This thread is all over the place! LOL
To chime in on the single FRS idea:
Army and Navy flight school aren't a whole lot different. To contrast Army and Navy flight school,get rid of primary fixed wing training all together in the Navy. Make a primary, intermediate and advanced helo syllabus. Then at the end, tack on an airframe specific advanced aircraft syllabus.
The Army, up until about a year ago, trained all of their 60 pilots at the end of flight school in the UH-60A. Then, those getting L qualed flew an additional flight or two at their unit in the L. The M model guys went to a "differences" aircraft qualification course (AQC) after 60As in flight school.
Now, 60 A/L pilots do their same syllabus, but 60M guys do an abbreviated syllabus in the A/L (there is still a shortage of M airframes), then finish in the UH-60M. HH-60M guys learn their mission equipment (AMOGS, FLIR, PLS, hoist, etc..) at their unit during RL progression. Additional tasks, such as hoist or fire buckets, are learned at the unit, if their are included on the pilots CTL.
Existing A/L pilots who transition go through the same "differences" course, which is the same as it used to be for flight school students. IPs and MTPs also go to an additional IP or MTP specific M course.
A single (one each coast) 60 FRS makes sense. For pattern work, any aircraft with the same cockpit instrumentation and tailwheel config would be fine. Then, during tactics, you could branch to your specific airframe. The added benefit would be a tremendous enhancement of standardization across communities flying the same airframe, something lacking in the extreme when I left the Navy.