Spruance-class Destroyers

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?

bigstick61 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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.
.....

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

bigstick61 said:

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

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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...