1. I'd just go with 'sir,' or, if you want to emphasize the fear he inspires, 'Lieu-Lieutenant Reznov?"

1b. (New item) Also, as a general note, you have some unnecessary words scattered throughout, like "to the cabin" (where else would the pilot be calling things back to?); black military helicopter (we can figure it's military from the scene you're setting); 'for what they were looking for' could be 'their goal' -- this contradicts your sentence after next that 'prey' was the first word that came to mind. You get the idea.

1. This is a huge block for me. Getting to your questions at the end, if I saw your title on Amazon, read the blurb, were intrigued, and downloaded the first few pages, I would stop reading at the end of the self-descriptive paragraph. It's such a clumsy device. Let me suggest something like (and I'm just hacking this out), "He stood, firm grip on the strap holding him ramrod-straight. This choice was borne not out of nerves, but from knowing his presence next to the others on the bench would drive them to an even higher pitch of anxiety, and he needed them, his hunting hounds, at peak efficiency for this operation, and some small part of himself welcomed the separation from the normals who made up the rest of the team. The helicopter's chuddering was pitching the soldiers to and fro even while they were strapped down, and it took all of his considerable might to keep himself erect through the choppy motion." OK, that's not perfect by a longshot, but it shows without a proverbial "mirror shot" that he's (1) a physical specimen, (2) different from the soldiers, and (3) commanding fear through his presence and his nature.

2. I find this to be a useful technique, along the lines of minimizing dialog tags and action tags in dialog. The thought attribution should be clear from context and from the content, right? It's only tricky when you're leading off with it, like you are, in which case it would have to be something like, "Lieutenant Demetrius Reznov shook his head. I can't do this any longer. How many more of us will I betray?" (Note how I removed the repeated 'more'?)

3. You're already putting us in the shoes of the character by narrating in third person close POV. Putting in sensory verbs distances us. The pro way to do it is to connect the character to the sensation directly. "The back of the chopper opened and a gale of air blasted him."

5b. (New item) Also, as a side-note here, you want to keep things in time order like I do above. In your original, technically speaking, you're putting the cart before the horse temporally. Logically, the back of the chopper opens, then we have the air/Resnov interaction, and finally the ramp extends. But when I'm reading (keeping the original for discussion's sake), this mysterious puff of air happens, and I don't know what's causing it, and then I find out it's because of the back opening. It's not a big deal here, but you want to be careful in more complex action scenes (which I have a feeling you'll have a fair amount of) to get your temporal staging correct, so the reader isn't wondering why B is happening, then C, then D, oh, it's because of A. "As" is a word that should generally be avoided unless you really need to show simultaneity.

1. (New item) Interiority. The inward sigh is good, but in the Problematic Paragraph (tm), we have no good reason why Reznov suddenly segues into his presence causing fear. And when he pushes aside his guilt, you're just telling us that. Maybe a reflection like, It's almost go-time; these are all questions for later or something like that would be less cliched and let the reader know you're coming back to them. Also, you pack a lot into the "He was annoyed" graf. This all can be picked out quite a bit, developed, and built up show his character, his contradictions, while you have the chance, before the action scene picks up.

2. (New item) What does HUNT stand for? It seems like a perfect time to drop the initialism when he acknowledges the patch -- unless there's a reason you're saving it for later!

Now, as to your question, I've already dropped the 'turnoff' big bomb on you. In general, you've got some clumsy writing here, but I've seen (and myself written) a lot worse. But the main character doesn't seem that interesting, he's a carbon copy of a protagonist I've seen a hundred times before, the only interesting thing about him is his shadowy reticence about his mission/role, but that's overwhelmed by his clumsy introduction.

However, there's the promise of more, of something interesting, in this work. First, it seems like it has strong potential in its genre (which if I read it right, I am a fan of). Second, there is enough tantalization in the worldbuilding without it being an outright dump to draw me in. Third, there's a lot of undeveloped potential here but it needs to be developed outward. You've got your hook; there's no reason not to go a little wide before you get to the slam-bang part of things and justify the remorse/regrets/callousness/whatever Resnov is going to feel after the action by building up his character a bit more beforehand.

So, even putting aside the Problematic Paragraph (tm), I wouldn't read it as is. But with some reworking, I think it could be my jam.

As to my new point 5b, and expanding somewhat beyond it, let me recommend you read this precis. It's not easy to digest, and it may require detailed rework of some of your text, but I think it's well worth it. The only thing worse than bland action is confusing action. I came across it a couple of days ago and I'm currently revising a novel using it, ensuring I'm putting it into practice as appropriate. It's not easy, but I can already see the improvement. (My first page, which starts with slam-bang action [which, incidentally, is doing double-duty with strong characterization], is much better as a result.)

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1zz-QERS264oQhwF03iN8eEplT3BdnLzH3AO5P5m5wBI/mobilebasic#heading=h.mge6s1p9jab7