DD
駆逐艦


軽荷排水量:5,826t 満載排水量:8,040t 全長:171.70m 幅:16.80m 吃水:5.80m(ソナー部5.80m) 主機/軸数:COGAG(ジェネラル・エレクトリック式LM2500ガス・タービン4基)/2軸 出力:86,000馬力 速力(計画):33.0kt 燃料搭載量:軽油1,400t 航続力(計画):20ktで6,000浬 兵装:トマホークSLCM/アスロックSUM用VLS1基61セル、ハープーンSSM4連装発射機2基、シー・スパロー短SAM8連装発射機1基、RAM近接防御SAM21連装発射機1基(逐次装備中)、54口径127o単装両用砲2基、25o単装機銃1基〜2基、76口径20oCIWS2基、12.7o単装機銃4基、324o3連装短魚雷発射管2基 搭載機:ヘリコプター2機 乗員:319名〜339名
※同級は、就役後に順次兵装を強化し、さらに1986年度に始まるオーヴァーホールを利用して近代化改装を実施
※1977年に計画し1978年度予算で2隻の建造が要求された対潜能力強化のヘリコプター駆逐艦計画。1隻の建造が認められたが(DDH-997)、予算を大きくオーヴァーしてしまい通常型の駆逐艦DD-997として建造された
※DD-968は、1997年〜1998年の改装で後檣をステルス性に優れたAEMS(Advanced Enclosed Sensor System)に改めた
↑スプルーアンス級駆逐艦スプルーアンス(DD-963、1975年時)
↑スプルーアンス級駆逐艦スプルーアンス(DD-963、2000年時)
↑スプルーアンス級駆逐艦アーサー W. ラドフォード(DD-968、1999年時)
↑スプルーアンス級駆逐艦インガソル(DD-990)
↑At sea with USS Arthur W. Radford (DD-968) Nov. 27, 2002 -- The Arthur W. Radford steams through the Mediterranean Sea as the Spruance-class destroyer nears the end of a regularly scheduled deployment with the Washington Battle Group in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Southern Watch. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Summer M. Anderson. (RELEASED)
↑USS Fletcher (DD-992). Underway off Catalina Island, California, 4 February 1988. Photographed by Chief Photographer's Mate T. R. Dupree. U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

↑Image courtesy of Shipbucket.
リットン社は燃料消費と取得コストの観点から、30ktにおいて出力約20,000馬力のLM2500が3基で済む比較的長い船体を選択、巡航時はガス・タービン1基が電動継手によって両舷軸を回すという複雑なメカニズムを採用。この設計によって同社は競争に勝ったが、海軍は契約後に直ちに4基目のガス・タービンを追加して継手を廃止する様に要求。同社が初めから80,000馬力で設計していたら、DXの寸法は短い艦になっていたといわれる。下の画像は、オリジナルの巡航時はガス・タービン1基が電動継手によって両舷軸を回すという複雑なメカニズムのヴァージョンの画像

