Hatches/watertight doors are marked to indicate when they are allowed to be open, and when they must be closed. In the opening scene, the watertight door is marked in the upper-left corner as "Circle-Zebra". In a nutshell, "X-Ray" means that the hatch or door must be secured at all times. "Yoke" means that it must be secured at all time while underway. "Zebra" is normally set at General Quarters, or when other conditions make it advisable. The "Circle" around the letter designation indicates that it is allowable to open the hatch and pass through it without permission from Damage Control Central, as long as it is shut behind you. If the circle was missing from the door shown in the video, then you would be required to obtain permission to open it if Zebra was set. The "inline eductors" mentioned for AFFF injection were commonly referred to as "Donkey D**ks" due to the small siphon hose which hung down from them which was inserted into the AFFF concentrate canister. These would have been retained even after the installed AFFF stations were added, as they could be installed inline in a hose to provide AFFF foam in locations without an installed AFFF system. In the engineering spaces, especially the boiler rooms, the AFFF system on most ships would have fed a TAS (Twin-agent system) where the AFFF nozzle would be ganged with a PKP (Dry-chem) nozzle for fighting a Bravo fire. The PKP feed side would consist of a large PKP canister and a large compressed nitrogen tank. PKP is more efficient at knocking down a fire chemically, but has no reflash prevention capability (heat, fuel, and oxygen are still present). In practice, you would sweep across the fire with PKP, then come back across with a layer of AFFF which removes heat and isolates the fuel from oxygen. Once this layer is put down, it is vital to not disturb it, as breaking the foam layer can allow a reflash to occur. On the installed Halon system, triggering the system would initiate a timed sequence, starting with strobes and sirens to alert personnel to evacuate the space. Next in sequence would be shutting down of ventilation fans and closing of the supply ducts. Halon release is of a quantity larger than the volume of the space that the system serves. As the halon is released the air is forced out of the space through the still-open ventilation exhaust ducts. At the end of the release, the exhaust ventilation dampers are automatically closed, leaving you with an inert atmosphere. Charlie fires are generally fought with a CO2 extinguisher. CO2 can also be used to rectify a WB event. A WB event (Whiskey-Bravo) a.k.a. Warm Beer Event is called away when the beer that you smuggled on board is warm. Application of a CO2 extinguisher to a warm 6-pack can cool it down quite nicely in a minute or two...or so I have been told by others... :) Books can and have been written on the subject of shipboard firefighting. The above is very basic. There are many overlaps as to which agent is effective on which type of fire. You CAN effectively combat a Bravo fire with plain water, but you have to use a "fog" nozzle rather than solid stream. PKP is effective on Alpha, Bravo, and (if nothing else is available) Charlie fires. CO2 can be used on A/B/C fires, with varying degrees of effectiveness. One major difference in training arose after we almost lost the USS Forrestal due to a flight deck fire in 1967. At the time, there were highly trained firefighting teams which would fight a fire. Mistakes were made which resulted early on in the loss of almost all of the trained firefighters. Since that time, basic firefighting and hose handling training has been provided to all recruits in boot camp, and most ships send new personnel off to firefighting school. Feel free to correct any errors or omissions...I've been a civilian for almost 30 years now.
Forestall fire also had a problem that they were using both foam and non foam hoses. Water hoses were washing away the foam blanket contributing to the spread of the fuel fire. I believe this was pre afff and would have been fffp foam too, which is very susceptible to bring disturbed.
@@fire304 I don't doubt it a bit. A shining example of why post-1967 sailors have all been trained as firefighters to a greater or lesser extent. I was on a Replenishment Oiler (AOR-3), so firefighting training was a BIG thing.
@@kevincrosby1760 I was USMC aviation, we watched the Oryskany and Forestall fire videos from every angle, then watched the Nimitz fire and it was obvious how much better that was handled once everyone was trained.
@@fire304 - it’s been 45 years since I was in the Navy, but one of my most vivid memories of boot camp training still is being assigned to a fire hose handling team, being locked into a simulated at-sea ship board compartment and having the instructors initiate a class B fire with the sealed spaces. We had to advance in the dark and deal with the situation. It was, to say the very least, exciting....
@@parrot849 I went on to be a civilian firefighter after I got out, it was pretty rare that we trained with the same reality as the Navy firefighting school. Of course, there's usually the "it's too dangerous, let it burn" option ashore...
During the Okinawa Campaign, the flagship was the New Mexico. It was struck by two kamikazes. Admiral Spruance could not be located by his staff. They found him amidsip, manning a fire hose.
The video of the Forrestal fire is still used in teaching how to fight fires, especially aboard carriers. It clearly demonstrates what Ryan said about the use of foam and water. A team would go in laying down foam and then someone else would come in with a water hose and wash it away. When I went to firefighting school, we were taught how to put out oil fires using a fire hose with water. As mentioned, we used 5 gallon buckets of solution to apply foam. Sometimes we just didn't have time to lug those things to the fire and all we had was the fire hose. What we learned to do was use high velocity fog, keeping the nozzle pointed somewhat high, to drive the fire, and the oil, back into a corner where it was cooled down below ignition point. As this used fog, it also provided a "shield" of cold water between us and the fire, thus helping to keep us cooler. The Oriskany had a bad fire that was caused by a sailor throwing a lit magnesium flare into a flare locker. (Read about it - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Oriskany_fire). Magnesium burns at about 3000 degrees. This is hot enough that water is separated into hydrogen and oxygen causing an explosion. Later on, we learned how to put one of these out with water. Using a 10' low velocity fog applicator, the applicator is jammed very quickly against the burning end. This puts enough water on the flare to cool it below ignition point. This has to be done very, very quickly in order to prevent an explosion. Also, it has to be fast as the low velocity fog applicator is made of brass and will melt. For safety purposes, we were not allowed to do this ourselves. It was demonstrated and that was the end of that lesson. When I was on a DC team, I was assigned as #1 Nozzleman. That means I was the person who actually fought the fire with a nozzle that I varied from fog to stream. Right behind me was the #2 Nozzleman. His nozzle had a low velocity fog applicator on a 5' pole. He was one step behind me on a level deck of going up/down ladders. This provided a curtain of water to protect us from the heat. Fighting a fire inside a compartment is incredibly hot. The heat radiates off all the steel surfaces. Okay, Ryan. Demonstrate the firefighting nozzles, showing high and low velocity fog. Get a charged fire hose and then have someone with a 2nd fire hose right behind you and try navigating the ladders. Trunks are an entirely different animal. Oh, you need to be wearing an OBA. We didn't have turnouts in those days. We were strictly in dungarees.
Good training film from 1960 on fire fighting. Most of the equipment and tactics would have been used in WW2. Like the Navy nozzle, the fog wand, protein foam eductors, CO2 extinguishers, OBA (Oxygen Breathing Apparatus) and wearing dungarees. th-cam.com/video/QhVC-xvr2Vg/w-d-xo.html
- it’s been 45 years since I was in the Navy, but one of my most vivid memories of boot camp training still is being assigned to a fire hose handling team, being locked into a simulated at-sea ship board compartment and having the instructors initiate a class B fire with the sealed spaces. We had to advance in the dark and deal with the situation. It was, to say the very least, exciting....
