link to page 1 
Updated March 25, 2024
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
FY2032. The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requested
$187.4 million in research and development funding for the
Program Designation and Lead Ship Procurement
program. The Navy’s proposed FY2025 budget requests
In the program designation DDG(X), the X means the
$102.8 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. Navy officials have stated
as large surface combatants (LSCs). The Navy’s current
that they would like to see a three-year overlap between the
355-ship force-level goal, released in December 2016, calls
start of DDG(X) procurement and the end of DDG-51
for achieving and maintaining a force of 104 LSCs. The
procurement.
Navy’s FY2025 30-year (FY2025-FY2054) shipbuilding
plan summarizes Navy and OSD studies outlining potential
Navy’s General Concept for the Ship
successor Navy force-level goals that include 72 to 96
Figure 1 shows a Navy rendering of a notional DDG(X)
LSCs.
design. The Navy approved the DDG(X)’s top-level
requirements (i.e., its major required features) in December
Existing LSCs
2020. An October 2023 Congressional Budget Office
The Navy’s CG-47s and DDG-51s are commonly called
(CBO) report on the Navy’s FY2024 30-year shipbuilding
Aegis cruisers and destroyers because they are equipped
plan states that “the Navy has indicated that the initial
with the Aegis combat system, an integrated collection of
[DDG(X)] design prescribes a displacement of 13,500
sensors and weapons named for the mythical shield that
tons,” which would be about 39% greater than the 9,700-
defended Zeus. The Navy procured 27 CG-47s between
ton Flight III DDG-51 design.
FY1978 and FY1988. The ships entered service between
1983 and 1994. The first five, which were built to an earlier
Figure 1. Navy Rendering of Notional DDG(X) Design
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: Navy rendering of notional DDG(X) design accompanying
LSC Industrial Base
Sam LaGrone, “Navy Wants 3-Year Overlap Between Arleigh Burkes
and DDG(X), Considering Propulsion System,” USNI News, January
All LSCs procured for the Navy since FY1985 have been
10, 2024.
built at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of
The Navy envisages the DDG(X) as having (1) Flight III
Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls
DDG-51 Aegis combat system elements; (2) more growth
Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress
margin than the Flight III DDG-51 design, meaning more
CBO report states that “the Navy’s estimates imply that the
space, weight-carrying capacity, electrical power, and
DDG(X) would cost about 14 percent more than the DDG-
cooling capacity (aka SWAP-C) for accepting additional or
51 Flight III but would have a full-load displacement that is
higher-power equipment and weapons (including directed-
40 percent greater. Such an outcome, however, seems
energy weapons) over the ship’s service life; (3) an
unlikely given the history of the Zumwalt class DDG-1000
integrated power system (IPS); (4) reduced vulnerability
guided missile destroyer.”
due to reduced infrared, acoustic, and underwater
electromagnetic signatures; (5) increased cruising range and
Issues for Congress
time on station; and (6) increased weapon capacity.
Issues for Congress regarding the DDG(X) program include
the following: (1) Would a new LSC larger than the Flight
The Navy states that the baseline DDG(X) design, like the
III DDG-51 design be consistent with the Navy’s desire to
Fight III DDG-51 design, is to include 96 standard Vertical
shift to a more distributed fleet architecture that includes a
Launch System (VLS) cells, with an ability to incorporate
larger number of smaller ships? (2) The Navy in the past
12 large missile launch cells in place of 32 of the 96
has studied options for a lengthened version of the DDG-51
standard VLS cells. It is also to include two 21-cell Rolling
that would displace between 11,000 and 12,000 tons.
Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers, and possibly also an
Would the DDG(X) be more cost-effective than a
ability to be built with an additional mid-body hull section,
lengthened DDG-51? (3) Has the Navy accurately
called the Destroyer Payload Module, that would provide
identified the DDG(X)’s required operational capabilities?
additional payload capacity. The Navy states that
(4) Why is there a 35% to 43% difference between the CBO
The Future Naval Force Study (FNFS) and the
and Navy estimates of the DDG(X)’s average procurement
Future Surface Combatant Force Analysis of
cost? (5) Would future Navy budgets permit the
Alternatives
(FSCF
AoA)
identified
the
procurement of DDG(X)s in desired numbers while
requirement for future large surface combatants
adequately funding other Navy priorities? (6) Has the Navy
(LSCs) to be capable of hosting directed energy
taken adequate steps to mature DDG(X) technologies and
(DE) weapons, larger missiles for increased range
mitigate technical, schedule, and cost risk in the program?
(7) Has the Navy planned adequately for the transition from
and speed, increased magazine depth, growth in
DDG-51 procurement to DDG(X) procurement, and for
organic sensors, and an efficient integrated power
resulting impacts on the shipbuilding industrial base?
system to manage the dynamic loads. [The] DDG
51 Flight (FLT) III [design] is highly capable, but
FY2024 and FY2025 Funding Request
after over 40 years in production and 30 years of
upgrades the [DDG-51] hull form does not provide
FY2024
sufficient space and center of gravity margin to host
The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requested $74.1
these future capabilities. To reset these design
million for Project 0411 (DDG[X] Concept Development)
allowances for the future of naval warfare,
within Program Element (PE) 0603564N (Ship Preliminary
requirements tradeoff and design studies were
Design & Feasibility Studies), which is line 46 in the
performed from FY 2018 to FY 2020…. These
Navy’s FY2024 research and development account, and
studies concluded that DDG(X) is required to
$113.3 million for “DDG(X) Power & Propulsion Risk
deliver the necessary margins and flexibility to
Mitigation & Demonstration,” which forms part of Project
succeed the DDG 51 Class as the next enduring
2471 (Integrated Power Systems [IPS]) within PE
LSC combining the DDG 51 FLT III combat system
0603573N (Advanced Surface Machinery Systems), which
elements with new hull form, an efficient Integrated
is line 48. The explanatory statement for the FY2024 DOD
Power System (IPS) and greater endurance
Appropriations Act (Division A of H.R. 2882/P.L. 118-47
reducing the Fleet logistics burden.
of March 23, 2024) increases the request for line 46 by
$43.2 million for “Program increase - DDG(X) design tool”
(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY)
and approves the request for line 48 (PDF page 212 of 314).
2025 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book,
Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test &
FY2025
Evaluation, Navy, March 2024, p. 498.)
The Navy’s proposed FY2025 budget requests $28.3
million for Project 0411 (DDG[X] Concept Development)
Procurement Quantities and Procurement Cost
within Program Element (PE) 0603564N (Ship Preliminary
The Navy’s FY2025 30-year shipbuilding plan projects
Design & Feasibility Studies), which is line 46 in the
LSCs being procured in FY2032 and subsequent years in
Navy’s FY2025 research and development account, and
annual quantities of generally one to two ships per year.
$74.5 million for “DDG(X) Power & Propulsion Risk
Mitigation & Demonstration,” which forms part of Project
The October 2023 CBO report estimates the DDG(X)’s
2471 (Integrated Power Systems [IPS]) within PE
average procurement cost in constant FY2023 dollars at
0603573N (Advanced Surface Machinery Systems), which
$3.2 billion to $3.5 billion—about 33% to 40% more than
is line 48.
the Navy’s estimate (shown in the CBO report) of $2.4
billion to $2.5 billion. The CBO and Navy estimates are
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs
about 45% to 59%, and 9% to 14%, respectively, more than
the DDG-51’s procurement cost of about $2.2 billion. 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 39 · UPDATED