Probably because they don't have any other higher valued targets to go after. Aside from long range frigates, sieges, colony frigates, scouts, and other strike craft, fighters have an equal damage multiplier across all other targets - 25%.

Its also worth it to note that bombers do 50% damage to flak and light frigates, so strike craft in general are not the ideal unit to use against light frigates.

Bombers fare slightly better against flak since flak do 105% damage to fighters versus 85% against bombers. Nonetheless, you should not use bombers to take out flak - the 50% damage multiplier makes them ineffectual.

Flaks should be the last thing fighters target.  It's OK for a bunch of bombers to target them, though.  This is one area where the game's AI could be improved.

The strange thing is that fighters will still auto-target flak even where there are higher-priority targets in the area; sieges and LRFs. It's probably because the flak was closer, but it's stil very bizarre for fighters to target flak first.

If you want to take out tanks, you use anti-tank guns (or a TOW on the back of a HMMWV), you only use soldiers with AT weapons as a last resort or if you are entrenched.  Infantry based AT weapons do not work on the offensive against tanks.  That, and I thought standard infantry dotrine was to avoid engaging tanks anywhere but in a city, where the terrain is to your advanage.  On a plain - very similar to deep space for the purposes of the analogy - you'll get slaughtered because the tanks have a clear shot.

But enough about tanks and infantry.  You want to know who is at a serious disadvantage?  I say the fighters.  For them to effectively eliminate flak frigates they don't need 3:1 odds, they need 10:1 odds.  Flak frigates are meaty beasts that can shred multiple fighters at once, while all those same fighters can do is shoot a few ineffective rounds before having to turn around and come back for another pass, all the while with multiple (who sends out one flak frigate?) flak frigates firing on them and being highly effective.

As for the "mobile SC factories"?  Aside from the build penalty in hostile grav-wells, they tend to run out of AM fairly quickly, and take time to replace their fighters, at which point the become weaponless lumps of metal floating in deep space - and then whatever the opponent has can come blast them out of the sky because the fighters were too busy trying to kill that flak they could barely dent in the first place.

Besides, you say this is attrition?  Factor in cost of 1 flak vs cost of 1 carrier cruiser (caps are a different matter as they are armed, among other things) and suddenly those fighters are at even more of a disadvantage.  Even if you get two squads for one cruiser (plus limited replacements) flack are still cheaper and can kill more fighters than those fighters kill flak, and then whatever is acompanying the flak - which the fighters also failed to kill - kills the carriers.  Wow, that achived a lot didn't it?

Your argument is flawed because you assume that fighters (inc. the nessesary cruisers) and flak are equal in cost, which they are not, and that you see momochrome fleets made up of primarily one ship type (i.e. all flak) and that by consequence the fighters can keep coming becasue the cruisers are safe (or at least too solid for the flack to dent).

Final point: my fighters are explendable, my cap ships are not.  I'd much rather have those fighters killing the lrms which can kill my caps ships and ensuring the caps survive, rather than being selfish and attacking the flak for their own benefit while the unimpeeded lrms slaughter my cap ships.  Geddit?

Who said anything about selfish. Were talking about why the Fighters choose Flak over everything else. How is survivability considered selfish?

And please unless your an infantryman dont try debating with me about Infantry tactics. The point was to show how something weak can take out something strong. Not to argue wether its a last resort or not. But I expected someone to argue that because your not noticing the point of why I brought it up. Maybe you didnt know this but there  isnt a bunch of TOW systems running around. And a HMMWV is just as vulnerable as Infantry are. Its actually a bigger meatier target. Meaning the higher ups might choose a less menacing Infantry to do the dirty work smacking a tank with a AT. On another note, in the beginning days and weeks of the war in Iraq every squad had 1-2 ATs strapped to someones back. Why? so we could use them OFFENSIVELY....guess your idea they arent able to be used in that fashion is...how do I say it Flawed?

As for the flak verse Fighters. Yes considering cruisers flak are cheaper. Exept when you have to keep building them. Then that one cruiser gets cheaper and cheaper doesnt it?

And if your stupid enough to believe your Capital is the most important ship in your entire fleet. Then obviously you have another thing coming when you watch another skilled player tear down the units around your Capital and tear your Fleet to pieces. Its the ships around your Capital that are important. They keep it alive giving it breathing room to do its thing. Killing its Flak to get your Bombers and fighters a clear shot into other important Support Units is whats going to give you the win.

Also LRM are just as weak against other LRM. So your idea that you need those fighters for your LRM....again flawed? they work but their not the only counter.