>>1842
<incapable of long range missions
What for? It's not for privateers, it's for navy that has larger ships for long range missions. Thus it's unnecessary. And if it's unnecessary, it's dumped. Any non-essential hardware either takes place of something essential or adds more mass to haul around in a fight. The less, the better.
<muh strength in numbers
Yep.
<tied by the dick to ISDs
It's made for those who have carriers, yes. Well, they did. So, when it's a disadvantage?
<not having a tail gunner
Having wingmates. See "mass produced" and "strength in numbers". Also, good maneuverability helps.