titan said:

---

I suppose it is barely possible it could be disgruntled treason type sabotage, from some leftist activist.

---

Wouldn't be the first time.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/navy-unprepared-arson-fire-nuclear-sub-uss-miami-report-n248421

Yes. That is why there is not much risk if they will just immerse it. Or at least it is a manageable one.

That's what I was thinking. I'm sure the petro engineers have a better description of it but my understanding of JP8 is that it's just diesel sweetened with a bit of lighter gasoline to improve cold weather combustion. When we switched over Marine Corps trucks from plain old diesel to JP8 in 2000 the process was simply to start using JP8 and replace the fuel filter very frequently to account for dissolved sediment. The truck ran about the same except for really cold weather when they were easier to start.

Rear Admiral Philip Sobeck addressed reporters at 11:00 AM local time in San Diego to provide new information on the ongoing fire aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) that has now burned continuously for 27 hours. The press conference follows a terrible night for the ship, which saw the fire expand to its bridge and greater island superstructure, partially melting its upper forward portion. The ship now lists at the pier as firefighting efforts continue at a frantic pace from both the air and the ground.
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.

nortex97 said:

---

I checked twitter, and yes, the Iranians are laughing/mocking the USN.

---

During a det to CENTCOM about 10 years ago we were tracking the comms and projected path of an Iranian naval ship that had run out of fuel in the Indian Ocean.

They eventually ran out of fresh water and were concerned that they were going to drift into Indian waters before anyone could make it out to rescue them.

We were in the sky listening every time one of their janky F-4 Phantoms took off. Go home, Iran, you're drunk.

Based on Admiral Schoep's briefing, it may very well have been a case of spontaneous combustion in a pile of rags and other trash...
The area where the fire started, which was the lower vehicle storage area, was filled with cardboard, rags, drywall, and other combustible material.
Just saying,
Lee72
CAPT USN (Ret)

Wikipedia is savage.
"Status: On fire"

Lee72 said:

---

Based on Admiral Schoep's briefing, it may very well have been a case of spontaneous combustion in a pile of rags and other trash...
The area where the fire started, which was the lower vehicle storage area, was filled with cardboard, rags, drywall, and other combustible material.
Just saying,
Lee72
CAPT USN (Ret)

---

Spontaneous combustion? You mean unsafe storage of flammable materials? There has to be an igniter/source of ignition, whether that be a chemical reaction, kinetic action or something. Sorry, Captain, but allowing a $ 761 million ship to burn up without much better fire protection, knowing that all that fuel is aboard ship is not acceptable.

Lee72 said:

---

Rear Admiral Philip Sobeck addressed reporters at 11:00 AM local time in San Diego to provide new information on the ongoing fire aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) that has now burned continuously for 27 hours. The press conference follows a terrible night for the ship, which saw the fire expand to its bridge and greater island superstructure, partially melting its upper forward portion. The ship now lists at the pier as firefighting efforts continue at a frantic pace from both the air and the ground.
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.

---

Very good summation.

Bullet point one: "everything they can" doesn't sound good enough. Pull the plug. Not reading anything in that description that indicates is under control.

Bullet point bold two: the list is in the direction of the island. Dewatering is likely not going to work--its going to create negative metacentric height. Its very likely to capsize, and with not much warning and people on the dock any still aboard will at risk.

The very words "balancing" act confirms free surface is what is happening.

Think they need to do that deliberate sinking idea now, and while they can be sure stays upright and easier to raise.

Chance of a catastrophic explosion if it reaches the fuel reserves?

Also, I feel like quite a few people going to loose rank over something this major.

erudite said:

---

Chance of a catastrophic explosion if it reaches the fuel reserves?

Also, I feel like quite a few people going to loose rank over something this major.

---

Depends on the nature of the load, but potentially very high. When first heard this fire, I assumed it was moth-balled or semi-deactivated unit, not an active one in port for major work. It is not a given that it has been unloaded to the degree to be safe that a "long stay" is. I don't know enough of the details here.

But theoretically, the risk is very high.

