USS Miami (SSN-755) had a fire at the Portsmouth (NH) shipyard in 2012, but that was intentionally set by a contractor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Miami_(SSN-755)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...miami-report-n248421

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...marine-fire-sentence

quote:

Originally posted by Woodman:

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
... here's the links.

[IMG]https://avatarhost.files.wordpre

Thanks Woodman!

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
USS Miami (SSN-755) had a fire at the Portsmouth (NH) shipyard in 2012, but that was intentional.

Consider what happened to the USS Cole. Took a while but she did deploy again although; that was more along the line of a big middle finger.

Slight drift - the Tarawa was first sip on site and the president refused to allow us to send a contingent of SEALs after the aggressors nor did he allow the Tarawa to properly defend herself against the same act

When the Cole was tied up and refueling, a Yemeni representative was invited to lunch, just as the last three times he was invited. This time however, the rep refused. Please note, the wardroom was just above the explosion.

When the Cole was hit, the pilot of the dohow (sp?), pointed his little boat at the Cole, exited the boat's bridge, and stood on the bow (rode the boat into the explosion). This happened about 30 minutes after the Yemeni rep left the ship.

I note this because, as we were trolling back and forth outside the harbor at 2 - 3 knots, those bastards leaving and entering the harbor would do the same to us passing maybe 25 yards from use either fore or aft.

We were ordered NOT to lower weapons (.50 cal guns) below the horizon.

After all, Clinton didn't want US to start an international incident.

quote:

USS Miami (SSN-755) had a fire at the Portsmouth (NH) shipyard in 2012, but that was intentionally set by a contractor.

The moron was a low level cleanup worker who thought setting a fire would get him off work early so he could see his GF,.

Just the guy I'd want working on nuke subs.

Right after that security was significantly tightened. The comical thing was that during sentencing they had a restitution component built in. He would have to live a million plus years to pay off the damage.

quote:

Casey James Fury, pictured, also was ordered to pay $400m in restitution.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

No, it is in a cold iron state. All power was coming from the pier via the true definition of "monster cables."

That's what I assumed. But then, why would she have "1 million gallons of fuel" on board, unless some media putz just Googled Janes Fighting Ships and cited her published capacity. . .

A full ballast of DFM is less explosive than an empty tank. Had the tanks been empty and with all that heat, a major explosion would've been very likely

DIESEL is not explosive in either state. Diesel fumes are not explosive due to it's high flash point, it's not gasoline. The ship would have multiple tanks and those tanks are usually drawn down to almost empty via a transfer pump and centrifuge, 1 by 1......less diesel fuel (or JP5) would be better in a fire situation. The diesel tanks could ignite in a fire, but would not explode regardless of how much or little is in the tank, they'd just add fuel to the already existing fire.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

No, it is in a cold iron state. All power was coming from the pier via the true definition of "monster cables."

That's what I assumed. But then, why would she have "1 million gallons of fuel" on board, unless some media putz just Googled Janes Fighting Ships and cited her published capacity. . .

A full ballast of DFM is less explosive than an empty tank. Had the tanks been empty and with all that heat, a major explosion would've been very likely

DIESEL is not explosive in either state. Diesel fumes are not explosive due to it's high flash point, it's not gasoline. The ship would have multiple tanks and those tanks are usually drawn down to almost empty via a transfer pump and centrifuge, 1 by 1......less diesel fuel (or JP5) would be better in a fire situation. The diesel tanks could ignite in a fire, but would not explode regardless of how much or little is in the tank, they'd just add fuel to the already existing fire.

There are a lot of explosions on ships that don't necessarily involve combustion. Pressure often times causes explosions and I'm sure a sealed fuel tank could build pressure enough to explode and distribute diesel to create a much larger fire.

They are on shore services while in the yard, I don't know why there would be diesel onboard to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by LBTRS:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

No, it is in a cold iron state. All power was coming from the pier via the true definition of "monster cables."

