[hannibaal]

Isnt the problem with fighters now that they cant exceed the limitations they have at present simply because the pilot wont be able to cope with the g force?

[ThunderSleeps]

Yes. There are counter arguments where RPAs (remotely piloted aircraft) have a distinct advantage. For example, you don't have to have a canopy, ejection seat, oxygen system, heating/cooling, or display systems. These all take up space and add weight. Without a soft squishy pilot in there you're not limited to a few Gs in one particular orientation, briefly. You can pull huge G loads in any direction you care to design the airframe to handle, with no pilot to black out, red out, or otherwise turn to jello.

That's why many (most, all?) surface to air and anti-air missile systems are designed to pull big G loads. (numbers I've seen are roughly 3x max pilot tolerance) That way there is just about no possible way a piloted aircraft can turn inside them and evade. An RPA could enjoy a similar advantage, if you could get the "scene" back to the pilot with little or no latency, and provide a complete enough picture for dogfighting level situational awareness.

Also, another part of the G load limit on current airframes is simply due to service life limitations. The more and the harder you stress the airframe, the sooner it gets de-certified for flight due to metal fatigue. Though the several fighter pilots I know or have know are the kind of guys that aren't going to let a number on a gauge stop them from doing whatever it takes to win an engagement...