The maneuverability thing is mostly a myth. Sure it's theoretically possible to build a drone that can turn at >9G. But it won't have sufficient thrust to sustain that rate of turn without losing a lot of energy. And now the airframe has to be stronger to handle the stress, which means heavier, and that compromises mission effectiveness in other ways. And for all that it still wouldn't be able to out maneuver a missile in most realistic conditions.

A better option would probably be to design drones that are less maneuverable. Sure more will be shot down. But that will lower the price so just manufacture more.

Following that logic to its conclusion, you could save a lot of money by skipping out on the fuel and carrying capacity to make it back home.

Another commenter said it first, but pretty much any set of reasoning that gets you to autonomous drones eventually leads to simply making guided missiles.

A lot of the interfaces for the pilots add complexity that could be reduced in the case of an autonomous aircraft, not just weight or complexity of interface. But actual complexity in the design and development stages. They also add constraints on expanding the capability of the system as new controls have to go somewhere, either displacing existing ones, changing the "buttonology" of the existing interfaces, or being tacked on to a mostly empty (hah) corner of the cockpit.

If we didn't have to care about those things, changing the existing infrastructure in an aircraft would be greatly simplified (not simple, but simplified).

Have them fly head on, looking out the nose, like a bob racer. Place the radar somewhere else.