I was on board the the Jersey in the late 80s and early 90s. Also happened to be a proud member of the at sea fire party. I was a Hull Technician, GITMO was a blast
Don’t forget that originally they used protein based foam, fog/foam AFFF was after the Forrestal fire. We still had protein based foam on board our LST 72-74.
I’m a young’n, just 41 years old, as it were. As a kid I watched Wings, wanted to go to the Air Force Academy, history nerd, and all that got in the way. Ryan has brought me back into the fold. So entertaining, I have been watching a so many of his videos, it like I was right there with him. Thanks Ryan!
D.C. central. That brings back memories. U.S. Navy 1988-1992. My DC A school was at Treasure Island in San Francisco, so trained in all D.C. equipment.
Dangers from internal ordnance and fuel in US Navy warships was a major design consideration for all of these warships, though in many cases bad accident and excessive damage from enemy attacks showed the need for improvements. For example, the guns used in US Navy warships never used the combination nitrocellulose (smokeless powder developed in the late 1880s and replacing all previous propellants such as black powder/gunpowder and the somewhat improved "brown prismatic" powders) and nitroglycerine (the main component of Dynamite) used in many other nations, particularly in British "Cordite" propellants of various kinds. We adopted the French type "Single Base" nitrocellulose-only propellant (called by the French "Poudre 'B'") because, as the British eventually found out the hard way, Cordite is much more likely to detonate if confined in a magazine and set on fire by an enemy hit or accident. This is not to say that single-base powders are safe when subject to fire, but they are significantly SAFER primarily due to the slower burning rate of the propellant (one of the reasons that the British and most other nations switched to the "double-based" (nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine) propellants, since these latter needed a smaller amount of powder per shot) allowing more time for the use of countermeasures before things went so far as to become uncontrollable -- ARIZONA at Pearl Harbor shows that US propellants, if not subject to quick damage control efforts, can be just as deadly as Cordite can, but ARIZONA occurred when nobody was there to impose immediate damage control, while HMS HOOD blew up from a magazine explosion while fully set-up for damage control in an actual battle where such damage was expected). USS BOISE, a light cruiser, in WWII had a direct hit by a Japanese 8" cruiser AP shell into one of its forward magazines, which blew up there and caused a huge fire that eventually destroyed the entire front end of the US cruiser, BUT BOISE DID NOT BLOW UP, while later evaluation by the US Navy ordnance experts stated that if the ship had been using British Cordite, the BOISE would have blown up just like HOOD did. Thus, the US was quite willing to put up with larger propellant charges and the accompanying extra work in handling the propellants for its guns to keep its ships safer. Only France, of all other nations, to my Knowledge, did this (German propellants used less nitroglycerine than British Cordite and were thus somewhat safer than Cordite, but the US Navy did not do things halfway when it came to known dangers and preventing them from happening). During WWII, US ships survived damage that would have eliminated most foreign warships.
I was a Damage Controlman in the Navy. I served on USS Peleliu LHA-5 2008-2012. I was on the Flying squad and my GQ station was in Repair 3, I was a hose team leader in that repair locker. We had our fair share of casualties (accidents). The two worst was fire in our aft machinery space, a sailor split lube oil on a hot steam pipe and it flashed into a fire, thankfully rapid response and investigators were able to put the fire out. The other casualty was a toxic gas leak for backed up CHT pipe in the female berthing. The female sailors would flush their feminine products down the head and it would get clogged in the pipes that lead to forward CHT (CHT is the ships waste holding tanks and pipes). This one was the scariest due the fact you couldn't see the toxic gas, but if someone wasn't on air in the part of the ship where this leak was they could become starved for oxygen and receive permanent brain damage, or even die.
My Grandfather was one of the officers that ran the damage control training during WWII at Puget Sound Naval base,he was also an FDNY officer ,Naval reserve,and they trained men to also suppress and extinguish Class B flammable liquid fires with water using fog.I believe mostly low velocity,high pressure fog.
I was never in the military but i have been a volunteer firefighters for a few years and this was so cool to see. it'gives a good perspective for the difference environment (meaning compared to normal structure fire where the most advanced i worked with was a stand by hose)
I am a United States Navy Damage Controlman, You mentioning the forest all fire brings back the memories seeing that fire video while in boot camp. It nearly turned me away from becoming a US Navy damage controlman. I was trained on all aspects of damage control. One aspect you did not mention in this video is the fact that damage control now while modernized has one component that was added beyond the survivability of the ship and that was chemical warfare biological warfare and radiological warfare. All damage controlmen are trained in those three One thing you spoke of Mr szymanski is the two types of firefighting foam. One is correct is called a triple F however the other type of foam was a protein-based foam. That I did never see however older sellers told me that it was actually edible gross at the most. I love your videos, I was wondering the lucky sailors who got to see her while underway from the deck of a nuclear aircraft carrier. While seeing her underway I had chills up and down my spine. Thank you for a wonderful videos and sharing the heritage of not only the USS New Jersey but my navy. Thank you again
USS Constellation (CV-64) major fire in #1 Main Machinery Room became a 24-hour ordeal on Aug 2-3, 1988. I was ship's company on the bridge wrapping up the Sea and Anchor Detail as we turned West to open water passing Point Loma. The HALON system extinguished the fire initially, but unbeknown to the Damage Control Party JP-5 jet fuel still poured onto a hot boiler. The fire reflashed upon re-entry to MMR1. Eventually the fire spread into adjacent spaces. Too many details to cover in a comment. By the Grace of God all the casualties survived and Connie sailed on her WestPac deployment on time.
Id love to hear the process of fighting the ship. Picking which ship to fire at, finding an initial fire solution, watching splashes, adjusting, maneuvering if you are getting hit, etc
These videos are really awesome your presentation has got alot better too. Its great your doing these videos to promote your ship. I wish more museums made content like this to promote themselves. We have a tank museum in the UK that does similar content.
There are more modern fire suppression systems on board. Some of this works through the old pipes, some through new pipes. There is also an entirely new electrical system associated with the alarms.
Does BB NJ have sufficient shore supplied water for fire fighting? Do you have any sort of stand pipe connection for shore based fire department connection? Do you have a supply of the adaptors needed to allow shore based fire equipment to easily connect to ship board equipment? I ask these questions after viewing a video about the Bonhomme Richard disaster. Thanks!
Brings back good and bad memories, lol. I spent a lot of time doing main space fire drills in Repair 5 on the USS Cleveland LPD-7, back in the early 1990's. Hot as hell on an old 600lb steam ship while in the Persian Gulf. So glad that we never had to put that training to use for a real fire.
I was told by a Marine buddy that all infantryman are trained in damage control of both not spilling alcohol while falling, but most importantly maintaining the structural integrity of their crayon boxes, of course this training included not opening the box upside down, and only eating them in counts of 1-3 to prevent choking while maneuvering through obstacle courses, riding in vehicles, helicopter crashes, providing bases of fire, etc. With no ships there is no navy, with no crayons there are no Marines! 😉👍
That's a colab that absolutely needs to be done. The Chieftain would let Ryan fire a Sherman's 75mm and Ryan would return the favor with the Chieftain firing one of New Jersey's 16".
