Okay, so running through the list here...
11,772 tons
6116 km/s
These are the most serious problems with the design and I expect you to rectify them immediately. If there are not at least two zeroes at the end of each of these numbers you are playing the game wrong and will be shot out of a railgun forthwith.
That said for MP tech it is a reasonable speed for a beam ship.
Armour 3-46 Shields 50-375
Armor should be thicker. A beam warship must expect to engage in close-range exchanges of fire and take hits, so you need the armor to do so. Shields are okay but could be better - you need to develop the larger size techs, as shield efficiency scales with Size^(3/2) so larger shield generators are always better as long as they will fit on your ship.
Maint Life 0.58 Years MSP 219 AFR 554% IFR 7.7%
This is going to be a big problem because your ship will probably explode from engine failure before it even sniffs that 24-month deployment time. As a general rule, Maint Life > Deployment Time > Fuel Endurance unless you have a good reason to do otherwise. Fuel endurance is the shortest because a ship may hold position on-station. Crew deployment is in the middle since it is easily handled at any populated colony. Maint life is the longest since maintenance failures are the biggest threat to your ship, and maintenance supplies are more expensive and logistically-demanding than having 10,000 people on a planet somewhere.
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
An Auxiliary Control is a good addition to most large warships - cheap to research, small and cheap to add to a ship, good to give lower-level commanders jobs, and helps boost crew training on new ships.
Magneto-plasma Drive EP160.00 (9) Power 1440 Fuel Use 50.0% Signature 160 Explosion 10%
Consider using fewer, larger engines to achieve the same total engine power. Fuel efficiency scales with the inverse SQRT of engine size, so if you used, e.g., three size-30 engines here you would cut fuel consumption by over 40%. There is some benefit to using more, smaller engines in terms of hits-to-kill but I usually don't find this as compelling as fuel efficiency improvements - enough to use 3-4 engines instead of 2, but not enough to use 9 engines instead of 3.
20cm C5 Far Ultraviolet Laser (2) Range 256,000km TS: 6,116 km/s Power 10-5 RM 50,000 km ROF 10
Beam Fire Control R256-TS3000 (1) Max Range: 256,000 km TS: 3,000 km/s 72 69 66 63 60 57 54 52 49 46
This is not enough lasers to seriously threaten anything larger than a shuttlecraft. The BFC tracking speed is too slow and should match the ship speed if you want to have good hit rates.
Twin 15.0cm C5 Far Ultraviolet Laser Turret (3x2) Range 256,000km TS: 20000 km/s Power 12-10 RM 50,000 km ROF 10
PD Beam R64-TS12000 Beam Fire Control R64-TS12000 (1) Max Range: 64,000 km TS: 12,000 km/s 84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
These lasers lack a purpose. 15cm lasers are too large and (until Capacitor Level 6) fire too slow to be good point defense, but these are too small to be main battery weapons when you could have more 20cm lasers instead, which is what I would recommend here. Also, note that you can make the lasers cheaper by using a lower capacitor tech level and still getting the same ROF.
BFC looks fine for the tech level, although your BFC techs are underdeveloped for the MP Drive/20cm Laser tech level.
Sensors look fine.
I would say the main problems with the design are (1) lack of firepower, (2) poor maintenance life/low engineering capacity, and (3) weak passive defenses (armor/shields). I will also restate that 15cm lasers are not really good for point defense as 10cm lasers work fine and are smaller + cheaper. Maybe this will change in 2.2 but for now it is not optimal.
I read somewhere that if you dedicate about 40% of total space to engines, you should be faster than most NPR ships. So that's how I've been designing beam ships.
This is a reasonable rule of thumb. You can go lower for missile or carrier-based fleets, I like 32% as it tends to give nice round numbers.
