It is never too early to start planning for our next destroyers

Hailing from relatively modest roots in terms of warship design and role, contemporary destroyers have evolved to become formidable surface combatants and the undisputed multipurpose first responders for major navies around the world. 

Large hulls, long ranges and high speeds support a wide variety of mission profiles, from convoy and battle-group escort for high-profile assets like aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare ships, to maritime security, land attack, anti-air and anti-submarine defence, destroyers are the core of the navy. 

These core roles have further evolved with the advent of increasingly powerful combat systems and advanced weapons systems including ship-mounted lasers and hypersonic missiles are driving the role evolution of destroyers to include things like ballistic missile defence (BMD), while enhancing the already formidable capabilities of these key platforms.  

Throughout the Indo-Pacific, destroyers are rapidly being commissioned or transferred to the region to beef up navies and secure key strategic assets, lines of communication and support power projection platforms.   

The regions’ destroyer arms race has been driven largely by the growing capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLA-N) following the introduction of increasingly capable Type 052C and Type 052D guided missile destroyers, culminating in the 13,000-tonne Type 055 destroyers which have prompted many across the Indo-Pacific to begin their own destroyer modernisation fleets.

Both Japan and South Korea have kickstarted plans for increasingly capable Aegis-based guided missile destroyers in the form of upgraded variants of the Sejong the Great Class destroyers in the case of South Korea and two, immense 20,000-tonne, “Aegis System Equipped Vessels” (ASEV) destroyers/cruisers.

Across the Pacific, the United States has begun fielding upgraded variants of the venerable Arleigh Burke Class destroyers, with a growing number of Flight II, Flight II/B variants at sea and planned to undergo a range of complex radar upgrades to enhance their combat capabilities.

VIEW ALL

The US destroyer fleet is further enhanced by the currently growing fleet of Flight III Arleigh Burke Class destroyers which are designed to fulfil the role provided by the retiring Ticonderoga Class cruisers, however, the United States Navy has recognised that Arleigh Burke hull form has reached its power generation and weapons payload capacity. This level of design maturity and limitation, combined with the growing capabilities of the PLA-N’s own fleet of advanced destroyers has prompted the US Navy to begin detailed design work on their next generation of guided missile destroyer, or DDG(X). 

A new generation of large surface combatant

The US Navy has set a cracking pace for the development and procurement of the DDG(X) fleet in light of the rapidly evolving threat environment across the globe stretching the existing capabilities of the US destroyer fleet to its limit, with the US Congressional Research Service detailing in a December 2022 report: “The Navy’s DDG(X) program envisages procuring a class of 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 Navy wants to procure the first DDG(X) in FY2030. The Navy’s proposed FY2023 budget requests US$195.5 million in research and development funding for the program.” 

As a transformational platform for the US Navy, it has spared no expense in the design phase for the DDG (X) concept, with a host of ambitious standard design features, with a host of additional through-life upgrades and capability enhancements designed into the hull form from the earliest stages — this is key to ensuring that the US Navy destroyer fleet can qualitatively overmatch any potential adversary. 

To this end, a detailed report to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) details significant design and capability enhancements for this next-generation surface combatant, namely: “The new DDG(X)’s combat capabilities would be equivalent or superior to those of the DDG-51 Flight III; it would also have a larger hull, substantially more power, more stealth characteristics, and a greater capacity to accommodate the installation of new weapon systems and other capabilities in the future.

“The Navy has indicated that the initial design prescribes a displacement of 13,500 tonnes. If that is the case, then the Navy’s estimates imply that the DDG(X) would cost 10 per cent more than the DDG-51 Flight III but would have a full-load displacement that is 40 per cent greater,” the CBO report details. 

Despite the ambitious design concepts identified by the US Navy, it is clear that the US Navy is seeking to avoid a repeat of the costly failures of the Zumwalt Class destroyers, with iterative, evolutionary capability development serving as the foundation of the DDG(X) design, something, the US Navy Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Gilday reinforced in September 2022: “Our intent for DDG(X) would be much the same, that we would use a proven combat system on that ship. But we need a ship that has more space and allows for more weight and for capability growth over time. An example might be hypersonic missiles, just based on the size of those missiles. We couldn’t fit those in a current Arleigh Burke, or even a Flight III. [DDG(X) is] a deeper ship, if you will, from that standpoint.”

A role for the AUKUS partnership? 

Cost has also emerged as a major concern for the US Navy as it faces the potential of multiple years of flat, or declining budgets, with an expectation that the proposed DDG(X) could cost up to an astronomical US$3.4 billion per ship, potentially limiting the production run of the ships, further driving up unit costs and complicating sustainment and upgrade pipelines, begging the question, can the AUKUS partnership help solve the problem? 

While much of the commentary around the AUKUS partnership has focused heavily on the design, development and acquisition of a common nuclear submarine platform, enhancing capability aggregation, driving down costs and expanding the global impact of the alliance — in light of the potential costs associated with developing the DDG(X) class, combined with transformation technology inclusions like hypersonic weapons provides potential opportunities for allied partnership under the auspice of AUKUS. 

This is particularly timely for the partners, while the US has a well-established program, the UK Royal Navy is in the early stages of developing a concept for their Type 86 Destroyer replacement program to replace the Type 45 Daring Class destroyers and Australia’s Hobart Class destroyers are relatively young and slated to undergo an extensive modernisation program in the coming years, the timeline for delivery for the DDG(X) intersects perfectly with initial planning stages for the replacement of both the Hobart Class and the Type 45 fleet. 

For Australia, this would provide immense opportunity across the shipbuilding enterprise, providing certainty for shipbuilders working on the Hunter Class frigates, enabling them to shift from the Hunter Class to the DDG(X) once the production run has ended — supporting economic development and also providing the United States with additional avenues for a distributed build to support greater acquisition through the sharing of a common design and the ensuing economies of scale. 

This begs the question, is it time for Australia to make the request to join the DDG(X) program? 

Lessons for Australia’s future defence planning

The growing realisation that both the United States and allies like Australia will need to get the balance of its military and national capabilities just right, not just to support the US as part of a larger joint task force, but to ensure that the Australian Defence Force can continue to operate independently and complete its core mission reliably and responsively.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Stephen Kuper

Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.

Send me a message