Anti RAF Propaganda : The Times : Letters Page
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks TW for the link ... I hadn't appreciated that this character is a repeat offender (in both senses of the word). At least a Google search now returns a PPRuNe reference alongside the tripe he keeps circulating which is something I suppose 
Thanks also to TGG for his comments ... I'm sure you are not alone in what you say
PS. Fortissimo ... I think the thread should stand ... but it's now run it's course IMHO.
Thanks also to TGG for his comments ... I'm sure you are not alone in what you say
PS. Fortissimo ... I think the thread should stand ... but it's now run it's course IMHO.
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 24th Jan 2014 at 14:27.
Why would anyone take any notice of a mere Lieutenant Commander (especaily an "Ex" one) - and a "Blunty" at that?
Now, now, Blacksheep!
Think of all the Squabbling Bleeders you have just upset, past or present, "sharp" or "blunt" .....
Jack
Now, now, Blacksheep!
Think of all the Squabbling Bleeders you have just upset, past or present, "sharp" or "blunt" .....Jack
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
With regard to former senior officers writing to the editor. ISTR a former Air Commodore, from Sittingbourne I believe, appearing quite regularly on the 'Letters to the Editor' in the Telegraph. Quite entertaining some of them.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
For ODI
Sorry mate - different thread in response to the same innane ramblings of HS. Here it is.
Hangarshuffle - perhaps you didn't see it the first time, or there again, maybe you did and chose to ignore it because it didn't chime with your view of reality! Exactly where were you sitting in the COB?
Hangarshuffle. I too was in the COB when the locals were throwing stuff at us (07/08) and there are many and varied reasons (and some that cannot be mentioned on here) that most of the time it was US aircraft that pitched in. What you perhaps do not know is that all aircraft were allocated to the JFAC at the Deid and tasked from Baghdad according to Coalition priorities. So, as the GR4 was more capable in some areas than the F16/F18 it therefore tasked accordingly - and this task was not burning holes in the sky above Basra at 20K to lob the occasional bomb at the local in his jinglie truck who may, or may not have been actually seen in the process of lighting the blue touch paper. There's a lot more to this than just having a cheap shot at the light blue - who were just as frustrated at what was happening as you apparently were. If the truth were known, you should be casting your ire at our erstewhile "brown" colleagues - who assured me at the time that they were the most "air minded" brigade in the British Army (if they were then God help the rest of them) and assigned the task of organising their air support to a passed-over Rifles major - who to my knowledge never attended the weekly "Air Apportionment VTC". Just saying like.........
Hangarshuffle - perhaps you didn't see it the first time, or there again, maybe you did and chose to ignore it because it didn't chime with your view of reality! Exactly where were you sitting in the COB?
Hangarshuffle. I too was in the COB when the locals were throwing stuff at us (07/08) and there are many and varied reasons (and some that cannot be mentioned on here) that most of the time it was US aircraft that pitched in. What you perhaps do not know is that all aircraft were allocated to the JFAC at the Deid and tasked from Baghdad according to Coalition priorities. So, as the GR4 was more capable in some areas than the F16/F18 it therefore tasked accordingly - and this task was not burning holes in the sky above Basra at 20K to lob the occasional bomb at the local in his jinglie truck who may, or may not have been actually seen in the process of lighting the blue touch paper. There's a lot more to this than just having a cheap shot at the light blue - who were just as frustrated at what was happening as you apparently were. If the truth were known, you should be casting your ire at our erstewhile "brown" colleagues - who assured me at the time that they were the most "air minded" brigade in the British Army (if they were then God help the rest of them) and assigned the task of organising their air support to a passed-over Rifles major - who to my knowledge never attended the weekly "Air Apportionment VTC". Just saying like.........
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps this retired fishead might like to enlighten us all via the Times as to how many of the RN's Boats have been successfully used in close support of Op HERRICK over the past 11 or so years?
Boats are ok when there's water for them to float on. Personally, I'd stick with the grey things that fly over water are a far faster speed than the floating targets.
Boats are ok when there's water for them to float on. Personally, I'd stick with the grey things that fly over water are a far faster speed than the floating targets.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd rather the British Military had numerous aircraft that could operate from both land and a suitable (large) floating platform, and weren't hampered by design compromises foisted upon them by insisting on STOVL capability.
