The United States Navy has announced a service extension for twelve Arleigh Burke-class Flight I destroyers, pushing them beyond their anticipated 35-year service life.

Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro shared the decision on October 31, describing it as part of the Navy’s strategy to keep β€œmore ready players on the field.”

Following a thorough review of each destroyer’s hull condition, combat capabilities, and maintenance needs, the Navy determined these vessels could continue in service, collectively adding 48 ship-years from 2028 to 2035. This extension reflects the Navy’s confidence in the Arleigh Burke class as a versatile and robust asset, particularly given its operational resilience in contested areas like the Red Sea.

β€œExtending these highly capable, well-maintained destroyers will further bolster our numbers as new construction warships join the Fleet,” Del Toro noted. β€œIt also speaks to their enduring role in projecting power globally.” Funding for these extensions is included in the fiscal year 2026 budget proposal, aligning with the Navy’s broader shipbuilding strategy to maintain force readiness.

Adm. Lisa Franchetti, Chief of Naval Operations, supported the decision as part of the Navy’s NAVPLAN, stating, β€œToday’s budget constrained environment requires the Navy to make prioritised investments to keep more ready players on the field.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

30 COMMENTS

    • Hmmm…doesn’t this seem to be suspiciously like the path that the RN has already trodden w/ T-23 class? It may be time for a Come to Jesus meeting w/ RN re painful lessons learned in the attempt to extend beyond the projected OOS timeline. πŸ€”πŸ˜³

      • I was thinking the same, this is a T23 fiasco/spiral in the making. It’s certainly interesting watching the acceleration of atrophy in western militaries versus the belligerent nature of our politicians though.

      • It isn’t as big a stretch as the USAF has taken in extending the B-52:)

        USS Barry (DDG-52) – three years – FY28 to FY31USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) – five years – FY28 to FY33USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54) – five years – FY29 to FY34USS Stout (DDG-55) – five years – FY29 to FY34USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) – five years – FY29 to FY34USS Laboon (DDG-58) – five years – FY30 to FY35USS Paul Hamilton (DDG-60) – five years – FY30 to FY35USS Stethem (DDG 63) – one year – FY30 to FY31USS Carney (DDG-64) – one year – FY31 to FY32USS Gonzalez (DDG-66) – five years – FY31 to FY36USS Cole (DDG-67) – five years – FY31 to FY36USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) – three years – FY32 to FY35It actually makes sense, as every Flight I has advanced BMD capabilities that have been demonstrated to work during recent engagements. This might help to cover a perceived BMD gap as the mid-build Flight IIAs are in the process of getting getting BMD though Baseline 9, (the first several Flight IIAs have been upgraded already, and DDG 113 and forward were completed with Baseline 9), and the Flight IIIs are building, though the first one has been commissioned.

        Anyway, while the hulls are old, the systems have been demonstrated to still work quite well in combat. USS Carney was center stage, and some of her systems are very old (like the SPS-67 X-band radar used to detect drones and sea-skimming missiles) but still did well.

        • Believe USAF has a better track record. 😁

          Actually, hope your assessment is correct, but quite concerned these ancient hulls may become one-time submersibles. Entirely predictable response to the cluster flock which is the current status of the Consternation Class program. Hope that the future will not disclose an epic failure to join either RAN or RCN programs, constructing USN compatible variants of T-26. πŸ€”πŸ˜³πŸ˜±πŸ€ž

          • Consternation Class ο»ΏπŸ˜€ο»Ώο»ΏπŸ˜‚ο»Ώ

            As for the USN joining the T26 club, sadly I can’t see mate. TOOOO much spent faffing around with the errr Consternation Class. Vested interests and all that 😎

            Cheers CR

          • Unfortunately, forced to agree w/ your assessment. There does not appear to be anyone w/ the demonstrated stature of say, an Adm. Hyman Rickover, available to advocate for the interests of the future escort fleet. 😱

          • Escort fleets across NATO have been overlooked, well since the wall came down, even the Dutch have recently announced that they are buying an extra 2 escorts in light of increasing tensions…

            The big problem is that NATO’s defence industry has understandably ‘resized’ to the ‘peace dividend’ level of spending, as our collective struggles to support Ukraine demonstrate. No one is in the position to be able to ‘mass produce’ escorts these days (or ammunition).

            China might be the exception to the above statement given they have spent the last couple of decades building up their ship building capabilities and their fleet. NATO is along way from being able to match that productive capability it seems.

            It is possible that the Chinese fleet is not has capable on a one for one basis – yet – but relying on technology alone is a risk as numbers count as well, especially as China is working hard to close the technological gap. I wouldn’t bet against them achieving technological parity at some point so NATO really does need to increase it’s collect defence manufacturing capacity. Deterrence is way cheaper than fighting a war. My favourite little factoid at the moment is that the UK spent 52% of GDP on defence at the peek of the Second World War, so even if we have to spend 5% of GDP on defence to effectively deter aggression I’d say that was a good deal.

            Cheers CR

          • Absolutely agree, Amen and Amen, you are preaching to the choir! 😊😁 Truly unfortunately, there apparently is a very small contingent that attends defence preparedness services regularly (certainly very few in the political class).

            Painfully, must agree that the scumbag, slimeball ChiComs are playing the current geopolitical poker hand quite well. Or perhaps, the current geopolitical chess game may be a more accurate description. In any event, incredible momentum in the current build rate of the PLAN, resulting in the probable upcoming “Davidson Window.” Only reassurance is that the Lord shepherds “mad dogs and Englishmen who stay out in the mid-day sun.” πŸ€”πŸ˜πŸ€žπŸ‘πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ

          • (Realize that DDGs and FFGs perform separate roles, but the overriding USN imperative is to increase hull numbers in preparation for the inevitable future confrontation w/ the PLAN.)

