In the traditional sense it is always the Captain's responsibility.

But in the specific sense, it will be the Captain (and XO's) fault if this "gear adrift" was excessive, because that means not running a taut ship. There are specific regulations in the manuals of what condition internal compartments are to be kept in at all times. Especially on an active duty warship.

And there is undoubtedly some engineering duty type officer dealing with the civilian contractors. Yardbirds frequently don't give a crap about regulations, and just do whatever they want to make their job get done the easiest way. Someone has to keep a tight reign on them also. Lots of ways for a ship undergoing maintenance to end up eating the doo doo sandwich.

drums said:

---

And there is undoubtedly some engineering duty type officer dealing with the civilian contractors. Yardbirds frequently don't give a crap about regulations, and just do whatever they want to make their job get done the easiest way. Someone has to keep a tight reign on them also. Lots of ways for a ship undergoing maintenance to end up eating the doo doo sandwich.

---

Very true. And goes to what I posted earlier -- its is not realized (but your post shows it) that it is actually when in maintenance that the most powerful warships are at a period of high risk. Also applies for just following time at the yard, for similar reasons. Like something left undone, or unfinished or corrected. The sudden explosion that sank the British carrier Dasher in an obscure disaster appears to have come from leaving an opening in the shaft alley near the gas tanks after recent refitting that also had direct access from above.

The Wasp class use boilers/steam turbines for power generation and propulsion except for USS Makin Island which uses gas turbines and diesel electric drive.

Boilers can easily run on aviation grade kerosene so it means the ship only has to carry 1 type of fuel instead of several.

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)

---

So...
a contractor improperly stored rags and due to an un-tidy work area caused this fire?
I would hate to be his insurance company for this claim.

Rapier108 said:

---

The Wasp class use boilers/steam turbines for power generation and propulsion except for USS Makin Island which uses gas turbines and diesel electric drive.

Boilers can easily run on aviation grade kerosene so it means the ship only has to carry 1 type of fuel instead of several.

---

I believe the aviation grade kerosene presents less danger, but there were rules to throw that overboard also when there were fires, so perhaps there is still some risk. And of course at very high temperatures almost any fuel becomes a question mark.

What not hearing much about is whether they think the deep main munitions loads are a concern or is it just the fuel tanks? Normally the former are a factor as well, to put it mildly.

erudite said:

---

Wikipedia is savage.
"Status: On fire"

---

the internet is undefeated

Thanks, Drums. I thought it was just me, and maybe my Army is not what it once was, either.

Interesting article, but not a cheery one.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/13/the-bonhomme-richard-fire-deals-a-blow-to-the-navys-designs-in-the-indo-pacific/

drums said:

---

I suspect there will be more than enough blame for everyone when this is all said and done. I am not at all impressed with what I am seeing with what "my" Navy has become. Its like hard won knowledge from the past has just been sh*t-canned because people are so much smarter today. The sea is dangerous and unforgiving. Ships are dangerous and unforgiving. The folks who pursue naval things need to be up to the task of dealing with those facts. I am not seeing it currently.

---

I agree. With the major caveat it is just from the perspective of extreme familiarity with damage control scenarios and the particulars of such moments of disaster to major ships. But getting the same impression that you are---it doesn't look that "wary" of precisely your point of just how unforgiving the sea and ship-handling can be. How much any modern stuff of the last decade really "negates" those basic hard-learned lessons seems extremely doubtful though probably claimed. One we are watching right now will be whether Bonhomme Richard ends up going over or not. This fire-fighting effort for one doesn't look that effective (not saying it could be---but that's just the point--not much of the risks have changed.)

Also an Army guy, and I'm not by any means a navy fan, once again, but I follow some of their bloggers etc. Cdr Salamander is probably right, imho.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-burning-of-uss-bonhomme-richard-lhd.html

Obligatory snicker at comments;

Quote:

---

Wouldn't be the first time the Navy was surprised on a quiet Sunday.