Uscg trading in shipboard firefighting and p250 pump!!! A rover for checking spaces to make sure the fire didn’t spread from the compartment it started in!!! Ran the P250 pump used for firefighting and dewatering during fires!! I had to fuel it and troubleshoot it during operations in case something happened to the pump while fighting fires the pump didn’t stop for anything unless the fire was put out on your vessel or another vessel!!!
Carriers have had large fires after the Vietnam war. _USS Kitty Hawk_ had a major fire in the #2 aircraft elevator machinery room in 1999, burned out the entire space and deadlined the elevator for months. I was ship's company for that, first and only unscheduled GQ I ever heard called away. _USS George Washington_ had a fire in 2009 that caused a delay of the relief of the Kitty Hawk from 5th Fleet forward deployed duties. A large qty of reefer oil stored in unauthorized spaces caught fire and burned out several spaces, and damage many Reactor divisional offices in 2nd Deck.
Does the Navy deal with class D fires ie combustible metals? I n our civilian fire department, we received some surplus items such as Rockwood nozzles with applicator wands like those I saw in the background during your video. We also used surplus low expansion protein based foam liquid that we called "blood and guts", as it was made from the byproduct form the meat packing industry. This stuff came in red 5 gallon metal cans which were prone to rusting through and this stuff had quite an aroma.
Delta fires (D) were metals like Magnesium. Water , AFFF, or PKP will not put out a Delta fire. Those metals were mostly used on air craft. So the Navy policy was to ditch it overboard.
@@ironhand453 Realistically that was about all you could do though 'the book' said you could smother Delta fires with something inert like sand (Yeah, lots of THAT aboard ship / sarc) though AFFF or low velocity fog *might* be used to cool the burning material and protect the structure or equipment around it until it burned itself out.
The USS Bonhomme Richard beside not having a lot of her crew aboard also, from what I hear, had some of her fire fighting equipment "tagged out" or disconnected.
Ryan, have you ever read CS Forrester’s “the ship”? There is a great chapter where the chap who works down in the shaft alley is almost drowned by all the water used for fire fighting. Could you perhaps speak to any incidents where crew were lost as a result of measures taken to save a ship/the majority?
Tov: There were quite a number of men who were trapped in compartments who could not be saved. Some doors could not be opened to reach them due to the danger of spreading fires or flooding.
I believe the Kirov class Russian Battle Cruiser comes close to being heavily armored. The Iowas were partly reactivated to counter the Kirovs. Also to help Reagan reach the 600 ship Navy...
Well even the last "Battlecruiser" isn't that armored. Its thickest armor is around the reactor and is more shielding than anything else, granted the Kirov is a funny oil and nuclear fired ship that run both of them to achieve its fastest speed.
TP: Well, the battleships were not really activated to counter the Kirovs. I never read or heard that discussed. The USN doesn't operate on a ship vs. ship concept. The battleships missions were Naval Gunfire Support ashore, and cruise missile attack. They operated as part of a battle group. Nothing in that group mission says they were to attack Kirovs. IN REALITY: the BB's were reactivated as a strategic move to pressure the Soviet Union. There was no realistic chance they were going to be permanent parts of the active fleet and there was no plan to design and build replacement BB's. THAT was their REAL MISSION. (usnr-ret 78-2005)
@@jtough7499 The USN doesn't build ships for 'prestige". More a matter of practicality "What in the heck do we do with a one-trick-pony BB?". A: use the acreage to install the large TASM missiles. Again, the BB reactivation was primarily a strategic move. b.
If you want to see the actual flight deck film footage of the USS Forrestal, there is a movie called "Trial By Fire" which will show you exactly what Ryan is talking about.
When first reporting aboard my ship (after “cranking”), I was assigned as a plugman. Hated the shit out of being on the fire party. Once getting all of my quals completed, I moved to roving guard…much better. Has Ryan talked about shipboard qualifications and ESWS yet?
They are flushed to remove sea growth, i.e. barnacles, algae, krill, etc. When the ship is operating (nearly all times except during major overhauls) the fire mains are always filled and pressurized with sea water because it provide fire fighting water as well as toilet flushing and some other utility water.
@@KB4QAA Those watching will note the hydrant station in the first part of the video on the left side with the hose attached. The hose is attached to a strainer device which is designed to allow water to pass but not debris that might clog up a fog nozzle. The round handle at the top controls the flow of water from the firemain into the strainer and hose. The large lever attached to the left lower part of the assembly is the flush valve. When opened, the flush valve provides a direct exit onto the floor for whatever is sitting in the strainer. But as you said, that had nothing to do with salt water and everything to do with debris.
OHP and Cole had AWESOME Damage Control. What about the Belknap fire after the flight deck of the JFK hit the superstructure and fuel ended up causing a fire that BURNED DOWN the Belknap aluminum superstructure....
FYI halon would have been the first choice for an engine room fire. Water is very destructive, salt water m more so, afff even more so. Cold water in the boiler room would result in a steam explosion of incredible force. It's possible to activate the halon system, get the fire out, and repair the issue in hours, not so much for afff.
@@BattleshipNewJersey Halon was much less of a threat than the fire itself. The problem with halon came after the fire, in entering a space where it had been used but not correctly ventilated. Alternately the worse case was if there was an undetected leak in the halon system. By the 80's the dangers were well understood and firefighters knew how to deal with it. Halon is not as scary as the current "mythos" makes it out to be. On the flip side it is almost magical how good it works. I was a firefighter during the phase out and frankly we still don't have a good replacement for it. Frankly CO2 systems are more dangerous to the crew and no where near as effective.
I (Libby, our editor) have been in a space that's been unexpectedly halon-ed before and yeah, it works but it does make even evacuating that space extremely difficult.
@@BattleshipNewJersey it's been a long time since I've worked with it (I've been a firefighter and a merchant marine engineer who's helped design an engine room including the fire protection system) but if I recall, you only need like 3% halon to extinguish a fire (I want to say design is 5% flood), which leaves enough oxygen that it's safe for life for a little while. CO2 on the other hand needs like 50% atmosphere because it has to lower the O2 level enough to extinguish the fire (halon chemically blocks fire, it doesn't smoother it). If you were in the space during activation of the system you have time (provided the products if combustion like carbon monoxide don't get you first). CO2 on the other hand was an immediate threat because there was not enough oxygen left. After the halon settled then you had to be careful because it would collect in low spaces being denser than air. That's a real problem with ships, places like the catacombs and the knife pit would be death traps if not vented and tested correctly, but still having your ship on fire is a bigger issue... All that said, non firefighting personnel would hear stories and be unduly scared of the system "you have three seconds to get out of your dead..." "Hold you breath while escaping..." Etc
My experience with it was less, I can't breathe, though that did play into it, but more like my lungs were on fire breathing it in. It just hurts and trying to climb a ladder like that is just really tough.
