Bet too many off duty individuals and civilian employees were coming out to watch, and getting in the way.

Might also be worried about something else going boom.

This writer doesn't pull any punches - blames "lax" fire safety practices...

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

Rapier108 said:

---

Bet too many off duty individuals and civilian employees were coming out to watch, and getting in the way.

Might also be worried about something else going boom.

---

yeah...like 1 million gallons of fuel...

I'm about 5 miles away and it smelled like burned rubber with smoke in the air all day but seems to have finally cleared where I am at

Is the captain still legally (for lack of navy language) responsible for the vessel when it's at the pier and under that level of maintenance? Or does that get signed over to the yard?

Captain is always responsible. My guess is improperly stored hazardous materials started the blaze.

Lots of excuses here. Can't the navy get their sheet onboard? I am so resentful for excuses. Whe in the Corp when we messed up all I heard was " No excuse sir". That made us professionally and personally successful out there in the world. No excuses.

It was probably the Spanish.

MELTING

agneck said:

---

Lots of excuses here. Can't the navy get their sheet onboard? I am so resentful for excuses. Whe in the Corp when we messed up all I heard was " No excuse sir". That made us professionally and personally successful out there in the world. No excuses.

---

I searched thread and found no "excuses". Can you clarify what you're commenting on?

ChiefHaus said:

---

Captain is always responsible. My guess is improperly stored hazardous materials started the blaze.

---

USERNAME CHECKS OUT

Were she a car, I'd say she's totaled at this point.

I just have to ask, why do we need 8 amphibious assault ships anyway? We haven't conducted such an operation in 70+ years, right?

I mean, sure, they're helpful in lot's of other stuff (like carrying marines/helicopters/disaster aid) as well, but it seems like a typical...navy stuck in the 40's attitude.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

You have them so other people know you have them and can use them.

---

Sort of like nukes.

nortex97 said:

---

I just have to ask, why do we need 8 amphibious assault ships anyway? We haven't conducted such an operation in 70+ years, right?

I mean, sure, they're helpful in lot's of other stuff (like carrying marines/helicopters/disaster aid) as well, but it seems like a typical...navy stuck in the 40's attitude.

---

The threat is shifting, and the forthcoming focus on the pacific theatre will require a shift in focus to operations that would include reliance on amphibious assault operations.

nortex97 said:

---

I just have to ask, why do we need 8 amphibious assault ships anyway? We haven't conducted such an operation in 70+ years, right?

I mean, sure, they're helpful in lot's of other stuff (like carrying marines/helicopters/disaster aid) as well, but it seems like a typical...navy stuck in the 40's attitude.

---

These ships perform forward deployed aircraft operations in direct support of Marines on the ground. "Amphibious assault" means a lot more than LSTs landing on beaches.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship

agneck said:

---

Lots of excuses here. Can't the navy get their sheet onboard? I am so resentful for excuses. Whe in the Corp when we messed up all I heard was " No excuse sir". That made us professionally and personally successful out there in the world. No excuses.

---

Haven't seen any excuses yet.... what do you want them to do, keep slamming bodies into the fire until they smother it, or fight it like you fight a fire on ship? I've known a few marines in my day.... damned brave, stupid tough, but never knew one that would get their buddy killed for no real reason, not one that had taken fire anyway.

Punked Shank said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I just have to ask, why do we need 8 amphibious assault ships anyway? We haven't conducted such an operation in 70+ years, right?

I mean, sure, they're helpful in lot's of other stuff (like carrying marines/helicopters/disaster aid) as well, but it seems like a typical...navy stuck in the 40's attitude.

---

I mean why do we have any navy right!?!

---

Actually, I kind of agree, to a point. The navy has been pretty expensive/worthless for a long time. An expanded coast guard, and more money for USAF/Army would make sense to me (USMC could be folded into an army branch).

Also, LOL that there is a chance we'd ever engage in an amphibious landing against a Chinese property/territory. They couldn't even convince Powell to let them do one in Kuwait in Gulf War 1 vs. Sadam's clowns.

The navy has also been embarrassing for the past 20 years in particular, with the USS McCain/Fitzgerald incidents, now burning a major capital ship in harbor, the ludicrous LCS spending (first 4 are getting retired now), the list goes on and on. Maybe we could manage with a hundred ship navy, focused on the pacific to Hawaii, and Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico, and hire spaceX or someone to figure out how to make sure none of the ships run into each other/others with some smart software. Pic below from second link:

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Were she a car, I'd say she's totaled at this point.

---

yea at this point it may not even be worth trying salvage her

GAC06 said:

---

Don't let them live in your head

---

They don't. Just the truth.

74OA said:

---

MELTING

---

Thx 740A

She's done for I'd think - from the article:

The forward island has melted in with its mast now leaning forward at an extreme angle. What are supposedly Sea Hawk helicopters are now using Bambi Buckets to douse the flames from above. Amazing footage:

nortex97 said:

---

I just have to ask, why do we need 8 amphibious assault ships anyway? We haven't conducted such an operation in 70+ years, right?

