Bonhomme Richard fire

[AllAmerican75]

This doesn't attack the root cause of the fire. This incident can happen regardless of who is responsible.

I agree from a QOL and training perspective that the USCG model would be better in drydocked availabilities lasting more than 12 mo. However, it would require a LOT more EDOs and shore side sailors that the Navy doesn't have. And if you haven't paid attention lately, the Navy just cut BAH and retirement benefits last decade, so I don't think there's an appetite to increase spending on manpower. Additionally, from a practical perspective, the yards are already primarily responsible for the safe execution of the work package.

But this fire happened pier side during an I or A-avail, so all of that is moot.

We have plenty of underutilized EDO Reservists who would be perfect to manage these availabilities. Also, the work would need to be spread out to shipyards around the country (not just in fleet concentration areas) which would help with our crumbling industrial base. If we also pushed ships through more frequently and kept the work constant, we could shift our contract model to something more akon to IDIQ which would allow the contractors to actually invest in quality personnel who take more personal investment in the work and aren't constantly having to worry about layoffs and droughts of work. This would also allow us to get ships into the yards more frequently so that we do smaller work more often instead of running ships to the point where we have to do 12 or 18 month availabilities because the ship just can't keep going any longer without maintenance. This reduces risks, allows us to better forecast work, makes the yards more flexible, and allows a more incremental approach to lifecycle management.

Nothing really changes for surface ships whether the maintenance happens pierside or in a dry dock. Since the public shipyards are reserved for nuclear work, non-nuclear ships rely upon commercial yards and contractors to perform the work and set the proper watches.

 

[Spekkio]

We have plenty of underutilized EDO Reservists who would be perfect to manage these availabilities. Also, the work would need to be spread out to shipyards around the country (not just in fleet concentration areas) which would help with our crumbling industrial base. If we also pushed ships through more frequently and kept the work constant, we could shift our contract model to something more akon to IDIQ which would allow the contractors to actually invest in quality personnel who take more personal investment in the work and aren't constantly having to worry about layoffs and droughts of work. This would also allow us to get ships into the yards more frequently so that we do smaller work more often instead of running ships to the point where we have to do 12 or 18 month availabilities because the ship just can't keep going any longer without maintenance. This reduces risks, allows us to better forecast work, makes the yards more flexible, and allows a more incremental approach to lifecycle management.

So easy. I wonder why the myriad of Admirals and Congressional committees charged with eliminating the SY backlog couldn't see this... Or maybe you're glossing over a whole lot of details.

Nothing really changes for surface ships whether the maintenance happens pierside or in a dry dock...

That's not what the JFMM says.

 

[AllAmerican75]

So easy. I wonder why the myriad of Admirals and Congressional committees charged with eliminating the SY backlog couldn't see this... Or maybe you're glossing over a whole lot of details.

Oh, we're being snarky and insulting each other? Roger that. You win this argument I guess.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

I wonder why the myriad of Admirals and Congressional committees charged with eliminating the SY backlog couldn't see this

So easy. When they are hearing "that will be opinion of the Navy EDO" they instantly remember Hyman, who was EDO first of all, and since no one who respected the corporate rules wanted to deal with Hyman, thus no one wants to deal with EDO, loosing the chance to hear the real expert

 

[BigRed389]

I agree with you that the piper needs to be paid. But I don’t think there is ever a good time. Example: South China Sea.

As for number 3, in my non-SWO opinion, the current condition of BHR should tell you that it should NOT be common practice.

Overall, I’m surprised at some of the not exactly apathy but sort of from the non-aviation people here. It is SO incredibly lucky that no one died from this. Losing a ship like this is already inexcusable. Losing lives to this would’ve been tragic.

So....number 3 has always been common practice for as long as ships have been going in and out of shipyards. Now, safety principles (beyond formal instructions) sort of dictate there should always be a fallback plan/mitigation. What that was in this case I can't say. The "rumor" that AFFF sprinklers were able to be energized but were not switched on prior to evacuation would also be disturbing, if ultimately substantiated.

The point is...ships (not just Navy) have been in industrial availabilities since before the Age of Sail, and the modern flavor of it has existed for decades. The fact this happened is indicative of a problem (good time for "Where there's smoke..." pun), but the details of what happened to drive some of the key details (why weren't they able to light off AFFF? what caused the explosion which seems to have stopped the Day 1 efforts cold?), much less tracing them to root causes.

We have plenty of underutilized EDO Reservists who would be perfect to manage these availabilities. Also, the work would need to be spread out to shipyards around the country (not just in fleet concentration areas) which would help with our crumbling industrial base. If we also pushed ships through more frequently and kept the work constant, we could shift our contract model to something more akon to IDIQ which would allow the contractors to actually invest in quality personnel who take more personal investment in the work and aren't constantly having to worry about layoffs and droughts of work. This would also allow us to get ships into the yards more frequently so that we do smaller work more often instead of running ships to the point where we have to do 12 or 18 month availabilities because the ship just can't keep going any longer without maintenance. This reduces risks, allows us to better forecast work, makes the yards more flexible, and allows a more incremental approach to lifecycle management.

