This is the Catch 22
The problem as the forces look at it is this:
1 - Bring UAV's properly into service, completely automating the combat and even peace-time roles required of an aircraft and you:
- Lose jobs
- Lose kudos
- Lose command and control among the other services
- Lose funding
at the expense of:
- Saving lives
There will always be people willing to volunteer, so saving lives isn't a priority. Keeping their position in the military hierarchy and keeping their budgets is.
2 - Don't fully automate your war and peace capabilities
- Keep people in the seat
- Keep kudos
- Keep funding
- Keep that position in the hierarchy
at the expense of:
- Risking your deployment capabilities as sending manned aircraft or even manned ships becomes more and more hazardous and a riskier decision and losing your position in the hierarchy.
The Navy pushed it because as stated, it kept them in a role, but realistically, there is very little reason as to why a fully automated carrier couldn't deploy with fully automated aircraft.
It would be a lot smaller, a lot cheaper and a lot safer. Then however, the Navy just becomes joystick jockeys and could be manned by a team of thirty. There would of course be massive maint crews, but that would probably get outsourced.