We can, but why? A potential microfighter drone would still have to carry certain amount of weapons to shoot, certain amount of fuel to stay in the air during a fight, while the mothership is busy with the other daughtercraft, or just to extend its range, and have some (quite a lot) mass allocated to the engine, wings, and the rest of the airframe. Mass savings compared to a manned aircraft are miniscule, the only difference is cost of training a pilot and acceptable risk. So the hypothetical "747-carried strike drone" would end up just like the manned microfighter, just without cockpit.

Then another questions comes in: why aircraft carriers? Aerial refueling has been in use for a long time now, fighters often have enough range to not even need it, and the countries that could have made something like this already have better alternatives in form of bases in the region of interest. Rearmament? That's an option, yes, but how much ordnance can a 747 and those microfighters carry? Answer: not much, at 10k lb TOW they were effectively limited to a pair of Sidewinders or 1-2 bombs if at that - many designs for that project only had enough space for the missiles - though I guess you could give a potential "drone microfighter" a choice between pair of AAMs, pair of ATGMs, or pair of bombs. Still, even at maximum capacity of 10 fighters that's less ordnance than from a pair of F-16s, which also wouldn't demand that you have absolute dominance in that airspace. Then we get to the difference in radar, which is necessary for hte modern air combat, and the idea becomes dead in the water. It is just so much easier to fly a bunch of conventional fighters and a tanker, than to go with this program.