Against manned targets sure, US air power can stomp most manned adversaries already. But drive behind autonmous fighters is really about versus against autonomous platforms of peer powers, and really that's PRC, who has AI pilot program of their own. So future scenario that what we'll probably see is a bunch of attritable, high performance loyal wingmans designed to draw as much expensive interceptors as they can against each other, i.e. engagements becomes a unmanned platform attrition / IAMDs magazine depth equation. Question is, who wins in that numbers game? I would say land aviation with better logistics vs carrier aviation with limited magazine depth.
Then what does that mean when this tech proliferates, especially local vs outside power projection - because autonmous piloting removes expensive intitution building layer and will enable many shit-mid tier powers to now have airpower. Maybe even very competent air power depending on training data.
And yet, this is small ball stuff. When I think of all the possible ways autonomous combat aircraft will revolutionize air combat it's a bit overwhelming. We're talking about unlimited, fatigue-less, highly effective, fearless piloting of aircraft that can assume designs that don't have to accommodate or risk a human.
If it isn't yet an arms race, it will be when some conflict sees someone punch way above their weight because they have the supersonic robots and the other guy doesn't.
Should also consider what happens when more actors have supersonic robots if/when this tech proliferates. AI pilots is going to lower barrier for _real_ airpower for small/medium size powers. Not just US is training relevant models. And AI pilots = accepting future is going to be full of attritable platforms, whose going to be making/selling all the cheap disposable defense hardware. Just like drones, commoditizing theatre level air power is going to be gamechanging.
