link to page 1 
Updated March 2, 2022
Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues
The Navy’s DDG(X) program envisages procuring a class
for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.)
of next-generation guided-missile destroyers (DDGs) to
replace the Navy’s Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis
LSC Industrial Base
cruisers and older Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis
All LSCs procured for the Navy since FY1985 have been
destroyers. The Navy wants to procure the first DDG(X) in
built at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of
FY2028. The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests
Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls
$121.8 million in research and development funding for the
Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed
program.
Martin and Raytheon are major contractors for Navy
surface ship combat system equipment. The surface
Navy Large Surface Combatants (LSCs)
combatant industrial base also includes hundreds of
additional component and material supplier firms.
Terminology
Since the 1980s, there has been substantial overlap in the
Figure 1. Navy Rendering of Notional DDG(X) Design
size and capability of Navy cruisers and destroyers. In part
for this reason, the Navy now refers to its cruisers and
destroyers collectively as large surface combatants (LSCs).
Force-Level Goal
The Navy’s current 355-ship force-level goal, released in
December 2016, calls for achieving and maintaining a force
of 104 LSCs. The Navy and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense have been working since 2019 to develop a
successor to the 355-ship force-level goal. A June 17, 2021,
Navy long-range shipbuilding document reflecting work on
the development of the successor goal calls for maintaining
a force of 63 to 65 LSCs. On February 18, 2022, the Chief
of Naval Operations (CNO), referring to work on the
development of the successor goal, outlined a future Navy
Source: Il ustration accompanying Sam LaGrone, “Navy Unveils
that would include 60 LSCs.
Next-Generation DDG(X) Warship Concept with Hypersonic
Existing LSCs
Missiles, Lasers,” USNI News, January 12, 2022. The article credits the
il ustration to the U.S. Navy.
The Navy’s CG-47s and DDG-51s are commonly called
Aegis cruisers and destroyers because they are equipped
DDG(X) Program
with the Aegis combat system, an integrated collection of
sensors and weapons named for the mythical shield that
Program Designation
defended Zeus. The Navy procured 27 CG-47s between
In the program designation DDG(X), the X means the
FY1978 and FY1988. The ships entered service between
precise design for the ship has not yet been determined.
1983 and 1994. The first five, which were built to an earlier
technical standard, were judged by the Navy to be too
Procurement Date for Lead Ship
expensive to modernize and were removed from service in
As mentioned earlier, the Navy wants to procure the first
2004-2005. The Navy’s FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan
DDG(X) in FY2028, though the date for procuring the first
projected that the remaining 22 CG-47s would be retired
ship has changed before and could change again.
between FY2021 and FY2038.
Procurement of DDG-51s—the type of LSC currently being
procured by the Navy—would end sometime after
The first DDG-51 was procured in FY1985 and entered
procurement of DDG(X)s begins.
service in 1991. The version of the DDG-51 that the Navy
is currently procuring is called the Flight III version. The
Navy’s General Concept for the Ship
Navy also has three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers
Figure 1 shows a Navy rendering of a notional DDG(X)
that were procured in FY2007-FY2009 and are equipped
design concept. The Navy approved the DDG(X)’s top-
with a combat system that is different than the Aegis
level requirements (i.e., its major required features) in
system. (For more on the DDG-51 and DDG-1000
December 2020. Navy officials envision the DDG(X) as
programs, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress
being larger than the 9,700-ton Flight III DDG-51 design,
identified the DDG(X)’s required operational capabilities
but smaller than the 15,700-ton DDG-1000 design. A
and estimated procurement cost; (2) the DDG(X) program’s
DDG(X) design midway in displacement between the
potential total procurement quantity and annual
DDG-51 and DDG-1000 designs would displace about
procurement rate; (3) the number of shipbuilders to be used
12,700 tons, but the DDG(X)’s displacement could turn out
in building DDG(X)s; (4) the Navy’s plan for maturing new
to be less than or more than 12,700 tons. The Navy
technologies for the DDG(X); and (5) the Navy’s plan for
envisages the DDG(X) as having (1) an integrated
transitioning from DDG-51 procurement to DDG(X)
propulsion system (IPS) that incorporates lessons from the
procurement, and the potential impact of that transition on
