Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WCSH 8 Portland)   Guy who set USS Miami on fire to get some time off gets 17 years time off. Plus, has to pay back $400 million in restitution, which in cigarettes is infinity   (wcsh6.com) divider line 149
    More: Amusing, USS Miami, restitution, cigarettes  
•       •       •

9584 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2013 at 3:12 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



149 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-15 05:00:37 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: How can you do that much damage to a sub with a fire?  Isn't there a fire suppression system on board?


Yep, screen doors.
 
2013-03-15 05:09:34 PM  

kindms: Thunderpipes: kindms: Like we really need f-ing Attack subs.

Just write off the loss. Put the guy in the slammer and call it a day.

What a waste of $$

We have plenty of ICBMs etc to get the job done. We don't need to keep throwing money away on tools no one wants to use and if they ever get used won't really matter anyway.

Fighters no longer need guns....
We no longer need tanks....
Heavy bombers are useless....

that has to be the dumbest argument ever.

Please tell us when the last major US Naval battle was, when was the last sub battle ? And we are discussing the need to fix ONE sub. Not the need for all subs but ONE.

This is the same crap that always happens when folks try to discuss scaling back military spending. Do we really need to have a HUGE fleet of subs when they are only really a nuclear first strike deterrent ?

As soon as people start talking about scaling back the spending you get folks like you screaming about leaving the country vulnerable to attack etc etc

Lets be honest we spend more $$ on our military than almost every country combined. Not replacing a single sub isn't going to weaken us as a nation.

Tanks, planes, guns, subs etc OK but we really don't need to have excessive amounts of them at the cost of other important areas of our country


The answer is obvious:  boilermakers and their families vote.
 
2013-03-15 05:15:15 PM  

kindms: Ohio class (18 in commission) - 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGNs)
Virginia class (7 in commission, 3 under construction, 4 on order) Fast attack submarines
Seawolf class (3 in commission) - attack submarines
Los Angeles class (43 in commission, 2 in reserve) - attack submarines

So we have 71 and more on the way. No one thinks this is a problem ?

Lets say they only cost 1 billion a pop (which is probably under value) 71 billion dollars spent on these things. And this is only the active fleet. This doesn't even take in to account all the decommissioned ones. And people are complaining about not fixing one.


The Earth's water area is approximately 361,800,000 sq km.   That's alot of space to cover.

/also, have I mentioned union work?
 
2013-03-15 05:18:11 PM  

Mikeyworld: johnny_vegas: factoryconnection: Attack subs have the highest operational tempo of any ship in the Navy

by hull or by crew?

Attack subs aren't missile boats.They don't carry the nuclear-deterrent ICBMs that you are prolly thinkin' of. SSNs (submarine[SS] + nuclear{N], as opposed to SS+B [ballistic {misslie}]) are the workhorse to patrol, stealthily, areas of strategic importance. The crews don't change out, the same guys are on every trip, staying in port for mere weeks between month-long patrols. That's why, when they get in, the party starts! They're goin' back out very soon.


Can't have $8Billion CVNs without $2Bn attack subs to protect them from $2Million diesel electrics.
 
2013-03-15 05:21:44 PM  

kindms: Ohio class (18 in commission) - 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGNs)
Virginia class (7 in commission, 3 under construction, 4 on order) Fast attack submarines
Seawolf class (3 in commission) - attack submarines
Los Angeles class (43 in commission, 2 in reserve) - attack submarines

So we have 71 and more on the way. No one thinks this is a problem ?

Lets say they only cost 1 billion a pop (which is probably under value) 71 billion dollars spent on these things. And this is only the active fleet. This doesn't even take in to account all the decommissioned ones. And people are complaining about not fixing one.


There aren't enough attack submarines now to meet existing combatant commander requirements. Submarines aren't just used to trail Russian submarines anymore -- they're one of the most versatile units in the Navy's arsenal.  When a destroyer costs $3.5 billion (ZUMWALT class), a carrier costs $13.5 billion  without air wing coont8), and the LCS is over $500 million with almost no organic warfighting capability, those $2 billion VIRGINIAs look pretty cost-effective to me!
 
