You may "know" that, but you neither understand nor accept it.
Designed to create a specific simulation within certain parameters, parameters which impose decisions which may seem to be oversights.
It's not an error because the game works without ScoutRon BFs and because, as you'll see, there's a damn good reason for them not to have BFs.
I'm starting with the fact that they know what they wanted to design and what they designed works. You're starting with the assumption that they made a mistake which needs to be fixed.
I'm examining IS in and of itself, within it's own context. You're comparing IS to other Traveller war games, outside it's own context.
I have: You are chasing your tail while ignoring why the game was designed in the way it was.
They model what the designers wanted them to model and in the way they wanted it modeled. They model certain groups of operational/strategic abilities and not specific ship designs. The scale of the game is far above the point where you count laser turrets and missile bays. As you'll see, ScoutRons in FFW have BFs for another good reason too.
Again, they model what the designers wanted them to model and in the way they wanted it modeled.
IS is essentially Trillion Credit Squadron for T4. Unlike TCS which used HG2's individual ship based combat rules, IS uses a version of Pocket Empires' squadron based combat rules. IS thus allows for previously designed individual ships to be assembled into squadrons because using squadrons is the only way PE's combat system can be used.
Because a player already must use time to take individual ship designs and assemble squadrons from them, IS eases or speeds play in other ways. One of those ways is to strictly delineate just what capabilities constitute each of the game's five squadron designations.
This is the part you seemingly don't want to understand:
The specific capabilities required for each of the five squadron designations grant in turn specific abilities to each type of squadron not available to the others.
ScoutRons in IS have "buffed" movement abilities compared to all other squadrons. They need not be part of a fleet nor must their moves be plotted in advance. In order to balance this "buffed" movement ability, ScoutRons have their combat abilities "nerfed". What you mistakenly perceive as an oversight or error is actually a deliberate design choice to balance game play.
Without a restriction on ScoutRon combat abilities, people like you would game the system to build ScoutRons with BatRon combat factors.
Do you understand now?
Again, apples and oranges. The SDBs you're examining are part of two completely different war games than IS. Those games model different things in different ways, those games are played differently, and those games have different combat systems.
The counters in FFW and IE are different than the USqP in IS. First, there are no individual ship designs "hiding" inside those FFW and IE counters and, second, those counters are not "built" by the player. That means there is no way a player can "game" the system by disguising a BatRon as a ScoutRon.
In IE, none of the ships move between systems, so a ScoutRon's independent movement and planning abilities don't come into play. In FFW, ScoutRons already exist, so there's no way "buff" their factors. The play balance issue IS designers' faced does not exist in either IE or FFW, so ScoutRons can have better combat factors - combat factors which include bombardment ratings.
ScoutRons in IS are limited in specific ways in order to balance play.
That is not an oversight because it was a deliberate design choice.
That is not a mistake because it works within the context of IS.
Stop comparing IS to different games which work in different way and stop assuming a mistake was made when it's clear you don't understand why the game works the way it does.
Finally, if you want to propose a variant in which IS ScoutRons can have BFs, please do so. Don't be surprised, however, when people use your variant to "game" the game.