↑To lower the fuel consumption of the gas turbines when the ship required only low power, littom proposed to attach a large electric motor-generator to the main reduction gear on each propeller shaft of their design proposal. at cruising speeds, one gas turbine would drive the propeller and electrical power to the other propeller shaft. this would give half the power of the gas turbine to each shaft. an mechanical connection between the 2 shafts was impossible due to the shafts not being in the same angle with the keel. the shaft of the forward engine room was longer and lay at a shallower angle then the one from the aft engine room. in their design littom proposed to fit only 3 gas turbines in the ship: 2 in the aft engine room and one forward. this design would reach 30 knots on 3 gas turbines. This design was chosen in the end, but without the electrical cross-coupling and with 4 LM2500 gas turbines. because of this, the spruance class was slightly larger and faster then required. The ship with 3 gas turbines would have been exactly the same as the ship that was build, but for the intakes and uptakes of the forward engine room. the intake deckhouse would have been slightly smaller, but not much because it was also used as the gas turbine removal hatch. the uptake could have 2 shapes: 3 pipes behind each other, the 3 that were next to it being removed, or the 3 forward/aft pipes being removed. I chose to remove the forward 3, not for any technical reason (it is even slightly more logical to have the 3 in line due to the exhaust dampeners construction) but because otherwise it would be nearly invisible that the ship was changed. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.
※下の画像2枚は、DXから将来へのDXGへの2段階の改造予定の変遷である。最初は、アスロック発射機と54口径127o単装両用砲1基をターターSAM/アスロックSUM兼用発射機(Mk. 22)と交換するだけで次期原子力ミサイル駆逐艦(DDGN)と大体同じ物と考えられていた。実際はターターSAM、ハープーンSSM、アスロックSUM兼用のMk. 26を装備。最終的に前部のアスロックSUM発射機をMk. 26 Mod. 0に、シー・スパロー短SAM発射機に代えてMod. 1を後部に設置。前部を203oMk. 71単装軽量自動砲に換装を予定していた

↑The spruance design was defined by it's ability to get from the basic ship (spruance 1979) into an more capable ship. The first step of this was the modernisation, which replaced the Mk. 4 AWHS with the Mk. 26 Mod. 0 launcher. this removed no magazine space, but added the capability to launch AA missiles. the forward Mk. 45 main gun was replaced by an Mk. 71 8in gun. CIWS and Harpoons would be added, as was done on the real ships. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.

↑The second step would be to convert the modernised DX to an AAW combatant, basically resulting in the DXG. an Mk. 26 Mod. 1 launcher replaced the Mk. 29 aft, the SPS-40B would have been replaced with an SPS-48 and the fire control system updated (new gun fire control system, and the addition of SPG-51 directors). It is interesting to note the difference between these ships, designed for the US navy, and the Kidd class. This last drawing is again based purely on textual sources, so the exact placement of the directors and affiliated superstructure is more based on the Kidd then on the real plans for these ships. that said, I think I got quite close to how they would have looked if converted along these plans. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.

↑In June 1979 Lt. John Roach USNR wrote an article in USNIP called "Warships should look warlike". it was more or less an complaint to the USN that the spruances were big boxes (as were the patrol frigates then under construction) and looked underarmed and powerless at the time. especially when comparing with the russian and, to some extend, british vessels, which looked more like warships to his opinion. The Lt added a few sketches to his article, which focused on a lower profile and more prominent display of weapons. the internal volume was kept in similar levels as the real ship, but the functionality was completely ignored. for example, the DXG conversion was most likely no longer possible on these designs. The first modification had only modest changes, mostly the lowering of the heli hangar and the heightening of the ASROC location, an remodel of the funnels and an knuckle in the hull. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.

↑The second modification was more radical, and moved the ASROC aft and both guns forward. the mast was remodelled to create an sweep forward. the hull was kept the same from the first conversion [this drawing is made by Scifibug some time ago, I only swapped some parts so I do not receive credit for this drawing, hence why Scifibugs name is still at the end of the credit line]. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.