Far more likely, now bordering on 60/40 odds or worse, I kid not, is that ship is going to go over suddenly, and people on the dock and any aboard are going to be at real risk. Negative metacentric height is totally unforgiving and when you are "balancing" it is actually already too late. They need to be letting water in. If only to deepen how sits.

Anyone read a description of the "degrees" of list and whether to starboard or port?

Somewhere I read listing to starboard, but did not see a degree value.
I would assume that in addition to de-watering, they are counter-flooding port side compartments as part of the "balancing" act.
Also one other thing listed was the amount of debris, boxes, rags etc. that might have contributed to the blaze. That was something I noticed on photos of one of the berthing compartments (either the Fitz, or McCain), and was shocked at the amount of "gear adrift". (For those not familiar with Nav speak, Gear adrift if stuff sitting around in places it shouldn't be, including trash, exercise bike etc). Seems like current leadership tolerates a MUCH higher level of disorder than back in the stone age when I served. Aboard a warship, things just shouldn't be laying around. Obvious fire hazard, clogs up de-watering pumps, various other bad things happen like blocking egress during emergency.
Given that the BHR, and the FITZ, and the McCain all were home-ported in Japan prior to their accidents, one has to wonder just how seriously ALL levels of leadership are taking their jobs, particular those in PAC fleet.

Can you explain meta centric height or is it too complicated and I need to google?

drums said:

---

Somewhere I read listing to starboard, but did not see a degree value.
I would assume that in addition to de-watering, they are counter-flooding port side compartments as part of the "balancing" act.
Also one other thing listed was the amount of debris, boxes, rags etc. that might have contributed to the blaze. That was something I noticed on photos of one of the berthing compartments (either the Fitz, or McCain), and was shocked at the amount of "gear adrift". (For those not familiar with Nav speak, Gear adrift if stuff sitting around in places it shouldn't be, including trash, exercise bike etc). Seems like current leadership tolerates a MUCH higher level of disorder than back in the stone age when I served. Aboard a warship, things just shouldn't be laying around. Obvious fire hazard, clogs up de-watering pumps, various other bad things happen like blocking egress during emergency.
Given that the BHR, and the FITZ, and the McCain all were home-ported in Japan prior to their accidents, one has to wonder just how seriously ALL levels of leadership are taking their jobs, particular those in PAC fleet.

---

Starboard. As postulated; in other words, the side with the island. Yes, hear you about "gear adrift" and that is positively shocking that it STILL is the case. Apparently even basic navigation rather than dependency on instruments was no longer being stressed under Obama's tenure, but would have assumed that had tightened up. Perhaps not. Similarly this about the gear----- just from your description it doesn't meet WW II standards of either ours or the enemy's fleet. Hmmm....

I wonder if that also goes for the knowledge level about such fire-fighting at dock and the lessons of metacentric height both navies learned the hard way as well?

Not seeing alot "correct" going on here---but that is just going by video and not the full story.

erudite said:

---

Chance of a catastrophic explosion if it reaches the fuel reserves?

Also, I feel like quite a few people going to loose rank over something this major.

---

I've never heard of a ship catastrophically exploding due to fuel. Often due to a magazine cooking off, but I haven't heard anything about the magazine in this case. I don't know if they empty it for maintenance.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Can you explain meta centric height or is it too complicated and I need to google?

---

When a ship sits in the water its designed displacement pre-supposes a certain weight above waterline. In many ways this can be more important than the more obvious worry of water pouring in below. Fire-fighting on carriers like the Franklin came dangerously close to turning the carrier over even though there was no holes below the waterline of consequence compared to the free water surface of fire-fighting foam sloshing around on the decks.

The design in that case was a maximum of 7.5 degrees of heel, before the "upthrust" of buoyancy would tend to "flip" over to the side. Its a mathematical equation that goes into the design.

It is what makes it really important to be careful about too much topside weight even if you have no underwater damage.

To look up a very glaring example of an entirely intact ship flipping from negative stability and disaster, look up the S.S. Eastland disaster in Chicago in July 2015.

GAC06 said:

---

erudite said:

---

Chance of a catastrophic explosion if it reaches the fuel reserves?

