Is there value in having a pilot, just to increase the consequences of shooting down a plane? When Iran shot down a US drone, there was pretty much no real response by the US. If it was a manned plane, there would almost certainly be at least retaliatory strikes, so Iran (and other countries) are going to be much less likely to shoot down a manned F-18 than an unmanned one. So maybe having manned fighters is valuable just to increase the barrier to engagement.
And regardless, is there even value in having autonomous fighter jets when we already have advanced missiles? It doesn't matter how good the pilot/AI is if they are just firing missiles from miles away. We already have missiles that can loiter for hours before choosing a target and attacking it (ex. IAI Harpy) - to me that is much more valuable and dangerous than an AI fighter.
Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War is a good book to read about it.
And regardless, is there even value in having autonomous fighter jets when we already have advanced missiles? It doesn't matter how good the pilot/AI is if they are just firing missiles from miles away. We already have missiles that can loiter for hours before choosing a target and attacking it (ex. IAI Harpy) - to me that is much more valuable and dangerous than an AI fighter.
Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War is a good book to read about it.