USS Miami fire

[Oberon]

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articl...NEWS-120529864



Here's hoping the six injured make a full recovery.

[Osmium Steele]

If it burned for 6+ hours, I'd imagine everything in the forward compartment is ruined. That is a long time for a fire to be burning in that confined an area. Contained as it was, the heat must have been horrific.

[Catfish]

There was a fire on a russian sub, too, recently.
And all those spiteful comments of in how bad a state the russian fleet would be in ..


“While the fire is not out, the situation is improving,” Fuller said.
Hmm .. it is still burning now.

"Fuller said that the ship's reactor was not operating at the time of the fire and remained in a safe and stable condition throughout the event."

Of course the bow is far enough away from the reactor. And a reactor is always operating and has to be cooled, even with all rods in.

I wonder how such fires can start, i mean there must be some automatic fire control ?
I hope the six wounded get well, and there are no further problems.

[Jimbuna]

Latest update is stating seven are injured:

Seven people, including five firefighters, have suffered injuries after a fire engulfed a docked U.S. Navy nuclear-powered submarine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...submarine.html

[Osmium Steele]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Of course the bow is far enough away from the reactor. And a reactor is always operating and has to be cooled, even with all rods in.

I wonder how such fires can start, i mean there must be some automatic fire control ?

688s only have 2 watertight compartments. The reactor compartment, while watertight itself, is considered part of the aft compartment. The only thing between the forward compartment and the reactor is the fuel oil tank, which should have been empty or filled with water, depending upon how long the boat was expected to be in the yard.

In the shipyard, the most likely culprit is welding or grinding without properly preparing the area by removing flammable materials and setting a fire watch. To my knowledge, there is no truly automatic fire supression on 688i. The US navy frowns upon it. The closest thing would be the supression system in the galley, which is still manually operated.

Electrical shorts due to new equipment/cables are possible as well.

I'd be interested to see the source of the fire as well. Those shore power cables can be a major problem if they arc.

[geetrue]

I hope the crew gets through all of this and the boat gets back on patrol.

The Miami was only in for minor up keep repairs ... now she will be the a few more months if not years. Like the San Francisco they might make her into a training boat out of Groton.

Like Osmium Steele said it's probably a welding spark out of control. I had to stand a lot of fire watches on the Salmon back in 64 in Mare Island naval shipyard gouing through a fram job.

I was stuck in the forwrd battery compartment that was just suppose to hold batteries all crunched over having to watch some welder make the battery holders. It was so tight in there that he had to slap me when he spotted a fire.

Another horrible thought is that it was supper time and the galley was on shore power and that could become a problem.

We had a barge for cooking food on back in the 60's not sure about Kittery, Maine though. I didn't even know Kittery had anything to do with subs to tell your the truth.

[Osmium Steele]

A report I found put the cause as welding in the torpedo room. I'd give a month's pay to go through that boat today.

The shipyard website had the Miami docking on March 1st for a 20 month overhaul.

The CO of Subgru 2 said there was "fuel onboard". I'm surprised by that.
Emptying and ventilating the fuel oil tank was one of the first evolutions when we went through our DMP (depot modernization period).

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by Catfish

There was a fire on a russian sub, too, recently.
And all those spiteful comments of in how bad a state the russian fleet would be in ..


***8220;While the fire is not out, the situation is improving,***8221; Fuller said.
Hmm .. it is still burning now.

"Fuller said that the ship's reactor was not operating at the time of the fire and remained in a safe and stable condition throughout the event."

Of course the bow is far enough away from the reactor. And a reactor is always operating and has to be cooled, even with all rods in.

I wonder how such fires can start, i mean there must be some automatic fire control ?
I hope the six wounded get well, and there are no further problems.

Most certainly. THESE reactors will continue to operate at destructive temperatures even after the control rods have been fully inserted.These nuke subs havent had the good fortune (along with the rest of our nuclear industry) to try the new IFR nuclear reactors out today.

These reactors are cooled in a pool of liquid metal, and are designed in such a way as when the core becomes hotter than its optimal reaction temperature, and combined with other aspects, means that it shuts itself down if its coolant pumps stop working, without any human interference.

