Ah yes, Oriskany! That actually had a certain beauty to it. A place to give life, and a better fate for a veteran warship than scrapping.CanyonAg77 said:
Artificial reef.
Ah yes, Oriskany! That actually had a certain beauty to it. A place to give life, and a better fate for a veteran warship than scrapping.CanyonAg77 said:
Artificial reef.
Hard for me to imagine what secrets she would hold, but I'm an airplane and nuke history nut, not a ship nut.Quote:
Probably not as an artificial reef since she is a modern warship and we'd rather not have our enemies swimming all around and through it.
Regarding #1, this is a HUGE ship. Would you expect them to offload 1 million gallons of fuel from one area of the ship so they could do some spot welding in another area?UTExan said:
Can somebody navy-wise help me out here to understand a couple of things that don't seem to be covered:
1.) If they were doing hot work (welding) on the ship, why was aviation fuel and ammunition left on board and
2.) do you see a pattern of duty neglect with the Navy or is this another one-off event like the various collision incidents and the carrier skipper airing his personnel readiness issues to the press?
Ordnance was offloaded. Fuel is in the lowest part of the ship in protected tanks. The fire is necessarily above the fuel, so it should be safe. USNIlunchbox said:Regarding #1, this is a HUGE ship. Would you expect them to offload 1 million gallons of fuel from one area of the ship so they could do some spot welding in another area?UTExan said:
Can somebody navy-wise help me out here to understand a couple of things that don't seem to be covered:
1.) If they were doing hot work (welding) on the ship, why was aviation fuel and ammunition left on board and
2.) do you see a pattern of duty neglect with the Navy or is this another one-off event like the various collision incidents and the carrier skipper airing his personnel readiness issues to the press?
This.74OA said:Ordnance was offloaded. Fuel is in the lowest part of the ship in protected tanks. The fire is necessarily above the fuel, so it should be safe. USNIlunchbox said:Regarding #1, this is a HUGE ship. Would you expect them to offload 1 million gallons of fuel from one area of the ship so they could do some spot welding in another area?UTExan said:
Can somebody navy-wise help me out here to understand a couple of things that don't seem to be covered:
1.) If they were doing hot work (welding) on the ship, why was aviation fuel and ammunition left on board and
2.) do you see a pattern of duty neglect with the Navy or is this another one-off event like the various collision incidents and the carrier skipper airing his personnel readiness issues to the press?
That was my point exactly...more well-writtenDecay said:This.74OA said:Ordnance was offloaded. Fuel is in the lowest part of the ship in protected tanks. The fire is necessarily above the fuel, so it should be safe. USNIlunchbox said:Regarding #1, this is a HUGE ship. Would you expect them to offload 1 million gallons of fuel from one area of the ship so they could do some spot welding in another area?UTExan said:
Can somebody navy-wise help me out here to understand a couple of things that don't seem to be covered:
1.) If they were doing hot work (welding) on the ship, why was aviation fuel and ammunition left on board and
2.) do you see a pattern of duty neglect with the Navy or is this another one-off event like the various collision incidents and the carrier skipper airing his personnel readiness issues to the press?
The general thought is, if procedures were followed, there wouldn't be that much risk. You have to weigh the options, and there's only so much you can do to mitigate risk, and it's just not feasible to remove all flammable material (much of it you need to actually run the ship) every time you do maintenance.
One of the lessons here is that the BR's extensive internal fire and damage control systems were useless because the ship was powered down for maintenance. Navy is going to have to devise a system so ships aren't left so vulnerable in the future.Decay said:This.74OA said:Ordnance was offloaded. Fuel is in the lowest part of the ship in protected tanks. The fire is necessarily above the fuel, so it should be safe. USNIlunchbox said:Regarding #1, this is a HUGE ship. Would you expect them to offload 1 million gallons of fuel from one area of the ship so they could do some spot welding in another area?UTExan said:
Can somebody navy-wise help me out here to understand a couple of things that don't seem to be covered:
1.) If they were doing hot work (welding) on the ship, why was aviation fuel and ammunition left on board and
2.) do you see a pattern of duty neglect with the Navy or is this another one-off event like the various collision incidents and the carrier skipper airing his personnel readiness issues to the press?
The general thought is, if procedures were followed, there wouldn't be that much risk. You have to weigh the options, and there's only so much you can do to mitigate risk, and it's just not feasible to remove all flammable material (much of it you need to actually run the ship) every time you do maintenance.
Marine doctrine stresses landing where the enemy isn't if at all possible, rather than assaulting into enemy strength. But assault or not, they nonetheless need to deliver a huge amount of heavy materiel over the beach in austere littoral environments and sustain forces there. Amphibious ships are still a key to doing that.texrover91 said:
Thought our strategy was shifting back to amphib assault due to China?
lunchbox said:Regarding #1, this is a HUGE ship. Would you expect them to offload 1 million gallons of fuel from one area of the ship so they could do some spot welding in another area?UTExan said:
Can somebody navy-wise help me out here to understand a couple of things that don't seem to be covered:
1.) If they were doing hot work (welding) on the ship, why was aviation fuel and ammunition left on board and
2.) do you see a pattern of duty neglect with the Navy or is this another one-off event like the various collision incidents and the carrier skipper airing his personnel readiness issues to the press?
