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.

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.

Oriskany was an WWII era ship with no modern value so the Navy doesn't care who dives it.

It's why USS America, after weeks of weapon effects tests, was scuttled in very deep water. Those tests were used to determine how well a super carrier can survive battle damage, and those lessons were incorporated in the Ford class.

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.

---

Hard for me to imagine what secrets she would hold, but I'm an airplane and nuke history nut, not a ship nut.

Delivered in 1998. Had a lot of life left in her. SHIPS

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?

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?

---

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?

lunchbox said:

---

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?

---

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?

---

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. USNI

74OA said:

---

lunchbox said:

---

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?

---

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?

---

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. USNI

---

This.

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.

Decay said:

---

74OA said:

---

lunchbox said:

---

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?

---

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?

---

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. USNI

---

This.

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 was my point exactly...more well-written

Decay said:

---

74OA said:

---

lunchbox said:

---

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?

---

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?

---

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. USNI

---

This.

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.

But that would take gas to run... ah hell we're going in circles aren't we

Thought our strategy was shifting back to amphib assault due to China?

unfortunately this is what always happens after major incidents. we realize the systems and processes we have in place have a lot of gaps in them.

texrover91 said:

---

Thought our strategy was shifting back to amphib assault due to China?

---

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.

Here's an extensive recent conversation from the Military page discussing the Marine's ongoing reorganization to better support a naval campaign in the Pacific: USMC

lunchbox said:

---

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?

---

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?

---

I don't know, but the extent of the fire seems to indicate they were unable to control the spread, so partial unloading prior to hot work would not be unreasonable. Secondly, I wonder about the efficiency of the fire watch and immediate fire suppression capability at the welding sites, but I do not know about those maritime standards and procedures.

Decay said:

---

74OA said:

---

lunchbox said:

---

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?

---

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?

---

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. USNI

---

This.

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.

---

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.

Todays update: Not Good

The fire is apparently only two decks away from the fuel. I'd read there's a veritable crap ton of fuel on board.

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.

---

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.

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.

titan said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

BUDS prac ap.

That's a good idea. Important tactical training opportunity. Yes, that too. That would allow precise placement of where to open the hull.

But look at what all is around the Bonhomme Richard. Its explosion threat is now greater than its value. Scuttle it.

titan said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rapier108 said:

---

titan said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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 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.

I agree with torpedoes---- I spaced and didn't think of Seals being right there to place charges.That's infinitely better, and could use the plans with precision. It would

The update that 74OA posted above says they're monitoring air quality to keep it with an EPA limits. Can you imagine the ****storm 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.

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.

---

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.

Asking because I don't know.

If they scuttle the ship, what are the risks that the fuel will spill into the harbor? Does it depend on whether every hatch is closed but no one can confirm it due to the fire?

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?

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.

---

Its NO contest. An av-gas explosion dwarfs any other concerns---and that's not counting magazines that may go with it.

Besides, the seals idea is a great one --- you can open the hull and send her down without breaching the fuel tanks. By nature they don't cover much of the hull, unless design has become very poor very recently. They are usually well forward or well aft. The regular fuel tanks are a bit trickier, but there are still sections of hull that do not contain some.

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

Also, I had to almost chuckle that it looks like an LCS (or 2 or 3) is docked nearby;

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?

---

There is no reason to believe foreign sabotage.Its not the kind of thing they would take that risk for.

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.

titan said:

---

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.

---

Its NO contest. An av-gas explosion dwarfs any other concerns---and that's not counting magazines that may go with it.

---

Oh yeah, you're absolutely correct about the worst case. Just saying that there's no good way out of this.

When you say Av-Gas are you talking about JP8? I'm ignorant on the topic but I always believed that as of ~2000 the entire DoD had standardized on JP-8 for aircraft, surface ships, and ground vehicles.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a248542.pdf

titan said:

---

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?

---

There is no reason to believe foreign sabotage.Its not the kind of thing they would take that risk for.

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.

---

Thank you for the information.

Quote:

---

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

---

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.