↑In the LWNP paper which has floated quite a lot around here on the forums, there is an section named 'Application to a High Performance Displacement Ship.' After some research I found out that this ship was an Spruance class. I came to this conclusion because the hull shape, powerplant, GM value and tonnages matched perfectly, and because this was the main surface combatant then (1977) under production in the US. The paper only gives the internal arrangement of the forward engine room and some numbers, but I have tried to offer an topside design matching these engines. I have chosen the USS thorn as the ship that would take these, as she was laid down shortly after the paper was released. Logically, it might also have been the Hayler, as that was an modified design anyways and thus made more sense for an changed powerplant vessel, but as I wanted to look into all differences from the main Spruance before going from Hayler, the thorn was another logical choice. The ship would have the current sizes (only those changed from the Spruance and known are given, with the Spruance sizes in brackets behind them) all measurements are in meters or SI units unless stated otherwise. commissioning year: 1980 (1975); draft: 6.41 (6.30); displacement: 9,077 (8,881); hull steel weight: 3,320 (3,192); propulsion plant weight: 1,712 (773); GM: 1.29 (1.43); installed power: 73.6MW (63.2MW); powerplant: 4 Westinghouse LWNP, 18,4MW each (4 GE LM2500, 15.8MW each); range @ 20 knots: unlimited (6,000 NM); range @ top speed: unlimited (3,300 NM); top speed: 32.3 knots (32.5 knots). From these specifications, I have drawn this series of drawings. (note, these will not be in the first post, but only in the thread, as they will be treated separately from project DX.) There are 2 basic frames: the 'refit' in which the basic spruance is kept as much as possible, and the 'redesign' in which everything on top of the main deck is reconfigured to provide easier removal of the LWNP and optimal usage of the available space in the superstructure that remains. basic spruance refit. The topside arrangement is changed only by removing funnels and intakes, apart from the ones for the gas turbine generators still on board. Note that the 'unlimited' above is operational unlimited, the reactor and the gas turbine generators still need fuel. The superstructure shape is slightly modified as well: in the front structure the space previously taken by the uptakes and intakes is mostly incorporated in the superstructure, keeping intact an shaft for removal (for maintenance and/or refuelling) of the reactor. For the front engine room, this shaft runs until one deck above the main deck, after which the LWNP is moved sideways until it can be craned out. This arrangement makes it possible for the superstructure to be one deck lower. The aft engine room has the shaft running directly trough the main deck. In rebuild, the shaft would most likely be taken one deck higher into the full beam hangar, but as build I have just removed the part of the superstructure that had the in and uptakes in it. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.

↑Design with optimised superstructure arrangement for the LWNP shafts, as build. the superstructure and hangar are put more amidships, moving the helideck with it. to preserve strength, the lower level of the superstructure is partially kept in place, but the deck on top of this is available for weapons and systems. The LWNP removal shafts are aft of the hangar and forward of the bridge. the midship gas turbine generators are moved towards the superstructure, as uptakes from the hull down would actually take more space then just putting it on top of the hangar. because of this, the hangar is of different shape too, and is actually symmetrical. The rest of the auxilary power unit is the same as on the regular spruance, as is the weapons fit and the modernisation plans shown below. all weapon positions but the phalanx and harpoon are as in the real world, as the phalanx and harpoons were placed on the superstructure in real life. thus, in the hull, nothing has changed but the removal of the generator sets now in the superstructure. this would keep the costs of this ship, if the powerplants are comparable in price, much lower then that of the real world DXGN, the virginia class. the growth space in the design would have been less though, and CGN-42 (aegis virginia) would be impossible. The current superstructure is more compact in planform but has one additional deck compared to the spruance. The only real drawback of this design in my opinion would be the lack of growth space (in the direction of tico) but that counts for all LWNP spruance designs, due to the lower GM, and the relatively compact mast, which would have interference problems faster then the original 2 mast setup. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.

↑Design with optimised superstructure arrangement, with Mk. 71. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.

↑Design with optimised superstructure arrangement, with ABL. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.

↑Design with optimised superstructure arrangement, modernised along the plans for the regular DX. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.
↑Design with optimised superstructure arrangement, AAW converted along the plans for the regular DX. The drawback of this design would be the powerplant itself. as was found out in my earlier studies on it, the safety limit on the reactor makes it impossible to run the unit at full speed for most of it's service life. due to this, the behaviour of the spruance class itself would actually not be that different with an LWNP ship, still operating at the same cruising and burst speeds for the same operational time. you would no longer have to refuel, indeed, so stratigical the ship has an advantage on the regular spruance, but an virginia DXGN would have a lot more use then an spruance DXGN on the battlefield. of course, the cost of an virginia is a lot more then that of an spruance for example. On value for money, the ships might thus end on about the same level. if this would be the case for regular DX vs DXN, that is something I cannot say for certain, and something we might never know for certain. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.
※1970年代中期に、同級の船体を利用した数十機のSTOVL機の運用を図らんとした航空能力艦ACS(Air Capable Ship)計画等があった

