How does this type of aircraft shift the balance of power? It doesn't appear to do anything "better" than a manned aircraft aside from not having a pilot to lose onboard.
2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit.
3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of).
4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error.
6. Stealth
7. Autonomy
8. Cost of pilot death (human loss)
9. Reduced training time
The increased willingness and ability to attack is a bad thing.
Not unique to unmanned aircrafts. On the other hand, pilots need to go to the restroom, get hungry, and tired.
2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit.
Only useful if human pilot have low latency access to aircraft, or if AI is good enough to fight. Otherwise, you're good as owned.
3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of).
Useful, when nobody is trying to shoot down your drone.
4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error.
In 30 years, maybe.
I've heard folks who work on drones say that once you've fired all your munitions, you have one munition left.
The US has had satellite shoot down capability for a while.
However, I wasn't aware there was air-to-low-earth-orbit shoot down capability. Only ground launch capability.
The first one is a maybe. I’m willing to bet that you still need a lot of people to make those things fly, they are also potentially more complicated machines and I’m not sure how the cost of pilots (and replacing them if one is killed) figures into this.
The second one seems significant to me. It seems that drones already make it pretty sure you are nowhere safe if the US don’t like you – even if you are a relatively low priority. Presidents (especially Obama) have become extremely willing to use them for just about anything.