Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Updated January 16, 2026 (IF11679)

Introduction

The Navy's DDG(X) program has envisaged procuring a class of next-generation guided-missile destroyers (DDGs) to replace the Navy's Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruisers and older Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyers. Navy plans have called for procuring the first DDG(X) in the early 2030s. The Navy's proposed FY2026 budget requested $133.5 million in research and development funding for the program.

On December 22, 2025, the Trump Administration announced a proposed program to build a new class of guided missile battleships (BBG[X]s) for the Navy. (For more on the BBG(X) program, see CRS In Focus IF13142, Navy Guided Missile Battleship (BBG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.) Some press reports have stated that the Navy intends to suspend work on the DDG(X) program as a consequence of starting the BBG(X) program.

Navy Large Surface Combatants (LSCs)

Force-Level Goal

The Navy refers to its cruisers and destroyers collectively as large surface combatants (LSCs). The Navy's preferred 381-ship force-level goal, released in June 2023, calls for achieving and maintaining a force of 87 LSCs.

Existing LSCs

The Navy's CG-47s and DDG-51s are commonly called Aegis cruisers and Aegis destroyers, respectively, because they are equipped with the Aegis combat system, an integrated collection of sensors and weapons named for the mythical shield that 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.)

LSC Industrial Base

All LSCs procured for the Navy since FY1985 have been built at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are major contractors for Navy surface ship combat system equipment. The surface combatant industrial base also includes hundreds of additional component and material supplier firms.

DDG(X) Program

Program Designation and Lead Ship Procurement

In the program designation DDG(X), the X means the precise design for the ship has not yet been determined. As mentioned earlier, Navy plans have called for procuring the first DDG(X) in the early 2030s. Procurement of DDG-51s—the type of LSC currently being procured by the Navy—would end sometime after the start of procurement of DDG(X)s.

Navy's General Concept for the Ship

Figure 1 shows a Navy rendering of a notional DDG(X) design. The Navy approved the DDG(X)'s top-level requirements (i.e., its major required features) in December 2020. A January 2025 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Navy's FY2025 30-year shipbuilding plan states, "The Navy has indicated that the initial [DDG(X)] design now prescribes a displacement of 14,500 tons—1,000 tons more than the design under the [FY]2024 [30-year shipbuilding] plan and 4,800 tons [about 49.5%] more than a DDG-51."

Figure 1. Navy Rendering of Notional DDG(X) Design

Source: Navy rendering of notional DDG(X) design accompanying Sam LaGrone, "Navy Wants 3-Year Overlap Between Arleigh Burkes and DDG(X), Considering Propulsion System," USNI News, January 10, 2024.

The Navy has envisaged the DDG(X) as a ship with (1) DDG-51 Flight III Aegis combat system elements; (2) more growth margin than the DDG-51 Flight III design, meaning more space, weight-carrying capacity, electrical power, and cooling capacity (aka SWAP-C) for accepting additional or higher-power equipment and weapons (including directed-energy weapons) over the ship's service life; (3) an integrated power system (IPS); (4) reduced vulnerability due to reduced infrared, acoustic, and underwater electromagnetic signatures; (5) increased cruising range and time on station; and (6) increased weapon capacity.

The Navy stated that the baseline DDG(X) design, like the DDG-51 Flight III design, was envisaged as including 96 standard Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells, with an ability to incorporate 12 large missile launch cells in place of 32 of the 96 standard VLS cells, as well as two 21-cell Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers, and possibly also an ability to be built with an additional mid-body hull section, called the Destroyer Payload Module, that would provide additional payload capacity. The Navy states that

The Future Naval Force Study (FNFS) and the Future Surface Combatant Force Analysis of Alternatives (FSCF AoA) identified the requirement for future large surface combatants (LSCs) to be capable of hosting directed energy (DE) weapons, larger missiles for increased range and speed, increased magazine depth, growth in organic sensors, and an efficient integrated power system to manage the dynamic loads. DDG 51 is highly capable, but after over 40 years in production and 30 years of upgrades the hull form does not provide sufficient space and center of gravity margin to host future capabilities. To reset these design allowances for the future, requirements tradeoff and design studies were performed from FY 2018 to FY 2020 that considered modification of existing surface combatant and amphibious ships in addition to new concepts. These studies concluded that DDG(X) is required to deliver the necessary margins and flexibility to succeed the DDG 51 Class as the next enduring LSC combining the DDG 51 FLT III combat system elements with new hull form, an efficient Integrated Power System (IPS) and greater endurance, reducing the Fleet logistics burden....

(Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book, Volume 2 of 5, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, June 2025, p. 467.)

Procurement Quantities and Procurement Cost

The Navy's FY2025 30-year shipbuilding plan projected LSCs being procured in FY2032 and subsequent years in annual quantities of generally one to two ships per year. The January 2025 CBO report estimates the DDG(X)'s average procurement cost in constant FY2024 dollars at $4.4 billion—about 33% more than the Navy's estimate (shown in the CBO report) of $3.3 billion. The CBO report states that "the Navy's estimates for its destroyers imply that the DDG(X) would cost about 22 percent more than the DDG-51 Flight III but would have a full-load displacement that was 50 percent greater than that ship. Such an outcome, however, seems unlikely given the history of surface combatants."

Technical Risk

A June 2025 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on selected Department of Defense acquisition programs stated

The Navy approved changes to the operational requirements for the [DDG(X)] program in August 2024. The program is assessing how the changes affect its schedule and cost estimates and officials did not provide a time frame for when they will update these estimates. The changes were based on additional input from the fleet and Navy leadership to increase speed and [electrical] power…. The Navy plans to model the IPS at a land-based test site, but the results may not be available to fully inform the ship's design prior to detailed design. The second critical technology is the ship's hull form. The program continues to conduct risk reduction activities for both critical technologies.

Issues for Congress

Issues for Congress regarding the DDG(X) program include the following: (1) Does the Navy intend to suspend work on the DDG(X) program as a consequence of starting the BBG(X) program? What would be the net impact on future Navy capabilities and funding requirements of developing and acquiring BBG(X)s instead of DDG(X)s? (2) Would the DDG(X) be more cost-effective than a lengthened version of the DDG-51 design? (3) Did the Navy accurately identify the DDG(X)'s required operational capabilities? (4) Would future Navy budgets permit the procurement of DDG(X)s in desired numbers while adequately funding other Navy priorities? (5) Has the Navy taken adequate steps to mitigate technical, schedule, and cost risk in the program? (6) Has the Navy planned adequately for a transition from DDG-51 procurement to DDG(X) procurement?

FY2026 Funding Request

The Navy's proposed FY2026 budget requests $51.6 million for Project 0411 (DDG[X] Concept Development) within Program Element (PE) 0603564N (Ship Preliminary Design & Feasibility Studies), which is line 46 in the Navy's FY2026 research and development (R&D) account, and $81.9 million for "DDG(X) Power & Propulsion Risk Mitigation & Demonstration," which forms part of Project 2471 (Integrated Power Systems [IPS]) within PE 0603573N (Advanced Surface Machinery Systems), which is line 48.