USS Fletcher (DD-992) destroyer lost Chance for Pakistan Navy ? or not

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Back in 2005 we had the chance to own a destroyer , probbly the largest ship beside the Aircraft carrier that is ... and Pakistan Navy Turned it down

2010 - looking back what do the defence folks on the form think about that decision

Did we do the right thing by saying No to a destroyer that on paper would have given us MORE fire power then all existing navy options back in 2005 ?

Our justification was too many sailors are needed for it ? huh well hire more sailors ?? no ??

Can you imagine our navy in 2015

1 Destroyer
8 F22P frigates
4 Existing frigates
6 OHP class ships
3 Agostas
3 Chinese Subs

Did we made the right choice ?


processing systems: AN/SPS-40 air search radar
AN/SPG-60 fire control radar
AN/SPS-55 surface search radar
AN/SPQ-9 gun fire control radar
Mk 23 TAS automatic detection and tracking radar
AN/SPS-65 Missile fire control radar
AN/SQS-53 bow mounted Active sonar
AN/SQR-19 TACTAS towed arrayPassive sonar processing systems: AN/SPS-40 air search radar
Electronic warfare
and decoys: • AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare System
• AN/SLQ-25 Nixie Torpedo Countermeasures
• Mark 36 SRBOC Decoy Launching System
• AN/SLQ-49 Inflatable Decoys

Armament: 2 x 5 in (127 mm) 54 calibre Mark 45 dual purpose guns
2 x 20 mm Phalanx CIWS Mark 15 guns
1 x 8 cell ASROC launcher (removed)
1 x 8 cell NATO Sea Sparrow Mark 29 missile launcher
2 x quadruple Harpoon missile canisters
2 x Mark 32 triple 12.75 in (324 mm) torpedo tubes (Mk 46 torpedoes)

1 x 61 cell Mk 41 VLS launcher for Tomahawk missiles
1 x 21 cell RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile
Aircraft carried: 2 x Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk LAMPS III helicopters.


THE TERM FULLY LOADED ... SADLY even after being approved by US senate , Pakistan refused to accept the ship

Question remains ?

If we said NO ... so what were the leaders smoking ?? Back in 2005 ??
We are not even close to another destoryer from looks of it and we simply rejected a chance to induct our first major Destroyer

300 sailors was too much for our navy !! back in 2005 they could not hire 300 sailors and manage the maintenence on ship was the reason given -

This ship could have been the crown jewl in our Navy

 

[Penguin]

Sorry but she no longer exists:

Fate: Sunk as a target on July 16 2008 off Kauai, Hawaii, during RIMPAC 2008

Destroyer Photo Index DD-992 USS FLETCHER

USS FLETCHER was the last but one ship in the SPRUANCE - class of destroyers and the first ship in the Navy named after Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher. Both decommissioned and stricken from the Navy list on October 1, 2004, the FLETCHER was currently laid-up at the Inactive Ships On-site Maintenance Office, Pearl Harbor, HI., awaiting transfer to the Pakistani Navy. However, those plans were cancelled and the FLETCHER was sunk as a target on July 16, 2008 off Kauai, Hawaii, during RIMPAC 2008. She was sunk by a modified live Mk48 ADCAP torpedo fired from the Australian submarine HMAS WALLER.

USS Fletcher (DD 992)

Of the entire DD963 (Spruance) destroyer class of 31 ships none currently remain in service and all but 2 have been scrapped or sunk as target. US NAVY - DESTROYERS

Only 2 remain in existence, both of which will likely to also be sunk eventually. They are:

USS PAUL F. FOSTER (DD-964)

Fate March 27 2003 turned over to Naval Surface Warfare Center
Port Hueneme Division as the Navy’s new Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS).

Destroyer Photo Index DD-964 USS PAUL F. FOSTER

USS ARTHUR W. RADFORD (DD-968)

Fate: Laid-up in Philadelphia awaiting final disposal.
As of December 3 2010 she is scheduled to be sunk as an artificial reef in May 2011
as part of the Del-Jersey-Land Inshore Site equidistant from Cape May, Ocean City and Indian River Inlet.

Destroyer Photo Index DD-968 USS ARTHUR W. RADFORD

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Sad Sad , we could have had that Destroyer
These ships were made in 80's only not in 60's or 30's
RIP

It was fairly new ship just 20 year milage on it and if we had just used it on small distance missions we would have kept its maintenence low

And imagine these were approved by Senate in US , meaning every thing was DONE deal

Tsk Tsk tsk ... what was the Pakistani Gov thinking back in 2005 ?

That was also the year when they reduced the order of F16 from 75 to 18+18

Yes there was earth quake but to turn down a destroyer of such class , just because you could not spend money to train 300 sailors for it ? ? ? sad sad decision really sad

Its just sad how much less attention we pay to our navy while we happen to sit on the damn DOORS or all oil import / export to world

PS THE SHIP WAS FREE that just .. is mind numbing reality of a chance missed here we are running around to find capable ships for our navy

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Not worth it since it became to costly to run it.

 

[Penguin]

Not worth it since it became to costly to run it.

You mean too expensive for the US?