Also, I feel like quite a few people going to loose rank over something this major.

---

I've never heard of a ship catastrophically exploding due to fuel. Often due to a magazine cooking off, but I haven't heard anything about the magazine in this case. I don't know if they empty it for maintenance.

---

Gas vapor can definitely do it and blow it apart. USS Lexington gives the most obvious example. But you have to have it leaking first. Despite raging fire aboard, there is no reason to believe gas vapor has been spreading or that there are such sources.

Thanks. And I think you had a typo, the Eastland was 1915

titan said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

erudite said:

---

Chance of a catastrophic explosion if it reaches the fuel reserves?

Also, I feel like quite a few people going to loose rank over something this major.

---

I've never heard of a ship catastrophically exploding due to fuel. Often due to a magazine cooking off, but I haven't heard anything about the magazine in this case. I don't know if they empty it for maintenance.

---

Gas vapor can definitely do it and blow it apart. USS Lexington gives the most obvious example. But you have to have it leaking first. Despite raging fire aboard, there is no reason to believe gas vapor has been spreading or that there are such sources.

---

Good point. Several Japanese carriers suffered a similar fate but always with leaking gas first, and avgas is a lot more explosive than JP5 or the ship's fuel. Even in then the real threat is the magazines though.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Thanks. And I think you had a typo, the Eastland was 1915

---

Yes, haha. Good catch. Google that one, and the articles tend to also explain metacentric kind of good. But I captured the main point. It can be a paradox how something with insufficient water damage to sink it still flips it.

Oddly enough, a non-punctured fuel tank usually doesn't "go" that way. Its the vapor stage that is so volatile. What can happen instead is they just start burning furiously, and I mean furiously. Melting everything. Its not a given the Bonhomme Richard will blow up even if the fire gets there. But it makes no sense what see going on--they need to go ahead and "set her down" on the bottom to make salvage easier and put out the fire and also snuff the risk of induced explosions of any source by doing so.

titan said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Can you explain meta centric height or is it too complicated and I need to google?

---

When a ship sits in the water its designed displacement pre-supposes a certain weight above waterline. In many ways this can be more important than the more obvious worry of water pouring in below. Fire-fighting on carriers like the Franklin came dangerously close to turning the carrier over even though there was no holes below the waterline of consequence compared to the free water surface of fire-fighting foam sloshing around on the decks.

The design in that case was a maximum of 7.5 degrees of heel, before the "upthrust" of buoyancy would tend to "flip" over to the side. Its a mathematical equation that goes into the design.

It is what makes it really important to be careful about too much topside weight even if you have no underwater damage.

To look up a very glaring example of an entirely intact ship flipping from negative stability and disaster, look up the S.S. Eastland disaster in Chicago in July 2015.

---

Water is 35' deep where it's docked, 27.5 feet to the bottom of the ship. Not going to sink much unless they tow it out, and then they risk having it sink in the channel and block San Diego Bay in.

The ordnance carried on the LHD is almost entirely for the Landing Force Operational Reserve Materiel (LFORM) which is ammo for every weapon organic to a MEU. For large explosive potential that really comes down to aviation ordnance and the artillery and mortar ammo. I was never a combat cargo officer but it seems to me that the ordnance is carefully transferred onto the LHD prior to deployment from shore based bunkers and removed upon return to port.

If the ammo was not offloaded then there had to be sentries posted to guard it. Those sentries are usually Marine sentries when the MEU is embarked and I can't imagine that the ship's company would volunteer to guard the magazines containing the LFROM for a few months while the ship is being refitted. It just seems highly unlikely that for carefully lot-managed ordnance that has strict temperature and humidity requirements they would leave it in the magazines while the ship is undergoing refit. The following is for Wasp Class LHDs but it is obviously of 1990s vintage.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/slcp-lhd-3/Sectii.html



Note space 18 below is the Lower Vehicle Stowage and spaces 20 and 21 are the magazines and flammable liquid storage.

AG 2000' said:

---

titan said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Can you explain meta centric height or is it too complicated and I need to google?