2013-03-15 05:23:44 PM  

hasty ambush: Nem Wan: We gave away/lost more than that amount of cash in Iraq with no accounting. I don't see Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld being on the hook for restitution.
[static.guim.co.uk image 372x192]

Nor will Obama and his campaign money bundlers have to offer restitution for the $535 million  we lost to Solyndra or any of his other Green energy kick backs


Go away.
 
2013-03-15 05:24:56 PM  

Turbo Cojones: Can't have $8Billion CVNs without $2Bn attack subs to protect them from $2Million diesel electrics.


The 6 Kilos that Vietnam is buying from Russia will cost a total of approx $2.1B plus another $1B for armament.
 
2013-03-15 05:28:31 PM  

Mikeyworld: johnny_vegas: factoryconnection: Attack subs have the highest operational tempo of any ship in the Navy

by hull or by crew?

Attack subs aren't missile boats.They don't carry the nuclear-deterrent ICBMs that you are prolly thinkin' of. SSNs (submarine[SS] + nuclear{N], as opposed to SS+B [ballistic {misslie}]) are the workhorse to patrol, stealthily, areas of strategic importance. The crews don't change out, the same guys are on every trip, staying in port for mere weeks between month-long patrols. That's why, when they get in, the party starts! They're goin' back out very soon.


doyner: johnny_vegas: factoryconnection: Attack subs have the highest operational tempo of any ship in the Navy

by hull or by crew?

By crew, but the SSGNs are catching up.


Thanks for the course correction.  I knew better but engaged mouth too soon.

I would be surprised if the BMD destroyers did not come awfully close to beating SSN optempo and in general optempo for many ships has gone through the roof over the last couple years....though the sequester will take care of that!
 
2013-03-15 05:30:44 PM  

MadManMoon: a carrier costs $13.5 billion  without air wing coont8)


Best filter pwnage ever!

Supposed to be the designator and hull number for the USS GERALD FORD (Charlie Victor November Seven Eight).
 
2013-03-15 05:39:54 PM  
Powerball's up to $216-million... All he's got to do is win a couple of those.
 
2013-03-15 05:40:23 PM  

factoryconnection: The submariner groups on Facebook have been ablaze (sorry) about this light sentence.  The way I read it: what sentence un-torches that stack of $500M taxpayer dollars?  We could squeeze him for every penny he's ever earned or will earn and it wouldn't replace one birthing compartment in that boat.

Not to say that he isn't deserving of punishment, but nothing we do un-does his crime so we're stuck with the bill, those firefighters are stuck with their lung damage, etc...

All this sh*t over "girl troubles."  What a maniac.

/dolphin wearer


If someone did this to one of the ships I've worked on, I'd track them down and strip

every

last

cable

out of their body.

And I'm a contractor.  (I've spent the last X years writing lots of the specs and corrections for the mid-life refit.)  I can't even imagine what you'd want to do if you served.
 
2013-03-15 05:41:33 PM  
Don't they cost something like $900 million brand new?  May as well use it for spare parts.
 
2013-03-15 05:42:34 PM  

johnny_vegas: I would be surprised if the BMD destroyers did not come awfully close to beating SSN optempo and in general optempo for many ships has gone through the roof over the last couple years....though the sequester will take care of that!


Sequester won't effect BMD platforms or the submarine fleet with respect to coverage of existing commitments.

Arsonists and shiatty drivers, on the other hand...
 
2013-03-15 05:43:28 PM  

kindms: Thunderpipes: kindms: Like we really need f-ing Attack subs.

Just write off the loss. Put the guy in the slammer and call it a day.

What a waste of $$

We have plenty of ICBMs etc to get the job done. We don't need to keep throwing money away on tools no one wants to use and if they ever get used won't really matter anyway.

