US Navy's DDG(X) program: A turning point in destroyer tech

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are the true workhorses of the US Navy. Developed in the 1980s and introduced into service since 1991, these ships were the first units designed at the project stage to install the AEGIS combat management system. The Ticonderoga-class cruisers, accepted into service a few years earlier, were adapted for this purpose.

The Arleigh Burke ships are widely considered successful. This is confirmed by the 74 units built, as well as the fact that eight more are under construction, with more planned. A total of 99 destroyers are projected to be completed by shipyards.

Unfortunately, American guided missile destroyers are not without flaws. They were designed according to Cold War assumptions, and apart from the outdated concept, their relatively small hull imposes limitations. As further modernizations require more various installations that need more power to operate, constraints are being placed on these ships.

This is why the United States has been working for over 30 years on a next-generation missile destroyer, albeit unsuccessfully. This is evidenced by the failures of programs like DD-21 or DD(X). Even the DD-1000 program, which led to the creation of the futuristic Zumwalt-class destroyers, was halted after producing only three ships, instead of the planned 32.

Meanwhile, the design of Arleigh Burke ships—despite their continuous modernization—imposes more compromises and limitations. This happens despite significant changes introduced in successive variants (referred to as Flight).

When ships in the original Flight I version displaced—with a hull length of 154 metres (505 feet)—8,347 metric tonnes (9,200 tons), the latest Flight III variant has a displacement close to 9,979 metric tonnes (11,000 tons). However, this is still insufficient, and the modernization potential of this design is nearing exhaustion.

As Rear Admiral William Daly noted, the average American household currently uses 40 percent more electricity than in the 1980s. The same trend applies to ships—new sensors, communication systems, and electronic warfare systems require more power. The demand for power further increases when installing energy weapons like combat lasers.

At the same time, recent operations of the US Navy in the Middle East illustrate that effectively countering current and future threats requires new methods.

During the Houthi attack defenses American ships fired at least 120 SM-2 missiles, 80 SM-6 missiles, 160 Mark 45 naval gun rounds (127 mm, 5 inches), and 20 ESSM and SM-3 missiles. The total cost of the used combat means exceeded a billion dollars, and missile inventories needed replenishing.

The solution to some of these problems lies in energy weapons, which—despite many reservations—will eventually become standard solutions on American ships. They will require more power than older ship installations can provide.

The response to this challenge is expected to be an entirely new, futuristic guided missile destroyer, developed under the DDG(X) program. The new unit is not only designed to replace the current destroyers. The plan assumes that DDG(X) ships will also fill the air defence role of the retired Ticonderoga-class cruisers.

The classification of ships in this case is purely nominal; class names do not reflect the differences in size or purpose. Ticonderoga-class cruisers were created as a modernization of Spruance-class destroyers; Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyers have the displacement of cruisers, and Zumwalt-class destroyers are significantly larger than American cruisers.

New ships—officially developed as destroyers—with a displacement of 13,533 metric tonnes (14,900 tons) will surpass the old cruisers (Ticonderoga-class has a displacement of about 9,979 metric tonnes, or 11,000 tons).

For a long time, speculation about DDG(X) destroyers was based on outdated data and graphics. However, during the farewell of one American commander, a new, updated visualization of the new ship was revealed. As it turns out, significant changes have been made to the design.

The first noticeable change is the absence of the bow gun turret. The ship does not feature a combat laser, but Rear Admiral Daly noted the need for surplus energy to power the ship's equipment and weapons. The main armament will include a 96-cell Mark 41 vertical launching system (VLS), part of which can be replaced with newer and larger G-VLS launchers to accommodate new hypersonic missiles.

An important change is the possibility of adding an extra hull section called the Destroyer Payload Module: an additional 25 metres (82 feet) of space, which can be used for additional launchers or equipment to handle maritime drones, depending on needs.

The iconic last-chance weapon of the US Navy—Phalanx CIWS artillery systems with a six-barrel, rotating M61 Vulcan cannon (20 mm, 0.8 inches)—will also be eliminated from the ship. Their task is to shoot down anti-ship missiles, motorboats, or drones that penetrate the ship’s defence at close range. Phalanx has a rate of fire of up to 4,500 rounds per minute to achieve this. On new ships, Phalanx systems will be replaced by the RIM-116 RAM missile system.

All these revolutionary changes are to be implemented in a ship whose construction has not yet begun. The entry into service of the first unit is currently postponed from the original 2028 to the 2030s.

To minimize the risk of failure, sensors and combat management system elements intended for DDG(X) ships will be gradually implemented on currently constructed Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. This will ensure proposed solutions are tested in advance, allowing time to refine final weapon systems—both energy and hypersonic—for the new ships.

This is critically important due to the fact that the US Navy no longer has time for further failed development programs. The core of the American fleet consists of ships designed during the Cold War, which—despite upgrades—are increasingly outdated as we move through the third decade of the 21st century.

The retirement of Spruance-class destroyers and Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, the retirement (but not scrapping) of Ticonderoga-class cruisers, problems with FFG(X) frigates, and the costly and controversial LCS shipbuilding program all impact the capabilities of the US Navy.

Meanwhile, a potential adversary, the Chinese Navy, continues to expand, constructing dozens of new and presumably modern ships. Although their real capabilities remain unknown, they present a challenge that the US Navy aims to address. New, numerous ships are essential in this context.