There's nothing that says cat 'n trap a/c can't fly off concrete as well as a carrier.
There's nothing that says cat 'n trap a/c can't fly off concrete as well as a carrier.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian,
No worries; thought I was losing the plot.
Apportionment of assets - those in the know, understand this key air power issue. Those Brit mil not in the know just think that there should be RAF assets sat above them 24/7.
We could spend hours explaining this sort of issue to the likes of Mr May, but I suspect that the individual just wouldn't get it - he is, after all, a maritime expert and not an air power expert, but thankfully I suspect that he doesn't represent the views of many of his dark blue brothers and sisters.
No worries; thought I was losing the plot.
Apportionment of assets - those in the know, understand this key air power issue. Those Brit mil not in the know just think that there should be RAF assets sat above them 24/7.
We could spend hours explaining this sort of issue to the likes of Mr May, but I suspect that the individual just wouldn't get it - he is, after all, a maritime expert and not an air power expert, but thankfully I suspect that he doesn't represent the views of many of his dark blue brothers and sisters.
So true.. My dear old man would look at newspaper letters and golf club honours boards etc, with Major Smith and Lt Col Bloggs on them and ask, 'Why would anyone want to advertise the fact that they only ever made middle management..?'
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Doha
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for Hangar Shuffle to hear the truth....
I rarely post on here, but Hangar Shuffle should hear the truth.
I was at the COB too in the time frame you suggest. In fact you can look to me for the answers to why your det was so uncomfortable. But before that I would like to add to your ill informed opinion and add clarity for other, more adjusted, readers and commentators on this thread.
Firstly, your view of the situation as you describe it was not the 'fault' of the RAF. For accuracy...
The RAF Regiment Wing at the COB at that time was a joint, multi national organisation working 'one up' to the UK Brigade and two up to the UK Divisional HQ in a joint manner. It comprised 580 Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force men and women from a variety of nations who defended the multinational COB with great bravery. That joint organisation suffered 4 fatalities and many serious injuries in it's attempt to keep you safe in your scratcher. It paid it's price to defend that little piece of Britain as did many others down town.
Secondly and furthermore:
Phalanx was delivered by Navy, Army and Air Force personnel as part of a joint unit, as part of the Force Protection Wing, and were enabled by great levels of pride, innovation and guile.
The 'counter battery' as you describe it was delivered by the Royal Artillery who for the large part of your det were part of the RAF Regiment Wing. And were proud to fight in that role. Chestnut troop were a fantastically 'joint' unit.
Your focus on the USAF-centric delivery of the 'Air Umbrella' is also inaccurate. The air cover the COB received, at the expense of others in distress, was provided by the coalition air component that apportioned air cover as appropriate. At times, we enjoyed US asset cover. At other times it was UK cover. It only depended on what was required where and in what role. Sometimes the RAF was best suited to the role we demanded. At others it was the US.
With respect, I suggest you desist from posting utter rubbish and dire tribe comment.
R2K7
I was at the COB too in the time frame you suggest. In fact you can look to me for the answers to why your det was so uncomfortable. But before that I would like to add to your ill informed opinion and add clarity for other, more adjusted, readers and commentators on this thread.
Firstly, your view of the situation as you describe it was not the 'fault' of the RAF. For accuracy...
The RAF Regiment Wing at the COB at that time was a joint, multi national organisation working 'one up' to the UK Brigade and two up to the UK Divisional HQ in a joint manner. It comprised 580 Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force men and women from a variety of nations who defended the multinational COB with great bravery. That joint organisation suffered 4 fatalities and many serious injuries in it's attempt to keep you safe in your scratcher. It paid it's price to defend that little piece of Britain as did many others down town.
Secondly and furthermore:
Phalanx was delivered by Navy, Army and Air Force personnel as part of a joint unit, as part of the Force Protection Wing, and were enabled by great levels of pride, innovation and guile.
The 'counter battery' as you describe it was delivered by the Royal Artillery who for the large part of your det were part of the RAF Regiment Wing. And were proud to fight in that role. Chestnut troop were a fantastically 'joint' unit.