↑In the late 1970's the type A (Support/Multimission) and Type-B (Fighter) VTOL programs were still on-going. However, due to the sea control and vertical support ship programs dying out, there were no hulls to ship these VTOL's. As such, the mission requirement for a small carrier still existed for the escort and air cover of small groups of ships (convoys and surface action groups), but no vessel was able to fulfil that requirement. The Type-B program was never really completed after the failure of the XFV-12, but for open ocean missions you don't need a dogfighter, you need an aircraft that can fly out and shoot down Tupolevs at long range. While this increased the number of missions that the Type-A airframe (At this point Grumman, Lockheed, and LTV were all proposing turbofan powered aircraft, while Bell-Boeing was showing off Tiltrotor technology, and would eventually win) would have to support, it didn't increase the size of the platform (anything that is flying several hundred nautical miles to launch Harpoons can do the same with Sparrows and AMRAAMs). To create a platform for these VTOL aircraft, several yards suggested designs. One of the earliest designs to appear was the work of Dean A Rains and Donald B Adams, both of Ingalls Shipbuilding Division. They proposed a design that on first glance had very little in common with the original Spruance class. The beam would be increased by the addition of sponsons, on top of which a full width superstructure would be build. This superstructure contained the aft in and uptakes (the forward ones were constructed in a separate, small structure forward), the bridge and a large hangar. Of the original superstructure, part seems to have found its way into the hull and part of it is in the sides and top level of the hangar. 2 custom batteries of a tactical length Mk. 41 VLS was fitted forward and extended through the sides of the hull, to keep the flight deck clear. This vessel no longer resembles a Spruance class and can no longer do that role as well. What resulted here was truly a small carrier. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.

↑The below design was created by Grumman/Santa Fe Corporation. This design makes use of the modernisation scheme shown earlier, but replaces the equipment on the stern with a large hangar with a flight deck on top. Compared with the modernisation scheme, the ship lost Sea Sparrow and one of the guns and traded them for 2 additional phalanxes, secondary radar and as many as eight helicopters or four ASW VTOL aircraft. Due to the elevator required to bring the aircraft up from the hangar deck (on the main deck level) there was only one landing spot though. The great advantage of this design was the fact that on 9000 tons displacement and the original hull, she got both the capabilities of the regular Spruance and the ability to launch an air wing, large enough to be worth it. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.

↑In reaction on the proceedings article of October 1977 "Maintaining a Western Carrier Capability", an article describing the abovementioned air capable Spruance class designs, Commander Ronald J. Ghiradella (USNR) suggested an alternative design to the USN. In his opinion the problem with the air capable destroyer designs was the mission definition. The mission for the design would have to be defined before any design concept is pursued. According to the commander, the air capable DD-963 designs were ships in search of a mission, not capable to fill the destroyer role or be a satisfactory VTOL platform. None of the designs were still a good multi-mission system, as they were supposed to be. To solve this issue, his design is slightly larger than the regular Spruance hull. He adds 40 feet (12.19m) forward of the machinery spaces. The goal of the design was to be both a capable weapons and aircraft platform. Adequate gunfire capabilities, including close in defence, were created by having an Mk. 45 gun and 4 GAU-8 30mm guns (most likely EX-83 mountings) on each quarter. Forward of the bridge a missile launcher comparable to a harpoon system is fitted. An ASROC system could be substituted. The BPDMS system is mounted on the aft superstructure for close in air defence. The in and uptakes are both ducted to the starboard side, creating space for a hangar deck on the former main deck of the Spruance hull. On top of that an angled flight deck was to be fitted, with the purpose of larger aircraft payloads. The angled deck and superstructure are supported by sponsons with a total width of 66 feet (20.11m). The angled out funnels and the angled flight deck make the full beam to 87 feet (26.51m). The overall length of the vessel is now 606 feet (184.71m) with a flight deck of 470 feet (143.26m). Aft of the superstructure an elevator is fitted (26 by 62 feet; 8.0 by 18.9m) which services the 2 hanger deck levels: one on the former main deck level and one slightly lower, between the elevator and the stern. The ship would support 12 medium sized helicopters or 8 helicopters and 4 harrier type aircraft. In the opinion of the commander, this would result in a vessel serving both the aviation and weapon platform roles satisfactory. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.

