• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy to de-commission and scrap warship USS Bonhomme Richard after major fire

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,661
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

11/30/20
The US Navy has decided to de-commission and scrap the USS Bonhomme Richard after a damage assessment found that restoring the ship would cost billions of dollars. The amphibious assault ship was in port in San Diego in July so that it could be upgraded to accommodate the new Marine Corps F-35B jets when a massive fire broke out aboard the vessel in one of the costliest conflagrations in modern Navy history. Navy officials said that restoring the ship would cost $2.5 billion to $3.2 billion and take five to seven years, saying that some 60% of the vessel would need to be replaced. "Following an extensive material assessment in which various courses of action were considered and evaluated, we came to the conclusion that it is not fiscally responsible to restore her," Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite said in a statement. The Navy also looked at how much it would cost to convert what remains of the Bonhomme Richard into another type of vessel, such as a hospital ship, but such a conversion could cost over $1 billion -- more than building a brand-new similar ship. De-commissioning and scrapping the vessel is estimated to cost only $30 million and take nine to 12 months to complete.


The loss of the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) is a severe blow to the US Navy and the USMC.
 




The loss of the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) is a severe blow to the US Navy and the USMC.

Thats one hell of an expensive accident.....and still no word on the cause; lets hope its not a repeat of the USS Miami.
 
You could smell that fire miles and miles away. Kinda figured they would scrap her, she burned for days.
 
The new Navy.

In the late 90's and early 2000's the Navy began minimalizing duty section manning numbers because the modern snow flake sea farers couldn't handle being onboard as much. The navy increased each ships duty sections from 3 to 5 or 5to 7 etc. etc. etc. It helped morale they said. :ROFLMAO: The Navy stated that adjacent ships and the base fire departments were more than adequate to handle pier side emergencies.

The old salts knew better, but they were not listened to by the modern political (social engineered) Navy leadership.

Burn baby burn!
 
The new Navy.

In the late 90's and early 2000's the Navy began minimalizing duty section manning numbers because the modern snow flake sea farers couldn't handle being onboard as much. The navy increased each ships duty sections from 3 to 5 or 5to 7 etc. etc. etc. It helped morale they said. :ROFLMAO: The Navy stated that adjacent ships and the base fire departments were more than adequate to handle pier side emergencies.

The old salts knew better, but they were not listened to by the modern political (social engineered) Navy leadership.

Burn baby burn!


Which is similar to the situation when the ships are at sea. The new designs all have minimal crew which will hurt when it comes to damage control
 
Which is similar to the situation when the ships are at sea. The new designs all have minimal crew which will hurt when it comes to damage control

The Navy used to have serious "OPPE's" and "REFTRA's" and they could be brutal at exposing crew weaknesses onboard Navy ships.

Today's Navy doesn't allow for admonishment of the daisy's on the deck plates.
 
The Navy used to have serious "OPPE's" and "REFTRA's" and they could be brutal at exposing crew weaknesses onboard Navy ships.

Today's Navy doesn't allow for admonishment of the daisy's on the deck plates.
This is going to breing some serious restructuring when you lose a warship sitting at home port.
As I said before they are lucky we didn't lose some sailors.

But I refuse to call anybody a daisy or snowflake wearing the uniform. That broad brush just doesn't work.
 
Thats one hell of an expensive accident.....and still no word on the cause; lets hope its not a repeat of the USS Miami.
From what I have read, the Navy does not believe this was an accident. The reports I have seen have said the investigation is focusing on possible arson by a Sailor.

 




The loss of the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) is a severe blow to the US Navy and the USMC.
I was attached to the Washington back before 2010. It caught fire about six weeks out from California and we we're forced to make the trip under 70% power.
This kind of thing is uncommon and can usually be fixed after a short stay in one dedicated port, or with enough contractors stationed aboard.

Goes to show you just how bad this particular fire had to be.
 
From what I have read, the Navy does not believe this was an accident. The reports I have seen have said the investigation is focusing on possible arson by a Sailor.

We had a case on my first ship. A young sailor had soiled himself and instead of turning in his clothes for laundry. Decided to take them to a storage room with a trashcan and burn them in there, obviously forgetting that anything caught by the ventilation system. Can and will be spit out into another compartment.. such as burning material that might be sucked in and then spit out into a filing compartment two decks below.

If this was arson, then it was most likely done by someone with a grudge against a CO, wants to go home, or is mostly suffering from a protracted form of Cabin Fever. Because even the pyromaniac types, are reserved enough to keep from doing something so stupid.
 