Your focus on the USAF-centric delivery of the 'Air Umbrella' is also inaccurate. The air cover the COB received, at the expense of others in distress, was provided by the coalition air component that apportioned air cover as appropriate. At times, we enjoyed US asset cover. At other times it was UK cover. It only depended on what was required where and in what role. Sometimes the RAF was best suited to the role we demanded. At others it was the US.
With respect, I suggest you desist from posting utter rubbish and dire tribe comment.
R2K7
R2K7, thank you for setting things straight there.
In addition, I was a GR4 pilot on one of many dets out there. Our Sqn SOP was, after completing our tasking (we had little choice in that), on our way out of theatre and back to the 'deid, we overflew Basra so we would request some 'playtime' in the overhead to provide a presence. We were allowed to stay up to our max sortie length minus transit time back to the 'deid. So after say, 6 or 7 hours strapped into our seats, we offered ourselves up for another couple of hours overhead. We didn't have to do this, we weren't tasked with it, but we did it anyway, many many times so H-S, please attempt to find out a fuller picture of events before slagging off a lot of people who tried their best to provide what was needed.
As for the OP.....I guess the RN fellow is entitled to his opinion, however ill-informed and factually incorrect it is.
In addition, I was a GR4 pilot on one of many dets out there. Our Sqn SOP was, after completing our tasking (we had little choice in that), on our way out of theatre and back to the 'deid, we overflew Basra so we would request some 'playtime' in the overhead to provide a presence. We were allowed to stay up to our max sortie length minus transit time back to the 'deid. So after say, 6 or 7 hours strapped into our seats, we offered ourselves up for another couple of hours overhead. We didn't have to do this, we weren't tasked with it, but we did it anyway, many many times so H-S, please attempt to find out a fuller picture of events before slagging off a lot of people who tried their best to provide what was needed.
As for the OP.....I guess the RN fellow is entitled to his opinion, however ill-informed and factually incorrect it is.
I have avoided joining the discussion in the hope of seeing some serious rebuttal or the removal of this thread like previous examples villifying Sharkey. Instead, this sort of thing is continuing to appear:
It might be easier and more satisfying to produce personal insults, anti-naval invective and contrived arguments than to prove where Lt Cdr May has his facts wrong, or to produce a point-by-point rebuttal of his criticisms. However, it's far less likely to convince people he is wrong and sway opinion. To refresh memories:
Forces organisation
Sir, Neither Julian Brazier, in his article about Army Reserves (Jan 18), nor former US Secretary of Defence Gates, last week expressing concerns about Britain’s forces, mentioned land—based aircraft. Both make clear the Royal Navy is the UK’s strategic priority; CDS, and General Richards before him, expressed similar views. Forces’ websites are telling. Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Army pages highlight operational business. The RAF spotlights the Second World War, aircraft displays, sport, much less operations.
This RAF modesty is right. It has 220 combat jets, 650 support aircraft and 36,000 personnel yet, after withdrawal from Afghanistan this year, just four jets, a few other aircraft and 1,000 airmen will be overseas. The bulk of the £7 billion-a-year RAF will be home, facing no air threat, our islands safeguarded by Nato in Europe and an expanse of ocean, yet those 220 Typhoon and Tornado jets cost £20 billion.
Defence experts here, and across the Atlantic, argue that independent air forces are no longer necessary or affordable. Land-based combat jets have limited roles, flying mostly supporting operations on land and sea. Huge cost and manpower savings would follow transferring essential frontline land-based aircraft to Navy and Army control. The RAF owns 80 per cent of UK military aircraft assets — reorganisation is overdue.
LESTER MAY
(Lieutenant Commander RN (Ret’d)
Here are some sample rebuttals:
I'm not sure that highlighting the RAF's equivalent of the civilian-manned Royal Fleet Auxiliary does much to help its case. RFAs operate in war zones too and not just in logistic roles.
Your argument is contrived. His letter advocates transferring land-based aircraft to Navy and Army control, not abolishing them.
Your argument is contrived. There is nothing in his letter about how to use air power or turning Basrah into a car park.
I am ex-dark blue like Lt Cdr May but I believe that land-based and carrier-borne air each have their place. I don't agree with the abolition of the RAF but its advocates will have to do much better to defend its corner than using contrived arguments or simply pouring scorn and personal insults on its critics.
