This doesn't seem right to me. The limiting factor here is the ability of an air to air missile to hit a target (and to find the target in the first place). A drone might be more survivable (if it's better at avoiding missiles because of the G-forces etc.,.), but it shouldn't be any better at destroying an enemy jet, right?
That theoretical highly maneuverable drone with a highly advanced sensor suite isn't going to be cheap either. At which point, what's the advantage? You wouldn't be bound by the number of pilots, but if the drones are too expensive it doesn't matter.
> what's the advantage? You wouldn't be bound by the number of pilots
You gave part of the answer right there. Not only would you not be limited by the number of - hard to replace and time-consuming and expensive to train - pilots but you don't run the risk of losing them either.
> but if the drones are too expensive it doesn't matter.
The large expense for fighter aircraft tends not to lie in the actual production costs but in the development costs which are spread over a limited production run. Build more drones and they get less expensive per item. Build enough of them to overwhelm the enemy and you win drone superiority.
Hm... I guess the argument here is something like: we don't build 10,000 F-35s because we can't train 10,000 pilots. But with drones, the pilots are no longer a limiting factor so we can plan to scale drone production beyond what we do airplanes?
Yes, plus the fact that the craft does not need to be as complicated as the F-35 because it can omit everything related to keeping the pilot alive and functional.
That theoretical highly maneuverable drone with a highly advanced sensor suite isn't going to be cheap either. At which point, what's the advantage? You wouldn't be bound by the number of pilots, but if the drones are too expensive it doesn't matter.