Originally Posted by
bobward
If the OP was fishing, 'twould see he's got a nibble or three.....
Where is the reasoned argument to either agree with or refute his questions?
Don't ask me - I'm just a civilian who's taxes pay for it.
BV is right. An observation that the Navy has land bases and an assertion that most transport flying is done in support of the Army doesn’t constitute an argument worthy of refutation. When change is proposed, the onus is on advocates for it to make the case for ditching the status quo. In the absence of anything substantive to engage with, I would simply fall back on the key argument which led to the formation of the RAF in the first place, namely the Navy and Army having neglected air capabilities other than those which directly supported their institutional core businesses of sailing and soldiering. At the very least, an argument for change would have to address this point and say why it would not apply again in future. And it would be wonderfully ironic to hear arguments such as “institutional myopia and parochialism are things of the past” from the typical sort of people who advocate abolition of the RAF
