Updated December 9, 2020
Navy Large Surface Combatant (LSC) Program: Background
and Issues for Congress
Introduction
the mythical shield that defended Zeus. The first five ships
The Navy’s Large Surface Combatant (LSC) program
in the class, which were built to an earlier technical
envisages procuring a class of next-generation cruisers or
standard, were judged by the Navy to be too expensive to
destroyers to replace the Navy’s aging Ticonderoga (CG-
modernize and were removed from service in 2004-2005,
47) class Aegis cruisers. The Navy wants to procure the
leaving the current force of 22 ships. The Navy’s FY2020
first LSC around FY2028, although that date could change.
30-year shipbuilding plan projected that these 22 ships
The Navy’s proposed FY2021 budget requests $46.5
would reach the ends of their service lives and be retired
million in research and development (R&D) funding for the
between FY2021 and FY2038.
LSC program in one R&D line item and some additional
funding for the program in another R&D line item.
Figure 1. Existing CG-47 Class Aegis Cruiser
USS Antietam (CG-54), commissioned in 1987
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or
modify the Navy’s FY2021 funding request and emerging
acquisition strategy for the program. Congress’s decisions
on this issue could affect future Navy capabilities and
funding requirements and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial
base.
Terminology
Decades ago, the Navy’s cruisers were considerably larger
and more capable than its destroyers. In the years after
World War II, however, the Navy’s cruiser designs in
general became smaller while its destroyer designs in

Source: Cropped version of U.S. Navy photograph.
general became larger. As a result, since the 1980s there has