DDG-1000 IPS and the Navy’s new Columbia-class
shipbuilders and supplier firms. For further discussion of
ballistic missile submarine; (2) initially, combat system
the final issue, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51
equipment similar to that installed on the Flight III DDG-
and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and
51; and (3) more weapon capacity than the Flight III DDG-
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
51. The Navy states that the DDG(X) would
FY2022 Funding Request and
integrate non-developmental systems into a new
Congressional Action
hull design that incorporates platform flexibility
The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $121.8
and the space, weight, power and cooling (SWAP-
million in research and development funding for the
C) to meet future combatant force capability/system
program, including $79.7 million in Project 0411 (DDG[X]
requirements that are not achievable without the
Concept Development) within Program Element (PE)
new hull design. The DDG(X) platform will have
0603564N (Ship Preliminary Design & Feasibility Studies),
the flexibility to rapidly and affordably upgrade to
which is line 47 in the Navy’s FY2022 research and
future warfighting systems when they become
development account, and $42.1 million for “DDG(X)
available as well as have improved range and fuel
Power & Propulsion Risk Mitigation & Demonstration,”
efficiency for increased operational flexibility and
which forms part of Project 2471 (Integrated Power
decreased demand on the logistics force.
Systems [IPS]) within PE 0603573N (Advanced Surface
Machinery Systems), which is line 49 in the Navy’s
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
FY2022 research and development account.
2022 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
The joint explanatory statement for the FY2022 National
Evaluation, Navy, May 2021, p. 479.)
Defense Authorization Act (S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 of
December 27, 2021) recommends approving the Navy’s
Potential Procurement Quantities
research and development funding requests for the DDG(X)
The Navy has not specified how many DDG(X)s it wants to
program. Section 221 directs the Navy to commence a land-
procure. Procuring 11 would provide one for each of the
based test program for the DDG(X) engineering plant
Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers. Procuring 22 would provide
during the program’s detailed design period and prior to the
one-for-one replacements for the 22 CG-47s. Procuring
construction start date of the lead ship.
additional DDG(X)s to replace older DDG-51s would result
in a larger total procurement quantity.
The House Appropriations Committee’s report (H.Rept.
117-88 of July 15, 2021) on the FY2022 DOD
Potential Unit Procurement Cost
Appropriations Act (H.R. 4432) recommended reducing
The first DDG(X) would be considerably more expensive to
line 47 by $55.488 million for “DDG(X) design and
procure than follow-on DDG(X)s because its procurement
analysis excess to need,” and reducing line 49 by $19.050
cost would incorporate most or all of the detailed design
million for “DDG(X) power and propulsion risk mitigation
and nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the class.
and demonstration excess to need.” (Page 266) The Senate
(It is a traditional Navy budgeting practice for the
Appropriations Committee, in the explanatory statement it
procurement cost of the lead ship in a class to incorporate
released on October 18, 2021, for the FY2022 DOD
most or all of the DD/NRE costs for the class.)
Appropriations Act (S. XXXX), recommended reducing
line 47 by $71.17 million for “Project 0411 Design and
In constant FY2019 dollars, the Navy wants the first
analysis and program management growth early to need.”
DDG(X) to have a procurement cost of $3.5 billion to $4.0
(PDF page 175 of 254) The explanatory statement states
billion, and for the 10th ship in the class to have a
that “the Navy has not clearly explained the rationale for
procurement cost of $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion. An April
transitioning to a new class of” LSCs, and that “the
2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates
Committee does not have confidence in the Navy’s ability
the average procurement cost of the DDG(X) at $2.9 billion
to manage the acquisition and contracting for a new class of
in constant FY2021 dollars. By way of comparison, the
LSC at this time.” (PDF pages 178-179 of 253).
Flight III DDG-51’s current procurement is about $2.0
billion.
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs
Issues for Congress
IF11679
Issues for Congress regarding the DDG(X) program include
the following: (1) whether the Navy has accurately
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer 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 22 · UPDATED