Strikes me also as a Stanley Baldwin style conviction that the bomber will always get through.
FB, did he actually say 90% unmanned? The quote I have seen is:
"Today, well in excess of 90 per cent of RAF combat air vehicles are manned and the rest unmanned. I fully expect a major reversal of these proportions by 2040," he said, adding that the UK's combat air sector was "the pride of Britain"
A major reversal say 40/60 or even 30/70 manned/unmanned would not seem unlikely - especially if "Cyber" Cummings is driving the Integrated Review. I assume this was in the context of Wallace's appeal for new members to join Team Tempest on the virtual Farnborough?
I assume there is a lot of work going on around the world into how to degrade the data links and scramble the sensor input in preparation for the AI generation of aircraft. IMO these aircraft are only justified for peer to (near-)peer conflict with the expectation of a heavily contested battlespace full of defensive swarm technology and leading to a high probability of (pre-emptive) strikes on the C6ISR infrastructure. I assume Tempest and LANCA are seen as a force multiplication but how effective will the additive component be if the loyal wingmen's leader is taken out by a force divider? I see a parallel with taking more vulnerable out Tankers and ISTAR assets.
This also completely ignores the requirement under international law to hazard one's military personnel to ensure the safety of civilians. It has been ignored when the threat is terrorist in nature but when it gets to state level thing will be trickier. With RPAS (in the UK and I assume elsewhere) there are multiple human checks and aborting a strike is I understand more likely that with manned aircraft. With autonomous AI we will become reliant on the algorithms and that will make people very nervous.