I actually don’t think the Spruance class can fire the SM-2, it requires a level of radar tech that the USN decided not to refit this class with.

It should be possible to fire SM2MR from the forward Mk41. Spruance could possibly use that same radar directors for guidance that it uses for Sea Sparrow (both SAMs are semi-active radar homing). However, those probably would not allow making use of the full SM2 flight envelope. HOwever, if there is Cooperative Engagement Capability, Spruance could serve as launch platform with another ships actually controlling the missile during the engagement.

LW08 is nothing new was noted in 2003 in china,

Jon, I didn’t say is was a new thing. I was one of the people that noted it in 2003. But she is the only one of the class to have it at this time. And it does still remain the case that each ship of this class seems to have gotten 1 main item (be it a sensor or a weapon) replaced by something new, and with the exception of EW suite none of the class got the same item replaced.

You hit the point. About other explanations keep date of first built from that specific model in mind. I never heard or red about Tatra trucks captured from Syria in 1967.
By the way, which model operates India?!

Indian licence build various models of tatra trucks.

I have 2 questions regarding the Spruance class.

1st I ran over this some time ago where it says that “USN had planned to keep some of these ships in service at least through 2014, but recent changes to the fleet plan will retire all these ships by 2007.”
Know how true is it that the USN wanted to keep the Spruance until 2014 & not 2009?.

2nd I was wondering if the Spruance is bale to fire SM-2s

1. May be that Navy had to let go of the Spruances in order to secure funding for newer ships (Arleigh Burke, DDX21, LCS). Must like why RN sold 23 Type-23s > to held fund Type 45, and why RNthN sold S-frigates and M-Firgates > to fund newer LCF.

“As of mid-2000 the Navy planned to decommission 11 ships in this class between 2001 and 2005 and the remaining 13 ships between 2006 and 2009. Navy destroyers have historically been retired by 30 years of service. By 2009 the oldest unit of this class would have been in commission for 26 years. A plan to decommission four ships prematurely during FY 95 was canceled, but in 1997 it was recommended that those units which had not been backfitted with vertical launchers be retired. In 1998 the seven Spruance-class destroyers which did not receive the Tomahawk VLS upgrade (DD 974, 976, 979, 983, 984, 986, 990) were decommissioned after only two decades of service, to accomodate the introduction of the improved AEGIS-capable Arleigh Burke destroyers. During the year 2001 the ships Caron [DD 970] and Moosbrugger [DD 980] were decommissioned. All decommissioned ships were scheduled to be scrapped.

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. “

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-963.htm

2. Although the principal SAM on the Spruance has always been 1 rear mounted MK 29 launcher for 24 NATO Sea Sparrow missiles, I think the Spruances can carry and launch SM-2MR from the VLSs that were installed. However, I’m not sure their missile guidances equipment is such that they can use SM2MR to full effectiveness and it may be that they merely carry and luanch while other (AEGIS and CEC equipped) ships do missile guidance.

“Each destroyer carries 1,200 shells for the Mk-45 leightweight guns, 24 Sea Sparrow missiles and 18 Mk-46 torpedoes. Ships equipped with the ASROC launcher carried 16 ASROC missiles. The Mk-41 VLS contains Tomahawk and SM-2 MR missiles.”
http://navysite.de/dd/dd963class.htm

Anyway i didnt see el/m FCR or star in ranjiit wasnt it supposed to have barak?
http://www.alert5.com/gallery/viraat/MG_0268

Ranjit does have the Bharat RAWL (Signaal LW08) instead of the russian Big Net air search radar. IIRC yet another indian Kashin had received STAR. Not seen any of the class fitted with Barak and associated fire control radar yet, but BR says “55 and/or 54 has been fitted”, which would be INS Ranvijay and INS Ranvir. They all got an Israely EW suite. Appears as if each ship is getting a part of what may eventually amount to a complete midlife upgrade package (Brahmos, Barak, new search radars, associated fire control radars, EW, maybe modernization of S-125M/SA-N-1 SAM). Harry ought to know more about this.

Is Barak combat proven ?

Well, think who has it: the navy’s of Israel, Chili, Singapore and India. In land based configuration it is also deployed by the armed forces of Venezuela. First test launch of Barak missile was in 16.8.1991. Has any of these countries engaged in naval combat, or have they experience air/missile attack where said assets were involved since 1991? There’s your answer.

A great many systems are not combat proven. This does not mean they suck. However, it is nice when it all comes together under combat circumstances. I’m saying this because that is usually the direction of the follow up remarks to a such a question.

No. I believe the first ship class on which this VLU will become operational is the Indian Navy Project 15A (“Improved Delhi”).