most of the fuel (or left it low)? Was it full of hmmvws and APCs and stuff? I guess it wouldn’t have a traditional ammunition battery wanting to explode, it’s not a battleship or anything. Jet fuel?

I'm 99% sure they remove everything before refitting, both to avoid accidents (Jet fuel and sparks don't mix well, for instance) and to avoid theft ("I'm sure I left my Tomahawk somewhere. Has anyone seen it?")

> at what point is it cheaper to just commission a new one

I have no idea how they perform the calculus on this, but remember that the USS Cole had a hole blown in its hull large enough that it had to be transported back to the US on top of another ship, and was still put back into service after refit.

They probably felt a need to make a statement with the USS Cole given the nature of the damage.

I wonder if they’ll do the same. Not as a message against fire but as a message to all the sailors that these ships are more than tools. They’re homes with names and histories and traditions.

I think this is a likely answer to my question.

Granted, this was in the 40's, but they even raised most of the sunk boats in pearl harbor and rebuilt them after the attack [0].

[0]: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2012/1207/Pea...

That is so cool, each time I learn some aspect of the resourcefulness of countries involved in ww2 I always feel inspired.

Random story connection at miniature scale - While traveling around Loas a few years ago, one of the places we stayed was on a river with boats available, the other guests took the few canoes available in the evening before we had a chance... my partner was quite disappointment as we were only there for one night. I found what at first looked like an unsalvagable very green old wooden one sunk about 4ft next to the pontoon, since I had nothing else to do - within about 30mins, some perseverance, creative use of levers and sheer "manliness" I managed to surface enough of it to flip it over and scoop some air into it, drag it to shore, empty it, polish the algea off the seats and put it back in the water to test it's hull.

We had a great time in our old green boat, and ended up exploring more of the river's tributaries than all the other guests :)

There is something very satisfying about bringing stuff back to life when you have real utility for it and then enjoying it.

I actually didn't know about this; I thought they were mostly scrapped. Thinking of it in the context of the war, though, it makes total sense that they'd try to refit as many intact hulls as they could to speed up procurement.

That might have been more to do with metal shortages during the war than the cost to rebuild:

https://www.sarahsundin.com/make-it-do-metal-shortages-durin...

> Would they have removed most of the fuel

Low fuel is more dangerous than high fuel. Most Navy fuels will put out low temperature fires on contact - the ignition hazard is from the fumes. A mostly empty fuel tank full of vapors is easier to catch fire and more explosive when it does.

> I have none of the knowledge and all of the curiosity about at what point is it cheaper to just commission a new one.

it is almost certainly cheaper to decommission if all you consider dollar cost. however, there are concurrent concerns about fleet readiness that may outweigh some dollar differential.

> Low fuel is more dangerous than high fuel. Most Navy fuels will put out low temperature fires on contact - the ignition hazard is from the fumes. A mostly empty fuel tank full of vapors is easier to catch fire and more explosive when it does.

-- that's for mogas and such, dfm doesn't really have that problem. Most tanks are kept empty in yard periods.

Navy Times says it had about a 1 million gallons on board. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/07/12/amphibio...

Not sure about the fuel, but the hold was almost certainly empty. When I was onboard one of these while it was in port in Japan the hold was empty. I think since these are typically used to transport Marines they are empty until they need to take Marines somewhere.

At the start of shipyard periods, they will have unloaded just about all embarked equipment, the planes would be based elsewhere nearby, fuel stock unloaded to minimum levels, all ammunition stores unloaded, the spaces to be worked on would be cleared in abidance with fire safety procedures.

Nevertheless, there's always a risk... This is just definitely the most dramatic accident in a long time.

In answer to another comment, it won't get to the point of replacing the ship unless by some crazy chance the fire continues so long as to be catastrophic. Each ship of this class costs billions. Repairs will be more effective almost too the point of actual hull compromise.

Retired Navy here...

Yes, it will probably be cheaper to build a new one at this point.

Yes, steel is compromised, wiring and electronics gutted. Millions in equipment that isn't even made anymore has been destroyed. Many of the systems in the island are moved from ship to ship as new ships commission as they can't make new ones anymore. This is the worst fire disaster the Navy has had since Forrestal, with the possible exception of the Miami. We're just very fortunate nobody died.

Yes, nearly all fuel is normally removed -- both DFM and JP5, all of the USMC equipment would have been removed, all of the ammunition and arms (remember, this is a mini-aircraft carrier, it absolutely does have a fuckton of ordnance onboard in normal operations) would have been removed. In this case, and I have no idea why, they had 900k gallons of DFM onboard, which is not normal for a maintenance period and suggests perhaps they were doing tank validations or something.

> Millions in equipment that isn't even made anymore has been destroyed. Many of the systems in the island are moved from ship to ship as new ships commission as they can't make new ones anymore.

