No guys, your’e on the wrong track here! This NA has performed a perfectly relevant balancing act between cost/benefit, honour to thee who deserves it!! This example highlights the danger in using intuition in fluid dynamics contexts!
When “tugging” (pushing or pulling) the speed of advance is very low, ie the dynamic pressure around the midships section is low, and there is little static pressure to regain by act of diffusing the flow. The nozzles/propellers are acting as giant hydraulic sinks, increasing the fluid velocity. The complete volume aft of the “step” is a low-pressure region; ie the flow is accelerating from the step and there is no major flow detachement. There is a limited volume of recirculating fluid in a “bubble” just aft of the step, assisting in the directional change, but the energy to keep it running is negligible. It might even benefit from a small vertical threshold (a “cusp”) that will stabilize the circulation.
The design driving condition for a tug is getting enough (undisturbed) water into the nozzle inlets, everything else is secondary. The losses that matter occur in the vicinity of the nozzles, where velocities are high. Your logical mistake is that you look at the isolated tug hull and draw conclusions. Imagine the hull in its working condition with a set of square barges or a timber float ahead; then the potential losses around the tug hull is a spit in the ocean; propeller inflow is all that matters.