↑I fixed the boat bay (it went through the air intakes of the aft engine rooms) by moving one of the boats to the other side of the ship. The same goes for the forward air intakes: that engine room is on the other side of the ship and the air intakes were below the flight deck level so it would save space putting them at the other side of the vessel. The exhaust cooling intakes are now in the correct position under the uptakes, which I used to make the uptakes slightly higher. The elevator is now big enough for the AV-8B which would be in service at about the same time as this vessel. In addition, the SPS-48 is now in the same position as it would be on the regular Spruances. This allowed me to fit an SPG-60 aft to serve as guidance channel for the EX-83 mountings, allowing them to fulfil the CIWS role (the phalanxes, not listed in the textual description, are thus removed) an Mk. 95 is added for the sea sparrow guidance, as on the Spruance. Only one air capable Spruance was ever ordered, DD-997 Hayler. This vessel is mentioned above this section in the section: DD-963 Spruance Class: never build designs. This vessel was an only slightly modified vessel, fitted to take 4 SH-2 or 2 SH-3, double the amount of the basic Spruance class ships. This vessel was however not build to that specification, as the redesign cost was not justified for only a single ship with only marginally different capabilities compared to the rest of the class. The Hayler as build thus differed only in some details from the rest of the class. Image courtesy of Shipbucket.
※1977年度予算で前部127o単装両用砲を、203oMk. 71単装軽量自動砲に換装して火力支援艦にする計画(議会の承認を得られなかった)

