That's hard to answer categorically, as we're talking about a possible interaction between two pseudo-scientific, "magical" technologies. But I would answer "no", in a probablilistic sense; in the sense that if there's something there to define the boundaries of the anti-graviton jump "field", and it doesn't require shields to be active, it would be probably be something different from the shields. Otherwise they wouldn't put the boundary defining technology in place, but rather require the shields to be active. To build an extra layer of devices as a safety "just in case the shields are damaged", chances are, might be found an unjustified expense and complication, given that ships are rarely found in one piece with the shields inoperational.
But the
real problem, the way I see it, is NOT whether these questions could be answered. The problem is causing them to be asked. When magical technologies such as "tractor beams" or "shields" or "artificial gravity" or "jump drive" are used, the last thing one wants to do is call attention to them. You throw them in, and if the player can accept them, you whistle a tune, look the other way, and try to forget them. I have a hard time even accepting the existence of "tractor beams", and as a player I don't want to think about them, because if I do, I lose my suspension of disbelief, and with it the immersion.
So, for instance, about a year ago, somebody was suggesting that landings should be assisted by tractor beams installed around the landing platform. I argued against it, precisely because, as a player, I don't want to see the number of things I experience in the game that depend on magical technologies to increase. Frankly, I'd rather see tractor beams replaced by grappling hooks that you shoot, which unroll steel or nanotube cable, personally; but that would be too much of a departure from WC traditions. So I accept tractor beams staying around; but I jump on anyone trying to expand their uses and dependencies... --kill any such idea in the bud.
And the same thing here, with jump drive and carrying ships on the outside: We don't know how this "jump field" is bounded; and there's a good reason we don't know: It doesn't exist and will never exist and it's a stupid concept from the start. But we agree to suspend our disbelief, and we get used to the idea that ships *inside* another ship jumping are carried with it across the jump. Fine. Now, what happens with ships *outside*? Well, we don't know what happens, and we don't really want to think about it, at all; --i.e.: we don't want to do something that raises the question, in the first place.
Hey, I'm in bind even as I'm talking about all this: I have landing/launching bays above and below the "wings". And the problem is I don't know what to do with regards to which way is "up" at the landing bays below the wing. The way I have them right now, up is away from the wing --i.e.: "down" in the bays below...
But that raises the question of "can the artificial gravity field be created such that it changes direction in a short distance?" And I don't care what the answer is, because there IS NO answer, period; because the whole idea of artificial gravity is idiocy. The real problem is that I don't want to do something that raises the question to begin with, but I'm not sure that having up (in the picture) being "up" in both bays would look good, or that it wouldn't raise questions all the same... What to do?