link to page 1 
Updated December 13, 2022
Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
surface ship combat system equipment. The surface
The Navy’s DDG(X) program envisages procuring a class
combatant industrial base also includes hundreds of
of next-generation guided-missile destroyers (DDGs) to
additional component and material supplier firms.
replace the Navy’s Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis
cruisers and older Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis
DDG(X) Program
destroyers. The Navy wants to procure the first DDG(X) in
FY2030. The Navy’s proposed FY2023 budget requests
Program Designation and Lead Ship Procurement
$195.5 million in research and development funding for the
In the program designation DDG(X), the X means the
program.
precise design for the ship has not yet been determined. As
mentioned earlier, the Navy wants to procure the first
Navy Large Surface Combatants (LSCs)
DDG(X) in FY2030, though the date for procuring the first
ship has changed before and could change again.
Force-Level Goal
Procurement of DDG-51s—the type of LSC currently being
The Navy refers to its cruisers and destroyers collectively
procured by the Navy—would end sometime after
as large surface combatants (LSCs).The Navy’s current
procurement of DDG(X)s begins.
355-ship force-level goal, released in December 2016, calls
for achieving and maintaining a force of 104 LSCs. The
Navy’s General Concept for the Ship
Navy’s FY2023 30-year (FY2023-FY2052) shipbuilding
Figure 1 shows a Navy rendering of a notional DDG(X)
plan, released on April 20, 2022, summarizes Navy and
design concept. The Navy approved the DDG(X)’s top-
OSD studies outlining potential successor Navy force-level
level requirements (i.e., its major required features) in
goals that include 63 to 96 LSCs.
December 2020. A November 2022 Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) report on the Navy’s FY2023 30-year
Existing LSCs
shipbuilding plan states that “the Navy has indicated that
The Navy’s CG-47s and DDG-51s are commonly called
the initial [DDG(X)] design prescribes a displacement of
Aegis cruisers and destroyers because they are equipped
13,500 tons,” which would be about 39% greater than the
with the Aegis combat system, an integrated collection of
9,700-ton Flight III DDG-51 design.
sensors and weapons named for the mythical shield that
defended Zeus. The Navy procured 27 CG-47s between
Figure 1. Navy Rendering of Notional DDG(X) Design
FY1978 and FY1988. The ships entered service between
1983 and 1994. The first five, which were built to an earlier
technical standard, were judged by the Navy to be too
expensive to modernize and were removed from service in
2004-2005. Of the remaining 22 ships, the Navy’s FY2023
budget submission proposes retiring 17 in FY2023-
FY2027, and the final 5 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.)
Source: Slide 5 from briefing on DDG(X) program by Captain David
LSC Industrial Base
Hart, DDG(X) Program Manager, January 12, 2022, presented at
Surface Navy Association annual symposium.
All LSCs procured for the Navy since FY1985 have been
The Navy envisages the DDG(X) as having (1) Flight III
built at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of
DDG-51 Aegis combat system elements; (2) more growth
Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls
margin than the Flight III DDG-51 design, meaning more
Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed
space, weight-carrying capacity, electrical power, and
Martin and Raytheon are major contractors for Navy
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 1 Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress
cooling capacity (aka SWAP-C) for accepting additional or
Issues for Congress
higher-power equipment and weapons (including directed-
Issues for Congress regarding the DDG(X) program include
energy weapons) over the ship’s service life; (3) an
the following: (1) Would a new LSC larger than the Flight
integrated power system (IPS); (4) reduced vulnerability
III DDG-51 design be consistent with the Navy’s
due to reduced infrared, acoustic, and underwater
Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept, which
electromagnetic signatures; (5) increased cruising range and
envisages a future fleet with a smaller proportion of larger
time on station; and (6) increased weapon capacity.
ships and a larger proportion of smaller ships? (2) The
Navy in the past has studied options for a lengthened
The Navy states that the baseline DDG(X) design, like the
version of the DDG-51 that would displace between 11,000
Fight III DDG-51 design, is to include 96 standard Vertical
and 12,000 tons. Would the DDG(X) be more cost-effective
Launch System (VLS) cells, with an ability to incorporate
than a lengthened DDG-51? (3) Has the Navy accurately
12 large missile launch cells in place of 32 of the 96
identified the DDG(X)’s required operational capabilities?