Originally Posted by TheWizard
Not this bell end again.....
Originally Posted by teeteringhead
Don't engage in a battle of wits ..........
........ with an unarmed opponent!
........ with an unarmed opponent!
Originally Posted by Deepest Norfolk
Probably turned down by the RAF before the Navy had him.
Originally Posted by Rick777
His wife probably had an affair with a pilot.
Originally Posted by Lt. Cdr. Lester May RN (Ret'd)
Forces organisation
Sir, Neither Julian Brazier, in his article about Army Reserves (Jan 18), nor former US Secretary of Defence Gates, last week expressing concerns about Britain’s forces, mentioned land—based aircraft. Both make clear the Royal Navy is the UK’s strategic priority; CDS, and General Richards before him, expressed similar views. Forces’ websites are telling. Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Army pages highlight operational business. The RAF spotlights the Second World War, aircraft displays, sport, much less operations.
This RAF modesty is right. It has 220 combat jets, 650 support aircraft and 36,000 personnel yet, after withdrawal from Afghanistan this year, just four jets, a few other aircraft and 1,000 airmen will be overseas. The bulk of the £7 billion-a-year RAF will be home, facing no air threat, our islands safeguarded by Nato in Europe and an expanse of ocean, yet those 220 Typhoon and Tornado jets cost £20 billion.
Defence experts here, and across the Atlantic, argue that independent air forces are no longer necessary or affordable. Land-based combat jets have limited roles, flying mostly supporting operations on land and sea. Huge cost and manpower savings would follow transferring essential frontline land-based aircraft to Navy and Army control. The RAF owns 80 per cent of UK military aircraft assets — reorganisation is overdue.
LESTER MAY
(Lieutenant Commander RN (Ret’d)
Originally Posted by Whenurhappy
The writer forgets the AT and rotary fleets (AT as in Air Transport, not Adventure Training...
Originally Posted by Odigron
No land based fast jets?? Is he really serious??...
Originally Posted by Melchett01
The RAF could quite easily have turned Basrah into a car park in 2008, probably overnight if we had really put our mind to it. I'm not sure what it would have achieved other satisfying May's notions on how to use air power...
I am ex-dark blue like Lt Cdr May but I believe that land-based and carrier-borne air each have their place. I don't agree with the abolition of the RAF but its advocates will have to do much better to defend its corner than using contrived arguments or simply pouring scorn and personal insults on its critics.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOD,
You are right, I should have read his letter more carefully. My quick scan failed to identify the nuance that you kindly point out. I apologise for my contrived comment. I hate it when frustration gets the better of me.
Regarding the point in question - which I believe is May's view that there is no requirement for an independent Air Force in the UK - it is an extremely complex argument, but I will put some thought into a simple 'layman's explanation' of the requirement; this may take me some time, but I hope to come up with something which isn't contrived.
Odi
You are right, I should have read his letter more carefully. My quick scan failed to identify the nuance that you kindly point out. I apologise for my contrived comment. I hate it when frustration gets the better of me.
Regarding the point in question - which I believe is May's view that there is no requirement for an independent Air Force in the UK - it is an extremely complex argument, but I will put some thought into a simple 'layman's explanation' of the requirement; this may take me some time, but I hope to come up with something which isn't contrived.
Odi
OK FOD
Let's start with:
Of course that would be "selected Defence experts"; of course it wouldn't be too hard to find Defence experts whose view would be that independent air forces are still a vital part of the triumvirate of air, land an sea power. You need experts in each field and with the best will in the world the green army will always be focused on infantry, and the dark blue on ships and subs.
Land based combat jets have as many roles as sea based combat jets. Land basing allows aircraft to be based closer to the action as regularly as sea based combat jets give you that capability. Let's face it, since 1991 we've had no real problem with basing combat air in land bases close to where the action is: Kuwait, Saudi, UAE and Afghanistan. Carrier based air power has provided a small element of the overall package. Both will probably require tankers and despite one small operation this is a role universally provided by the military. There is no air comparison for the RFA, they do a great job, but trying to compare them with the RAF's, indeed any nation's AAR and AT fleets is an irrelevance and I may add a slur on the support provided by AAR and AT fleets who also "operate in war zones and not just in the logistics role".