Fighters no longer need guns....
We no longer need tanks....
Heavy bombers are useless....

that has to be the dumbest argument ever.

Please tell us when the last major US Naval battle was, when was the last sub battle ? And we are discussing the need to fix ONE sub. Not the need for all subs but ONE.

This is the same crap that always happens when folks try to discuss scaling back military spending. Do we really need to have a HUGE fleet of subs when they are only really a nuclear first strike deterrent ?

As soon as people start talking about scaling back the spending you get folks like you screaming about leaving the country vulnerable to attack etc etc

Lets be honest we spend more $$ on our military than almost every country combined. Not replacing a single sub isn't going to weaken us as a nation.

Tanks, planes, guns, subs etc OK but we really don't need to have excessive amounts of them at the cost of other important areas of our country


We don't need to fix that sub.  Obama has another vacation coming up.  Priorities people!
 
2013-03-15 05:44:37 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Don't they cost something like $900 million brand new?  May as well use it for spare parts.


Not so simple.  Each boat is different.  The variations in configuration are enormous.  MIAMI is a 688i--we haven't decommissioned enough to use them as spares, and it ($400M notwithstanding) is easier to fix and keep active then upgrading older (original) 688s to meet demand.
 
2013-03-15 05:48:39 PM  

kindms: Ohio class (18 in commission) - 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGNs)
Virginia class (7 in commission, 3 under construction, 4 on order) Fast attack submarines
Seawolf class (3 in commission) - attack submarines
Los Angeles class (43 in commission, 2 in reserve) - attack submarines

So we have 71 and more on the way. No one thinks this is a problem ?

Lets say they only cost 1 billion a pop (which is probably under value) 71 billion dollars spent on these things. And this is only the active fleet. This doesn't even take in to account all the decommissioned ones. And people are complaining about not fixing one.


You really can't lump SSBN's, SSGN's and SSN's in the same category. They all have very different missions from each other. Sure there are some similarities and some crossover but you aren't ever going to be taking a boatload of your strategic defense force and put it at risk (well, no more than you have to anyway). So that realistically leaves 50 boats to do the more "Traditional" submarine work (in reserve means mothballed which can take over a year to get back up and running, and not at an insignificant cost either).

So you have 50 SSN's commissioned, at any given time roughly half are unavailable for any number of reasons but its mostly maintenance related, many repairs simply cannot be performed at sea either because it's not possible due to being submerged, it takes special equipment that there's simply no room to store on board, the parts aren't available, the work requires the weapons to be offloaded, the work itself causes atmospheric contamination or a bunch of other very realistic reasons.

So that leaves about 25 boats available for sea duty. I don't know if you've noticed or not but there is a whole lot of ocean. By my reckoning that's over five million square miles per boat. Now of course not every square mile needs to be covered and the ideal situation would be to have a boat where you need it, when you need it, but often you can't and don't know where that will be so you have to hedge your bets and keep some in reserve to send places as needed. And speaking of sending them places that's gonna take some time away from them doing whatever it is that you need them to do (did I mention how big the worlds oceans are?).

I noticed that someone mentioned the Russians and the Chinese as potential threats. There are other ones out there as well. Iran and North Korea both have their own submarines. Granted, they're going to be limited in range compared to a nuclear powered boat but they both are relatively close to some very strategic waterways. By my reckoning those four countries have a combined total of well over 150 nuclear and conventional boats of which if even only one third of which is able to go to sea at any given time is still twice what we could have at sea. Our cupboard isn't bare but it sure isn't where it was just a few decades ago either.
 
2013-03-15 06:15:46 PM  
Has the Navy learned anything from this about how a single arsonist can destroy a billion dollar sub? I think that's the real story here.
 
2013-03-15 06:16:39 PM  

doyner: Marcus Aurelius: Don't they cost something like $900 million brand new?  May as well use it for spare parts.

