SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - San Diego: U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard on Fire

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - San Diego: U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard on Fire (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=245866)

San Diego: U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard on Fire

Ops, posted this in wrong section, sorry.

It's okay Tim ... It's current news such a bad accident though

Hope everyone is safe :yep:

Twenty one people (seventeen sailors and four civilians) thankfully no fatalities. This could have been far worse.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ard-san-diego/

:roll:From what I read, the ship is a total loss and most likely (>99%) will not be repaired, due to the temperature being so high and having lasted for so long now that the basic cell frame made of steel is distorted. They can feel themselves lucky if it does not sink in harbour with its fuel still on board!? I read it was undergoing 2-years modernization in preparation for the F35 - why did it even have fuel aboard if it was not to move for this long? The fire extinguishing system was off for work, too, thats why the fire had easy play.

Its a lousy year for the US so far. And it can get only lousier.:roll:

^INDEED

Quote:

“There is fire and water damage, to varying degrees, on 11 of 14 decks,” Gilday wrote. “With the flight deck as a reference, I walked sections of the ship 5 levels below and had the opportunity to examine the superstructure.
“The island is nearly gutted, as are sections of some of the decks below; some perhaps, nearly encompassing the 844 ft length and 106 ft beam of the ship ([Naval Sea System Command’s] detailed assessment is ongoing). Sections of the flight deck are warped/bulging.” ...But it’s unclear if the Navy will want to invest what will likely be hundreds of millions of dollars into a 22-year-old ship. After a 2012 fire onboard the attack submarine Miami, the Navy determined the roughly $700 million price tag was too steep to justify.:down:

https://warontherocks.com/2020/07/more-than-just-a-fire-the-implications-of-the-bonhomme-richard-catastrophe/ :agree: https://2k8r3p1401as2e1q7k14dguu-wpe...1-1024x654.jpg

Quote:

The Bonhomme Richard fire raises another question: How tough and survivable can a ship be in combat if it is burning out of control in port during peacetime? While it takes three to five years to build a modern warship, there are very few places to do so. And, as was recently shown by the two-and-a-half years of repairs to the USS Fitzgerald after its 2017 collision, it takes time to repair major damage to a modern warship. Some will look at this fire and conclude that continuing to build and operate large, vulnerable ships makes little sense in an age of proliferating anti-ship missilesand greater visibility of ship movements through a variety of sensors.

That is not a viable nor reasonable comparison.

At sea, a ship is in a different configuration than it is in port undergoing maintenance/repairs.

Areas that are normally sealed may be exposed during maintenance. Protective services that are normally functional during operations may be non-functional during maintenance.

There is also equipment and materiel onboard ships in maintenance that are not normally present during operations.

Ships that are operational have crews that are experienced with each other, the ship, and damage control. Ships in maintenance have maintenance crews and contractors who may not have that level of training and experience.

One really can't compare an operational ship with a ship undergoing maintenance in this context.

Agreeing with Skybird & platypus in one thread!!??

/\Indeed! "$hip Happen$":damn::haha:

She probably would not be damaged in a time of war, but more likely sunk :yep:

I say let her live on as a ship of mercy, hospital ship or a first responder for tidal waves, earth quakes bringing supplies to the survivors.

SUN TSU: the best way to win wars is not to fight

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr quatro

She probably would not be damaged in a time of war, but more likely sunk :yep:

Particularly in the opening round(s) of WWIII as we land our always expendible Marines https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ble_poster.jpg on Taiwan. The Chinese have a cheap solution to our expensive 11 carrier strike-force problem: https://news.yahoo.com/kill-carrier-df-100-anti-230000078.html IN particular: the DF-100 missile https://assets.realclear.com/images/49/490484_5_.jpg

Quote:

It's unclear whether the DF-100 is a cruise or ballistic missile. The “DF” nomenclature seems to indicate it flies a ballistic trajectory, while Jane's depicts the bird as a supersonic cruise missile. It may straddle the difference between ballistic and sea-skimming missiles, arcing high into the atmosphere but following a flatter trajectory than a ballistic missile. It would come at U.S. Navy task forces from yet another axis, augmenting anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles and undersea munitions such as torpedoes or sea mines. Whatever the case, the new anti-ship missile purportedly reaches hypersonic velocity, meaning five or more times the speed of sound, during at least part of its flight. That boosts its chances of getting through U.S. Navy defenses. Defenders would have little time tor more than snap shots.

As for our elite but expendible Marines aboard an extremely vulnerable Bonhomme Richard type vessel: there may yet be hope!:yeah: https://warontherocks.com/2019/10/a-striking-new-vision-for-the-marines-and-a-wakeup-call-for-the-other-services/

Quote:

Crafted by newly appointed Gen. David Berger, it lays out a striking new vision for the Corps — and jettisons a sizable number of long-held Marine articles of faith along the way. Berger’s guidance is both hard-hitting and remarkably well-written, all the better for a document meant to be widely read and disruptive.
In many ways, the planning guidance responds to growing turbulence inside the Marine Corps. Since 2001, marines have served as the nation’s second land army in Afghanistan and then Iraq, organized crisis response task forces, and forged a special operations component, while still clinging tightly to their historic mission of large-scale amphibious landings. These widely divergent directions have led some marines to question their identity, with one even arguing that the service suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Thinkers both inside and outside the Corps have called on senior Marine leaders to help redefine its central purpose.

:Kaleun_Salute:

You know what's really scary Aktung?

The fact that your pointing out China is ready for a major war with the USA ... A war that neither side can win ... :o

Just licking our wounds would make all the past Memorial Days sick in comparison.

Plus if the weapons are ready to fight with now then they were planned years ago.

We can't afford to start one that's for sure :hmmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro (Post 2685074)

From reading the news and reading your comments I say you are heading towards a showdown with China.

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 2685076)

From reading the news and reading your comments I say you are heading towards a showdown with China.

Markus

WEIRD! The movie I referenced two posts back, They Were Expendible, is on TV as I post this; talk 'bout seein' the future!:O::oops::wah:...it's actually better than PT-109!