Have any examples of this? I wouldn't be surprised if it was classified, but I'm curious.

You'd think they'd make sure everything is replaceable, since equipment tends to get destroyed in wars.

Nothing classified

Things like the SPN-41 are definitely far out of production (those cards are literally through-hole construction with discrete components and DIPs for ICs), Possibly SPS-48/49, lots of combat systems equipment, etc. There are tons of things like that where the contracts to build them ran out decades ago.

I suppose I shouldn't say totally irreplaceable, the government will contract with someone to go back and build new ones if they have to in order to outfit, but the process to do so would be so cost prohibitive it would be smarter to just create a whole new system. Imagine systems where the entire worldwide demand is less than 25 systems (one each for the CVNs and LHD/LHAs), all of them were built in the 1980s/1990s, and all of them were essentially hand built then. Nobody can profitably keep a production line open for them, even spares are built and provided with the systems at delivery.

So if you need a new one, you're kind of screwed. You either have to go back and pay a huge premium and hope the original company (if it exists, and sometimes it doesn't) can replicate their decades old work and build you a new one, or you have to contract to develop a new system. Kind of a catch-22 -- both are prohibitively expensive.

We had systems on my first boat in the 90s that had been built in the 60s and continually refurbished and upgraded since, no new ones had been built since the 70s and 80s. You can tell by the serial numbers.

I don't think it's possible to find the information on the pricing of just the ships' hull/superstructure. But from one paper I found the hull of a commercial ship is a pretty considerable expense (about a third of the total cost).[1] I can only imagine that the cost of a USN ship's hull is more expensive.

Then there's this report from Rand: "Equipment costs range from 35 to 57 percent of construction costs for the ship types we analyzed, while material costs range from 11 to 17 percent."[2]. I don't know how much of that exactly is hull/superstructure, but I think we can assume that it's a considerable portion.

Also, building a ship takes a ton of time. So the USN may think it's better to return this ship to the fleet than build a new one.

That ties into another reason that maybe factors in here. It might be worthwhile in the sense that during war the USN will probably not have the time to build a new ship to fight. So giving its technicians experience in bringing a ship back into service might be helpful.

[1] http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/jgordo/Artigos%20Oficiais/091%2020...

[2] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/R...

About 750MM according to Wikipedia.

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

How does a ship like this burn for so long? Is there much that can be burned? I was under the impression it's mostly steel and other non-flammable materials. I was also under the impression that a ship like this is compartmentalized in sections that can be individually shut off (to deprive it of enough oxygen to keep the fire going).

> Admiral Sobeck said sailors on board said that [the fire] had started in a cavernous open area used for storing trucks and amphibious vehicles used by Marines and that it may have been fueled by heavy-duty cardboard boxes and other materials in storage

Paint, oil, tar, grease, hydraulic fluids, stores of any kind - steel won't burn, but all that stuff does and there's plenty of it. Even museum ships smell richly of volatiles. Go into an unventilated space on a hot day and it's not hard at all to imagine a fire.

Compartmentalization is much more for controlling flooding than fire, although it can help slow down (but not stop) the spread of fire throughout a ship. It sounds a bit late for that in this case, and setting watertight integrity also requires people to physically close and dog hatches which likely can't even be survivably reached at this point.

Steel can indeed burn (although it's not a fuel/combustible). Anyone who's done any blacksmithing with coal will most likely have first-hand experience of steel burning.

I guess just about anything will burn in oxygen if you can get enough heat into it to ignite it, sure. That's why I said the steel won't burn, not that it can't burn. I don't think a fire aboard a ship would be likely to manage it, although a specialist in shipboard fires may know better.

One of the most unexpected parts of enlisting in the Navy was the focus on fire safety and fire fighting skills. It will be interesting to read the report on what happened.

It will be a year or more, but I'll definitely read it when it comes out.

Reminds me of the time a shipyard worker set fire to a submarine, totaling it, because he wanted to go home early[0]. I imagine the Bonhomme Richard will be decommissioned too. I hope they eventually find the cause, will be interested to hear what it was.

[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/15/nuclea...

Well, that's not quite the full story, is it. He couldn't take time off work because he'd used all his vacation and holiday; presumably he couldn't quit because he needed money to eat.

He didn't seem to be mentally well; who would start a second fire after the first? ISTM that a society which forces people to work at the margin like this is going to reap a harvest of questionable quality.

It's always the Welder...

For some reason they tend to burn down a lot of things. My Dad was a welder, he set himself on fire daily. My Mom would always be yelling at him for all the holes in his cloths.

Welding involves lots of sparks and flames.

> The fire was first reported in a lower cargo area where seafaring tanks and landing craft are parked. It appears to have started in a spot where cardboard boxes, rags and other ship maintenance supplies were being stored, Sobeck said.