This is going to breing some serious restructuring when you lose a warship sitting at home port.
As I said before they are lucky we didn't lose some sailors.

But I refuse to call anybody a daisy or snowflake wearing the uniform. That broad brush just doesn't work.

Creating more duty sections onboard ships was all about codifying the modern deck plate daisy's.

Reducing the number of sailors onboard for duty days, makes the ship have to rely on the presence of other ships and the base fire department which is absolutely ridiculous and insane.

When precious seconds count......help is only a 1/2 hour away. :ROFLMAO:

"Deck Plate Daisy" is a very accurate term for the modern navy sailor.
 
We had a case on my first ship. A young sailor had soiled himself and instead of turning in his clothes for laundry. Decided to take them to a storage room with a trashcan and burn them in there, obviously forgetting that anything caught by the ventilation system. Can and will be spit out into another compartment.. such as burning material that might be sucked in and then spit out into a filing compartment two decks below.

If this was arson, then it was most likely done by someone with a grudge against a CO, wants to go home, or is mostly suffering from a protracted form of Cabin Fever. Because even the pyromaniac types, are reserved enough to keep from doing something so stupid.
Eventually you can find one who is stupid. Or you find one that basically is looking to take others with them. It could be, and likely was, some sort of grudge. It could have been something that got out of control.

I've seen some people become absolutely bitter about their Navy experience. There were some who entered the service with problems not caught.
 
Creating more duty sections onboard ships was all about codifying the modern deck plate daisy's.

Reducing the number of sailors onboard for duty days, makes the ship have to rely on the presence of other ships and the base fire department which is absolutely ridiculous and insane.

When precious seconds count......help is only a 1/2 hour away. :ROFLMAO:

"Deck Plate Daisy" is a very accurate term for the modern navy sailor.
Well this is all plain nonsense. None of this is true either. Almost every base has base fire fighters within 5 minutes of any reported incident, and bases are able to coordinate and enforce getting such help where it is needed much faster than civilians.

As for fewer people on duty days, that is a good thing. It has nothing to do with reducing incident response. July 12th was a Sunday. How many people do you think should be aboard a ship for duty on a Sunday? How many duty sections do you think such a ship has or should have?
 
Eventually you can find one who is stupid. Or you find one that basically is looking to take others with them. It could be, and likely was, some sort of grudge. It could have been something that got out of control.

I've seen some people become absolutely bitter about their Navy experience. There were some who entered the service with problems not caught.
Problems that only became exacerbated when coupled with the stress of military life and especially on a ship. Working nearly 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. Is not exactly what one would call a... nurturing environment.

And that's in peace time operations.
 
Problems that only became exacerbated when coupled with the stress of military life and especially on a ship. Working nearly 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. Is not exactly what one would call a... nurturing environment.

And that's in peace time operations.
They were not out to sea. The ship was in port for repairs. That means, 5 days a week working likely something like 6-4, with likely a 4-5 day duty rotation. Some ships do full weekend duty (as in same duty section has duty both weekend days). But we don't know what their rotation was. It was not working "14 hours a day, 7 days a week" given where they were.

Out to sea, that is a little closer to the situation, if they are qualifying or in a few jobs. Even then, that is not realistic though for surface vessels. More like maybe 12 hours a day, for maybe 6 days a week (could be distributed).
 
Well this is all plain nonsense. None of this is true either. Almost every base has base fire fighters within 5 minutes of any reported incident, and bases are able to coordinate and enforce getting such help where it is needed much faster than civilians.

As for fewer people on duty days, that is a good thing. It has nothing to do with reducing incident response. July 12th was a Sunday. How many people do you think should be aboard a ship for duty on a Sunday? How many duty sections do you think such a ship has or should have?

No...you are totally inept and wrong.

The average response time for the Norfolk Naval Station Fire Department for a ship is 5-10 minutes, and then another 10-15 minutes to coordinate with the ships Fire Marshall, and then they have to be directed to "on scene" by by the crew.

They won't even be close to the fire for at least 20-30 minutes when it only takes 2-3 minutes to cause millions in damage.
 
No...you are totally inept and wrong.

The average response time for a Norfolk Naval Station Fire Department for a ship is 5-10 minutes, and then another 10-15 minutes to coordinate with the ships Fire Marshall, and then they have to be directed to "on scene" by by the crew.

They won't even be close to the fire for at least 20-30 minutes.
I am completely right. I have been on several bases. Norfolk Fire Department had more than one branch.

