Link


After thorough consideration, the Navy has decided to decommission USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6), a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship, due to the extensive damage sustained during the July fire.

“We did not come to this decision lightly,” said Secretary of the Navy Kenneth J. Braithwaite. “Following an extensive material assessment in which various courses of action were considered and evaluated, we came to the conclusion that it is not fiscally responsible to restore her.

"Although it saddens me that it is not cost effective to bring her back, I know this ship’s legacy will continue to live on through the brave men and women who fought so hard to save her, as well as the Sailors and Marines who served aboard her during her 22-year history," Braithwaite said.

Following the fire, the Navy conducted a comprehensive material assessment that concluded the cost to restore Bonhomme Richard could exceed $3 billion and require between five and seven years to complete.

The Navy also examined rebuilding the ship for alternate purposes and determined the cost could exceed $1 billion, which is as much or more than a new-construction hospital ship, submarine tender, or command-and-control ship.

Although the timeline for towing and dismantlement are still being finalized, the Navy will execute an inactivation availability that will remove systems and components for use in other ships.

Since July, the Navy has taken numerous actions designed to provide immediate fire safety and prevention improvements across the Fleet and shore installations. Working collaboratively, the fleet commanders established a Fire Safety Assessment Program to conduct random assessments of ship’s compliance with Navy fire-safety regulations, with a priority on ships undergoing maintenance availabilities.

Naval Sea Systems Command issued an advisory to all supervising authorities on directed fire prevention requirements and outlined corrective actions to improve fire protection, damage control, and firefighting doctrine, all of which will be executed in close partnerships with industry partners.

All investigations associated with the fire onboard LHD 6 remain ongoing. USS Bonhomme Richard is assigned to the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Jibbity

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...935/m/8480019374/p/1

How is this the same Navy that lost so many ships at Pearl Harbor and within a few months had most of them back in the fight?

Not surprised in the least. 22 years old with that extensive damage it's best to send her away....

quote:

How is this the same Navy that lost so many ships at Pearl Harbor and within a few months had most of them back in the fight?

Wartime industry vs peacetime industry are two different animals.

Also the tech in today's ships is very different. Can you imagine the hundreds if not thousand of miles of cable/wiring these ships have today vs back then......

quote:

Originally posted by sjp:
How is this the same Navy that lost so many ships at Pearl Harbor and within a few months had most of them back in the fight?

It was more like a few years for the heavily damaged big ships (Tennessee, California, Nevada, West Virginia). Arizona, Utah, and Oklahoma were too badly damaged.

As sigarms229 indicated, it was war, we needed them desperately, and we had a MUCH greater infrastructure back then than we do now.

quote:

How is this the same Navy that lost so many ships at Pearl Harbor and within a few months had most of them back in the fight?

Repairing the ship would provide a unique opportunity for shipbuilders and the Navy to regain long lost experience returning heavily damaged ships back to service. If we ever get in a hot war with a near peer adversary (Russia, China) that experience might prove invaluable, no matter the cost.

In less I was given some false information, I had a relative who fought on Iwo Jima, was wounded by a grenade, and watched the raising of the flag aboard a naval ship.

The info I got was the same name. USS Bonhomme Richard.

Do they rename ships? Or did I get bad info?

per wikipedia: LHD-6 is the third ship of the United States Navy to bear the name first given by John Paul Jones to his Continental Navy frigate, named in French "Good Man Richard" in honor of Benjamin Franklin, the publisher of Poor Richard's Almanac who at the time served as U.S. ambassador to France.

quote:

Originally posted by ASKSmith:
In less I was given some false information, I had a relative who fought on Iwo Jima, was wounded by a grenade, and watched the raising of the flag aboard a naval ship.

The info I got was the same name. USS Bonhomme Richard.

Do they rename ships? Or did I get bad info?

quote:

Originally posted by ASKSmith:
In less I was given some false information, I had a relative who fought on Iwo Jima, was wounded by a grenade, and watched the raising of the flag aboard a naval ship.

The info I got was the same name. USS Bonhomme Richard.

Do they rename ships? Or did I get bad info?

Kind of, they decommission old ones and build new ships with the same name.
At the end of WW2, there was a carrier called the Bonhomme Richard (CV31), but don't think she was at Iwo.

But just for trivia, the WW2 USS Yorktown (CV10) was originally named the Bonhomme Richard while under construction.

^
Maybe there was something lost in translation. My cousin said he was aboard a Naval Hospital ship when he saw the raising of the flag at Mt. Suribachi.

But she also said while returning home on the USS Bon Homme Richard, they celebrated the USMC’s 170th birthday on 11/10/1945. So maybe he was on two different ships.

Either way. I have pics of him at Iwo Jima. Just an interesting part of history for my family.

quote:

But she also said while returning home on the USS Bon Homme Richard, they celebrated the USMC’s 170th birthday on 11/10/1945.