          • “Believe USAF has a better track record.”

            Given your handle, that is natural:)

            “quite concerned these ancient hulls may become one-time submersibles.”

            They could end up saving our collective bacon. They are admittedly old and require expensive upkeep, but their capabilities in strike are unparalleled, and The only other ships that equal Burkes in BMD are the Japanese Aegis ships. They are still in the top tier in AAW. They all have bow mounted and Towed Array Sonars as well. Considering the immediacy of the “Davidson window”, keeping these ships in service for a few more years is worth the effort.

            “Hope that the future will not disclose an epic failure to join either RAN or RCN programs, constructing USN compatible variants of T-26.”

            That’s a separate issue, as the Constellations aren’t replacements for the Burkes, they are a replacement for the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates of yore. The Flight III program is doing well with one in service and several building.

            While the Type 26 hull is unquestionably top notch, neither the Hunter nor the River variants will likely have completed examples before the first Constellation, even with the delays.

          • Please refer to my paranthetical note already logged above re FFGs.

            Actually concur that USN leadership has no viable alternative recourse at this juncture. Simply would not wager the farm on probability of success.

          • I am still baffled, why the USN did not buy T23 IP in the early 2000’s, to procure a new ASW frigate class, fitted with Mk.41 as well. They would still of had them in service now?

        • Good evening Deep, glad to know you are still monitoring events! 😊

          And to think this entire fiasco could have been prevented if intelligent individuals had convinced the political classes that the end of history was not coincident w/ the end of the skirmish colloquially known as CWI! πŸ€”πŸ˜³πŸ™„πŸ˜±β˜ΉοΈ. Reasonably certain social-welfare cultures of principal western states would have survived/thrived, even w/out “peace dividend.” πŸ™„ Rant over (temporarily).

      • unfortunately US navel ship building ( well all ship building) is on the way down the toilet in the same way Uk ship build went last century..at present I think the U.S. shipyards are turning out around 1.5 escort hulls per year..that’s not an adequate amount to keep up present fleet numbers.let alone keep ahead of the PLAN.

        Its escort procurement has been a really big failure over the last 20 years to be honest.

    • Even USN’s budget is stretched!

      Extending these has more to do with troubles with existing build schedules.

      I foresee a few issues with this as these are very old very hard used hulls.

      • It’s a grey bleekit day in the UK !

        So SB just look on the bright side, the US has even more issues with replacing ships than we do, which is a good outcome for the UK !
        If they have half the snags and extra work needed than we have had with Life extensions then it’s more profitable work for BAe US.
        Which as they seem to be hoovering up refit work means BAe share price and pensions both benefit (and we pay more Tax to U.K PLC).

        There it’s good to share a bit of joy the day after the budget !

        • Actually four Flight Is had already been extended back in 2023 for 5 years, DDG 51, 57, 61, and 69. They must be dong well enough to give the USN the confidence to move forward with the other 12 extensions.

        • Ummm…perhaps we should distinguish between the probable future good fortune of UK PLC and the UK? πŸ€” USN has extensive, worldwide responsibilities. If failures in acquisition programs persist, it does not augur well in the foreseeable future for anyone in the Western democracies.

          • Too right.

            NATO needs to step up and significantly increase escort fleet sizes as I would see most of the USN upping anchor and heading to the Pacific in the event of a show down with China. Even if they did that they would probably only be able to sustain a force of 30 to 40 escorts with the rest rotating through refit and repairs, goodness knows how it would turn out if losses mounted.

            A major set to such as a US China conflict over Taiwan could easily settle down into a drawn out industrial conflict as the war in Ukraine is demonstrating with allies and backers lining up on both sides. Manufacturing matters.

            Cheers CR

          • Amazing that the denizens of this site can forecast the probable course of world events years in advance, whereas the political class has extreme difficulty comprehending current events. πŸ€”β˜ΉοΈ

          • To me it is more about risk and human behaviour. If we don’t respond to the threats then the chances of something along the lines of my words above would be a likely outcome. However, I did not cover NATO’s role in such an eventually. Although a US China conflict is outside the NATO area as Afghanistan showed NATO can and has responded to attacks by ‘out of area’ adversaries…

            History has lessons that we forget at our peril. To me there are similarities with the kind of loose grouping we face today with the way the Axis worked in the 30’s and 40’s. A loose group of dictatorships each with their own interests that roughly align rather than a full blown alliance with rules and T&C’s such as NATO. The latter has checks and balances, whereas the former can get dragged into conflict bit by bit because of the actions of individual members not talking about their plans with their supposed friends. WW2 started in 1936, 1939 or 1941 depending where you come from… basically a number of regional wars got rolled up into the bloodiest conflict in human history. That is the risk we face – accidentally getting into another awful conflict.

            Politicians are too short sighted sadly. Not surprising really as they have to reapply for their jobs very few years.

            Cheers CR

          • Yes, truly an axis of convenience and of a transactional nature for three members (i.e., DPRK, IR, RU). ChiComs have a separate, but parallel, agenda, and view the Orcs as a useful stalking horse. At least until 2035, when the ChiComs are projected to have an inventory of 1500 warheads and probably be in an exponential nuclear capability growth mode. Interesting that probable future human history can be distilled into: “The enemy of my enemy, is my friend.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here