Really Confusing: The U.S. Navy’s effort to develop the next-generation DDG(X) destroyer faces rising costs, constant design changes, and skepticism about its necessity.
-Early conceptual renderings varied widely, complicating final requirements.
-Key features under consideration include an Integrated Power and Energy System (IPES), lasers for missile/drone defense, and potential hypersonic missile launchers.
-Critics claim the program could cost as much as $3.2 billion per ship, sparking calls to use DDG(X) mainly as a test bed for future naval technologies, rather than mass production.
-With significant budget constraints, some believe the Navy should prioritize new carriers and fast-attack submarines over DDG(X).
Is the U.S. Navy’s Next-generation DDG(X) Destroyer Even Needed?
The U.S. Navy seems unable to figure out what it wants from the next-generation DDG(X) destroyer.
Different conceptual designs have made the new ship’s dimensions and capabilities challenging to decipher.
On the one hand, it is good the designers and engineers are working hard on what this newfangled vessel will look like, but on the other, it is frustrating that the design keeps changing.
The new ship will be expensive and may not come to fruition due to the complexities of the latest technological innovations.
DDG(X): Latest Update in Conceptual Renderings and Design
This month, the Navy presented a new DDG(X) rendering.
The ship does not have the 5-inch Mark 45 Mod 4 main gun this time. Earlier renderings have included this weapon onboard.
The first rendering in 2022 showed that the vessel will have a 32-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launching System. The early attempt at the design also had AN/SLQ-32(V)7 radar arrays on the superstructure next to the two forward AN/SPY-6(V)1 radar arrays.
Now, the Navy has announced a different rendering of the DDG(X), and there are wholesale changes.
There is no Mark 45 Mod 4 main gun, and other modifications have been reconsidered.
“The existing Mark 41 VLS modules have been rearranged, now installed in what appears to be four 8×2 cell modules stacked front to back. This design allows for additional room for larger diameter VLS modules in the future,” according to Naval News.
The AN/SLQ-32(V)7 ECM arrays have been removed, but the forward-facing AN/SLQ-32(V)7 array remains.
“The two Mk-144 Guided Missile Launchers (GMLs) sit higher on the ship. The exhaust funnel arrangement has been modified, and new bow-facing vents have been added,” Naval News explained.

(Dec. 6, 2015). USS Carney (DDG 64) awaits the return of its small boat crew during a passenger transfer Dec. 6, 2015. Carney, an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, forward deployed to Rota, Spain, is conducting a routine patrol in the U. S. 6th Fleet area of operations in support of U.S. national security interests in Europe. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Theron J. Godbold/Released)
This Will Be a Long Process
The Navy is expected to modify this design until it gets what it wants. The ship is not expected to be built until the 2030s, with construction beginning in 2032.
This program will be complicated as technology changes and new weapon systems come online for the maritime branch.
It’s Fine to Develop New Lasers and Ship-launched Hypersonic Missiles
The Navy will also likely decide whether the futuristic ship will use a laser to counter enemy missiles and drones.
The vessel may also be able to launch hypersonic missiles.
DDG(X) will need a new Integrated Power and Energy System (IPES) for better propulsion and for the vast amount of electricity needed to use directed energy, new radar, and vertical launching systems.
Critics of DDG(X) Have Sticker Shock
The cost of the ship is eye-watering. Each new destroyer could set the Navy back as much as $3.2 billion each.
I’m concerned about this program due to the cost and design changes. Turning the DDG(X) into a technology demonstrator and developing new systems to deploy on existing ships would make better sense.

