Teetering,
I do my best to stay 'on thread' and address the point - apologies if I'm not succeeding.
My quote there was in response to a suggestion that only an 'air minded' CAS could be a Senior Duty Holder (SDH) in the new MAA arrangements. That suggestion betrayed (to my mind) a fairly typical mindset that 'as 'air' isn't the most important thing to the RN and the Army, the RAF are the best placed to do it'.
It's one I profoundly disagree with. The RAF are 'best placed' to deliver those capabilities that they are charged to deliver. And, in general, they do it. There are some good arguments to be had over the emphasis that the RAF have placed over the past 40 years or so on fast jet acquisition (especially AD aircraft) at the expense of AT, SH and AAR, and ISTAR, but they are for another day.
But I contend that the RN and the Army are quite capable of delivering capabilities via the use of aircraft. They've done so for many years, and in areas where the RAF are basically uninterested or just don't think are required. (Maritime fixed wing is a good example). And the Navy and the Army will deliver aircraft programmes. On the Apache, the Army took a massive hit on other more traditional equipment programmes to buy it.
It's my view that the RAF would do well to take a long hard look at the way the RN and the Army develop their officer corps, and perhaps aim to deliver people who are more widely experienced, and perhaps less 'air minded' and more 'capability minded'. That, by the way, is not a slight on the very many RAF officers I've worked with over many years, who were all (with very few exceptions) quite exceptionally professional and dedicated to their service.
Best Regards as ever to those doing the stuff at the sharp end,
Engines.