@@haljames624 Anything self-oxidizing, really. Flares, rocket fuels, torpedo fuels, fancy munitions, etc. The point is that you cannot extinguish a class D fire with any normal methods.
Cover with magnesium oxide sand. Jettison overboard. Attempt to cool with water or foam and pray if nothing else is available...you might be able to at least contain it. Hope for big chunks rather than powder or shavings. Deal with the fact that your Delta fire may be in the middle of an Alpha/Bravo fire.
A damage control video and you didn’t mention the Iowa turret explosion or the USS Cole bombing . 2 incidents where damage control actions by the crews saved the ships and potentially many lives
After seeing the Bonhomme Richard disaster, I wondered if you keep a fire watch 24/7 on the New Jersey, or are fire alarms externally monitored? Are the fire fighting systems (hoses etc) in working order in case of fire?
I would guess there is an active fire alarm system through most of the ship, and it likely has automatic sprinkler systems, probably flooded pipe systems, with sprinkler heads in all locations to provide local fire suppression, and then the manual methods with dry pipes and the AFFF system to provide the backup control, though probably the AFFF system has a lot of valves that allow direction of the foam to critical areas without any human intervention, opening them to spray from a nozzle up high to cover the areas the alarms are active. Probably has shore power driving the pumps, with a backup generator that is there for emergency use, though hopefully there are 2 generators, so that there will be water in case one of them catches fire.
There is a roving watch called sounding and security and they walk around the ship checking different spaces. There is fixed fire systems, but that ship was getting a major overhaul and I would guess a lot of the systems were tagged out. They might have had there fire pumps tagged out and fire mains drained. Some of those shipyard workers are great and some make you wonder how they got the job.
@@KB4QAA They do but ships still have sailors assigned to the ship manning watches. I know because I was on a ship USS Peleliu LHA 5 that went through these maintenance periods and overhauls. I was the team leader for the hose team of my duty section in port. When went through these maintenance periods it was even more important to stand a proper watch, due to many systems being tagged out. If anything was out of order the ships fire marshal made sure it was taken care of.
That is a factual term used in the Navy "screaming alpha" class of fire. I first heard this in boot camp and later throughout my enlistment. This highlights the importance of damage control and training. Yikes!
Here is my question: Should the Type 42 class HMS Sheffield have been saved or was the design defects too serious to expect the ship to be saved. The Inquiry documents do NOT illuminate.
CC: There were no 'design defects" on the HMS Sheffield or her class. The captain made the correct decision to abandon ship due to damage, uncontrolled fires and flooding. No admiralty board has contradicted his decision.
@@BattleshipNewJersey I just watched that one, Libby did an excellent job explaining it all. I'm a former destroyerman, my wife was Navy also even though she never served at sea. She was sitting with me when I played it. "Oh, that's what those numbers mean."
@@T_Hoog You might also flood a magazine if there is a fire in an adjacent compartment and the temperature in the magazine rises to a dangerous level and might cause the ordinance to detonate spontaneously, which would probably be a bad thing. ;-) My GQ station in USS Caron (DD 970) was DC Central. Even though I was in Operations Department I was required to learn all this stuff and qualify up through Repair Locker Leader. Our Captain was big on damage control training, especially after the USS Stark and later the USS Samuel B Roberts incidents.
I hope you guys are getting a LOT of money from all the ads youtube shows. It seems like 10 minutes of video, then an ad. I'll put up with the ads, if they are going to a good cause. If not, get google to send you more of the ad money.
Can't help but notice, your fire fighting equipment was pinned as "For display purposes only, not in service" is that the case for ALL fire fighting equipment? Or does the museum actually have fire fighting equipment available, in manned spaces?
We follow the instructions of our local fire regulations and have sprinklers, fire extinguishers, and other equipment throughout the ship. However, thats not as much as the original layout so we have supplemented that with "display only" items
Subs catch on fire at 600 feet below the waves. With watertight compartments some spaces will not flood for a long time, even if the ship is on the bottom. Bidders problem with your plan is that unless you can control the list you can capsize the ship.
@@deltasource56 not practical, 1200 sailors in scuba tanks, ships aren’t really designed to have people with tanks on their backs, passageways are too crowded and knee knockers and hatches are major pinch points. Damage control teams have enough problems and they practice getting around with their air tanks and gear.
Hatches/watertight doors are marked to indicate when they are allowed to be open, and when they must be closed. In the opening scene, the watertight door is marked in the upper-left corner as "Circle-Zebra". In a nutshell, "X-Ray" means that the hatch or door must be secured at all times. "Yoke" means that it must be secured at all time while underway. "Zebra" is normally set at General Quarters, or when other conditions make it advisable. The "Circle" around the letter designation indicates that it is allowable to open the hatch and pass through it without permission from Damage Control Central, as long as it is shut behind you. If the circle was missing from the door shown in the video, then you would be required to obtain permission to open it if Zebra was set.
The "inline eductors" mentioned for AFFF injection were commonly referred to as "Donkey D**ks" due to the small siphon hose which hung down from them which was inserted into the AFFF concentrate canister. These would have been retained even after the installed AFFF stations were added, as they could be installed inline in a hose to provide AFFF foam in locations without an installed AFFF system.
In the engineering spaces, especially the boiler rooms, the AFFF system on most ships would have fed a TAS (Twin-agent system) where the AFFF nozzle would be ganged with a PKP (Dry-chem) nozzle for fighting a Bravo fire. The PKP feed side would consist of a large PKP canister and a large compressed nitrogen tank. PKP is more efficient at knocking down a fire chemically, but has no reflash prevention capability (heat, fuel, and oxygen are still present). In practice, you would sweep across the fire with PKP, then come back across with a layer of AFFF which removes heat and isolates the fuel from oxygen. Once this layer is put down, it is vital to not disturb it, as breaking the foam layer can allow a reflash to occur.
On the installed Halon system, triggering the system would initiate a timed sequence, starting with strobes and sirens to alert personnel to evacuate the space. Next in sequence would be shutting down of ventilation fans and closing of the supply ducts. Halon release is of a quantity larger than the volume of the space that the system serves. As the halon is released the air is forced out of the space through the still-open ventilation exhaust ducts. At the end of the release, the exhaust ventilation dampers are automatically closed, leaving you with an inert atmosphere.
Charlie fires are generally fought with a CO2 extinguisher. CO2 can also be used to rectify a WB event. A WB event (Whiskey-Bravo) a.k.a. Warm Beer Event is called away when the beer that you smuggled on board is warm. Application of a CO2 extinguisher to a warm 6-pack can cool it down quite nicely in a minute or two...or so I have been told by others... :)
Books can and have been written on the subject of shipboard firefighting. The above is very basic. There are many overlaps as to which agent is effective on which type of fire. You CAN effectively combat a Bravo fire with plain water, but you have to use a "fog" nozzle rather than solid stream. PKP is effective on Alpha, Bravo, and (if nothing else is available) Charlie fires. CO2 can be used on A/B/C fires, with varying degrees of effectiveness.