been substantial overlap in size and capability of Navy
LSC Program
cruisers and destroyers. The Navy’s new Zumwalt (DDG-
1000) class destroyers, in fact, are considerably larger than
the Navy’s
Navy’s General Concept for the Ship
cruisers.
Navy officials have spoken on and off for years about a
new ship to replace the aging Aegis cruisers. The Navy’s
In part for this reason, the Navy now refers to its cruisers
and destroyers collectively as large surface combatants
concept for the new ship has evolved over that time. The
(LSCs), and distinguishes these ships from the Navy’s
Navy currently envisages the LSC as a ship with a new hull
small surface combatants (SSCs), the term the Navy now
design that would initially be equipped with combat system
uses to refer collectively to its frigates, Littoral Combat
equipment similar to that installed on the Flight III version
Ships (LCSs), mine warfare ships, and patrol craft.
of the Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer—a type of
ship that the Navy is currently procuring. (For more on the
Surface Combatant Industrial Base
DDG-51 program, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-
All LSCs procured for the Navy since FY1985 have been
51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and
built at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.)
Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls
Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed
Navy officials have stated that they envision the LSC as
Martin and Raytheon are major contractors for Navy
being larger than the DDG-51 Flight III design, which has a
surface ship combat system equipment. The surface
full load displacement of about 9,700 tons, but smaller than
the Navy’s DDG
combatant base also includes hundreds of additional
-1000 class destroyers, which have a full
component and material supplier firms.
load displacement of about 15,700 tons. The mid-point
between those two figures is 12,700 tons, though the LSC
Existing CG-47 Class Aegis Cruisers
as designed could have a displacement higher or lower than
The Navy procured a total of 27 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class
that. The Navy states that the LSC would
cruisers (one of which is shown in Figure 1) between
initially integrate nondevelopmental systems into a
FY1978 and FY1988. The ships entered service between
new hull design that incorporates platform
1983 and 1994. They are commonly called Aegis cruisers
flexibility and growth capabilities to meet projected
because they are equipped with the Aegis combat system,
future fleet system requirements. Initial LSCs will
an integrated collection of sensors and weapons named for
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Navy Large Surface Combatant (LSC) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
leverage DDG 51 Flight III combat systems as well
Potential Unit Procurement Cost
as
increased
flexibility/adaptability
features
Ships of the same general type tend to have unit
including expanded Space, Weight, Power &
procurement costs roughly proportional to their
Cooling, Service Life Allowances (SWaP-C SLA)
displacements. An LSC displacing about 12,700 tons would
to allow for more rapid and affordable upgrades in
have a displacement roughly 30% greater than that of the
capabilities over the ships’ service life and allow for
DDG-51 Flight III design. The DDG-51 Flight III design
fielding of future high-demand electric weapons
currently has a unit procurement cost of about $1.9 billion.
and sensor systems and computing resources.
Increasing that figure by 30% would suggest a potential
Additional capabilities of interest that will be
LSC unit procurement cost of roughly $2.5 billion in
today’s dollars, though the cost could be initially higher
evaluated for the initial ship include the ability of
because the first several LSCs would be at the top of the
the ship’s Vertical Launch System [VLS] to
LSC production learning curve, whereas at least some
accommodate longer and larger-diameter missiles
aspects of the DDG-51 Flight III design reflect design
for increased speed and range of weapons,
features that have been in production for many years and
additional capacity for an embarked warfare
are thus well down the production learning curve. The first
commander and staff, support for 360-degree
LSC, moreover, would be considerably more expensive
coverage with directed-energy weapons, and
than follow-on ships in the program, because its
improved signatures with support for additional
procurement cost would incorporate the detailed design and
improvements over time. The new ships will be
nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the class.
designed to provide these initial capability increases
as well as the growth capacity to support projected
FY2021 Program Funding
future systems requirements. The design will also
The Navy’s proposed FY2021 budget requests $46.5
incorporate flexibility features to quickly back-fit
million in R&D funding for the LSC program in Project
and forward-fit systems to pace known threats and
0411, Future Surface Combatant Concept, within Program
meet future emergent needs through evolutionary
Element (PE) 0603564N, Ship Preliminary Design &
block upgrades and modernization.
Feasibility Studies, which is line 46 in the Navy’s FY2021
R&D account. Additional funding supporting the LSC
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
program is in Project 2196, Design, Tools, Plans and
2021 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
Concepts, within PE 0603563N, Ship Concept Advanced
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
Design, which is line 45.
Evaluation, Navy, February 2020, p. 518; includes
some minor typographic edits by CRS.)
Congressional Action for FY2021
Procurement Date for Lead Ship
FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act
As mentioned earlier, the Navy wants to procure the first
The conference report (H.Rept. 116-617 of December XX,
LSC around FY2028, though the date for procuring the first
2020) on the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act
ship has changed before and could change again.
(H.R. 6395) recommends reducing by $33.3 million the
Procurement of DDG-51 Flight III destroyers would end at
Navy’s FY2021 funding request for the program in Project
about the time that procurement of LSCs would begin. The
0411. Section 121(b) of the conference version of H.R.
Navy’s FY2021 budget submission suggests that the final
6395 requires a report on, among other things, a plan to
DDG-51 Flight III ship would be procured around FY2027.
fully implement Section 131 of the FY2020 NDAA (S.
1790/P.L. 116-92 of December 20, 2020), including
Potential Procurement Quantities
subsystem prototyping efforts and funding by fiscal year.
The Navy has not specified the total number of LSCs that it
wants to procure. Procuring a total of 8 to 11 would provide
FY2021 DOD Appropriations Act
1 LSC for each of the 8 to 11 large aircraft carriers that the
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report
Navy reportedly would aim to have in the future, under a
(H.Rept. 116-453 of July 16, 2020) on the FY2021 DOD
plan called Battle Force 2045 that Secretary of Defense
Appropriations Act (H.R. 7617), recommended reducing
Mark Esper announced in October 2020. (For more on the
the Navy’s FY2021 funding requests for the program by
Battle Force 2045 plan, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy
$5.0 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in the
Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and
explanatory statement for the FY2021 DOD Appropriations
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.) Procuring a
Act (S. XXXX) that it released on November 10, 2020, said
total of 22 would provide one-for-one replacements for
it lacked a clear understanding of future Navy LSC force
each of the current 22 Aegis cruisers. Keeping the design in
structure requirements and acquisition strategies, and
production so as to additionally replace at least some of the
recommended reducing by $33.3 million the Navy’s
Navy’s older DDG-51s as those ships start to retire in the
FY2021 funding requests for the program.
2030s could result in a larger total procurement quantity.
Numbers such as these, as well as the Navy’s FY2020 30-
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs
year shipbuilding plan, suggest a potential LSC annual
procurement rate of one to two ships per year.
IF11679


https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Navy Large Surface Combatant (LSC) Program: Background and Issues for Congress


Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11679 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED

---