standard VLS cells. It is also to include two 21-cell Rolling
(4) Why is there a 35% to 43% difference between the CBO
Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers and an ability to be
and Navy estimates of the DDG(X)’s average procurement
built with an additional mid-body hull section, called the
cost? (5) Would future Navy budgets permit the
Destroyer Payload Module (see Figure 1), that would
procurement of DDG(X)s in desired numbers while
provide additional payload capacity. The Navy states that
adequately funding other Navy priorities? (6) Has the Navy
The Future Naval Force Study (FNFS) and the
taken adequate steps to mature DDG(X) technologies and
Future Surface Combatant Force Analysis of
mitigate technical, schedule, and cost risk in the program?
Alternatives
(FSCF
AoA)
identified
the
(7) Has the Navy planned adequately for the transition from
requirement for future large surface combatants
DDG-51 procurement to DDG(X) procurement, and for
(LSCs) to be capable of hosting directed energy
resulting impacts on the shipbuilding industrial base?
(DE) weapons, larger missiles for increased range
FY2023 Funding Request and
and speed, increased magazine depth, growth in
Congressional Action
organic sensors, and an efficient integrated power
The Navy’s proposed FY2023 budget requests $49.7
system to manage the dynamic loads... [S]tudies
million for Project 0411 (DDG[X] Concept Development)
were performed from FY 2018 to FY 2020 that
within Program Element (PE) 0603564N (Ship Preliminary
considered modification of existing surface
Design & Feasibility Studies), which is line 47 in the
combatant and amphibious ships in addition to new
Navy’s FY2023 research and development account, and
concepts. These studies concluded that a new
$145.8 million for “DDG(X) Power & Propulsion Risk
material solution via DDG(X) is required to deliver
Mitigation & Demonstration,” which forms part of Project
the necessary margins and flexibility to succeed the
2471 (Integrated Power Systems [IPS]) within PE
DDG 51 Class as the next enduring LSC.... By
0603573N (Advanced Surface Machinery Systems), which
including the DDG 51 FLT III combat system
is line 49.
elements in the DDG(X) baseline, Navy is taking an
“evolutionary” (vice “revolutionary”) approach to
The joint explanatory statement for the FY2023 National
the [DDG(X)]class, incorporating a critical lesson
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 7776)
learned from the successful evolution of the DDG
recommends approving the Navy’s FY2023 funding
51 Class from [the Aegis cruiser design].
requests for the DDG(X) program (PDF pages 516 and 517
of 748). Section 130 of the H.R. 7776 prescribes certain
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
aspects of the DDG(X) acquisition strategy. The joint
2023 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
explanatory statement discusses Section 130 briefly (PDF
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
pages 6-7 of 748) and directs the Navy to provide a report
Evaluation, Navy, April 2022, p. 475.)
on the Navy’s pursuit of an electric-drive propulsion system
for the DDG(X) (PDF page 15 of 748).
Procurement Quantities and Procurement Cost
The Navy has not specified how many DDG(X)s it wants to
The House Appropriations Committee’s report (H.Rept.
procure. The Navy’s FY2023 30-year shipbuilding plan
117-388 of June 24, 2022) on the FY2023 DOD
projects LSCs being procured in FY2030 and subsequent
Appropriations Act (H.R. 8236) recommends reducing the
years in annual quantities of one to three ships per year.
request for line 47 by $13.244 million and reducing the
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. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s
procurement cost of $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion. The
explanatory statement for the FY2023 DOD Appropriations
November 2022 CBO report estimates the DDG(X)’s
Act (S. 4663), released on July 28, 2022 (pages 180 and
average procurement cost in constant FY2022 dollars at
186), recommends approving the Navy’s FY2023 funding
$3.1 billion to $3.4 billion—about 35% to 43% more than
requests.
the Navy’s estimate (shown in the CBO report) of $2.3
billion to $2.4 billion. The CBO and Navy estimates are
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs
about 41% to 55%, and 5% to 9%, respectively, more than
the DDG-51’s procurement cost of about $2.2 billion.
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 31 · UPDATED