The U.S. Navy’s Ticonderoga-class cruisers are approaching the end of their service lives and will be decommissioned in the coming years. By 2027, all cruisers will be gone. What will replace them, and will the U.S. Navy build new cruisers as replacements?

The U.S. Navy did have the Next-Generation Cruiser program (CG(X)), started in November 2001, to design and replace the Ticonderoga-class cruisers. The CG(X) program was canceled in 2010. In CG(X)’s canceled program’s place, the U.S. Navy decided to acquire Flight III DDG-51s, upgraded versions of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

According to the June 10, 2010, Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress, “The CG(X) program was announced on November 1, 2001, when the Navy stated that it was launching a Future Surface Combatant Program aimed at acquiring a family of next-generation surface combatants. This new family of surface combatants, the Navy stated, would include three new classes of ships.

• a destroyer called the DD(X)—later renamed the DDG-1000 or Zumwalt class—for the precision long-range strike and naval gunfire mission,

• a cruiser called the CG(X) for the AAW [Anti-Air Warfare] and BMD [Ballistic Missile Defense] mission, and

• a smaller combatant called the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to counter submarines, small surface attack craft, and mines in heavily contested littoral (near-shore) area.” The tumblehome hull Zumwalt-class destroyers (DDG-1000) and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) were indeed built, but the CG(X) program did not become a reality.

In June 2024, Naval News asked the U.S. Navy’s Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) about cruiser replacements and if there would be any new CG(X) program resurrection. NAVSEA forwarded my request to the U.S. Navy’s Chief of Information (CHINFO) office, who replied:

“The Navy does not intend to replace Ticonderoga-class cruisers with CG(X). In the near term, the DDG 51 FLT III, and DDG(X) in the long term, fulfill the requirements historically supported by the Ticonderoga-class cruisers.“
“While DDG 51 Flight III capabilities enable the surface force to pace adversary threats into the future, after 40 years of production and 30 years of upgrades, the DDG 51 hull form has inadequate space, weight, power, and cooling margins (SWaP-C) for future upgrades,”
“DDG(X) represents an evolutionary vice revolutionary approach that will provide the Navy with the warfighting capabilities and SWaP-C margins to relieve both the Arleigh Burke DDG 51 class destroyer and Ticonderoga CG 47 class cruiser as the next enduring hull form.”

When asked why the CG(X) program was canceled and if the Requirements for the CG(X) program still exist, CHINFO’s spokesperson said, “CG(X) represented a revolutionary vision for the future of the Navy. However, CG(X) was based on the matured DDG 1000 hull form, which met with significant technical and affordability issues. The requirements that were filled by the Ticonderoga-class cruiser are now being filled by DDG 51 FLT III in the near term and DDG(X) in the long term. The Navy’s current capabilities resident within DDG 51 FLT III and DDG(X) ship classes are sufficient to meet the requirements the CG(X) program was intended to fulfill. These capabilities are deemed sufficient to support the Surface Navy’s mission throughout the range of military operations. Accordingly, there is no plan to pursue the CG(X).”

Naval News then contacted two nonprofit global think tank research institutes and spoke with two military analysts.

RAND Weighs in on the U.S. Navy CHINFO’s Comments

Naval News contacted the RAND Corporation and spoke with Dr. Bradley Martin, the RAND National Security Supply Chain Institute Director and RAND’s Senior Policy Researcher. Dr. Martin is a retired U.S. Navy captain featured on Naval News here, here, and here.

I don’t view the class designations as being a particularly big deal.”

Dr. Bradley Martin, RAND’s Senior Policy Researcher

“I don’t view the class designations as being a particularly big deal. The fundamental consideration is capability relative to [the] mission. There are some things CGs could do that DDGs could not – mostly in the realm of command and control – but overall, they’re all simply large surface combatants,” Dr. Martin said regarding the U.S. Navy no longer having active-duty or newly built cruisers by 2027. “Again, we’re into nomenclature rather than actual capability. DDG(X) will have the same radar and battle management system as CG(X) would likely have had.  CGs were major commands, and the ship’s CO [Commanding Officer] could be designated Air Defense Commander [ADC] – and the CG had a bit more staff to accommodate that – but with the ability to distribute operations, I doubt that difference will be noticed.

“Widely distributed operations and C2 [Command and Control] capabilities have diminished the need to have a ship whose main purpose is to support the ADC. Integrated Air and Missile Defense is a widely distributed joint architecture.  The lack of a CG in the network is unlikely to undermine C2.”

The U.S. Navy’s destroyers have fewer Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells than cruisers. Dr. Martin offered his insights on this, noting a destroyer’s smaller number of VLS cells and one less gun than on a cruiser. “Depends on the number of cells ultimately designed into DDG(X), but between FFG(X) [USS Constellation frigate] and the legacy DDGs, the total number of cells across the fleet will likely remain about the same (indeed, the limitation won’t be on cells but on missiles to put in the cells).  Guns for NSFS [Naval Surface Fire Support] are at best a legacy capability.  One gun or two guns – it’s hard to get a ship in close enough to actually do much good with surface fire support.

“DDG(X) can likely be configured to host an Air Defense Commander should such be desired. Ability to change payloads gives versatility and allows the distribution of different missions across similar ships.  However, there aren’t all that many capabilities CGs currently possess that DDGs, and in particular DDG(X), don’t already have.”

Dr. Martin offered his final thoughts on the U.S. Navy’s decision not to build new cruisers. “Cold War-era CGs were originally designated as DLGs, so there’s nothing particularly significant about the designations, which are largely matters of convention.  The US Navy might be overinvested in large and complicated surface combatants, and the problem may be less that the Navy is losing significant capability from decommissioning CGs that it’s adding really expensive manned platforms that in the end look exactly like a CG would look.”

CSIS Weighs in on the U.S. Navy CHINFO’s Comments

Retired U.S. Marine Corps Reserve colonel Mark Cancian, Senior Adviser for the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), offered his insights on the U.S. Navy’s decision not to build new cruisers.

“The distinction between cruisers and destroyers has faded over time as destroyers have become larger.”

Mark Cancian, Senior Adviser at CSIS