Slashdot Mirror


Fire May Leave US Nuclear Sub Damaged Beyond Repair

Hugh Pickens writes "AP reports that a fire that swept through a nuclear-powered submarine in dry dock at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has caused such extensive damage to its forward compartments that the 22-year-old Los Angeles-class attack submarine might have to be scrapped. 'These submarines were designed decades ago. So they're no longer state of the art,' says analyst Loren Thompson. 'If this vessel returns to service, I will be amazed.' The fire broke out while the Miami was on a 20-month stay at the shipyard for an overhaul, and it took firefighters from more than a dozen agencies twelve hours to put out the fire, described as intense, smoky, and a 'hot scary mess.' 'It takes a lot of guts to go into a burning building. But the idea of going into a submarine full of hot toxic smoke — that's real courage,' said U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree after meeting with the shipyard commander. Firefighters isolated the flames so they would not spread to nuclear propulsion spaces at the rear of the submarine. There was nuclear fuel on board the sub, but the reactor has been shut down for two months and was unaffected. Rear Admiral Rick Breckenridge says an investigation has been launched into what caused the fire, but he expects that investigation to take a long time to complete and wouldn't say if human error has been ruled out as a cause of the fire, or if the focus is on mechanical issues."

228 comments

  1. Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port too by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pardon my ignorance here. But I have a question.

    I know that fire in a sub is considered one of the most dangerous threats there is (every crew-member is trained in fire suppression on a sub). But since this ship was presumably unmanned and in dry dock, and presumably also still air-tight, why didn't they just close all the hatches in the effected areas and shut off the oxygen? I can't imagine a fire in such an enclosed space would last very long without incoming oxygen.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  2. Cities... by khr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, that's confusing... The article is from a newspaper in Seattle, about a Los Angeles class boat in Portsmouth, Maine named Miami...

    1. Re:Cities... by DanTheStone · · Score: 5, Informative

      You almost got it. It's at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (named for Portsmouth, New Hampshire) which is in Kittery, Maine.

    2. Re:Cities... by berashith · · Score: 5, Funny

      so this is why the USSR had so many nukes. cant figure out which city is important, just bomb 'em all

    3. Re:Cities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You almost got it. It's at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (named for Portsmouth, New Hampshire) which is in Kittery, Maine.

      Adding fuel to the fire: the Miami is based out of Groton, Connecticut.

    4. Re:Cities... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      There is a Tom Clancy book touring the Miami.

      http://www.clancyfaq.com/Hold%20Originals/Non-fict.htm

    5. Re:Cities... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      OMG nuclear Kitteryzzz

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    6. Re:Cities... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Forrest: (voice-over) Now, I don't know much about anything, but I think some of American's best young men served in this war. There was Dallas, from Phoenix. Cleveland, he was Detroit. And Tex was, well, I don't remember where Tex come from

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    7. Re:Cities... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Los Angeles is the class of ~60 boats (similar to the Constitution class designation in Star Trek). That class is the largest in the world, except for the USSR's Foxtrot (diesel). The "USS Miami" is the name of the actual boat. It's base is located somewhere along the Maine coastline.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:Cities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which has its home port in Groton, Connecticut.

    9. Re:Cities... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      And Portsmouth, New Hampshire owes it's name in turn to a shipyard in England.

    10. Re:Cities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Comrade, we have our missiles pointed at Washington, New York, and Springfield."
      "Very good. Wait, which Washington, I remember that it's a city and also one of their provinces."
      "Well, I also have the target coordinates, so lets check the map."
      "By Lennin's glass tomb, that's a lot of Springfields!"
      "We need more nukes."

    11. Re:Cities... by majesticmerc · · Score: 1

      You think you've got it bad? Think about all us poor Brits who were about to start some anti-American rant about leaving your damn nuclear waste on our doorstep, and were suddenly silenced!

    12. Re:Cities... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      And New Hampshire is named from the English county of Hampshire.

  3. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by berashith · · Score: 1

    that may have been what they did. The ship was probably not full of people, and it may have just taken time to get to the hatches to seal it off.

  4. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's a few reasons. First off, there's no way to shut off the oxygen on a sub from the outside, so the fire had to be controlled for that to happen. Second, the sub may be old, and it may end up being scrapped, but those things are expensive as hell, and they had to try to save it. Third, the top priority was making sure the reactor was safe, it would be a bit dangerous to just shut the door on a burning nuclear reactor and just cross your fingers that it goes out before something catastrophic happens.

  5. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, it doesn't get rid of the heat, so it will reignite as soon as the space is re-entered and there may well have been hull cuts made for the overhaul that would have made that impossible anyway.

  6. Admiral Rickover by serbanp · · Score: 1

    is uncomfortably spinning in his grave...

    1. Re:Admiral Rickover by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 0

      Not really. He saw a lot of submarine accidents during his career, including ones that were lost at sea.

      OFFTOPIC: The best submarine simulation I've ever seen was Red Storm Rising (can be played on Commodore 64 emulator). The reason I mention is is because it includes Los Angeles class submarines as your main weapon to fight the Russians. It seems odd to hear that guy call them "obsolete" but I guess they've been replaced by Seawolf and other classes.

      --
      FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
    2. Re:Admiral Rickover by serbanp · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course. I remember reading about how USS Thresher was lost at sea.

      I was just playing the man's fame of being supremely obsessed about quality control.

    3. Re:Admiral Rickover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remember that old story about him when he was interviewing a Nuclear Power candidate and he sat back and told the officer "Piss me off" and they guy hesitated for just a second before shoving everything off of Rickover's desk onto the floor? LOL...

    4. Re:Admiral Rickover by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Not really. He saw a lot of submarine accidents during his career, including ones that were lost at sea.

      And he was absolutely ruthless about all of them, ending careers on the spot if skippers and senior officers didn't live up to his near-impossible standards. And while it sucked for them, that's a huge reason why the US Navy had the outstanding nuclear safety record during his term. He had zero tolerance for anything less than perfection, because while Rickover was the foremost proponent of nuclear power in the country, he also feared it greatly. He knew well the dragon driving those boats. It sucks to serve under such men, but the Rickovers and the LeMays and the Pattons of the world also undeniably set standards of excellence that we miss when they're gone. Those B-52's that launched with live nukes a couple of years back? Probably wouldn't have happened under Curtis LeMay.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    5. Re:Admiral Rickover by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course. I remember reading about how USS Thresher was lost at sea.

      I was just playing the man's fame of being supremely obsessed about quality control.

      Speaking of the Thresher, after years of investigation... including surveys of the wrecks of both the Thresher and the Scorpion, it's almost certain that neither sank because of reactor problems, but instead sank because of welding quality control in other areas of the boats. IIRC, it's thought that the garbage disposal on one of the subs had a line burst which caused flooding. This was traced back to the contractor during the construction period. The propulsion plants themselves operated exactly as designed.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    6. Re:Admiral Rickover by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

      is uncomfortably spinning in his grave...

      IAAFS.

      Uh, no, he isn't. He's sitting high and mighty and it's because of his insight and dedication to his craft that the fire's threat to the reactor was minimal.

      What are you? 12?

    7. Re:Admiral Rickover by tsotha · · Score: 1

      You would too if your name was Hyman.

    8. Re:Admiral Rickover by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Sub Command by Sonalysts was probably the best I've ever seen. It simulated the Los Angeles, the Seawolf, and the Russian Akula.

      I'm far from an expert, but from my impression it was pretty damn technically competent. Yes, the dev company, Sonalysts? Just have a look at their site.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:Admiral Rickover by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      Technically the thresher sank because of bad procedures.

      Here is a decent summary:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)

      Here is the pretinant info:

      "At the time, reactor-plant operating procedures precluded a rapid reactor restart following a scram, or even the ability to use steam remaining in the secondary system to "drive" the sub to the surface. After a scram, standard procedure was to isolate the main steam system, cutting off the flow of steam to the turbines providing propulsion and electricity. This was done to prevent an over-rapid cool-down of the reactor. Thresher's Reactor Control Officer, Lieutenant Raymond McCoole, was not at his station in the maneuvering room, or indeed on the boat, during the fatal dive. McCoole was at home caring for his wife who had been injured in a household accident—he had been all but ordered ashore by a sympathetic Commander Harvey. McCoole's trainee, Jim Henry, fresh from nuclear power school, probably followed standard operating procedures and gave the order to isolate the steam system after the scram, even though Thresher was at or slightly below its maximum depth and was taking on water. Once closed, the large steam system isolation valves could not be reopened quickly. Reflecting on the situation in later life, McCoole was sure he would have delayed shutting the valves, thus allowing the boat to "answer bells" and drive itself to the surface, despite the flooding in the engineering spaces. Admiral Rickover later changed the procedure, allowing steam to be withdrawn from the secondary system in limited quantities for several minutes following a scram."\

      Rickover was obsessed with QA, and his obsession killed everyone on the Thresher. In the big picture the US Navy's obsessive concern with safety is a good thing. In this situation people died.

    10. Re:Admiral Rickover by tsotha · · Score: 1

      And he was absolutely ruthless about all of them, ending careers on the spot if skippers and senior officers didn't live up to his near-impossible standards.

      The "vertical chop" (where the guy who screwed up and about three levels of officers above him are forced into retirement) is still alive and well in the USN. The reality is any functional military is shaped like a pyramid, from an organizational standpoint. For each admiral slot you have many captains, for each captain slot you have many commanders, etc. So if there's any hint one of those mid-senior officers isn't competent, he's out - you need to get rid of a bunch of them anyway.

      When I was working as a contractor supporting naval exercises it was amazing how fast the ships wanted telemetry data on their missile shots. The reason was if the ship was found to be at fault for two successive failures, by policy the captain was axed. That could mean something like a 19 year old fire control technician twisting a knob to the wrong setting.

    11. Re:Admiral Rickover by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      I thought one of them was from propeller shaft seal or seawater pump or something like that, but yes, the Naval Nuclear Power Program has more critical hours than anyone else and has never had any serious accidents, and certainly never released any fuel or fission byproducts to the environment, although procedurally they used to dump some pretty nasty stuff back in the day.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    12. Re:Admiral Rickover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh the fast recovery startup. I was the master at achieving 1 degree heat up every 15 seconds sitting at the reactor plant control panel along with the electrical operator and throttleman. Doing the startup and heatup while taking over communications from the electrical operator who was shifting the plant around, working with the throttle man who was watching steam generator water levels like a hawk (they were being maintained manually by the machinery room watch and some times he would get side tracked) as I would scan specific gauges on the reactor plant control panel like reactor power which my eye never left along with pressurizer water level, temperature (hot, cold, and average), steam flow lbm/hr, and startup rate, one hand on the shim switch and listening to the electrical operator speak out the turbine generator electrical loads in KW. You had to scan all steam loads as they were changing and compensate with more reactor power to get exactly 4 degrees a minute but not too much power to cause another protective action as the limits are lower when you are at a reduced temperature.

  7. Sounds Like That's What They Did by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative
    Well after reading the article, I'm lead to believe that that is essentially what was done and that there were actually crew members hurt in the fire so the proposed strategy may have had to wait while they verified they weren't also trapping a human in there with the fire:

    Two crew members, three shipyard firefighters and two civilian firefighters were hurt, but their injuries were minor, officials said. Officials were waiting Thursday to begin venting smoke and noxious fumes so workers could go inside the submarine to assess the damage. Workers had to let fire-damaged compartments cool enough for fresh air to be safely introduced without risk of another fire.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  8. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Assuming that a military press release is accurate is like trusting the multiple paedophile rapist who offers to babysit your kids.

    The simple fact is that we do not really know what happened. As one of your wiser founding fathers noted, the man who only reads newspapers (or their modern equivalent) is less informed than one who reads nothing at all.

  9. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by v1 · · Score: 1

    I know that fire in a sub is considered one of the most dangerous threats there is

    yep, fire is usually considered the #1 hazard aboard space ships and subs. Simply because the first thing you normally do when there's a fire is evacuate, something that's not such an easy option for them. And that's just compounded by the low availability of breathable air.

    I don't know on the hatches, I'd expect a sub to have the usual complement of watertight compartments, so as long as the fire didn't get hot enough to melt or deform bulkheads (which it may, which is why they stopped using aluminum for warship superstructure) they should have simply been able to close the doors.

