Thanks for your reply. But you take a little outdated image of hull form
Let's start with tha main frame - to keep wetted surface low, give a slightly more curved form, and avoid the sharp concave knuckle just below waterline (a very very bad trap for vortices, and thus more friction).
This is a strange decision in my opinion. This part will be subject to constant impacts with a waves so it must be made from thick plates and will be unnecessary heavy. It's don't carry any usefull function (don't act as a part of TDS and don't protect main belt) Only additional weight. And i dont seen such solution on any real ship. Will be better just give bilge a slightly more curved form i think but that weaken TDS a bit, especialy around magazines
Next are the hull lines at stern (frame 27 onwards) - avoid the V-shaped form, give them a more voluminous and rounder shape
If i make stern part like you draw there is will be no place for screws even if a make them 5m in diameter.
Make the transom below waterline not that deep (otherwise you will have bad sucking effects)
Currently deep at transom stern 1,5 m. Possibly it will have some bad effects in calmly sea, but how about rough sea conditions and not under Full load?
and if you really insist on screw diameters of 6(!) meters, duct the flow by adding skegs and keep the inner bottom between them quite shallow (no central fin).
From the view of flow and speed skegs are inferior to conventional stern form.
For example this is quote from US Montana hull characteristics:
"The twin sceg form was retained although model basin test, conducted for the first time since the design of the North Carolina, indicated that the conventional stern form was superior to the twin skeg version, a complete reversal of the North Carolina tests. The new tests indicated a superiority of about 7 per cent through the entrie speed range and 9,5 per cent at the design speed of 28 knots. The retension of the twin skegs, despite these tests results, was a consequence of their undeniable structural and protective advantages over conventional form"
Also in japan twin scegs was tested on one of yamato scale models tests and recognized them as harmful.
As i understand you suggest even four skegs insted of standard twin?
Central die cast fin with 1.2m thinkness at lowel part work as part of TDS localizing damage in case if torpedo hit screws or hull on one side of ship, also i expected that it must resist direct hit of torpedo with 300kg TNT charge.
Rudders: foresee 4 of them, each one in the prop flow, to give enough momentum to steer the beast.
I already examine this solutions and reject this. Almost any hit in stern in this case will hit one of steering gear and this will be excessively complicated. In worst condition two steering devices can be disabled by flooding from one hit torpedo because of they arrangement As i know no one ship in history have four rudders (but maybe i am wrong). Tactical diameter of 2,5 ship length can be archive and with three rudders.
Next to come, some considerations on skeg geometry, screw arrangement
Inner screws placed on 1 degree outward , outers screws placed without any angle. Only horizontal arrangement possible bacause tripple bottom cover all citadel and dosn't allow any vertical deflection of screw shafts.
