Your articles are nice. Interesting reads. But as I keep trying to point out to you, almost none of our projections of what our future force would look like have held true. You want kids to read these as gospel. I'm saying "not so fast." You can't hold that this is a site for discussion and then cry foul when someone tells you you're wrong.
The main issues with an RPA force are...
1. Money. If you haven't heard, we're almost fresh out. While it's fun to believe we will have gangs of cash to create a new fleet, pretty much everyone who knows budgetary math will tell you that won't be the case. We're in the midst of a huge reinvestment in current airframes, all with planned lifespans beyond 2030, from the CH-47F to UH-60M, to updated CAAS and new-build AAS airframes.
2. If you're putting humans on them, then humans will be at the controls. That's >50% of our mission set.
3. Flexibility. A human on scene can manage what a human miles away cannot, no matter how many cameras you give him.
4. Vulnerability. RPAs rely on GPS and solid link. Our GPS is incredibly susceptible to jamming. That's a structural flaw we can't avoid. RPAs are great in a permissive environment. Beyond that, EW can crush an RPA fleet.
Those are just the headline concerns that are well-known within the community.
What's the real future? Manned-Unmanned teaming.
Of course, the idea of an RPA force is predicated on one view of future conflicts. But I digress.
Possibly the best post on this particular thread, outside of the few zingers and one liners posted earlier.
Look, Polaris, it's nice to engage in the "big thoughts" scheme of things. And you are correct when you conclude that the leadership of the military has reached a supportable and undeniable conclusion that remotely piloted vehicles (and eventually no-pilot-in-the-loop, artificially intelligent aircraft (but we are a LONG way from getting to that point)) will play a significant role in tomorrow's battlefield.
But, as scout has pointed out, there are severe limitations on what RPAs can do or not do. His list above is a good start. I would add that the communications and bandwidth requirements would make today's internet look like a 3.5" floppy drive (look it up, I know your Google skills are unparallelled). That alone makes "fleets of UAVs" a very expensive, and very unlikley, scenario. And please don't think that tomorrow's wars will look like today's, or even yesterday's, in regards to how much we control the skies. Iran's recent claims to "hack the controls" of some of our UAVs clearly demonstrate we are a long way from the end of the pilot years. And the leadership knows this, despite what you read in an AV Week article or current (or not so current) publication or interview with a General du-jour.
The control of the skies is a much more complex mission than ANY UAV can currently handle, or would be able to handle for at least decades. Despite what a few arm-chair Generals in the media or in the halls of Congress think.
A little side note for you. I am currently an active part of the AF team looking at what we will replace the F-22 and F-35 with. Looking well beyond what you, and perhaps your children, will eventually see above the future battlefield. Making this aircraft remotely piloted, or even using AI to keep the man out of the loop? Looked at, then quickly discarded. A UAV just wouldn't be able to handle the mission alone, not even 30 years from now. Why? Remember, you can make all the plans you want, but the enemy always has a vote, and it is rarely what you hoped he would vote for.
Scout's point on teaming manned and unmanned is spot on.
) certainly realizes that RPAs will continue to increase in capability and be an important asset for multiple future mission sets. Only a fool doesn't understand this. However, only a fool would also believe that RPAs would be anywhere near capable of handling ALL mission sets for the foreseeable future. 
