Times Change
In 1970-72, SA and Boeing were getting together competing designs for an Army HLH. Our guys wanted to go full FBW, but I authored a position paper for the Chief Pilot that took the opposite position, using in part the reliability data on all of our Ham-Standard AFCS systems. That data was dynamite* and the memo created a serious stir, all up the line. A bit later, when the ABC first flew and the mechanical controls were so complex as to cry out for a non-existent FBW technology, a very senior Army R&D person told me that he truly accepted the advantages of fly by wire, just as long as all those little wires travelled down the center of the push/pull tubes. That was the mood at the time in many parts of the industry.
* As I recall, the MTBF in the single, analog initial S-64 AFCS system was just under 400 hours, as an example.
But times change. I would wager that if you contacted your friends at EC, they would concur that FBW technology is certainly mature enough to utilize. The advantages of weight saving, cost saving ( not only the elimination of all the extra actuators, rods and the rigging thereof, but your note cites electrical power redundancy that is already there ), vast safety improvement*, and an absolute free hand in designing in handling qualities tailored to the machine/mission, are there for the taking. Ask them.
* Safety advantages derive from several areas of change. The problems of rigging compounded by mechanical mixers, boost actuators, AFCS actuators, cable tension devices, and the like, are eliminated, along with maintenance errors made during the troubleshooting or replacement/re installation of same. FBW offers the ability to integrate smart envelope limiting into the basic control system.
Yes, it is unlikely one could make the argument that FBW makes sense for an R-22/44 type machine, but for the larger, more complex aircraft, it is a technology that is a competitor for inclusion in a new vehicle.