Not so simple.  Each boat is different.  The variations in configuration are enormous.  MIAMI is a 688i--we haven't decommissioned enough to use them as spares, and it ($400M notwithstanding) is easier to fix and keep active then upgrading older (original) 688s to meet demand.


I guessed that it wasn't quite like a car.

A fire on a ship is the worst possible scenario, I cannot imagine the damage.

And I'm guessing it wasn't insured.

CSB, I saw the Thresher set sail back in '63 from the exact same port.
 
2013-03-15 06:25:17 PM  

lelio: Has the Navy learned anything from this about how a single arsonist can destroy a billion dollar sub? I think that's the real story here.


99.99999% of that workforce takes immense pride in their work, and you can't very well supervise them all constantly.  And a US Navy warship is typically chock full of things that burn really well.  I'd say the story is that this has never happened before.
 
2013-03-15 06:35:09 PM  
*than

/dammit
 
2013-03-15 06:35:15 PM  

ZMugg: I worked at PNS in the 80's, Shop 38 (outside machinist). Wonder what shop he worked for.


he should be put UNDER the jail.


Pretty sure he was a painter or x71

//former x67oem from MINSY
 
2013-03-15 06:37:31 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: lelio: Has the Navy learned anything from this about how a single arsonist can destroy a billion dollar sub? I think that's the real story here.

99.99999% of that workforce takes immense pride in their work, and you can't very well supervise them all constantly.  And a US Navy warship is typically chock full of things that burn really well.  I'd say the story is that this has never happened before.


Boats have caught fire before and ended up being scrapped (I think the one before this one was the Bonefish). It is the worst casualty on a submarine (not flooding as one might expect, you can make it so that flooding is survivable up to a point but even a little fire can cause major problems very quickly). Fire means a loss of oxygen, lots of toxic gasses and heat that has nowhere to escape to. Fire is also hard to prevent as ships get older. Wire insulation slowly breaks down and so on. At sea the air is intentionally dropped down from 21% O2 to as low as 18-19 % O2. Just enough to make it much more difficult for a fire to start but not so  low as to start giving people headaches. At the lower O2 levels a Bic lighter won't work, but a Zippo just barely will.
 
2013-03-15 07:02:22 PM  

palelizard: I understand the prison sentence, but what's the point of the $400 million?  He's never going to make that kind of money.


You attach judgement just in case he wins the lottery when he gets out of prison.
 
2013-03-15 07:04:04 PM  

factoryconnection: The ship was only accessible via one hatch in the front


So, thinking this through here . . .

Couldn't they just close the hatch and let the fire extinguish itself with a lack of oxygen?
 
2013-03-15 07:12:03 PM  

SteelCityKid: That was my brother's boat. There are no words to describe the level of stupidity Fury has attained.


Oh I'm sure his momma would swear to God he was a good boy who would never hurt anyone! Plus he just found Jesus.
 
2013-03-15 07:14:01 PM  

indarwinsshadow: No wonder squirrels love America. It's full of nuts.

[t2.gstatic.com image 348x145]


Know what Canada's full of?

www.back2stonewall.com
 
2013-03-15 07:21:49 PM  

mrmopar5287: factoryconnection: The ship was only accessible via one hatch in the front

So, thinking this through here . . .

Couldn't they just close the hatch and let the fire extinguish itself with a lack of oxygen?


Uuuuh, no.  It was in a shipyard availability--lots of stuff open that couldn't be accessed otherwise AND they needed to put it out as soon as possible to keep it from spreading and destroying even MORE shiat before the air would have run out.
 
2013-03-15 07:38:41 PM  

hasty ambush: I am surprised his union, yes he is was a union member, didn't try to get him off.


Fixed.

/ I'm assuming he can't make any dues payments in prison...
 
2013-03-15 07:43:02 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Marcus Aurelius: lelio: Has the Navy learned anything from this about how a single arsonist can destroy a billion dollar sub? I think that's the real story here.

