Bon Homme Richard punishments issued.

Morgan3820

Morgan3820

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
4,753
Location
New Bern, NC
Display Name
Display name:
El Conquistador

I work for the Navy as a civilian in the aviation side. I don't understand how this can happen, or maybe I do. 85% of the firestation on the ship were offline for maintainence? It took 90 minutes for the first water to get to the fire, according to this article. The Navy has its problems but I thought it was better than this.
 
I thought this was going to be about the fire that destroyed the first BHR in the battle with the Serapis.
 
Sad…flown off that deck…basic incompetence…but probably have their pronoun’s correct as stated
 
Not just .mil, but all across America there is a lot of complacency being masked as risk aversion which in really dangerous.
 
I think this is probably a good "high level" read of why the Skipper, XO and command Master Chief will take a **** ton of blame.

https://amp.washingtontimes.com/new...I8ixS45t2RcKwag8hIjivfRIFjOcH1MRoCxKMQAvD_BwE

It's not enough to say 85%(or whatever) systems were offline. On our boat, just one non functional fire hose would have been immediately repaired and NJP given. Failed drills would have repeated until "sat". Officers and enlisted missing training and drills would have punished as well. And they had full bird Captains for CO and XO.

EDIT Starts:
original post...

"What sucks most is that it started with sabotage. They should literally hang the traitor. But the crew should have been able to contain if their command structure had zero tolerance for basic issues noted."

...but it was made clear a few posts later that he hasn't been proven to be the singular cause or even that anyone is sure it was arson.

EDIT Finished

Just because they couldn't punch a halon button doesn't mean it should be a loss.
 
Last edited:
Sinistar said:
I think this is probably a good "high level" read of why the Skipper, XO and command Master Chief will take a **** ton of blame.

https://amp.washingtontimes.com/new...I8ixS45t2RcKwag8hIjivfRIFjOcH1MRoCxKMQAvD_BwE

It's not enough to say 85%(or whatever) systems were offline. On our boat, just one non functional fire hose would have been immediately repaired and NJP given. Failed drills would have repeated until "sat". Officers and enlisted missing training and drills would have punished as well. And they had full bird Captains for CO and XO.

What sucks most is that it started with sabotage. They should literally hang the traitor. But the crew should have been able to contain if their command structure had zero tolerance for basic issues noted.

Just because they couldn't punch a halon button doesn't mean it should be a loss.
Click to expand...

Maybe a dumb question, but is it expected all.systems to remain online during a refit? This ship was not in operation at the time of the fire, nor underway. My understanding is it was undergoing a major overhaul.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Maybe a dumb question, but is it expected all.systems to remain online during a refit? This ship was not in operation at the time of the fire, nor underway. My understanding is it was undergoing a major overhaul.
Click to expand...

Sure, you would expect a certain number of things not to work but you would then put other measures in place (portable fire equipment, reduced flammable storage in locations without systems that are operating etc) to at least mitigate that lack of capability. If it was out of service it should have all been documented as well and the crew aware of what was working and what wasn't with the appropriate damage control teams having work arounds. Sounds like a whole lot of training wasn't done successfully either.
 
Sinistar said:
What sucks most is that it started with sabotage. They should literally hang the traitor. But the crew should have been able to contain if their command structure had zero tolerance for basic issues noted.
Click to expand...
We actually don't know that for certain. The evidence against the sailor in question is so circumstantial that several senior JAGs have recommended against proceeding with the criminal case. And yet the Navy is going forward with it anyway.

They will end up making fools of themselves when the sailor is found not guilty and they have no one else left to pin it on.
 
Fearless Tower said:
We actually don't know that for certain. The evidence against the sailor in question is so circumstantial that several senior JAGs have recommended against proceeding with the criminal case. And yet the Navy is going forward with it anyway.

They will end up making fools of themselves when the sailor is found not guilty and they have no one else left to pin it on.
Click to expand...
Whether they manage to get a conviction on the sabotage bit or not, they will always fall back on Article 92 to save face. It's like the famous movie, no conviction for murder, but still convicted of "unbecoming."
 
Rich Holt said:
Whether they manage to get a conviction on the sabotage bit or not, they will always fall back on Article 92 to save face. It's like the famous movie, no conviction for murder, but still convicted of "unbecoming."
Click to expand...

The evidence is so flimsy, I’m not sure they can make even that stick.

-Sailor was disgruntled
-One person said they think they saw him in the area where the fire started sometime before.
-Sailor owned a cigarette lighter

That’s it.

This is IOWA revisited.
 
Sailor disgruntled…well that at least 50% of E-4s and below…was seen in the area…unless it was someplace restricted sort of funny and owning a lighter ? The number of smokers that I witnessed on Navy ships…the well deck where they decided LHA smokers had to go the last time I was on one was always crowded unless flooded for operations.
 
From what I’ve read (and who knows how accurate that is) the biggest problem was officers not taking responsibility for managing the response while the ship burned. It looks to me like this was a breakdown in command all along the chain.
 
Fearless Tower said:
We actually don't know that for certain. The evidence against the sailor in question is so circumstantial that several senior JAGs have recommended against proceeding with the criminal case. And yet the Navy is going forward with it anyway.

They will end up making fools of themselves when the sailor is found not guilty and they have no one else left to pin it on.
Click to expand...
Thanks for calling me out on that. I was under the impression it was a slam dunk charge. Its is America so innocent until proven guilty. As another Navy guy I'm wondering if you kinda want it to be arson/sabotage vs such a epic innocent problem. Either way, I will back off on condemning him.
 