Correct. And fwiw, it is very rare that even the most raging fire reaches the main fuel tanks at the bottom and those stores. Usually the combustible material burns out before it would get there. If the ship has been burning all night, starting to wonder just what is loaded.Decay said:This.74OA said:Ordnance was offloaded. Fuel is in the lowest part of the ship in protected tanks. The fire is necessarily above the fuel, so it should be safe. USNIlunchbox said:Regarding #1, this is a HUGE ship. Would you expect them to offload 1 million gallons of fuel from one area of the ship so they could do some spot welding in another area?UTExan said:
Can somebody navy-wise help me out here to understand a couple of things that don't seem to be covered:
1.) If they were doing hot work (welding) on the ship, why was aviation fuel and ammunition left on board and
2.) do you see a pattern of duty neglect with the Navy or is this another one-off event like the various collision incidents and the carrier skipper airing his personnel readiness issues to the press?
The general thought is, if procedures were followed, there wouldn't be that much risk. You have to weigh the options, and there's only so much you can do to mitigate risk, and it's just not feasible to remove all flammable material (much of it you need to actually run the ship) every time you do maintenance.
That's very perplexing. You would think at dockside in a city they would have better options than ships at sea that kept that from happening.nortex97 said:
The fire is apparently only two decks away from the fuel. I'd read there's a veritable crap ton of fuel on board.
BUDS prac ap.titan said:That's very perplexing. You would think at dockside in a city they would have better options than ships at sea that kept that from happening.nortex97 said:
The fire is apparently only two decks away from the fuel. I'd read there's a veritable crap ton of fuel on board.
Oops---just thought of it. Torpedo and sink her. Seriously. Sink her at dock. The reason say torpedo, is its probably too hot to go aboard and get down below to open the seacocks.
If its that close that fuel the danger is now greater than any value blocking dock. Deliberately sink her. Put holes for water where they know the tanks are not on the plans. Or deliberately capsize her by pouring fire-fighting water into one side. Do it quickly.
Torpedoes wouldn't be needed and too risky. They could use shaped charges on the hull which would be more precise.titan said:That's very perplexing. You would think at dockside in a city they would have better options than ships at sea that kept that from happening.nortex97 said:
The fire is apparently only two decks away from the fuel. I'd read there's a veritable crap ton of fuel on board.
Oops---just thought of it. Torpedo and sink her. Seriously. Sink her at dock. The reason say torpedo, is its probably too hot to go aboard and get down below to open the seacocks.
If its that close that fuel the danger is now greater than any value blocking dock. Deliberately sink her. Put holes for water where they know the tanks are not on the plans. Or deliberately capsize her by pouring fire-fighting water into one side. Do it quickly.
Good point about so far remaining upright. But its hard to imagine they have crew that far below still. If they do, tell them to open them up and get topside. It is not like it happens ultra-fast.Rapier108 said:Torpedoes wouldn't be needed and too risky. They could use shaped charges on the hull which would be more precise.titan said:That's very perplexing. You would think at dockside in a city they would have better options than ships at sea that kept that from happening.nortex97 said:
The fire is apparently only two decks away from the fuel. I'd read there's a veritable crap ton of fuel on board.
Oops---just thought of it. Torpedo and sink her. Seriously. Sink her at dock. The reason say torpedo, is its probably too hot to go aboard and get down below to open the seacocks.
If its that close that fuel the danger is now greater than any value blocking dock. Deliberately sink her. Put holes for water where they know the tanks are not on the plans. Or deliberately capsize her by pouring fire-fighting water into one side. Do it quickly.
Also, since they're pumping water in and out keep it righted, they very well may have control over the ship's seacocks. If they do, those can be used to scuttle the ship.
Good question. There has been more than enough time to raise steam from a dead cold start (if that is the issue) or even to tow them away. If the latest film really shows other ships still right there, its kind of foolish.nortex97 said:
I think I've demonstrated already that I don't get the navy, but I also don't understand why they still have other large ships near this thing.
Its NO contest. An av-gas explosion dwarfs any other concerns---and that's not counting magazines that may go with it.agent-maroon said:
The update that 74OA posted above says they're monitoring air quality to keep it with an EPA limits. Can you imagine the hailstorm they would have if they intentionally sank her with a million barrels of fuel? Only somewhat less than if the whole thing goes boom. Not a lot of good options here.
There is no reason to believe foreign sabotage.Its not the kind of thing they would take that risk for.DM44 said:
The article linked by 740A says there was no welding taking place where the fire started. Has anyone read what started the fire?
I have not seen any suggestion of sabotage and doubt that would be possible with security on the ship, right?
titan said:Its NO contest. An av-gas explosion dwarfs any other concerns---and that's not counting magazines that may go with it.agent-maroon said:
The update that 74OA posted above says they're monitoring air quality to keep it with an EPA limits. Can you imagine the hailstorm they would have if they intentionally sank her with a million barrels of fuel? Only somewhat less than if the whole thing goes boom. Not a lot of good options here.
Thank you for the information.titan said:There is no reason to believe foreign sabotage.Its not the kind of thing they would take that risk for.DM44 said:
The article linked by 740A says there was no welding taking place where the fire started. Has anyone read what started the fire?
I have not seen any suggestion of sabotage and doubt that would be possible with security on the ship, right?
I suppose it is barely possible it could be disgruntled treason type sabotage, from some leftist activist.
But there are so many far more plausible catalysts there is no need to go there. Its not commonly realized but in naval parlance a warship is at maximum vulnerability when in dock dependent on the dockside connections and upkeep. Most of her crew is not aboard, and many systems semi shut-down or even dismantled for maintenance. Things like electrical shorts or worse are far more common than at sea.
A navy that can't built a large warship has no business mocking one that does so almost casually. Otherwise they would know they are very complex mechanisms, at times as complex as any spacecraft handling, and mistakes and human error can happen. Ask the Russians whose carrier lost propulsion and went adrift in the middle of the Mediterranean. Nothing simple about big warship handling.Quote:
I checked twitter, and yes, the Iranians are laughing/mocking the USN.