99.99999% of that workforce takes immense pride in their work, and you can't very well supervise them all constantly.  And a US Navy warship is typically chock full of things that burn really well.  I'd say the story is that this has never happened before.

Boats have caught fire before and ended up being scrapped (I think the one before this one was the Bonefish). It is the worst casualty on a submarine (not flooding as one might expect, you can make it so that flooding is survivable up to a point but even a little fire can cause major problems very quickly). Fire means a loss of oxygen, lots of toxic gasses and heat that has nowhere to escape to. Fire is also hard to prevent as ships get older. Wire insulation slowly breaks down and so on. At sea the air is intentionally dropped down from 21% O2 to as low as 18-19 % O2. Just enough to make it much more difficult for a fire to start but not so  low as to start giving people headaches. At the lower O2 levels a Bic lighter won't work, but a Zippo just barely will.


I used to work with a guy that flew A-6's off the USS Forestal when the shiat came down in '67.  He was below decks somewhere and he said he thought the world was ending.  I cannot even imagine.
 
2013-03-15 08:04:06 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I used to work with a guy that flew A-6's off the USS Forestal when the shiat came down in '67. He was below decks somewhere and he said he thought the world was ending. I cannot even imagine.


In the late 80's the navy spent ~$7 million on a fire simulator on the base in Groton Ct. Hull insulation (what the Miami had) and hydraulic oil mist fires were the two main ones. Full on firefighting gear like you would find on a boat and nothing was simulated (except the smoke). Real fires, real OBA's being lit off, water spraying everywhere, afff fire extinguishers slicking up the deck, dark tight spaces and thick smoke-like stuff (it worked like smoke but it wasn't smoke, hell if I know what it was made of though). It's highly monitored of course but you really do start to feel like it's the end of the world in there.
 
2013-03-15 08:08:38 PM  

ZMugg: I worked at PNS in the 80's, Shop 38 (outside machinist). Wonder what shop he worked for.


he should be put UNDER the jail.


He was 71. The same shop who has to do all the repainting and cleanup.
 
2013-03-15 08:33:26 PM  
The fine is no big deal; all he has to do is whore himself out to 8000000 fat chicks at $50 each.
/or 800000 really fat chicks at $500 each
 
2013-03-15 09:31:16 PM  
I was on duty the day this happened and got to see the reports as they came across our desk. I have friends that were there and risked their lives because of this guy.  He deserves much worse than he got.
 
2013-03-15 10:16:13 PM  
They were going for at least 35 for this guy who downloaded too many books from the digital library.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-15 10:46:39 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I used to work with a guy that flew A-6's off the USS Forestal when the shiat came down in '67.


Yow, that looked really bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire


The rocket flew across the flight deck, striking a wing-mounted external fuel tank on an [1] aircraft No. 405, piloted by [2][6] The Zuni Rocket's warhead safety mechanism prevented it from detonating, but the impact tore the tank off the wing and ignited the resulting spray of escaping <a data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-5" title="JP-5" class="mw-redirect">JP-5 fuel, causing an instantaneous <a data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflagration" title="Conflagration">conflagration. Within seconds, other external fuel tanks on White's aircraft overheated and ruptured, releasing more jet fuel to feed the flames, which began spreading along the flight deck.
 
2013-03-15 10:47:11 PM  
I'm kind of surprised there wasn't some kind of system in place to protect $450 million dollars worth of submarine guts from a fire.
 
2013-03-16 12:32:43 AM  
$400M??

We could buy, like, five F-35s with that money!
 
2013-03-16 02:25:17 AM  
just another socialized work program for Electric Boat

Uh...so now building military equipment to defend the United States is socialistic.

OK, whatever.

:(
 
2013-03-16 03:45:00 AM  
www.wcsh6.com

I think we're lucky that all this guy did was take out a nuclear submarine.
 
2013-03-16 08:28:53 AM  

Gaylord Fister: We could buy, like, five F-35s with that money!


try about 3 and the down payment on a fourth
 
2013-03-16 08:35:04 AM  

doyner: mrmopar5287: factoryconnection: The ship was only accessible via one hatch in the front

So, thinking this through here . . .