Nothing really changes for surface ships whether the maintenance happens pierside or in a dry dock. Since the public shipyards are reserved for nuclear work, non-nuclear ships rely upon commercial yards and contractors to perform the work and set the proper watches.

It's a nice idea, and from a crew perspective it would be awesome to get the hell away from the yards. On the other hand, it would make "reactivation" of the ship even MORE difficult as your crews would get stripped to fill critical billets and you'd lose cohesion of the crew to the ship. Also, I'm not sure it actually makes things better unless this method ensure the contractor absorbs full liability for any damage. Not sure they (or insurers) can actually afford to do that.

As for handing over material control over to EDOs...I dunno about the Coast Guard but I am pretty familiar with how the Commonwealth Navies handle this, and the only way they make it really work is by having a huge Engineer force...their CHENG and WEPS/CSO are Engineers, not Line Officers. That would be a huge change to how the USN does business. As for the Reservists...they went Reserve for a reason. Coming back in to get into the Shipyard grind likely won't hold much appeal..

 

[Spekkio]

Oh, we're being snarky and insulting each other? Roger that. You win this argument I guess.

Not being snarky. Point is that it's easy to think lofty thoughts about an end state without knowledge of what it costs to get there. Neither of us have that data. I think it's prohibitively expensive and infeasible and you don't. In the end that's a spitball take on both sides.

And even if executed, it doesn't attack the gradual erosion of risk through disabling multiple DC systems with inadequate safeguards put into place if prevention fails.

 

[RedFive]

Point is that it's easy to think lofty thoughts about an end state without knowledge of what it costs to get there.

Elon Musk launched his car into outer space. He launched....his car....into.....space. It has completed an orbit around the sun. So when you say shit like "it's easy to think lofty thoughts" you really sound like a paper pushing, single-minded, unimaginative, negative nancy. Maybe you're not, I'm just saying what it sounds like. The Navy needs more people who are able to think outside the box while simultaneously given the ability to make serious change without fear of failure (within safety limits of course). We should have the capability to try something new, such as @AllAmerican75's suggestion, and still have the strength to say "okay, that didn't work, next idea." When you create a culture in which innovation is oppressed, the organization is going to struggle. Or just keep the status quo where leadership is perpetually worried about being fired and never colors outside the lines -- that's been working great lately.

 

[Swanee]

Saw these on the book. Damn. That's not going to buff out.

 

[Hair Warrior]

It has completed an orbit around the sun.

So it’s been in space for a year? Or it orbited the Earth?

Either way, I concur with your comment about Navy leaders needing to think outside the box.

 

[RedFive]

So it’s been in space for a year? Or it orbited the Earth?

Either way, I concur with your comment about Navy leaders needing to think outside the box.

Launched in Feb18, it has completed 1.3 orbits around the sun! ?

 

[BigRed389]

Elon Musk launched his car into outer space. He launched....his car....into.....space. It has completed an orbit around the sun. So when you say shit like "it's easy to think lofty thoughts" you really sound like a paper pushing, single-minded, unimaginative, negative nancy. Maybe you're not, I'm just saying what it sounds like. The Navy needs more people who are able to think outside the box while simultaneously given the ability to make serious change without fear of failure (within safety limits of course). We should have the capability to try something new, such as @AllAmerican75's suggestion, and still have the strength to say "okay, that didn't work, next idea." When you create a culture in which innovation is oppressed, the organization is going to struggle. Or just keep the status quo where leadership is perpetually worried about being fired and never colors outside the lines -- that's been working great lately.

His idea isn't bad, it's just that it would genuinely require a major shift to how we do business. Changing availability contracting strategy, more avails happening outside of homeport, crews getting pulled off ships during avails, etc. this would be a complete change to both the Fleet and maintenance worlds.
Which isn't to say it might not turn out that some like that's just simply necessary, but if you're going to make a major change, you should really have something pretty airtight, since you don't really get to just go "next idea" or you're creating massive changes through a major portion of the Navy for no good reason.

My personal opinion is some sort of Waterfront Safety shop set up to enforce safety standards with the same independent line of reporting the waterfront Naval Reactors guys have. Independent of Fleet or LMA drive to meet schedule/cost.

 

[taxi1]

Saw these on the book. Damn. That's not going to buff out. View attachment 26836View attachment 26837View attachment 26838View attachment 26839View attachment 26840View attachment 26841

Someone in Hollywoo is thinking "Aliens sequel movie set"

 

[Hair Warrior]

Launched in Feb18, it has completed 1.3 orbits around the sun! ?

Shit, what about its scheduled oil change?

 

[Jim123]

Shit, what about its scheduled oil change?

Let's have a look at the odometer. In the meantime, can I interest you in our extended service package that includes a 29 point inspection, topping off your blinker fluid, and adjusting your turbo encabulator?

 

[Pags]

Saw these on the book. Damn. That's not going to buff out. View attachment 26836View attachment 26837View attachment 26838View attachment 26839View attachment 26840View attachment 26841

They look like shots from the Titanic wreck. I'm trying to place where a lot of these may be from and am struggling. I think the last shot is of the forward end of the hangar bay with medical on the left and the stbd side main pway leading up to the galley on the right.