During WW2, the Army was the lead US service in the European theater of operations and the Navy and Marine Corps led in the Pacific. Both did well in their tasks because they were designed for the peculiarities of the operation area. The lesson is that IT TAKES ALL OF THEM TO DO THE JOB. Anytime a service member says their service can do the entire job, they are pounding sand and blowing smoke.
In 1947 the USAF was split from the Army and became the USAF. At that time there was an agreement that the Army would have small liaison type aircraft weighing no more than 12,000 pounds and the USAF would do everything else, including close air support for the Army. I think this was called the Key West Agreement. But the USAF gave only lip service to the close combat air support needed by the Army forces, preferring the more glamorous aircraft. (Note the major similarity to what is said in the article about the RAF). But the Army needs the close air support mission performed and the decision to employ the air support and the form it is to take must be by the ground commander because of the response times needed to save soldiers lives. Despite the clearly extreme valor and high performance levels of the USAF forward air controllers and the combat flyers, the USAF upper echelons did not want to use "their" assets to support "someone else's" war. This led to the Army becoming extremely devious to "acquire" close air support capabilities that they could control. The result was, over the howling objections of the USAF brass, the Army's armed and transport helicopters and even a few surreptitiously armed fixed wing aircraft. And these assets were used widely as I saw in Vietnam.
We have a new situation with unconventional enemies and the needs of the services have changed. As the Constitution says "provide for the common defense" there is a need to provide armed capability to defend against both conventional and unconventional enemies. The tasks that must be done need support from ALL the services. Some of this is happening now and the interservice coordination and cooperation now being seen in Iraq and Afghanistan is astounding to us old timers. The people FIGHTING the war do not have a problem working together. The brass MANAGING the war have yet to noticeably shed their old service loyalties in favor of a first loyalty to the (United States of America) (United Kingdom) (strike inapplicable entity). In most instances politicians and political appointees, regardless of their country of allegiance, are incompetent to make the necessary decisions to provide the most "bang for the buck".
So I would say to the Royal Army, resist, resist, resist. Spend the time and brain power to overcome any RAF plan to take over close air support - by their very nature, an air force responsible for both strategic and tactical missions will tend to favor their strategic and more costly missions at the expense of supporting the ground pounders. This is not a criticism because a ground force commander or sea force commander will in most cases be reluctant to provide support to another service. It is human nature. But both ground, sea, and air forces have missions that must be performed and those missions must be performed with the least expenditure of lives; the way to accomplish that is to coordinate and cooperate. The paychecks all come from the same place. I could also write about the gross misuse of the reserve and national guard but that is a subject for a different rant.
Major, US Army, retired