the reason we currently have the turret suppression rule is to simulate bomber waves being improved by having a fighter escort. against turrets, this doesnt seem to make much sense unless theyre throwing themselves in the line of fire. why is it this way? because in terms of AC currency, 1 bomber = 1 fighter. they both take up exactly the same amount of resources, and are removed in exactly the same ratios. this is why a mixed fighter/bomber wave is no better than a full bomber wave when being intercepted by other fighters. if a wave of 8 AC hit 4 fighters, whether those 4 AC lost are bombers or fighters doesnt matter, they may as well be assault boats. hence, no incentive to take fighters.
with this line of thinking, i really like the 1:2 ratio for fighter vs bomber, as it really does give a real incentive to bring fighter support, for the right reasons - to hold off enemy fighters. the issue now is that defending becomes much easier than attacking, because if you and your opponent both have the same launch capacity, you can stick with fighters and not have to worry about bombers.
this would be difficult to balance i think. the only thing that comes to mind is to have bombers make a flat d6 attacks regardless of turrets - making them difficult to get to the enemy in numbers if they have lots of ordnance, but devastating if they do. this could also encourage more CAP, to protect against short range pure-bomber waves.
my last idea to encourage escorts is to have escorts contribute their whole turret value instead of just a +1, making high turret escorts very handy in groups of 3, surrounding a capital ship. another option would be to lift the cap on massing turrets for escorts, so you could gain a max of +3 from capital ships, or a +6 from escorts if you surround yourself. +8 for big bases.
(i know ive repeated a lot of ideas here, but i think these KISS. thoughts for the thought god, ideas for the idea throne.)