---

For anyone who is still curious about metacenter and why it matters, I've written up another explanation. TLDR: the ship can get top heavy and flip over. In this case, there are lower decks full of air and upper decks full of water; the center of gravity shoots up.


A ship has two important points that describe how forces react. The center of gravity (CG) is where the gravity of the ship pushes down from. The center of buoyancy (B) is where the water pushes back up against the ship.

Now imagine you are looking at the ship from behind. There is a line through the CG and vertical relative to the boat. Imagine a second line through B and vertical relative to the earth. Those two lines intersect and that point is called the metacenter.

Gravity is pushing down at the CG and water is pushing up at B. When the ship leans to one side, B moves that direction but CG stays still. That means the water and gravity work together to push the ship back to vertical.

If the boat gets top heavy, the CG moves up. Gravity is still pushing down on that point. If the CG gets past the metacenter, gravity is now pushing down on the edge of the ship and buoyancy is pushing up in the middle: instead of working together to push the boat back vertical, they are working together to tip it over.

Everything seems fine, the boat is leaning an amount that would normally be perfectly safe, but instead of returning to vertical it suddenly flips over.

Ulrich said:

---

For anyone who is still curious about metacenter and why it matters, I've written up another explanation. TLDR: the ship can get top heavy and flip over. In this case, there are lower decks full of air and upper decks full of water; the center of gravity shoots up.


A ship has two important points that describe how forces react. The center of gravity (CG) is where the gravity of the ship pushes down from. The center of buoyancy (B) is where the water pushes back up against the ship.

Now imagine you are looking at the ship from behind. There is a line through the CG and vertical relative to the boat. Imagine a second line through B and vertical relative to the earth. Those two lines intersect and that point is called the metacenter.

Gravity is pushing down at the CG and water is pushing up at B. When the ship leans to one side, B moves that direction but CG stays still. That means the water and gravity work together to push the ship back to vertical.

If the boat gets top heavy, the CG moves up. Gravity is still pushing down on that point. If the CG gets past the metacenter, gravity is now pushing down on the edge of the ship and buoyancy is pushing up in the middle: instead of working together to push the boat back vertical, they are working together to tip it over.

Everything seems fine, the boat is leaning an amount that would normally be perfectly safe, but instead of returning to vertical it suddenly flips over.

---

Excellent explanation Ulrich. Particulary your last two paragraphs ---something about them kind of cuts through the complexity of it all and makes it clear. Bravo.

S.S. Eastland is worth googling -- if only because of how interesting in its absurdity of some 700-800 (forget the number) dying right there in shallow water because a two stack liner with no hole at all below still turned over and sank. Which technically perfectly intact in clear weather. One of the best illustrations of the phenomena you are describing. Fire-fighting water can do the same thing that happened there from overloading artificially --by adding "free surface effects" water sloshing from one side to the other once that negative stability moment is reached.

What sucks is the Navy didn't design the America class to operate the F-35B from the get go, even though they knew the ships would deploy it.

This means USS America (forward deployed to Japan) and USS Tripoli (about to enter service) require the same upgrades as the Wasp class. USS Bougainville, which won't enter the fleet until 2024, will be able to operate the F-35 right away.

I wonder if the Navy is looking into bringing USS Peleliu back into service. She's the youngest of the Tarawa class and has been kept in reserve along with USS Nassau. Obviously couldn't operate the F-35B, but would provide the fleet with an additional amphibious assault ship.

Yeah, I read Cdr Salamander quite frequently. Seems to know his stuff. He is also not real impressed with the current state of affairs. There are people way smarter than me who see the problems, just no one will listen to them.

titan said:

---

drums said:

---

I suspect there will be more than enough blame for everyone when this is all said and done. I am not at all impressed with what I am seeing with what "my" Navy has become. Its like hard won knowledge from the past has just been sh*t-canned because people are so much smarter today. The sea is dangerous and unforgiving. Ships are dangerous and unforgiving. The folks who pursue naval things need to be up to the task of dealing with those facts. I am not seeing it currently.

