The AF has a long tradition of living in fantasyland when it comes to the mythology of 'single pilot as knight-of-the-air' machismo.
It's been long-since proved that 2 men in the cockpit are far more effective than one, that task-saturation has exceeded the capability of a single brain to comprehend and react to everything going on in modern air/air combat. And yet, the USAF is committed to having single-pilot fighters always.
HOWEVER, I will raise one point:
The current budgetary and technophile love-affair with UAVs is compelling. Note that we haven't fought a peer-competitor for SEVENTY years. It's very easy (especially for the USAF/Navy) to get addicted to weapons systems that are effective against cave-dwelling tribesmen with no navy, no subs, no air-support. The army, who still has to winkle these goat herders out of their hovels and caves, probably still has a better appreciation for the fact that ultimately it's a dirty, dangerous business because the infantry's main approach hasn't fundamentally changed since the days of the Assyrians.
But we had a faint taste of changed circumstances when we had missions against Serbia - a puny-but-still-2nd-world opponent, who had things like engineers and scientists who understand how ARM missiles work, the limits of EW, and extended intelligence gathering to leverage their limited resources, particularly against a lazy, lackadaisical foe underestimating their opponent.
Against a peer-competitor with the full resources of ECM and ECCM, an airforce, and/or a navy, I *suspect* that UAVs will largely be almost worthless unless they're made with scary levels of autonomy and AI. In this context alone, it will remain important to retain significant, human-driven assets that can function even when their comlink with HQ is shut down.
That said, not having autoland on your UAVs is just plain stupid.