Toad,
Truth hurts sometimes... *shrug*
UAVs... The problem with UAVs is that time and again, pilots have either saved an "impossible" mission or brought a damaged aircraft back to base by doing that "pilot shxt", and UAVs can't do that. So when the crap hits the fan, the UAV will in my considered opinion be either unable to complete the mission or will be shot down. So all those cost savings that UAVs are supposed to give us will evaporate, one lost UAV at a time.
We've already lost one global hawk due to running into a hill (bad terrain database) and they cost just as much as a U2. Granted, we also just lost a U2 due to flying into the ground, but my point is that in combat, it's the human input that makes the difference when the enemy tries to stop you from doing your business. A UAV can't look left-right-left in 1.5 seconds, analyze a visual picture, and determine a course of action, and I am convinced that in a real shooting war, the UAV attrition rate will be very high.
Try looking up how many predators we've lost... It's a lot, and the losses in many cases could have been prevented by a pilot in the plane. The cost adds up fast.
UAVs will be an important addition to our bag of tricks and properly used they can be a force multiplier (think stealthy cruise missiles that can also do battle damage assessment and electronic combat) but they'll never actually be able to replace manned aircraft except in the minds of non-pilot bean counters and overly optimistic engineers that have never been in combat.
