My only criticism would be that the bow of the ships are remarkably blunt and excessively similar.

I would add some variance in the bow styles just for some visual variety and role distinguishment.

Think of it from a fleet commander point of view, currently you wouldn't be able to tell if what you are looking at is a Grey Wolf class at a distance, or a closer 255/250. Especially since the only real visual differences are minor details that one might not see if the ship was at a distance, however the shape of the bow would be a minor change that would be easily recognizable and be able to tell the difference in your fleet so you know what assets are where at a glance.

The fleet commander should know what ships are currently in his fleet by communications and prior planning/briefings. the similarity in these ship's designs would actually make it harder for the enemy to easily tell apart specific classes and such would provide some level of tactical benifit. Unique silhouettes are one of the main challenges in ship camouflage and this helps mitigate that in a way.

Very true, but since this is in 'space' I am assuming ECM is possible which would disrupt communications, and speaking from former military experience, plans and briefings usually go out the window on first contact because plans then rapidly have to shift and change even if the goal is the same.

I will say I don't know a lot about this universe these ships would be in, but given that it is 'space' I would assume engagement distances would be immense (I.E. Outside of visual range with the enemy). So from how I am imagining it, the 'fleet' might be operating together within visual range, but attacking an enemy outside of visual range using their sensors for targeting. If that was the case, then having a 'similar' visual profile wouldn't matter since the enemy would also most likely be using sensor packages to identify vessels such as their engine signatures or radar blips if it is going from a 'modern naval doctrine' standpoint. If Radar was the case, having a more sloped surface would be more apt as it would minimize the radar signature making it harder to target the vessels.

I would say if you are going with WWI-WWII Naval Doctrine you would definitely be correct, back then having unique silhouettes were a liability, which is why you got dazzle camo and the like to break up the visual signifiers of the ships to mislead the enemy on movement speeds and headings, but with the advent of radar, sonar, and other tracking methods the appearance of the ship began to matter less because we didn't rely solely on visual signifiers for combat but instead relied on Radar signatures to estimate ranges well outside of our normal engagement distances.

To go further from there, using more advanced Radar/Sensor packages on these ships, even if you wanted to keep the "Ship" aesthetic, I would see them experimenting with slanted hulls more, or arranging the form factors to make them harder to get a bead on with sensors.

If you wanted to keep the idea of tactical benefit, then perhaps having a shaped bow would minimize a 'wake' signature through space, making it harder to track their movements through space. Similar to Star Trek and how Warp and Impulse engines leave a 'trail', having a bow that would cause turbulence to keep the signature scattered as they travel would be better than just having a solid block hull that left a maximum signature.

In the end it is your decision, I am just trying to say that visual distinction might make for a more appealing universe for the observer, and allow for ease of writing rather than just having to rely on 'designations' or 'callsigns' being repeated ad-nauseum to keep track of ongoing battles, and having a reasonable justification for it would help an immersion factor.

If the reader of your fiction has to constantly refer back to this chart when you mention a callsign or designation, to remember what the ship looked like, then you are gonna have a harder time keeping their interest because they would have a harder time empathizing with the captain or the crew and feeling of the ships.

For instance, if I say "Enterprise" anyone who has thought of Star Trek can imagine their Enterprise, If I say Millennium Falcon, or X-Wing, or Tie Fighter, people can immediately picture that and imagine it in their mind because they are distinct and people can tie feeling to them.

Now Imagine it with these very similar, very solid looking ships with few discernable features. Sure, people might easily latch on to the Arctic Wolf class carrier, because a Carrier is somewhat distinct on its own...and maybe they might identify with the 144, because it is small so there is the 'underdog complex' possibility but everything else is remarkably similar, so it is hard for a person to get invested in the success or failure of a ship they can't Identify unless they consult a spreadsheet.

These kinds of similar ships would be great for an 'enemy faction' where the reader/viewer wouldn't be expected to empathize with them and their crews...but not so much for the main faction perspective. It is why the term "Hero-Ship" is used for Sci-fi series, because the ships used are distinct to the characters that you are meant to empathize with or remember and so they are very distinct and distinguished. (I.E. Boba Fetts ship, Lukes X-wing, The Enterprise, the Defiant, Voyager, ect.) oppose that with, the 'destroyable' ships like Imperial Star Destroyer, or Borg Cube, Klingon Bird of Prey, Romulan Warbird, Tie-Fighter (Generic). Plenty of those die, and you don't really pay attention to them because they are just one of many that look the same.