“It wasn't as simple as that. One of the issues is that the RN provided observers, not pilots to the maritime part of the RAF, and they did not push aircraft specifications as pilots might - they were, after all, seaman officers on a short tour - compare to the problems the AAC had when their officers were mostly five-minute wonders. But anyway,”
Wrong O_A
1918 – The FAA of the RAF were manned by 85% light-blue and as you rightly say, the rest were RN observers. HOWEVER by 1925 FAA Squadrons were pretty much turned around to 90:10 Dark to Light Blue. Why this is I don’t know but I suspect that it was because Uncle Hugh couldn’t convince his boys that the sea-going option was the way ahead (Did he not say that carrier aviation was inherently dangerous?) And not until the Mid ‘30’s did the admiralty have any say in aircraft design. Thomas Inskip was no fool, he must have seen the problems for both services.
“I really do think it is different today. everybody is much more joint, the single services do not control procurement to anywhere near the same degree and we are (generally) more interested in achieving joint effect rather than securing a bigger slice of the budget than the other two services. I am not suggesting that the RAF should own everything that flies, merely pointing out that there might be scope for efficiency here.”
First off – I agree with jointery. Having up to 3 support systems for a single airframe type is ludicrous, but I fail to see how sending people to sea that don’t want to be there is efficient – operationally or monetarily. P1ss people off and they leave, take a look at the wage bill for the MoD and Services and you’ll see what I mean. People are expensive – to train and replace. Common working practices and support systems are a brill idea, everything else is cack.
“But so is living in dusty tents in hot places - I expect you could run a poll about that and get similar results.”
Actually I did! – and got 100% turn out from the Fleet Air Arm ;-)
See here
The Navy Net: Rum Ration › Forums › RN Branches › The Fleet Air Arm › NAVAL STRIKE WING
“we do as we're effing told. Although actually I think that it would be much better for the maintainers and other key surface-employed individuals in the carrier strike capablitiy to be RN, so that the capability of the ship is maximised. I was really just talking about the pilots, who will do the same job whether they're RN or RAF. I don't think you'll find many of them on e-goat.”
Unfortunately the ranks make up the majority of RAF (but only just) so them voting with their feet wont do the RAF any good. Though I dare say that carrier ops on any resume for a pilot looks good.