HSC overland is a stop-gap until the Army or Air Force can show up.
Expeditionary and CVW HSC is not manned, trained, nor equipped to perform more than a few days in the overland environment. Those few days of overland work are almost entirely supported from the boat. For any HSC folks here that disagree, go ask your suppo how to get an extra PUK from the wing. He'll probably laugh you out of his office.
HSC as a whole isn't set up to provide squadrons/dets overland due to the requirements that the CSG/ESG/LCS all have.
HSC-8 in Irbil was a one off and they were able to successfully support the guys there.
HSC-85 is an entirely different animal in how and where they operate that it's not really accurate to say they are traditional HSC. Hopefully the Fleet will benefit from 85 having the 60S as 85 is really good at getting airframe improvements much quicker and that will trickle out to the rest of the squadrons.
After having done this operationally for 12 straight years now, my opinion on traditional HSC is they need to go back to the old-school HS "brown-boot club". Identify a few crews, maybe 2-3, that are fully qualified for overland missions, and train the rest of the crews only in the overwater mission. Sure, some dudes will be butt-hurt but this saves flight hours, NCEA, banging up airframes, etc, and meets that stop-gap requirement the Admiral needs.
During that "stop-gap", if shit gets really bad, the Pros From Dover (the 160th) will show up out of the blue. If shit gets really, really bad, the dudes that don't even exist will show up. I've "seent it" firsthand.
The reality is that Navy is operating in a phase 0/phase 1 environment. Even if WW3 breaks out, the Navy only needs to provide rotary-wing in the littoral for a brief period, if at all. The majority of the rest of the time is dedicated to IZ defense. What does the Navy need for that? GAU-17, rockets, and a huge NCEA to get really good at it. The rest is a waste of time and resources.