Possible, from wiki:

quote:

Bon Homme Richard departed Norfolk, Virginia, on 19 March 1945 to join the Pacific Fleet and arrived at Pearl Harbor on 5 April 1945. Following additional training in Hawaiian waters, the carrier joined TF 38 off Okinawa on 6 June 1945 with Carrier Air Group 91 (CVG-91) aboard. During 7–10 June she joined in the attacks on Okidaitōjima and then served with the 3rd Fleet during the air strikes against Japan from 2 July to 15 August. She remained off Japan until 16 September 1945 and after a short training period off Guam, proceeded to San Francisco, arriving 20 October. She left San Francisco 29 October and steamed to Pearl Harbor to undergo conversion for troop transport duty. From 8 November 1945 to 16 January 1946 she made trans-Pacific voyages, returning servicemen to the United States. She was thereafter generally inactive until decommissioning on 9 January 1947. She was mothballed at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington.

Just to add: The Battle of Iwo Jima (19 February – 26 March 1945), so NOT at Iwo.

^
He was wounded at Iwo Jima, but that timeline makes sense. I’m not sure how significant his injuries were. I’m not sure where he went after Iwo. Just interesting, as I have been to the USMC museum in Quantico a few times, and have seen the second flag flown. My uncle is buried there as well.

quote:

Repairing the ship would provide a unique opportunity for shipbuilders and the Navy to regain long lost experience returning heavily damaged ships back to service. If we ever get in a hot war with a near peer adversary (Russia, China) that experience might prove invaluable, no matter the cost.

Already been done. USS Stark (missle), USS Cole (bombing), USS McCain (collision), USS Fitzgerald (collision), USS Samuel B Roberts (mine), USS Princeton (mine), USS Tripoli (mine).

It was wartime. Money was no object, getting back in the fight was the only objective.

Here the decision was based on cost benefit analysis. Someone figured out it was probably cheaper to add another hull to the end of the production cycle for the current production LHA/D class (America?) than to try and fix this hull right away (and they'd probably end up with a more useful ship.)

quote:

Originally posted by sjp:
How is this the same Navy that lost so many ships at Pearl Harbor and within a few months had most of them back in the fight?

quote:

Originally posted by sigarms229:
Also the tech in today's ships is very different. Can you imagine the hundreds if not thousand of miles of cable/wiring these ships have today vs back then......

And all the electronic systems that used to be mechanical or manual.

Similar to how you could fix just about any car back in the day with a tool kit and Chilton manual, but nowadays very often need specialized computer tools and electronics knowhow.

This doesn't surprise me at all. Best case they were going to "repair" her and re purpose as a hospital ship or other non combatant. She'd have significant issues for the rest of her service life and never be as effective as a purpose built ship.

Navy will write it off and add another hull to the new landing craft order.

quote:

Originally posted by sjp:
How is this the same Navy that lost so many ships at Pearl Harbor and within a few months had most of them back in the fight?

Because when you're fighting a war that could end up wrecking your civilization if you lose, money becomes much less of an issue. Not to mention that none of those ships had fancy, complicated electornics systems.

Yeah, under no circumstances are the redundant fire suppression systems to be deactivated.

quote:

Naval Sea Systems Command issued an advisory to all supervising authorities on directed fire prevention requirements and outlined corrective actions to improve fire protection, damage control, and firefighting doctrine, all of which will be executed in close partnerships with industry partners.

quote:

Originally posted by sigarms229:

quote:

Repairing the ship would provide a unique opportunity for shipbuilders and the Navy to regain long lost experience returning heavily damaged ships back to service. If we ever get in a hot war with a near peer adversary (Russia, China) that experience might prove invaluable, no matter the cost.

Already been done. USS Stark (missle), USS Cole (bombing), USS McCain (collision), USS Fitzgerald (collision), USS Samuel B Roberts (mine), USS Princeton (mine), USS Tripoli (mine).

I was on the Tripoli after it was repaired. It had a constant list to the left, IIRC.

The picture in my avatar was taken (by me) from the deck of the Tripoli in 1994.

Tony

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:

quote:

Originally posted by sigarms229:

quote:

Repairing the ship would provide a unique opportunity for shipbuilders and the Navy to regain long lost experience returning heavily damaged ships back to service. If we ever get in a hot war with a near peer adversary (Russia, China) that experience might prove invaluable, no matter the cost.

Already been done. USS Stark (missle), USS Cole (bombing), USS McCain (collision), USS Fitzgerald (collision), USS Samuel B Roberts (mine), USS Princeton (mine), USS Tripoli (mine).

I was on the Tripoli after it was repaired. It had a constant list to the left, IIRC.

The picture in my avatar was taken (by me) from the deck of the Tripoli in 1994.

Tony

I was on Princeton when she hit the mine....The CO was on the 1MC talking about Tripoli when the mine went off under us.
Ive talked to guys I know that have sailed on her since and they said she has a little wobble when underway