---

I agree. With the major caveat it is just from the perspective of extreme familiarity with damage control scenarios and the particulars of such moments of disaster to major ships. But getting the same impression that you are---it doesn't look that "wary" of precisely your point of just how unforgiving the sea and ship-handling can be. How much any modern stuff of the last decade really "negates" those basic hard-learned lessons seems extremely doubtful though probably claimed. One we are watching right now will be whether Bonhomme Richard ends up going over or not. This fire-fighting effort for one doesn't look that effective (not saying it could be---but that's just the point--not much of the risks have changed.)

---

Looks like the improvements in technology has led to a false sense of security, and led to complacency. Those who ignore the dangers of the sea do so at their own peril.

UTExan said:

---

Thanks, Drums. I thought it was just me, and maybe my Army is not what it once was, either.

---

Or even possibly my university. Sh*ts going to hell in a handbasket.

sts7049 said:

---

erudite said:

---

Wikipedia is savage.
"Status: On fire"

---

the internet is undefeated

---

Motto needs to be updated to read "It's getting hot in here"

From the live video, it looks like there is very little smoke coming from the ship compared to yesterday and earlier today.

Rapier108 said:

---

From the live video, it looks like there is very little smoke coming from the ship compared to yesterday and earlier today.

---

If so, they may not have to deliberately bottom it after all. If there is less smoke, it also means they may be pouring less water in. But free surface doesn't just respond to that---- is what is already aboard being drained? If not, could still heel over without much warning at so much as a tide ebbing in or out or causing the position to shift somewhat. Or a poorly executed haul on a hawser.

Rapier108 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Thanks, Drums. I thought it was just me, and maybe my Army is not what it once was, either.

---

8 years of the Keynesian Usurpation did almost unrepairable harm to the US military.

---

Jock 07 said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

erudite said:

---

Wikipedia is savage.
"Status: On fire"

---

the internet is undefeated

---

Motto needs to be updated to read "It's getting hot in here"

---

Status should be "It's complicated"

Ive spent 10 min in TEEX ships engine room fire prop... let me tell you, those men and women going into the bowels of that ship are having their butts handed to them. Its the hottest i've ever been. The air from my SCBA was warm thru my regulator.

titan said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

---

Excellent explanation Ulrich. Particulary your last two paragraphs ---something about them kind of cuts through the complexity of it all and makes it clear. Bravo.

S.S. Eastland is worth googling -- if only because of how interesting in its absurdity of some 700-800 (forget the number) dying right there in shallow water because a two stack liner with no hole at all below still turned over and sank. Which technically perfectly intact in clear weather. One of the best illustrations of the phenomena you are describing. Fire-fighting water can do the same thing that happened there from overloading artificially --by adding "free surface effects" water sloshing from one side to the other once that negative stability moment is reached.

---

Thanks! I mostly wanted to write something out to help me remember it, I don't have the background in naval matters that you do.

It could pretty easily be turned into a really interesting metaphor for certain social effects. Something that we don't think to measure is shifting out of sight, and consequently an ordinary event that has happened a hundred times before tips the world upside down. We tend to blame the obvious thing, the trigger. It's easier but ultimately not helpful.

Gladwell never actually ties The Tipping Point back to the naval scenario in his book of that title.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

erudite said:

---

Wikipedia is savage.
"Status: On fire"

---

the internet is undefeated

---

Motto needs to be updated to read "It's getting hot in here"

---

Status should be "It's complicated"

---

Saw this pic shared by a friend of mine on the FB. Don't know when the photo was taken

Someone call Rosie O'Donnell and tell her again, yes, fire can melt steel.

Today's update: BETTER

aggiehawg said:

---

Someone call Rosie O'Donnell and tell her again, yes, fire can melt steel.

---

Much of the island on the Wasp class is aluminum.

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Someone call Rosie O'Donnell and tell her again, yes, fire can melt steel.

---

Much of the island on the Wasp class is aluminum.

---

I stand corrected. Thank you.