This month, multiple media outlets reported on the US Navy’s evolving plans for the next-generation DDG(X) destroyer, emphasizing its advanced capabilities and challenges. But while the US Navy bets on the DDG(X)’s futuristic concept to outpace China’s naval surge with advanced tech, logistical and industrial hurdles loom large.
Notable design changes for the DDG(X) include removing the traditional Mark 45 main gun, which implies integrating directed-energy weapons like lasers and microwaves and a new vertical launch system (VLS) layout.
Designed to replace the aging Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the DDG(X) will incorporate state-of-the-art weapons, radar systems and a powerful Integrated Power System (IPS) to meet the high-energy demands of next-generation combat. However, steep costs, technological uncertainties and industrial limitations present formidable obstacles to the program’s success.
The DDG(X) will feature hypersonic and directed-energy weapons, the AN/SPY-6 radar, enhanced stealth and increased payload capacity. This technological leap is crucial for countering evolving threats like drones, hypersonic missiles and advanced naval platforms. The ship’s IPS, adapted from the Zumwalt-class destroyers, promises unmatched energy generation critical for supporting its high-powered systems.
However, these advancements come with a significant price tag: the DDG(X) is estimated to cost US$4.4 billion per ship, far exceeding its predecessors. Construction will begin in 2032, with a three-year overlap alongside ongoing Arleigh Burke-class production to maintain industrial continuity.
Directed-energy weapons promise unlimited magazine depth, low-cost engagements and instantaneous strikes against diverse threats ranging from drones to hypersonic weapons. However, they require significant space, power and cooling. Additionally, atmospheric disturbances and range limitations pose challenges to laser weapon effectiveness.
The US Navy’s aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers and maxed-out Arleigh Burke-class destroyers cannot meet these demands, underscoring the importance of the DDG(X) in the US Navy’s future surface fleet. Directed-energy weapons could also mitigate the US Navy’s reliance on expensive interceptor missiles, freeing space for anti-ship missiles critical for high-end conflicts, especially against China.
China’s naval expansion poses a significant challenge to US maritime dominance. According to the US Department of Defense’s (DOD) 2024 China Military Power report, China now fields over 370 ships and submarines, including 140 major surface combatants, outpacing the US fleet numerically.
Moreover, China’s People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) has achieved over 50% of the US Navy’s vertical launch system (VLS) capacity, with nearly 4,300 VLS cells on 84 principal surface combatants, compared to the US Navy’s 8,400 cells on 85 ships.
In an article for the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), Johannes Fischbach highlights that China’s construction of high-end platforms, such as Type 052D destroyers and Type 055 cruisers, further narrows the VLS gap.
The Type 052D destroyer has 64 VLS, while the Type 055 cruiser has 112 VLS. In comparison, the Flight IIA and subsequent Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have 96 VLS, while the Ticonderoga-class cruisers have 122 VLS.
Despite that firepower disparity, the PLAN’s rapid shipbuilding—producing 3.1 Type 052D destroyers annually compared to the US’s 1.6 Arleigh Burke destroyers—illustrates the scale of China’s industrial advantage.
The DDG(X) is designed to address this disparity, offering greater operational range and reduced logistical needs, vital for countering the “tyranny of distance” in Pacific operations.
US Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro has emphasized the critical need for the Transferrable Reload At-Sea Method (TRAM), which enables at-sea VLS reloading. Successfully tested in October 2024, The War Zone reports TRAM addresses a key logistical challenge by minimizing the time warships spend out of action for rearming.
This capability is essential for sustaining a forward presence during conflicts, particularly with China, where rearming at distant bases like Guam would be impractical and risky. By integrating TRAM with the DDG(X)’s design, the US Navy aims to bolster combat readiness and mitigate the presence gap created by extended resupply periods.
Despite its promise, the DDG(X) program is hampered by systemic challenges hounding US shipbuilding. Post-Cold War budget cuts drastically reduced the number of naval architects and engineers, creating bottlenecks in both design and production.
Over 60% of US Navy ship repairs are not completed on time, reflecting inadequate infrastructure and outdated practices. Additionally, US shipyards cannot match China’s industrial output.
China’s civil-military fusion strategy—which combines military and civilian shipbuilding facilities—has enabled unmatched efficiency and surge capacity. In contrast, the US’s fragmented approach and prioritization of large warships over smaller, cost-effective vessels slow modernization efforts.
US politicians, including Representative John Moolenaar, warn that without bold policy changes and significant investments, the US cannot deter or prevail in a potential conflict with China, as quoted by the Associated Press.
Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi underscores the disparity, noting that China can produce 359 ships for every US ship made annually. He has emphasized the need to revitalize the US defense industrial base to maintain global stability.
