link to page 1



Updated January 26, 2021
Navy DDG(X) Future Large Surface Combatant Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
an integrated collection of sensors and weapons named for
The Navy’s DDG(X) program, also known as the Future
the mythical shield that defended Zeus. The first five ships
Large Surface Combatant program or DDG Next program,
in the class, which were built to an earlier technical
envisages procuring a class of next-generation guided-
standard, were judged by the Navy to be too expensive to
missile destroyers (DDGs) to replace the Navy’s aging
modernize and were removed from service in 2004-2005,
Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruisers. The Navy wants
leaving the current force of 22 ships. The Navy’s FY2020
to procure the first DDG(X) around FY2028, although that
30-year shipbuilding plan projected that these 22 ships
date could change. The Navy’s proposed FY2021 budget
would reach the ends of their service lives and be retired
requested $46.5 million in research and development
between FY2021 and FY2038.
(R&D) funding for the program in one R&D line item and
some additional funding for the program in another R&D
Figure 1. Existing CG-47 Class Aegis Cruiser
line item.
USS Antietam (CG-54), commissioned in 1987
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or
modify the Navy’s FY2022 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

Source: Cropped version of U.S. Navy photograph.
general became smaller while its destroyer designs in
general became larger. As a result, since the 1980s there has
DDG(X) Program
been substantial overlap in the size and capability of Navy
cruisers and destroyers. The Navy’s new Zumwalt (DDG-
Navy’s General Concept for the Ship
1000) class destroyers, in fact, are considerably larger than
The Navy envisages the DDG(X) as a ship with a new hull
the Navy’s cruisers. In part for this reason, the Navy now
design and, initially, combat system equipment similar to
refers to its cruisers and destroyers collectively as large
that installed on the Flight III version of the Arleigh Burke
surface combatants (LSCs), and distinguishes these ships
(DDG-51) class destroyer—a type of ship that the Navy is
from the Navy’s small surface combatants (SSCs), the term
currently procuring. (For more on the DDG-51 program,
the Navy now uses to refer collectively to its frigates,
see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), mine warfare ships, and
Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress,
patrol craft.
by Ronald O'Rourke.)
Surface Combatant Industrial Base
Navy officials have stated that they envision the DDG(X)
All LSCs procured for the Navy since FY1985 have been
as being larger than the DDG-51 Flight III design, which
built at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of
has a full load displacement of about 9,700 tons, but smaller
Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls
than the Navy’s DDG-1000 class destroyers, which have a
Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed
full load displacement of about 15,700 tons. The mid-point
Martin and Raytheon are major contractors for Navy
between those two figures is 12,700 tons, though the
surface ship combat system equipment. The surface
DDG(X) could have a displacement higher or lower than
combatant base also includes hundreds of additional
that. The Navy states that the DDG(X) would
component and material supplier firms.
initially integrate nondevelopmental systems into a
Existing CG-47 Class Aegis Cruisers
new hull design that incorporates platform
The Navy procured a total of 27 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class
flexibility and growth capabilities to meet projected
cruisers (one of which is shown in Figure 1) between
future fleet system requirements. Initial LSCs will
FY1978 and FY1988. The ships entered service between
leverage DDG 51 Flight III combat systems as well
1983 and 1994. They are commonly called Aegis cruisers
as
increased
flexibility/adaptability
features
because they are equipped with the Aegis combat system,
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Navy DDG(X) Future Large Surface Combatant Program: Background and Issues for Congress
including expanded Space, Weight, Power &
Project 0411, Future Surface Combatant Concept, within
Cooling, Service Life Allowances (SWaP-C SLA)
Program Element (PE) 0603564N, Ship Preliminary Design
to allow for more rapid and affordable upgrades in
& Feasibility Studies, which was line 46 in the Navy’s
capabilities over the ships’ service life and allow for
FY2021 R&D account. Additional funding supporting the
fielding of future high-demand electric weapons
DDG(X) program was requested in Project 2196, Design,
and sensor systems and computing resources.
Tools, Plans and Concepts, within PE 0603563N, Ship
Concept Advanced Design, which was line 45.
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
2021 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
Congressional Action for FY2021
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
