Well i was reading a US Congress file about DDG-51 & DDG-1000, they were talking about the future.
In the file they spoke about a ''New-Design Destroyer''
The part out of the file
Another option would be to design and procure a new-design destroyer that is intermediate in size between the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 designs, equipped with the AMDR, and capable of BMD operations. This option could be pursued as either a replacement for the Flight III DDG-51 or a successor to the Flight III DDG-51 (after some number of Flight III DDG-51s were procured).Such a ship might be designed with the following characteristics:
• a version of the AMDR that is larger than the one envisioned for the Flight III DDG-51, but smaller than the one envisioned for the CG(X);
• enough electrical power and cooling capacity to permit the ship to be backfitted in the future with an EMRG or high-power SSL;
• more growth margin than on the Flight III DDG-51;
• producibility features for reducing construction cost per ton that are more extensive than those on the DDG-51 design;
• automation features permitting a crew that is smaller than what can be achieved on a Flight III DDG-51, so as to reduce crew-related life-cycle ownership costs;
• physical open-architecture features that are more extensive than those on the Flight III DDG-51, so as to reduce modernization-related life-cycle ownershipcosts;
• no technologies not already on, or being developed for, other Navy ships, with the possible exception of technologies that would enable an integrated electricdrive system that is more compact than the one used on the DDG-1000; and
• DDG-51-like characteristics in other areas, such as survivability, maximum speed, cruising range, and weapons payload.
Such a ship might have a full load displacement of roughly 11,000 to 12,000 tons, compared to about 10,000 tons for the Flight III DDG-51, 15,000 or more tons for an AAW/BMD version of the DDG-1000, and perhaps 15,000 to 23,000 tons for a CG(X).
 The cost and technical risk of developing the new destroyer’s hull design could be minimized by leveraging, where possible, existing surface combatant hull designs. The cost and technical risk of developing its combat system could be minimized by using a modified version of the DDG-51 or DDG-1000 combat system. Other development costs and risks for the new destroyer would be minimized by using no technologies not already on, or being developed for, other Navy ships (with the possible exception of some integrated electric drive technologies). Even with such steps, however,the cost and technical risk of developing the new destroyer would be greater than those of the Flight III DDG-51. The development cost of the new destroyer would likely be equivalent to the procurement cost of at least one destroyer, and possibly two destroyers.The procurement cost of the new destroyer would be minimized by incorporating producibility features for reducing construction cost per ton that are more extensive than those on the Flight III DDG-51. Even with such features, the new destroyer would be more expensive to procure than the Flight III DDG-51, in part because the Flight III DDG-51 would leverage many years of prior production of DDG-51s. In addition, the new destroyer, as a new ship design, would pose more risk of procurement cost growth than would the Flight III DDG-51. The procurement cost of the new destroyer would nevertheless be much less than that of the CG(X), and might, after the production of the first few units, be fairlyclose to that of the Flight III DDG-51.
So i was wondering what you guys would comeup with. I am realy interested in what a future US Destroyer could look like.
Just 1 restriction: It has to be a naval ship:P not a space destroyer [Removed poll]