Lets say we scrap the RAF - and cutting it down to just 200 aircraft (types unspecified) amounts to pretty much that - what do we replace it with?
That is, what assets will be deployed by the Army and what by the Navy? The air wings aboard the new carriers will be what? Certainly not C130s. The Army will kit themselves out with what? Helicopters for sure, but something nice for close support if the Navy's carriers are too far away? Long range transport to get the stuff to the main base in the theatre of operations? Tactical transport to get that stuff to the sharp end? It seems to me that the aircraft requirements are dictated by the operation that they support and eliminating the RAF will do nothing to change that requirement. The Army aren't interested in Air Defence until enemy aircraft appear on the scene. So, cutting the RAF down to the bare bones means removing all flexibility and at the same time tying the Army's hands as regards its operational capability.
So, what's the difference? Eliminating the RAF doesn't alter the strategic requirement at all. If we're going to concentrate on firefighting operations against insurgents in far away places, we might just as well do away with the entire armed forces, contract the job out to the USA and be done with it.