[compass_copium]

It's not like UCAVs aren't being developed, though. Piloted aircraft have lower latency and are better for some tasks. If UAVs were ready to replace piloted aircraft in all combat roles, they would have. They have almost completely replaced piloted aircraft in ISR, for example, where they are a great fit (no Gary Powers, no latency issues). The Pentagon doesn't want to lose trained pilots.

[mrtksn]

Does it justify the expense and the shortcomings though? Horses also have some advantages over tanks, like refueling from the grass on the roadside but they become mostly ceremonial anyway.

[compass_copium]

Yes, because AI is not good enough to fly a plane, detect an enemy craft, and react before a human pilot could. Like I said, they are developing UCAVs. They are not replacing all human-piloted strike planes, let alone all human-piloted air-superiority fighters, yet. Being able to pull a few more gs in a turn doesn't give you that much of an edge, yet.

[JohnBooty]

It depends.

In a lot of cases unmanned craft are obviously superior.

But by the time you load an unmanned craft up with a powerful radar and multiple bombs and missiles - you're also not that far away from the size and expense of a manned craft.

The radar is something you might not appreciate. Modern fighters have very large and powerful onboard radars and a lot of onboard processing power. They are not just bomb and missile trolleys, they are powerful sensor platforms.

Think about it from another perspective. Scroll down and look at the cutaway drawing of an F-16:

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/why-lockheed-martins-f-...

...clearly, a signficant portion of the plane is dedicated to the pilot. But honestly, not that much. Strip away the cockpit and how much smaller is the plane? 20-30% smaller and cheaper?