Home » Budget Industry » Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Destroyer Programs


Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Destroyer Programs

The following is the July 3, 2018 Congressional Research Service report, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress.

From the report:

This report presents background information and potential oversight issues for Congress on the Navy’s Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) and Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyer programs. The Navy procured DDG-51s from FY1985 through FY2005, and resumed procuring them in FY2010. The three DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY2019 are to be the 80th, 81st, and 82nd ships in the class. The Navy procured three DDG-1000s in FY2007-FY2009 and plans no further procurement of DDG-1000s.

The 13 DDG-51s planned for procurement in FY2018-FY2022 are to be procured under a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract that Congress approved as part of its action on the Navy’s FY2018 budget. DDG-51s procured in FY2017 and subsequent years are being built to a new design (the Flight III DDG-51 design), which incorporates a new and more capable radar called the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) or SPY-6 radar.

The Navy estimates the combined procurement cost of the three DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY2019 at $5,292.7 million, or an average of $1,764.2 million each. The ships are to receive $39.4 million in prior-year (FY2018) Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) advance procurement (AP) funding (i.e., funding for up-front batch orders of components of DDG-51s to be procured under the FY2018-FY2022 MYP contract).

The Navy’s proposed FY2019 budget requests the following:

  • the remaining $5,253.3 million in procurement funding needed to complete the estimated procurement cost for the three DDG-51s requested for FY2019;
  • $391.9 million in additional EOQ AP funding for DDG-51s to be procured under the FY2018-FY2022 MYP contract;
  • $54.0 million in cost-to-complete procurement funding to cover cost increases on DDG-51s procured in prior fiscal years; and
  • $271.0 million in procurement funding to cover cost increases on Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers.

Issues for Congress for FY2019 for the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 destroyer programs include the following:

  • whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s FY2019 funding requests for the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 programs;
  • whether to provide funding for the procurement of an additional DDG-51 (for a total procurement of four DDG-51s rather than three) in FY2019;
  • continued cost growth in the DDG-1000 program;
  • the Navy’s intended shift in mission orientation for the DDG-1000s;
  • cost, schedule, and technical risk in the Flight III DDG-51 effort; and
  • the lack of an announced Navy roadmap for accomplishing three things in the cruiser-destroyer force: restoring ship growth margins; introducing large numbers of ships with integrated electric drive systems or other technologies that could provide ample electrical power for supporting future electrically powered weapons; and introducing technologies for substantially reducing ship operating and support (O&S) costs.

via fas.org

  • Ed L

    Been using this train of though. Maybe our military is going too fast with pushing the boundaries of high tech. In my sole opinion the KIS principal is getting left behind. Now should our Navy revamp its training to include more traditional seamanship training. The first though that sprang into though was sail training for deck ratings and Midshipmen from the NROTC program. But the ROTC people will not be available year round. Using Motorsailers ranging in 50 to 100 feet lengths.

    • DaSaint

      Completely agree that training needs to be revamped. Sail training has traditionally worked, still does in many international navies, and is a good recruiting tool as well.

  • DaSaint

    Two things in this report stand out to me:
    1. The Navy doesn’t want to spend $350M on an unmanned test ship for AEGIS. IMO: They know that they can’t test it fully on a manned ship, due to range and personnel safety requirements, yet they (and that would include Lockheed & Raytheon) don’t want that unmanned ship’s systems to fail and get destroyed.
    2. There’s no clear path for the Cruiser replacement. Yet.
    3. They’ve given up on integrated electric drive for the Flight III Burkes. Big mistake in my mind.

    OK. That was 3 things.