I think that the reason that people such as myself like Starmada SFU is that we have been gaming in the SFU for a long time (I bought the Designer's Edition in 1983). However, many of us felt the SFU had a problem: a bloated, outdated ruleset that demanded time-consuming micromanagement of each ship, which made games sometimes take multiple sittings to complete. Don't even get me started on how long damage allocation took...

We loved the setting however, and the ships (that was why I disliked FASA - imho their ships were often downright ugly). While I sympathize with you re: your implied issues with "the designer," I have to say, I'm a big fan of his work. What I always wanted was a version of SFB that was quicker and easier to play.

Then, Federation Commander came along. I jumped ship from SFB to FC, and although it was an improvement, too much (imho) of the intricacy of SFB was retained. Damage allocation had been streamlined to a degree, but it still took too damn long to allocate a 96-point alpha strike on a downed shield. And so, I still ended up playing mostly duels, not multi-ships-per-side engagements.

I knew of Starmada SFU, but had heard it was too "different" - especially Nova - and I was told I probably would not like it. But then Unity arrived, and I heard good things. I picked up Klingon Armada, liked what I saw, and I grabbed Romulan Armada as well. After a few games, I had internalized the rules to such a degree that I rarely needed to consult the rulebook. There's no going back for me. You gotta love a game where you can keep the damage allocation chart in your head!

TL;DR: I don't consider Starmada SFU Unity to be a "watered-down" version of anything. I consider it to be an improved iteration of a game and game-universe I love. The (very) few things I missed that were not included out-of-the-box (such as tactical maneuvers) I was easily able to incorporate. Starmada Unity SFU is the game I always wished SFB and FC were.

As for your designs: I think they are amazing! The issue of lack of interest might perhaps stem from the fact that there are no Romulans or other races besides Feds and Klingons. I'll bet many were eagerly waiting to see more of your work - I know I was!

I watched your designs with great interest!

They are well executed and work together pretty seamlessly, creating a real "star trek" feel.  The main reason I didn't jump in particularly hard is because I'm not a particularly big fan of the TOS era aesthetic and know little about it (I'm a DS9 kid, sadly for me).

What you see on screen is what the plot calls for or what the sfx people can create.

Tactical maneuvering is fine, but Starmada's movement system is not all that great.

Your designs should also consider the game mechanics, not necessarily to exploit them but to account how you think the weapons (or other systems) should work given the game limitations (i.e., no firing while on the move).
If I think a weapon should normally be AB, I'll make it GHI so that after movement enemy ships that were probably in the AB arc during the move might still be within the GHI arcs during the Combat Phase, and also allows for your ship's maneuvering to have some wiggle in it to offset the limited 6 directions the miniature can be facing.  We got used to using the 12 directions on a hex map a ship can be facing in Full Thrust (hex side or hex spine) due to its normal 12 points of facing when not using hexes.  We haven't worked on how to do that in Starmada (adapting the movement system; firing arcs would be fairly easy).

Well, 360 is going a bit overboard, especially with the big guns.   

Your defense weapons is a problem.  Klingons charge the enemy.  Hard to destroy those seekers/fighters in front of you with rear-firing defense weapons.  I tend to group them as a "Defensive Array Network" representing a variety of defensive measures (various short-ranged weapons, small capacity tractor beams, countermeasures to small warheads with tracking ability, etc.) all around the ship and give it 360 degrees arcs of fire.  But that's me, preferring not to get too fiddly with the small weapons.

As for single arcs weapons (G), I save that arc for spinal mounts (Traveller), rail guns of a particular race from Full Thrust, or big anime one-shot-one-kill type of weapons.  The Photon Torpedoes in Star Trek did have limited tracking and can veer their course (like underwater torpedoes).  Even then I don't like playing those single arc weapons after years of frustration.  Having a big gun that you might fire once is not much fun.  Hmm, usually that happens on first approach, after that it's hard to get a single arc weapon on the enemy in a turning battle.  Maybe I'll make a weapon with "Slw; Slw" since firing once only and early is the most likely scenario before the ship gets blown up.

You're missing some equipment, and not taking advantage of a game *ahem* exploit.

Tractor Beams: your best defense against weapon loss.  Put about 2-4 TBs on your ships and those fragile systems fail from the first weapon hit (or 2 or 3 if you have a lot of TBs).

TBs also make for backup anti-seeker/fighter defense, although their to-hit is low (but they are small and cheap).

Another thing: small arcs.  That's great in SFB, where movement has a lot of wiggle room and firing can be done at any time during movement.  I expand the weapons arcs by 1 arc compared to SFB ships to account for simulated on-the-move firing solutions.  Also, I often play against someone with 300 degree arcs for his main weapons so it's really disadvantageous to have limited arcs when playing against him. IMO, arcs over 180 degrees should scale up faster but instead actually scale slower  (1 arc to 2 arcs is 2x : 3x, 50% increase, 4 arcs to 5 arcs is 5x : 6x, 20% increase).

We also eliminated the save option for seekers.  We finally barred seekers after a day of experimentation.  Even the restriction of number fired did not help.  Without the Evp trait they can go forever, which seems wrong.

Designs look good.  I agree about no phasers for the Klingons, my designs have various disruptors as well.

My designs have a lot more armor, I mean screens, and longer ranged weapons (most go to 15-18).  If the enemy has range 18 weapons then you are more likely to lose if you don't come close to it.  Our local house rule is that 18 is the max range, although Long Range Sensors can extend that, and weapons on bases can have a range up to 30.