link to page 1 
Updated October 19, 2021
Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
Figure 1. CG-47 Class Aegis Cruiser
The Navy’s DDG(X) program envisages procuring a class
of next-generation guided-missile destroyers (DDGs) to
replace the Navy’s aging Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis
cruisers. The Navy wants to procure the first DDG(X) in
FY2028. The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests
$121.8 million in research and development funding for the
program.
Terminology
Since the 1980s, there has been substantial overlap in the
size and capability of Navy cruisers and destroyers. In part
for this reason, the Navy now refers to its cruisers and
Source: Cropped version of U.S. Navy photograph showing USS
destroyers collectively as large surface combatants (LSCs).
Antietam (CG-54).
Surface Combatant Industrial Base
Navy’s General Concept for the Ship
All LSCs procured for the Navy since FY1985 have been
The Navy approved the top-level requirements (i.e., major
built at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of
required features) for the DDG(X) in December 2020. The
Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls
Navy envisages the DDG(X) as using
Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed
Martin and Raytheon are major contractors for Navy
a new hull design evolved from the DDG-51 and
surface ship combat system equipment. The surface
Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyer hull designs;
combatant base also includes hundreds of additional
component and material supplier firms.
a next-generation integrated propulsion system (IPS)
that incorporates lessons from the DDG-1000 IPS and
Existing CG-47 Class Aegis Cruisers
the Navy’s new Columbia-class ballistic missile
The Navy procured a total of 27 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class
submarine; and
cruisers (Figure 1) between FY1978 and FY1988. The
ships entered service between 1983 and 1994. They are
initially, combat system equipment similar to that
commonly called Aegis cruisers because they are equipped
installed on the Flight III version of the DDG-51
with the Aegis combat system, an integrated collection of
destroyer—the DDG-51 variant that the Navy is
sensors and weapons named for the mythical shield that
currently procuring.
defended Zeus. The first five CG-47s, which were built to
an earlier technical standard, were judged by the Navy to be
(For more on the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 programs, see
too expensive to modernize and were removed from service
CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000
in 2004-2005. The Navy’s FY2020 30-year shipbuilding
Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress,
plan projected that the remaining 22 CG-47s would be
by Ronald O'Rourke.)
retired between FY2021 and FY2038.
Navy officials envision the DDG(X) as being larger than
DDG(X) Program
the 9,700-ton Flight III DDG-51 design, but smaller than
the 16,000-ton DDG-1000 design. The Navy states that the
Program Designation
DDG(X) would
In the program designation DDG(X), the X means the
integrate non-developmental systems into a new
precise design for the ship has not yet been determined.
hull design that incorporates platform flexibility
Procurement Date for Lead Ship
and the space, weight, power and cooling (SWAP-
As mentioned earlier, the Navy wants to procure the first
C) to meet future combatant force capability/system
DDG(X) in FY2028, though the date for procuring the first
requirements that are not achievable without the
ship has changed before and could change again.
new hull design. The DDG(X) platform will have
Procurement of Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class
the flexibility to rapidly and affordably upgrade to
destroyers—the type of LSC currently being procured by
future warfighting systems when they become
the Navy—would end at about the time that DDG(X)
available as well as have improved range and fuel
procurement would begin.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress
efficiency for increased operational flexibility and
the Navy’s plans for maintaining, modernizing, and
decreased demand on the logistics force. DDG(X)
operating the 22 CG-47s over the remainder of their
will provide an Integrated Power System with
service lives; and
flexibility to enable fielding of high demand electric
weapons, sensor systems and computing resources.
the Navy’s plans for transitioning from procurement of
DDG-51s to procurement of DDG(X)s, and the potential
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
impact of this transition on U.S. shipbuilders and
2022 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
supplier firms.
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
Evaluation, Navy, May 2021, p. 479.)