One major difference in training arose after we almost lost the USS Forrestal due to a flight deck fire in 1967. At the time, there were highly trained firefighting teams which would fight a fire. Mistakes were made which resulted early on in the loss of almost all of the trained firefighters. Since that time, basic firefighting and hose handling training has been provided to all recruits in boot camp, and most ships send new personnel off to firefighting school.
Feel free to correct any errors or omissions...I've been a civilian for almost 30 years now.
Forestall fire also had a problem that they were using both foam and non foam hoses. Water hoses were washing away the foam blanket contributing to the spread of the fuel fire. I believe this was pre afff and would have been fffp foam too, which is very susceptible to bring disturbed.
@@fire304 I don't doubt it a bit. A shining example of why post-1967 sailors have all been trained as firefighters to a greater or lesser extent. I was on a Replenishment Oiler (AOR-3), so firefighting training was a BIG thing.
@@kevincrosby1760 I was USMC aviation, we watched the Oryskany and Forestall fire videos from every angle, then watched the Nimitz fire and it was obvious how much better that was handled once everyone was trained.
@@fire304 - it’s been 45 years since I was in the Navy, but one of my most vivid memories of boot camp training still is being assigned to a fire hose handling team, being locked into a simulated at-sea ship board compartment and having the instructors initiate a class B fire with the sealed spaces.
We had to advance in the dark and deal with the situation. It was, to say the very least, exciting....
@@parrot849 I went on to be a civilian firefighter after I got out, it was pretty rare that we trained with the same reality as the Navy firefighting school. Of course, there's usually the "it's too dangerous, let it burn" option ashore...
During the Okinawa Campaign, the flagship was the New Mexico. It was struck by two kamikazes. Admiral Spruance could not be located by his staff. They found him amidsip, manning a fire hose.
That's a man you can follow into hell with pride!
Everybody on board is a firefighter..👍🏻
Leadership from the front....
Actually irresponsible. He should have been up top doing his job, leading the ship.
@@freedfree7933 No. The captain is in charge of the ship, not the admiral.
The video of the Forrestal fire is still used in teaching how to fight fires, especially aboard carriers. It clearly demonstrates what Ryan said about the use of foam and water. A team would go in laying down foam and then someone else would come in with a water hose and wash it away.
When I went to firefighting school, we were taught how to put out oil fires using a fire hose with water. As mentioned, we used 5 gallon buckets of solution to apply foam. Sometimes we just didn't have time to lug those things to the fire and all we had was the fire hose. What we learned to do was use high velocity fog, keeping the nozzle pointed somewhat high, to drive the fire, and the oil, back into a corner where it was cooled down below ignition point. As this used fog, it also provided a "shield" of cold water between us and the fire, thus helping to keep us cooler.
The Oriskany had a bad fire that was caused by a sailor throwing a lit magnesium flare into a flare locker. (Read about it - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Oriskany_fire). Magnesium burns at about 3000 degrees. This is hot enough that water is separated into hydrogen and oxygen causing an explosion. Later on, we learned how to put one of these out with water. Using a 10' low velocity fog applicator, the applicator is jammed very quickly against the burning end. This puts enough water on the flare to cool it below ignition point. This has to be done very, very quickly in order to prevent an explosion. Also, it has to be fast as the low velocity fog applicator is made of brass and will melt. For safety purposes, we were not allowed to do this ourselves. It was demonstrated and that was the end of that lesson.
When I was on a DC team, I was assigned as #1 Nozzleman. That means I was the person who actually fought the fire with a nozzle that I varied from fog to stream. Right behind me was the #2 Nozzleman. His nozzle had a low velocity fog applicator on a 5' pole. He was one step behind me on a level deck of going up/down ladders. This provided a curtain of water to protect us from the heat. Fighting a fire inside a compartment is incredibly hot. The heat radiates off all the steel surfaces.
Okay, Ryan. Demonstrate the firefighting nozzles, showing high and low velocity fog. Get a charged fire hose and then have someone with a 2nd fire hose right behind you and try navigating the ladders. Trunks are an entirely different animal. Oh, you need to be wearing an OBA. We didn't have turnouts in those days. We were strictly in dungarees.
Good training film from 1960 on fire fighting. Most of the equipment and tactics would have been used in WW2. Like the Navy nozzle, the fog wand, protein foam eductors, CO2 extinguishers, OBA (Oxygen Breathing Apparatus) and wearing dungarees. th-cam.com/video/QhVC-xvr2Vg/w-d-xo.html
I love this hustle for your ship. I have read that New Jersey was a happy ship and it seems that that has stayed the case.
- it’s been 45 years since I was in the Navy, but one of my most vivid memories of boot camp training still is being assigned to a fire hose handling team, being locked into a simulated at-sea ship board compartment and having the instructors initiate a class B fire with the sealed spaces.
We had to advance in the dark and deal with the situation. It was, to say the very least, exciting....
I was on board the the Jersey in the late 80s and early 90s. Also happened to be a proud member of the at sea fire party. I was a Hull Technician, GITMO was a blast
"Screaming Alpha."
Never heard it described that way. Can't unforget it now.
Me either (26 years navy). I have no idea where that comes from.
@@KB4QAAIt's called dark humor.
@@haywoodyoudome very dark. I've never had a shipboard fire scenario that required putting fires out on men. shrug.
@@KB4QAA Technically not dark while still burning.....
@@haywoodyoudome There really is no humor there. Sick.
Don’t forget that originally they used protein based foam, fog/foam AFFF was after the Forrestal fire. We still had protein based foam on board our LST 72-74.
I’m a young’n, just 41 years old, as it were. As a kid I watched Wings, wanted to go to the Air Force Academy, history nerd, and all that got in the way. Ryan has brought me back into the fold. So entertaining, I have been watching a
so many of his videos, it like I was right there with him. Thanks Ryan!
D.C. central. That brings back memories. U.S. Navy 1988-1992. My DC A school was at Treasure Island in San Francisco, so trained in all D.C. equipment.
Dangers from internal ordnance and fuel in US Navy warships was a major design consideration for all of these warships, though in many cases bad accident and excessive damage from enemy attacks showed the need for improvements. For example, the guns used in US Navy warships never used the combination nitrocellulose (smokeless powder developed in the late 1880s and replacing all previous propellants such as black powder/gunpowder and the somewhat improved "brown prismatic" powders) and nitroglycerine (the main component of Dynamite) used in many other nations, particularly in British "Cordite" propellants of various kinds. We adopted the French type "Single Base" nitrocellulose-only propellant (called by the French "Poudre 'B'") because, as the British eventually found out the hard way, Cordite is much more likely to detonate if confined in a magazine and set on fire by an enemy hit or accident. This is not to say that single-base powders are safe when subject to fire, but they are significantly SAFER primarily due to the slower burning rate of the propellant (one of the reasons that the British and most other nations switched to the "double-based" (nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine) propellants, since these latter needed a smaller amount of powder per shot) allowing more time for the use of countermeasures before things went so far as to become uncontrollable -- ARIZONA at Pearl Harbor shows that US propellants, if not subject to quick damage control efforts, can be just as deadly as Cordite can, but ARIZONA occurred when nobody was there to impose immediate damage control, while HMS HOOD blew up from a magazine explosion while fully set-up for damage control in an actual battle where such damage was expected). USS BOISE, a light cruiser, in WWII had a direct hit by a Japanese 8" cruiser AP shell into one of its forward magazines, which blew up there and caused a huge fire that eventually destroyed the entire front end of the US cruiser, BUT BOISE DID NOT BLOW UP, while later evaluation by the US Navy ordnance experts stated that if the ship had been using British Cordite, the BOISE would have blown up just like HOOD did. Thus, the US was quite willing to put up with larger propellant charges and the accompanying extra work in handling the propellants for its guns to keep its ships safer. Only France, of all other nations, to my Knowledge, did this (German propellants used less nitroglycerine than British Cordite and were thus somewhat safer than Cordite, but the US Navy did not do things halfway when it came to known dangers and preventing them from happening). During WWII, US ships survived damage that would have eliminated most foreign warships.
