3 ms·
> Would they have removed most of the fuel Low fuel is more dangerous than high fuel. Most Navy fuels will put out low temperature fires on contact - the ignit
by kryogen1c 6y ago
> Would they have removed most of the fuel
Low fuel is more dangerous than high fuel. Most Navy fuels will put out low temperature fires on contact - the ignition hazard is from the fumes. A mostly empty fuel tank full of vapors is easier to catch fire and more explosive when it does.
> I have none of the knowledge and all of the curiosity about at what point is it cheaper to just commission a new one.
it is almost certainly cheaper to decommission if all you consider dollar cost. however, there are concurrent concerns about fleet readiness that may outweigh some dollar differential.
- jki275 6y ago> Low fuel is more dangerous than high fuel. Most Navy fuels will put out low temperature fires on contact - the ignition hazard is from the fumes. A mostly empty fuel tank full of vapors is easier to catch fire and more explosive when it does. -- that's for mogas and such, dfm doesn't really have that problem. Most tanks are kept empty in yard periods.
- rpdillon 6y agoNavy Times says it had about a 1 million gallons on board. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/07/12/amphibious-assault-ship-ablaze-in-port-san-diego/ https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/07/12/amphibio...