I mean, sure, they're helpful in lot's of other stuff (like carrying marines/helicopters/disaster aid) as well, but it seems like a typical...navy stuck in the 40's attitude.

---

The answer to your question is Guadalcanal and the Marine Corps is never going to forget it. There are a lot of other reasons that you will be given, but that will never leave the psychology of the Marine Corps planners.

nortex97 said:

---

I just have to ask, why do we need 8 amphibious assault ships anyway? We haven't conducted such an operation in 70+ years, right?

I mean, sure, they're helpful in lot's of other stuff (like carrying marines/helicopters/disaster aid) as well, but it seems like a typical...navy stuck in the 40's attitude.

---

That's kind of ludicrous considering what our likely next major war will be. Let's just say it will involve many Inchon type operations.Assuming we are winning and not on the full defensive.

On the fire here, what is very concerning is all the fire-fighting water being poured aboard. I have not seen any video showing it yet, but Bon Homme Richard could be developing negative stability by now from free-surface water effects on flooded decks above the waterline.

Any reports of listing?

texrover91 said:

---

74OA said:

---

MELTING

---

Thx 740A

She's done for I'd think - from the article:

The forward island has melted in with its mast now leaning forward at an extreme angle. What are supposedly Sea Hawk helicopters are now using Bambi Buckets to douse the flames from above. Amazing footage:

---

Definitely done for sounds like. Totaled in the way USS Franklin and Bunker Hill were. But if she starts listing, she could end up like S.S. Normandie in New York Harbor and that would be a very difficult salvage job compared to towing a burned out hulk for dismantling.

titan said:

---

texrover91 said:

---

74OA said:

---

MELTING

---

Thx 740A

She's done for I'd think - from the article:

The forward island has melted in with its mast now leaning forward at an extreme angle. What are supposedly Sea Hawk helicopters are now using Bambi Buckets to douse the flames from above. Amazing footage:

---

Definitely done for sounds like. Totaled in the way USS Franklin and Bunker Hill were. But if she starts listing, she could end up like S.S. Normandie in New York Harbor and that would be a very difficult salvage job compared to towing a burned out hulk for dismantling.

---

Franklin and Bunker Hill were fully repaired. They could have been recommissioned after WWII, but it never happened. The Navy always wanted to upgrade them to SCB-125A standard, but the money was never allocated given the 22 other available carriers, several of which never underwent the major SCB upgrades even though they never suffered serious battle damage, if any, during WWII.

Rapier108 said:

---

titan said:

---

texrover91 said:

---

74OA said:

---

MELTING

---

Thx 740A

She's done for I'd think - from the article:

The forward island has melted in with its mast now leaning forward at an extreme angle. What are supposedly Sea Hawk helicopters are now using Bambi Buckets to douse the flames from above. Amazing footage:

---

Definitely done for sounds like. Totaled in the way USS Franklin and Bunker Hill were. But if she starts listing, she could end up like S.S. Normandie in New York Harbor and that would be a very difficult salvage job compared to towing a burned out hulk for dismantling.

---

Franklin and Bunker Hill were fully repaired. They could have been recommissioned after WWII, but it never happened. The Navy always wanted to upgrade them to SCB-125A standard, but the money was never allocated given the 22 other available carriers, several of which never underwent the major SCB upgrades even though they never suffered serious battle damage, if any, during WWII.

---

I know that. But they were totaled in the civilian sense. Those were full rebuildings. This looks like this one is too. Wartime `total loss' usually means has to be sunk. The threshold for rebuilding is much lower, vastly lower. We almost even salvaged the Arizona. There was thought to giving it a new forward section. But there was just no need.

True, same for USS Oklahoma, but the need wasn't there by the time they got the ship upright.

We did repair USS West Virginia, which ended up being a complete rebuild and was the last ship from Pearl Harbor to rejoin the fleet.

I would say Bonhomme RIchard is likely almost certainly a total loss and destined to end up in Brownsville for scrapping, or being used for target practice somewhere off the west coast.

Rapier108 said:

---

True, same for USS Oklahoma, but the need wasn't there by the time they got the ship upright.

We did repair USS West Virginia, which ended up being a complete rebuild and was the last ship from Pearl Harbor to rejoin the fleet.

I would say Bonhomme RIchard is likely almost certainly a total loss and destined to end up in Brownsville for scrapping, or being used for target practice somewhere off the west coast.

---

True. Oklahoma was a damn dramatic salvage wasn't it. It is amazing there was some consideration to refitting but it was pretty obvious there was no need. You may be right that Bonhomme Richard will end up as target practice. Perhaps after anything remaining half-way worthwhile is stripped.

Unless mistaken, we don't seem to be in a "war-time" mode where the effort to rebuild her inside and out (melted bridge means possibly mortal distortion of frames and bulkheads) seems warranted. Scrapping or use as target seems far more likely.

Artificial reef.