I was a Damage Controlman in the Navy. I served on USS Peleliu LHA-5 2008-2012. I was on the Flying squad and my GQ station was in Repair 3, I was a hose team leader in that repair locker. We had our fair share of casualties (accidents). The two worst was fire in our aft machinery space, a sailor split lube oil on a hot steam pipe and it flashed into a fire, thankfully rapid response and investigators were able to put the fire out. The other casualty was a toxic gas leak for backed up CHT pipe in the female berthing. The female sailors would flush their feminine products down the head and it would get clogged in the pipes that lead to forward CHT (CHT is the ships waste holding tanks and pipes). This one was the scariest due the fact you couldn't see the toxic gas, but if someone wasn't on air in the part of the ship where this leak was they could become starved for oxygen and receive permanent brain damage, or even die.
I bet the female Personnel onboard that ship got a severe talkin to buy the captain
Oh joys of damage control
I taught damage control and firefighting in the Coast Guard. I was attached to two different Afloat Training Group commands. Retired as a CWO4.
My Grandfather was one of the officers that ran the damage control training during WWII at Puget Sound Naval base,he was also an FDNY officer ,Naval reserve,and they trained men to also suppress and extinguish Class B flammable liquid fires with water using fog.I believe mostly low velocity,high pressure fog.
I was never in the military but i have been a volunteer firefighters for a few years and this was so cool to see. it'gives a good perspective for the difference environment (meaning compared to normal structure fire where the most advanced i worked with was a stand by hose)
I am a United States Navy Damage Controlman, You mentioning the forest all fire brings back the memories seeing that fire video while in boot camp. It nearly turned me away from becoming a US Navy damage controlman. I was trained on all aspects of damage control. One aspect you did not mention in this video is the fact that damage control now while modernized has one component that was added beyond the survivability of the ship and that was chemical warfare biological warfare and radiological warfare. All damage controlmen are trained in those three One thing you spoke of Mr szymanski is the two types of firefighting foam. One is correct is called a triple F however the other type of foam was a protein-based foam. That I did never see however older sellers told me that it was actually edible gross at the most. I love your videos, I was wondering the lucky sailors who got to see her while underway from the deck of a nuclear aircraft carrier. While seeing her underway I had chills up and down my spine. Thank you for a wonderful videos and sharing the heritage of not only the USS New Jersey but my navy. Thank you again
USS Constellation (CV-64) major fire in #1 Main Machinery Room became a 24-hour ordeal on Aug 2-3, 1988. I was ship's company on the bridge wrapping up the Sea and Anchor Detail as we turned West to open water passing Point Loma. The HALON system extinguished the fire initially, but unbeknown to the Damage Control Party JP-5 jet fuel still poured onto a hot boiler. The fire reflashed upon re-entry to MMR1. Eventually the fire spread into adjacent spaces. Too many details to cover in a comment. By the Grace of
God all the casualties survived and Connie sailed on her WestPac deployment on time.
Id love to hear the process of fighting the ship. Picking which ship to fire at, finding an initial fire solution, watching splashes, adjusting, maneuvering if you are getting hit, etc
These videos are really awesome your presentation has got alot better too. Its great your doing these videos to promote your ship. I wish more museums made content like this to promote themselves. We have a tank museum in the UK that does similar content.
So being that she's a museum ship now,do her fire fighting systems still function to some extent should she have a fire on board?
There are more modern fire suppression systems on board. Some of this works through the old pipes, some through new pipes. There is also an entirely new electrical system associated with the alarms.
Does BB NJ have sufficient shore supplied water for fire fighting? Do you have any sort of stand pipe connection for shore based fire department connection? Do you have a supply of the adaptors needed to allow shore based fire equipment to easily connect to ship board equipment? I ask these questions after viewing a video about the Bonhomme Richard disaster. Thanks!
Great videos! Thank you!!!
Brings back good and bad memories, lol. I spent a lot of time doing main space fire drills in Repair 5 on the USS Cleveland LPD-7, back in the early 1990's. Hot as hell on an old 600lb steam ship while in the Persian Gulf. So glad that we never had to put that training to use for a real fire.
I was told by a Marine buddy that all infantryman are trained in damage control of both not spilling alcohol while falling, but most importantly maintaining the structural integrity of their crayon boxes, of course this training included not opening the box upside down, and only eating them in counts of 1-3 to prevent choking while maneuvering through obstacle courses, riding in vehicles, helicopter crashes, providing bases of fire, etc. With no ships there is no navy, with no crayons there are no Marines! 😉👍
alternate title: "Oh Bugger, The Ship Is On Fire"
Ahhh a fellow man of culture I see
That's a colab that absolutely needs to be done. The Chieftain would let Ryan fire a Sherman's 75mm and Ryan would return the favor with the Chieftain firing one of New Jersey's 16".
Uscg trading in shipboard firefighting and p250 pump!!! A rover for checking spaces to make sure the fire didn’t spread from the compartment it started in!!! Ran the P250 pump used for firefighting and dewatering during fires!! I had to fuel it and troubleshoot it during operations in case something happened to the pump while fighting fires the pump didn’t stop for anything unless the fire was put out on your vessel or another vessel!!!
Carriers have had large fires after the Vietnam war. _USS Kitty Hawk_ had a major fire in the #2 aircraft elevator machinery room in 1999, burned out the entire space and deadlined the elevator for months. I was ship's company for that, first and only unscheduled GQ I ever heard called away. _USS George Washington_ had a fire in 2009 that caused a delay of the relief of the Kitty Hawk from 5th Fleet forward deployed duties. A large qty of reefer oil stored in unauthorized spaces caught fire and burned out several spaces, and damage many Reactor divisional offices in 2nd Deck.
Does the Navy deal with class D fires ie combustible metals? I
n our civilian fire department, we received some surplus items such as Rockwood nozzles with applicator wands like those I saw in the background during your video.
We also used surplus low expansion protein based foam liquid that we called "blood and guts", as it was made from the byproduct form the meat packing industry. This stuff came in red 5 gallon metal cans which were prone to rusting through and this stuff had quite an aroma.