Evaluation, Navy, February 2020, p. 518; includes
FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act
some minor typographic edits by CRS.)
The conference report (H.Rept. 116-617 of December 3,
2020) on the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act
Procurement Date for Lead Ship
(H.R. 6395/P.L. 116-283 of January 1, 2021) recommended
As mentioned earlier, the Navy wants to procure the first
reducing by $33.3 million the Navy’s FY2021 funding
DDG(X) around FY2028, though the date for procuring the
request for the program in Project 0411. Section 121(b) of
first ship has changed before and could change again.
the conference version of H.R. 6395 required a report on,
Procurement of DDG-51 Flight III destroyers would end at
among other things, a plan to fully implement Section 131
about the time that procurement of DDG(X)s would begin.
of the FY2020 NDAA (S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 of December
The Navy’s FY2021 budget submission suggested that the
20, 2020), including subsystem prototyping efforts and
final DDG-51 Flight III ship would be procured around
funding by fiscal year.
FY2027.
FY2021 DOD Appropriations Act
Potential Procurement Quantities
The explanatory statement for the FY2021 DOD
The Navy has not specified the total number of DDG(X)s
Appropriations Act (Division C of H.R. 133/P.L. 116-260
that it wants to procure. Procuring a total of 11 would
of December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations
provide one DDG(X) for each of the Navy’s 11 large
Act, 2021) reduceed by $33.3 million the Navy’s FY2021
aircraft carriers. Procuring a total of 22 would provide one-
funding requests for the program (PDF page 311 of 469).
for-one replacements for each of the current 22 Aegis
The explanatory statement stated:
cruisers. Keeping the DDG(X) design in production so as to
additionally replace at least some of the Navy’s
Despite repeated delays to the LSC program, the
older DDG-
Navy has reduced the acquisition profile for DDG-
51s as those ships start to retire in the 2030s could result in
a larger total procurement quantity. Numbers such as these,
51 Flight III destroyers in recent budget
as well as the Navy’s FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan,
submissions, and has not delineated a clear
suggest a potential DDG(X) annual procurement rate of one
acquisition path for large surface combatants
to two ships per year.
following the conclusion of the current DDG-51
Flight III destroyer multi-year procurement contract
Potential Unit Procurement Cost
in fiscal year 2022. Absent a clear understanding of
Ships of the same general type tend to have unit
future Navy LSC force structure requirements and
procurement costs roughly proportional to their
acquisition strategies, the proposed increase in
displacements. A DDG(X) displacing about 12,700 tons
funding for LSC, to include $17,100,000 in
would have a displacement roughly 30% greater than that
preliminary design efforts, is not supported.
of the DDG-51 Flight III design. The DDG-51 Flight III
design currently has a unit procurement cost of about $1.9
Further, it is noted that information provided by the
billion. Increasing that figure by 30% would suggest a
Navy in response to S.Rept. 116-103 regarding the
potential DDG(X) unit procurement cost of roughly $2.5
Navy’s Surface Capability Evolution Plan (SCEP)
billion in today’s dollars, though the cost could be initially
was incomplete. The Assistant Secretary of the
higher because the first several DDG(X)s would be at the
Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) is
top of the DDG(X) production learning curve, whereas at
directed to provide to the congressional defense
least some aspects of the DDG-51 Flight III design have
committees, with the fiscal year 2022 President’s
been in production for many years and are thus well down
budget request, the updated acquisition strategies
the production learning curve. The first DDG(X), moreover,
for each element of the Navy’s SCEP, as previously
would be considerably more expensive than follow-on ships
requested, and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
in the program, because its procurement cost would
(Financial Management and Comptroller) is
incorporate the detailed design and nonrecurring
directed to provide, with the fiscal year 2022
engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the class.
President’s budget request, updated cost estimates
for each element of the SCEP, and to certify full
Program Funding
funding in the budget request for each respective
The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget will be submitted to
acquisition strategy of the SCEP elements (PDF
Congress later this year.
pages 322-323 of 469).
The Navy’s proposed FY2021 budget requested $46.5
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs
million in R&D funding for the DDG(X) program in
IF11679
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Navy DDG(X) Future Large Surface Combatant 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 8 · UPDATED

---