    But maybe they had problems getting the people out first. Subs don't have too many doors on them, and if the fire is between 25 crew and the door and there's no other route, sealing off isn't an option.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  10. Non-toxic smoke by virgnarus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "It takes a lot of guts to go into a burning building. But the idea of going into a submarine full of hot toxic smoke — that's real courage."

    I wasn't aware burning buildings didn't involve hot toxic smoke, unlike submarines. Do burning buildings have warm aromatic vapors instead?

    1. Re:Non-toxic smoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /s/ I think he was probably hinting at the idea that most burning buildings have things like windows that can vent vapors and smoke if necessary, or maybe that most burning buildings aren't likely to sink to the bottom if compromised, or possibly that most burning buildings don't contain nuclear reactors. But hey, go ahead, ignore logic.

    2. Re:Non-toxic smoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sinking is very hard in a drydock.

    3. Re:Non-toxic smoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not compared to a submarine, in which case, you got fire hot enough to burn (scorch) metal along with the various tightly paced electronics all in a enclosed environment. Most homes are made of brick and wood and not nearly as filled with electronics and other toxic items along with lots of spacing and holes that let smoke slowly escape.

    4. Re:Non-toxic smoke by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      Not sure why you would be aware of it. I'm infering from your post that you have zero experience fighting fires at all.
      Shipboard firefighting is a different beast. The methods required to combat fires in an enclosed space with 10x less volume and a plethora of volitile and toxic materials is night and day. To worsen (better?) your odds, a shipboard firefighter is trained from day one to activley engage the fire and put it out - or die trying. Passivley supervising a controlled burn is usually not an option. A flashover in a burning building may take 20 minutes compared to 3 minutes in a confined space. Most shipboard firefighters have to be "untrained" if they want to work for a fire department. Their methods are too radical and dangerous.
      In any case you have focused on the wrong object of the subject, that being courage.
      Suffice it to say, these guys have balls.

    5. Re:Non-toxic smoke by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most homes are made of brick and wood

      Most homes today are made of asphalt, fly ash, and a mixture of sawdust and wood glue, with a minimum of actual timber, all of which is concentrated in the framing.

      Roofing tiles are grit in asphalt. They're laid over tar paper. That's laid over chip board, which is just crappy bits of wood stuck together with the part of wood which generates dioxin when it burns. All of the structural members are held together with galvanized metal ties which emit zinc when they're heated much. The wiring is required by code to be sheathed in PVC which releases dioxin and chlorine gas when it burns. The outside of the house is covered in more chipboard which is covered in recycled milk jugs which is covered in some more manufactured wood, maybe some thin plywood siding, more of that dioxin-producing glue. The inside of the house is covered in sheet rock made from fly ash from a coal plant, and you hope their scrubbers are working right or it's full of toxics and radioactives. Carpets are one plastic or another which usually produces all kinds of nasties when it burns, or sometimes a natural fiber treated with some kind of toxic fire-retardant coating which often releases chlorine gas. Most padded furniture, likewise.

      It's clear that a submarine is a sketchier environment for a fire than a house, but it's also clear that pretty much everything in the modern house is both flammable, and toxic when it burns.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Baloroth · · Score: 2

    They probably couldn't shut off the oxygen without access to the compartments themselves, especially if the control room was on fire (which apparently it was). Same with sealing the rooms: if they can't get to the rooms, it's hard to seal them off. Ideally, I suppose there would be automated systems capable of shutting off air and sealing specific sections, but these subs are a 40 year old design, and this one was in for a refit, so I don't imagine it has systems capable of that. You normally want a sub to keep supplying air to every section, and you certainly don't want an automated system glitching and shutting it off, so even if you could install such a system, it might not be worth it. Barring that, doing it manually would probably be possible, except for the part where the section you want to seal off is already on fire.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  12. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When a boat is in dry dock chances are it is not air tight. That is when some heavy maintenance is going on and one of the first things they do is start making hull access cuts in the boat so they can get stuff in and out of it. Plus those hatches do not just flop close you have to use hydraulics from the inside to close them, there are usually all kinds of cables and stuff running through those hatches like power and air since everything is shutdown.

    You also cannot assume the ship is unmanned. When my Sub was in dry dock it was constantly manned with at least a few people on watch and who knows how many ship yard guys down there doing work. The fact that the fire got so bad is surprising to me. Anytime there was any kind of hotwork going on there were firewatches stationed.

  13. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Suffering+Bastard · · Score: 1

    Maybe the air inside was highly phlogisticated.

    --
    "Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
    - Deep Thought
  14. never involved in combat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And never will be. These vessels are a relic of the cold war. We don't need them any more, and they are taking up huge amounts of money that the country DOES NOT HAVE.

    This should be a good point to take stock of the situation, realize we no longer need to be spending more on our military than every other country in the world combined, and stop spending our grandkid's money.

    1. Re:never involved in combat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And never will be. These vessels are a relic of the cold war. We don't need them any more, and they are taking up huge amounts of money that the country DOES NOT HAVE.

      You really need to look at the budget someday. And by someday, I mean before you open your mouth again. If the military were completely shut down, the United States would still be spending more than it collects. What the country is spending money on is old people. Old people are expensive.

    2. Re:never involved in combat by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      As one who is rapidly approaching the age of your implied euthanasia candidacy, I find it tormenting to realize that a product of the hippie 60's generation main contribution to society was in the service of my country during the cold war.
      To consider that era one of the the longest peacetime periods in our history belies the utter failure to realize the dreams of my youth.
      While I reject the OP's assertion out of hand, your assessment of the situation is perhaps more troubling.
      If I died tomorrow, you nor my children would be no better off. I suspect the root of the problem is our insistence of ensuring the government, insurance companies and the like remain rich at the expense of everyone else. My only advice to you is continue to work hard, and when the next revolution comes along, buy a ticket.

    3. Re:never involved in combat by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      What peacetime? Korean war? Cuban invasion which almost went ahead? Vietnam war? Invasion of some islands around USA? What about invasion of Panama? Then Gulf I and then a decade later Gulf II? Since Reagan's 80s, bombing of random old-best-friend-new-best-enemies in the middle east? The longest peacetime period was only a couple of years between these.

      If you are talking about USA not being invaded or actually in war with a neighbour, that hasn't happened for a while, last time was when USA invaded Mexico and annexed large tracks of land and called it Texas.

    4. Re:never involved in combat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No euthanasia implication intended. We've known about the coming funding problem with social security for over 20 years, but every time anyone has even mentioned doing anything to fix it, out come the scare quotes about kicking granny out into the cold. The social security/medicare can has been kicked down the road so many times that it may no longer be fixable without a lot of pain.

      The US debt has finally exceeded its GDP, the baby boomers have only just started retiring, and taxing the rich won't work, because they don't have enough money to make it work. (Also, you normally only get to do that once. They didn't get rich by not protecting their assets.) It has to come from spending, and cutting military spending won't even come close to being enough.

      Enjoy your upcoming retirement!

    5. Re:never involved in combat by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      The US debt has finally exceeded its GDP, the baby boomers have only just started retiring, and taxing the rich won't work, because they don't have enough money to make it work. (Also, you normally only get to do that once. They didn't get rich by not protecting their assets.) It has to come from spending, and cutting military spending won't even come close to being enough

      Nail meet head.

      Most of our spending already goes to Social Security, Welfare and Medicare, defense spending is a distant fourth. Our best option would be to fully nationalize health care, since those costs have been skyrocketing for decades. 'Obamacare' didn't even come close once it made a sweetheart deal to ignore how the drug companies charge 100% more for the EXACT same drugs here than they do overseas.

      Discounting that we either need to raise the retirement age or reduce benefits, which is political suicide so it won't happen anytime soon. I agree that we do spend too much on our unspoken mandate to 'protect the world from communism/terrorism/drugs/whatever they come up with next' but cutting it won't be enough to save us in the long run.

      And yes if we start taxing the crap out of the rich they'll move offshore. Unlike the general populous they have no 9-5 job, so there's no real reason they need to stick around. That said, there are degrees of taxation and the upper crust has been getting a pretty sweet deal for decades now. Even ignoring taxation, when the stock market/banking institutions/etc. 'needed' to be propped up, who do you imagine benefited most? If as a country you're willing to socialize losses you should socialize returns and that does not happen.

  15. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by IP_Troll · · Score: 1

    The ocean is freezing, the sub is well insulated, that traps heat. Even if you stop the rapid oxidation of the material in the compartment the heat does not dissipate instantly, so as soon as you open the compartment the fire will start again. Also the stored heat will continue to deform/ weaken the material that makes up the compartment.

    Look at the coal fires that have been raging underground in PA for decades.

    That is not to say that they did not seal off compartments, just that the whole situation is more complicated than just sealing the compartment until there are no visible flames.

  16. One ship lost for the navy by slb · · Score: 1

    From TFA: "Ships in the USS Miami's class cost about $900 million at the time to build. The newest attack submarines, the Virginia class, cost about $2.6 billion apiece." So yes I would be amazed if this vessel returns to service, but I would also if it is replaced with a new one...

    --
    http://www.transparency.org
    1. Re:One ship lost for the navy by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 4, Informative

      What will likely happen is what has happened before. The oldest LA class boats are the ones being replaced by the Virginia class, so they'll promote the Miami down the list to be written off against the next Virginia instead of whatever boat was scheduled for scrapping. That boat will then get an overhaul instead of being scrapped.

      Been done with destroyers, carriers and subs in the past if my history memory isn't full of holes.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    2. Re:One ship lost for the navy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, the older Los Angeles class subs date from the seventies in their construction. And the block after that isn't as good as the most recent. They'll just scrap the Miami and move on.

  17. Well, Breckenridge, old chap... by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...I gues we'll have to scrap it then. So ... fire on a submarine, right? Can happen, can happen. New for nerds indeeed.

    1. Re:Well, Breckenridge, old chap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sell it to Canada, we'll buy anybody's crap.

    2. Re:Well, Breckenridge, old chap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And set it on fire ourselves.

    3. Re:Well, Breckenridge, old chap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in our defense our used sub we bought wasn't on fire when we bought it. it burned on the voyage to Canada...

      Last I heard we did manage to get one of the fleet working.

  18. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This ship was into a 20 month overhaul. Most of the systems were probably not under power anyway, probably only lighting and maybe ventilation running. Don't know about shipyards but on other construction sites most of the doors are bolted open or removed as they are obstacles.

  19. I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    What the hell was burning? The subs are nuclear powered so it wasn't fuel. What are we talking about here? Bedding? I just don't understand.

    As other people pointed out, why weren't the hatches just closed? A fire won't last long if the hatches are closed.

    Finally, there has to be some kind of fire suppression system on these subs. Don't tell me all they've got are some hand held fire extinguishers.

    Anyway, this is of course very sad. But I find it more weird then anything else.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the hell was burning? The subs are nuclear powered so it wasn't fuel. What are we talking about here? Bedding? I just don't understand.

      As other people pointed out, why weren't the hatches just closed? A fire won't last long if the hatches are closed.

      Finally, there has to be some kind of fire suppression system on these subs. Don't tell me all they've got are some hand held fire extinguishers.

      Anyway, this is of course very sad. But I find it more weird then anything else.

      1) You would be shocked what burns once you get past about 500 degrees (hint: plastic, rubber, vinyl, paint) but I suppose you think a sub is nothing but metal on metal with some metal to insulate the electrical wires? 2) Hatches don't close themselves, especially in the right order to make sure that the nuclear fuel in the sub doesn't get licked by flames (pretty bad scenario). 3) Fires don't fight themselves in an enclosed space. Do you think they have sprinklers in there or what? Maybe a little Halon to put the fires out and kill any crewmen in that section of the ship?

    2. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The USS Miami was my first boat, 1998-2003.

      Yes, there is a possibility this was bedding. Usually though, when you go into an overhaul like this, all the bedding is removed. The mattresses may or may not have been removed.

      There is a lot of wiring that is bundled together around ships. There is also quite a bit of temporary equipment that is brought on the ships during overhauls like they were doing that could have been the source as well.

      There is no "fire suppression system" as you might imagine. Normally all firefighting would have been taken care of by the 130 man crew. Portable extinguishers only go so far, and it seems that this was far beyond a few extinguishers.

      I stood my fair share of watches in the engine room. I knew this day would come sooner or later. I'm sure that the nuclear operators stayed at their watch stations during all this. This is a hell of a way for the Miami to go out.

