I still think you're missing the point here. In case you didn't see the post before, there is no way for the UNSC to even come close to Star Wars tech.
Remember this http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/
? Here's a bigger quote then,
"When discussing a weapon, there is more than one way of expressing firepower. Turbolasers fire "bolts", so the firepower of each bolt can be measured. These bolts are only fired once per unit time, so the "sustained" firepower is the power of each bolt divided by this unit of time. These mid-sized TL bolts can be fired at least once every two seconds, so a turbolaser cannon must have a sustained firepower of at least 15 terawatts. Assuming they can be fired once per second, they would have a sustained output of at least 30 terawatts (since one of the smallest estimated diameters of the asteroids is used, and only the melting point, this estimate is ridiculously conservative).
In comparison, the United States now produces 500-600 gigawatts of electrical power. This is a whole order of magnitude less than the power of a single middle-sized turbolaser.
The atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was rated at 15 kilotons. This translates to about 63 terajoules. Using my conservative estimate for TL bolts (ignoring vaporisation), a middle-sized TL bolt has about 30 TJ of energy. Therefore, a TL bolt has about half the energy of the Hiroshima bomb.
A bomb releases its energy in all directions, so an object immediately next to an exploding bomb won't absorb any more than half of the energy, probably much less. A TL bolt directs essentially all of it's energy to a target, therefore, a TL bolt is at least as intense as the blast from an atom bomb, even if the bomb was detonated while in contact with the target. At greater distances, the intensity of the bomb's blast decreases exponentially. A single TL bolt should have the capability to level a small town, as the Hiroshima bomb did. "
This was the conservative part of the calculations, which assumed that the asteroids off which the numbers were derived had not actually vaporized but simply melted, judging only the smaller lasers. A single Venator class Star Destroyer, which is what the Republic would be fielding at this time, carries an unspecified number of lasers in this scale, 8 turrets mounting even heavier dual cannons and 2 other medium turrets, not counting the Proton Torpedo launchers. That would be a lot of atomic bombs going off in just a few seconds. Add in the roughly 420 various fighter craft the ship, primarily a carrier, carries, you get enough firepower to vaporize probably an entire Covenant Battle group.
I understand that nukes in Halo would probably have much higher yields than Little Boy or Fat Man, but if you took the high or even medium estimate also listed in that link, the numbers would even out.
Ok, comparative velocity and energy output for a 'Super' MAC cannon is about 9.98 teratons of TNT
"These cannons fire a 3000-ton ferric-tungsten round at nearly 50% the speed of light, impacting with a massive amount of relativistic kinetic energy, which at 50% of the speed of light is of equal power to 9.98 teratons of TNT. No known ship, UNSC or Covenant, has been shown to survive the impact of one of these rounds. Against Covenant shield technology, the rounds possess enough kinetic energy to punch through shields, cut through the ship, and, upon exit, still retain enough energy to cripple or destroy a second ship.
It is theorized that if a ship's armor or shields were to absorb all the kinetic energy of a MAC round, the release of thermodynamic energy would still vaporize the ship. By receiving power from ground-based power plants, orbital platforms could achieve recharge and reload times as short as five seconds." http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/MAC_GUN
This would probably be the only weapon in the Halo Universe short of the Halos themselves that I can see as being a potential danger to a Star Wars ship.
However, this MAC cannon was only seen to be mounted on the Orbital Defense Stations the UNSC used to defend its critical planets, and it is unlikely that it was able to be fitted to ships due to its massive energy needs. I can only assume that UNSC fleets would mostly be composed of MAC guns with lower power and/or slower firing rates, as evidenced by most depictions of space battles in the books and games.
The survivability of these different fleets now comes into play. First off, lets take a look at UNSC Ships. They are unshielded, and though you could say Humanity is very good at reverse engineering tech, I have not yet seen a shielded Human vessel even though the Covenant have been using this tech since the beginning of the war. Not only that, but there are Humans in Star Wars too, and they happen to make up the majority of populations in many worlds, guess what? I think they'll be multiplying too. Having humans does not guarantee success. A Covenant Supercruiser could possibly survive a single Nuclear Mine strike, or perhaps 3 MAC hits. (These ships were durable enough to withstand one nuclear mine detonation, or even three MAC rounds and nearly five hundred Archer missiles.
However, during the Battle of Reach, it used a hit-and-run tactic to avoid fire from the ODPs' "Super" MACs. ) http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Covenant_Supercruiser
While not the biggest or best ship, this was one of the Covenants heavier classes and it certainly outclasses any UNSC responses. Now remember the Venator and its armament of what are basically nuclear autocannons? I think it meets the requirements.
In comparison, the Venator is equipped with heavy shielding to help it survive combat with ships roughly equal to its class. This in mind, I assume that the ship would be capable of surviving bombardment from weapons similar to those in its own armament for extended periods of time as shown in Episode 3, where you can clearly see Venators giving and receiving multiple turbolaser hits in a very short amount of time while still surviving. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fGLYqo7bGs
There is no doubt as to who would win in a space battle here if just based on weaponry and ships alone, and if you bring the tech superiority over to the ground too, then land battles too.
Lastly, on your issue of AI, I think that video can also attest to that. Those droid ships are all AI driven and though they may not be on the level of Cortana or any other smart AI they certainly performed adequately well for combat. There is evidence of such 'smart Ai's' in Star Wars. Guri (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Guri
) a human replica droid was literally an AI that was almost undistinguished from any other human. Sure, she may not have had super boosted processors or memory storage as Cortana had, she was meant to be like a human and thus had a bigger emphasis on other functions too. However, the advantages of an smart AI would still be limited by the quality of the craft it is in command of. You can only go so far in coordination, before you need to improve your weapons and armor too. I could wield a toothpick with the utmost skill and experience, but if I went up against someone with a sword, there's a big question as to whether or not I'd survive. You haven't shown how the advantage of an AI would help to win battles.
The Republics advantage lies in not only numbers but massive, overwhelming firepower and defensive capabilities.
It is very difficult to find a weapon that a Jedi cannot defend him/herself against. They've been shown deflecting rockets with the Force in "Jango Fett: Seasons" and short of a round from a Scorpion or some other sort of vehicle, there are no Infantry weapons save the Spartan Laser I can see defeating a Jedi. Unless there was a Spartan on the wielding end. I think that their uber-fast reflexes would probably be the only things capable of repeatedly killing Jedi short of a MAC bombardment.