So the big thing here is that this kind of design tends to not perform well, because the space rules favor broadside fighters, but a heavy fore armament can work.
As a general rule, though, you should not use the canon designs as published as measuring sticks; out of universe most were designed before the rules for actually using them were written and thus tend to be pretty bad at it, in universe I just assume that the Star League had the Galactic Empire Syndrome and was building Mobile Oppression Palaces rather than maximally effective warships for basically the same reasons.
This being said, we can still analyze the loadout here in a vacuum, on basic choices.
First off, there's the fighter complement. Entirely leaving aside the fact that 100 ASF would represent a substantial portion of an entire nation's ASF, with only 18 doors you aren't going to be able to deploy them in any reasonable amount of time.
Your cargo bay also seems to have the opposite problem of canon designs, and not be *big enough*. Remember that you need 1% of the ship's mass in spares and probably something like four or five thousand tons of crew supplies, plus extra ammunition, armor, spare equipment, and other assorted supplies - I generally recommend allocating crew supplies and spares separately, then having 5-10% of the ship mass as cargo for all that sort of thing.
Similarly, you have nowhere near enough fuel; a ship that size needs tens of thousands of tons with how fast they burn it in combat.
You also seem to have a lot of SI, but not even close to max armor for said SI? Which yeah ah
don't do that
Generally, if a WarShip starts taking SI damage it's either dead outright or running like hell; and armor thresholds further encourage you to pile on as much armor as is allowed. As it is, this design has the same problem as the "tough" McKenna: all but the lightest weapon bays can threshold it, and the average one can chew through any location in only three or four rounds at most. Not very many 60s in 200, for example, and 60 is pretty common as the damage value of a heavy bay.
For actual weapons...
Okay, first off: it's good that you remember that CIWS/PD mounts are things that exist and should be mounted to a WarShip! Most of the canon designs do not, and this is the subject of endless frustration on my part.
Your choices here are... Questionable, though.
First off, the LB 10. Leaving my usual rant about Autocannons aside for the moment, the big thing here is that LBs get zero lube in the Aero rules, being restricted solely to cluster ammo and an assumed roll of 7, which means those AC 10s are doing all of 6 damage each- and they don't even go up a range bracket like the 2 and 20 do for their trouble. The fact you've got them in hex turrets is also problematic- each bay can only target a single fighter each turn, so you generally want several so you can split or concentrate fire as needed... And so that you can still fire them even riding the ragged edge of your heat capacity. Similarly, you should split those AMS mounts into pairs, because Space AMS is restricted to one engagement per missile attack per bay, so you want many, many bays; this is also more efficient against capital missiles- your present configuration can output 3 capital damage, but 5 pairs outputs 5 damage, because of damage rounding.also, again, heat efficiency and avoiding overkill.
As for Capital Weapons... Okay, so a few capital missiles aren't completely a bad idea- they're excellent flyswatters and having the literally nuclear option is a useful capability-but ten is... Either excessive, or not enough. if you're not going to go full Macross Missile Massacre with the 80+ launchers needed to actually saturate something that has decent AMS, there's really no point in mounting more than 2-4 tubes, in an AMS environment.
The HNPPCs are fine of course- quad HNPPCs are basically the best big capital bay the system allows-but those laser pairs really should be quads (or better) if you want to use them on other WarShips, or singletons if you're expecting to mostly use them in AA mode.
Naval Gauss, on the other hand, is the worst weapon in the entire system, even NACs are better. The simple fact is that Ngauss is heavy as hell as Extreme Range tax but ironically does too much damage per gun, making it impossible to put enough in one bay for effective bracketing---the only real way to actually hit things with any kind of regularity at Capital Extreme range.
Compare the following revision:
Type/Model: Ballista Revision
Tech: Inner Sphere
Vessel type: WarShip
Mass: 1200000 tons
Engine: Fusion, 10000 DHS
Safe Thrust: 3 (3)
Maximum Thrust: 5 (5)
Jump Drive: Compact w/ Lithium Fusion Battery
Armor Type: 3096.0t Lamellor Ferro-Carbide (704/501/501/501) [129 SI]
Armament:
3 AR-10 Launcher (3 bays of 1, 2 KW|4 WS|6 BC/bay, 1 bay L/RB, Aft)
8 Screen Launcher (4 bays of 1, 20 rounds/bay, 2 bays FL/R, AL/R)
42 ER Large Laser (21 bays of 2, 3 bays FL/R, L/RB, AL/R, Aft)
42 Laser AMS (21 bays of 2, 3 bays FL/R, L/RB, AL/R, Aft)
24 SCL/1 (4 bays of 6, 2 bays L/RB)
9 NL45 (9 bays of 1, 2 bays FL/R AL/R, 1 bay Aft)
6 NL55 (1 bay Aft)
8 Medium NPPC (2 bays of 4, 1 bay AL/R)
28 Heavy NPPC (7 bays of 4, 5 bays Nose, 1 bay FL/R)
Other systems:
Naval C³ System
Large Naval Comms-Scanner
Cargo Bays:
1 (10 doors):
40 ASF
2 (4 doors):
36000t cargo
Internal:
40000t Hydrogen Fuel
12000t Spare Parts
510t Crew Supplies (200 days supply)
477.5t Cargo
DropShip Collars: 24
Crew:
65 Officers
12 Specialists
93 Gunners
80 Bay Personnel (Crew Quarters)
40 Battle Armor Marines
220 Crew
Grav Decks: 3x 200m
Escape Pods: 85
