And your better, more navalised idea is??
How about we stick all our money in an untried, untested future policy? If you actually pull your head out of your bottom you'll find that UK PLC is procuring 'some' UAVs for exactly the reason you harp on about. Trying however to not face too much of the development costs. However the US (they're the people we're in on this with) don't think that they could put an
entirely automated fleet out for at least (key here being AT LEAST) 35 years. Looks like it kinda fits in with a bit of a training policy that's been mentioned at some point. The FASOC is out there in public domain and it's been given the nod by green, dark and light blue.
Or perhaps you'd prefer a more Navalised version - as that is where most of the anti terrorist/anti guerilla/asymmetric warfare is going isn't it?
The MFTS fits in with the tri service FUTURE training requirements, now and for the next foreseeable years - we've all had an input. So how about your pipe down. You know where I fit in with the training system (like nowhere!) and you?? Trying to save you're own job perhaps?