127o単装両用砲を、62口径155o先進艦載砲システム(AGS)に換装して火力支援艦にする計画

↑Image courtesy of Shipbucket.
艦名 NAME 艦種記号 建造所 就役日 退役日 除籍日 備考
スプルーアンス Spruance DD-963 インガルス造船所 1975/9/20 2005/3/23 ◎1972/11/27 起工
◎1973/11/10 進水
◎2006/12/7〜8 Sinkex演習に、標的として沈没
ポール F. フォスター Paul F. Foster DD-964 インガルス造船所 1976/2/21 2003/3/14 2004/4/6 ◎1973/2/6 起工
◎1974/2/22 進水
◎2003/3/27 Naval Surface Warfare CenterのPort Hueneme DivisionにてSelf Defense Test Ship (SDTS)となる
◎2005/3/16 艦種を実験駆逐艦(EDD-964)に改める
キンケイド Kinkaid DD-965 インガルス造船所 1976/7/10 2003/1/7 2004/4/6 ◎1973/4/19 起工
◎1974/5/25 進水
◎1990初め頃 スービック湾の中型浮きドック(非自走)リソースフル Resourceful(AFDM-5)にて入渠、修理(12
◎2004/7/14 Sinkex演習に、第14空母航空団(CVW-14)の標的として沈没
ヒューイット Hewitt DD-966 インガルス造船所 1976/9/25 2001/7/19 2002/6/5 ◎1973/7/23 起工
◎1974/8/24 進水
◎除籍後、解体のため、BrownsvilleのInternational Shipbreakersに売却
エリオット Elliott DD-967 インガルス造船所 1976/1/22 2003/12/2 2004/4/6 ◎1973/10/15 起工
◎1974/12/19 進水
◎除籍後、真珠湾にてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)により保管
◎2005/7/23 珊瑚海にて標的として沈没
アーサー W. ラドフォード Arthur W. Radford DD-968 インガルス造船所 1977/4/16 2003/3/18 2004/4/6 ◎1974/1/24 起工
◎1975/3/1 進水
◎1986/5/30 ノーフォークにて修理(〜1986/6/17)
1999/2/4 ヴァージニア・ビーチにてサウジ・アラビアの貨物船Saudi Riyadhと衝突し損傷、後にノーフォーク海軍造船所にて修理(修理額約$33,000,000)
◎除籍後、ノースロップ・グラマン・シップ・システムズに貸与され次世代駆逐艦 DD(X)の試験艦に改装(〜2005)
◎2011/8/10 デラウェア州沖にて人工環礁のため沈没処分(1234567891011
ピーターソン Peterson DD-969 インガルス造船所 1977/7/9 2001/10/4 2002/11/6 ◎1974/4/29 起工
◎1975/6/21 進水
◎2004/2/16 次世代駆逐艦 DD(X)搭載用兵器テストにより標的として沈没
カロン Caron DD-970 インガルス造船所 1977/10/1 2001/10/15 2002/6/5 ◎1974/7/1 起工
◎1975/6/24 進水
1988/2/12 黒海にてソヴィエト国境軍ミルカ II型国境警備艇SKR-6と衝突し損傷
◎2002/12/4 プエルト・リコ沖にて爆発テストにより沈没(1234
デイヴィッド R. レイ David R. Ray DD-971 インガルス造船所 1977/11/19 2002/2/28 2002/11/6 ◎1974/9/23 起工
◎1975/8/23 進水
◎退役後、ブレマートンにてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)によりカテゴリー“C”保管
オルデンドルフ Oldendorf DD-972 インガルス造船所 1978/3/4 2003/6/20 2004/4/6 ◎1974/12/27 起工
◎1975/10/21 進水
◎除籍後、真珠湾にてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)により保管
◎2005/8/25 ハワイ沖にて標的として沈没
ジョン・ヤング John Young DD-973 インガルス造船所 1978/5/20 2002/9/19 2002/11/6 ◎1975/2/17 起工
◎1976/2/7 進水
◎2004/4/13 Sinkex 2004演習に、原子力攻撃型潜水艦パサデナ Pasadena(SSN-752)の標的として沈没(1234567891011
コムト・ド・グラース Comte de Grasse DD-974 インガルス造船所 1978/8/5 1998/6/5 1998/6/5 ◎1975/4/4 起工
◎1976/3/26 進水
◎除籍後、標的として沈没(123
オブライエン O'Brien DD-975 インガルス造船所 1977/12/3 2004/9/24 ◎1975/5/9 起工
◎1976/7/8 進水
◎2006/2/9 Sinkex 2006演習に、ミサイル巡洋艦レイク・エリー Lake Erie(CG-70)の標的として沈没
メリル Merrill DD-976 インガルス造船所 1978/3/11 1998/3/26 1998/3/26 ◎1975/6/16 起工
◎1976/9/1 進水
◎2003/8/1 標的として沈没
ブリスコー Briscoe DD-977 インガルス造船所 1978/6/3 2003/10/2 2004/4/6 ◎1975/7/21 起工
◎1976/12/15 進水
