Shipbucket

1. Another +1 about needing larger drive motors. If I were you, I would reasonably scale your power needs off of similarly-sized real ships. At 12kton deep displacement, you're not going to get much speed out of less than 80kshp; the latest Burkes are in the 110kshp range, as I recall. This PDF from ABB details Azipod selection; whatever pods you use would be similar. The largest current offering is 25MW (about 33kshp). Realistically, you're looking at a four-pod arrangement, probably very much like the setup on QM2 (which is 4x21MW). Forward pair are probably fixed, aft pair variable-azimuth. See this picture for a first approximation. Three pods might also be doable, although it would complicate the arrangement somewhat. See M/V Freedom (or Oasis) of the Seas. Thought you may well not have enough beam for such a configuration. If you want to imagine scaling up the system, scale things based on the following data. Image 1, Image 2, Image 3, from documents found here. I believe the largest V-series and X-series Azipods to be sized identically (within Shipbucket tolerances). I might just handwave a 2x30MW arrangement, scaling pod size by constant power/volume and screw size by constant power/area.

2. All that said, you need enough glorious gas turbines to power such, and you don't have enough right now unless that stack is extremely wide. Look at Burke for the sort of stack-spam you need for a big pile of gas turbines (and though I know you're CODLAG, most of your available power is going to be in the turbines). It would be nice to have split plants, if you can absorb the length. It would make you much more damage tolerant

3. Bow thruster, as said above, should be as forward as possible. Forward of that strange access-panel like thing. Speaking of which, what are those?

4. Your ships are presumably very much for rough-seas use. With that in mind, I approve of the stabilization fins. However, I think yours are far too large.

5. With that in mind, you need way more freeboard IMHO. And holy smokes, the transom is deeper than shit. Look at some real cruisers and destroyers for some guidance on stern shape and freeboard forward, particularly the USN and British (who tend to have good rough-weather capability). Right now you seem fit mostly for service in the Med.

6. And more rake to the bow. Right now, the anchor is going to want to gobble up the sonar dome as it goes by (through).

7. Weapons fit seems generally appropriate, although a bit light on the VLS. 64 cells, presumably? I wouldn't want a single block larger than that, as huge holes in the strength deck are not a good thing. I might try for another 32 to replace the Harpoonskis, which could quite easily be stuck on elsewhere. No reason not to pretend the forward 40mm aren't port and starboard, like a baby Horizon. Whose stack arrangement I might also steal.

8. The area right abeam of the RAMski seems added in just for a place to put such. Again, VLS the crap out of that area. RAMski should feel like an afterthought, not a driver for length.

In fact, consider the following. Horizon-like air search set and after engine stack where RAMski is now. RAMski on either beam above the after edge of the RHIB doors. Shift the main stack forward maybe 20ft, and throw in 32 VLS amidships. Ditch the separate Harpoonski canisters and put the weapons in the VLS.

9. What's with the exhaust-thing below the waterline under the helo pad?

10. Lower the forward VLS one deck. No reason to have such a heavy object so high. Angle the bulkhead below the forward 40mm in alignment with all of your other near-vertical surfaces.

11. Bridge seems awfully small for a ship that will surely end up in charge of flotillas.

12. Needs a pile of ECM/ESM/comms crap, but you probably knew that.

13. You have an awful lot of space in the stern. Maybe some RHIBs or towed array or generic flexible space?

In fairness, the later USN CGNs had no more rake to the bow than that. His sonar dome is small enough that he's not going to need a lot more.