link to page 1 
Updated November 28, 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. A November 2022 Congressional Budget
Aegis cruisers and destroyers because they are equipped
Office (CBO) report on the Navy’s FY2023 30-year
with the Aegis combat system, an integrated collection of
shipbuilding plan states that “the Navy has indicated that
sensors and weapons named for the mythical shield that
the initial [DDG(X)] design prescribes a displacement of
defended Zeus. The Navy procured 27 CG-47s between
13,500 tons,” which would be about 39% greater than the
FY1978 and FY1988. The ships entered service between
9,700-ton Flight III DDG-51 design.
1983 and 1994. The first five, which were built to an earlier
technical standard, were judged by the Navy to be too
Figure 1. Navy Rendering of Notional DDG(X) Design
expensive to modernize and were removed from service in
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
Source: Slide 5 from briefing on DDG(X) program by Captain David
All LSCs procured for the Navy since FY1985 have been
Hart, DDG(X) Program Manager, January 12, 2022, presented at
built at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of
Surface Navy Association annual symposium.
Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls
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
(shown in the CBO report) of $2.3 billion. The CBO and
DDG-51 Aegis combat system elements; (2) more growth
Navy estimates are about 41% and 5%, respectively, more
margin than the Flight III DDG-51 design, meaning more
than the Flight III DDG-51’s current procurement cost of
space, weight-carrying capacity, electrical power, and
about $2.2 billion.
cooling capacity (aka SWAP-C) for accepting additional or
higher-power equipment and weapons (including directed-
Issues for Congress
energy weapons) over the ship’s service life; (3) an
Issues for Congress regarding the DDG(X) program include
integrated power system (IPS); (4) reduced vulnerability
the following: (1) Would a new LSC larger than the Flight
due to reduced infrared, acoustic, and underwater
III DDG-51 design be consistent with the Navy’s
electromagnetic signatures; (5) increased cruising range and
Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept, which
time on station; and (6) increased weapon capacity.
envisages a future fleet with a smaller proportion of larger
ships and a larger proportion of smaller ships? (2) The
The Navy states that the baseline DDG(X) design, like the
Navy in the past has studied options for a lengthened
Fight III DDG-51 design, is to include 96 standard Vertical
version of the DDG-51 that would displace between 11,000
Launch System (VLS) cells, with an ability to incorporate
and 12,000 tons. Would the DDG(X) be more cost-effective
12 large missile launch cells in place of 32 of the 96
than a lengthened DDG-51? (3) Has the Navy accurately
standard VLS cells. It is also to include two 21-cell Rolling
identified the DDG(X)’s required operational capabilities?
Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers and an ability to be
(4) Why is there a 35% difference between the CBO and
built with an additional mid-body hull section, called the
Navy estimates of the DDG(X)’s average procurement
Destroyer Payload Module (see Figure 1), that would
cost? (5) Would future Navy budgets permit the
provide additional payload capacity. The Navy states that
procurement of DDG(X)s in desired numbers while
The Future Naval Force Study (FNFS) and the
adequately funding other Navy priorities, particularly if the
Future Surface Combatant Force Analysis of
DDG(X)’s procurement cost turns out to be closer to
Alternatives
(FSCF
AoA)
identified
the
CBO’s estimate? (6) Has the Navy taken adequate steps to
requirement for future large surface combatants
mature DDG(X) technologies and mitigate technical,
(LSCs) to be capable of hosting directed energy
schedule, and cost risk in the DDG(X) program? (7) Has
(DE) weapons, larger missiles for increased range
the Navy planned adequately for the transition from DDG-
and speed, increased magazine depth, growth in
51 procurement to DDG(X) procurement, and for resulting
impacts on the shipbuilding industrial base?
organic sensors, and an efficient integrated power
system to manage the dynamic loads... [S]tudies
FY2023 Funding Request and
were performed from FY 2018 to FY 2020 that
Congressional Action
considered modification of existing surface
The Navy’s proposed FY2023 budget requests $49.7
combatant and amphibious ships in addition to new
million for Project 0411 (DDG[X] Concept Development)
concepts. These studies concluded that a new
within Program Element (PE) 0603564N (Ship Preliminary
material solution via DDG(X) is required to deliver
Design & Feasibility Studies), which is line 47 in the
the necessary margins and flexibility to succeed the
Navy’s FY2023 research and development account, and
DDG 51 Class as the next enduring LSC.... By
$145.8 million for “DDG(X) Power & Propulsion Risk
including the DDG 51 FLT III combat system
Mitigation & Demonstration,” which forms part of Project
elements in the DDG(X) baseline, Navy is taking an
2471 (Integrated Power Systems [IPS]) within PE
“evolutionary” (vice “revolutionary”) approach to
0603573N (Advanced Surface Machinery Systems), which
the [DDG(X)]class, incorporating a critical lesson
is line 49.
learned from the successful evolution of the DDG
51 Class from [the Aegis cruiser design].
The House Armed Services Committee’s report (H.Rept.
117-397 of July 1, 2022, page 473) on the FY2023 National
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 7900), the
2023 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
Senate Armed Services Committee’s report (S.Rept. 117-
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
130 of July 18, 2022, page 444) on the FY2023 NDAA (S.
Evaluation, Navy, April 2022, p. 475.)
4543), and the Senate Appropriations Committee’s
explanatory statement for the FY2023 DOD Appropriations
Potential Procurement Quantities
Act (S. 4663), released on July 28, 2022 (pages 180 and
The Navy has not specified how many DDG(X)s it wants to
186), recommend approving the Navy’s FY2023 funding
procure. The Navy’s FY2023 30-year shipbuilding plan
requests. The House Appropriations Committee’s report
projects LSCs being procured in FY2030 and subsequent
(H.Rept. 117-388 of June 24, 2022) on the FY2023 DOD
years in annual quantities of one to three ships per year.
Appropriations Act (H.R. 8236) recommends reducing the
request for line 47 by $13.244 million and reducing the
Potential Unit Procurement Cost
request for line 49 by $58.179 million (page 198). Section
In constant FY2019 dollars, the Navy wants the first
121 of S. 4543 would prescribe certain aspects of the
DDG(X) to have a procurement cost of $3.5 billion to $4.0
program. Section 121 is discussed on pages 5-6 of S.Rept.
billion, and for the 10th ship in the class to have a
117-130.
procurement cost of $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion. The
November 2022 CBO report estimates the DDG(X)’s
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs
average procurement cost in constant FY2022 dollars at
$3.1 billion—about 35% more than the Navy’s estimate
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 28 · UPDATED