Search Penny Hill Press

Friday, February 17, 2012

Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress


Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs

Procurement of Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyers resumed in FY2010 after a fouryear hiatus. Congress funded the procurement of one DDG-51 in FY2010, two in FY2011, and one more in FY2012. The Navy’s FY2012 budget submission calls for procuring seven more in FY2013-FY2016.

DDG-51s to be procured through FY2015 are to be of the current Flight IIA design. The Navy wants to begin procuring a new version of the DDG-51 design, called the Flight III design, starting in FY2016. The Flight III design is to feature a new and more capable radar called the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). The Navy began preliminary design work on the Flight III DDG-51 in FY2012. The Navy wants to use a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract for DDG- 51s to be procured from FY2013 through FY2017.

The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget requested $1,980.7 million in procurement funding for the DDG-51 planned for procurement in FY2012. This funding, together with $48.0 million in advance procurement funding provided in FY2011, would complete the ship’s total estimated procurement cost of $2,028.7 million. The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget also requested $100.7 million in advance procurement funding for two DDG-51s planned for procurement in FY2013, $453.7 million in procurement funding to help complete procurement costs for the three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers that were procured in FY2007 and FY2009, and $166.6 million in research and development funding for the AMDR.

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released on January 24, 2012, discusses several potential oversight issues for Congress regarding the Navy’s plans for procuring DDG- 51s, particularly the Flight III version. Some of these issues were first raised in this CRS report; the GAO report develops these issues at length and adds some additional issues. The issues include the following: 

  • whether actions should be taken to mitigate the significant projected shortfall in cruisers and destroyers; 
  • schedule risk for the Flight IIA DDG-51s; 
  • whether there is an adequate analytical basis for procuring Flight III DDG-51s in lieu of the previously planned CG(X) cruiser, and whether an analysis of alternatives (AOA) or the equivalent of an AOA should be performed before committing to the development and procurement of Flight III DDG-51s; 
  • whether the Flight III DDG-51 would have sufficient air and missile capability to perform projected air and missile defense missions; 
  • cost, schedule, and technical risk in the Flight III DDG-51 program; 
  • whether the Flight III DDG-51 design would have sufficient growth margin for a projected 35- or 40-year service life; 
  • whether it would be appropriate for the Navy to use a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract in FY2013-FY2017 to procure one or more Flight III DDG-51s; and 
  • whether the categorization of the Flight III DDG-51 program in the DOD acquisition process provides for a sufficient level of oversight for the program.

Date of Report: February 3, 2012
Number of Pages: 56
Order Number: RL32109
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at
http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.