I will not be surprised if this ends up being an "oily rag" fire.

https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/Public-Education/Resource...

The US has nearly half of the worlds aircraft carriers (20 out if 43). It also has the 10 or 11 largest carriers in the world, and about two thirds of world aircraft carrier tonnage.

All of these carriers cost billions, the largest group over $10B each. It is speculated that modern anti-carrier missiles make them expensive sitting ducks in any serious shooting war.

Reminds me of the S.S. Normandie https://boats.drivemag.com/features/the-golden-era-of-transa...

Paywall workaround: https://web.archive.org/web/20200714115743/https://www.nytim...

Wikipedia article on the ship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bonhomme_Richard_(LHD-6)

Interestingly, I only run into the paywall on mobile. On desktop, I can get it to show the "click here to view full article" box if I use Firefox's responsive design mode, but that's it.

In any case, another workaround is simply disabling/blocking javascript. I did this with uBlock Origin on Firefox for Android.

I think it's to do with how many articles you've viewed from each browser in the last month or something. Sounds like you've visited more NY Times articles on mobile recently.

Perhaps, but I don't think so: https://i.imgur.com/vnn3qlB.png

Perhaps my desktop browser does a poorer job of protecting my anonymity. That's an annoying thought, given I go to moderate lengths to make myself less track-able.

> Military officers are held accountable in ways that politicians and bureaucrats (almost) never are.

"On Monday, President Trump pardoned the convicted war criminal Michael Behenna, who had murdered Ali Mansur, an unarmed, naked Iraqi, by shooting him in the head and chest."

Kindly only sip the cool-aid.

Trump's an anomaly and I've heard a lot of military members are very upset by his intervention with Gallagher.

Sure, then how about these paragons of military justice:

1. In 1998, a US maring navigator flew - against US regulations - his fighter aircraft at low altitude over the Cavalese ski resort in Italy.

The muppets managed to cut the wires of crowded cable car - killing 20 allied civilians. Captain Ashby and Captain Schweitzer were put on trial … and found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide.

2. In 2001 the Navy Los Angeles-class submarine USS Greeneville (SSN-772) submarine deliberately breached the surface to impress some politicians onboard. The muppets managed to sink a Japanese teaching ship - killing 9 allied civilians, including 4 children.

After Commander Waddle had faced the Naval Board of Inquiry, it was decided that a full court-martial would be unnecessary and he was given an honorable discharge.

I can go on, but I doubt I have the karma :)

> I can go on, but I doubt I have the karma :)

It's not just karma you're lacking.

Behenna for example was held accountable. Your prior insult was quite unwarranted.

Behenna served five years in prison for killing a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist (Mansur) that was linked by an intel report to a roadside bomb (that killed two of Behenna's friends). Behenna was convicted of "unpremeditated murder in a combat zone" and was released from prison in 2014.

After prison, Behenna completed five years of parole and Trump pardoned the remaining five years. I don't agree with the pardon, however you of course made it sound like Behenna avoided prison time and there was zero accountability.

And the muppets in the ski area?

Both dishonorably discharged, which has consequences in later life not unakin to a felony conviction, and also renders post-separation benefits null and void. One also served a few months prison time. If you want to argue it's not enough, fine. But to claim they faced no consequences whatsoever is substantively false to fact.

I never claimed they faced no consequences, but the OP's claim that the US military are held to much higher standards of accountability that the civil service is not justified.

And I showed why.

> Both dishonorably discharged, which has consequences in later life not unakin to a felony conviction, and also renders post-separation benefits null and void

Those sound like penalties due to their negligence, not due to the manslaughter.

If you design a building negligently, it collapses and nobody dies: You lose your job, never work in the industry again, and face civil lawsuits for damages (there goes your pension).

If you design a building negligently, it collapses and people die: All of the above, plus a severe criminal conviction.

If you fly a plane negligently and damage public infrastructure, I sincerely hope you would be dishonorably discharged.

So, one could argue they faced little consequence for the deaths they caused, despite having a higher level of responsibility.

(Whether the actual consequences of an action vs the possible consequences of an action should decide the punishment is a whoooole other topic)

> Both dishonorably discharged, which has consequences in later life not unakin to a felony conviction

A DD has consequences more akin to a previous for-cause termination than a felony conviction. It does remove the advantages being a veteran gives you over everyone else, at the same time, which together might be similar in magnitude to a felony conviction, though.