---

When a ship sits in the water its designed displacement pre-supposes a certain weight above waterline. In many ways this can be more important than the more obvious worry of water pouring in below. Fire-fighting on carriers like the Franklin came dangerously close to turning the carrier over even though there was no holes below the waterline of consequence compared to the free water surface of fire-fighting foam sloshing around on the decks.

The design in that case was a maximum of 7.5 degrees of heel, before the "upthrust" of buoyancy would tend to "flip" over to the side. Its a mathematical equation that goes into the design.

It is what makes it really important to be careful about too much topside weight even if you have no underwater damage.

To look up a very glaring example of an entirely intact ship flipping from negative stability and disaster, look up the S.S. Eastland disaster in Chicago in July 2015.

---

Water is 35' deep where it's docked, 27.5 feet to the bottom of the ship. Not going to sink much unless they tow it out, and then they risk having it sink in the channel and block San Diego Bay in.

---

That actually sounds ideal. That sounds enough to cut out the downward progression of the fire and prevent capsizing, which is a far greater and difficult salvage to have to do. Its very obvious there is no controlling this fire, so they are taking too many risks. Set her down, or tow her out a bit, and then set it down a little deeper.

Just for reference, go look at the list the STARK had following their damage control efforts. Tell me there was not a very high pucker factor going on there. They had to counter flood STBD side compartments to save that one. I know completely different ships, loaded differently, different metacentric heights, but there are some tricks they can use, and maybe somebody running the show knows some of them.

Just a humble observation, but it seems like sealed bulkheads would be a good idea on a ship to stop water/fire. Maybe some naval genius could take this idea and put it into practice.

Wait these run on gas? I would have assumed diesel turbines

texrover91 said:

---

Wait these run on gas? I would have assumed diesel turbines

---

Looked it up and if I read it correctly then JP5 is a heavy kerosene fuel. Flash point is 60 deg C so that it isn't volatile at normal ambient temps. But any fuel could flash with the heat they have working on that ship right now.

nortex97 said:

---

Just a humble observation, but it seems like sealed bulkheads would be a good idea on a ship to stop water/fire. Maybe some naval genius could take this idea and put it into practice.

---

Bulkheads on a ship do just that. Problem is, the fire gets hotter and hotter, and heats up the metal of the bulkhead until such a point the objects in the next compartment combust due to the heat. Then it moves on to the next compartment and repeats.

AG 2000' said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Just a humble observation, but it seems like sealed bulkheads would be a good idea on a ship to stop water/fire. Maybe some naval genius could take this idea and put it into practice.

---

Bulkheads on a ship do just that. Problem is, the fire gets hotter and hotter, and heats up the metal of the bulkhead until such a point the objects in the next compartment combust due to the heat. Then it moves on to the next compartment and repeats.

---

In other words, the fire spreads without even requiring an open hatch. Exactly. A phenomena often overlooked.

Also, IF the bulkheads doors, watertight hatches, and scuttles are not already closed, there is little hope of expecting crew to make their way below decks in that inferno to shut them now.

True

Curious if it's a mix of Fuel types then

UTExan said:

---

Lee72 said:

---

Based on Admiral Schoep's briefing, it may very well have been a case of spontaneous combustion in a pile of rags and other trash...
The area where the fire started, which was the lower vehicle storage area, was filled with cardboard, rags, drywall, and other combustible material.
Just saying,
Lee72
CAPT USN (Ret)

---

Spontaneous combustion? You mean unsafe storage of flammable materials? There has to be an igniter/source of ignition, whether that be a chemical reaction, kinetic action or something. Sorry, Captain, but allowing a $ 761 million ship to burn up without much better fire protection, knowing that all that fuel is aboard ship is not acceptable.

---

Some oil materials like vegetable oil, linseed oil, etc can spontaneously combust if the generated heat from oxidation is not dissipated. If those oils are on some rags in a pile of garbage...

As to blame...who's to say? If caused by the servicing personal is it really the Captain's fault? Like all good problems it'll probably be a combination of things who's fault lies with many (process, procedures, etc.).