It is easy to state that there would be huge manpower and costs savings but there simply would not. There is absolutely NO evidence that you could make savings, apart from maybe CAS's pay! You still need to base all those aircraft at an airfield (and we haven't got many left), you still have to crew them, maintain them, provide the airfield support facilities, the management and tasking of the aircraft, the deployment on exercises, war-fighting, HADR ops, NEOs etc etc. all of this would still have to be done regardless of what coloured uniform was worn. Even the uniforms would still have to bought and paid for so whether you need 31000 light blue uniforms or 30999 additional green/dark blue uniforms there will be no saving.
Mr May makes some unsubstantiated assertions in his letter, he provides no substantial evidence for his assertions and as such they are purely (I'll informed?) opinion. I am afraid opinion is an irrelevance when it comes to capability, doctrine, planning etc. How's that as a starter for 10?
Let's start with:
Defence experts here, and across the Atlantic, argue that independent air forces are no longer necessary or affordable. Land-based combat jets have limited roles, flying mostly supporting operations on land and sea. Huge cost and manpower savings would follow transferring essential frontline land-based aircraft to Navy and Army control. The RAF owns 80 per cent of UK military aircraft assets — reorganisation is overdue.
Land based combat jets have as many roles as sea based combat jets. Land basing allows aircraft to be based closer to the action as regularly as sea based combat jets give you that capability. Let's face it, since 1991 we've had no real problem with basing combat air in land bases close to where the action is: Kuwait, Saudi, UAE and Afghanistan. Carrier based air power has provided a small element of the overall package. Both will probably require tankers and despite one small operation this is a role universally provided by the military. There is no air comparison for the RFA, they do a great job, but trying to compare them with the RAF's, indeed any nation's AAR and AT fleets is an irrelevance and I may add a slur on the support provided by AAR and AT fleets who also "operate in war zones and not just in the logistics role".
It is easy to state that there would be huge manpower and costs savings but there simply would not. There is absolutely NO evidence that you could make savings, apart from maybe CAS's pay! You still need to base all those aircraft at an airfield (and we haven't got many left), you still have to crew them, maintain them, provide the airfield support facilities, the management and tasking of the aircraft, the deployment on exercises, war-fighting, HADR ops, NEOs etc etc. all of this would still have to be done regardless of what coloured uniform was worn. Even the uniforms would still have to bought and paid for so whether you need 31000 light blue uniforms or 30999 additional green/dark blue uniforms there will be no saving.
Mr May makes some unsubstantiated assertions in his letter, he provides no substantial evidence for his assertions and as such they are purely (I'll informed?) opinion. I am afraid opinion is an irrelevance when it comes to capability, doctrine, planning etc. How's that as a starter for 10?
If any force had to go then surely that has to be the FAA! Only a handful of fast jet pilots with no fast jets to fly. The move to UAV's will not require ships or carriers! They will be land based!
Clearly any force reduction should be the FAA!
The myth that only Navy pilots can land on ships is nonsense!
Clearly any force reduction should be the FAA!
The myth that only Navy pilots can land on ships is nonsense!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
newt; if the May fly is aiming at "divide and rule", please don't help him.
As a point of interest, idiocy isn't restricted to stacker two and a halfs . If I recall correctly, Lewis Page was a warfairy, corkhead one.
GBZ
Retired 2 1/2 "stacker" (not forgetting, "box kicker")
As a point of interest, idiocy isn't restricted to stacker two and a halfs . If I recall correctly, Lewis Page was a warfairy, corkhead one.
GBZ
Retired 2 1/2 "stacker" (not forgetting, "box kicker")
FODPlod,
What did you expect? This is pprune after all. It's more like a crewroom, there's humour, banter, occasional slagging matches, and yes, some pearls of wisdom - but it's not a RUSI debating conference!!
As to countering Lt Cdr May's arguments, what arguments? The fact that he quotes the opinions of a couple of "experts". No doubt I could find somewhere on the internet the opinion of an "expert" that the moon is made of blue cheese - does that make my argument to that effect valid? Does Lt Cdr May quote any national armed forces that have gone done the route he suggests, and examine the subsequent results/benefits? Thought not....
