link to page 1 
Updated August 3, 2023
Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
combatant industrial base also includes hundreds of
The Navy’s DDG(X) program envisages procuring a class
additional component and material supplier firms.
of next-generation guided-missile destroyers (DDGs) to
replace the Navy’s Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis
DDG(X) Program
cruisers and older Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis
destroyers. The Navy wants to procure the first DDG(X) in
Program Designation and Lead Ship Procurement
FY2032. The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requests
In the program designation DDG(X), the X means the
$187.4 million in research and development funding for the
precise design for the ship has not yet been determined. As
program.
mentioned earlier, the Navy wants to procure the first
DDG(X) in FY2032, though the date for procuring the first
Navy Large Surface Combatants (LSCs)
ship has changed before and could change again.
Procurement of DDG-51s—the type of LSC currently being
Force-Level Goal
procured by the Navy—would end sometime after
The Navy refers to its cruisers and destroyers collectively
procurement of DDG(X)s begins.
as large surface combatants (LSCs). The Navy’s current
355-ship force-level goal, released in December 2016, calls
Navy’s General Concept for the Ship
for achieving and maintaining a force of 104 LSCs. The
Figure 1 shows a Navy rendering of a notional DDG(X)
Navy’s FY2023 30-year (FY2023-FY2052) shipbuilding
design concept. The Navy approved the DDG(X)’s top-
plan, released on April 20, 2022, summarizes Navy and
level requirements (i.e., its major required features) in
OSD studies outlining potential successor Navy force-level
December 2020. A November 2022 Congressional Budget
goals that include 63 to 96 LSCs.
Office (CBO) report on the Navy’s FY2023 30-year
shipbuilding plan states that “the Navy has indicated that
Existing LSCs
the initial [DDG(X)] design prescribes a displacement of
The Navy’s CG-47s and DDG-51s are commonly called
13,500 tons,” which would be about 39% greater than the
Aegis cruisers and destroyers because they are equipped
9,700-ton Flight III DDG-51 design.
with the Aegis combat system, an integrated collection of
sensors and weapons named for the mythical shield that
Figure 1. Navy Rendering of Notional DDG(X) Design
defended Zeus. The Navy procured 27 CG-47s between
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. The Navy began retiring the remaining 22 ships
in FY2022 and wants to retire all 22 by the end of 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
cooling capacity (aka SWAP-C) for accepting additional or
surface ship combat system equipment. The surface
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 1 Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress
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 desire to
electromagnetic signatures; (5) increased cruising range and
shift to a more distributed fleet architecture that includes a
time on station; and (6) increased weapon capacity.
larger number of smaller ships? (2) The Navy in the past
has studied options for a lengthened version of the DDG-51
The Navy states that the baseline DDG(X) design, like the
that would displace between 11,000 and 12,000 tons.
Fight III DDG-51 design, is to include 96 standard Vertical
Would the DDG(X) be more cost-effective than a
Launch System (VLS) cells, with an ability to incorporate
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
FY2024 Funding Request and
and speed, increased magazine depth, growth in
Congressional Action
organic sensors, and an efficient integrated power
The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requests $74.1
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 46 in the
combatant and amphibious ships in addition to new
Navy’s FY2024 research and development account, and
concepts. These studies concluded that DDG(X) is
$113.3 million for “DDG(X) Power & Propulsion Risk
required to deliver the necessary margins and
Mitigation & Demonstration,” which forms part of Project
flexibility to succeed the DDG 51 Class as the next
2471 (Integrated Power Systems [IPS]) within PE
enduring LSC.... By including the DDG 51 FLT III
0603573N (Advanced Surface Machinery Systems), which
combat system in a new DDG(X) hull, mechanical
is line 48.
and electrical (HM&E) baseline, Navy is taking an
“evolutionary” (vice “revolutionary”) approach to
The House and Senate Armed Services Committees, in their
the class.... [E]arly DDG(X) production transition
reports on the FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act
will overlap DDG 51 FLT III production ensuring
(NDAA) (H.R. 2670 and S. 2226), recommended approving
stability in the Large Surface Combatant industrial
the Navy’s funding requests for the DDG(X) program in
base.
lines 46 and 48. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, in their reports on the FY2024 DOD
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
Appropriations Act (H.R. 4365 and S. 2587), recommended
2024 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
approving the Navy’s funding request for line 48. The
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
House committee recommended reducing the request for
Evaluation, Navy, March 2023, p. 453.)
line 46 by $12.152 million, and the Senate committee
recommended increasing it by $43.2 million.
Procurement Quantities and Procurement Cost
The Navy has not specified how many DDG(X)s it wants to
Section 862 of H.R. 2670 would permit the DOD Industrial
procure. The Navy’s FY2024 30-year shipbuilding plan
Base Fund to be used to provide support for the workforce
projects LSCs being procured in FY2032 and subsequent
for LSCs. The House committee’s report on H.R. 2670
years in annual quantities of one to three ships per year.
included language on incorporating additive manufacturing
capability into the DDG(X) design (pages 48-49), the
In constant FY2019 dollars, the Navy wants the first
DDG(X) design tool (page 51), and incorporating both the
DDG(X) to have a procurement cost of $3.5 billion to $4.0
permanent magnet and high temperature superconductor
billion, and for the 10th ship in the class to have a
motors into the DDG(X) test program (pages 51-52). The
procurement cost of $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion. The
Senate committee’s report included language on pursuing a
November 2022 CBO report estimates the DDG(X)’s
collaborative design, development, and acquisition strategy
average procurement cost in constant FY2022 dollars at
for DDG(X), and on transitioning from DDG-51
$3.1 billion to $3.4 billion—about 35% to 43% more than
procurement to DDG(X) procurement (page 23).
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 34 · UPDATED