What do you want from this thread?
Dude, I can only tell you what I know so many times. Some of your information is not correct, or is viewed from the perspective that Black Hawk is the only answer
The Black Hawk can not carry same full mission equipment as MRH 90 and even if it did, would still be limited by seats. MRH 90 carries 50% more in combat order, and up to 18 pax with less kit.
It can be expected to be more reliable because it is a 4th gen rotorcraft. The reason our Black Hawks didn't fly and US Black Hawks do is the size of the maintenance budget. NB my point about 13 years of sustainment.
The ramp is only weight limited when moving or when half-way down. You can drive a light vehicle into the acft using the ramp on the ground. It's like saying the seatbelts are useless as tourniquets. Technically true, but it's not what the seatbelts are for.
Crashworthiness is far more complex than big tyres and big suspension. Flail space, stroking seats, emergency exits, cabin integrity all play a part. If it was all wheels and tyres, the Southern Cross would be the Paragon of crashworthiness.
Aircrew fatigue has always, and always will cause more crashes than enemy fire over the life of an acft - even in an operational theatre. That's why climate control is a good idea.
Who says the HMDs can't be used in a dusty environment? The HMD will get dusty, but that doesn't make it unuseable. In any case, FLIR can be displayed on any of the MFD. I have no idea why you would want to look at something 10M away with FLIR. If you are mixing it up with the IITs, then maybe you are confused about Hyperstereopsis. This is a known issue, no worse than the laundry list of visual illusions we learn about when using NVGs for the first time.
When you say 'on our own' in rference to maintenance and spares, do you mean like in Timor, Bougainville, Solomons, Aceh and every deployment we have made without US Army parts and maintenance support?
If you don't see any benefit in tip lights, MFD's and auto hover, you are either:
a. a day only pilot, and you should be quiet now, or
b. you can not see any other role for Army aircraft than land-based day Airmobile, and, well, you should be quiet now.
I am posting to refute your claims because they are one-sided and mainly incorrect. As I have said before, the aircraft will be part of a great capability in time, and no-one is denying there are issues to resolve. Nothing you have posted is news, except for the stuff you have assumed or misinterpreted.