Omnibus VII "Pinacles" are reputedly 20/20 or near enough. They are available to civilian operators in the USA, but not outside. The best you can get outside the US is the IVs, and that is what we use in Oz. The NVG are "detuned" according to limitations set by the US State Department in terms of signal to noise (which affects accuity) and minimum halo sizes. Regardless, the exported IV is an outstanding goggle that produces a civilian safe standard of image for the first time in NVG evolution.
Either way, 20/40 is far superior to 20/200.
It is hard to explain in this brief format, but the use of white light has so fundamentally changed the way we fly on NVG that some of the old military mantras are less applicable than the absolutes they used to be. The head scan on late finals and in the hover is one of those. Designed to overcome the reduced FOV, the head scan acted like a weather radar sweep, it enabled the mind to build an accurate picture of obstacles, closure rates and drift in the hover. With white light however you can simply use a "look around" view moving your eyes and not your head. The white light also provides you a great deal of peripheral vision which is critical in the maintenance of an accurate hover - and the lack of it in the military (white light would get you shot) is why NVG hovering was so hard.
I should also say that the white light has not alleviated the rear seat crewman head movement requirements, and as our crewman instructor is want to say: if you come back from a winching sortie without a sore neck then you have not been scanning properly.
That has translated into NVG winching being just as you imagined: we can winch as precisely on NVG as we can on white light. We have changed the emphasis on the reference points for the hover, but the winching is even easier than white light only because you have a horizon through the NVG and when the winch is completed you are not departing a black hole. We often practice NVG failure in the winch for the pilot and crewie (not together) and have yet to see any adverse reaction. There is no way we would have practiced this in the military as goggle failure would mean a total loss of references, but that is not the case with white light civvy winching in which your primary references are actually the unaided ones!
Response times are a whole bag of worms. The phrase "required response times" evokes echos of a bygone era in which we simply failed to understand the enormous safety implications of such a "requirement". Organisations resorting to "required" response times do so because it is the quickest and easiest "thing" to measure and compare dicks over. The safety outcomes and patient outcomes are almost never measured. And the complexity of such measurements fails to justify "contracted" or "required" response times in any way. IMHO.
Rant over. On both our multirole and rapid response mission profiles the actual take off time is dictated by completion of the required planning tasks, not by any time limit. Our principal is that the time taken to respond does not dictate the the safety of the response - the planning tasks do. For example, if you pause for a chat on the way out to the helo and have a slower response than the other helo, are you necessarily safer?
The complexity of the multirole mission (SAR in particular) can result in response delays of over an hour, though typically not more than 15 minutes. The rapid response model on the other hand enables take off in 2 minutes (day or NVG) from the decision to go, but that is because it is a single role system: limited range, limited patient group, crew, configuration and equipment are not altered.
I note your part in the previous debates on response times so let me finish by saying that like crew mixes, response times are not comparable across roles, certainly not across differing environmental and teraain conditions, and rarely even across operating cultures. One is not wrong or unsafe, it is just different.