◎除籍後、フィラデルフィアにてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)により保管
◎2005/8/25 Cherry Point沿岸にて標的として沈没
スタンプ Stump DD-978 インガルス造船所 1978/8/19 2004/10/19 ◎1975/8/25 起工
◎1977/1/29 進水
◎退役後、フィラデルフィアにてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)により保管
コノリー Conolly DD-979 インガルス造船所 1978/10/14 1998/9/18 1998/9/18 ◎1975/9/29 起工
◎1977/2/19(1977/6/25?) 進水
◎退役後、フィラデルフィアにてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)により保管
◎2009/4/29 Sinkex演習に、標的として沈没(123456
ムースブラッガー Moosbrugger DD-980 インガルス造船所 1978/12/16 2000/12/15 ◎1975/11/3 起工
◎1977/7/23 進水
◎2000/12/15 フィラデルフィアにてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)により保管
ジョン・ハンコック John Hancock DD-981 インガルス造船所 1979/3/1 2000/10/16 ◎1976/1/16 起工
◎1977/10/29 進水
◎2000/10/16 フィラデルフィアにてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)により保管
ニコルソン Nicholson DD-982 インガルス造船所 1979/5/12 2002/12/18 2004/4/6 ◎1976/2/20 起工
◎1977/11/11 進水
2000/8/27 ヴァージニア沖にて高速戦闘支援艦デトロイト Detroit(AOE-4)と衝突し損傷、後に修理(修理額$1,200,000)
◎2004/7/30 標的として沈没
ジョン・ロジャース John Rodgers DD-983 インガルス造船所 1979/7/14 1998/9/4 ◎1976/8/12 起工
◎1978/2/25 進水
◎除籍後、フィラデルフィアにてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)により保管
レフトウィッチ Leftwich DD-984 インガルス造船所 1979/8/25 1998/3/27 1998/3/27 ◎1976/11/12 起工
◎1978/4/8 進水
◎2003/8/1 標的として沈没(123456789
カッシング Cushing DD-985 インガルス造船所 1979/9/21 2005/9/21 ◎1976/12/27 起工
◎1978/6/17 進水
◎2008/7 リムパック2008演習に、標的として沈没
ハリー W. ヒル Harry W. Hill DD-986 インガルス造船所 1979/11/11 1998/5/29 1998/5/29 ◎1977/1/3 起工
◎1978/8/10 進水
◎2004/7/15 Sinkex演習に、標的として沈没
オバノン O'Bannon DD-987 インガルス造船所 1979/12/15 2005/8/19 ◎1977/2/21 起工
◎1978/9/25 進水
◎2008/10/6 Sinkex演習に、標的として沈没(12
ソーン Thorn DD-988 インガルス造船所 1980/2/16 2004/8/25 ◎1977/8/29 起工
◎1978/11/22 進水
◎2006/7/22 東海岸にて標的として沈没
デヨ Deyo DD-989 インガルス造船所 1980/3/22 2003/11/6 2004/4/6 ◎1977/10/14 起工
◎1979/1/20 進水
◎1980/2/25 引き渡される
1996/6 ニューポート・ニューズにて係留中、嵐により係留設備が壊れた車両貨物輸送艦ギリランド Gilliland(T-AKR-298)に衝突され損傷
◎除籍後、フィラデルフィアにてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)により保管
◎2005/8/25 大西洋にて標的として沈没
インガソル Ingersoll DD-990 インガルス造船所 1980/4/12 1998/7/24 1998/7/24 ◎1977/12/5 起工
◎1979/3/10 進水
◎2003/7/29 標的として沈没
ファイフ Fife DD-991 インガルス造船所 1980/5/31 2003/2/28 2004/4/6 ◎1978/3/6 起工
◎1979/5/1 進水
◎除籍後、ブレマートンにてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)により保管
◎2005/8/23 太平洋にて標的として沈没(1234567
フレッチャー Fletcher DD-992 インガルス造船所 1980/7/12 2004/10/1 ◎1978/4/24 起工
◎1979/6/16 進水
◎退役後、真珠湾にてNaval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility(NISMF)により保管
◎2008/7/16 リムパック2008演習に、標的として沈没
ヘイラー Hayler DD-997 インガルス造船所 1983/3/5 2003/8/25 2004/4/6 ◎1980/10/20 起工
◎1982/3/2 進水
◎2004/11/13 大西洋にてSink Exercise演習に、標的として沈没(12


Update 16/07/20