Can someone explain what purpose a manned fighter jet serves in the age of UCAV? I understand with the F35 specifically it’s turned into a jobs programme, but why not turn it unmanned?
We’re not yet in the age of UCAVs that can match, tactic for tactic, a human pilot in a military context. We’re getting there. But not yet.
DO you really want nukes on a UAV? The last step in that has always been a human, and I would like that to remain NOT on a connection that can be remotely highjacked (even if a slim margin).
The question is will we get more UCAV in the f35 role. The answer is "maybe". It's not like remote pilots on a carrier are any safer from dying in a peer engagement than if they were in the plane. In fact you may make yourself vulnerable to a decapation strike at that point.
But why dont we have the pilots in, say Arizona. Well latency is a bitch, I'll leave it to Grace Hopper to explain why this is bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE2uls6iIEU
No idea if that will come true, but it was absolutely one capability briefed. I'm not a project participant, but I was peripheral both during development and early operational stages .
Although, I could see how it might proceed as you suggest. Allow AWACS to direct squadrons into areas of interest and keep the bigger picture in mind while allowing the squadron level pilots to C&C the drones and focus on the details of which targets to engage. All from a nicely air conditioned "cockpit" from Sunnyvale
https://www.twz.com/massive-pl-17-air-to-air-missile-seen-on...
Remote piloting generally isn't a viable approach for near-peer conflicts. The communication links are too vulnerable, and even when they're working the latency is too high.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...