The U.S. Navy’s DDG(X) Destroyer Nightmare Explained in 2 Words

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

High Costs: The U.S. Navy’s DDG(X) program, intended to replace aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, faces mounting criticism over its high costs and unclear mission focus.

-Designed to feature advanced weapons like hypersonic missiles and lasers, the DDG(X) is estimated to cost $3.1–$3.4 billion per ship.

-Critics argue these capabilities could be integrated into existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers or cheaper Constellation-class frigates, which cost $1 billion each.

-While the DDG(X) promises greater size, upgraded systems, and improved stealth, skeptics question its necessity, purpose, and feasibility, urging the Navy to reconsider its priorities before committing to this costly program.

DDG(X) Destroyer: Ambitious or Unnecessary? The Navy’s Next Big Debate

You may be familiar with the debate about aircraft carriers – that they are too expensive to buy and maintain. Perhaps the aircraft carrier is obsolete, and the Navy should focus on building more frigates and destroyers.

Yet another debate is brewing up involving the DDG(X) program, in which the Navy wants to build a new class of guided missile destroyers by the 2030s.

And, sadly for the Navy, this new warship class is getting its share of bad press and doubtful commentary.

What’s the Latest Update on DDG(X)?

The next-generation DDG (X stands for experimental) will replace the navy’s aging Ticonderoga-Class cruisers and older Arleigh Burke-Class destroyers.

The Navy plans to buy the DDG(X) in FY32, so there is plenty of time to work out the program’s kinks. The maritime branch is still in design, research, and development mode regarding the DDG(X), and it is asking Congress for $103 million for these efforts in FY25.

Sounds Good on Paper

The current DDG(X) design (this design is still in development and could change) envisions a displacement of 13,500 tons, which is 39 percent bigger than the Arleigh Burke-Class.

This greater size will give the DDG(X) more space for weapons systems and upgraded and renewed elements of the Aegis Combat System. The DDG(X) will have better electronics and cooling mechanisms. DDG(X) is envisioned to carry hypersonic missiles and lasers.

The Congressional Research Service also said the next-generation destroyer will have “an integrated power system (IPS); reduced vulnerability due to reduced infrared, acoustic, and underwater electromagnetic signatures; increased cruising range and time on station; and increased weapons capacity.”

Are the Advantages Worth the Price tag?

But critics say the DDG(X) will cost too much and mimic capabilities that the latest Arleigh Burke-class destroyers already have.

All that extra money will simply allow the DDG(X) to be equipped with hypersonic missiles and lasers – features that could perhaps be added later to the Burke-class warships.

According to the Congressional Budget Office estimates, each DDG(X) may set the navy back $3.1 to $3.4 billion.

It is unclear if lawmakers could stomach such an expense when the capabilities of the Flight III variants of Arleigh Burkes are similar.

How About Simply Buying a Cheaper Frigate?

Moreover, the Constellation-class frigates cost only $1 billion to produce, which is much cheaper than the DDG(X), so naval analysts are wondering if the DDG(X) is really necessary.

The other question that has emerged is, what exactly will the mission be for the DDG(X)?

That could be problematic if it means sailing close to the Chinese shore in a battle over Taiwan. At its current design, the DDG(X) would be better as a support ship in a carrier strike group that is safely out of range of Chinese anti-ship missiles.

DDG(X): It Needs a More Unique Role

That raises another question. If DDG(X) is a support ship, what is the point of acquiring it? Arleigh Burkes already executed that mission. Yes, the next-generation destroyer should be able to carry directed energy and hypersonic systems.

Still, perhaps the older destroyers already in the fleet could do the same thing someday, especially if the money saved from DDG(X) can be plowed into the Burke or Constellation programs.

More Questions Without Answers

To heighten the DDG(X) criticism, the Congressional Research Service again asks more critical questions about the next-generation destroyer. “Has the navy taken adequate steps to mature DDG(X) technologies and mitigate technical, schedule, and cost risks in the program?

Has the navy planned adequately for the transition from DDG-51 procurement to DDG(X) procurement and for resulting impacts on the shipbuilding industrial base?”

With all this criticism of the DDG(X) program, the Navy should reconsider the new ship. The program is too expensive and is partially redundant. Hypersonics and lasers would be nice, but they can be outfitted on other ships.

The money saved from the DDG(X) can be better invested in other large service combatant programs. To be sure, there is still time to re-imagine the DDG(X). Problems can be mitigated, and a new design is possible.

But in its current configuration, the ship makes no sense, and legislators will certainly read the Congressional Research Service report and note the problems. That means the DDG(X) is far from fruition at its current level of configuration and development.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.