      Can do, will do, glad to.
      First to fire, twice to fire.
      SSN-755

    3. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Aren't these titanium? Titanium is a highly reactive combustible metal, which is the only thing to know to actually burn in pure nitrogen. Closing the hatches will only trap heat making it more dangerous.

      At normal temperature in air it quickly reacts with water to form a tough surface layer which makes it quite inert and resistant to corrosion. But get it hot enough it can start to burn, and there is only one fire extinguishing agent (FEM-12 SC) known to be effective against a titanium fire.

      The Russians had a disaster with a titanium sub, the K-278 Komsomolets. In this case the fire burned through internal bulkheads.

      I closing hatches in this case would have done nothing other than trap heat and people in the sub.

    4. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      exactly how do you get the fire that hot? What are we burning to get this inferno going?

      I'm assuming this was a freak electrical fire? Okay... what the hell did it touch off. electrical fires are a big spark but without a fuel source after that that is the end of it. what was the fuel source?

      Telling me plastic burns isn't helpful because you can't start a raging inferno with nothing but a spark and plastic. There has to be an intermediary fuel source unless this is especially combustible plastic.

      As to automatic fire suppression systems... bare minimum it should have a sprinkler system. If temperatures rise beyond a certain point then Halon would be no threat because frankly anyone still in there is already dead.

      Again, it's sad... but it's more puzzling then anything.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by xfade551 · · Score: 1

      The ship was in drydock (not in the water), so it was already in maintenance-and-repair mode, so things like the fire-pipes (sea water for fire hoses, IIRC) were probably empty, and even if they weren't, the pumps to keep the system charged may have been shutdown. As for flammable materials: non-asbestos pipe insulation can burn (steam pipes all over the place), wire insulation can burn as a secondary fire (generally needs a hot ignition source, ship's emergency batteries can catch fire, the emergency diesel engine fluids can catch fire. And being under maintenance, there could have been cans of paint or solvents or any number of other flammable products on board.

    6. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Well that sounds unpleasant... but it still takes quiet a bit of heat to make that happen.

      I had no idea titanium reacted that way. My previous impression was that it was noted for being especially stable. In any case, I'm pretty sure these subs are mostly steel.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      The US does not us titanium for its submarines.

    8. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of flammable stuff on board. Torpedo fuel, hydraulic and other oils, cooking oil, fabrics, paint, etc.

      The hatches weren't just closed because you don't want to abandon a ship with a nuclear reactor and a bunch of torpedos on board (or any ship worth $900 M for that matter) unless there is absolutely no other choice.

      Also, according to TFA there were people on board in the aft compartments.

      Fire suppression on a sub is difficult because you can't just point a firehose at the fire: the extra weight of the water may end up sending the boat to the bottom. Using Halon or somesuch would force you to surface soon to prevent killing the crew.
      A sub is also a very dense structure. There are lots of nooks and crannies, so building an automatic suppression system that can reach everywhere (again, without flooding the boat) would be difficult.
      So yes, from what I've seen of submarines (mainly on Discovery Channel, I admit), yes, it's mostly handheld fire extinguishers.

    9. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      So I don't know the material makeup of Los Angeles class submarines but there are plenty of metals that can burn once you get them hot enough. Aluminum and magnesium are popular candidates since they're very light weight for their strength -- I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of that in the boat. Also, since this was in retrofit, there's a good chance there was welding going on, which would easily be able to get the ignition temperatures necessary to start it up, especially if they were using any oxyacetylene torches for the welding or cutting.

      However, if there were Halon suppression systems installed and active they should have fired them off because Halon isn't actually that dangerous, all things considered.

    10. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen they're made up of different compartments. I don't see the problem with closing them. when people aren't inside. If you want to air the boat out, then do it through the ventilation system. If a temperature sensor starts reporting high temperature in a given compartment, why would I keep pouring air into it? I would have it automatically stop feeding air to that compartment and then of course flash a warning light or an alert to the bridge where they could override the automatic system or if no one is on board simply not.

      What you're saying is that they just have all the doors open and the top hatch open. I don't see why you'd do that especially if there is basically no one on board.

      Hindsight 20 20... I know... but subs shouldn't suffer burn so badly they get scrapped. That's absurd.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      So I don't know the material makeup of Los Angeles class submarines but there are plenty of metals that can burn once you get them hot enough. Aluminum and magnesium are popular candidates since they're very light weight for their strength -- I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of that in the boat. Also, since this was in retrofit, there's a good chance there was welding going on, which would easily be able to get the ignition temperatures necessary to start it up, especially if they were using any oxyacetylene torches for the welding or cutting.

      However, if there were Halon suppression systems installed and active they should have fired them off because Halon isn't actually that dangerous, all things considered.

      Aside from being an asphyxiation hazard...

    12. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that subs are mostly steel. I'm not comfortable with simply calling this a regrettable incident and writing "oops" on the headline. You're talking about a fire that destroyed a sub outright. That's not even remotely acceptable. If I say "oops" then I'm accepting that this can happen at any time again and again without anyone taking any responsibility or taking any action to make it less likely.

      I don't even begin to understand the mentality that views that acceptable. That bad things happen is something I accept but you have to then figure out what happened and take steps to avoid that situation in the future.

      Everyone seems to be saying there is no way to stop this from happening. WTF? Seal the compartments when not in use for one. For another, there should be sensors in the sub that relay temperature alerts to the bridge. In drydock that information could be further piped to the central office of the repair yard.

      Whatever... you have to have some kind of system in place so this doesn't happen. Apparently there isn't such a system which bothers me.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    13. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      ...you can't start a raging inferno with nothing but a spark and plastic.

      This statement is false. Granted, it's far more difficult/less likely than dropping a match onto a puddle of gasoline, but that match can just go out, and that spark can ignite the plastic. Dramatically different odds, but it's a likely/not likely difference, not a can/can't difference here.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    14. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you are terrible misinformed about submarine design. They are not just metal with some insulation for wiring. Their are chairs, beds, rags, oil (so much oil), personal items, trash, dryer lint, and dust (bigger source of fire than you might think). That is just for a functioning submarine. A ship in refit like this has holes cut it it, fresh paint all over, tape everywhere, and a million other small combustible things. A trash can fire can fill a compartment with smoke in a matter of minutes when there is no outside ventilation. And, no, there should not be an automatic fire suppression system. Sprinklers would go off indiscriminately and damage expensive equipment. This is unacceptable because even if there IS a fire a boomer has to stay on get back on alert covering its package and the fast boat on mission has to continue to be in top secret places without anyone knowing. Halon is impractical and wouldn't be used even if it was. These are not small rooms that are easily sealed off. There are two separate spaces on this class - you would have to fill half of the sub up with gas and then you wouldn't have any way to remove it because you are under the water. Even if there is a fire, people stay in the compartment. It does not matter if a fire is raging in the torpedo room - I will still be sitting in control sweating breathing through an EAB because we need to be able to track contacts and other such things at all times.

    15. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by waferbuster · · Score: 1
      Nope, 688 class subs are made of high yield-strength steel. It's not the metal of the hull that burns, it's all the insulation that's glued onto the inside of the hull. There's plenty of flammable materials on a sub, most of which produces huge amounts of highly toxic fumes. Added to the danger is that in drydock periods, the hatches are fouled with hoses going to various systems. Many of these hoses are air hoses, pressurized to about 100psi. If the fire ruptures one of these hoses, there's a ready source of oxygen directly at the fire source.

      Added to that problem is that there are areas on the submarine that no-one can access after the ship is constructed, due to installed piping and wiring blocking access. I remember on one sub, there was a beer bottle visible in the outboard frame leftover from new-con, but there was absolutely no way to get to it to remove it without crazy amounts of cutting. If a fire spreads to these inaccessible areas, you're screwed.

      Fighting a fire on a submarine sucks.

      --
      I'm an individual! Just like everyone else!
    16. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      The US does not us titanium for its submarines.

      Correct, the US uses HY 80 rated steel on most of it's subs (rated for 80K lbs per square inch). The Seawolf class used HY 100 rated steel, but was so expensive that, IIRC, we went back to cheaper HY 80 on the Virginia class (which, as a result, can't dive as deep as a Seawolf).

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    17. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      Anytime damage control equipment is degradation, temporary systems are on board. There are always watches on board to make sure that things like this don't happen. Many, many precautions are in place, but, when it comes down to it, submarines are quite flammable and it only takes one oily rag or mass of dust and lint to cause a fire like this. We live every day knowing that this is the risk.

    18. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 2

      From Wikipedia, Halomethane, Fire extinguishing

      Halon 1301 total flooding systems are typically used at concentrations no higher than 7% v/v in air, and can suppress many fires at 2.9% v/v. ... Halon 1301 causes only slight giddiness at its effective concentration of 5%, and even at 15% persons remain conscious but impaired and suffer no long term effects.

      However, I did ready why halon is /not/ in use on these boats in that same section:

      [Halon is] totally unsuitable for Class D (metal) fires, as they will not only produce toxic gas and fail to halt the fire, but in some cases pose a risk of explosion.

      TIL.

    19. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      You're reasoning is mostly accurate, but fire hoses with seawater are the primary method of fighting a fire with portable extinguishers acting as a first response tool. The amount of water required to cause one of these to sink is absolutely massive - you would not reach that level with firefighting efforts. The bigger problem is that, as you stated, these are very dense ships with many combustible materials. It can be extremely difficult to get to fires in the outboards burning the hull insulation.

    20. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      There were people on board according to TFA. Repairs were being carried out at the time.

      It's possible that holes were cut in the hull for these repairs, which would make it impossible to seal compartments airtight.

    21. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't burn so bad that they are scraped, but that does not mean the proper precautions weren't in place or that your suggestions aren't ridiculous.

      In drydock there are many cuts in the hull and equipment added or removed that makes obtaining an air tight seal impossible. Not to mention that, as was mentioned many times by other people, simply cutting off the air is not sufficient. These are not WW2 boats - these things are massive with more air than you give them credit for. All of this ignores the risk of simply allowing a fire to burn on in the presence of a nuclear reactor.

    22. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Based on the comments I've seen from an ex-submariner earlier in the comments on this story:

      Normally, a sub has multiple fire suppression and control systems that usually make fire control a situation of "close the hatches and deprive it of oxygen".

      However, during a retrofit effort, the sub's configuration is anything but normal - In many cases seawater piping that is normally sealed and full of water is empty, dry, and providing a perfect source of outside air. Many of the hatches have cables and wiring running through them to support the retrofit efforts.

      e.g. this would have been far less of a problem if the ship hadn't been in the middle of a major retrofit.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    23. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood what the other submariner said. No class of US submarines has an automatic fire suppression system. It is up to the crew to fight fires.

    24. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Fine... but then why have all the doors open? Just shutting the stupid doors would solve most of the problem since the fire would burn up all the oxygen or whatever is burning and that would be the end of it. You'd get a fire in one compartment that would have burned itself out fairly quickly.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    25. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Bork · · Score: 2

      Spent about 4 years on a LA class sub (SSN-700)

      What can burn - There is a lot things that in a sub that can burn under the right conditions.
      There is a large diesel engine up front with oil and its day tank.
      The interior of the hull is insulated and if heated hot enough can start decomposing into some bad stuff.
      Bedding, plastics, title floors, electronics...

      Its in a ship yard for overhaul and the hull status is not indicated here. The hull might have huge sections removed to allow access for removal, installing or replacing large pieces of equipment. Even if the hull was intact, closing the hatches might not work, inside there are oxygen and high pressure air systems that if effected would feed the fire.

      Most likely what happened was a big fire started in an area and got everything really heated up. Fire moved into the lagging that is wrapped around everything to contain heat and noise and moved into hard to reach areas. The big fire that started the whole mess could have been taken down in a reasonable time but the burning lagging took a extended time to clear.

      Fire suppression systems? Small fire extinguishers to handle a fire and if the fire is to big for it you move to the 3" fire hose that are installed through the boat. Its not like a controlled room where you can pull the halon switch; You got people sleep, eating, living inside the equipment room.

      A sub is a interesting beast, there were so many ways that if a situation was not handled right you would end up dead. Remember several discussion about what would be the quickest way that you could die while at sea - we figured that a rocket ignition or a hull collapse at TD would be the best ones in that your nerve signals would not reach your brain before you were dead (under 0.4 seconds).