Delta fires (D) were metals like Magnesium. Water , AFFF, or PKP will not put out a Delta fire. Those metals were mostly used on air craft. So the Navy policy was to ditch it overboard.
@@ironhand453 Realistically that was about all you could do though 'the book' said you could smother Delta fires with something inert like sand (Yeah, lots of THAT aboard ship / sarc) though AFFF or low velocity fog *might* be used to cool the burning material and protect the structure or equipment around it until it burned itself out.
Can I ask in what decade you were using protein foam?
We still had the protein foam in our department up until the early 80's
@@robertf3479 Yeah, bone dry sand!
The USS Bonhomme Richard beside not having a lot of her crew aboard also, from what I hear, had some of her fire fighting equipment "tagged out" or disconnected.
which is normal during a major yard period.
There were also a lot of cables and hoses going through open hatches that prevented them from being closed.
so today I came across an article about the fire on the USS Bonhomme Richard , and it reminded me of this video
I think you forgot class Delta fires, which are self-oxidizing, such as gunpowder
My uncle was a Marine on the Forrestal when that Zuni rocket started the fire
Ugh, fire drills. Good times!
Ryan, have you ever read CS Forrester’s “the ship”? There is a great chapter where the chap who works down in the shaft alley is almost drowned by all the water used for fire fighting. Could you perhaps speak to any incidents where crew were lost as a result of measures taken to save a ship/the majority?
Tov: There were quite a number of men who were trapped in compartments who could not be saved. Some doors could not be opened to reach them due to the danger of spreading fires or flooding.
as i recall the navy made all sailors firemen onboard after ENTERPRISE disaster they almost lost her due to those lost damage control teams.
Love it
Good stuff
I believe the Kirov class Russian Battle Cruiser comes close to being heavily armored. The Iowas were partly reactivated to counter the Kirovs. Also to help Reagan reach the 600 ship Navy...
Well even the last "Battlecruiser" isn't that armored.
Its thickest armor is around the reactor and is more shielding than anything else, granted the Kirov is a funny oil and nuclear fired ship that run both of them to achieve its fastest speed.
TP: Well, the battleships were not really activated to counter the Kirovs. I never read or heard that discussed. The USN doesn't operate on a ship vs. ship concept. The battleships missions were Naval Gunfire Support ashore, and cruise missile attack. They operated as part of a battle group. Nothing in that group mission says they were to attack Kirovs. IN REALITY: the BB's were reactivated as a strategic move to pressure the Soviet Union. There was no realistic chance they were going to be permanent parts of the active fleet and there was no plan to design and build replacement BB's. THAT was their REAL MISSION. (usnr-ret 78-2005)
@@KB4QAA i believe they were more a, "I have a big stick, too!" sort of thing not necessarily a ship vs ship thing. Prestige I guess.
@@jtough7499 The USN doesn't build ships for 'prestige". More a matter of practicality "What in the heck do we do with a one-trick-pony BB?". A: use the acreage to install the large TASM missiles. Again, the BB reactivation was primarily a strategic move. b.
Ol Johnny wet start.
On the Forrestal, the liquid oxygen plant storage tank, holding 2,000 gallons, was very nearly compromised by shrapnel.
I hope they design next-generation battleship icebreakers.. that would be epic, it would look cool and it would serve practical uses
Has anybody asked for a video on the machine shop? Fixing stuff underway...
On the list!
If you want to see the actual flight deck film footage of the USS Forrestal, there is a movie called "Trial By Fire" which will show you exactly what Ryan is talking about.
When first reporting aboard my ship (after “cranking”), I was assigned as a plugman. Hated the shit out of being on the fire party. Once getting all of my quals completed, I moved to roving guard…much better. Has Ryan talked about shipboard qualifications and ESWS yet?
5 years in the Army and I find ships fascinating, maybe I joined the wrong service.
You can always switch after you have completed your service contract.
Yep. Nothing better than being a sailor.
I've nothing against the Army. My best friend in high school was killed in 'Nam on 13 Apr 69.
Did they ever flush the non-potable water lines, such as pipes running to fire hoses, to prevent the salt water from really destroying the pipes?
They are flushed to remove sea growth, i.e. barnacles, algae, krill, etc. When the ship is operating (nearly all times except during major overhauls) the fire mains are always filled and pressurized with sea water because it provide fire fighting water as well as toilet flushing and some other utility water.
@@KB4QAA Those watching will note the hydrant station in the first part of the video on the left side with the hose attached. The hose is attached to a strainer device which is designed to allow water to pass but not debris that might clog up a fog nozzle. The round handle at the top controls the flow of water from the firemain into the strainer and hose. The large lever attached to the left lower part of the assembly is the flush valve. When opened, the flush valve provides a direct exit onto the floor for whatever is sitting in the strainer. But as you said, that had nothing to do with salt water and everything to do with debris.
@@rs232killer Excellent description! Ahoy! :)
im just wondering were is damage control central on the general plans of the uss new jersey thankyou for the vedio @Battleship New Jersey
Its on third deck, just aft of Turret 2
@@BattleshipNewJersey thankyou sir and thankyou for the vedios i cant wait to visit the uss new jersey
OHP and Cole had AWESOME Damage Control. What about the Belknap fire after the flight deck of the JFK hit the superstructure and fuel ended up causing a fire that BURNED DOWN the Belknap aluminum superstructure....
FYI halon would have been the first choice for an engine room fire. Water is very destructive, salt water m more so, afff even more so. Cold water in the boiler room would result in a steam explosion of incredible force. It's possible to activate the halon system, get the fire out, and repair the issue in hours, not so much for afff.
But halon is likely to kill your crew, so it depends on the fire.
@@BattleshipNewJersey Halon was much less of a threat than the fire itself. The problem with halon came after the fire, in entering a space where it had been used but not correctly ventilated. Alternately the worse case was if there was an undetected leak in the halon system. By the 80's the dangers were well understood and firefighters knew how to deal with it. Halon is not as scary as the current "mythos" makes it out to be. On the flip side it is almost magical how good it works. I was a firefighter during the phase out and frankly we still don't have a good replacement for it. Frankly CO2 systems are more dangerous to the crew and no where near as effective.
I (Libby, our editor) have been in a space that's been unexpectedly halon-ed before and yeah, it works but it does make even evacuating that space extremely difficult.
@@BattleshipNewJersey it's been a long time since I've worked with it (I've been a firefighter and a merchant marine engineer who's helped design an engine room including the fire protection system) but if I recall, you only need like 3% halon to extinguish a fire (I want to say design is 5% flood), which leaves enough oxygen that it's safe for life for a little while. CO2 on the other hand needs like 50% atmosphere because it has to lower the O2 level enough to extinguish the fire (halon chemically blocks fire, it doesn't smoother it). If you were in the space during activation of the system you have time (provided the products if combustion like carbon monoxide don't get you first). CO2 on the other hand was an immediate threat because there was not enough oxygen left. After the halon settled then you had to be careful because it would collect in low spaces being denser than air. That's a real problem with ships, places like the catacombs and the knife pit would be death traps if not vented and tested correctly, but still having your ship on fire is a bigger issue...
