Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
It simply makes more sense to have all the aircrew in one service. I would make an exception for the Army as their AAC is a sufficiently large entity to have an economic training system and a unique role.
With regard to the AAC, I would argue that the nature and tasking of their assets is more important than size. The Army uses vehicles such as MBTs, ARVs and APCs as integral assets in the land battle space. They use helicopters as an additional type of vehicle in that space. They are flown and directed by people who've trained and made a career out of grubbing around in the sand/swamp/mud. I would not extend that argument to transport capability bigger than Lynx, though. They should certainly not be given large mud movers as the asset would be permanently tasked as mobile, flexible artillery!
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
You could make the argument for all RN aircrew to be in light blue uniforms.
To the Navy, an aircraft is part of the ship's equipment. Pilots are considered to be seamen first and aviators second. I'm sure we wouldn't want Air Force officers being necessarily Navalised and spending their days VERTREPing or dunking for U boats off the back of a DD/FF (what few are left). Fixed wing, on the other hand, is an interesting one to ponder over. In CORPORATE, would the embarked SHARs have been utilised more gainfully had they been Air Force assets and the carriers their taxi driver?