The system would need to be tested .

If the UK wants only 25% capabilty of the USN BAMS and that which would not benefit from the future USN upgrades and block versions then by all accounts they can choose the reaper . I dont know if the AESA radar is going to be able to be mounted on the Reaper withouth a re-design and restructure but if UK is willing to pay for everything that is their choice , i bet that the US authorities wont really have any problem .

It would be interesting to see why the US didnt choose the reaper , from my sources i am getting rumours that the GH block 20 was found to be more survivable , more upgradable and faster with higher Loiter time .

The system would not need testing to the tune of $1.5bn though!. You talk as if Mariner hadnt actually seen service before and wasnt developed from a well-proven air vehicle!.

25% of the USN BAMS system capability may actually exceed UK requirements!. If all we intend to do is put in a high-endurance chokepoint patrol on the Gibraltar Straits and the GUIK/North Sea approaches plus limited Atlantic patrolling and forward deployments, i.e Falklands as and when necessary, is there any abiding need for Global Hawk/USN BAMS?. I’d say no.

Likewise on Distillers point about platform growth – we’re not, ever, going to be in the business of surveilling the whole western side of the north atlantic so the UK maritime recce tasking isnt going to evolve in any dramatic fashion. We need a system that can economically cover the atlantic entry chokeponts and, probably, the western med. Likewise we could find use for the system patrolling the north and western approaches to the Falklands. Little else springs to mind that we would need to use such a system for.

Mariner is, by all accounts, sufficient to that task and it will be cheaper, in whole-life terms, than Global Hawk when you consider joint support benefits sharing with the RAF Reaper force.