There needs to be some accountability and the MoD should insist on it (but they won’f) When a crew is lost due to small arms fire etc in these plastic, non-combat ready aircraft, the company executives should be liable and should be required to provide testimony and empiric proof to support their statements as to the ballistic protection of their aircraft.
If (when) it transpires that their claims of battlefield survival abilities were exaggerated or untrue, they they should be charged with corporate manslaughter. This should also apply to those in the UK who make the decision. If they truly believe the 175 or 149 are combat capable and survivable, then let them put their money where their mouth is.
Make this a requirement of the contract award and get the bidders to agree to it. If LH and Airbus are really telling the truth, then why would they hesitate?
Oh, this would apply to Sikorsky as well, but we all know it is the only properly designed and constructed combat helicopter in the NMH contest.