Spruance-class Destroyers

[bigstick61]

As most of you are well aware, the US Navy has prematurely decommissioned this class and has disposed of most of them via sinking or scrapping. I personally think this was a very bad move for the Navy, considering that they are excellent ASW vessels, rated by some as the world's best, and were modern and had quite a bit of service life left, some over 15 years left. These ships are also capable ASuW platforms. What do you guys think about this? Do any of you feel that the Burkes can match or exceed the Spruance's ASW and ASuW capabilities, or are they not up to the task? Should the Navy focus on having one multi-role platform, or platforms which are somewhat dedicated to certain tasks?

Currently, this is the roster of remaining Spruances:

USS Paul F. Foster (EDD-964) Active, in Service

Arthur W. Radford (DD-968) Maintenance Category X, to be sunk

Conolly (DD-979) Maintenance Category X

Cushing (DD-985) Maintenance Category C, to be sold

O'Bannon (DD-987) Maintenance Category C, to be sold

Fletcher (DD-992) Maintenance Category X, to be sold


Another area of interest are the three ships which are planned to be sold. Who do you all think potential customers might be? Could they be going to the Republic of China?

[Jeff Head]

As most of you are well aware, the US Navy has prematurely decommissioned this class and has disposed of most of them via sinking or scrapping. I personally think this was a very bad move for the Navy, considering that they are excellent ASW vessels, rated by some as the world's best, and were modern and had quite a bit of service life left, some over 15 years left. These ships are also capable ASuW platforms. What do you guys think about this? Do any of you feel that the Burkes can match or exceed the Spruance's ASW and ASuW capabilities, or are they not up to the task? Should the Navy focus on having one multi-role platform, or platforms which are somewhat dedicated to certain tasks?

Currently, this is the roster of remaining Spruances:

USS Paul F. Foster (EDD-964) Active, in Service

Arthur W. Radford (DD-968) Maintenance Category X, to be sunk

Conolly (DD-979) Maintenance Category X

Cushing (DD-985) Maintenance Category C, to be sold

O'Bannon (DD-987) Maintenance Category C, to be sold

Fletcher (DD-992) Maintenance Category X, to be sold


Another area of interest are the three ships which are planned to be sold. Who do you all think potential customers might be? Could they be going to the Republic of China?We've had a lot of discussion about this on other threads, including a number of pictures of these very capable vessels being sunk.

It was premature. These vessels were amongst the quietest vessels in the US inventory and they were undoubteldy the best ASW platforms the US Navy had.

Certainly the ROC may be considered a customer, but with the purchase of the four KIDD class, I doubt it now. Turkey I know has expressed some interest and we might see South American nations show interest.

These vessels, at the very least, should have been put into mothballs and become part of the US strategic reserve in case of major difficulties.

I know this, if there ever were major hostilities with any large nation or group of nations, the US would miss these vessels sorely...especially since the ability to build new ones quickly is currently severelly curtailed.

[bd popeye]

My son was assigned to the USS Paul F Foster DD-964 for three years. March '00 'til March '03. The ship is not in active service as an actual combatant but as a test ship. There are no active duty USN personell aboard.

Foster was decommissioned on March 27, 2003. In 2004, Foster was designated to replace ex-Decatur (DDG-31) as the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship, a role she assumed in 2005. In support of this new role, she is assigned to Naval Surface Warfare Center Port Hueneme Division.


