link to page 1 
Updated July 14, 2022
Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
Martin and Raytheon are major contractors for Navy
The Navy’s DDG(X) program envisages procuring a class
surface ship combat system equipment. The surface
of next-generation guided-missile destroyers (DDGs) to
combatant industrial base also includes hundreds of
replace the Navy’s Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis
additional component and material supplier firms.
cruisers and older Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis
destroyers. The Navy wants to procure the first DDG(X) in
DDG(X) Program
FY2030. The Navy’s proposed FY2023 budget requests
$195.5 million in research and development funding for the
Program Designation
program.
In the program designation DDG(X), the X means the
precise design for the ship has not yet been determined.
Navy Large Surface Combatants (LSCs)
Procurement Date for Lead Ship
Force-Level Goal
As mentioned earlier, the Navy wants to procure the first
The Navy refers to its cruisers and destroyers collectively
DDG(X) in FY2030, though the date for procuring the first
as large surface combatants (LSCs).The Navy’s current
ship has changed before and could change again.
355-ship force-level goal, released in December 2016, calls
Procurement of DDG-51s—the type of LSC currently being
for achieving and maintaining a force of 104 LSCs. The
procured by the Navy—would end sometime after
Navy’s FY2023 30-year (FY2023-FY2052) shipbuilding
procurement of DDG(X)s begins.
plan, released on April 20, 2022, summarizes Navy and
OSD studies outlining potential successor Navy force-level
Navy’s General Concept for the Ship
goals that include 63 to 96 LSCs.
Figure 1 shows a Navy rendering of a notional DDG(X)
design concept. The Navy approved the DDG(X)’s top-
Existing LSCs
level requirements (i.e., its major required features) in
The Navy’s CG-47s and DDG-51s are commonly called
December 2020. Navy officials envision the DDG(X) as
Aegis cruisers and destroyers because they are equipped
being larger than the 9,700-ton Flight III DDG-51 design,
with the Aegis combat system, an integrated collection of
but smaller than the 15,700-ton DDG-1000 design. A
sensors and weapons named for the mythical shield that
DDG(X) design midway in displacement between the
defended Zeus. The Navy procured 27 CG-47s between
DDG-51 and DDG-1000 designs would displace about
FY1978 and FY1988. The ships entered service between
12,700 tons, but the DDG(X)’s displacement could turn out
1983 and 1994. The first five, which were built to an earlier
to be less than or more than that figure.
technical standard, were judged by the Navy to be too
expensive to modernize and were removed from service in
Figure 1. Navy Rendering of Notional DDG(X) Design
2004-2005. Of the remaining 22 ships, the Navy’s FY2023
budget submission proposes retiring 5 in FY2023, another
12 in FY2024-FY2027, and the final 5 in years after
FY2027.
The first DDG-51 was procured in FY1985 and entered
service in 1991. The version of the DDG-51 that the Navy
is currently procuring is called the Flight III version. The
Navy also has three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers
that were procured in FY2007-FY2009 and are equipped
with a combat system that is different than the Aegis
system. (For more on the DDG-51 and DDG-1000
programs, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and
DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.)
LSC Industrial Base
All LSCs procured for the Navy since FY1985 have been
Source: Slide 5 from briefing on DDG(X) program by Captain David
built at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of
Hart, DDG(X) Program Manager, January 12, 2022, presented at
Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls
Surface Navy Association annual symposium.
Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 1 Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress
The Navy envisages the DDG(X) as having (1) Flight III
2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates
DDG-51 Aegis combat system elements; (2) more growth
the average procurement cost of the DDG(X) at $2.9 billion
margin than the Flight III DDG-51 design, meaning more
in constant FY2021 dollars. By way of comparison, the
space, weight-carrying capacity, electrical power, and
Flight III DDG-51’s current procurement is about $2.2
cooling capacity (aka SWAP-C) for accepting additional or
billion.
higher-power equipment and weapons (including directed-
energy weapons) over the ship’s service life; (3) an
Issues for Congress
integrated power system (IPS); (4) reduced vulnerability
Issues for Congress regarding the DDG(X) program include
due to reduced infrared, acoustic, and underwater
the following: (1) Would a new LSC larger than the Flight
electromagnetic signatures; (5) increased cruising range and
III DDG-51 design be consistent with the Navy’s
time on station; and (6) increased weapon capacity.
Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept, which
envisages a future fleet with a smaller proportion of larger
The Navy states that the baseline DDG(X) design, like the
ships and a larger proportion of smaller ships? (2) The
Fight III DDG-51 design, is to include 96 standard Vertical
Navy in the past has studied options for a lengthened
Launch System (VLS) cells, with an ability to incorporate
version of the DDG-51 that would displace between 11,000
12 large missile launch cells in place of 32 of the 96
and 12,000 tons. Would the DDG(X) be more cost-effective
standard VLS cells. It is also to include two 21-cell Rolling
than a lengthened DDG-51? (3) Has the Navy accurately
Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers and an ability to be
identified the DDG(X)’s required operational capabilities
built with an additional mid-body hull section, called the
and estimated procurement cost? (4) Would future Navy
Destroyer Payload Module (see Figure 1), that would
budgets permit the procurement of DDG(X)s in desired
provide additional payload capacity. The Navy states that
numbers while adequately funding other Navy program
The Future Naval Force Study (FNFS) and the
priorities? (5) Has the Navy taken adequate steps to mature
Future Surface Combatant Force Analysis of
DDG(X) technologies and mitigate technical, schedule, and
Alternatives
(FSCF
AoA)
identified
the
cost risk in the DDG(X) program? (6) Has the Navy
requirement for future large surface combatants
planned adequately for the transition from DDG-51
(LSCs) to be capable of hosting directed energy
procurement to DDG(X) procurement, and for resulting
(DE) weapons, larger missiles for increased range
impacts on the shipbuilding industrial base?
and speed, increased magazine depth, growth in
FY2023 Funding Request and
organic sensors, and an efficient integrated power
Congressional Action
system to manage the dynamic loads... [S]tudies
The Navy’s proposed FY2023 budget requested $195.5
were performed from FY 2018 to FY 2020 that
million in research and development funding for the
considered modification of existing surface
program, including $49.7 million in Project 0411 (DDG[X]
combatant and amphibious ships in addition to new
Concept Development) within Program Element (PE)
concepts. These studies concluded that a new
0603564N (Ship Preliminary Design & Feasibility Studies),
material solution via DDG(X) is required to deliver
which is line 47 in the Navy’s FY2023 research and
the necessary margins and flexibility to succeed the
development account, and $145.8 million for “DDG(X)
DDG 51 Class as the next enduring LSC.... By
Power & Propulsion Risk Mitigation & Demonstration,”
including the DDG 51 FLT III combat system
which forms part of Project 2471 (Integrated Power
elements in the DDG(X) baseline, Navy is taking an
Systems [IPS]) within PE 0603573N (Advanced Surface
“evolutionary” (vice “revolutionary”) approach to
Machinery Systems), which is line 49 in the Navy’s
the [DDG(X)]class, incorporating a critical lesson
FY2023 research and development account.
learned from the successful evolution of the DDG
51 Class from [the Aegis cruiser design].
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report
(H.Rept. 117-397 of July 1, 2022) on the FY2023 National
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 7900), recommends
2023 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
approving the Navy’s FY2023 funding requests for the
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
DDG(X) program (page 473). The House Appropriations
Evaluation, Navy, April 2022, p. 475.)
Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 117-388 of June 24, 2022)
on the FY2023 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 8236),
Potential Procurement Quantities
recommends reducing the Navy’s request for line 47 by
The Navy has not specified how many DDG(X)s it wants to
$13.244 million for “Project 0411 DDG(X) design and
procure. The Navy’s FY2023 30-year shipbuilding plan
analysis excess growth,” and reducing the Navy’s request
projects LSCs being procured in FY2030 and subsequent
for line 49 by $58.179 million for “Project 2471 DDG(X)
years in annual quantities of one to three ships per year.
power and propulsion risk mitigation and demonstration
excess growth” (page 198).
Potential Unit Procurement Cost
In constant FY2019 dollars, the Navy wants the first
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs
DDG(X) to have a procurement cost of $3.5 billion to $4.0
billion, and for the 10th ship in the class to have a
IF11679
procurement cost of $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion. An April
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 25 · UPDATED