That article on the crash was bald-faced speculation.
Me, I'm done commenting in regards to this mishap, except to say that there's no f-g conspiracy. For example, as far as the CSMU (flight data recorder) most tactical aircraft DO NOT HAVE THEM. I'm not surprised it was overlooked before the site was destroyed. Boneheaded, maybe. Conspiracy? Let it go. Keep trying to find the shooter on the grassy knoll or something.
The pilots in the program are Marines and Airmen who want to provide the best possible support to our troops on the ground. They don't want to endanger their lives or those of their passengers; rather, they want to provide the fastest, most flexible assault support possible. To a man, they'll say that the V-22 does this. Keep in mind that almost all of them save the new lleutenants have already flown combat missions in other rotorcraft. They know what they're talking about.
The V-22s is lightyears ahead of any other rotorcraft currently produced. Its capabilities are far beyond its competitors. The question is really whether this enhanced performance is worth the extra dollars. I can't say. I don't write the checks. I can say that if I was given the choice of doing assault support in an Osprey, or any other rotorcraft in the world today, I'd still pick the V-22.
Besides, it's OBE (overcome by events) anyways. 15 years ago, we might have been able to buy 60s or 101s or whatever off the shelf. We're now almost completely transitioned in the USAF and halfway in the USMC. Do you really think it's remotely cost-effective to replace what's already bought, change the training and logistics pipelines, change milcon facilities planning, etc, etc. Ain't gonna happen, so why are we arguing? Might as well argue that God should've made the sky yellow. There might be some good rationales for it, but it's not going to change anything.