The Spruance class was retired way to early. About 10-15 years of service life left. What a shame. However it was a cost cutting move necissated by the ever increasing cost of upkeep & modernazation on the beloved "Spru-cans"


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-963.htm

As of early 2002 the Navy had decided to decommission the 19 remaining Spruance-class destroyers by fiscal year 2006. The USS David R. Ray was decommissioned in February 2002 in Everett, Wash. The DD 963 Class is expensive to maintain because of its large crew size and age and provides only marginal warfighting capability due to the ship's older and more focused mission combat system.These ships had an earlier modernization with the introduction of the Vertical Launch System (VLS), which extended the combat system relevant life beyond the historical 20 years. However, while the ships still provide some warfighting capability with two 5' 54" guns and an Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) suite, the higher manning requirements and operational costs do not justify additional funds for further modification or extended service life. New DDG 51 Class ships being introduced to the fleet provide substantially more capability and an ample number of VLS tubes to support current Tomahawk inventory. It is not cost effective to keep the DD 963 Class in the inventory. The currently structured decommissioning schedule will save the Navy about $1.25 billion over the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) that can be applied to transformational efforts such as electric drive, advanced networks and stealth technology which will bring new warfighting capabilities to the fleet.
.....

While we can romanticise abot the Spruance class...Personally I feel the DDG-51 class is probaly the most capable surface combatant in the world.

[szbd]

I don't understand why USN didn't scrap those older ships in reserve and put Spruance to replace them.

[crazyinsane105]

Well, the US did offer the Spruance to Pakistan, but Pakistan it seems isn't interested in the large ship.

[szbd]

US offered Spruance to Pakistan????? China should have pay for the ships for Pakistanis and get those US sonar suites. But I don't quite believe this.

[bigstick61]

These vessels, at the very least, should have been put into mothballs and become part of the US strategic reserve in case of major difficulties.

At the least. They scrapped almost eberything else in the reserve fleet around the same time. At least the prior round of cuts entailed mothballing deommissioned ships. They don't even bother with that anymore. The only other destroyers still in storage are 4 Forrest Shermans and a Charles F. Adams. Everything else was disposed of.

As for the Navy's reasoning, I'm not sure I buy it. Alot of the Navy's decisions over the last five years don't seem to make much sense. The ships were still very capable, especially in the ASW role, and we were spead out thin enough for escorts. It was once a requirement that there would be enough escorts to provide full escort complements to support all carrier groups, all amphibious groups, and a few convoys at the same time, and for a while, battleship groups as well.

As for the Burkes, are they really as capable or moreso in the ASW role than the Spruances? In ASuW, I think the Spruances were more capable. All had 8 Harpoons (Burkes have them too, but Flight IIAs do not), 2 5" guns (as opposed to one), and could use their octuple SAM launcher in a direct-fire mode against surface ships (Burkes don't have such a capability). They all also carried two helos (only Burke Flight IIAs have them), which could be used to fire lighter ordnance, such as Penguins, at surface ships. They were also faster and more maneuverable, which is important in that role.

It is in ASW that I'm not sure how he Burkes compare to the Spruances. The Spruances were more capable than Flight I and II Burkes in my opinion, because they carried helos, which gave them an important capability. I'm not sure what the VLASROC armament is on those Burkes compared to the Spruances. As for the Flight IIAs, they do have helos, and they may well be as capable as the Spruances in this area. I'm also not sure what if any system differences there are between the classes in the ASW area.

In AAW and long-range strikes against land targets, the Burkes are clearly superior, as they can cary more Tomahawks, and they carry far more and better SAMs, and are equipped with the AEGIS system. No surprise there, as they are designed for such a role, being DDGs rather than DDs.

[Tasman]

These vessels, at the very least, should have been put into mothballs and become part of the US strategic reserve in case of major difficulties.



I agree that they should have been mothballed and kept for any future emergencies. I know that they are manpower intensive and cost a lot to keep operational but the USN has always had (up until now) a tradition of maintaining a sizeable reserve fleet and this has proven valuable in the past. The Spruances are very powerful ships, particularly in the ASW and land attack roles, both areas where the navy may well need reinforcement during a major conflict.

Cheers

[Scratch]

... and could use their octuple SAM launcher in a direct-fire mode against surface ships (Burkes don't have such a capability).

I thought they can use the SM-2 against ships and also that it had already been done...? Or can specifficly the Burkes not do it while Spurances and Ticos could/can??