1. The pilot (Ashby) and NFO (Schweitzer) were subsequently convicted of conduct unbecoming for destroying evidence; each was dismissed from the Marine Corps (the officer equivalent of a dishonorable discharge, which in turn is the equivalent of a felony conviction, which stays with you for life), and Ashby was imprisoned for six months. [0]

2. The USS Greeneville incident was a career-ender for pretty much everyone who was even remotely involved; that's small comfort to the families of the people who died, but the problem seems to have been one of failing do one last precautionary check after doing others, and Murphy's Law worked its magic. I wasn't a sub sailor so I can't really opine as to whether or not that was grossly negligent or simply one of those stupid mistakes that humans sometimes make. [1]

[0] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(199...

[1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_c...

So the civilian contractor who set on fire a submarine with no casualties (linked elsewhere in this thread) got 17 years of jail, but the military pilot who killed 20 innocent civilians (in an allied country, while not even being at war) got 6 months. Not a blazing example of military accountability.

Yes, intent matters.

Well, let's see: On the one hand, the Marine pilot did something that in different circumstances he would have been required to do (low-level flight, e.g., in combat and/or in training for combat). Moreover, there was considerable doubt whether they had been provided with up-to-date maps showing what areas were off-limits. They were acquitted of the manslaughter charges — but they were later cashiered for destroying evidence, i.e., a videotape of the accident [2], because for military officers, integrity is supposed to be at the top of the list of required personal qualities.

Oh, and let's not forget that the pilot and NFO had previously had good records (AFAIK) and for many years had been putting their asses on the line for their country every single time they took off in a plane. (There's an old joke that when you join the U.S. military, you sign a blank check made out to the People of the United States of America, payable in any amount up to and including your life.)

On the other hand, we have the civilian "yardbird" who, wanting to go home, intentionally started a fire that led to the essentially-total loss [3] of a major national military asset. "Rear Adm. Richard Breckenridge, a submarine group commander, said the ship's extensive damage had ripple effects around the Navy, delaying repairs on other vessels and leading to longer deployments for thousands of sailors." [4]

If you don't see why that might lead to very-different sentences for the two cases, I'm afraid we don't have much else to discuss on that point.

[2] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(199...

[3] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/USS_Miami_(SSN-755)#/2012_fire

[4] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/15/nuclea...

They destroyed the evidence that would have proved if they were intentionally trying to sneak below the cable car or not... and they got away with a grand total of 6 months of detention. This is beyond ridiculous, no civilian would have had it so easy.

But I agree, I don't think we have much else to discuss, indeed.

Define "a lot".

Because most veterans understand that a lot of the senior, politicized brass is kinda wobbly, and given to throwing the junior squids under the bus.

Prime example is the USS Iowa disaster[1], when The Narrative demanded that GMG2 Clayton Hartwig's reputation be sacrificed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion

You've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of their ideology. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take a look at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... for more explanation.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23830891.

They should scuttle it and let the sea put it out.

Probably not enough draft under the keel for the ship to actually submerge. Also, expensive for having to replace a bunch of equipment that is now dunked in seawater. Let alone raising the ship afterward.

Putting out the fire and preventing a health emergency should be put above saving equipment.

You might be dumping 900k gallons of diesel fuel in the harbor by doing that.

Anyway, sinking a ship isn't easy. There's no self destruct button, and they're designed not to sink.

Not to mention the sheer embarrassment. It’s one thing to choose to junk a ship.

Another to do so in public after an accidental fire at port on a 1.5B mini aircraft carrier.

The entire county smelling the burning ship for the 3rd day today, and they estimate a week total, seems more of an embarrassment to me. The military blows through 1.5B and the public wouldn't bat an eye. Leaving a flaming ship less than a mile from a major downtown for a week, and everyone will (is) complaining at the wastefulness of the Navy. I live 6 miles away and going outside is unbearable, people are smelling it 20+ miles away in Alpine and North County. I have been trying to imagine what it is like in the neighborhoods adjacent to the base right now, it was a hot week, and many don't have AC, keeping the windows closed is a nightmare.

Yep, check some salvage related documentaries on Youtube. Raise a ship even in harbor is far from easy, especially if it ends up on a side, which is apparently quite common.

Retired Navy here.

She's pierside at 32nd Street in San Diego. You could try to tow her out past Point Loma, I guess, if the towing hawser itself doesn't part, and the "front fall off[1]" the ship, at the risk of bottling up the 3rd Fleet in the channel.

Ships can be rebuilt from extensive damage, as USS Cole, USS Stark, and USS Samuel B. Roberts show. It's a question of whether there is sufficient motive to do it, given the age and opportunity cost.

You can bet your bippy that everyone even remotely related to this disaster is going to get hammered when the investigation is completed. Military officers are held accountable in ways that politicians and bureaucrats (almost) never are.

[1] Yes, it's the "bow", but watch this humor clip => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWPwlMv8lNI

Generally harbours aren't very deep. You could "sink" it by a couple of meters .. but most of the ship would still be above water.

This was an advantage after Pearl Harbor, when several of the ships could be refloated: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2012/1207/Pea...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com