Battleships Return? The Navy’s Shifting Plans for Future Surface Combatants

The US Navy is at a crossroads. For decades, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has been the workhorse of the fleet. But with aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers needing replacement and the need for more advanced capabilities, the Navy is weighing its options – and those options are becoming increasingly ambitious. The recent announcement of a potential new class of battleships, the BBG(X), alongside the ongoing DDG(X) destroyer program, signals a significant shift in naval strategy and technological priorities.

The Rise of the Battleship… Again?

In December 2025, the Trump Administration unveiled plans for the BBG(X), a guided missile battleship – the first such vessel considered since the end of the Cold War. This isn’t your grandfather’s battleship, though. These new ships are envisioned as heavily armed, technologically advanced platforms capable of projecting power and providing robust air defense. The move has sparked debate, particularly regarding its potential impact on the DDG(X) program, designed to replace existing cruisers and older destroyers.

Some reports suggest the Navy may pause development of the DDG(X) to focus on the BBG(X). This is a significant decision, as the DDG(X) was intended to be the next-generation destroyer, incorporating advanced technologies like an integrated power system and increased capacity for directed-energy weapons. The BBG(X), being a larger and more complex vessel, presents both opportunities and challenges.

The Industrial Base: A Critical Factor

Building these ships, regardless of class, relies heavily on a limited number of shipyards: General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls Shipbuilding. These yards, along with key contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, are already stretched thin. A sudden shift in priorities could strain the industrial base, potentially leading to delays and cost overruns. The health of this industrial base is paramount to the Navy’s ability to modernize its fleet.

DDG(X): Still in the Running?

Despite the battleship announcement, the DDG(X) program remains a key component of the Navy’s long-term plans. The Navy’s 381-ship force-level goal includes 87 large surface combatants (LSCs), encompassing cruisers and destroyers. The DDG(X) is intended to fill the gap left by retiring Ticonderoga cruisers and aging Arleigh Burke destroyers.

The current concept for the DDG(X) focuses on increased capacity for future technologies. The design aims to provide more space, weight, and power (SWAP-C) to accommodate advancements like directed-energy weapons and larger missile systems. Initial designs suggest a displacement of 14,500 tons – significantly larger than the current DDG-51 Flight III.

Did you know? The Aegis Combat System, found on both cruisers and destroyers, is named after the mythical shield of Zeus, reflecting its powerful defensive capabilities.

The Cost Question: A Major Hurdle

Cost is a major concern for both programs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the DDG(X) will cost $4.4 billion per ship, 33% higher than the Navy’s estimate of $3.3 billion. The BBG(X), being a larger and more complex vessel, is likely to be even more expensive. These escalating costs raise questions about the Navy’s ability to procure these ships in the numbers needed to maintain a credible fleet.

Recent data from the Department of Defense shows a consistent trend of cost overruns in major acquisition programs. Effective cost control and rigorous oversight will be crucial to the success of both the DDG(X) and BBG(X) programs.

Pro Tip:

Understanding the interplay between shipbuilding programs and the defense budget is key to predicting future naval developments. Keep an eye on Congressional reports and CBO analyses for the latest cost estimates and program assessments.

Technical Challenges and Risk Mitigation

Both programs face significant technical challenges. The DDG(X) requires a new hull form and an integrated power system (IPS) capable of supporting advanced weapons and sensors. The IPS, in particular, is a high-risk area, as it represents a significant departure from traditional naval power systems. The Navy plans to test the IPS at a land-based facility, but the results may not be available in time to fully inform the ship’s design.

The BBG(X) presents its own set of technical hurdles, including integrating advanced missile systems and ensuring the ship’s survivability in a modern threat environment. The Navy will need to carefully manage these risks to avoid delays and cost overruns.

What Does This Mean for the Future of Naval Warfare?

The Navy’s shifting priorities reflect a changing threat landscape. The rise of China and Russia, coupled with the proliferation of advanced missile technology, has prompted the Navy to rethink its approach to surface warfare. The BBG(X) and DDG(X) are both intended to provide the Navy with the capabilities needed to counter these threats.

The focus on increased payload capacity, integrated power systems, and directed-energy weapons suggests a move towards a more offensive and technologically advanced fleet. The Navy is preparing for a future where naval combat will be characterized by long-range engagements and the need to defeat sophisticated anti-ship missiles.

FAQ

• What is the DDG(X) program? It’s the Navy’s plan to build a next-generation destroyer to replace older cruisers and destroyers.
• What is the BBG(X) program? It’s a proposed program to build a new class of battleships.
• Will the BBG(X) replace the DDG(X)? It’s currently unclear. The Navy may pause DDG(X) development to focus on BBG(X).
• What are the biggest challenges facing these programs? Cost, technical risk, and the capacity of the shipbuilding industrial base.

Reader Question: “How will these new ships integrate with carrier strike groups?” – This is a critical question. The Navy will need to ensure that the BBG(X) and DDG(X) can effectively operate alongside aircraft carriers and other surface combatants.

The future of the US Navy’s surface fleet is uncertain. The decisions made in the coming years will have a profound impact on the Navy’s ability to project power and maintain maritime security. The interplay between the DDG(X) and BBG(X) programs will be a key indicator of the Navy’s strategic direction.

Explore further: USNI News provides in-depth coverage of naval affairs. The Department of Defense website offers official statements and reports.

What are your thoughts on the Navy’s new shipbuilding plans? Share your comments below!