Well, if space combat does devolve/evolve down to just lobbing missiles at each other from a distance that pretty much removes the need to worry about 3d combat/vectored movement rules.
Since this threads predication was about 3d combat and the whys and why nots that it should be used, my assumption is that most/all ships are capable of surviving or deflecting small mass objects that they encounter while moving.
Now if starships have trouble deflecting a ball bearing either through shields/screens/armor/or what have you, then they probably won't be careening around space at any great velocity due to there fragile nature.
I'm not saying that what you have said isn't true, with our current tech it is entirely valid. Going into space is a precarious thing even today as our space vehicles are fragile and are very limited in the amount of mobility they can employ (since they have limited fuel supplies).

In the new series of Battlestar we see lots of vectored thrust used among the viper ships. Though they still seem a little to lightweight (inertia wise) to spin and stop as quick as they do. Maybe they're covered in steelfoam (light as styrofoam, tough as steel! Get some today! TM) or some other exotic material.
I've played with vectored movement too and most of the games did devolve into high speed passes with primarily bow mounted weaponry. IF we do actually get into space and IF we do have actual space conflict I foresee ships built not unlike modern fighter jets. That is fast, agile, heavily electronically loaded and mounted weapons that fire forward. Space combat will probably be like todays dogfights. Globular arenas with high speed passes.

Heck, I thought everyone played like this.

It's just like a horror movie with some wacko or other nasty. Simply put if all you did was knock him/it out and then left him/it alone and ran off or are being consoled by the hero, sure enough he'll wake back up and you'll be off and running again.

I have a simple rule and it goes like this "Never leave'em living."

  Same thing applies to starship battles. If all you do is wound 3-4 ships that still leaves 3-4 ships around next turn to pound you. If on the other hand you flat out kill one ship, that only leaves 2-3 to shoot at you next turn (Granted they are undamaged, but hey, their time is coming) and the ship you did kill isn't going to limp off the battlefield and get repaired. Nor is it going to have much in the way of a seasoned crew left over to recrew it for its revenge voyage against you (if you play with veteren crews).
Roy

My gaming group and I have discussed this and this is the general opionion that we have come to regarding drones and your questions.

  A: The rules state that drones act just like fighters in all ways EXCEPT that they do not get to kill an ATTACKING fighter when IT (the fighter) rolls a "1" on ITs (the fighters) attack. Therefore......

  1. Drone vs. Drone: Yes, but they hit on a 4+. No surprise there, one homing object homing in on another homing object that is quite possibly trying to home in on it as well....oh my head.

2. Drone vs. Battlesats: Yes, again the drone hits on a 4+. One hit kills one battlesat.

3. Drones vs. fighters: Yes, go with the description in the book. The reference sheet that you are using may not be updated or even Canon.

Roy

Yeah,
Played that game (after I had a Mentor to show me how).
   As a newbie trying to learn the game was a real pain.
  It was however a rules lawyers dream come true. Sad.
BTW:    SFB really stands for Super Fat Book
  Roy

Personally I consider fighters, battlesats, marines/security forces and drones to be nothing more than very tiny little starships.
  So in that context why can't we (or the powers that be) come up with a mini sxca that allows you to customize them and then spits out a CR and SU rating for them.
  Tech levels would modify (as they do full size starships) what you could put in them.
  Hence, if you are primitech (-2) and you want a heavy fighter it is going to be slow because after you add in the "heavy" equipment mod (armor plate, limited shielding, call it what you will) you are not going to have much space left to put in a hot engine.
On the other hand, if you are Eldertech (+2) and you want a heavy fighter, it will probably have enough space left over after making it heavy to be fast, tough, evasive, well shielded/armored, etc. Vastly superior to primitech or Midtech races.
  In a nutshell higher tech in SX means more stuff in the same package, this should apply across the board, better fighters, better drones, better marines, better security teams/systems, battle sats, etc.
  I do understand, very well, the differences between game playability (keep it simple) and game realism (yeah game system ABC is detailed to the max but virtually unplayable in less than a day or days).
    StarmadaX has what I feel to be a very fine balance between those two.
   However, as a set of optional rules, there isn't any reason you can't custom build the little stuff too. Dan has a great system in place already it's simply a matter of scale....and a new subset of optional rules....and a couple of new mini-SXCA's (while excel is an easy program to work with, that doesn't mean the work is easy).
    Starmada provides virtually limitless options at the starship level, and it can provide the same options for the smaller level components.
  Roy