In ASuW, I think the Spruances were more capable. All had 8 Harpoons (Burkes have them too, but Flight IIAs do not)
If you just put (at least) one flight I/II and one or more flight IIA into a group, the problem seems solved to me. Well, and the 5" guns, don't just know what difference one or two would make.

It is in ASW that I'm not sure how he Burkes compare to the Spruances.
I read -I think on globalsecurity- that flight IIA burkes do normally not deploy with towed array sonars.
I think the burkes and Spruances carry the same sonar suite AN/SSQ-89 that incooperates: AN/SQS-53C Hull Mounted Sonar, AN/SQR-19 Towed Array Sonar, AN/SQQ-28 LAMPS MK III Sonobuoy Processing System, ASWCS MK116 MOD 7 Anti-Submarine Warfare Control System.
I think the Spruances advantage in ASW was it's quietness. I seem to remember reading the Spruances engines were isolated against the hull or something like that, making it really quiet. Not sure about the Burkes.

In the end I think the that loss of numbers has a greater impact than the loss of actual capabilities.

[bd popeye]

I think the Spruances advantage in ASW was it's quietness. I seem to remember reading the Spruances engines were isolated against the hull or something like that, making it really quiet. Not sure about the Burkes.


I've read this type statement many times. I'm think the level of noise from both ships is very similar.

Why?

On board a USN CV one of the ships duties is to refuel it's escorts from time to time. I've observed many refuelings of Spruance class and a few of Arliegh Burke. After the replenishment is finished and the ship pulls away you can hear the engines "Turn up"(accelrate) And my best recollection is those enginese sound the same.

If I remember the next time I talk to my son I will ask him which ship is better for ASW...

[bigstick61]

I thought they can use the SM-2 against ships and also that it had already been done...? Or can specifficly the Burkes not do it while Spurances and Ticos could/can??

You can't fire a weapon in a direct-fire ashion from a VLS. The missile would have to be an actual anti-ship missile. The Mk 29 launcher and the Mk 26 on Ticos or the Mk 13 formerly on OHPs allows one to point and shoot at enemy warships, while a VLS does not. They have been used in such a manner in combat by US forcers, with more shots being fired that way against ships than Harpoons, along with more hits being achieved. An example of this is Operation Praying Mantis in the Gulf between the US and Iranian Navies; a surface action group fired a couple of Harpoons and several Standard missiles from above-deck launchers, and then closed in and finished off the target with guns.

[Tasman]

You can't fire a weapon in a direct-fire ashion from a VLS. The missile would have to be an actual anti-ship missile. The Mk 29 launcher and the Mk 26 on Ticos or the Mk 13 formerly on OHPs allows one to point and shoot at enemy warships, while a VLS does not.

Interesting information that I didn't know. I presume that will also apply to the ESSM which has just been tested against a surface target fired from the MK 29 MOD 4, eight-cell trainable launcher on board the former Spruance class destroyer USS Paul F. Foster (DD 964) now being used as a self defence test ship.

http://www.betanews.com/newswire/pr/US_Navy_and_Raytheon_Demonstrate_SurfacetoSurface_ Evolved_SeaSparrow_Missile_AtSea_Firing/64708

Cheers

[crazyinsane105]

US offered Spruance to Pakistan????? China should have pay for the ships for Pakistanis and get those US sonar suites. But I don't quite believe this.

These ships were offered a while back, somewhere around last summer. Pakistan would have gotten the actual ship for free and would have had to pay for the upgrades. Had the PN gone for the Spruance that ship would be the largest ship in tonnage operating on the Indian subcontinent (besides the Indian aircraft carrier) and had the potential in becoming a very formidable air defense platform, but PN decided against it for several reasons:

1. This would have required a rather large crew to operate
2. The PN doesn't have proper air cover and the Spruance would be a sitting duck
3. Logistics

[Jeff Head]

Currently, this is the roster of remaining Spruances:

USS Paul F. Foster (EDD-964) Active, in Service

Arthur W. Radford (DD-968) Maintenance Category X, to be sunk

Conolly (DD-979) Maintenance Category X

Cushing (DD-985) Maintenance Category C, to be sold

O'Bannon (DD-987) Maintenance Category C, to be sold

Fletcher (DD-992) Maintenance Category X, to be sold

I think we have to add DD-971, David R. Ray to this list. Maintenance Category C, as well. It was to be sold to Portugal in 2006, but they pulled out. As we have discussed on other threads, it is still sitting in Bremerton.

