Spruances

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Procurement: Frankenships Shunned By All: Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Frankenships Shunned By All

October 9, 2006: The U.S. Navy has decommissioned all 31 of its Spruance class destroyers. An interesting sidelight to that is that the U.S. tried to give away some of these ships, and there were no takers. The United States offered some of them, free, in a "hot transfer." That sort of arrangement is a pretty good deal, because the new owner gets a ship that is still in service, in good shape, and has an American crew that can show the foreign sailors just how to operate their new destroyer. With a "cold transfer", you get a ship that has been decommissioned and left in "reserve" somewhere for years. To get one of these ships back in service, millions of dollars must be spent.

Why did no one want a free Spruance? There were several reasons. First of all, the Spruances were expensive to operate, costing the U.S. Navy about $34 million a year each. This compared to $19 million for a Perry class frigate (a smaller warship), $26 million for a Burke class destroyer (the successor to the Spruance) and $35 million for a Ticonderoga class cruiser (a slightly larger ship built on a lengthened Spruance hull). The Spruances were a radical new destroyer design. For one thing, they were huge, some displaced 9,000 tons (three times the size of World War II destroyers), and crew size was about 330. There were some differences among the 31 Spruances put into service between 1975 and 1983, but all were unusual ships, too big to be a traditional destroyer, too small to be a cruiser. The last Spruance was decommissioned in 2005.

The Spruances were so large that, when it was decided to build a new class of cruisers (the Ticonderogas), the Spruance design was simply lengthened and filled out a bit to produce a 10,000 ton ship (only 11 percent larger than the Spruance.) During World War II, cruisers tended to be 2-3 times the size of destroyers, and displace about 10,000 tons. That size had been considered optimal for cruisers for several generations.

There also a number of problems with operating a Spruance. Nothing major, but they all added up. Foreign navies, when looking at a free Spruance, noted all of these things, and turned down the offer. For most navies, the Spruances were simply too big, troublesome and expensive to operate.

There was, however, a variant on the Spruances, the Kidd class, that Taiwan was willing to take. In late 2005, Taiwan took delivery of two of the four Kidd-Class destroyers, and renamed them Keelung and Suao. Displacing 9,700 tons and with a length of 563 feet, these destroyers are armed with two SM2 MR surface-to-air missile launchers, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, ASROC anti-submarine missiles, Mk46 anti-submarine weapons, two 5inch naval guns, two 20mm Phalanx anti-missile guns, and a flight deck for up to two helicopters.

The Kidd class were originally ordered by Iran in the late 1970s. But while still under construction, there was an Iranian revolution, which lead to the new Islamic Republic. That got the orders canceled. The U.S. Navy acquired these ships, leading to their nickname 'the Ayatollah Class'. These destroyers are actually cruisers, in terms of size and weapons and equipment carried. Like the following Ticonderoga Class AEGIS cruisers, the Kidds were built on a modified Spruance hull, and the class was originally designed for the littoral conditions of the Persian Gulf. While the Kidds lack the VLS missile systems of most recently modified Spruance class ships, they were outfitted with better anti-aircraft capabilities. This was what appealed to the Taiwanese, who face Chinese ships and aircraft in the Taiwan Straits.

The average Spruance had two five inch guns, a 61 cell VLS (vertical launch system) for launching Tomahawk and anti-aircraft missiles. There are also eight Harpoon anti-ship missiles, six anti-submarine torpedoes and two 20mm anti-missile gun systems. There are also two anti-submarine helicopters and radar and sonar systems.

The Burke Class, which first entered service in 1991, and is still under construction, has more anti-air capability (because of its Aegis radar system), than the Spruance, and is cheaper and easier to operate, even though it is about the same size in terms of displacement and crew.
 

orko_8

New Member
tatra said:
Well that would be interesting as the Spruances originially didn't have launchers for SM2, that is untill they got Mk41 VLUs installed forward. It would be a rather large pieve of work to remove SM2 launchers from Kidd class, and would leave them with not main armament. In sun, I find those rumors *very* hard to believe.
US offered two Spruance's to Turkey; one grant the other through FMS, if I'm not mistaken. The transfers did not include SM-2's. Since Turkey isn't cleared for SM-2 procurement, if the transfers were approved, they were to be used without SM-2's. Don't ask "how", since it would be weird to fill those giants with bunches of ASROC's, SM-1's or ESSM's.

By the way as far as I know, previous commander of Turkish Navy wanted the transfer, but after the new commander came into charge, it was officially refused.
 

orko_8

New Member
<Now that's strange. I've clicked "quick reply" button (2250 GMT, 10.10.2006) and my post appears in the middle of the thread, just before the later messages???>
 

orko_8

New Member
<mods please delete, there seems to be a problem with either forum database, date/time settings or with my computer, which I find highly unlikely>
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
I feel so old. I remember when the Spruance came out like yesturday, I thought at the time they were grossly underarmed for their size, until the Kidds came along. But then they were supposed to get the 8"/55 caliber MK 71 gun, until the Clinton administration killed the program.

"The 8-inch ANSR, using the 8"/55 MK 71 gun mount, delivers 133 M46s to a maximum range of 100 NM or 247 M46s to 60 NM and also achieves a 16 meter CEP. A 175 pound unitary warhead in a 8-inch ANSR could be fired to 100 NM and strike a point target with a 2 meter CEP if semi-active laser, infra-red, or other terminal guidance features were added."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/MCT.htm
 

Jtimes2

New Member
I had heard two ships were offered to Turkey and one to Pakistan. Does this mean those deals are officially off now?
 
there were rumors that the SM2 MR surface-to-air missile launchers weren't offered with the ships which along with the cost to operate made these ships less attractive.
 

