Grousehunter
No, I am not current or ex-Kipper, but the arguments being thrown back seem a little on the weak side to me. To be quite honest they are they same type (save for the actual capability) as those thrown up by the FJ community and other manned ISTAR assets. I agree that a force mix of manned and unmanned is what we need to field for now for the more dynamic tasks. But let's face it, if the MPA mission involved dynamic manoeuvring then we wouldn't have chosen a converted Comet airliner to do it, would we? Flying a Beyond Line Of Sight RPAS at low-level is simples because the satellite signal reaches down to sea level anywhere within the transponder's very big footprint. Why do we fly them at medium altitude right now in Afghanistan - simples, so the bad men with big beards can't hear us watching them!
You have to stop thinking about 1x RPAS servicing a single sub; you could use 10x RPAS and all the support for the cost of single MRA4 targetting that same sub. How's that for coverage? You have to stop thinking about how we operate MALE UAS in Afghanistan versus how we would operate in a MPA UAS role. Also, there are way more than 3 crew operating a single RPAS when you consider all the exploit task done on the SAR/GMTI and EO/IR (keeping it unclass) - all you do is swap out the IAs for "wet and dry" men.
Ever heard of General Ludd or the George Corrie Society? Try Google and see what it means to progress. Plus remember that "One person’s technological outrage is another’s miraculous salvation".
LJ
PS. Pontius, I'm not ignoring you but VinRouge answered your point for me!