In combat, everything goes to hell. In training, many things go to hell. I'm not snapping to conclusions on that one. I've been there.
 
"No plan survives first contact with the enemy"
- Reacher
 
Just as a random observer, who really isn't even observing, if one enlisted guy can take out a USN ship, even when it's under repair, something is wrong. At sea, if a ship runs over a fishing vessel, it's the captains fault. Pretty simple. Under repair, to me it's whomever was in charge of that ship while under repair. Could lots of people have made mistakes? Sure. But who put the systems in place, who hired the contractors, who was managing the operation, etc.. The US Navy screwed this up, that's pretty clear. That's kinda what they do.

My question is this - based on this performance, what would be the average life expectancy of a ship of this class be in combat? Roughly that of a Japanese carrier at midway with fuel lines running all over it? That's kinda the impression I get.
 
Albany Tom said:
My question is this - based on this performance, what would be the average life expectancy of a ship of this class be in combat? Roughly that of a Japanese carrier at midway with fuel lines running all over it? That's kinda the impression I get.
Click to expand...
Kind of comparing apples and rutabagas as far as situation goes.

This mishap happened during a major maintenance availability with the vast majority of the crew off ship and even many of those who were in the duty section weren't physically onboard (many on the barge parked next to it). Many of the installed shipboard fire systems were disabled due to the maintenance and the backup systems were not properly set up.

In combat, you'd have the full crew of about 1000 people onboard (and that doesn't include the Marines) as well as fully active fire and damage control systems.

One thing our mishaps of 2017 demonstrated is that although we may screw up really bad, we do have some sailors who will spring into action and fight like hell to save their ship when the time comes.
 
Sinistar said:
Thanks for calling me out on that. I was under the impression it was a slam dunk charge. Its is America so innocent until proven guilty. As another Navy guy I'm wondering if you kinda want it to be arson/sabotage vs such a epic innocent problem. Either way, I will back off on condemning him.
Click to expand...
For all we know, the dude could be guilty as hell. But the bigger problem is the Navy has absolutely jacked up several high profile legal cases in recent years (Eddie Gallagher/USS FITZGERALD Court Martials) and it appears that they are hell bent to do it again here.

This case is a defense attorney's dream.
 
It might be an unfair comparison. But doing maintenance on the fire system at the same time hot work is being done, without putting in suitable controls to compensate sounds like lousy risk management. Just as the refuel situation was for the Japanese at Midway. Completely different situations, but if anything the Japanese had way better reason to take extra risk. We, I'd guess, did it because we were either trying to save time or money. That didn't work out.

I have complete respect for the sailors of the US Navy. Probably the best at damage control in the world, for a long time. Incredibly brave people. But I don't have a lot of respect for Navy procurement, contract management, scheduling, anything dealing with paperwork of any sort, or the ability of anyone behind a desk in Washington to take responsibility for anything.
 
Sinistar said:
Thanks for calling me out on that. I was under the impression it was a slam dunk charge. Its is America so innocent until proven guilty. As another Navy guy I'm wondering if you kinda want it to be arson/sabotage vs such a epic innocent problem. Either way, I will back off on condemning him.
Click to expand...

I imagine he probably actually did it. The issue (apparently) is that the govt case isn't strong, in a legal sense. I.e. OJ Simpson, but in a much different world of legalese
 
35 AoA said:
I imagine he probably actually did it. The issue (apparently) is that the govt case isn't strong, in a legal sense. I.e. OJ Simpson, but in a much different world of legalese
Click to expand...

Exactly. OJ is a good analogy.

I tell people that for a lawyer, the only client worse to represent than the Navy would be Amber Heard.
 
Albany Tom said:
It might be an unfair comparison. But doing maintenance on the fire system at the same time hot work is being done, without putting in suitable controls to compensate sounds like lousy risk management.
Click to expand...
The issue was, there WERE controls in place on paper that turns out were not actually there. For example when you take down the fire main during an avail, the contractor sets up a portable fire system. But if the contractor didn't set it up correctly and ship's force doesn't inspect it.....then bad things happen.

The other issue is the base fire department response.

When we shifted to more import duty sections over 20 years ago in order to improve quality of life, that shift was based on the concept that in the event of a large in port fire, the base FD would be properly trained to take the lead and combat the fire. In all of my years as an Officer of the Deck, Command Duty Officer, Chief Engineer and XO, I (as many other officers) was under the impression that Fed Fire knew what they were doing.

This catastrophe revealed that (for years) Fed Fire was essentially pencil-whipping their required training and essentially had no clue what to do in the event of such an emergency.

One of the reasons it got out of control and burned to the extent that it did is because no one really knew/understood who was in charge during the critical phase where they needed to get the fire under control.

Like most accidents/mishaps, the loss of BHR was due to one helluva bad error chain and not a single point of failure.
 
We may have lost a silly old ship, but thank heavens no one was misgendered.

This proves the Navy's programs are working to make it the most effective fighting force ever.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Maybe a dumb question, but is it expected all.systems to remain online during a refit? This ship was not in operation at the time of the fire, nor underway. My understanding is it was undergoing a major overhaul.
Click to expand...

The Navy had a boat burn down during maintenance before. After that, a very comprehensive manual to avoid burning down any other boats during maintenance was created. The manual / general orders was not followed in this case. The people being punished would have been in charge of making sure that the plan is followed.
 
"No plan survives first contact with the enemy"
- Reacher
Helmuth von Moltke in the late 1800s, I believe

So I'm guessing Mike Tyson was paraphrasing when he said "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top