A couple of thoughts, if I may. First, I would note that “urgency” in a live fire event (especially with incoming rounds zeroed on your position) is a function of distance from the problem. That is, higher echelon concern about my personal inability to return fire seems to drop off with the square of the distance between me and the FO responsible for the click that should have been a bang. Second is a memory that in the immediate, repeat immediate, after match of the Falklands War, we buddied up to our RN brethren to learn what we could from their experience. How closely is the Potomac Fleet following up with the other navies represented in the Red Sea? I would think that our naval attaches could be doing some very valuable work about now. Just my two cents.
On more then one commentary, the lament has been made that "the US Navy no longer has destroyers tenders". Even when the USN had Submarine Tenders, when did even they train to/ execute missions replenishing subs at sea?.
Often times didn't they sit static in places like Holy Loch with safe harbor, in order to forward replenish so as to keep subs forward in operating patrol areas? Rather then subs return to east coast bases.......
Asking as a 28 year Army guy with a lot of Joint time, who was at Holy Loch as a kid because of my old man. But has had to start getting smart on more navy/ maritime stuff recently.
I had the opportunity to tour the Iver Huidtfelt several years ago when she was visiting Baltimore. She’s a good looking ship. Sad to hear about the combat system issues.
Rather than making success in training too easy, I have seen the opposite problem, making success in training impossible. As Coast Guard Liaison Fleet Training Group San Diego for three years, I saw lots of anti-air exercises using 5"/38s with Mk 56 fire control systems. Almost every AAW exercise was a failure using exercise ammunition. When the last few exercises we used service ammunition it was a very different story. We were taking the target, towed by a Learjet, down in the first couple of rounds. Turned out the batteries in the proximity fuses of the exercise ammunition were all way past their service life. The fuses were just not working. Needless to say, this had a serious impact on confidence in the installed systems.
European naval readiness has always been a problem, going back to the middle-Cold War era of the 1960's, One need only read the late Eric Grove's book "Vanguard to Trident," to see the slippage in Royal Navy readiness over time. After the blip of the Falklands war it again went down in number of ships and their readiness. Sal covered a lot of this with expert Jeremy Stohs: https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/09/european-naval-power-with-jeremy-stohs.html
It takes 4-5 NATO frigates tied up at the pier to make one NATO frigate "ready" for deployment in terms of crew, weapons, ammunition and repair parts.
Re: "There is nothing wrong with getting the most use out of older weapons" - I recall a missile shoot on my frigate where we did some testing, in the course of which we had old SM-1s to get rid of as follow-on missiles. We'd fired the first round and loading the 2nd missile, we fired it to spectacular (so I'm told from the folks on the bridge) results. It left the rail and got about a hundred yards away and then...boom! Lesson to me: old ordnance is untrustworthy.
Now--question: Which of us (US or allied) will lose a ship (or take a big hit) to the pirates first? I think it's inevitable and no way the powers that be are ready for it.
I recall that USN had fuse problems with our trusty 5"/38. Same result: Shells exploded right after leaving the muzzle. Yes, that got your heart rate up. I also recall that it was a manufacturing issue. Low bidder wins again.
It's something that people don't think about. That's why the Army in WWII was still using weapons from WWI and why the Marines didn't have the M1 Garand until the middle of their island hopping.
That's why reserve units still use old equipment and arms. Unless there's a reason to have new and improved, nobody sees the need.
That can go back to armies in the past. The European armies didn't change tactics and weapons until Bonaparte conquered half of Europe. The American military forgot about how to fight insurgents until they were forced to adapt in Vietnam.
The comment from the radar manufacturer floors me: "does not indicate a problem with the APAR radar." I spent some time in IT, and it always amazed me that when two systems had to link up but didn't, each area said their system worked perfectly. If no one takes responsibility for the interface, it won't work.
"You do what you do with the money that you are given." If our navy practiced that principle then not one red penny would be spent on DEI unless ship depot maintenance was fully funded, ships looked in tip-top shape 24-7, ships had enough armaments to perform their mission for more than a couple of days, etc., etc., etc.
Practice, Practice, Practice... of course the old adage that practice makes perfect is not really valid ... perfect practice makes perfect.
Having 76mm shells detonate after leaving the muzzle must be a thrilling sight from the bridge. Especially at night. I hope they got video...