    26. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You're a little too eager to claim I'm misinformed. And it's a straw man to say that I said it was only metal and wire insulation. I specifically questioned whether it was bedding. So if I followed your own rules could I then question if you're literate? You don't like that comment? Well, I didn't like your nonsense either... in the future be more polite or be treated like a douche.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    27. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      ONE compartment does not have enough air in it to sustain a reaction powerful enough to scrap the whole f'ing boat.

      If you close ALL the compartments that are not occupied and supply air through the ventilation system exactly how is the fire going to get air? Yes, if there are f'ing holes in the boat then that would be an issue. But then you have to do something else. Someone said Halon... that's a great idea. Just have some portable halon emitters that dump halon into a compartment if the temperature rises above 500 degrees. Problem solved. And even if there are leaks if the room is flooded with halon that fire is going to die down fast. What about the poor repair people in the room when the halon goes off? Halon isn't nerve gas. Just like the fire, you're not going to immediately asphyxiate. You're going to find it hard to breath and then you're going to asphyxiate. If you leave the room right away and seal the compartment after you then you'll be fine.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    28. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

      No, they are not titanium. The US has no titanium-hulled submarines. The Miami is made of steel.

    29. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      Again, in Drydock this is almost impossible. It is possible the hatches were not even on the ship.

      It also mentions that they were trying to prevent the fire from spreading aft. This is where all the engineering systems and electrical generation systems lay.

      They probably saved millions of dollar just in the equipment in the engineering section they saved.

    30. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Lagging?... so this is insulation? And it burns? Fantastic... *facepalm*

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    31. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

      Because there are hoses for temporary systems going through the hatches that take time to disconnect and the hydraulics systems required to close the hatches are all shut down.

    32. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      hmmm... hadn't thought about that. Still, this shouldn't be possible. If conventional fire suppression is made impossible by cutting holes in the hull then they should add some temporary means of controlling possible outbreaks. I just don't want this happen again... about billion dollars just burned there.

      No one cares because it's the government's money but it's our f'ing money. 1 billion of your money just burned.

      Please care.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    33. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      You present the quintessential dilemma. The philosophy of "all accidents are preventible" has been in place since Forrestall. Regrettably, several careers will be dead ended by this mishap as root causes are identified and responsibility (not blame) is appropriately assigned.
      I have never witnessed a more intense and rigorous system of checks and fail safes than the USN employs. I have no doubt every adequate regulation and procedure was in place to attempt to mitigate this episode. Yet it happened. It is necessary for those involved not to accept the inevitability of these things, but in the aftermath we are reminded from time to time - Shit happens.

    34. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by ChaoticPup · · Score: 1

      Um, no, "closing the hatch and deprive it of oxygen" is never an option on a submarine... whether it's operational and underway or in the shipyard.

      For one thing, the compartments are huge. An LA class is only divided into two compartments.

      For another thing, there is plenty of things on board a submarine to make a self-sustaining fire for a long time - high capacity, high pressure ~3000 psi air banks... banks containing pure oxygen, high pressure hydraulic systems, diesel fuel, etc. I'm guessing the torpedoes were probably off-loaded prior to the overhaul which would be SOP, but there are still plenty of other things like flares, countermeasures, etc that are kind of "mini torpedoes" as well.

      I'm an ex-submariner.

    35. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      If you really need to have a list of the numerous flammable things that could be on board a ship during a refit period, then my original point stands.

      If you are expecting someone to know what the first fuel of a fire which has an undetermined cause, I would return the question about literacy to you.

    36. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      This is not a surface ship; the submarine has two compartments. There is no way to flood one specific area with halon.

    37. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it burns and produces toxic gas. Do you propose we insulate the hull and piping with aluminum?

    38. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Then dry dock needs special systems in place specifically to deal with this problem because it is not acceptable for a billion dollar ship to burn in f'ing dry dock.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    39. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      I don't even begin to understand the mentality that views that acceptable. That bad things happen is something I accept but you have to then figure out what happened and take steps to avoid that situation in the future.

      Everyone seems to be saying there is no way to stop this from happening.

      You're assuming things not in evidence. I've seen no replies on this thread that indicate either of your statements.
      1. There's going to be hell to pay in the USN and its contractors once the cause of this incident has been found. A full analysis may take months, so don't hold your breath waiting for it. But acceptable? Nobody will be viewing it that way.
      2. Catastrophic fires on a sub are rare, and yes, impossible to prevent entirely. With millions of parts in confined spaces, it's impossible to fireproof everything.

    40. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are once again perfectly right. It is a terrible thing to have happened.

      That said, there are systems and procedures in place and they work damn well. These are extremely dangerous environments and the civilians and submariners that work on them face risks like this every day.

      Bottom line..shit happens. We will have training, we will review procedures, and there will be a massive critique. That said, when it comes down to it...shit happens.

      You can never make anything perfect. To be so full of anger over one major accident when the group it is part of (US nuclear submarines) has an unrivaled safety record next to the huge dangers they operate with.
      br. People get angry at the idea of a nuclear power plant in their state yet the US Submarine forces regularly runs dozens of reactors within miles of elementary schools because we have earned that level of trust due to our diligence and safety records.

    41. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I thought the hatches could be manually closed?

      Anyway, you want to nitpick my various unschooled suggestions... fine and likely well deserved. But don't tell me there is nothing you can do about this situation. 1 billion went up in smoke there. That is not acceptable. So if I don't the answer... fine... I'm not paid to have the answer and I'm trying to pull answers out of my ass. So that I don't have that answer is not surprising or any reflection on me. But it is not acceptable that the shipyard or the navy not have an answer to this. It is not remotely okay.

      Remember that captain that surfaced under a fishing boat during drills off Hawaii? Think he ever got another command? And he didn't even total the boat. This is not okay.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    42. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      That incident was directly related to very poor choices made by that CO that were contrary to training and procedure. Unless this investigations some how turns up that the CO encouraged or forced an environment where standard safety practices were compromised, there is no reason for him to be punished.

    43. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So... if I take a flint and steel and bunch of wires... you think I can get a fire going just burning the rubber insulation on the wires?

      This isn't even a question of odds. I mean, maybe you could get plastic shopping bags to burn... but the insulation on wires generally melts but does not burn... and if it does burn it certainly isn't going to burn with enough intensity to create a self sustaining reaction. Somewhere in a report we'll never get to read there's going to be some highly flammable liquid that just happened to be next to someone's cigarette and oh yeah all the doors were open...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    44. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I'll buy shit happening for a fire. I don't buy shit happening for a billion dollars of ship going up in flames.

      Lets say the empire state building fell down tomorrow and no one apparently broke any rules and the building was totally up to code.

      What would happen about five seconds later? The code would be changed. It's not okay.

      I'm not asking for perfection here. I'm asking for competence. if a little fire happened that scorched some paint... that would be fine. I don't really care. If a billion dollar sub dies because of a fire in dry dock... then something somewhere is wrong. You can't lose ships in dry dock.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    45. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/09/09/sub_laclass.gif

      I counted over a dozen separate compartments... what are you talking about?

      There are only two compartments in a sub in the way that there is an inside and an outside... that's more one compartment really... but when I refer to compartments I mean the room in a sub and they can all be sealed water tight which means they can be sealed close enough to air tight as to not matter.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    46. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can assure you people care. Don't mistake dispassionate discussion here of causes and details for lack of caring.

    47. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lagging?... so this is insulation? And it burns? Fantastic... *facepalm*

      Fine, you come up with sound absorbing insulation that isn't very heavy, easy to apply and repair, moderately inexpensive and which doesn't burns. Oh, it also can't be too dense otherwise it'll make the boat much larger than it needs to be. There's always tradeoffs to these things and coming up with the perfect material is pretty much impossible.

    48. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      It's a binary solution set... did it happen.

      All those steps in place might mean that a given person isn't liable for the damage. But the system itself ultimately cannot escape blame. Just as anything that goes wrong with a ship at sea is the captain's fault... no matter what it is... whatever system is being used to safeguard these boats is at fault.

      If one system has almost no rules and for some reason never loses a ship and another system has lots of rules but loses ships... which is better? The point is to not lose ships.

      I don't really care what the rules are or how rigorous they are... when a billion dollars of ship goes up in smoke consider what that is... how many American house holds fueled that one ship. About 120 thousand people roughly. Their contribution... up in f'ing smoke.

      I'm not saying people are incompetent. they all might have done exactly what they were supposed to do.

      But the boat burned... and that means something isn't right. It's binary. Either the system saved the ship or it didn't.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    49. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      LAFD tends to identify the cause of a fire within the first hour. So... I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    50. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I don't suggest anything. I don't know what the options are... but obviously it would be better if the insulation actually insulated the compartments rather then served as a ready fuel source for any accidental fire that might want to happen.

      The whole point of isolation is to isolate and contain. Obviously the insulation is typically trying to preserve heat, dampen sound, and other fun stuff... but being fire proof would seem to be on the top five things you want to be.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    51. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I've been responding to dozens of posts that boil down to "shit happens"... as to point 1... good. That means someone else likewise doesn't find this acceptable... Just me and the navy apparently.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    52. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter. If a captain loses a ship, he doesn't get another one. It doesn't matter if it was an act of god.

      These guys some how lost a ship in dry dock. That's so pathetic I don't even know where to start with it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    53. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they should rethink the materials they use for the interiors and perhaps go back to the stuff we used in the old days which didn't seem to burn.

      Way back in the day I was a member of the commissioning crew for the George C. Marshall SSB(N)654. We had a serious fire in AMR2 (Auxiliary Machine Room #2) as a result of the Yard (Newport News) not aligning the valves correctly when they first brought steam in. This room was located just aft of the reactor compartment and just forward of the engine room. It contained all the reactor plant control and instrumentation systems, the entire ships electrical distribution system, the diesel engine and other supporting systems.

      The steam trap bypass and drain valves were all open causing the steam to be dumped to the atmosphere in AMR2 where it started to condense out on the breakers until they flashed over and exploded. Basically burned up the entire electrical distribution sections both port and starboard. Other than the breakers nothing else ignited. The lagging was impervious, the padding on the passageways was bubbled and most other stuff was covered with soot. I don't remember any involvement with the hull insulation. No lube or fuel oil ignition (the diesel was located in the lower level) with the fuel and lube oil tanks outboard. The compartment had watertight doors fore and aft and although they were fouled with cables, lines, etc, there were axes available to cut the cables so the doors could be closed. Would not have wanted to be underway when it happened because we would have been dead in the water with no electric power except battle lanterns and no propulsion in any form.

      This occurred in the mid 60s when the push was on to build up the 640 Class missile boats so all they did to repair us was to cut open the hull, lift out the entire electrical distribution panels port and starboard and then drop in the ship-set from our sister ship next to us. IIRC they had enough slop in the schedule that we still launched on time. We were very lucky this happened at night so few people were on board and no one was hurt.

    54. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of compartments but only three areas that can be isolated from each other: the forward compartment (everything forward of the Crew's Mess/Cold Storage in the picture you linked to), the reactor compartment and the engine room (everything aft of the reactor compartment).

    55. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

      Asbestos is fireproof. The Navy should look into using that for insulation. You should call them and let them know.

    56. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asbestos.

    57. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

      It is not a binary solution set. Implementing a perfect solution has associated costs. If a perfect solution that prevents this type of accident from ever happening adds $10 million in cost per overhaul and an accident of this magnitude occurs once every 500 overhauls then it is not cost effective and you're better off letting 1 out of every 500 burn.

    58. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Macgruder · · Score: 1

      There are only two internal compartments on a 688 boat. Engine room is one of them, and everything else is in the other one. There is no internal compartmentation as it existed in the earlier boats.

      It's not that no one cares, it's just that you don't have the background and training to understand the realities of this scenario. And those of us who do, don't care that you care.

      Rather than sitting back and wait for the analysis to see exactly what happened here, you appear to be fixated on assigning blame out the gate.

      --
      I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
    59. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Macgruder · · Score: 1

      Refer to my previous comment: You don't have the training to understand what happened here. I served on a 688-boat, as well as several other posters here. Debating the realities with us just makes you look like an ass. When you've "been there, done that, got the t-shirt" then you can step up and we can swapno-shitters. Until, sit down, shut up, and let the people that know what's going on get the bottom of this.