FY2022 Funding Request and
Congressional Action
Potential Procurement Quantities
The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $121.8
The Navy has not specified the total number of DDG(X)s it
million in research and development funding for the
wants to procure. Procuring 11 would provide one DDG(X)
program, including $79.7 million in Project 0411 (DDG[X]
for each of the Navy’s 11 large aircraft carriers. Procuring
Concept Development) within Program Element (PE)
22 would provide one-for-one replacements for the 22 CG-
0603564N (Ship Preliminary Design & Feasibility Studies),
47s. Keeping the DDG(X) design in production so as to
which is line 47 in the Navy’s FY2022 research and
additionally replace at least some of the Navy’s older DDG-
development account, and $42.1 million for “DDG(X)
51s as those ships start to retire in the 2030s could result in
Power & Propulsion Risk Mitigation & Demonstration,”
a larger total procurement quantity. These numbers, as well
which forms part of Project 2471 (Integrated Power
as a long-range shipbuilding document released by the
Systems [IPS]) within PE 0603573N (Advanced Surface
Navy on June 17, 2021, suggest a potential DDG(X) annual
Machinery Systems), which is line 49 in the Navy’s
procurement rate of one to two ships per year.
FY2022 research and development account.
Potential Unit Procurement Cost
The House and Senate Armed Services Committees’ reports
The first DDG(X) would be considerably more expensive to
(H.Rept. 117-118 of September 10, 2021, and S.Rept. 117-
procure than follow-on DDG(X)s because its procurement
39 of September 22 [legislative day, September 21], 2021,
cost would incorporate most or all of the detailed design
respectively) on the FY2022 National Defense
and nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the class.
Authorization Act (H.R. 4350/S. 2792) recommended
(It is a traditional Navy budgeting practice for the
approving these two funding requests. Section 215 of H.R.
procurement cost of the lead ship in a class to incorporate
4350 as reported directs the Navy to commence a land-
most or all of the DD/NRE costs for the class.)
based test program for the DDG(X) engineering (i.e.,
propulsion) plant before starting construction of the first
In constant FY2019 dollars, the Navy wants the first
DDG(X). H.Rept. 117-118 directs the Navy to submit a
DDG(X) to have a procurement cost of $3.5 billion to $4.0
report on the transition from DDG-51 procurement to
billion, and for the 10th ship in the class to have a
DDG(X) procurement (page 20), and to brief the committee
procurement cost of $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion. An April
on high-energy lasers, including a plan for integrating lasers
2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on a long-
with more than 150kW of beam power into the DDG(X)
range shipbuilding document released by the Navy on
(page 53). S.Rept. 117-39 directs the Navy to submit a
December 9, 2020, estimates the average procurement cost
report on the extent to which the Navy will use an
of the DDG(X) at $2.9 billion in constant FY2021 dollars.
Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD)-type
By way of comparison, the current procurement cost of the
acquisition strategy for the DDG(X) (pages 28-29).
Flight III DDG-51 is about $2.0 billion.
The House Appropriations Committee’s report (H.Rept.
Issues for Congress
117-88 of July 15, 2021) on the FY2022 DOD
Issues for Congress regarding the DDG(X) program include
Appropriations Act (H.R. 4432), recommended reducing
the following:
line 47 by $55.488 million for “DDG(X) design and
analysis excess to need,” and reducing line 49 by $19.050
whether the Navy has accurately identified the
million for “DDG(X) power and propulsion risk mitigation
DDG(X)’s required operational capabilities and
and demonstration excess to need.” (Page 266) The Senate
estimated procurement cost;
Appropriations Committee, in the explanatory statement it
released on October 18, 2021, for the FY2022 DOD
the DDG(X) program’s potential total procurement
Appropriations Act (S. XXXX), recommended reducing
quantity and annual procurement rate;
line 47 by $71.17 million for “Project 0411 Design and
analysis and program management growth early to need.”
the number of shipbuilders to be used in building
(PDF page 175 of 254) Discussing this recommended
DDG(X)s;
reduction, the explanatory statement states that “the Navy
has not clearly explained the rationale for transitioning to a
the adequacy of the Navy’s plan for maturing new
new class of” LSCs, and that “the Committee does not have
technologies for the DDG(X);
confidence in the Navy’s ability to manage the acquisition
and contracting for a new class of LSC at this time.” (PDF
pages 178-179 of 253).
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Iss ues for Congress
IF11679
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs
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 permissio n of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11679 · VERSION 17 · UPDATED