I never claimed such a thing. I said drones designed for air combat will be faster because the upper limit will be dictated by physical limits of the airframe thereof instead of the biological limits of the human pilot(s).
Whether the faster drones would be superior is another question entirely.
Higher speed does offer a bit of advantage in BVR combat in that it allows for launching missiles with higher initial energy state.
The design focus has shifted away from maneuverability, and towards better sensors and lower observability. It's far more effective to detect the adversary and shoot first rather than trying to dodge incoming fire. And if they do detect an incoming missile the defensive tactics will focus on signature reduction, EW, and decoys rather than extreme maneuvers.
The next generation of tactical aircraft (both crewed and uncrewed) will be physically larger with a higher fuel fraction in order to remain relevant in the Pacific fight. It's a long way from Guam to Taiwan. They won't be able to tank every hour as was common practice during GWOT operations in the Middle East. That larger size and higher weight necessarily imposes limits on maneuverability. I would be shocked if future UCAV airframes are stressed for more than 7G.
The fighter meanwhile can do far more for longer. A fighter today pushed hard enough to tear off its wings, suffocate its intakes, etc. means the pilot will have been dead already for a long time prior.
>The next generation of tactical aircraft (both crewed and uncrewed) will be physically larger with a higher fuel fraction in order to remain relevant in the Pacific fight. It's a long way from Guam to Taiwan. They won't be able to tank every hour as was common practice during GWOT operations in the Middle East.
You do realize aircraft carriers exist and the US Navy has twenty of them, right? The F-35 by far has the shortest combat range of all fighters the US Navy has flown in recent times, and that is compensated by the fact they have literally moving airfields.
Aircraft carriers don't solve the problem, and you have some of the basic facts wrong. The Navy is planning for an A2/AD environment where shore based missiles force carriers to stand off at longer ranges. The F-35C actually has a wider combat radius than the legacy F/A-18C but it's still not enough. Hence the focus on larger, less maneuverable designs for the next generation (plus low observable tankers).
The Navy has only 11 real carriers with catapults that can launch heavy aircraft with large fuel loads; the other amphibious ships can only operate V/STOL aircraft like the F-35B which is much shorter ranged due to limited fuel.
Design shifted away from maneuverability in the 90s because upper bound of manned maneuverbility was reached. Answer was to increase capability gap was pivot to stealth, sensors fusion, ew, bvr etc. When unmanned performance envelope opens up due to beyond man tier AI piloting, there's chance design will circle back to exploiting new kinematic options in conjunction with other 5G/6G advancements. It can be both, not either or. The energy math for defeating modern missiles is to outmaneuver them from afar thanks to sensors so they never reach no escape/terminal engagement range, which will lead to increase in missile complexity, which is fine, since it raises technical floor/expense of engaging next gen+ hardware and reduce less pool of capable adversaries. For me, this is possible direction for _POST_ NGAD projects. Keep in mind NGAD is mid 10s "legacy" thinking, along with associated visions of CCA/MUM-T. It wasn't concieved based on AI capabilities we now have. The point of NGAD is manned penetrating counter-air ... there's no reason to believe after NGAD won't be unmanned penetrating counter-air, and if that's the future, good reason to dump points in kinematics.
Hence I would not be surprised if future penetrating unmanned platforms = more performant airframes because they can cut down in other components, i.e. disposable, high performance, attritable shooters supported by sensors in the back meshed by flexible datalink. Especially considering wear/maintenance curve will be different for unmanned platforms that doesn't need regular flying hours. No need to support expensive engines and airframes with 8000 hour lifespan when you can cheap out on 500 because you don't expect platforms to survive more than a few sorties against peer adversaries. There's places to cut costs when designing for high performance attrition, i.e. simply having moderately sized airframes go on one way missions solves a lot of tanking problems in IndoPac.
Maybe not cruising speed, but maneuvering performance certainly is limited. This article from the US Naval Institute says outright "The greatest limiting factor in military combat aircraft is the pilot".
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2008/september/pu...