      --
      I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
    60. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      ad verecundiam

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    61. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So the diagram that shows upwards of a dozen compartments is not accurate?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    62. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No one needs perfect... just not anything that allows catastrophic failure. You can have systems that have small failures. total failures are not acceptable.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    63. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Blame is like gravity... It doesn't particularly care what either of us want. I'd rather it fall on whoever is to blame. That might be a superior officer. that might be a dead man that set policy 20 years ago. It might be some maintenance guy that spilled gasoline everywhere. Someone is going to burn. Don't blame me for that... I didn't make that rule. If you don't find the guilty party or there isn't a guilty party... then an innocent man will be chosen as scapegoat. That would be sad... but as I said... someone will be blamed.

      The only question now is who. When a billion in navy property goes up in smoke someone is going to lose their head. Again... not my rule... just the way it is...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    64. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Macgruder · · Score: 1

      I'm not disputing that. Head will role, if and when it is determined that heads will roll. However, to attempt to blindly accelerate the process in advance of pertinent information is not called for.

      --
      I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
    65. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

      Haven't you seen Fight Club? If the cost of settling lawsuits is less than than the cost of issuing the recall then you didn't issue the recall. There is a continuum, at some point the cost of lowering the risk of a catastrophic failure becomes more than the cost of the catastrophic failure.

    66. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

      Why did you think the hatches could be manually closed?

    67. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      How do I have that ability?

      Think the navy listens to me personally?

      Don't be absurd. I'm trying to understand for my own personal information. And I am upset that the system whatever it's quality has allowed this to happen. That is unfortunate.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    68. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      That applies when you make millions of cars. We're not making millions of subs.

      When a car explodes you've lost what? 10 to 20 thousand considering depreciation? Okay... this sub cost 1 billion dollars.

      See the issue? Rerun your cost benefit analysis and you'll see that you REALLY don't want to have a failure.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    69. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Because every representation I've seen of the hatches shows handles.

      It also makes sense that there should be a manual way to open and close them.

      What if the hydraulics are damaged and I need to open or close a hatch?

      It seems odd that on the one hand you'd rely on sailors with fire extinguishers to put out fires and on the other hand you'd rely on only three automated hydraulic hatches. Those seem to be different design philosophies.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    70. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by kullnd · · Score: 1

      There is only 3 compartments as previously stated, all of the other spaces on a sub are nothing but simple walls that would not stop fire, air, or fire from spreading. The doors between these spaces are less likely to stop something than the front door on your house. Fires on a submarine also get very hot very fast, there is nowhere for the heat to escape like you might imagine on a building, this causes other things to ignite. This is why we are trained to fight fires VERY QUICKLY because it does not take much time for a fire to get out of control. It doesn't take much to make a 20 something year old boat "not worth repairing", especially if it has not yet been refueled. when it comes to the destructive forces behind a fire, loosing critical cable bundles alone could cost millions of dollars to repair - Loss of critical systems is very expensive considering that every critical system would have to undergo some of the most challenging QA policies found anywhere (NASA actually took the Submarine QA manual and adapted it to their needs, the sub QA process is known as SUBSAFE). As far as things that could cause a fire to get out of control? Batteries, 440v electrical systems carrying massive amounts of current that have a non-traditional grounding system, 3000lb hydrolic systems, 4500lb air systems, oxygen lines and tanks, the list goes on and on.

      SSBN and SSN Submarine Veteran

      --
      +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
    71. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

      These hatches are approximately 3x3x1 ft. Steel weighs about 500 lbs per square ft. How would you raise and lower a 4500 lb hatch manually? They need to be heavy duty, the keep the ocean on the outside of the submarine.

    72. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

      It's the same equation. A times B times C is less than X.

    73. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Titanium is exceptionally UNSTABLE, and yes writ large.

      Paradoxically that instability can make it resistant to corrosion because under normal atmospheric conditions it reacts immediately with in the air to form a strong durable, impenetrable titanium oxide layer.

      Put it in an environment where the oxide layer can't form and watch out.

      I've seen titanium used in chemical processes where elemental chlorine with water vapor present - hellaciously corrosive to most things, and Ti just laughs it off. Take out the water and the Ti will burn in chlorine like crazy. Regular cast iron though is fine in dry chlorine because it just isn't that reactive - it needs water to set up a corrosion cell.

      Same thing with nitrogen - unlike everything else Ti is so reactive it will burn in dry N. A little water and it won't.

    74. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians tried this a few years back. Had a malfunction in the fire suppression system that killed a few if I recall correctly. Was reported in news outlets as a "Freon fire suppression system, but a friend who is fluent in Russian said the words for Freon and Halon are easily confused if not the same. Freon fire suppression just makes no sense. Freon + Fire = Phosgene gas = nerve agent.

      The US has elected not to install fire suppression systems on submarines for that reason.

      It's a great idea until you're underway and a canister pops a seal. Not a lot of places to escape too...

    75. Re:I don't understand how this is possible by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      you're saying water makes titanium safe because it reacts with that instead to form a protective layer?... so... spraying water on it if there were a fire would solve the problem?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  20. 2.6 Billion for a New One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a few facts

    1. 2,600 Million dollars for a new sub or the wages.
    2. This is the equivilent of the median income of 52,000 families for a year.
    3. Kepler Mission cost (program that has found hundreds of exoplanets) is around $600 Million
    4. ITER cost (fusing program) - $16,000 Million.
    5. $47,000 per year to incarcerate a prisoner in California
    6. Cost of head start program per child = $5,800

    Nope. No real point. Just make of it what you will

    -- MyLongNickName

    1. Re:2.6 Billion for a New One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, doesn't your habit of signing with your sig in the comment kind of defeat the whole AC commenter thing?

      Not trying to be an ass, but probably succeeding. I generally find your comments useful/insightful/funny/etc

    2. Re:2.6 Billion for a New One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just means I was too lazy to log in. Nothing more.

  21. I doubt it cost 900 million to replace it. by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    Some sites put the cost of refueling and refitting a nuclear submarine at nearly a billion dollars so I would expect in current day dollars Seawolfs which is the class that followed LA class ships were North of two billion each.

    I would expect the costs to repair one have to be close a new one, the difference being it might be easier to fund a repair instead of a new ship. Still I would have expected a fire to cause damage to the hull to be sufficient enough that major sections would have to be replaced. Let alone I have seen what fires that don't even burn the entire interior of a vehicle do to what remains and frankly the clean up would involve gutting any area smoke reached.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  22. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by rabenja · · Score: 2

    I doubt any person in charge of fighting such a fire would trust that sealing off the compartments would starve the fire. In the Stark incident, the ship's metal was burning. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14057_ppr_ch4.pdf http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/051805/met_18768709.shtml

  23. Data Center by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everything else gets turned into one, why not this?

    1. Re:Data Center by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Because people want /floating/ data centers, not /sunk/ data center.

  24. Turn them into Moored Training Ships! by Wells2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some folks in the community are already bandying about the idea that this boat be turned into a moored training ship for nuclear propulsion training, the way they did with the MTS-626 and MTS-635.

    On those ships, you do not need to have all of the electronics gear, torpedo armaments, or anything else... you just need an operational reactor, which is all towards the aft end of the boat in the first place. As the fire occurred in the forward end of the boat, this is a very likely scenario. Since the MTS-626 and MTS-635 are getting older by the day (they are old Lafayette class boats built in the early 60's!) and there is a need for replacement anyway, this seems like a good way to go.

    1. Re:Turn them into Moored Training Ships! by stuboogie · · Score: 1

      That would deprive the students of the pleasure of operating the knocker-style main steam valves on the MTS-626 and MTS-635. (Those things are not fun to open.)

      I think that would be a great use of the Miami though. Updating the training facilities would be beneficial to the Nukes in training.

    2. Re:Turn them into Moored Training Ships! by Monsieur+Canard · · Score: 2

      Nope.

      Two old LA's are already positioned to become new MTS's. Don't need a third.

      This is a big shame. I can't wait for the safety bulletins to come out after this.

      --
      He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.
  25. Overhaul by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    There's lots of "hot work" (welding, grinding) on a boat during overhaul. Starting a fire is easier than not. There's supposed to be a fire watch posted on station with fire extinguishers in hand during work, but with more nooks and crannies than an English muffin, it's not hard to imagine an ember falling behind some fixed-in-place furniture and starting some long-lost paper smoldering until eventually it flashed over long after the job was done. Just speculation, but fires are the number one enemy of boats and ships, so much so that the Navy spends more time training personnel for firefighting than anything else.

  26. scrap? by Reece400 · · Score: 1

    Why scrap it? It sounds like something the Canadian navy would be interested in buying! http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111111/w5-deep-sea-dud-111112/

  27. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well I can't answer your question directly but consider...

    The USS Coral Sea was being scrapped in Baltimore in the 90's when it caught fire. This would happen regularly, but this particular time was different. The fire raged for several hours, then eventually got so hot that the reaction continued without the benefit of oxygen (not sure it can be called "fire" at this point). The heat was so intense that the now "burning" mass melted through the decks into the water and oil filled bilge, then through the hull into the harbor and dropped to the bottom of the harbor under about 25 feet of water... where it continued to "burn" in the mud for 15 minutes covering the entire downtown area in a stream induced fog.

  28. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by stewbee · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hi there. Ex-submariner here. One reason was that they likely could not close the hatches. Being in one of these extended dry dock periods usually means that they have all sorts of hoses, wires, etc. going through the hatches making them neigh impossible to close without taking a hatchet to them all. Not to mention, if they were doing any sort of work on the sea water piping, which may be plausible since they were in dry dock, then the fire would still be supplied from the lack of piping that is normally there due to the repair.

    My first guess of how this fire happened is that someone had done some welding in a compartment and something caught fire. Usually the Navy is pretty good about removing flamables in the area. They even go so far to have a "fire watch" for several hours after the welding was done to ensure that nothing catches fire. it will be interesting to hear what the root cause is.

    Another interesting fact about L.A. class submarines, of which the Miami is included. There is only one water tight door interior to the sub, and that is the one that separates the forward part of the ship to the rear (ie engineering which was apparently not affected). Compare that to the submarine that I was on (Sturgeon Class), there were two water right doors for just the forward part of the ship, and two in the engine room. Basically, if you ever have flooding in an LA class sub, you are going down. At least in a Strugeon class, if 3 of the 5 compartments were completely flooded, you could still survive.

  29. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 2

    It wasn't in drydock yet, it was still pier side. I'm pretty sure that means there were no hull cuts yet. http://rt.com/usa/news/uss-miami-submarine-fire-064/

  30. Pfft, nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just cut it in half.
    Mini-sub! A whole new class of warfare. They will never see what hit them!

  31. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I highly suspect that a sub does not have a "cut off all oxygen" button somewhere.

  32. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by michael021689 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Every ship is manned until it is decommissioned. One third of the crew is on board at all times to stand security watches and maintain the ship. For various reasons listed in other comments, just shutting the hatches was unacceptable - even if you had been able to stop the fire that way, the risk of reflash and the damage would be unacceptable. Submariners do not run from fires.

  33. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Minderbinder106 · · Score: 1

    Never mind. The first two photos show diesel exhaust while it was being docked. The rest of the photos are during the actual fire.

  34. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Well the fire could do a fair amount of damage before it used up all the Oxygen... These subs are designed to keep people alive for extended periods... I would expect there is enough oxygen for a wide spreading fire.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  35. It's bad by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

    This is why smoking is bad.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  36. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of oxygen on board that you don't want a fire to get to: emergency oxygen bottles, and the oxygen supply in torpedos, for instance. If you abandon ship, you risk major explosions before the fire goes out.

  37. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by destiney · · Score: 4, Informative

    When metal burns, depleting it's oxygen supply doesn't always help. When I was in, the SOP for burning metal was to push it overboard and let it sink to the bottom where it could burn out safely.

  38. You're thinking of Oho class by Quila · · Score: 1

    Those are Cold War relics, although some have been converted for modern times with Tomahawks.
    This is an attack sub, perfect for protecting other warships, protecting general shipping, delivering SEAL teams, and launching conventional tactical strikes against land-based targets. These are the backbone of our fleet, and relatively cheap given the number that have been produced. In general, as far as bang-for-buck in Navy equipment, they are about the best -- very effective and very hard to kill.

    we no longer need to be spending more on our military than every other country in the world combined

    Good point. We need to stop protecting all these other nations of the world. Let North Korea overrun the South, let China take over Taiwan, etc. Let them fully pay for their own defense.

    and stop spending our grandkid's money.