Couldn't they just close the hatch and let the fire extinguish itself with a lack of oxygen?

Uuuuh, no.  It was in a shipyard availability--lots of stuff open that couldn't be accessed otherwise AND they needed to put it out as soon as possible to keep it from spreading and destroying even MORE shiat before the air would have run out.


Plus I'd imagine their first priority is to make sure there's no crew/workers trapped inside...slamming the hatch would pretty much doom them.
 
2013-03-16 09:02:02 AM  

Katolu: One Seawolf, the Carter, is surveillance only.


The Carter is a fun boat.

As far as the Miami goes, it's a mess. Several people at work are on the engineering team trying to plan the repairs, but the sequestration is pausing that effort.

Oh. And there is no scuttling screw on the bottom of the hull. There are several surprisingly large openings that in the past have been used to accidently scuttle boats at the dock, but none of them are designed to intentionally be used that way.
 
2013-03-16 09:56:05 AM  
He said he needed to go home because he was suffering from anxiety and had no more vacation or sick leave.

Talk about jumping out of the butter melter and into the fire
 
2013-03-16 12:52:01 PM  

LiberalEastCoastElitist: I'm kind of surprised there wasn't some kind of system in place to protect $450 million dollars worth of submarine guts from a fire.


Usually there is. It's called the ships crew. They are well trained to not only operate the ship but to also fight casualties in a rapid manner (and they had better be because there isn't going to be anyone else showing up to help them when things go south).

The thing is that a submarine undergoing a major refueling overhaul doesn't have a lot of those guys around. The reasons for that are numerous but that's how it is and has been for decades. When I got to my first boat back in the early 80's it was in the shipyard and was originally expected to be out of it in about 9 months (it was closer to 14 months but that's another story). The ships crew when I first got there totaled about 75 officers and enlisted, I was one of the first new people to show up, most of the rest of the crew had taken it into the shipyard over a year and a half earlier.. Note that that particular type of boat was intended to have a full complement of about 150-160 men when it was fully manned.

The remaining crews job is to watch over the repairs and to certify that they were done properly and to stand a skeleton watch in three duty sections (who mostly do security watches to make sure that nobody unauthorized gets below and a couple of roving fire and safety watches along with people who keep an eye on the reactor plus another guy on watch to handle things like the phones and yet another roving fire and security watch on the offsite barge where they have "Offices" (really just places where publications and a desk or three are kept for the people not on watch) and some berthing for the duty section). On a "Normal" day there may only be 5 crew members actually on board the boat at night and perhaps 20 during the day (the other 15 doing observation type stuff).

The rest of the crew is somewhere else. During the workday they are either on the barge digging into paperwork or out and about in the shipyard doing other ships related business. At night the off watch duty section is on the barge and the off-duty people are not even in the shipyard but in their "Homes" be it barracks or apartments or whatever else. The point being that they are not anywhere near close enough to the boat to fight a casualty like a fire.

One of the things that the shipyard takes over is firefighting responsibilities. Not the detection part of it, that's the job of the three or four crew members below decks but they also often have other things to do on top of watching out for fires. They will be aware of possible fire hazards and pay close attention to those evolutions but for arson they can be fairly easily avoided by someone who knows what they are doing.

But lets say that the fire is started and it takes a minute or two before it is detected. It's large enough that a couple of fire extinguishers don't work (and that's all that's available as the fire mains are all out of service and in parts strewn all over the shipyard) and the guy on watch has standing orders that if two extinguishers don't get the job done to call for backup. Now the shipyard fire dept has to be called, gear up, drive to the boat, clamber down the one or two hatches (that are probably fouled by any number of wires, hoses, ventilation ducts and so on not to mention the yardbirds running away from the smoke and fire) wearing full fire gear and get to the fire dragging fire hoses attached to the pier side water source. That's all before a drop of water is used on the fire.