Seriously, that had to be a known fault up and down the CoC
A couple of thoughts, if I may. First, I would note that “urgency” in a live fire event (especially with incoming rounds zeroed on your position) is a function of distance from the problem. That is, higher echelon concern about my personal inability to return fire seems to drop off with the square of the distance between me and the FO responsible for the click that should have been a bang. Second is a memory that in the immediate, repeat immediate, after match of the Falklands War, we buddied up to our RN brethren to learn what we could from their experience. How closely is the Potomac Fleet following up with the other navies represented in the Red Sea? I would think that our naval attaches could be doing some very valuable work about now. Just my two cents.
On more then one commentary, the lament has been made that "the US Navy no longer has destroyers tenders". Even when the USN had Submarine Tenders, when did even they train to/ execute missions replenishing subs at sea?.
Often times didn't they sit static in places like Holy Loch with safe harbor, in order to forward replenish so as to keep subs forward in operating patrol areas? Rather then subs return to east coast bases.......
Asking as a 28 year Army guy with a lot of Joint time, who was at Holy Loch as a kid because of my old man. But has had to start getting smart on more navy/ maritime stuff recently.
FYI... Link isn't working ... http://kanon-en-radar-werkten-niet-goed-020424.html/
I had the opportunity to tour the Iver Huidtfelt several years ago when she was visiting Baltimore. She’s a good looking ship. Sad to hear about the combat system issues.
The Danish don't mess around.
https://cphpost.dk/2024-04-04/news/defence-minister-fires-chief-of-defence/
Danish Defence Minister fires Chief of Defence
Using Google Translate, apparently the Chief failed to send the details up the civilian chain. https://policywatch.dk/nyheder/christiansborg/article16986836.ece
Rather than making success in training too easy, I have seen the opposite problem, making success in training impossible. As Coast Guard Liaison Fleet Training Group San Diego for three years, I saw lots of anti-air exercises using 5"/38s with Mk 56 fire control systems. Almost every AAW exercise was a failure using exercise ammunition. When the last few exercises we used service ammunition it was a very different story. We were taking the target, towed by a Learjet, down in the first couple of rounds. Turned out the batteries in the proximity fuses of the exercise ammunition were all way past their service life. The fuses were just not working. Needless to say, this had a serious impact on confidence in the installed systems.
The Danes have been recycling guns from older ships and ammunition as well.
European naval readiness has always been a problem, going back to the middle-Cold War era of the 1960's, One need only read the late Eric Grove's book "Vanguard to Trident," to see the slippage in Royal Navy readiness over time. After the blip of the Falklands war it again went down in number of ships and their readiness. Sal covered a lot of this with expert Jeremy Stohs: https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/09/european-naval-power-with-jeremy-stohs.html
It takes 4-5 NATO frigates tied up at the pier to make one NATO frigate "ready" for deployment in terms of crew, weapons, ammunition and repair parts.
An anecdote and a question:
Re: "There is nothing wrong with getting the most use out of older weapons" - I recall a missile shoot on my frigate where we did some testing, in the course of which we had old SM-1s to get rid of as follow-on missiles. We'd fired the first round and loading the 2nd missile, we fired it to spectacular (so I'm told from the folks on the bridge) results. It left the rail and got about a hundred yards away and then...boom! Lesson to me: old ordnance is untrustworthy.
Now--question: Which of us (US or allied) will lose a ship (or take a big hit) to the pirates first? I think it's inevitable and no way the powers that be are ready for it.
I recall that USN had fuse problems with our trusty 5"/38. Same result: Shells exploded right after leaving the muzzle. Yes, that got your heart rate up. I also recall that it was a manufacturing issue. Low bidder wins again.
Practice, test, evaluate, practice, test, evaluate...
It's something that people don't think about. That's why the Army in WWII was still using weapons from WWI and why the Marines didn't have the M1 Garand until the middle of their island hopping.
That's why reserve units still use old equipment and arms. Unless there's a reason to have new and improved, nobody sees the need.
That can go back to armies in the past. The European armies didn't change tactics and weapons until Bonaparte conquered half of Europe. The American military forgot about how to fight insurgents until they were forced to adapt in Vietnam.
"...known for years without the necessary sense of urgency to resolve..."
I was hoping sense would kick in before the sense of urgency had to kick in... But alas.
The comment from the radar manufacturer floors me: "does not indicate a problem with the APAR radar." I spent some time in IT, and it always amazed me that when two systems had to link up but didn't, each area said their system worked perfectly. If no one takes responsibility for the interface, it won't work.
"You do what you do with the money that you are given." If our navy practiced that principle then not one red penny would be spent on DEI unless ship depot maintenance was fully funded, ships looked in tip-top shape 24-7, ships had enough armaments to perform their mission for more than a couple of days, etc., etc., etc.