    Of the thousands of things the federal government spends money on without constitutional authority, at least Navy spending one of the few things that is actually authorized.

    1. Re:You're thinking of Oho class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is my opinion that in the coming years, one of the biggest threats to the security of our nation and many others is going to be all of the surplus Russian and Chinese diesel subs being sold to other countries.

      Boomers are a Cold War relic (which is why many of them have been retrofitted to other purposes), but attack subs are going to continue to maintain relevancy, much of it to combat their hostile counterparts.

    2. Re:You're thinking of Oho class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boomers are not relics. They are the cornerstone of our nuclear deterrent, which for some strange reason so many people think isn't needed any more. It's never been more needed. The world is not safer in 2012 than it was in 1990. Crazy bombers in their underpants aren't our strategic enemies, or at least cause for concern.

    3. Re:You're thinking of Oho class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that would be the net effect if Ron Paul had his way. On one hand, yes, the argument makes sense. On the other hand, the US economy is very dependent on Taiwan, South Korea, etc., regardless of any lingering cold war grudges. So we spend lots of money trying to keep these countries "free", ostensibly so someone else isn't controlling their industries (that we're very dependent on in the US). Not sure which way is really indicative of stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime, though. And it's being ignorant of the people/entities that profit well with the current set up, who may not like their current setup seriously changed (unless they could see that it would make them even more money in the near future).

      Like, what if US was fairly dependent on oil products from Argentina, which just nationalized the Repsol subsidiary there... Sure, Taiwan could nationalize all the semiconductor fabs, consumer electronics assembly plants, etc., there, and China could more or less do the same to the ones they've allowed to be set up just across the Formosa Strait, and the really stick it to Japan and the West, but... perhaps China currently does see this a bit as cutting off your face to spite your nose.

    4. Re:You're thinking of Oho class by Quila · · Score: 1

      Boomers were developed in the context of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine. They were meant to make sure we could get that return shot off even if the USSR wiped out all of our missile sites in the first strike. Yes, this makes them Cold War relics, although they still have some usefulness in the current environment.

  39. A sad day by michael021689 · · Score: 1

    I wish the best to my shipmates on the Miami. Fire is our greatest fear and the few scares I've been through have always brought out the best the crew has to offer. I have no doubt that every one responded courageously befitting the dolphins on their chests.

    1. Re:A sad day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did an amazing job. The acting COB (A-Gang chief I believe) was a frickin' machine. He was grabbing civvy firefighters that had sat down and dragged their butts back into the boat with him leading the way.

      The XO, ACOB, and EDMC were all studs Thursday. I believe ADM Donald awarded them all on Friday for it as well.

  40. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by plopez · · Score: 1

    "I can't imagine a fire in such an enclosed space would last very long without incoming oxygen"

    That depends on what is burning. One material may serve as an oxidizer for another material. Thermite for example. If they were overhauling it it could have been from oxy-acetolyne or solvent. High explosive without a detonator will not explode but will burn. I.e. torpedoes. Modern torpedos also have engines driven by a variety of fuels. I'm not sure what they were using on the Miami but hydrogen peroxide torpedoes were, I think, used by the US for a while before being discarded as being too dangerous.

    There are probably other nasty things on a sub I do not know of.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  41. Really bad if the battery catches fire by bubblegoose · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a 250 volt battery with a huge amount of potential energy. You have basically a medium size bedroom full of batteries that are 6 feet tall.

    The battery can keep the lights running for about 1.5 hours while also supplying power to move it through the water and power the reactor plant to do a restart.

    We calculated one time that if all the energy in the battery was released at once (not possible, we knew that), it would blow the sub 1.5 miles into the air.

    --
    I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
    1. Re:Really bad if the battery catches fire by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for raising that point. The battery alone is a huge fire risk. These are not pure metal ships.

    2. Re:Really bad if the battery catches fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't calculate anything. That was what was written in one of the Ship Service Manuals and was based on the potential energy of the battery, not on it "exploding".

    3. Re:Really bad if the battery catches fire by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      We had something like that at our datacenter a few years ago. When I first toured the datacenter, I was pretty impressed by the big Cat backup diesel generators. I was even more impressed by the battery room which reminded me of something I would find on a diesel-electric sub. Well, one day we lost utility power and the generators didn't startup in time, and the load was transfered to the batteries. The batteries couldn't handle to load by themselves and caught fire. I am surprised the building didn't burn down.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
  42. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by MikeMo · · Score: 1

    Not knowing in this specific case, but subs in dry dock usually have their hatches stuffed with cables and pipes. The ship is not self-sustaining, so everything needed (like power and water) comes in through the hatches. They can't be shut easily.

    Also, there is usually crew on board, particularly in the reactor spaces. They don't just leave the reactor "unwatched", even it if is shut down.

    Closing the hatches and letting it burn itself out would be a lot like just giving up, too.

  43. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by michael021689 · · Score: 1

    You are right on many points, but there were no torpedoes on board during this period. They are removed for exactly the reasons you listed.

  44. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Like2Byte · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pardon my ignorance here. But I have a question.

    I know that fire in a sub is considered one of the most dangerous threats there is (every crew-member is trained in fire suppression on a sub). But since this ship was presumably unmanned and in dry dock, and presumably also still air-tight, why didn't they just close all the hatches in the effected areas and shut off the oxygen? I can't imagine a fire in such an enclosed space would last very long without incoming oxygen.

    I am a former submariner.

    1 - A submarine in dry dock is basically a ship on ship. A problem on one constitutes a problem on the other.

    2 - There is a lot of piping throughout the boat. It contains either oxygen (@ 10's of PSI) or hydraulic fluid (@ thousands of PSI). If the piping burst, its source is a giant tank containing much more of the stuff in a different location of the boat. There are isolation valves, however, which may mitigate the problem for a while.

    3 - There's this thing called a nuclear reactor. It's shut-down while in dry-dock but still requires power to keep it safe.

    4 - Separating the reactor and the forward compartment is a giant tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel oil. If it over heats, well, yeah, kiss your asses goodbye.

    5 - There's a HUGE battery on the boat for when the boat needs to run off of battery power. It contains an enormous amount of energy - so much so that if it caught fire and exploded, the sub, the dry-dock and the facilities surrounding it would be damn near vaporised. I think anything within a few miles would *easily* have its windows blown out if not flattened.

    6 - If the reactor has a problem, you'll basically have Fukushima on your hands.

    7 - Submarine fires (when the get large enough) dont stay a single class of fire for long. There is too much hydraulic fluid, electrical line and combustible materials for it to remain one class of fire for long - ergo, one can not simply spray water (seawater, btw) to extinguish it.

    So, no. Shuttering the place up and trying to starve the fire isn't exactly a proactive manner to extinguish a fire.

    Throw in skeleton crews (most systems shut down), lots of welding, oil and whatnot all over the deck and you have a recipe for disaster on your hands. I'm surprised there arn't more fires of this magnitude more often.

    More questions? Guess I'll read below and answer some there, too.

  45. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by ultranova · · Score: 1

    My first guess of how this fire happened is that someone had done some welding in a compartment and something caught fire. Usually the Navy is pretty good about removing flamables in the area. They even go so far to have a "fire watch" for several hours after the welding was done to ensure that nothing catches fire. it will be interesting to hear what the root cause is.

    That's standard procedure for welding (mandated by the insurance companies). And welding could well still be the root cause: in one place I worked, a fire broke out after smoldering unnoticed for over eight hours.

    Or it could be a short-circuit and we just got lucky that it occurred on a drydock rather than at sea. Or *drumroll* terrorism.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  46. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correct... tons of nasty things.

    There is a LOT of hydraulic oil in systems throughout the submarine, for example. These are high pressure systems - so as soon as the heat from the fire causes a breach in the hydraulic system somewhere, you'd have finely misted hydraulic fluid feeding the fire big time.

    The general atmosphere on a submarine is fairly oily/nasty as well. Even with the various air cleaning systems, pretty much everything on a boat that old is going to be impregnated with a mixture of diesel, cooking oil, and hydraulic oil just like my clothes were everytime I spent time onboard. So even things that weren't originally very flammible could be made flammable over time.

    Plenty of pure oxygen onboard, as well as a LOT of high pressure air (~3000 psi) stored in airbanks for emergency blow and other uses (including the Emergency Air Breathing (EAB) system that the people fighting the fire were no doubt using).

    Many torpedo fuels burn on their own without external oxygen... although I'd be surprised if any torpedoes were still onboard. It's SOP to offload torpedoes prior to an extended shipyard period.

  47. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming that everything is a lie is even more useless; it is impossible to be informed when you refuse to accept information.

    And where did you read that quote? I bet it's a lie.

  48. Also additional holes cut into hull by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    Also, additional holes are often cut into the sub hull, to access locations inaccessible from the interior, to bring large equipment in/out, and to provide convenient (horizontal) human access.

  49. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    It's because they were burning it down for the insurance money, lol.

  50. Lots of fuel onboard a sub. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ex sub nuc here. Spent lots of time in overhaul and worked on other boats during short overhauls.

    Lots of "hot-work" (welding, cutting with torches) going on during an overhaul. Get pipe insulation hot enough and it will burn.

    The inside of the sub has lots of sound dampening material (things like rubber and insulation) to keep sound from the inside from reaching the hull and going out into the water. The steel of the hull is also coated with rubber to absorb and contain sound. All that will burn.

    We carried diesel for the backup generator, and tanks of hydrogen. Add to that the battery, oxygen canisters, lubricants, and assorted chemicals. There is a lot of fuel.

  51. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Like2Byte · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know that fire in a sub is considered one of the most dangerous threats there is

    yep, fire is usually considered the #1 hazard aboard space ships and subs. Simply because the first thing you normally do when there's a fire is evacuate, something that's not such an easy option for them.

    Evacuating ship is *not* the first thing submariners do. They attack fires with a vengeance. One, it's stealing our oxygen. Two, it's polluting our oxygen supply with *deadly* gases. Three, it can kill you fairly quickly. Some exhaust gases on board submarine cause damn near instant death.

    And that's just compounded by the low availability of breathable air.

    Actually, you're close. Underway (that means out to sea) subs purposefully keep their oxygen levels low - very low. So low that a cigarette will immediately extinguish when the smoker is not inhaling. It must be re-lit before each puff.

    But that's not important. The important part is that whatever is attempting to catch fire would smoulder for a bit before flaming up - thereby catching the eye/ear/nose of the watch or any other passing crew member.

    In port, oxygen levels are normal to the atmospheric oxygen levels of the surrounding city. (By the way, Norfolk, VA smells bad. - Norfolk sub sailors know what I'm talking about. ;P )

    I don't know on the hatches, I'd expect a sub to have the usual complement of watertight compartments, so as long as the fire didn't get hot enough to melt or deform bulkheads (which it may, which is why they stopped using aluminum for warship superstructure) they should have simply been able to close the doors.

    Let me address this. While in dry dock, the boats have all kinds of cabling in the way preventing hatches from being closed. Forgot about that in my first post on this topic. So, no, you typically cant just walk up and close the hatch - not that you'd want to. See my previous post, above.

    But maybe they had problems getting the people out first. Subs don't have too many doors on them, and if the fire is between 25 crew and the door and there's no other route, sealing off isn't an option.

    I find it hard to come to a conclusion where this would become a problem. There are multiple exits in most areas that are 'dead ends'. There'd have to be a pretty messed up situation that prevented ~25 people from escaping a location without them trying the emergency route *before* the emergency route became blocked.

  52. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    I think, therefore I lie.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  53. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except he is not assuming everything is a lie. He instead injects his own phobic reality, disparages the military with a brutal and disgusting analogy, all the while contributing nothing to the topic.
    I would feel better about the whole comment if I could dismiss this guy as a perfect troll. Unfortunately, I suspect he is not toying with us at all and most likely believes his paranoid delusion as the most likely explanation.
    Darwinism fails to explain why mental debilitation like this survives.

  54. Sounds like... by bughunter · · Score: 1

    described as intense, smoky, and a 'hot scary mess.'

    That description also matches a girl from the Fine Arts department that I dated when I was in college.

    Physically, she could be described as cuddly, but in practice, that was only true when she was passed out from self-inflicted pharmaceutical abuse.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  55. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

    There is also the door to thew diesel room, which is air tight if not watertight. It would probably contain a fire.

