Emerg Gov, I have been biting my tongue for some time now but I can't hold back any longer.
Your repeated defence of what now can only be described as an unmitigated disaster of a project must mean that either;
(1) you actually work for the supplier, or
(2) you have a strong, yet to be revealed, reason for defending this project from necessary external scrutiny by using misinformation, or
(3) you elected that optional extra at Staff College called the "frontal lobotomy" and now believe everything you read in the shiny brochures and what your boss tells you.
The MRH 90 will never be able to do what it was purchased for despite all the nifty avionics. All that great technology such as composites and avionics and increased payload and range mean nothing if it can't be reliable and do the job. It is all just words and numbers. I have thrashed over this before but was it really necessary to reinvent the wheel and take all this developmental risk for something that was just supposed to be a battlefield truck? Ask the aircrew involved with this lump of c...p today would they like to convert tomorrow to the UH60 M/L or indeed anything that is actually proven to work and you would be knocked over in the rush out the door. Never mind the poor diggers O/S who are screaming for more helo support in theatre.
Given another 10 years and unlimited funds, yes, you could make a Citron or a Peugeot into a battlefield helicopter or even a half decent car but then it wouldn't really still be a Peugeot, Citron or an MRH would it?
The only thing I agree with that I have read on this thread so far, is that, we have this lemon now, so we will just have to get on with making it work as best we can, whilst secretly hoping that someone, somewhere higher up will find a bucket of money, admit the mistake and replace it with something that is a proven capability.
Rant out.