One of the problems that always gets overlooked in this debate is the essential position of ARH's capability (or any future equivalent) in particular in the combined arms environment. ARH (I'm not specifying Tiger in particular, just the doctrinal capability - could be AH-64 or any other platform) brings so much to the table - sensors, offensive weapons, comms, data xfer.
It is essentially
Army in what it does. Does that mean Army has to crew it? It does, but if RAAF also crew it no problems. The essential bit is that Army GSOs have direct experience and understanding of ARH operations, AND that ARH ops have Army experience and understanding. I can see a hypothetical situation where Pilot SSOs are replaced with RAAF aircrew over the course of several years. A lot of the check, training, airworthiness etc stuff could be RAAF. But there must be a stream of ARH Army pilots making it to unit and formation command, and sub-unit ARH must reside in the Army Manoeuvre brigades.
I don't think this argument holds for S-70, MRH or CH-47, and all potentially would benefit from RAAF ownership, crewing, operation, command etc.
Originally Posted by BR71
...and allowed the Service greater flexibility in use of aircrew resources
The ability to move aircrew around poses a risk to the sustainability of ARH as a capability. If ARH pilots can be taken from ARH and redeployed according to someone beyond FORCOMD's authority, then the Brigades stand to lose a crucial part of their manoeuvre effects. A good reason for NOT being able to redeploy / post / detach ARH pilots for someone else's benefit.