And even ships' force does not have the ability to do much better. Especially in port. They are still first responders, whether small amount there or large. Especially for carriers or even LHDs. This didn't simply change over the last 20 or so years either.

But I will repeat my questions, what complement of Sailors do you want to be on the ship on weekends in port? How many is "normal"? How many do you think are necessary?
 
They were not out to sea. The ship was in port for repairs. That means, 5 days a week working likely something like 6-4, with likely a 4-5 day duty rotation. Some ships do full weekend duty (as in same duty section has duty both weekend days). But we don't know what their rotation was. It was not working "14 hours a day, 7 days a week" given where they were.

Out to sea, that is a little closer to the situation, if they are qualifying or in a few jobs. Even then, that is not realistic though for surface vessels. More like maybe 12 hours a day, for maybe 6 days a week (could be distributed).
That is correct.
 
I am completely right. I have been on several bases. Norfolk Fire Department had more than one branch.

And even ships' force does not have the ability to do much better. Especially in port. They are still first responders, whether small amount there or large. Especially for carriers or even LHDs. This didn't simply change over the last 20 or so years either.

But I will repeat my questions, what complement of Sailors do you want to be on the ship on weekends in port? How many is "normal"? How many do you think are necessary?

You keep barking nonsense on a subject you have no knowledge of.

If you did have any idea, you would know that duty sections used to be determined by the number of qualified Fire Marshalls & Fire fighting teams onboard and how evenly they were spread out over the number of duty sections. Other factors for duty sections include qualified underway OOD/JOOD & Duty EEOW's.

Today's deck plate daisy's are more concerned about their off time than they are for the ship.
 
That is correct.

No it's not.

2 hose teams with AFFF could have smothered that fire before it got out of hand.

But the crew was more worried about the duty section turnover....................... with the off going duty section hauling ass, while the oncoming duty section were hitting their racks.
 
Last edited:
You keep barking nonsense on a subject you have no knowledge of.

If you did have any idea, you would know that duty sections used to be determined by the number of qualified Fire Marshalls & Fire fighting teams onboard and how evenly they were spread out over the number of duty sections. Other factors for duty sections include qualified underway OOD/JOOD & Duty EEOW's.

Today's deck plate daisy's are more concerned about their off time than they are for the ship.
I have no knowledge of?

I was in for 20 years and just retired. 10 years active and 10 years reserved, including working every year in a shipyard environment aboard ships.

Duty sections are determined by a lot of things. And you have to have a certain number of qualified fire fighters and leaders, personnel aboard now. You are the one making statements that this is no longer true, when it still very much is true. What you are claiming is what is wrong.
 
There's are a lot of questions being asked as to why it took so long for the first "hose team" to reach the fire.
I have no knowledge of?

I was in for 20 years and just retired.

Duty sections are determined by a lot of things. And you have to have a certain number of qualified fire fighters and leaders, personnel aboard now. You are the one making statements that this is no longer true, when it still very much is true. What you are claiming is what is wrong.

More BS.

You just repeated what I have already stated.

When you reduce the number of experienced fire fighters on board at any time, the potential for disaster increases. The most dangerous place for a Navy ship in peace time is a "shipyard" and every ships crew understands this............well, except for the crew of Daisy's on the Bonhomme Richard.
 
There's are a lot of questions being asked as to why it took so long for the first "hose team" to reach the fire.


More BS.

You just repeated what I have already stated.

When you reduce the number of experienced fire fighters on board at any time, the potential for disaster increases. The most dangerous place for a Navy ship in peace time is a "shipyard" and every ships crew understands this............well, except for the crew of Daisy's on the Bonhomme Richard.
You have not shown that they reduced the number of fire fighters significantly. It was a Sunday morning. They were in a maintenance period. Pretending that this was due to the ship's crew having reduced capability compared to past ships or some other such nonsense is ridiculous.

It is more likely to have been due to reduced capabilities of technical conditions, such as repairs being made and systems unavailable.


You are making unsupported claims about them being "daisies" as if we should believe this when you have no evidence they had a duty section size that didn't meet the minimum requirements for fire fighting or other shipboard necessities.

And I'm not even saying mistakes were not made, that during their maintenance they or the shipyard workers were not doing things that could be hazardous. I'm saying that this was not due to "coddling". That is your claim unsupported by any evidence.

The reason that fire risk increases during shipyard is because more activities that are likely to lead to fires are going on and their is a decrease in availability of shipboard firefighting resources. You have yet to show that they had an inadequate duty section size or training.
 
Back
Top Bottom