They are also much more efficient, utilizing in theory every last drop of nuclear energy available in the fuel, and do not have the capability to be easily used for nuclear weaponry because of the fuel preparation process.

As for the Miami, this is quite tragic. i hope the 6 recover quickly and fully.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Of course the bow is far enough away from the reactor. And a reactor is always operating and has to be cooled, even with all rods in.

They have to make constant statements that the plant is safe due to the general ignorance of the public at large.

Let me set your mind at rest: After 2 months of shutdown, and the plant conditions required to drydock a boat, they can turn the pumps OFF without fear of any core damage. Natural circulation will handle any residual decay heat in the plant easily.

Heck, they probably have to turn the pumps ON to put heat INTO the plant to keep it from getting too cold.

The reactor is safe. Absolutely positive of that.

Before you ask, I was qualified to operate the same S6G plant they have. I know that plant and the operating procedures well.

[Oberon]

Yeah, whenever the public see nuclear and fire together they do tend to panic...but to be fair, to an uninformed citizen it could be seen as a serious thing, and it is, were it not for the fact that the boat is operated by a group of men who know what they're doing.

Just goes to highlight the hazards of the job, even out of patrol.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Osmium Steele

688s only have 2 watertight compartments.

Pardon my land-lubberness but HUH?

I am really surprised to learn that. I thought that multiple water tight compartments were always part of a sub.

Could you explain to this lubber of land what is the advantage of only having two water tight compartments on a sub?

Nooblet minds want to know.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Pardon my land-lubberness but HUH?

I am really surprised to learn that. I thought that multiple water tight compartments were always part of a sub.

Could you explain to this lubber of land what is the advantage of only having two water tight compartments on a sub?

Nooblet minds want to know.

Watertight bulkheads are HEAVY. They have to be able to withstand the same pressures as the hull. As they are flat instead of hemisperical they are actually HEAVIER than a similar section of the pressure hull.

Then you have to have access through the pressure bulkhead. Ventilation, power, piping, etc. All of these penetrations would have to be maintained as SUBSAFE as well. That adds a significant amount to the cost as well.

The more the boat weighs, the slower it goes. The 688 class was suppose to be FAST first and foremost. The Soviet boats of that era were fast but not very quiet. We were just the opposite. We were quiet but not fast. The 688 class was to make us fast AND quiet.

Getting rid of the pressure bulkheads saved mass. That meant a faster boat.

The reactor compartment had to be isolated for obvious reasons. The sole remaining bulkhead was to seperate the engineering plant from the forward end for casualty reasons such as a fire, steam line rupture, etc.

Other considerations were the improvements of weapons. It was expected that a war would go nuclear fast. That meant that you would not get hit with a 600 kilo warhead but the shockwave from a 500 kiloton one. The number of bulkheads will not mean squat then.

[Catfish]

Helllo,
thanks for your answers !
I was aware there are not much bulkheads in a 688, also i take it only the russian subs still have those double hulls at all (?)
However i did not know the reactor rods are cooled in a "pool of liquid metal" as CaptainMattJJ wrote (?). I thought the only boats that used this system for a longer time were the russian Alfas ? I know it was once also used in US boats, if only for a shorter time - but in the 688 class ?

Any update whether the sailors are safe and well ?

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead Nuke

Getting rid of the pressure bulkheads saved mass. That meant a faster boat.

As an addition, Soviet boats SAY they have 6, or 8 or even 10 compartments, but only a few are rated for full depth. The rest are only to 10kg/cm^2 (less than 100m).

[Seth8530]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

As an addition, Soviet boats SAY they have 6, or 8 or even 10 compartments, but only a few are rated for full depth. The rest are only to 10kg/cm^2 (less than 100m).

You say they are rated for 10 kg/cm^2 ? That surprises me because I would of thought that the units used would of been in newtons.

However, 10kg/cm^2 is 98.1N/cm^2 which is 981 Kilo Pascals.

which then according to this website http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/games/depth_press

would put the max depth of 87.5 meters