The guided missile destroyer USS Laboon arrives for a routine port visit to the island of Crete. Laboon is on a scheduled six-month deployment in support of Standing NATO Maritime Group (SNMG) 2 and is conducting operations in support of Operation Active Endeavor. Active Endeavor operates in the Mediterranean Sea and is designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general. U.S. Navy photo / Paul Farley.
The Navy could thus save a significant amount of money to plow into other destroyers and frigates, not to mention new carriers and submarines.
Save Money for New Aircraft Carriers and Submarines
The Navy needs more new ships to keep up with China, but I’m not sure if DDG(X) is the answer.
The Navy would be better served by investing more funds into the new Ford-class aircraft carriers and building additional fast attack submarines.
DDG(X) will be an escort ship in a carrier strike group if it comes to fruition, so it is not entirely mission-critical.
Congress and the Trump administration will make tough choices in the coming years, and this program may be on the chopping block. It is just too complex, with many systems that will be difficult to integrate. It is OK to continue developing directed energy and hypersonic missile options for warships. This is where the future is heading in naval warfare. Simply take these systems and place them on existing ships. This testbed option will be better for cost control and efficiency.
I see the cost of DDG(X) running sky-high, as there could also be the usual delays and cost overruns that any new ship must endure. The DDG(X) has some good ideas, but these are not enough to save the program.
Plus, the construction timeline is just too far away. The DDG(X) must survive the Trump administration, at least two future presidents, and multiple different Members of Congress being elected or leaving service on Capitol Hill.
There is no way DDG(X) will be able to navigate its way politically in Washington, DC, and survive the usual rounds of budget cuts, changes in strategic direction, new threat environments, and the ebbs and flows of technological innovation. The Navy should make the DDG(X) into a test bed and integrate the latest systems on ships already in service.
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.

RP Scott
January 15, 2025 at 3:20 am
IMO shelve DDGX and get serious about new cruisers. Keep building FIII Burke’s and develop a killer large combatant. We would only need 25-30 to head CSG’s and ARG’s. I would argue that the Zumwalt’s could be this ship with a few mods like more VLS and enough power for lasers and possibly a future rail gun. In the short term finish the half dozen or so Tico’s that have had billions already spent on them and put them to work.
CHRISTOPER L Bennett
January 15, 2025 at 8:48 am
A lot more than two words..
Steven Martin
January 15, 2025 at 2:56 pm
Just buy finished products (ships) from Japan. These screwups are getting old already.
Iain Paul Foskett
January 16, 2025 at 1:27 am
How’s about honouring the AKUS deal and providing Australia with the submarines, there is no way Australia can keep going with the old boats we have now.
REY
January 16, 2025 at 4:47 am
Umm…that image isn’t from an artist it’s from the mobile game: “Modern Warships”… I can’t tell bc the German AA Cannon from Reihnmatall is (as it’s used in the game as an autocannon and labeled under Sweden) on the back just above the hangar bay. There’s also the RIM AA Missile launchers on the sides too. And it’s the standard equipment on the ship as soon as you buy it in game.
Also has the C-RAM launchers. (X2 & x3 AA slots). Plus the Mk45 cannon.
Also, the background is from one of the in-game maps. You can clearly see the structures in on the peaks.
You can clearly tell this is a game from the graphics and not an artists rendering.
Idk who “Creative Commons” is or (created by) “artist” is, but the author should vet their sources a tad better imo.
I mean the devs of the game have stolen assets from the MCU Helicarrier to Macross UNS Coral Sea but they could kick up a fuss for someone using their games image w/o permission.
Jeffrey Buchanan
January 17, 2025 at 11:40 am
Problem is current DD’s hulls arent deep enough for hypersonics. There power systems can’t afford two directed energy weapons. Plus being out gunned with fewer VLS’s makes hard for continue use beyond the present. Subs seem logical as a replacement, but have severe replenish problems after engagements. No quick fix, but a “super Burke” or bring back CC’s.
Dan
January 18, 2025 at 5:41 am
Not entirely mission critical? Ok, but what is going to protect these Ford class carriers from enemy nations fast attack submarines. Destroyers are absolutely mission critical in a surface Navy unless you plan on building hundreds of new frigates. LCS is garbage and flight 1 burkes are getting old.