It's no wonder that a fire can end up causing so much damage when the place with the fire contains multimillion dollar electronic systems (that all need to be replaced because the soot is highly corrosive to delicate electronic components that are custom made) and is full of piping and valves that all has to be torn apart and put back together again to make sure that the o-rings haven't melted. Then it all has to be re-tested and re-certified before it can go back out to sea.

All because some lazy idiot wanted to leave work early one day...
 
2013-03-16 01:01:10 PM  

whyaduck: Katolu: One Seawolf, the Carter, is surveillance only.

The Carter is a fun boat.

As far as the Miami goes, it's a mess. Several people at work are on the engineering team trying to plan the repairs, but the sequestration is pausing that effort.

Oh. And there is no scuttling screw on the bottom of the hull. There are several surprisingly large openings that in the past have been used to accidently scuttle boats at the dock, but none of them are designed to intentionally be used that way.


Back in the '60's there was one boat (Sargo I think) that was intentionally partially scuttled at the pier to put out an oxygen fire in the after torpedo room. The boat was submerged with the after hatch open to flood it.
 
2013-03-16 03:53:24 PM  
Radioactive Ass

From what you've said, It sounds like our shipyard fire suppression model is broken.
 
2013-03-16 04:49:37 PM  

studebaker hoch: Radioactive Ass

From what you've said, It sounds like our shipyard fire suppression model is broken.


It's not broken so much as the environment is hazardous and there's no reasonable way around it when you have an arsonist on the loose. Usually when any work is being done that has even the slightest chance of causing a fire there is someone from the ships crew standing right there with a fire extinguisher (two someones if it's at all possible for a fire to erupt on the other side of a bulkhead) but you can't twin up with every yard bird and follow them around the boat with a fire extinguisher. Nothing would get done because there wouldn't be any room to get work done, plus there aren't that many crew members available anyway.

Quite honestly in a case like this the shipyard should be eating the cost of the fire as it was caused by one of their people (and the navy signs over the majority of control over the ship to them). However this isn't a civilian shipyard like EB or NN (the only 2 civilian shipyards that construct boats today) but one owned by the navy so they'd really only be charging themselves for the repairs anyway.
 
2013-03-16 06:18:55 PM  
Radioactive Ass

What about having a two-man rule for the whole boat?
 
2013-03-16 10:30:06 PM  

studebaker hoch: What about having a two-man rule for the whole boat?


I'm not understanding what you mean. There are always at least 2 roving watches on board (one forward and one aft) in addition to a reactor watch (NRC required) and two topside watches for security reasons. Their main job in the shipyard includes being a fire and safety watch but they can't be everywhere at once. They can see when some work is getting set up and stop it if the proper safety precautions aren't taken care of but they can't rove and monitor a job at the same time. There are other guys available in the duty section but if you start having them live there there are going to be some serious problems with a bunch of things.

A 688 is 33' in diameter on the outside. You lose about 2' feet just in pressure hull and framing alone. that makes for a 31' inner diameter "pipe" to cram 3 levels of deck space (it's actually 4 levels because there's another bottom level of tanks, piping spaces and batteries). In other words it's cramped as it is. Add in 100 yardbirds and the crew (who would need to be berthed, bathed and fed) and pretty much nothing would get done without at least quadrupling the cost and time for turning it over.

The way that it's done separates the crew from the ship (they do their duty (and regular hours) days on a barge nearby that has berthing,, heads, office spaces, classrooms and a limited galley). They are there to support the overhaul as navy representatives.. In layman's terms they don't "Own" the ship, the shipyard does. They are the inspectors that verify that the yard did what it was supposed to do and they have a very good incentive to do so. They will be taking the boat out and down to test depth, it is literally their asses on the line. Most yardbirds not so much.

The two man rule (as defined in the navy anyway) applies to nuclear weapons which aren't there while in the shipyard.
 
Displayed 49 of 149 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report