Talk:Spruance-class destroyer

Armament
All ships of this class are equipped with 2 x triple 12.75 inch torpedo tubes (Mk46 torpedoes). Some ships are equipped with 21 cell RAM launchers. I scanned a number of the ships in the class, and almost all are missing these details. --Durin 21:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've updated Spruance to have a better format for armament, and added the Mk41 and 12.75in torp tubes to her weapons. Unless others disagree, I think this format is far easier to understand than current format for armament used throughout the rest of the class. I'll begin changing them over soon. --Durin 04:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The bulleted list takes up a lot of the horizontal space. How about either [3] or [4] below:


 * Thanks for creating the different versions! Great way of focusing debate.
 * The bulleted list does not take up any more horizontal space than [3] or [4]. It does take up a bit more vertical space than [3], but it is more readable than [3]. I think we can agree that [1] is bad. [4] is really little different than [2]. If I only had [2] and [4] to choose from, I'd choose [2] in a hearbeat. [2] vs. [3] is a bit more difficult of a call, but I'd still take [2] for readability.
 * In reviewing other ships (OHPs, DDG51s, etc.) there are similar problems scattered about. Whatever we decide here, we should propagate at least through the USN vessels. Bleah. Big retrofit. Time to RCOH our USN Wikipedia articles? ha! :)
 * It'd be nice if others beside us were chiming in on this debate. I know there are others working/watching USN articles, but it seems of late you and I are the most active.
 * I've begun modifying the ships in the class per design [2] below, and adding in your Radar/Sonar/EQ equipment (with modifications as appropriate per ship). --Durin 03:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also massaged the other characteristics. And this link block is useful; change "963" to the ship's number.
 * Nice to see the radar/sonar/EW outfits. I'd like to see it added, but we need to be careful; there are some differences across ships in the class. For example, ELINT systems and V2/V3 SLQ-32. I don't think there's any differentiation in radars, but I seem to recall some (all?) of these ships being fitted for towed array only to have it removed and put in storage (which of course made sense given the state of the CCCP navy after the end of the Cold War). If we can get some agreement on format, we can push forward on this class and retrofit our decisions here onto other major classes. If you're willing to do so, I'm willing to help. --Durin 04:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Combat History
Wasn't the ship hit by an Iraqi exocet (erroneously) in the mid-1980s a Spruance class? If so, there should be a note of this in the article. It showed that the US navy had not paid sufficient attention to the lessons learnt by the Royal Navy in the Falklands War, despite the apparent superiority of the Spruance class to the Royal Navy type 42. Hence again during Gulf War I it was the British ship HMS Gloucester which saved the giant USS Missouri from a hit by an Iraqi silkworm missile. JRJW April '06
 * You're thinking of the USS Stark (FFG-31) which was hit by two Exocet missiles, and not only survived but made it to Bahrain under her own power. I'd be careful about making apples and oranges comparisons to HMS Sheffield (D80) which was hit by one Exocet. The situations were considerably different, and the ships were considerably different (even if near in size). Note that a Spruance class destroyer is approximately twice the size of a Type 42 and none were ever hit by an Exocet. --Durin 21:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Success or Failure?
I thought I had read someplace or other that this class was to reduce the "platform" costs. The blocky modular design was supposed to allow generous room for retrofits and upgrades. Seems to me they are retired a bit early, and this idea did not pan out.

Also any reason why so many were sunk rather than mothballed or scrapped? Bit shocking really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldercarb (talk • contribs) 17:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I note this is TOTALLY unsigned. Ok - the later addition of Mk 41 VLS and Tomahawk was only possible due to that. In one sense not taken advantage of. There are the 4 Kidd Class DDGs- exact same design - just weapons change outs and electronics adds. The Ticonderoga Class Cruiser are essentially the same design only. - Next sunk vs mothball / scrap. Ok - All Sinkings are deep water and via weapons tests - got some good data on weapons effects. Was there at that time a big "backlog" for scrapping? Why were they NOT sold to foreign countries. -seperate item - large size/ appearant limited armament - One person told me that was declared evaulated before hand as the mininal size necessary for 2 helicopter (and evaluated for LAMP-III before operational). Side Note compare to Leahy or Belknap "cruisers' - not much off from them in size. Wfoj3 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Spruance-class destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100920002149/http://www.moaa.org:80/Magazine/October2005/f_greyhounds.asp to http://www.moaa.org/Magazine/October2005/f_greyhounds.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Self Defense Test Ship
What does" The prearranged attack is in practice aimed at a decoy barge pulled 150 feet behind the SDTS in case of damage' mean?Royalcourtier (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It means that if the target ship's self defense systems (which are tested) fail, then not the expensive test ship will be hit, but instead a relatively cheap barge. There is an error in the article at the ships in class section, because it says that Paul F. Foster was sunk as a test ship, but it wans't, it serves in this role even today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.28.102 (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)