I think it's more because it's such utter tosh that it's hardly worth trying to rebut, vecvec, although I note that PN, twonston and Stuff have all commented on why he's talking rubbish.
The letter is either a fishing expedition or (more worryingly), he genuinely thinks he's right.
The Torygraph will have printed it largely because it is nasty about the Typhoon, which the Torygraph hates with a passion, largely because of the word 'Euro' in the manufacturer's name.
They will not, however, have bothered to ask why, if Lt Col Brunt (rtd) is correct 1115 Flight was set up by the UAV-hating RAF hierarchy; or why the RAF, if so anti-UAV, is trying to persuade that nice Mr Brown (no 'e') to part with the cash for a couple more Predators. The possibility of finding out whether there are any operations where low flying (particularly by SH) might benefit from LL training will not have been investigated. And that's just the simple stuff they've missed.
Brunt hasn't asked those questions, and wouldn't want to even if he thought about it. Unless he was in full banter mode, his letter suggests that he probably lacks the flexibility of mind to bother to find out whether his assumptions are correct, since it might challenge the comfy little stereotypes he holds so dear.
This of course, presupposes that this isn't another of those massively entertaing fake letters by some sad walt with a onanistic techno-geek fixation with UAVs that the letters editor has failed to check out properly (I think it was the Times that fell victim to the last one where a Sea Cadet wrote in claiming to be a Lt Cdr??).