All that said, non firefighting personnel would hear stories and be unduly scared of the system "you have three seconds to get out of your dead..." "Hold you breath while escaping..." Etc
My experience with it was less, I can't breathe, though that did play into it, but more like my lungs were on fire breathing it in. It just hurts and trying to climb a ladder like that is just really tough.
Alpha Bravo Charlie and Delta
How about the Iowa turret explosion and resultant fire?
Btw, love your show and subscribed. Thank you for your work
Welcome aboard! Heres a whole video on the Iowa disaster: th-cam.com/video/8D6v48cXvRo/w-d-xo.html
Perhaps I haven't run across the episode yet, but what about berthing? How and where did the various crew members sleep?
Our virtual tour shows you that pretty well: th-cam.com/video/kDOFBGIf6Uo/w-d-xo.html
Not gonna talk about class D fires?
When the hull starts burnin it may be a good moment to consider abandoning ship.
your right , a magnesium , or a lithiun , metal x
@@haljames624 Anything self-oxidizing, really. Flares, rocket fuels, torpedo fuels, fancy munitions, etc. The point is that you cannot extinguish a class D fire with any normal methods.
Cover with magnesium oxide sand. Jettison overboard. Attempt to cool with water or foam and pray if nothing else is available...you might be able to at least contain it. Hope for big chunks rather than powder or shavings. Deal with the fact that your Delta fire may be in the middle of an Alpha/Bravo fire.
Why not a K type fire then?😏
A damage control video and you didn’t mention the Iowa turret explosion or the USS Cole bombing . 2 incidents where damage control actions by the crews saved the ships and potentially many lives
After seeing the Bonhomme Richard disaster, I wondered if you keep a fire watch 24/7 on the New Jersey, or are fire alarms externally monitored? Are the fire fighting systems (hoses etc) in working order in case of fire?
I would guess there is an active fire alarm system through most of the ship, and it likely has automatic sprinkler systems, probably flooded pipe systems, with sprinkler heads in all locations to provide local fire suppression, and then the manual methods with dry pipes and the AFFF system to provide the backup control, though probably the AFFF system has a lot of valves that allow direction of the foam to critical areas without any human intervention, opening them to spray from a nozzle up high to cover the areas the alarms are active. Probably has shore power driving the pumps, with a backup generator that is there for emergency use, though hopefully there are 2 generators, so that there will be water in case one of them catches fire.
There is a roving watch called sounding and security and they walk around the ship checking different spaces. There is fixed fire systems, but that ship was getting a major overhaul and I would guess a lot of the systems were tagged out. They might have had there fire pumps tagged out and fire mains drained. Some of those shipyard workers are great and some make you wonder how they got the job.
@@Tustyshellback2010 Typically in the yard, and especially in dry dock, a ship relies on the yard fire department for major firefighting.
@@KB4QAA They do but ships still have sailors assigned to the ship manning watches. I know because I was on a ship USS Peleliu LHA 5 that went through these maintenance periods and overhauls. I was the team leader for the hose team of my duty section in port. When went through these maintenance periods it was even more important to stand a proper watch, due to many systems being tagged out. If anything was out of order the ships fire marshal made sure it was taken care of.
@@Tustyshellback2010 Me too. I've been through yard-hell. ;)
That is a factual term used in the Navy "screaming alpha" class of fire. I first heard this in boot camp and later throughout my enlistment. This highlights the importance of damage control and training. Yikes!
Here is my question: Should the Type 42 class HMS Sheffield have been saved or was the design defects too serious to expect the ship to be saved. The Inquiry documents do NOT illuminate.
CC: There were no 'design defects" on the HMS Sheffield or her class. The captain made the correct decision to abandon ship due to damage, uncontrolled fires and flooding. No admiralty board has contradicted his decision.
Maybe you could cover the yellow sign to your right on the bulkhead. What the letters/numbers mean.
We got you! Check this out: th-cam.com/video/R5XraTB3aZ8/w-d-xo.html
@@BattleshipNewJersey I just watched that one, Libby did an excellent job explaining it all. I'm a former destroyerman, my wife was Navy also even though she never served at sea. She was sitting with me when I played it. "Oh, that's what those numbers mean."
Aw, thanks!
What about Iowa? Its battery blew up.
Ok, there is FLOODING in a magazine, so the damage control officer FLOODS the magazine???? Sounds counter-productive.
@@T_Hoog That is very probably what happened, yes. That is why I commented on it ;-)
@@T_Hoog You might also flood a magazine if there is a fire in an adjacent compartment and the temperature in the magazine rises to a dangerous level and might cause the ordinance to detonate spontaneously, which would probably be a bad thing. ;-)
My GQ station in USS Caron (DD 970) was DC Central. Even though I was in Operations Department I was required to learn all this stuff and qualify up through Repair Locker Leader. Our Captain was big on damage control training, especially after the USS Stark and later the USS Samuel B Roberts incidents.
Screaming alpha. That's a new one to me.
I hope you guys are getting a LOT of money from all the ads youtube shows. It seems like 10 minutes of video, then an ad. I'll put up with the ads, if they are going to a good cause. If not, get google to send you more of the ad money.
The ad revenue really does help, its making a solid contribution towards continuing the channel. Thanks for putting up with it.
Excuse me, 3:54 and TWO ads. Google owes you a lot!
3-4 minutes of video, then 2 ads. I hope you get a good chunk of that.
@@BattleshipNewJersey If it helps, I'll consider the time for a good cause. Thanks for letting me know.
Can't help but notice, your fire fighting equipment was pinned as "For display purposes only, not in service"
is that the case for ALL fire fighting equipment? Or does the museum actually have fire fighting equipment available, in manned spaces?
We follow the instructions of our local fire regulations and have sprinklers, fire extinguishers, and other equipment throughout the ship. However, thats not as much as the original layout so we have supplemented that with "display only" items
@@BattleshipNewJersey :) thank-you for replying to my question. I was wondering about that :)
Thank-you and Happy New Year.
Ware a lav mic to hear you better
He's covered why sound quality isn't the best; but if you have productive and financial ideas they'd love to hear
simple you open all the doors and flood it and then you control for flooding :P
Ship can't be on fire when it's completely underwater! Why hasn't anyone else thought of this advantage?
Subs catch on fire at 600 feet below the waves. With watertight compartments some spaces will not flood for a long time, even if the ship is on the bottom. Bidders problem with your plan is that unless you can control the list you can capsize the ship.
@@davemartinlabs simple have the crew wear scuba gear and flood the whole sub simple ... :P
@@deltasource56 not practical, 1200 sailors in scuba tanks, ships aren’t really designed to have people with tanks on their backs, passageways are too crowded and knee knockers and hatches are major pinch points. Damage control teams have enough problems and they practice getting around with their air tanks and gear.
Most ships now a days are actually designed to keep afloat when flooded to a certain extent
A-ash
B-boils
C-chars electrical
D-destruction phosphorus metals and hazardous materials