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 “more 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.

“Extending these highly capable, well-maintained destroyers will further bolster our numbers as new construction warships join the Fleet,” Del Toro noted. “It 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, “Today’s budget constrained environment requires the Navy to make prioritised investments to keep more ready players on the field.”

Avatar photo
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
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
30 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick
Patrick
4 days ago

When there’s a budget there’s a way.

Last edited 4 days ago by Patrick
FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  Patrick

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. 🤔😳

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers
4 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

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.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  Luke Rogers

Believe the appropriate terminology/cliche is: “clutching at straws.” 🤔😳😱

Paul
Paul
4 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

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… Read more »

Last edited 4 days ago by Paul
FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  Paul

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. 🤔😳😱🤞

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Consternation Class 😀😂

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

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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. 😱

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

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… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
3 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Ahhh…er…the quote should be: Mad dogs and Englishmen go out…” 🙄

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
3 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Actual quote: Mad dogs and Englishmen go out…”. 🙄

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

(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.)

Paul
Paul
4 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

“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… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  Paul

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.

Meirion X
Meirion X
3 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

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?

Last edited 3 days ago by Meirion X
Deep32
Deep32
4 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Welcome to our world mate!
Truly hope that the USN fares better then we are with this endeavour.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

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! 🤔😳🙄😱☹️. Reasonably certain social-welfare cultures of principal western states would have survived/thrived, even w/out “peace dividend.” 🙄 Rant over (temporarily).

Jonathan
Jonathan
4 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

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.

Last edited 4 days ago by Jonathan
FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Was aware that is the rate for submarines, was unaware that it was the same rate for surface vessels.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 days ago
Reply to  Patrick

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.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago

Exactly, and if this becomes a failed venture, it will be duly noted by ally and foe alike.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
4 days ago

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… Read more »

Paul
Paul
4 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  Paul

🤞🤞

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Ummm…perhaps we should distinguish between the probable future good fortune of UK PLC and the UK? 🤔 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.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

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… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
4 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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. 🤔☹️

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

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… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
3 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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.”