Forget asking RAF orficers to fly them. Recruit pilots from the ranks, preferably from blokes who have done ground tours in the desert already, and who understand the operational requirement. Train them ab-initio to fly DA42 - 100 hours should be enough. There will be no shortage of volunteers.
Idiotic statement. Ask the guys out there on the ground now who they prefer working with and who they are all asking for. Having properly trained, qualified and professional aircrew (from any service) manning a system DOES make a difference.
Reapers are very expensive bits of kit - the cost of replacing the one that crashed recently would pay for a fleet of DA42s.
No they are not. The vast majority of a Reaper AV's cost is in the sensor suite - hence your plastic-pig twin isn't going to offer you much savings - unless you want a crap sensor. Oh, and it doesn't carry weapons, either - so not much good in a TST situation, then.
I'd hazard a guess that a ground-patrol could use that video more effectively in real-time if they can coordinate with an operator directly overhead who has his eyes scanning the ground as well as the video-images, rather than trying to coordinate with an operator in Arizona who can only see the video-images. Also, if the operator is himself a soldier, maybe even from the same unit as the ground-patrol, then you're going to have a more flexible and more closely integrated unit than would be the case with a UAV flown by some RAF chappy sipping a gin and tonic in his slippers in a bunker.
Utter twaddle, I'm afraid. You clearly have no idea about how this all works. What on earth makes you think that just because we are light-blue, and aircrew, we have no idea what the guys on the ground want? Besides, as has already been pointed out, Reapers are operated by crews from ALL 3 services. The advantage of a remotely operated system is that you can drag whoever you want into the 'cockpit'. Or phone them. Or email / IM them. Try doing THAT in your plastic pig. Crews can swap out at will during the mission, so in general should always be rested and alert. And they're not getting shot at....1 less thing to worry about, more capacity to devote to the mission. Also, smaller theatre footprint (personnel-wise), near-zero risk to human life, etc etc.....
LJR - the point I was making, perhaps a bit clumsily, is that if the observer is able see the bigger picture on the ground below, as well as the close up video pictures on a screen in front of him, he may be able to make more of a contribution to the guys on the ground than somebody who can only see through a video link. At 10000ft with the naked eye you can scan and pick out and interpret detail over a broad area, zoom in where necessary and bring to the attention potentially hostile vehicles, detail of the lie of the land, potential ambush sites etc, more pro-actively than you perhaps can when just monitoring video. I've never seen video footage where it is really possible to judge the lie of the land, pick out dead ground etc as well as you can with the old eyeball though I have not seen the latest stuff you guys are evidently using if you can now do this.
You can select whatever zoom level you require. You can zoom right out to get exactly the same FOV as you would have with the naked eye - except you have the advantage of being able to look around 360 deg, and directly below - and with a number of different sensors. Virtually all UAV sensors have this capability - it is clear you have little or no knowledge of UAV capabilities.
And frankly, ANYONE considering operating an aircraft like this in a hot, high, threat environment wants their head examining. Small, slow, low, no DAS, no air con......