link to page 1 
Updated March 23, 2023
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
FY2032. The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requests
Program Designation and Lead Ship Procurement
$187.4 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 FY2032, 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 proposed 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
projects LSCs being procured in FY2030 and subsequent
higher-power equipment and weapons (including directed-
years in annual quantities of one to three ships per year.
energy weapons) over the ship’s service life; (3) an
integrated power system (IPS); (4) reduced vulnerability
In constant FY2019 dollars, the Navy wants the first
due to reduced infrared, acoustic, and underwater
DDG(X) to have a procurement cost of $3.5 billion to $4.0
electromagnetic signatures; (5) increased cruising range and
billion, and for the 10th ship in the class to have a
time on station; and (6) increased weapon capacity.
procurement cost of $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion. The
November 2022 CBO report estimates the DDG(X)’s
The Navy states that the baseline DDG(X) design, like the
average procurement cost in constant FY2022 dollars at
Fight III DDG-51 design, is to include 96 standard Vertical
$3.1 billion to $3.4 billion—about 35% to 43% more than
Launch System (VLS) cells, with an ability to incorporate
the Navy’s estimate (shown in the CBO report) of $2.3
12 large missile launch cells in place of 32 of the 96
billion to $2.4 billion. The CBO and Navy estimates are
standard VLS cells. It is also to include two 21-cell Rolling
about 41% to 55%, and 5% to 9%, respectively, more than
Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers and an ability to be
the DDG-51’s procurement cost of about $2.2 billion.
built with an additional mid-body hull section, called the
Destroyer Payload Module (see Figure 1), that would
Issues for Congress
provide additional payload capacity. The Navy states that
Issues for Congress regarding the DDG(X) program include
The Future Naval Force Study (FNFS) and the
the following: (1) Would a new LSC larger than the Flight
Future Surface Combatant Force Analysis of
III DDG-51 design be consistent with the Navy’s
Alternatives
(FSCF
AoA)
identified
the
Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept, which
requirement for future large surface combatants
envisages a future fleet with a smaller proportion of larger
(LSCs) to be capable of hosting directed energy
ships and a larger proportion of smaller ships? (2) The
(DE) weapons, larger missiles for increased range
Navy in the past has studied options for a lengthened
and speed, increased magazine depth, growth in
version of the DDG-51 that would displace between 11,000
and 12,000 tons. Would the DDG(X) be more cost-effective
organic sensors, and an efficient integrated power
than a lengthened DDG-51? (3) Has the Navy accurately
system to manage the dynamic loads.... [S]tudies
identified the DDG(X)’s required operational capabilities?
were performed from FY 2018 to FY 2020 that
(4) Why is there a 35% to 43% difference between the CBO
considered modification of existing surface
and Navy estimates of the DDG(X)’s average procurement
combatant and amphibious ships in addition to new
cost? (5) Would future Navy budgets permit the
concepts. These studies concluded that DDG(X) is
procurement of DDG(X)s in desired numbers while
required to deliver the necessary margins and
adequately funding other Navy priorities? (6) Has the Navy
flexibility to succeed the DDG 51 Class as the next
taken adequate steps to mature DDG(X) technologies and
enduring LSC.... By including the DDG 51 FLT III
mitigate technical, schedule, and cost risk in the program?
combat system in a new DDG(X) hull, mechanical
(7) Has the Navy planned adequately for the transition from
and electrical (HM&E) baseline, Navy is taking an
DDG-51 procurement to DDG(X) procurement, and for
“evolutionary” (vice “revolutionary”) approach to
resulting impacts on the shipbuilding industrial base?
the class. This is a critical lesson learned proven by
the successful evolution of the original DD 963
FY2024 Funding Request and
Spruance design of the early 1970s.... In the early
Congressional Action
1980’s, the DDG 51 class applied a similar
The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requests $74.1
approach.... [E]arly DDG(X) production transition
million for Project 0411 (DDG[X] Concept Development)
will overlap DDG 51 FLT III production ensuring
within Program Element (PE) 0603564N (Ship Preliminary
stability in the Large Surface Combatant industrial
Design & Feasibility Studies), which is line 46 in the
base.
Navy’s FY2024 research and development account, and
$113.3 million for “DDG(X) Power & Propulsion Risk
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
Mitigation & Demonstration,” which forms part of Project
2024 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
2471 (Integrated Power Systems [IPS]) within PE
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
0603573N (Advanced Surface Machinery Systems), which
Evaluation, Navy, March 2023, p. 453.)
is line 48.
Procurement Quantities and Procurement Cost
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs
The Navy has not specified how many DDG(X)s it wants to
procure. The Navy’s FY2023 30-year shipbuilding plan
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 33 · UPDATED