Gollevainen

the corporal
Verified Defense Pro
The Spruance design had it reasons to be so big. One reason was that it was orginally intended to be a "common hull" for both anti-air and ASw escorts. In fact the ships where designed to have Anti-air capability from the outset, tough apart form the Kidd class, none where ever fitted the missiles and radars it needed. But still it was orgianlly toughted and thus the design was large enough to fit the future decisions.

Also the expereice with older fleet ships showed that the rapid speed of new technology being developted usually ment things crewing up and small hulls just couldn't cope with the need for new space. So the new DDGs where designed to be big so that in the future there wouldn't be proplems if some new weapon system was considerably bigger than it's forerunners. The big size didn't bother the seakeeping quality of the ships, quite the opposite the +30 knot carrier escorting almoust requires it.

But all these factors are clearly made by a navy with the benefits of almoust unlimited funds and must be seen in that frame. So I don't wonder why other navies haven't choosen this class, it's simply just too tailored for huge fleet use...
 

contedicavour

New Member
Gollevainen said:
So I don't wonder why other navies haven't choosen this class, it's simply just too tailored for huge fleet use...
Well, several navies used one or 2 big ships as flagships. Pakistan used an ex RN County class destroyer (Babur) for a long while. Peru still has an old ex Dutch cruiser. Until the '60s Turkey still had a couple of cruisers/battleships. So a couple of Spruance would still have fulfilled a ASW/ASUW (+ESSM for short range AAW) role + a flagship role.
Anyway, too late, they're gone :(
 

tatra

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
radiosilence said:
there were rumors that the SM2 MR surface-to-air missile launchers weren't offered with the ships which along with the cost to operate made these ships less attractive.
Well that would be interesting as the Spruances originially didn't have launchers for SM2, that is untill they got Mk41 VLUs installed forward. It would be a rather large pieve of work to remove SM2 launchers from Kidd class, and would leave them with not main armament. In sun, I find those rumors *very* hard to believe.
 
[Admin - Txt deleted. Play nice please]


orko_8 said:
US offered two Spruance's to Turkey; one grant the other through FMS, if I'm not mistaken. The transfers did not include SM-2's. Since Turkey isn't cleared for SM-2 procurement, if the transfers were approved, they were to be used without SM-2's. Don't ask "how", since it would be weird to fill those giants with bunches of ASROC's, SM-1's or ESSM's.

By the way as far as I know, previous commander of Turkish Navy wanted the transfer, but after the new commander came into charge, it was officially refused.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gollevainen

the corporal
Verified Defense Pro
contedicavour said:
Well, several navies used one or 2 big ships as flagships. Pakistan used an ex RN County class destroyer (Babur) for a long while. Peru still has an old ex Dutch cruiser. Until the '60s Turkey still had a couple of cruisers/battleships. So a couple of Spruance would still have fulfilled a ASW/ASUW (+ESSM for short range AAW) role + a flagship role.
Anyway, too late, they're gone :(
well perhaps I should have said, other navyes doesent afford to build such large ships in a class....thougth maintaining big ship is always tasky job and the bigger ship, more crew it needs and that has been major reason for many smaller navyes to whitdrewn cruiser size ships that they migth have floated as their flagships...
 

tatra

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
radiosilence said:
maybe you ^ should stay out of the sun.
Maybe you ^ should not attach so much weight to a typo.

Think about it: "removing SM2 launchers"

The original Spruances had ASROC and Sea Sparrow launchers only, no VLUs and no ability to launch SM1 or SM2. For later Spruance class ships, removal of the MK41 VLU, which in principle could launch SM1 and SM2, would leave the ship with a Mk29 NSSM launcher only (exit Asroc, Tomahawk capability). For Kidd class and early Ticonderoga, which are known SM2 platforms that use the same basic hull, removing SM2 launchers would equal removal of 2 Mk26 launchers. For current Ticonderoga, it would equal removal of Mk41s. In all cases it would leave the ships without their main armament. So it is extrmely unlike that SM2 launchers would be removed (and that's different from making it impossible to fire SM2 from Mk41 onboard Spruance or Tico.)
 

tatra

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
radiosilence said:
i stand by what wrote in my post.
Famous last words...

Spruances don't have Standard missiles (neither SM1 nor SM2). The only systrem which could possibly be used to launch them would be the Mk41 farm forward of the bridge. Removing the SM2 launcher would mean ripping out the Mk41 farm. Kidd's do have SM2 Block IIA, combined with Mk26 launchers. Why anyone would rip those out unless in order to replace with Mk41 is a mystery to me.
 
tatra said:
Think about it: "removing SM2 launchers"

The original Spruances had ASROC and Sea Sparrow launchers only, no VLUs and no ability to launch SM1 or SM2. . So it is extrmely unlike that SM2 launchers would be removed

i never said it was REMOVED. i said there were " rumors that the sm2 wasn't offered". i used "offered" as a general term because the ability to use the sm2 could be disable in the transfer. Also, 24 of these ship were outfitted in 1990s with VLUs which can fire Standard SM-2 surface-to-air missiles.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
They did have Mk 41 VLS, but they didn't have the radars or FCS that you need to control SM-2's.
 

tatra

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
radiosilence said:
there were rumors that the SM2 MR surface-to-air missile launchers weren't offered with the ships which along with the cost to operate made these ships less attractive.
Kidd has Mk26s, Spruance has Mk41. Both launch systems are SM-2 capable.
 
Top