As for the argument for an independent air force, a lot of it revolves around the question of whether or not you consider it a sufficiently sophisticated/complex role to require "specialists" at it, as opposed to people who merely do it as part of their career. While I'm not an expert on either the AAC or FAA, both seem very much sub-branches within their armed force. For example, Prince Harry is an officer in a conventional (Cavalry) regiment, who subsequently trained to fly helicopters, did 3 years on them, but has now returned to more mainstream career. This is, I believe, typical of officers within the AAC. In terms of the FAA, to the best of my knowledge while RN personnel get more flying related tours, these are still interspersed with more conventional sea time, the need to earn watch keeping certificates, etc. Ironically enough (again working on my limited knowledge) the RN seems to regard the submarine service as one which is sufficiently specialized that one can spend the majority of ones service time in submarines without other diversions.
Transferring air assets directly to the Army and RN would result in the creation of purely tactical air forces. The concept of keeping "your" air assets, over "your" ship/army battlegroup, etc, when there is no threat to them, but there are valid targets elsewhere in theatre, is usually the result. Air assets are wasted by tying them up this way - as indeed has been the whole point of pooling air assets as been the case in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc in recent years. The use of air power in a strategic role would almost inevitably cease (is it better to destroy 10 tanks on the battlefield or destroy the factory making them?)
Yes, I know its another quote from the Battle of Brittain, but it happens to be the perfect example. If fighter assets had directly belonged to the Army, they would all have been frittered away in the Battle of France, with nothing left to defend Britain subsequently. And no, we wouldn't have won the Battle of France if more fighter assets had been committed to it!
If your air assets are directly owned by the Army/Navy then decisions made on upgrading/replacing them are going to be almost certainly made by non air minded individuals, with potentially higher priorities than aircraft - for example if a CDS has to make a choice between keeping artillery or CAS aircraft, or a 1st Sea Lord has to decide between frigates and MPA?
Lt Cdr May's letter offers the potential promise of short term savings, but no other nation has elected to follow the path he has chosen, so there is little or no guarantee they will actually be forthcoming. By allocating air assets directly ot the Army and RN, you reduce UK airpower to a tactical level, risk it withering on the vine in the face of competition from assets the host service considers more important, and reduce the skills sets, expertise and experience that the UK currently has in the use and deployment of airpower.
The use of airpower is a highly complex specialization in its own right, which requires an independent air force if its full potential is to be exploited.
And I'm not a staff officer..........
What did you expect? This is pprune after all. It's more like a crewroom, there's humour, banter, occasional slagging matches, and yes, some pearls of wisdom - but it's not a RUSI debating conference!!
As to countering Lt Cdr May's arguments, what arguments? The fact that he quotes the opinions of a couple of "experts". No doubt I could find somewhere on the internet the opinion of an "expert" that the moon is made of blue cheese - does that make my argument to that effect valid? Does Lt Cdr May quote any national armed forces that have gone done the route he suggests, and examine the subsequent results/benefits? Thought not....
As for the argument for an independent air force, a lot of it revolves around the question of whether or not you consider it a sufficiently sophisticated/complex role to require "specialists" at it, as opposed to people who merely do it as part of their career. While I'm not an expert on either the AAC or FAA, both seem very much sub-branches within their armed force. For example, Prince Harry is an officer in a conventional (Cavalry) regiment, who subsequently trained to fly helicopters, did 3 years on them, but has now returned to more mainstream career. This is, I believe, typical of officers within the AAC. In terms of the FAA, to the best of my knowledge while RN personnel get more flying related tours, these are still interspersed with more conventional sea time, the need to earn watch keeping certificates, etc. Ironically enough (again working on my limited knowledge) the RN seems to regard the submarine service as one which is sufficiently specialized that one can spend the majority of ones service time in submarines without other diversions.
Transferring air assets directly to the Army and RN would result in the creation of purely tactical air forces. The concept of keeping "your" air assets, over "your" ship/army battlegroup, etc, when there is no threat to them, but there are valid targets elsewhere in theatre, is usually the result. Air assets are wasted by tying them up this way - as indeed has been the whole point of pooling air assets as been the case in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc in recent years. The use of air power in a strategic role would almost inevitably cease (is it better to destroy 10 tanks on the battlefield or destroy the factory making them?)
