The Ship Model Forum

Hopefully the reduction of hostilities in Iran (and the resulting drawdown there) will allow a restructuring of spending on defense, so these lapses in maintenance can be repaired before more are injured. Like the 1960s, doing war on the cheap winds out costing the military most heavily.

It's time to reverse the spending trends in the Navy. Unfortunately, one of the two candidates has already proposed draconian cuts in the Navy (and the other services) which would make the situation more serious; the other gets so little press coverage that I do not know what his stance on military readiness is. The press has already elected Obama, so we never hear about McCain.

I found this update online today:

[url]http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20087103717.asp[/url]

Bob

"an example of this growing trend of neglect"

Yes, and another example of this is the report a month or two back about two Burkes who were so poorly maintained that effectively they were unarmed floating garbage cans.

I read this morning on a Navy BBS that the fire started in a main ventilation/wiring conduit in the aft compartment. This conduit was in dire need of maintanance.. In otherwords it was very dirty, I have an image of a huge dryer discharge hose full of lint.. but in this case it was much more.
This BBS also brings out the problem the Navy has getting PMs ( Planned maintanance) done by some crews on critical equipment and that this may be an example of this growing trend of neglect.Maybe the Ship's engineer thought the yards were doing this in refit? Anyway this and the fact so much flamable stuff was stockpiled in several areas that were exposed to this fire thus feeding it have all been contributed to the cause of this difficult fire.

I can't help but wonder if this fire on a westpac CVN will have a ringing effect on the Japanese Anti Nuke crowd starting another wave of protest about Glow boat ops in Japanese waters. :big_grin:

I will grant what you say; there are about three fires a day in Chicago's Hancock Tower, but I am referring to the major fires of the 1960s and this one appears to approach that level. Let's say fires that are serious enough to prevent a combat ship for continuing operations or exercises for more than a day.

I read the OPREP-3s almost every day and can tell you a shipboard fire is pretty much a daily occurance somewhere in the fleet.

I can see your point about morale, but honestly a crew's morale doesn't affect one way or the other whether a piece of equipment smokes or if a welding spark sets off pile of rags or paper. How they go about fighting the resulting fire is affected, but if you're on a burning boat then survival takes over. The last fire I was involved with was on the AEGIS cruiser [i]Normandy [/i]in '94, and that was a result of wear on a cable that ran under the deck for the after 400hz converters. Nothing we could have done to prevent it, no way we could have even seen the cable wear even if we'd had a reason to look, but it happened, we put it out, and replaced the cable. Stuff like that happens all the time on ships and unless you read deck logs you won't know about it.

It has been my observation that fires aboard ship are related to morale and training levels. Fewer days spent discussing fires and practicing aboard, the more often and more serious the fires.

With deployments almost double the length of the ones in the 1980s, morale must have suffered terribly.

The ones in the 1960s were slightly different, but I think you'd agree that morale was equally bad then.

When I heard the problem was with an interior ventilation conduit my first thought was "Oh my God, not the [i]Essex[/i] problem from 1945 again!" I realize it's not the same, but a recognition of how difficult it is to foresee these things in the design of a carrier.

[quote="Werner"]The fact that an elevator or elevator machinery was involved means it was close to if not involving aviation fuel and fumes.

I'm surprised wiring acted to route the fire between compartments. I thought they worked that out in 1945.

Some lessons must be re-learned every so often.

I don't know much about the incident, but fire in the USN is always a sign that the command has been skimping on budgets. Yet another side effect of three land wars after cashing in on the "peace dividend".[/quote]

While most of the issues with wiring were worked out during WWII, wiring runs and ventilation are still the biggest sources of spreading fire in a ship. You can't get rid of all bulkhead penetrations, and so they will continue to be routes of spreading fire and flooding.

Fire on a ship has absolutely nothing to do with skimping budgets (although I do agree those budgets have been in the toilet lately). A ship is a floating town, a city in the case here, and as such fires are common; you just never hear about them. Any ship can expect a legitimate fire once or twice a year, it might be nothing more than white smoke or equipment cooking off insulation, but they're common. Some ships are more prone than others. I can't remember how many times I was on watch on my first boat and I'd hear "we're standing by, the Forrestal is on fire again". That ship had a fire every quarter, if not more often.

