The reason my name was on the DG/Perry drawing was the hull, and well there is nothing left of my work there any more, so go ahead and please pull my name off of the credits - anything else wouldn't be fair to those who's work was used.
I would also strongly consider a larger rudder.
Something else that occurred to me was that 1973 is a bit early for the Mk 26 GMLS. The first flight could conceivably be launched with a Mk 22 GMLS forward on the bow with a Mk 16 ASROC box launcher aft. If I remember my Friedman's Destroyers right, the Mk-42 gun + Mk 13 (of which the Mk 22 is a smaller*, lighter version) + Mk 16 was the preferred fit for the DDG designs of the late 60s - of which this ship is a contemporary design.
With the larger ship, and the gun aft, this is reduced to just the SAM mount and the ASROC mount. While this will take up more space than your current design, I think it offers an excellent opportunity to included a flawed/semi-flawed design in the naval history. These early ships would probably be regarded as "Tight" ships by their crews, and the change to the Mk 26 GMLS on the later ships would be welcomed. A refit wouldn't be easy to the first flight, but that might see them assigned secondary duties until VLS comes along. It is also possible that their missile systems
don't get refit, and they have to solider on until replaced in the late 90s. Pull the systems off of the forward deck, and you could have the largest cutters your coast guard has ever had!‡
Looking at the superstructure, The first batch is designed in the late 60s. This means that you can go all gas turbine which is good because COSAG [Combined Steam and Gas] is a pain and a half. This also means that you are going to have four turbines (the output from two just wasn't available yet, and by having a cruise turbine and a speed turbine for each shaft you are able to get better range) giving you about 70k SHP, which is more than enough for this hull to make 30 knots. These engine spaces are going to be staggered in series fore-to-aft.
DG/AEGIS is going to be a close size and power plant analog - even if it was a bit later. From what I can tell, it (DG/AEGIS) would have shipped with the same JT4 turbines as were used on the
USCG Hamilton Class Cutters and the
RCN Iroquois class†. The Iroquois and DG/AEGIS will both give you a feel for the uptake requirements.
They also give a good feel for the extent of the mast structure. Earlier ships had heavy boilers and steam turbines down low that helped with to-weight. Gas Turbines are comparatively light for their power output, and as such, top weight becomes an issue. The fastest way to remove top weight is to start removing mast structure - a thinner, lighter mast is going to be preferred (and the DG/Perry mast is abnormally heavy for a ship of this era). You are also going to want to replace the SPS-49 with an SPS-40 or other earlier radar; The SPS-49 just wouldn't have been around yet for export. Ace an also help by offering a Dutch radar of the time period in place of the US one if you wish. And no matter what you do, you'll need to replace that TACAN (Tactical Navigation radar - it's for Air traffic Control) atop the forward mast. The one you have now is the later one that is in use today. Earlier versions were domed and one such example can be seen on DG/AEGIS.
As for the shape of the superstructure - you're not bad at all, but I am perplexed by the presence of the SeaCat SAMs. By this point, they are going to be extra weight to mount two. I'd go with just one - and have it removed on later flights of this class.
*The Mk 13 has two missile rings in side it - an inner 16 round ring, and an outer 24 round ring. The Mk 22 removes the outer ring, and was only used on a handful of ships - The US Brooke class DEGs, and the Spanish Baleares class FFGs.
†Well, sort of. DG/AEGIS, and the higher speed requirements would have had four turbines, while the Iroquois and Hamiltons only had two each - The Iroquois class had two smaller cruise turbines and the Hamiltons used Diesel engines for cruising power. There is something to be said for range, and there is something to be said for having four engines of the same type.
‡I've been reading the OPC requirements and I'm being reminded of the deck space requirements the USCG cutters have.
Pre-post-edit: You've got a pixel glitch with that ASROC that is driving me crazy as I type this.