Shipyard fires, a real nasty proposition. Wonder what the extent of the damage will be. There's got to be a point where it ends up just throwing good money down the head.
Here is a better article, one that gives some credit to the crews of the Gallatin and Dallas. postandcourier.com/news/2009/jun/20/firefighters_battle_degree_heat_on_coast86687/
I spent 8 years as a professional firefighter and can't imagine the conditions these folks faced. Both the Coast Guard Crews and the Civilian Firefighters deserve a BZ. Why? Nobody was seriously injured.
Insulation fires suck. I did fight a few contained fires similar to a shipboard fire by the nature of the structure and they were the scariest fires I ever was a part of.
Someone asked where was the fire watch. Often these fires start behind the insulation and are masked by the cutting and welding smoke until they are more than a fire extinguisher can handle.
When ships are used hard and put away dirty for 40+ years they get dangerous. Of course, the Coasties all know this as it is ops normal.
"The two ships went into dry dock after they had fallen into such a state of disrepair that they were considered too deteriorated to chase drug runners or deliver humanitarian supplies."
I was stationed there 96-98 as an MK3 and had the experience of 5 engine rebuilds on the MDEs to include a stack space fire while dockside...We thought she was old then.
With all the cuts in the different budgets. It appears that making repars with band-aids are finally catching up with the fleet. Its only a matter of time it will happen to the Pacific Fleet to the point that multple cutters are down hard all at once (knock on wood). It was frustating then and of course probably even more so now.
I agree with Hooligan both the Coast Guard crews and the many firefighters that reponded from areas outside Charleston definately deserve a BZ. The fact that no one was seriously injured is nothing short of a miracle. Stay Safe All. Turbo-G
This message has been edited. Last edited by: TURBOGINA,
Is it me or does it seem that some sort of catastophic tragedy with serious loss of life is inevitable with these aging assets? Perhaps we should invite some of the senior members of congress and their families aboard for a week long tiger cruise. My guess is the invitations would be rebuffed, why, because no member of congress would put his/her family in such danger yet every day those same members of congress expect the USCG to continue operating under the "Do more with less, irregardless of safety" mentality!! BZ to the crews who continue to maintain these fossils and stay safe!! -RXJEFF
The debate raged here and other places for quite some time that Deepwater went in the wrong direction with fewer super-sized, complex, lightly armed ships at the expense of more traditional vessels for the same money. This may prove to be prophetic.
Originally posted by rxjeff: Perhaps we should invite some of the senior members of congress and their families aboard for a week long tiger cruise. My guess is the invitations would be rebuffed, why, because no member of congress would put his/her family in such danger yet every day those same members of congress expect the USCG to continue operating under the "Do more with less, irregardless of safety" mentality!! BZ to the crews who continue to maintain these fossils and stay safe!! -RXJEFF
Let's not forget that the CG helped shoot itself in the foot for years by being complacent about "doing more with less". Congress is not going to hand out bucketloads of money unless you convince them you really, truly need it. The CG failed at that for several years.
Right you are, Stan. For many years we watched while Commandants and their representatives got up in front of Congress, sympathized with the scarcity of funds, and told them that "we" (meaning the folks at sea in leaky ships - not the Admirals at foggy bottom) would somehow suck it up and make those old ships already 20 years beyond design life last for another 20. Anyone who thinks the old story of doing more and more with less and less until we can finally do anything with nothing is a sea story just wasn't there. I was on the Chincoteague when we went in drydock at Curtis Bay to fix a crack in the hull. They eventually wound up removing about 20 x 40 feet that was too thin to take a weld.
I think those WWII 311's were originally expected to last three or four years when they were built in the early '40s. Many of them were turned over to Vietnam in the late '60s & early '70s.
Guys I agree with the sad shape of the fleet and shortly after I enlisted in the Coast Guard (1975) I assessed the budget situation like this:
The Air Force gets an appropriation for a new air base somewhere. Spare no expense - Congress appropriates the money and the Air Force builds the infrastructure - housing, commissary, hospital, buildings, etc. OOPS - they spent all their money and still have to build the hangers, fuel farm, runways, tower, all the operational facilities...Congress is compelled to add funding.
The Navy determines that they need X dollars for some program. Well documented, bean counters did a fine job preparing for it. Navy Congressional Team, fully understanding how Congress works, revises the budget request by a factor of 1.5 - 2.0. Congress appropriates 1.25 - 1.75 of what they think it should cost - which is what the Navy decided they needed in the first place. Navy gets project fully funded plus 25-75% more.
Coast Guard figures they need $1.5 Billion for programs and prepares a detailed line item breakdown. Congress, playing Pork Barrel advocates slices, hacks, and otherwise reduces the budget request resulting in a 35-30% budget deficit - no problem; Coast Guard's Can Do attitude says we can do it and more as well = and does. The only problem? Something suffers, usually cutter maintenace, repairs, upgrades. In 1987 I was on VENTUROUS, in San Pedro. The deckies were told to not use the needle guns to take the gunwales/bow down to bare metal - everytime they did they the bare metal looked like swiss cheese...
I really hope that the Coast Guard demands more funding before a major catastrophe, with loss of life occurs.
The CG doesn't need 8 Nat'l Security Cutters. Fact is, it probably doesn't need any. The 350+ foot Offshore Patrol Cutters, providing they are properly designed, should be able to fulfill any of the missions the Coast Guard has today.
Cheaper, with smaller crews, but not really missing any (many?) major features needed to perform the CG's missions.
I don't think we even need something like a 378 anymore. The 378's, as built, were substantially more lethal then we need or have today since the CG has pretty much abandoned anything that resembles a true military role. The spec for the OPC shows a range of 7,500 miles and a top speed of at least 25 knots, all with a crew of maybe 75 people (although I think that is too few). For what the CG does today that should be more than adequate.
Besides, I don't like the way the bow on that ship looks.....
