I can't see any reason it can't work. Still it is a screwy idea.

The camera systems must be fool proof, based on current traffic cameras, that can easily become foiled by rain, ice, & snow, not to mention spider webs, birds etc....
What is the real reason we have towers?..........to watch.? Competent humans can respond in the event of catastrophic failure of systems.
Yes humans make mistakes, Oh sorry I thought I was looking at the other airport.
Local conditions can change quickly, and cameras must be directed and aimed at all possible conditions, without lag time. Hence the term in the "blink of an eye"

Tradition stifles Innovation! It's ok for the pilots to fly by instruments (IFR) but not ok for the Towers to operate by instruments only? How many times are the Controllers actually looking out the windows instead of the screens in front of them? Even so, cameras can see more than the human eye! But it's "traditional" to have a Tower w/360% view, even if you can't see out the window in inclement weather that's still fit for flight. The same "tradition" keeps Airplane seats facing forwards when scientific studies has shown that a crash situation, the seats can be lighter and stronger if they were facing backwards (I have yet to hear of a plane crash into an object backwards)! The weight reduction would enable the operators add more seats or more fuel to extend the range. Once the plane is airborne, it's hard to feel the direction of travel (even if your looking out the window), and the sensation of lift-off and landing will be a wash since only the order they occur in will change.

@kelvint63
I quite agree with you. As a personal choice I ALWAYS prefer to sit facing backwards even when traveling on a train.
The only time facing forward can be justified on a plane is when taking off. On a number of occasions I have experienced being literally pushed into the seat when the plane is accelerating for a takeoff. This is especially true on smaller commercial planes where the takeoff velocity is higher than the jumbos.
Whether this Saab system will be allowed to to be tested in the US & succeed will depend entirely how the US congress plays with it to favour US tech companies.

It seems to me that there is a possibility to use an army of drones, each of which will hover forever at a well-defined point of airspace. These drones should be equipped with cameras and sensors, and they should be able to transmit data to the Remote Tower Center (RTC).

Actually this virtual ATC control console is commonly used in the US system. Any controller in any of the 22 en route ATC centers can assume control of any sector in North America, allowing for a dynamically reconfigurable system capable of shifting and balancing the workload among the facilities. This includes the radar/weather displays as well as the a/g radios & g/g telecommunications capabilities. I always called it a virtual ATC system. Now if we can just convert the radar to a GPS-based navigation system.

@ kelvint63 Most people don't like traveling backward even if they can't tell the difference the knowledge bothers them.

@ Rafael Kireyev Very expensive.

I know this seems far-fetched, but is this system electromagnetic pulse-proof?

@ yrag Probably to the extent that the planes are.