..I suspect the range of systems will not happen; would it be cheaper?
First up, my honest answer is I don't know. I'm sure the whole life operating cost comparisons could have financial planning software in meltdown. I was making an observation more than promoting the concept but one difference between a '100% capability' and '5x20%' sub-sytems, is that from a capital budgetary point of view, the quantity units can be acquired one at a time and the cost spread over mulitiple years. When it comes to cuts again (inevitable), you can chop some capability without cutting all capability. This is a reality-of-politics view rather than a military capability one, but like it or not (mostly not) that's the way things happen.
As to whether 'drones' are
currently cheaper, again I don't have data, but I do recall reading somewhere that the number of people involved in operating UAV's was high - fewer soft-tissue units in the firing line, of course.
My own opinion is that 'drones' of all kinds (air/land/sea) are a very useful additional string to the military bow. But until they have autonomous control, which would entail a huge leap in technical capability as well as issues around ethics and acceptance, they are an adjunct and not a replacement. Maritime patrol could certainly benefit from the persistence available, but I see them as force multipliers or enhancers, acting in concert with a capable manned platform, for the foreseeable future.
But for now, if I were to read tomorrow's headlines and see that the UK was going to get back into the role seriously, using a single high value system, or several new-buy complementary sub-systems, I would feel more comfortable than I do now with the gap. But as the saying goes there are two hopes - Bob and No.
LF