Well the issue as I see it though is that comparing the two main battle ships for example:
An Omega brings with it 4 flights of uber ass kicking Thunderbolty goodness, and is about as tough as a Primus.
But...
A Primus by contrast brings with it those two Raziks, which ARE, I still maintain adequate to stop the TBolts if used carefully (or better yet, left on the base in escort....) The ship itself I recokn has a HUGE advantage in firepower unless the EA ship can survive long enough (and relatively undamaged enough) to pass the Centrauri one and brings its aft guns into the mix.
Now of course if you expand this to a fleet battle the fighter situation is maginified and quickly the Centauri are left having to look at dedicated carriers or face swamping. But that said if they don't then the BEAM situation is equally magnified and the combined fire from several centauri cap ships virtually gaurentees the EA cap ships death before they get past the lines (at least some of them, and then the EA are fighting at a numerical disadvantage (which thanks to boresighting, doubly screws them).
Overall, as I've said before I LIKE fighters to be a serious threat to captial ships. In my eyes space combat games should require the use of other fighters to properly defend against fighter attack vs ships.
To use another systems example (well a couple actually):
BSG (yes I know you either love it or hate it seemingly and by and large I DO prefer ACTA but theres a few areas I feel that BSG still did much, MUCH better (and fighters is one of them):
Bombers were truly, and utterly HORRIFIC in power, and turrets on ships were frankly poor and inadequate defence, you used interceptors to, well intercept them or you died. Period.
Full Thrust: This in my oppinion is how fighters should REALLY be done. Fighters were very potent. Had lots of dice etc and could do a horrible damage. However. They were relatively easy to destroy, but each flight was a NUMBER of fighters with a 6 hit points (esentially representing 6 fighters). If you took hits you lost fighter and rolled that many less dice when attacking. More bookkeeping!?!?! I hear you cry. Well no not really, simply place a dice on the fighter base and a count it down as they take losses. Its not really any more bookeeping that models with multiple wounds in Warhammer or Staraship troopers etc. It allows fighters to be surivable enough to do damage and VERY nasty in a full strenght squadron but also allows you to put effective antifighter options in the game without completely making fighters irrelevant.
Seriously why, oh WHY, cant we just give flights of fighters six fighters and corresponding attack dice? Seriously?! (oh and dogighting could be simple too just roll all your dice and pair up highet vs highest and so on a la risk, greater numbers gives you greater chances of winning, but do something like dogfight score = that many extra dice (per wing).
In that instance: Tbolt Squadron 6 fighters each roll 1 AD cannon and 1 AD AP missile. So a full flight at 2" fires 6AD of regular and 6AD AP. Nasty yes (oh in this version of the rule fighters would NOT fire first by the way!!!). In the case of ties the figher with the higher dofight score wins.
However in a dogfight, between say 4 Tbolt Squadrons and 2 Raziks:
4 Tbolts: 28 dice (24 dice if we drop them back to +0 (which I do actually agree on there)
2 Raziks: 18 dice. However the Raziks win any ties. (and thats when outnumbered 2 to one mind you!
Again this is a rough idea and just a start but I do think it would be an improvement.
Edit: I should also point out that in this instance I would get rid of dodge entirely.