The Navy is expected in the coming weeks to rename its DD(X) combat ship to DDG-1000.Now, go look at the Navy list of DD and DDG here. Besides my favorite class, the Kidds (DDG-993-996) our present DDG class, the Burkes, run from DDG-51-105. Now, being that everything nowdays has some type of guided missiles, IMAO, the "G" is redundant...but I will give the Navy a pass on that...I am sure that it wasn't that they didn't want to double up on the past recent DD numbering of the Spruance class (DD-963-997), I don't think we will have 800 and change DDX. In any case, in addition to the Burkes, all the older DDG (Converted Forrest Sherman DDG-31-34, Charles S. Adams DDG-2-24, Farragut/Coontz DDG-37-46), numbers doubled up older DDs from the early years.
What is wrong with the first DD(X) being DDG-106? What? I tell you what - too cleaver by half, cheesy, beltway amateur marketing gimmicks - that's what. For the same reason the F-18 became the F/A-18 (at least the USAF was honest enough to move back to the F-22 from FA-22), and we skipped F-24 through F-34 just because the X-35 "became" the F-35. Just as stupid as SSN-21.
It may seem clever for the Potomac Flotilla, but Shipmates let me tell you something you will agree with me over a beer at Pete's Bar; it is stupid and smarmy from the Fleet perspective.
Professionally insulting. Harumph.
UPDATE: Correction. DDG-112 will be the last I relied on an official Navy site for my previous data - and it was out of date....so how about DDG-113...same point.