That's what I assumed. But then, why would she have "1 million gallons of fuel" on board, unless some media putz just Googled Janes Fighting Ships and cited her published capacity. . .

A full ballast of DFM is less explosive than an empty tank. Had the tanks been empty and with all that heat, a major explosion would've been very likely

DIESEL is not explosive in either state. Diesel fumes are not explosive due to it's high flash point, it's not gasoline. The ship would have multiple tanks and those tanks are usually drawn down to almost empty via a transfer pump and centrifuge, 1 by 1......less diesel fuel (or JP5) would be better in a fire situation. The diesel tanks could ignite in a fire, but would not explode regardless of how much or little is in the tank, they'd just add fuel to the already existing fire.

There are a lot of explosions on ships that don't necessarily involve combustion. Pressure often times causes explosions and I'm sure a sealed fuel tank could build pressure enough to explode and distribute diesel to create a much larger fire.

They are on shore services while in the yard, I don't know why there would be diesel onboard to begin with.

Fuel tanks on ships are not sealed. They are vented to the atmosphere always, each fuel tank is part of the hull, and with air and water temp changes the fuel expands and contracts always so always have open fuel vents to the atmosphere to allow for that, usually via pipes up to the main deck.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by LBTRS:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

No, it is in a cold iron state. All power was coming from the pier via the true definition of "monster cables."

That's what I assumed. But then, why would she have "1 million gallons of fuel" on board, unless some media putz just Googled Janes Fighting Ships and cited her published capacity. . .

A full ballast of DFM is less explosive than an empty tank. Had the tanks been empty and with all that heat, a major explosion would've been very likely

DIESEL is not explosive in either state. Diesel fumes are not explosive due to it's high flash point, it's not gasoline. The ship would have multiple tanks and those tanks are usually drawn down to almost empty via a transfer pump and centrifuge, 1 by 1......less diesel fuel (or JP5) would be better in a fire situation. The diesel tanks could ignite in a fire, but would not explode regardless of how much or little is in the tank, they'd just add fuel to the already existing fire.

There are a lot of explosions on ships that don't necessarily involve combustion. Pressure often times causes explosions and I'm sure a sealed fuel tank could build pressure enough to explode and distribute diesel to create a much larger fire.

They are on shore services while in the yard, I don't know why there would be diesel onboard to begin with.

Fuel tanks on ships are not sealed. They are vented to the atmosphere always, each fuel tank is part of the hull, and with air and water temp changes the fuel expands and contracts always so always have open fuel vents to the atmosphere to allow for that, usually via pipes up to the main deck.

Jimmy, you're a special kind of "fucking stupid", aren't you?

Flash point of DFM is under 200 degrees, as I recall though, I do not recall if this is Celsius or Fahrenheit. But lets let that stand for a split second BEFORE you get all butt hurt about being called out and consider this:

I was on the USS Tarawa for five years - as ship's company - and consider this for a moment, I was qualified to fight a fire ANYWHERE on that ship under ANY circumstance.

I, like other real sailors on this forum, KNOW why we kept our tanks full and KNOW all petroleum based fuels on a ship are LESS explosive when the tanks are full.

"Diesel is not explosive".. you are a special case who has NEVER been on a real ship (and likely anything longer than 60ft?) or in a REAL fire with either JP4, JP5, JP8, DFM, magnesium, etc.

And your asinine ASSUMPTION these tanks are part of the navy hull - please, keep off the keyboard you f, somebody might believe you.

Sorry Para, I'll take my time out now.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
Fuel tanks on ships are not sealed. They are vented to the atmosphere always, each fuel tank is part of the hull, and with air and water temp changes the fuel expands and contracts always so always have open fuel vents to the atmosphere to allow for that, usually via pipes up to the main deck.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. I served in the Navy for 26 years and spent years at sea on aircraft carriers but I was in aviation.

I was onboard USS Midway in 1990 when we had the big fire with loss of life. We were underway and there were several explosions dealing with fuel tanks. I don't know all the specifics but it wasn't something want to deal with again.