Originaly I figured that a gun that fires every other turn or every other two turns would by the very nature of its slow firing rate be limited to a ROF of 1 by default.
   If I have a slow firing gun with a ROF of 2 I might as well drop Slow and make it ROF 1. It evens out at that point.
The main disadvantage to slow and very slow weapons is that they tend to get in a couple of shots in the game and then get blown away, so the SU mod tends to be a reasonable trade out.
   My main intention was that ship designers could build the uber weapons to represent a weapon system from a genre that they would like to play. These would represent the hard hitting but slow to reload/repower/cool down weapons in the genre. EX: Type R plasma torpedos, Photon Torps(Star Trek), Heavy Particle Cannons (B5), Wave Motion Guns, Death Star Main Laser, etc.
  I like the idea of expanded turn modes as it increases the value of maneuver in the game. Most of the people I play against design their ships with front forward primary weaponry since, turn modes aren't speed related, maneuvering is very easy and keeping enemies in arc equally so until very short ranges are reached.
  If increased turn mode was introduced how would this modify engines SU wise?. Could this be a tech level limit as well?
  On interceptable weapons fire, I don't think it would have to be done shot for shot, I would assume that only some of your weapons are interceptable and those would only be the attacks that would have to be defended against.
  Overall a "Defence Grid" type of equipment system would probably solve that but PDS already is that.
  I wanted to more accurately represent missile barrages or slow moving energy/solid attacks that could be "knocked out of the sky" with AA fire, along the lines of old style naval engagements.
  Opinions?
  Roy

I think Googleplex might be on the right track.
While it is true that with a 3.0 su modifier the weapon would not be very attractive when compared to a vanilla version it does have the singular advantage of doing heavy damage early, very early if long enough ranged.
So yes, with my vanilla gun I could plink at you at long range while you hammer back at me.
   I'll lose weapons faster than you will, all defences being equal, so that when we do close (if still able to) my now powerful (at short range) guns will give you a serious walloping. Sad thing is I won't have as many to use against you, while you with your now inverted damage output may still be on par damage output wise with me at that point. 
  Again playtesting as you have said will show the advantages and disadvantages of the SU mods chosen from.
Will be interesting to see how they come out. As I pointed in my previous note on this thread I can see how all the normal gun mods could be inverted, just need Dan to give the say so on a point cost and go from there!
Roy 

Hello, I'm Roy,
  Here's how the hex arc firing conversions work.
    A-F are exactly the same as in Starmada.
    1-6 are the same as in SFB.
  For those not familiar with that system, use this:
    1 is the front of the ship, 4 is Aft (back end) end of the ship, 2 is starboard forward, 3 is starboard aft, 5 is port aft and 6 is port forward. All arcs are 60 degrees.
   Hope this helps.
  Roy
                                               1
                                           _____
                                    6    /         \  2
                                        /            \
                                        \            /
                                    5    \         /   3
                                           \-----/
                                              4

Interesting and would like to see them in Starmada, but what is your intended use for them in Starmada?
Drone/Fighter Defense? Towing and/or grappling with other ships to hold them in place?
  Is there a disadvantage to tractoring a ship. Such as it can easily target its captor and vice versa?
  1 per hull may be too many per ship depending on their purpose.
   If you could describe what it is they are too do, I think it would be easier to assign a cost and SU to them after that.