Does RAF still have any unique selling point?

[steamchicken]

Immediately post war, the RAF flew a complex series of trials named 'Post Mortem' against the almost intact Luftwaffe AD system in Denmark jointly manned by RAF and Luftwaffe operators. The results were mute testament to our technological superiority in offensive EW.

I didn't know that MM; fascinating. Any links?

[Magic Mushroom]

Steamchicken,

Please check your PMs.

Regards,
MM

[MAINJAFAD]

steamchicken

Check out this site reference the WWII 'Radar War'

[ImageGear]

Down in the weeds

At the day to day, hand on stick, feet on pedals, spanner in hand level, it is all about people. All the other services aspire to the RAF culture, ethos and role but have not yet reached that level of achievement. Some never will.

[teeteringhead]

So much war-fighting is now (rightly or wrongly) jointly controlled - vide JHC, PJHQ etc etc that the capbadge makes little diffrence IMHO.

Until recently the infantry had IIRC about 32 capbadges - surely the aviators (and aviatrices) can manage with three ......

[moosemaster]

I don't think you'll find this argument being raised amongst aviators, from any of the services.
In my experience this topic is only ever raised by folk who have no idea of the different roles that are carried out by their "Air Support" and how they dovetail together.
Luckily, these aren't the people who can actually effect change. By the time they get to such exalted positions, the question has already been answered.
Yes I'll agree there is a bit of overlap, but only between RAF & Navy, and RAF & Army. I can't think of any circumstances where Navy & Army Aviation tasks and capabilities overlap. I personally would rather have a slight overlap in capabilities than a gap

[Gainesy]

As for what the RAF brings to the party that the others can't ... the RAF gets the best-looking birds!

Specsavers?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

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?