  56. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The ship is never unmanned. There is always people in the engineering spaces except for very few limited special conditions during a defueling of the reactor and there is at least one person forward of the engineering spaces as a roving watchstander.

    I'm not sure about the specific conditions while in drydock but normally, any temporary setup (hoses, pipes etc) that passes through a water tight door has to have a quick disconnect or a way to isolate or cut the obstruction away so the door can be shut easily and quickly. I don't recall ANY circumstance where the reactor tunnel water tight door (the door that separates the forward part of the ship from the engineering spaces above the reactor compartment) could ever have anything passing through it and that door had to be shut at all times unless you are actually passing through it.

    As for fire and flooding on a sub? I went through one flooding and two fires. The flooding was pretty bad and scary but at least you are "aware". You can still see, hear, and move around freely to isolate and fix it. Any type of fire almost immediately fills the entire compartment with heavy smoke, even small transformers, coils, actuators, etc can have a much bigger bark then a bite. It is scary. In 10 seconds you can't see or breathe and running away is NEVER an option. There is no "fire" department or any safe place to go. You have to immediately respond and act quickly to save you and your shipmates lives. The ship has breathing masks spread out in places and standard air type valves to plug them into all around the ship and you are trained how and where to find them in the dark. It is very scary when you have to unplug your mask, hold your breath and walk 10-20 feet in complete blinding smoke hoping you can find the next place to plug in your mask. All of this while trying to roll out a fire hose in an area about 2.5 feet wide with cabinets and pipes all around and fumbling with your mask and its hose and coordinate with other people you can not see and barely hear. You also have to check and make sure the air is cut off between compartments, luckily, the valves and air pipes can be shut from the adjacent compartments. It's hard to describe in words in a forum post but there is a lot going on. Submariners train for this and other situations over and over and over again. You have to know where every piece of damage control gear is on the ship, every hose, every type of extinguisher, every pump, every locker with breathing masks, know how to find the connections where to plug your mask in, who is in charge when, what information to relay, how to secure your space, how to remove an electrical panel, know what is flooding or on fire and how to get the power off to it etc.. If you give the wrong location of the source and someone shuts that source down, you could be screwed because the fire/flooding will rage on and you lost some other vital capability by shutting down good running equipment. Same extensive training with flooding, reactor "issues", loss of propulsion etc as well. You spend more time training and running exercises than anything else. I was on a submarine for about 10 years. Everyone makes jokes, picks on nubs, did some hazing within new Navy guidelines etc but when the shit hit the fan or something was going wrong, people stepped up and had your back 100% every single time. The option to walk or run away from a threat is not there. Stepping outside for a while is not an option.

    Happy Memorial Day to my fellow shipmates and those that have served in the armed forces. I Thank You.

  57. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by stewbee · · Score: 1

    If I recall correctly, the access to the diesel room was not much more than a deck plating segment that had hinges on it. Now this may not be true to all Sturgeon class submarines*, but I would think that it might do an ok job suffocating a fire, but I wouldn't count on it.

    * More interesting submarine trivia. The Sturgeon class submarine was horrible for 'configuration management'. If a chief wanted to add a sheet metal locker somewhere in the engine room, he could pretty much get it. However, on LA class subs, this was strictly verbotten, from what I have been told. An LA class, is an LS class! The reason I put in the caveat about the deck plates on Sturgeon class boats is that the Sturgeon class was the wild west for custom fixes/hacks.

  58. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    I was surface, but I imagine like most extended drydock maintenance periods there were holes cut in the hull either for repair or to allow for certain maintenance to be performed. Since they were in the yards, I'm amazed an Oxygen or acetylene tank didn't explode. One thing I do wonder about is what is there for fuel? On the ships I was on, maybe a chair could burn or a desktop, but there really wasn't much else to fuel a fire unless it was an electrical fire or a liquid fuel fire.

    I thank God I was never stuck in no-fuck.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  59. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

    Every ship is manned until it is decommissioned. One third of the crew is on board at all times to stand security watches and maintain the ship.

    The third of the crew requirement is so they can man at least one watch fully and get underway. But they're not getting underway when completely shutdown, in the shipyard, in drydock, with the reactor de-fueled, at night... under those conditions, there would have been only a handful or so of crew onboard. Maybe three forward, four aft, and two topside. The balance of the duty section would have been asleep on the residence barge or in the barracks.
     
    For that matter, there's probably not even a full crew assigned or present at the moment. When a boat goes in the yards, they transfer non-essential and junior personnel away. Of the crew that remains, a fair portion will be away at schools or temporarily assigned to other boats either for experience or to keep their skills sharp.
     
    (Been there done that when we brought the 655 out of overhaul at Newport News.)

  60. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by treeves · · Score: 1

    1. it's possible that it would NOT be air tight during a major overhaul (like this one). it's also likely that there were cables and hoses going through hatches preventing closure.
    2. the spaces are still pretty large and a fire could go quite a while doing a lot of damage, just relying on consuming all the oxygen to put it out, even if they could seal it off. The ops compartment, where this fire occurred, is one of the largest compartments. I believe it is the largest compartment on a 688 class boat.
    3. even in drydock there can be people aboard (crew and/or shipyard personnel)

    I was a submariner on a boomer that underwent a refueling overhaul at PNSY about twenty years ago.
    We had a shipyard worker die in the bilge while working on our boat (I think it was a heart attack or the like).
    We also had a small electrical fire that was easily controlled and didn't do a lot of harm.

    Bummer.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  61. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hatches would have been unable to be shut due to conditions in the vicinity of the operating mechanism.

  62. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by bura · · Score: 0

    Training in Fire suppression is not the answer... they should outright ban people bringing Fire on board. I knew when Amazon priced Fire at $200 price point, they were up to no good!

  63. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

    Former Navy Nuke

    3 - There's this thing called a nuclear reactor. It's shut-down while in dry-dock but still requires power to keep it safe.

    Not necessarily. Once the reactor has been shutdown long enough, it no longer requires power to cooling pumps to maintain temperature.

    6 - If the reactor has a problem, you'll basically have Fukushima on your hands.

    Umm, no.

    If you're underway, and things go so completely south that every failsafe in the system fails unsafe, then your boat is going to sink.

    If, on the other hand, you're in a drydock for an extended maintenance cycle, then the reactor has been shutdown long enough to be cold, and you won't even need the Main Cooling Pumps to keep things stable and safe.

    Note that, whatever other problems they may have, Navy nuclear powerplants don't keep spent fuel rods laying around to cause problems...

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  64. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by crazyjj · · Score: 1

    Now, see it's responses like this (and many more in this thread) that make Slashdot great. And to think people say that there are no thoughtful or informative discussions still going on here.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  65. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by michael021689 · · Score: 2

    I just went through a thirty month ERO on an SSBN; I'm not speaking without experience. We maintained a third of the crew on board or, during the most extensive work(which the Miami had not yet reached) on a barge a hundred yards away to maintain watches and do work. Granted, SSBN/SSN have some differences, but overall we follow the same guidance. Anyway, my original point was to correct the claim that the ship was probably unmanned.

  66. Why not scram and bolt? by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that the nuclear operators stayed at their watch stations during all this

    Why? The reactor's probably completely shutdown in drydock anyway, but....SCRAM the reactor, grab your jacket, and exit stage left like everyone else. It's a PWR reactor - not a liquid metal reactor that would be permanently damaged by shutdown.

    Is there really a point to sticking around? I'm genuinely curious.

    1. Re:Why not scram and bolt? by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1

      They stay because they are trained to. From what I've read, the engine room was still habitable. The sections of ship are designed to be isolable from each other. Close a door, shut some duct work to isolate air, and you're fat dumb and happy back in the engine room!

      The point in sticking around is that is what we were trained to do. Fire would have a very hard time making it from the forward part of the ship to the engine room areas. Don't you feel safer, knowing that the reactor was being watched the entire time the fire was raging in the forward part of the ship?

    2. Re:Why not scram and bolt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only time its possible to scram a reactor is when its not shutdown... and reactors have something called decay heat, that will destroy to the core if left unchecked and dealt with [ie cooling]

    3. Re:Why not scram and bolt? by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

      The sections of ship are designed to be isolable from each other. Close a door, shut some duct work to isolate air, and you're fat dumb and happy back in the engine room!

      Uh, except commenters and Wikipedia both say that's not true - that the Los Angeles class has only 1-2 bulkhead doors and they most likely had cables and plumbing passed through, making them impossible to seal.

      I guess you're just full of shit, then, and lying about serving on one of these subs. Nobody knows you're a dog on the internet, huh?

    4. Re:Why not scram and bolt? by kullnd · · Score: 1

      The sections of ship are designed to be isolable from each other. Close a door, shut some duct work to isolate air, and you're fat dumb and happy back in the engine room!

      Uh, except commenters and Wikipedia both say that's not true - that the Los Angeles class has only 1-2 bulkhead doors and they most likely had cables and plumbing passed through, making them impossible to seal.

      I guess you're just full of shit, then, and lying about serving on one of these subs. Nobody knows you're a dog on the internet, huh?

      The compartment door between the forward compartment and the engine room is generally always closed. The engine room is a restricted area (more so than the forward compartment). Anything running through this hatch does have quick disconnects, even in an extended overhaul (which I have done). In addition, the actual reactor control room (Called Maneuvering) is equip with additional systems that maintain positive air flow into the room, which also assist with cooling that space, all designed to keep that room inhabitable during the worst of emergencies to include a steam line rupture. You will never find this room unmanned on a ship that is still commissioned with a reactor, whether it is shut down or not. SSBN (Ohio Class) and SSN (LA Class) veteran

      --
      +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
  67. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

    I know that fire in a sub is considered one of the most dangerous threats there is

    yep, fire is usually considered the #1 hazard aboard space ships and subs. Simply because the first thing you normally do when there's a fire is evacuate, something that's not such an easy option for them.

    Evacuating ship is *not* the first thing submariners do. They attack fires with a vengeance. One, it's stealing our oxygen. Two, it's polluting our oxygen supply with *deadly* gases. Three, it can kill you fairly quickly. Some exhaust gases on board submarine cause damn near instant death.

    He (fairly obviously) meant that when you're NOT on a sub or spaceship, the first thing you do is evacuate. Building on fire? Evacuate quickly. Sub on fire? Evacuating quickly isn't an option.

  68. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by stewbee · · Score: 1

    Glad I could oblige :D

  69. Obligatory under the circumstances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nope. No real point. Just make of it what you will

    -- MyLongNickName

    Umm, doesn't your habit of signing with your sig in the comment kind of defeat the whole AC commenter thing? Not trying to be an ass, but probably succeeding. I generally find your comments useful/insightful/funny/etc

    It just means I was too lazy to log in. Nothing more.

    HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS

    -- MyLongNickName

  70. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    The ship has breathing masks spread out in places and standard air type valves to plug them into all around the ship and you are trained how and where to find them in the dark. It is very scary when you have to unplug your mask, hold your breath and walk 10-20 feet in complete blinding smoke hoping you can find the next place to plug in your mask.

    As I recall, one of the things I had to be able to do on the boat was to go from the forward end of the engineering spaces to the stern, wearing an EAB, with black plastic taped over the faceplate so I couldn't see anything.

    Yes, remembering exactly how many steps it is to the next air connection is really tough when you're holding your breath and can't see....

    Note, by the way, that a hull insulation fire means the entire compartment is completely full of opaque black smoke. If you can't fight the fire blindfolded with your head tethered to the nearest air connector, then you're screwed....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  71. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shipyard...

    I'd be willing the bet the same thing that is most likely to have started the fire is what kept it going. Oxy-acetylene welding. Sometimes they run really long lines through a ship rather than trying to move huge tanks around inside the ship. Some guy screws up welding in another area or compartment and cuts into the lines supplying another welder... If somebody didn't notice right away nor think to cut the service supply to the lines... Usually there's a fire watch posted in those spaces during welding to make sure crap like this doesn't happen, but perhaps somebody in command neglected to cover certain areas because of clearance requirements involved in entering certain spaces. Shipyard guys also tend not to give a f***, so if welding was supposed to stop because the assigned fire watch had to go on a head break... Either that or a communication breakdown. Can't hear worth a damn with the needlegun and grinder next to your head. "I'M GOING TO THE HEAD!" "WHAAAAT?! GO AHEAD? OK." Anyhow... I never was on a sub, but I was familiar enough with how the shipyard did things when the carrier I was on was there.