I think the Radford, the Conolloy, the Cushing, the O'Bannon, the Fletcher, and the Paul should all be placed in the reserve fleet and kept in a state of readiness in case of need.

[Pointblank]

I think we have to add DD-971, David R. Ray to this list. Maintenance Category C, as well. It was to be sold to Portugal in 2006, but they pulled out. As we have discussed on other threads, it is still sitting in Bremerton.

I think the Radford, the Conolloy, the Cushing, the O'Bannon, the Fletcher, and the Paul should all be placed in the reserve fleet and kept in a state of readiness in case of need.

Or be sold to Canada to replace the Tribal destroyers as they are now well past their best before dates... :rofl: ;)

[bigstick61]

At least two are being sold, with the most likely customer being the ROC.

[Jeff Head]

At least two are being sold, with the most likely customer being the ROC.They would be a good buy for the ROCN...but they would need four IMHO in order to be able to have a couple available for sea duty at all times...but I personally would rather see four stay in reserve in the USN.

[bigstick61]

So would I, I'm just commenting on the planned disposition of a couple of the vessels. To my knowledge, only two are planned to be retained.

[Jeff Head]

So would I, I'm just commenting on the planned disposition of a couple of the vessels. To my knowledge, only two are planned to be retained.Well, one remains active as a test bed and the USN must be planning on keeping at least one in support of that. I cannot see why, with six available, that the US does not keep four altogether. But then, by the same token, as we have discussed, I cannot see why the USN didn't keep 12 or 18 either. It just does not make any sense, we certainly had the hulls and they were in good shape.

If their thinking is that there is no possibility of future nations or pacts of nations threatening the US, then all I have to say is two things. Number one, at a prior point in history they fought a "war to end all wars" and were victorious and then disarmed significantly with this same thought...that didn't work out too well back then.

The second thing I would say is more to the point..these policy makers and think tankers should simply "wake up and smell the roses"...or, even more simply put..."Nuts!"

Anyhow, back to the potential sale. If I were the ROCN, I would not buy just two...that would mean effectively you only have one avaialble at any given time. But perhaps they feel that that is good enough for their needs. I guess we shall see.

[bigstick61]

If their thinking is that there is no possibility of future nations or pacts of nations threatening the US, then all I have to say is two things. Number one, at a prior point in history they fought a "war to end all wars" and were victorious and then disarmed significantly with this same thought...that didn't work out too well back then.

That really is how the defense officials (most of them, including the ones that count) think these days. They do not see any one really challenging the US for a very long time at sea in any meaningful way, and have become overly enamored with our state of technology and are thus overconfident in its capabilities. They seem to also think that the USn will only fight small, mostly obsolete navies, pirates, and terrorists at sea, and otherwise just show presence or support operations ashore, mainly those in support of the war on terror. For this, should there presumption be true, there would be little justification for a sizeable navy. But, for the reasons you mentioned and others, this is not the case. There are three major or rising powers with large and expanding navies which could potentially challenge us in the future, despite our trade relations, and it is very possible that if they were to challenge us, it would be together as allies. These countries are Russia, China, and India, which on most or all fronts are opposed to the US, and for which the chances of future conflict are considerable. A conflict with them would likely bring us into conflict with many smaller navies as well, and our presence would have to be global. Our current and projected forces are not up to the task of fighting such a large conflict, or even one a bit smaller.

