We usually have about 60 qualified Bug pilots. However having more airframes allows them to be rotated to save airframe hours and to allow them to be taken offline for maintenance and upgrades. I'm not sure what the deal is with the Pigs but I suspect we might have 18 to 20 crews. Both the F-18F and the F-35 are designed for easier maintainability and upgradability than the types that they are replacing. Perhaps with that in mind we could get away with say 56 F-35's for 80 airframes all up?

They're a problem in other areas - once we decided that they were not going to be extended, the maint guys started looking for other work - now we're in a situation where "some" might be kept flying longer to 2011 - but we don't have enough qualified ground crews to hold the fleet together anyway.

Assign away!  Still, the pilot numbers required to operate Reaper are greater than numbers of those pilots needed to fly shorenet/-35.  Reaper mission pilots experience a delay from sensory publish, comprehension and control input to execution of appropriate command.  At least X seconds, plural seconds, delay.  This buffer works great from altitude with no obstacles.  Closer to ground, you will lose aircraft due to these latencies given crosswinds.  So uncle chooses to employ separate crew to fly each Reaper to "safe" altitude LOS, another set to land Reaper LOS if a different airfield, and then there are the mission crew(s) -- rotating every X hours -- who run the show from safe alti to landing pattern handoff.  So perhaps Oz can work this magic you describe using Oz SuperMan!!!; else perhaps not.  Back to my bench . . .
v^2

experience amongst the heavy UCAV/UAV users is showing that pilots are not the most approp people to use anyway.

There have been a couple of reports lately that Fitzgibon is looking at the Typhoon as an alternative to the F-35.