Next Generation US Navy Destroyers 2032

by

The US Navy DDG(X) program wants 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. The US Navy plans to start buying the first DDG(X) in FY2032. The Navy’s proposed FY2024 budget requests $187.4 million in research and development funding for the program. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) is currently projecting each DDGX Destroyer will cost $3.4 billion each. The first Arleigh Burke Destroyer in 1989 cost $1.1 billion. Historically, US military systems end up costing much more than the projections ten years prior to the first acquisition.

The Navy has indicated that the initial [DDG(X)] design prescribes a displacement of 13,500 tons. This would be about 39% greater than the 9,700-ton Flight III DDG-51 design.

The US Navy wants a future 350-ship fleet and DDGX would eventually be 50-100 ships of that Navy. The 350-ship fleet may or may not include a large number of large robotic ships. The robotic ships will be built but the ship count might be just the regularly manned ships. One hundred DDGX in 2040 at $3.4 billion a piece is $340 billion. If prices end up being double then it would be $680 billion for $6.8 billion each.

The Navy has just completed about 12 months of design of the DDGX. The ship will be bigger and have larger missile launchers. They want to have higher-power lasers and long-range strike hypersonic weapons. It will have more sensor, bigger sensors and more electrical capacity.

One of those sensors is the SPY-6 radar, built by Raytheon. It is currently being integrated on Navy ships. The powerful sensor will inevitably be improved upon, but may require more power by the 2030s.

Directed energy weapons are currently too expensive to deploy into current ships and the program is delayed. The Navy has now received six high-energy lasers with integrated optical-dazzler and surveillance, or HELIOS, systems from its maker Lockheed Martin. The US Navy remains committed to getting high-energy lasers into ships for the 2030s. The notional design is for the DDGX destroyer to have two 600-kilowatt lasers.

The US Navy is spending over $26 billion on research and development out of an overall $255 billion budget in 2024. The budget increases by 5-10% in an average year.

The new Standard Missile-6, or SM-6, which can do anti-air defense, ballistic missile defense and anti-surface warfare, is being integrated onto Navy ships now.

The Navy is currently developing the Conventional Prompt Strike weapon, which would travel at speeds higher than Mach 5 and be maneuverable.

The Navy wants the new hypersonic weapon to be ready by 2028, a few years before the DDG(X) is ready. The three Zumwalt-class destroyers and Virginia-class submarines are the first destinations for any new hypersonic technology.

Science and technology (S&T) research is vital to provide for future technologies that support innovative capabilities in shipbuilding, aviation, weapons, and expeditionary equipment. Beyond the S&T phase, research and development (R&D) is fundamental to major acquisition programs such as the Columbia class ballistic submarine program, which recapitalizes our strategic nuclear deterrent. Other major areas of R&D effort include investments in future aircraft carrier, surface, submarine, and logistics vessels; unmanned systems; electromagnetic warfare; and cyberspace warfare. The FY 2024 RDT&E, N budget provides investment in the development of Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) to deliver a hypersonic offensive strike weapon. The budget also accelerates development of the Navy Laser Family of Systems (NLFoS) to provide Navy ships with laser weapons in the protection against near-term threats.

19 thoughts on “Next Generation US Navy Destroyers 2032”

  1. I agree!
    Our ships and planes abilities
    Ought to be kept to ourselves.
    They’ll find out when they confront us. Too late for them, then.
    Another thing, we need to stop selling our guns to possible enemy’s. It’s like the warfare armament manufacturer in the U.S. are into world marketing.
    Larry Ellis

  3. As a former destroyer sailor the spruence class was built and designed for asw will the new class destroyer have asw capability and what of the CIC layout what of underway refueling capability that an advantage the US has over a lot of countries including Russia will there be a forward and aft vls like the Ticonderoga class what about CIWS are lasers really usable what about bad weather heavy rains lasers usable??? The RAM is good to replace the Sea Sparrow weapon System . In my opinion we need to update things that are proven workable and improve on them

  4. Let’s see. The proposed 13,500 ton destroyer will have only 32 Mk. 41 VLS cells – the same number of cells as the Constellation class frigate and 1/3 the number of cells as the current Arleigh Burke class of the destroyers. Another littoral combat ship fiasco in the making, except vastly more expensive than the LCS.

    • I think it supposed to be 4 sets of 32 vls launch tubes. One in front. One in back. Two sets amidship. That is 128 missiles. One of the ship class the DDG(X) is supposed to take on is the PLA Navy’s Type 55 destroyers, which is closer to the Ticonderoga class cruisers due to its size and weapon load.

      Ironically, the PLA Navy just start construction of the Type 54B frigate, which is larger than the Type 54/54A frigate. It also have a larger weapon load plus the phased array radar like the Constellation class frigates, which both the Type 54/54A do not have.

  5. When is the United States Government going to learn to stop giving away all it’s new plans to pier adversaries? China and Russia are already putting their heads together and have planned a strategy of weapon systems to counter this US Navy Combatant even before the ink is dry on the plans. How could a college football team ever expect to win a championship if at the end of each season it published it’s playbook for next year! Boy we are stupid…

    • I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been saying this for years now. Personally, I love learning about what the navy is planning but at the same time, I know that our enemies do as well. Whats worse is that they didn’t even have to expend any resources to find out. The idiots running the show at the pentagon just put it out there for public consumption……
      ……Jeez.

    • Do you really think they tell EVERYTHING especially in an article like this? America has far more secrets than we will ever read about and probably ever see! Trust me…

  7. Navy needs disposable, autonomous, low profile drone barge sized to fit 32 VLS cells. Get coordinates from aerial drones (or F35 or AWACS) and launch from drone barges that are loitering ahead of the actual fleet.

    • It’s budget needs to go to building Sea Dragon…it’s used to being in the water…unlike Starsinker

  9. A 13,500 ton ship is a cruiser. But the government can redefine terms as it pleases. (cf this era’s redefinition of a “vaccine.”)
    I did not see any reference to the powerplant or energy budget. Are we looking for a small modular reactor “zero-emission” fully trans-friendly vessel to really frighten the opposition?

    • the zumwalts are even bigger at over 15 thousand tons and still called destroyers heck even the chinese type 055 is clearly a crusier and is even designated such by NATO 12-13 thousand tons with a full load and heck there building 052Ds still which are actual destroyers at 7500 tons. So its like the 2 biggest navys have developped an adversion to calling anything a cruiser

    • One of the early power plants in consideration for the Zumwalt class was podded electric drive design. No shafts, It was ALSO considered for the new attack submarine ( NOW VIRGINIA CLASS) for commonality. A modular reactor with electric drive would be a brilliant consideration???

Comments are closed.