As for the sale, the two are the only ones being offered up. One is to be retained in mothballs indefinitely, and another is to continue its service as the self-defense test ship. The rest are planned to be sunk, although I think one or two may not have had their method of disposal determined, although they are planned to be disposed of. Personally, I think we should maintain the ones remaining in reserve, all of them.

[Clouded Leopard]

At least two are being sold, with the most likely customer being the ROC.


Um, Taiwan is currently not seeking any Spruances from America (although they did buy 4 Kidds, which are based off of the Spruance design.)

I wouldn't be surprised if Taiwan did, though, especially in light of the fact that the island's aging Knox-class ASW frigates are retiring. Only issue that comes to mind is manpower and operating problems.

[bigstick61]

The age of th Knox-class vessels are why the US Navy is offering the vessels to them.

[Clouded Leopard]

I think the Spruances were known as "Greyhounds" due to their hard work and frame wear and tear. I don't know how long they can last.



In the future, Taiwan may seek to get the ASW module of Littoral Combat Ship; LCS sounds very suitable for Taiwan's needs.

[Tasman]

Um, Taiwan is currently not seeking any Spruances from America (although they did buy 4 Kidds, which are based off of the Spruance design.)

I wouldn't be surprised if Taiwan did, though, especially in light of the fact that the island's aging Knox-class ASW frigates are retiring. Only issue that comes to mind is manpower and operating problems.

The commonality with the Kidds would, IMO, make the Spruances an excellent complement to them. I think it would greatly simplify operational, training and maintenance issues for the ROCN. I acknowledge, however, that the age of the vessels may be a concern for Taiwan.

Like Jeff and bigstick61, however, I think it is a real pity that these vessels are not kept by the USN. I believe they should be maintained in at least Category B reserve.

Cheers

[joshuatree]

They should have handed them over to the USCG instead of the USCG wasting all that money on some new boats with major issues. The money wasted could have been used to convert these destroyers for coast guard duties.

[Clouded Leopard]

Can the Coast Guard operate such giant ships?

[joshuatree]

Can the Coast Guard operate such giant ships?

Why not? If you convert all the extra space into storage, you've effectively also increased the ship's endurance at sea. Maybe even better quarters for CG crews.

[Jeff Head]

Can the Coast Guard operate such giant ships?Well, the High Endurance Cutters the USCG has now are not really small ships. 3,500+ tons. Twelve were built and then went through an upgrade and FRAM in the late 80s and early 90s.

http://www.uscg.mil/History/webcutters/Cutter_5HECs_Color.jpg

The new National Security Cutters are even bigger at about 4,500 tons...but still much smaller than the Spruances The first NSC has been launched and the second is well under construction.

http://www.uscg.mil/DEEPwater/gallery/wmsl750/NSC021207.jpg

[joshuatree]

Yep but the program is in a quagmire with govt investigation now. With all that money wasted, wondered what wonders the money would have done for some Spruances to live a second lift as a cutter.

[Jeff Head]

Yep but the program is in a quagmire with govt investigation now. With all that money wasted, wondered what wonders the money would have done for some Spruances to live a second lift as a cutter.DDX, LCS, now the NSC...all languishing because of overspending, waste, mismanagement, etc.

Sounds like they have some MAJOR program management difficulties going on in the naval services to me. Problems like these just do not "creep" up on a good program manamgement team. They will identify and address such issues well in advance of the major fohpahs going on with these programs...not to mention the major waste.

[bigstick61]

Just look at the ERGM. It was not supposed to cost alot and work wonders. It was also supposed to be operational by about 2003. It's 2007, no ERGM, and over 5 billion dollars in costs, and the thing doesn't work well, and last I heard it got cancelled in favor of the Alliant Techsystems projectile, which has better features, works fairly decently, costs less, is more versatile, and has had almost all the R&D paid for by the company, and works in the 5"/54 guns rather than requiring a longer weapon. That's very typical about how things are, and the current defense policy makes it even worse for the fleet. It really upsets me.