The short answer to your question is 'no'. The long answer is this:
I am okay with expanded warship AI as a crutch for beginner designers and RTS style situations, but it will probably never replace good FRED work.
Unlike fighters, who only need to occupy broad volumes and express wide behaviors, mission designers need to manage the precise position and orientation of warships. In my example, it would be much worse to program an attack routine into the AI that would move towards a waypoint while keeping the ship's top pointed a specific direction, because this is not exposed to the designer and cannot be modified to the demands of the mission. It is easier, safer, and more powerful to say 'go to this waypoint. Set this waypoint's position here. Set the ship's orientation as it moves, preferring to keep local Y+ towards this waypoint.' than to say 'Attack this target, and do whatever the **** you want.'
Please, believe me when I say that I have spent probably more time managing precise warship behavior in unusual situations than anyone else. FRED is extraordinarily powerful, and its power lies in its flexibility and accessibility.
When you're working on a sophisticated mission you need warships with essentially no intrinsic AI except their turret behavior. The basic reason is that warship behavior is highly consequential and it depends on a spectacular number of variables which no AI could robustly account for. To be really specific, I need to be able to say that destroyer X is making a broadside pass on destroyer Y at exactly this point in the mission and be able to tell it NOT to do that, to instead run for distance, contingent on some other aspect of the mission. You cannot do this with AI.