 

[Myth_buster_1]

You mean too expensive for the US?

Defiantly for Pakistan.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I would like to justify that statement that its is too costly or not ...

I mean 300 sailors are we not traing 40-50 new sailors for F22p and the destroyer had more fire power then all the 4 F22P frigates

Definitely they had more AIR based defences .. that our current navy lacks

I think ppl mention ok there was gas/oil cost to run the shipt dear friends are we not running world war 2 ships these are also eating up oil and resources.

Was it such a hinderance to not own such a wonderful ship ?

It probbly needed NO upgrades, and would have been actively added to our navy and right now we would have been using it and decommissioning 1-2 older frigates from World War two times

We could have just transferred the 30-40 sailors from these old ships to New destroyer ?

This destroyer was a BEAST of a ship ... one of the top ships in US Navy .. and we simply allowed it to go down

Even when US senate had approved it ?

Were we expecting some deals with France some kick backs ? on something what the real story is we will never know

But Money is never an issue when it comes to weapons purchase in Pakistan

Sure for US the cost of running ship is high because they patrol the WORLD WATERS ... long missions perhaps if we had limited the scope of our missions to 100km zones our cost of runnings ship would have been low ...etc

But I say a wasted CHANCE TO OWN a destroyer of such class in our navy

This 1 Destroyer was equal in fire power to 4-5 ships in Pakistan Navy's possesion

 

[Penguin]

Life cycle ost comparision of MCM-1, FFG7, CG-47 and DDG-51 by CBO. Since there are many commonalities between CG-47 and DD-963 (same base hull and propulsion, some commonality in armament and sensors), this may be illustrative

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11431/04-28-SessionsLetter.pdf

(see table on page 7-8)

Relatively speaking (relative to total ship lifecycle cost) procurement cost are a bigger item for CG-47 than FFG7 (which makes sense, given the level of capability: CG-47 is high end and FFG7 low end) but personnel cost make up a bigger share of FFG7s total cost (simpler ship > less automation > larger crew?). All other items are of near equal propprtion.

In terms of absolute though ....

Total cost for CG-47 is nearly 3 times that of FFG7
Crew volume and cost is twice the size
Fuel cost is almost triple the size
Other O&S cst is double the size

Class and Type: Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigate (FFG7)
Displacement: 4,100 long tons (4,200 t) full load
Length: 408 ft (124 m) waterline, 445 ft (136 m) overall, 453 ft (138 m) for "long-hull" frigates
Beam: 45 ft (14 m)
Draft: 22 ft (6.7 m)
Propulsion: 2 × General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines generating 41,000 shp (31,000 kW) through a single shaft and variable pitch propeller
2 × Auxiliary Propulsion Units, 350 hp (260 kW) retractable electric azipods for maneuvering and docking.
Speed: over 29 knots (54 km/h)
Range: 4,500 nmi (8,300 km; 5,200 mi) at 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph)
Complement: 176

Pruance and Spruance-based ship classes:

Class and type: Spruance class destroyer (DD-963)
Displacement: 8,040 (long) tons full load
Length: 529 ft (161 m) waterline; 563 ft (172 m) overall
Beam: 55 ft (16.8 m)
Draft: 29 ft (8.8 m)
Propulsion: 4 × General Electric LM2500 gas turbines, 2 shafts, 80,000 shp (60 MW)
Speed: 32.5 knots (60 km/h)
Range: 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph)
3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km; 3,800 mi) at 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Complement: 19 officers, 315 enlisted

Class and Type: Kidd class Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG-993)
Displacement: Light: 7,289 t (7,174 LT; 8,035 ST), Full: 9,783 t (9,628 LT; 10,784 ST), Dead Weight: 2,494 t (2,455 LT; 2,749 ST)
Length: 563 ft (172 m)
Beam: 55 ft (17 m)
Draught: 32.8 ft (10.0 m)
Propulsion: 4 × General Electric LM2500 gas turbines, 2 shafts, 80,000 shp (60 MW)
Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h; 38 mph)
Range: 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph)
3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km; 3,800 mi) at 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Complement: 31 officers, 332 enlisted

Class and Type: Ticonderoga class Guided missile cruiser (CG-47)
Displacement: approx. 9,600 long tons (9,750 t) full load
Length: 567 feet (173 m)
Beam: 55 feet (16.8 meters)
Draught: 34 feet (10.2 meters)
Propulsion: 4 × General Electric LM2500 Gas Turbine Engines, 80,000 shaft horsepower (60,000 kW)
2 × Controllable-Reversible Pitch Propellers, 2 × Rudders
Speed: 32.5 knots (60 km/h)
Range: 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km) at 20 knots (37 km/h); 3,300 nautical miles (6,000 km) at 30 knots (56 km/h).
Complement: 33 Officers, 27 Chief Petty Officers, approx. 340 enlisted

 

[satishkumarcsc]

This destroyer must de-assemble into recycle plants for new materials instead wasting it in the ocean by explosions, which is absolutely pointless

Then how are you planning to test the efficacy of the AShM and the defence systems in real life scenario? See who got the destroyer? The Centre for Surface Warfare Studies.