There you go again soddim with your politician-speak.
"Nevertheless, each of the latter two air arms (USMC and USN) are large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally.
It is not size and money that produces bang for buck it is recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets to name but a few of the attributes of the RAF"
There are two possibilities as to what point you are trying to make.
Translation 1:-
"Despite their disadvantages re size and funding, the FAA and AAC manage through dint of spirit and high calibre personnel, to match the RAF in terms of bang per buck at all levels"
Translation 2:-
"The FAA and AAC are not large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally. Recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets are all attributes that the FAA and AAC Lack."
If 1) is correct, then thank you very much for your adulation.
If, however, 2) is closer to your true meaning then man up wet pants and just say it.
Don't, however, cry about cockwaving when someone else with less time for mealy-mouthed equivocation answers back disagreeing.
