Some of the previous points have missed the mark (slightly). To one degree or another all three Services support 'Land' operations in the sense that to command influence over a region you have to physically occupy it (boots on the ground etc). The question of supporting it therefore is not that we do it, but how it is done and the uniquely technical nature of the Service. Just before everyone hits me with, there’s ‘high tech’ in the other Services as well comments, I’m talking about it being the rule not the exception.
How often have you been in briefings in a joint environment to be lambasted by the brown jobs over the length of time it takes to execute an ATO or its ‘inflexibility’? Try asking the question as to the planning time required to get a brigade moving - it’s the same as an ATO – and just as inflexible due to similar logistical and physical constraints.
I would be utterly useless in charge of an Army unit or element of a ship – I leave that to the experts in their field. Why then, is it considered that running the Royal Air Force is a piece of cake and can be performed by anyone that’s completed Sandhurst with equal efficiency to the air experts?