    If not welding, somebody could have been painting a space or resurfacing a deck. Until paint and certain other coatings cure, that's pretty much free fuel just sitting there for a class bravo. Just takes one welder or a guy with a grinder close enough nearby... Still those usually tend to be flash fires that go out quick. (Air or fuel typically doesn't last long in a confined space.)

    Of course it could be something else random too. Maybe somebody left some OBA canisters lying around somewhere or something stupid like that. Nice free supply of an oxydizer, provided there's some fuel around and something to set it off.

    If they can't get some of the expensive subsystems to re-outfit the sub (the hull is likely stilll very much intact), it's likely they'll keep it around in mothballs for spare parts. Otherwise, just lengthen the yard in-service period since it's already where it needs to be for repairs.

  72. Hobbits shipyards by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    And the English county of Hampshire is named after the Shire.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Hobbits shipyards by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      And the Shire is named, prophetically, after sh!

  73. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by adrn01 · · Score: 1

    ...While in dry dock, the boats have all kinds of cabling in the way preventing hatches from being closed. Forgot about that in my first post on this topic. So, no, you typically cant just walk up and close the hatch - not that you'd want to.

    It is my understanding that since the sinking of the Guitarro, quick-disconnects for such cables are mandatory:
    http://www.history.navy.mil/library/special/guitarro.htm#rec

  74. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by adrn01 · · Score: 1

    I read that modern US subs use convection cooling for the reactor at lower power settings, to keep noise down. Would this sub be too old for that to be the case?

  75. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Libertarian001 · · Score: 1

    also former Navy Nuke

    mod parent up

  76. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not air tight - in the shipyard, welders cut holes in the hull to allow for the removal and replacement of equipment too big for the hatches.

    Many components on a sub can supply oxygen - the pressurized air and oxygen tanks, the oxygen generator, the "candles". And there's the battery; there are around 130 cells in a submarine's battery and each cell is about 14x14 inches on the top and about 8 feet tall. All that acidic electrolyte and stored chemical energy can do a number without any additional oxygen.

    There was probably no torpedoes or their fuel on board.

    One person stated "Every ship is manned until it is decommissioned. One third of the crew is on board at all times to stand security watches and maintain the ship" but this is not so in the shipyard. At times all we had was the topside watch, the shutdown reactor operator and the engine room watch.

    WELDERS CAUSE FIRES. WELDERS ARE ALL COMMUNISTS. Welders caught my sub on fire twice and then left without reporting it.

  77. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did a decom in Puget Sound in the mid 90's. The final reactor shutdown was in August and if I remember correctly we did not shutoff the final cooling pump for the last time until January. Before it was shut off for good, we were only running them a few minutes a time maybe once a day. I was involved in the meetings as I was one of the few reactor operators still on board but I don't remember how much was procedural/scheduling delays and how much was decay heat. I believe we were over 15000 EFPH so we had a decent power history for decay heat but it did die off quickly.

  78. HP batteries and diesel tanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Four and five. Drain the diesel tank since it's not needed at dry-dock. Five discharge the battery for the same reason.

  79. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know that fire in a sub is considered one of the most dangerous threats there is

    yep, fire is usually considered the #1 hazard aboard space ships and subs. Simply because the first thing you normally do when there's a fire is evacuate, something that's not such an easy option for them.

    Evacuating ship is *not* the first thing submariners do. They attack fires with a vengeance. One, it's stealing our oxygen. Two, it's polluting our oxygen supply with *deadly* gases. Three, it can kill you fairly quickly. Some exhaust gases on board submarine cause damn near instant death.

    CORRECT! Attack the fire with a vengance. We were highly trained in fire fighting. In fact for me to be qualified submarines, I had to put on a complete fire fighter outfit including the Oxygen Breathing Apperatus (OBA) and light it off successfully breathing air from it in complete darkness by myself (no assistance) in under 1 minute. To this day, after I have been out of the USN for ten years, I still have an inate fear of fires... and just as an side note, I have been onboard a submarine for three fires, all of which were extinguished within 10 minutes of starting thanks to the excellent training and response time of my fellow shipmates.

    And that's just compounded by the low availability of breathable air.

    Actually, you're close. Underway (that means out to sea) subs purposefully keep their oxygen levels low - very low. So low that a cigarette will immediately extinguish when the smoker is not inhaling. It must be re-lit before each puff.

    But that's not important. The important part is that whatever is attempting to catch fire would smoulder for a bit before flaming up - thereby catching the eye/ear/nose of the watch or any other passing crew member.

    In port, oxygen levels are normal to the atmospheric oxygen levels of the surrounding city. (By the way, Norfolk, VA smells bad. - Norfolk sub sailors know what I'm talking about. ;P )

    This is not correct. Actually the atmosphere in the boat while underway is 19-21% oxygen. Atmospheric oxygen levels are around 20% worldwide. The atmosphere on the ship is no different in any way from the atmosphere that you are currently in most likely (gas wise). What IS different is the pressure which changes with the depth the ship is at, the amount of time since the ship has "equalized pressure" by putting the exaust mast up, and the amount of people on the ship (you all breathe out more than you breathe in).

    I don't know on the hatches, I'd expect a sub to have the usual complement of watertight compartments, so as long as the fire didn't get hot enough to melt or deform bulkheads (which it may, which is why they stopped using aluminum for warship superstructure) they should have simply been able to close the doors.

    Let me address this. While in dry dock, the boats have all kinds of cabling in the way preventing hatches from being closed. Forgot about that in my first post on this topic. So, no, you typically cant just walk up and close the hatch - not that you'd want to. See my previous post, above.

    First of all, there are only a few water tight hatches on a submarine within the people tank depending on what kind of sub you are on. This number is rather low and I wont go into detail about it. The hatches that close to the outside of the ship are also minimal. There are only two or three depending again on the type of submarine. The idea of cabling being through the door is correct though, there is a ton of cabling in dry dock that goes through any number of these hatches and those cables are generally live so just shutting the hatch presents more danger than leaving it open. There should be a plan however that details what is attached to each cable so that they can be removed in just this kind of

  80. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm just being a dumbass but it seems to me like there must be some kind of optics that would solve this problem, even if they have to have THz imagers on the out-facing side...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  81. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Like2Byte · · Score: 4, Informative

    And that's just compounded by the low availability of breathable air.

    Actually, you're close. Underway (that means out to sea) subs purposefully keep their oxygen levels low - very low. So low that a cigarette will immediately extinguish when the smoker is not inhaling. It must be re-lit before each puff.

    But that's not important. The important part is that whatever is attempting to catch fire would smoulder for a bit before flaming up - thereby catching the eye/ear/nose of the watch or any other passing crew member.

    In port, oxygen levels are normal to the atmospheric oxygen levels of the surrounding city. (By the way, Norfolk, VA smells bad. - Norfolk sub sailors know what I'm talking about. ;P )

    This is not correct. Actually the atmosphere in the boat while underway is 19-21% oxygen. Atmospheric oxygen levels are around 20% worldwide. The atmosphere on the ship is no different in any way from the atmosphere that you are currently in most likely (gas wise). What IS different is the pressure which changes with the depth the ship is at, the amount of time since the ship has "equalized pressure" by putting the exaust mast up, and the amount of people on the ship (you all breathe out more than you breathe in).

    And this is where *your* boat took chances. Our boat kept the oxygen levels at about 13% to 15%. Yes, you read that correctly. Again, the smokers had to inhale *deeply* while attempting to light their cigarettes so they could create enough air-draw across the surface of their *lighters* to get the lighter to even light so they could light their cigarette. Low oxygen levels starve fires.

    You say you've been in 3 fires and they were extinguished within 10 minutes? I'm very glad you did. However, wow. Amazing. How many captains did your boat(s) go through? While we had our own scares we only had 1 real fire on board while underway and it was nothing more than a smoking rag. Someone left it on top of the CO2 Candle where it began to smoke. It was amazing. I was one of the few who showed up in an EAB. Three guys showed up in their skivvies. People were on it *instantly*.

    The only other time we had a near miss (and the scariest moment of my life, hands down) was when our 4500lbs Hydraulic line ruptured in the engine room. It was spraying 4500lbs PSI hydraulic fluid into the engine room. If the roving watch underway hadn't been standing *right* next to the kill switch when it ruptured I might not be here today. We surfaced and remained surfaced for 3 days drawing circles on nav charts in sea state 3 to sea state 4 seas. If the oxygen levels were any higher AND (I stress AND) the fluid would have sprayed at 4500psi for more than 30 seconds, it would have been a flame-thrower.

    It's purely up to the CO on what level of O2 he wants the boat to run around at. Maybe they've enacted some regulation since I got out in late 1996; but, don't sit there and say I'm not correct. Certainly, in port the ship's O2 levels are in keeping with the surround local atmosphere - ~20%. Our boat kept O2 levels low purposefully under-weigh.

    But maybe they had problems getting the people out first. Subs don't have too many doors on them, and if the fire is between 25 crew and the door and there's no other route, sealing off isn't an option.

    I find it hard to come to a conclusion where this would become a problem. There are multiple exits in most areas that are 'dead ends'. There'd have to be a pretty messed up situation that prevented ~25 people from escaping a location without them trying the emergency route *before* the emergency route became blocked.

    Okay so oddly enough there isnt really an "emergency route" on the ship for reasons that I wont detail here (it would take too long to explain). I do have to say that there are contingency plans in place for this kind of thing un

  82. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Macgruder · · Score: 2

    In the forward section of a 688-boat, there are 3 water-tight (and air tight) hatches. Forward escape trunk, weapons-loading hatch, and the hatch leading to the engine room. All of the internal doors are privacy / sound, not for water / air-tightness.

    (for all you other bubbleheads here, yes, I know there's actually 4 water-tight hatches in the forward compartment, but I don't think the washing machine is relevant to this topic)

    --
    I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
  83. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, forgive me, brother. I'm a cone-er!

  84. its gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The shutdown reactor operator and likely the roving watch would have remained on board throughout the fire. Since most systems would have been out of service and depressurized including the galley, my guess is that a shipyard worker was torch cutting and caught something on the other side on fire without the fire watch being able to notice. Now every single thing in the forward compartment has been rendered no longer subsafe until tested....every pipe... wire... even the hull
    Better it was now rather than later ...less losses because it is too compromised but at least the fire did a lot of the decommissioning work.

  85. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure I can think of one major reason a SSBN would have far more crew present and on hand at all times when in drydock vs a SSN... I think the B has something to do with it but I'm not sure

  86. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it was. I stood in front of it for 17 hours Thursday.

  87. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

    Indeed, underwater welding (arc/stick welding) wouldn't work if you needed an oxygen source other than whatever oxidizes from the metal/seawater itself.

  88. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

    A standard thermal imager will do a good job here. Common smokes do not contain particles large enough to absorb/scatter 4-12 um infrared. (There are special obscurant smoke compositions against thermal imagers, but these are pretty difficult to keep in the air.) But the imagers are (so far) costly.

  89. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Siadohauc · · Score: 1

    Many people on board. All evacuated forward, no fire aft, stayed to safeguard reactor plant.

    Numerous hull cuts, impossible to seal off with anything more than kevlar blankets, which is what they did.

  90. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We had a thermal imager back in the early 90's on my boat. It was called a NIFTI which I believe meant Naval Fire Fighting Thermal Imaging Device. It worked and it was better then nothing but it was far from perfect. It was not for a person to see where they were going, it was searching for the hot spots and the source of the fire so you could direct the hoses or remove power from the right place. I was asked to fix it once personally by the captain, even he knew a reactor operator could troubleshoot and repair things better than a coner ET could ;). It turned out to be nothing but a bad solder connection.

  91. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    I read that modern US subs use convection cooling for the reactor at lower power settings, to keep noise down. Would this sub be too old for that to be the case?

    The phrase I was taught to use when someone asked questions like that started with "I can neither confirm nor deny..."

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  92. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by mostlyDigital · · Score: 1

    the presence of other oxidizing agents? the possibility of explosion due to above? There are lots of compressed gasses on a sub.

  93. Wow, seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Might you think there were oxidizers onboard besides breathable air?

  94. Re:Had bad experiences when I was 22 and in port t by cmarkn · · Score: 1

    No, oxygen is not involved in arc welding. Heat from electrical resistance melts the parts being welded without burning anything.

    --
    People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.