If the GW hadn't been in process of turning over with the Kitty Hawk, then we wouldn't have heard more than a blip about this one.

[quote]Navy officials said the fire started in a ventilation intake/exhaust trunk that leads from the lower decks of the ship to a ventilation port on the ship's outer hull above. The trunk ventilates machinery that is below the waterline as well as carrying pipes and cables.

While damage to pipes was slight, inspectors determined, electrical cables will require repair and, in some cases, replacement.

A variety of rooms suffered damage, Gureck said, including storage spaces, cable pathways, a classroom and a photography lab. He said the fire didn't affect the George Washington's propulsion system or nuclear reactor. [/quote]

The fact that an elevator or elevator machinery was involved means it was close to if not involving aviation fuel and fumes.

I'm surprised wiring acted to route the fire between compartments. I thought they worked that out in 1945.

Some lessons must be re-learned every so often.

I don't know much about the incident, but fire in the USN is always a sign that the command has been skimping on budgets. Yet another side effect of three land wars after cashing in on the "peace dividend".

On ships this large there are many machinery spaces where things like oxygen/acetylene welders and cutters are located, O2 stowage, LPG and many other very flamable gases and fluids are in use.. A fire involving these items could get rather hot very fast, Hot enough to melt steel ?
Who knows? The melting point of steel varies, it depends on the alloy.. Some steel will melt at 1500Deg F, I'll wager that the so called Steel that was melting was actually metal walls made of a lightweight metal like Aluminium or some other lightweight metal... Ships are compartmentized by sections to isolate flooding and fires etc. But within these compartments are many rooms or "spaces" that are basicly walled units that very few have seperate flooding/fire isolation integridy.
It seems that a land lubber term is being confused with a Naval term. Compartments on a ship are not rooms.. The fire was contained to one compartment containing several units or spaces.
But definitly hot enough to burn wire insulation etc causing a space to space situation with the spread of the fire.
Appearently the ships Damage Control team was pretty good considering the task at hand.

The fire moved vertically between decks via wiring conduits. I don't know about the steel or melting, but reports read wiring in 80 compartments was effected, so that's a whole lot of rewiring going to be required!

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_9506866 "Fire and heat affected electrical cabling and components running through 80 of the 3800 compartments on the carrier. The affected areas were spread across several decks."

http://www.navycompass.com/modules.php?name=More_News&name=Top_Stories&action=view&id=506

Nothing discussed to date can be more than sheer speculation since (at least I have not seen) no detailed reports have been released as of yet.

I am aware of the vessel type and many of the hazardous materials she carries. From the articles I've read (which are by no means comprehensive) I have no idea of what areas of the ship were affected (other than the elevator comment). If the fire broke out in the galley, I'd expect different damage than a fire started in the hanger.

It's unwarranted comments like this from forum staff that keep me from posting more often. I was privileged enough to be doing my undergraduate work at Worcester Polytechnic Institute while the Material Processing Institute was doing its analysis on samples of steel taken from the wreckage of the World Trade Center. As a result of related courses taught by the professors doing the studies (such as material science) and attending the presentations on the subject, I have more than a casual knowledge of fire's effect on steel. I thought I might lend to that discussion, but if you'd rather leave things at jibes and one-liners, you're more than welcome, seeing as how it's your name at the top of the forum.

It's an [b]aircraft carrier[/b]. No doubt some amount of fuel, lubricants or explosives was involved.

How hot did the fire get? While you won't see a typical fire melt steel, a hot fire can certainly increase the carbon content, increasing brittleness. Though not a primary cause, analysis of steel from the World Trade Center certainly showed that.

Werner, you should retreat to somewhere private before you begin your autoerogenous activities.

[quote="chuck"]What sort of limited fire can melt steel???[/quote]
None. I heard Rosie say on "The View" that we all know fire can't melt steel.

Bush obviously set the fire on [i]Lincoln[/i].

What sort of limited fire can melt steel???