Fair point but it would only last for about 10 years. The "expertise" would then align itself to the Service with the most investment in the joint "Force". Flexibility and recognition of the uniqueness of the air battle space would be lost. The aircraft would again be Army's mobile artillery and the Navy's additional weapon system. We've already had experience of air assets being under-utilised by submariners.
JFH is a success then? Well I suppose standardising on mudmovers has helped. Before we confuse banter with petty single service rivalry, it may be worth remembering why the RAF was formed. Jan Smuts was not an idiot and saw how things would progress. Do we want to now argue that he, Sykes et al had it wrong then? If that's the case, I'm certainly glad that we got the 2nd World War and the Cold War out of the way first.
Disclaimer
Any adverts or extraneous words appearing against my title are not supported nor agreed by me.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 31st Oct 2006 at 14:03.
Reason: Forgot the advert disclaimer