[84rules]

The savings would be an illusion considering the increased costs of the multi-role training necessary to cover mission specific requiremnts of each branch of service.

The Army has one overall mission it trains for. The Marines have one overall mission it trains for. The Air Force has one overall mission it trains for and the Navy also has one overall mission.

But they are four distinctly separate missions. It is more economical and efficient to train four separate groups in four separate missions than it is to try and train one large group in four separate missions.

The U.S. Navy discovered this back in the 1800's when they tried to replace the Marines with Blue Jackets, that is sailors who could perform the duties of Marines. Because of mission and training requirements, the Blue Jackets began acting more like Marines and less like sailors. In the end, Blue Jackets were really Marines.

I suspect the RAF will find the same thing if they try to take over the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy. The RAF will find that it is not within their budget to train all pilots for both air superiority operations and sea-control operations. Thus, they will have to train two separate groups of pilots. In the end, all those RAF pilots serving on carriers will simply become the new "naval aviators."

[Tallguy]

The RAF will find that it is not within their budget to train all pilots for both air superiority operations and sea-control operations. Thus, they will have to train two separate groups of pilots. In the end, all those RAF pilots serving on carriers will simply become the new "naval aviators."

That's it in a nutshell. Considering the extra cost to train-up a naval aviator, posting him to a landbased RAF squadron would be a waste (though perhaps one that is more easily hidden).