| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government Corruption |
| USS Bonhomme Richard Fire: A Long Chain of Failures... |
| 2021-10-21 |
| [USNI News] A cascade of failures — from a junior enlisted sailor not recognizing a fire at the end of their duty watch to fundamental problems with how the U.S. Navy trains sailors to fight fires in shipyards — are responsible for the five-day blaze that cost the service an amphibious warship, according to an investigation into the July 2020 USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) fire reviewed by USNI News. The investigation into the fire aboard Bonhomme Richard, overseen by former U.S. 3rd Fleet commander Vice Adm. Scott Conn, found that the two-year-long $249 million maintenance period rendered the ship’s crew unprepared to fight the fire the service says was set by a crew member. "Although the fire was started by an act of arson, the ship was lost due to an inability to extinguish the fire," Conn wrote in his investigation, which was completed in April and reviewed by USNI News this week. "In the 19 months executing the ship’s maintenance availability, repeated failures allowed for the accumulation of significant risk and an inadequately prepared crew, which led to an ineffective fire response." Beyond the ship, Conn concluded that training and oversight failures throughout the fleet — from Naval Sea Systems Command, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Naval Surface Force Pacific Fleet and several other commands — contributed to the loss of the $2 billion warship. Conn singled out 36 individuals, including five admirals, who were responsible for the loss of the ship due to either their actions on July 12 or lack of oversight leading up to the alleged arson. "The training and readiness of the ship’s crew were deficient. They were unprepared to respond. Integration between the ship and supporting shore-based firefighting organizations was inadequate," wrote Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Samuel Paparo in his Aug. 3 endorsement of the investigation. "There was an absence of effective oversight that should have identified the accumulated risk, and taken independent action to ensure readiness to fight a fire. Common to the failures evident in each of these broad categories was a lack of familiarity with requirements and procedural noncompliance at all levels of command." Related: USS Bonhomme Richard: 2021-08-06 USN Seaman Mays: I like the smell of napalm in the morning USS Bonhomme Richard: 2020-12-01 Ravaged by fire, USS Bonhomme Richard bound for scrapyard, Navy says USS Bonhomme Richard: 2020-07-26 NASSCO Awarded $10 Million Contract for Bonhomme Richard Clean-Up |
| Posted by:M. Murcek |
| #6 Great book; the burning of The Philadelphia is epic. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2021-10-21 15:37 |
| #5 It's hard to imagine how the USN is going to win any engagements "West of Wake" when you see top-down pooch-screwing like this. Different ship, different circumstances, but when the terrible fire broke on on the Forrestal in 1967, Chief Gerald Farrier was fighting the fire 54 seconds after it broke out. He lost his life and didn't stop the fire, but he knew his duty and did it without hesitation. |
| Posted by: Matt 2021-10-21 14:31 |
| #4 Just this morning I finished reading Ian Toll's 'Six Frigates: the Epic History of the Founding of the U. S. Navy.' I really learned a lot about a most important and least taught period of our history - the Quasi-war with France, the Barbary pirate campaign, the War of 1812: 'Old Ironsides' is a lot more significant than just an old ship on display, but we don't even learn the significance when we read the exhibits, which is sad. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2021-10-21 13:37 |
| #3 It's named after Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac . Franklin was a representative of the American rebel government in France. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2021-10-21 12:15 |
| #2 Conn singled out 36 individuals, including five admirals, who were responsible for the loss of the ship due to either their actions on July 12 or lack of oversight leading up to the alleged arson. Hey, this Navy isn't going to diversify itself. Bonhomme? Assuming pronouns and deciding what is 'good" is a little exclusionist. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2021-10-21 11:03 |
| #1 But none of them could do so, because it would have meant someone else was not doing his job. And that would have made him look bad. And that must never be allowed. So these things will continue to happen. |
| Posted by: Omomolet Phutch9064 2021-10-21 02:51 |