Helicopters are much more expensive to operate than fixed wing assets, this is in addition to having shorted range, lower speed and smaller payloads than a compariably roled fixed wing asset. Helo's are also less reliable, more are lost in accidents, as well as being more prone to loss following battle damage.

 

That aside helo's are extremely useful and can conduct tasks that fixed wing assets can not. What I am suggesting would result in a mix of fixed and rotary wing assets being operated, by the Army and RAN, each in their optomised role, resulting in greater capability and reduced cost.

Besides what Aussiegunner said, the Australian Army already handles some tactical transport (Black Hawk) as well as recce/light attack (Tiger). There's little point in assigning fixed winged CAS to the Army when Australia uses multi-role platforms.

 

Aircrew training would remain centralised or even become more centralised. Tactical transport (i.e. what ever replaces the Caribou) would mesh well with 5 Aviation Regt as would C/RC-12's, and AT-6's (or similar). Our bases are being rationalised into a smaller number of multi service super bases so rebasing is not an issue, it is already happening. What it would do is give each service greater controland say in the airpower assests that directly affect them. This will be a better system as the assets and their crews will be a part of the service they are directly supporting.