Yes, I know its another quote from the Battle of Brittain, but it happens to be the perfect example. If fighter assets had directly belonged to the Army, they would all have been frittered away in the Battle of France, with nothing left to defend Britain subsequently. And no, we wouldn't have won the Battle of France if more fighter assets had been committed to it!
If your air assets are directly owned by the Army/Navy then decisions made on upgrading/replacing them are going to be almost certainly made by non air minded individuals, with potentially higher priorities than aircraft - for example if a CDS has to make a choice between keeping artillery or CAS aircraft, or a 1st Sea Lord has to decide between frigates and MPA?
Lt Cdr May's letter offers the potential promise of short term savings, but no other nation has elected to follow the path he has chosen, so there is little or no guarantee they will actually be forthcoming. By allocating air assets directly ot the Army and RN, you reduce UK airpower to a tactical level, risk it withering on the vine in the face of competition from assets the host service considers more important, and reduce the skills sets, expertise and experience that the UK currently has in the use and deployment of airpower.
The use of airpower is a highly complex specialization in its own right, which requires an independent air force if its full potential is to be exploited.
And I'm not a staff officer..........
Glad to see this elevation in the level of discussion.
While I support the retention of RAF AT (despite my past treatment by the movers), I could easily regard your statement as a slur on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary because they are comparable. RFAs carry troops and land them during combat operations; who do you think manned RFA SIR GALAHAD, RFA SIR TRISTRAM, RFA SIR LANCELOT and RFA SIR BEDIVERE, the LSLs bombed during the Falklands conflict? RFAs also carry stores and equipment and conduct underway replenishment of stores and fuel in war zones. They are even doubling for our dwindling warships in an increasing number of roles.
Long letters to the DT or Times are either rejected or heavily edited to exclude all but the main points. I'd be curious to see the full version.
I currently support the RAF's case for survival. Comments like yours won't encourage me to continue! 
Originally Posted by Roland Pulfrew
...There is no air comparison for the RFA, they do a great job, but trying to compare them with the RAF's, indeed any nation's AAR and AT fleets is an irrelevance and I may add a slur on the support provided by AAR and AT fleets who also "operate in war zones and not just in the logistics role".
Originally Posted by Roland Pulfrew
...Mr May makes some unsubstantiated assertions in his letter, he provides no substantial evidence for his assertions and as such they are purely (I'll informed?) opinion...
Originally Posted by newt
...Clearly any force reduction should be the FAA!...
FOD
I feel for you with the movements thing, I guess most of us have been there.
Thank you for the history lesson on the RFA, I am very much aware of the ethos, service and history of the RFA. I obviously was not clear in my point regarding the AT & AAR force. My point being this is a military role, undertaken by militaries across the world. There is only one non-military AAR outfit and they don't do combat theatres. I am not sure what there is to be gained from comparing the AT/AAR force with the RFA, on either side of the house, but reading back, maybe I misinterpreted your post. Personally I've never really understood why the RFA aren't just part of the RN. As you point out, they do pretty much everything that the RN do.
While I support the retention of RAF AT (despite my past treatment by the movers), I could easily regard your statement as a slur on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary because they are comparable. RFAs carry troops and land them during combat operations; who do you think manned RFA SIR GALAHAD, RFA SIR TRISTRAM, RFA SIR LANCELOT and RFA SIR BEDIVERE, the LSLs bombed during the Falklands conflict? RFAs also carry stores and equipment and conduct underway replenishment of stores and fuel in war zones. They are even doubling for our dwindling warships in an increasing number of roles.
Thank you for the history lesson on the RFA, I am very much aware of the ethos, service and history of the RFA. I obviously was not clear in my point regarding the AT & AAR force. My point being this is a military role, undertaken by militaries across the world. There is only one non-military AAR outfit and they don't do combat theatres. I am not sure what there is to be gained from comparing the AT/AAR force with the RFA, on either side of the house, but reading back, maybe I misinterpreted your post. Personally I've never really understood why the RFA aren't just part of the RN. As you point out, they do pretty much everything that the RN do.