link to page 1 
Updated August 29, 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
Flight III DDG-51’s current procurement is about $2.2
DDG-51 Aegis combat system elements; (2) more growth
billion.
margin than the Flight III DDG-51 design, meaning more
space, weight-carrying capacity, electrical power, and
Issues for Congress
cooling capacity (aka SWAP-C) for accepting additional or
Issues for Congress regarding the DDG(X) program include
higher-power equipment and weapons (including directed-
the following: (1) Would a new LSC larger than the Flight
energy weapons) over the ship’s service life; (3) an
III DDG-51 design be consistent with the Navy’s
integrated power system (IPS); (4) reduced vulnerability
Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept, which
due to reduced infrared, acoustic, and underwater
envisages a future fleet with a smaller proportion of larger
electromagnetic signatures; (5) increased cruising range and
ships and a larger proportion of smaller ships? (2) The
time on station; and (6) increased weapon capacity.
Navy in the past has studied options for a lengthened
version of the DDG-51 that would displace between 11,000
The Navy states that the baseline DDG(X) design, like the
and 12,000 tons. Would the DDG(X) be more cost-effective
Fight III DDG-51 design, is to include 96 standard Vertical
than a lengthened DDG-51? (3) Has the Navy accurately
Launch System (VLS) cells, with an ability to incorporate
identified the DDG(X)’s required operational capabilities
12 large missile launch cells in place of 32 of the 96
and estimated procurement cost? (4) Would future Navy
standard VLS cells. It is also to include two 21-cell Rolling
budgets permit the procurement of DDG(X)s in desired
Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers and an ability to be
numbers while adequately funding other Navy program
built with an additional mid-body hull section, called the
priorities? (5) Has the Navy taken adequate steps to mature
Destroyer Payload Module (see Figure 1), that would
DDG(X) technologies and mitigate technical, schedule, and
provide additional payload capacity. The Navy states that
cost risk in the DDG(X) program? (6) Has the Navy
The Future Naval Force Study (FNFS) and the
planned adequately for the transition from DDG-51
Future Surface Combatant Force Analysis of
procurement to DDG(X) procurement, and for resulting
Alternatives
(FSCF
AoA)
identified
the
impacts on the shipbuilding industrial base?
requirement for future large surface combatants
FY2023 Funding Request and
(LSCs) to be capable of hosting directed energy
Congressional Action
(DE) weapons, larger missiles for increased range
The Navy’s proposed FY202
and speed, increased magazine depth, growth in
3 budget requests $49.7
million for Project 0411 (DDG[X] Concept Development)
organic sensors, and an efficient integrated power
within Program Element (PE) 0603564N (Ship Preliminary
system to manage the dynamic loads... [S]tudies
Design & Feasibility Studies), which is line 47 in the
were performed from FY 2018 to FY 2020 that
Navy’s FY2023 research and development account, and
considered modification of existing surface
$145.8 million for “DDG(X) Power & Propulsion Risk
combatant and amphibious ships in addition to new
Mitigation & Demonstration,” which forms part of Project
concepts. These studies concluded that a new
2471 (Integrated Power Systems [IPS]) within PE
material solution via DDG(X) is required to deliver
0603573N (Advanced Surface Machinery Systems), which
the necessary margins and flexibility to succeed the
is line 49.
DDG 51 Class as the next enduring LSC.... By
including the DDG 51 FLT III combat system
The House Armed Services Committee’s report (H.Rept.
elements in the DDG(X) baseline, Navy is taking an
117-397 of July 1, 2022, page 473) on the FY2023 National
“evolutionary” (vice “revolutionary”) approach to
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 7900), the
the [DDG(X)]class, incorporating a critical lesson
Senate Armed Services Committee’s report (S.Rept. 117-
learned from the successful evolution of the DDG
130 of July 18, 2022, page 444) on the FY2023 NDAA (S.
51 Class from [the Aegis cruiser design].
4543), and the Senate Appropriations Committee’s
explanatory statement for the FY2023 DOD Appropriations
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
Act (S. 4663), released on July 28, 2022 (pages 180 and
2023 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
186), recommend approving the Navy’s FY2023 funding
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
requests. The House Appropriations Committee’s report
Evaluation, Navy, April 2022, p. 475.)
(H.Rept. 117-388 of June 24, 2022) on the FY2023 DOD
Appropriations Act (H.R. 8236) recommends reducing the
Potential Procurement Quantities
request for line 47 by $13.244 million for “Project 0411
The Navy has not specified how many DDG(X)s it wants to
DDG(X) design and analysis excess growth,” and reducing
procure. The Navy’s FY2023 30-year shipbuilding plan
the request for line 49 by $58.179 million for “Project 2471
projects LSCs being procured in FY2030 and subsequent
DDG(X) power and propulsion risk mitigation and
years in annual quantities of one to three ships per year.
demonstration excess growth” (page 198). Section 121 of S.
4543 would prescribe certain aspects of the program,
Potential Unit Procurement Cost
including GD/BIW’s and HII/Ingalls’ participation,
In constant FY2019 dollars, the Navy wants the first
competitive incentives, technology maturation, and
DDG(X) to have a procurement cost of $3.5 billion to $4.0
transitioning from DDG-51 procurement. Section 121 is
billion, and for the 10th ship in the class to have a
discussed on pages 5-6 of S.Rept. 117-130.
procurement cost of $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion. An April
2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs
the average procurement cost of the DDG(X) at $2.9 billion
in constant FY2021 dollars. By way of comparison, the
IF11679
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 27 · UPDATED