link to page 1 
Updated February 11, 2021
Navy DDG(X) Future Large Surface Combatant Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
leaving the current force of 22 ships. The Navy’s FY2020
The Navy’s DDG(X) program, also known as the Future
30-year shipbuilding plan projected that these 22 ships
Large Surface Combatant program or DDG Next program,
would reach the ends of their service lives and be retired
envisages procuring a class of next-generation guided-
between FY2021 and FY2038.
missile destroyers (DDGs) to replace the Navy’s aging
Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruisers. The Navy wants
Figure 1. Existing CG-47 Class Aegis Cruiser
to procure the first DDG(X) around FY2028, although that
USS Antietam (CG-54), commissioned in 1987
date could change. The Navy’s proposed FY2021 budget
requested $46.5 million in research and development
(R&D) funding for the program in one R&D line item and
some additional funding for the program in another R&D
line item. The issue for Congress is whether to approve,
reject, or modify the Navy’s FY2022 funding request and
emerging acquisition strategy for the program.
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 approved the top-level requirements for the
the Navy’s cruisers. In part for this reason, the Navy now
DDG(X) (i.e., the ship’s major required features) in
refers to its cruisers and destroyers collectively as large
December 2020. The Navy envisages the DDG(X) as using
surface combatants (LSCs), and distinguishes these ships
a new hull design evolved from the Navy’s existing DDG-
from the Navy’s small surface combatants (SSCs), the term
51 class and DDG-1000 class destroyer hull designs; a
the Navy now uses to refer collectively to its frigates,
next-generation integrated propulsion system (IPS) that
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), mine warfare ships, and
incorporates lessons from the IPSs on the DDG-1000
patrol craft.
design and the Navy’s new Columbia-class ballistic missile
Surface Combatant Industrial Base
submarine; and, initially, combat system equipment similar
to that installed on the Flight III version of the DDG-51
All LSCs procured for the Navy since FY1985 have been
destroyer—the DDG-51 variant that the Navy is currently
built at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of
procuring. (For more on the DDG-51 program, see CRS
Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls
Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer
Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed
Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald
Martin and Raytheon are major contractors for Navy
O'Rourke.)
surface ship combat system equipment. The surface
combatant base also includes hundreds of additional
Navy officials have stated that they envision the DDG(X)
component and material supplier firms.
as being larger than the 9,700-ton Flight III DDG-51 Flight
Existing CG-47 Class Aegis Cruisers
III design, but smaller than the 15,700-ton DDG-1000
design. The mid-point between those two figures is 12,700
The Navy procured a total of 27 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class
tons, though the DDG(X)’s displacement could turn out to
cruisers (one of which is shown in Figure 1) between
be higher or lower than that. The Navy states that the
FY1978 and FY1988. The ships entered service between
DDG(X) would
1983 and 1994. They are commonly called Aegis cruisers
because they are equipped with the Aegis combat system,
initially integrate nondevelopmental systems into a
an integrated collection of sensors and weapons named for
new hull design that incorporates platform
the mythical shield that defended Zeus. The first five ships
flexibility and growth capabilities to meet projected
in the class, which were built to an earlier technical
future fleet system requirements. Initial LSCs will
standard, were judged by the Navy to be too expensive to
leverage DDG 51 Flight III combat systems as well
modernize and were removed from service in 2004-2005,
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Navy DDG(X) Future Large Surface Combatant Program: Background and Issues for Congress
as
increased
flexibility/adaptability
features
& Feasibility Studies, which was line 46 in the Navy’s
including expanded Space, Weight, Power &
FY2021 R&D account. Additional funding supporting the
Cooling, Service Life Allowances (SWaP-C SLA)
DDG(X) program was requested in Project 2196, Design,
to allow for more rapid and affordable upgrades in
Tools, Plans and Concepts, within PE 0603563N, Ship
capabilities over the ships’ service life and allow for
Concept Advanced Design, which was line 45.
fielding of future high-demand electric weapons
Congressional Action for FY2021
and sensor systems and computing resources.
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act
2021 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
The conference report (H.Rept. 116-617 of December 3,
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
2020) on the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act
Evaluation, Navy, February 2020, p. 518; includes
(H.R. 6395/P.L. 116-283 of January 1, 2021) recommended
some minor typographic edits by CRS.)
reducing by $33.3 million the Navy’s FY2021 funding
request for the program in Project 0411. Section 121(b) of
Procurement Date for Lead Ship
the conference version of H.R. 6395 required a report on,
As mentioned earlier, the Navy wants to procure the first
among other things, a plan to fully implement Section 131
DDG(X) around FY2028, though the date for procuring the
of the FY2020 NDAA (S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 of December
first ship has changed before and could change again.
20, 2020), including subsystem prototyping efforts and
Procurement of Flight III DDG-51s would end at about the
funding by fiscal year.
time that DDG(X) procurement would begin. The Navy’s
FY2021 budget submission suggested that the final Flight
FY2021 DOD Appropriations Act
III DDG-51 would be procured around FY2027.
The explanatory statement for the FY2021 DOD
Appropriations Act (Division C of H.R. 133/P.L. 116-260
Potential Procurement Quantities
of December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations
The Navy has not specified the total number of DDG(X)s
Act, 2021) reduceed by $33.3 million the Navy’s FY2021
that it wants to procure. Procuring 11 would provide one
funding requests for the program (PDF page 311 of 469).
DDG(X) for each of the Navy’s 11 large aircraft carriers.
The explanatory statement stated:
Procuring 22 would provide one-for-one replacements for
Despite repeated delays to the LSC program, the
each of the current 22 Aegis cruisers. Keeping the DDG(X)
Navy has reduced the acquisition profile for DDG-
design in production so as to additionally replace at least
some of the Navy’s
51 Flight III destroyers in recent budget
older DDG-51s as those ships start to
retire in the 2030s could result in a larger total procurement
submissions, and has not delineated a clear
quantity. These numbers, as well as the Navy’s FY2020 30-
acquisition path for large surface combatants
year shipbuilding plan, suggest a potential DDG(X) annual
following the conclusion of the current DDG-51
procurement rate of one to two ships per year.
Flight III destroyer multi-year procurement contract
in fiscal year 2022. Absent a clear understanding of
Potential Unit Procurement Cost
future Navy LSC force structure requirements and
Ships of the same general type tend to have unit
acquisition strategies, the proposed increase in
procurement costs roughly proportional to their
funding for LSC, to include $17,100,000 in
displacements. A 12,700-ton DDG(X) would be roughly
preliminary design efforts, is not supported.
30% larger than a Flight III DDG-51. The Flight III DDG-
Further, it is noted that information provided by the
51 Flight III currently has a unit procurement cost of about
$1.9 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 Flight III DDG-51 have been in
committees, with the fiscal year 2022 President’s
production for many years and are thus well down the
budget request, the updated acquisition strategies
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
Project 0411, Future Surface Combatant Concept, within
IF11679
Program Element (PE) 0603564N, Ship Preliminary Design
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 9 · UPDATED