I read through the linked article on the Osprey. Quite a few incidents were pilot error. Others had to do either with fairly normal development issues with new equipment and/or the electronic component management systems that seem to be part of all new stuff these days. Heck, every vehicle I've owned since 1996 has had a gas pedal that talks to the engine management system/power train control module. The controls on many/most newer aircraft tell the computer what the pilot wants to do, the computer decides what it's response is. In some cases, the computer is the only way to keep the bird in the air. I'm not sure that's the way to go.
In times past, a lot of development issues were little known outside the armed forces/flight industry. Over time a slew of aircraft became known as "widow makers" during development/early deployment. Many went on to have long and distinguished service histories.
Without access to the RFP, I'd have to guess that the new bird is intended to supplement, not replace the Blackhawk*. If so, the Sikorsky design would seem a better fit from a O&M standpoint, but I don't know the mission parameters. I strongly suspect there's an ego thing here where if the flyboys and jarheads have tiltrotors, they want one too (Ours is better!). Time will tell on any comparisons. Won't be the first (or last) time the DOD blew a product selection.
BTW, I don't live all that far from Quantico. While the Osprey was officially grounded, I saw one in flight several times. Impressive to see, has a rather distinctive sound.
*OK, that's just the Army's toy. But, I'd be curious to see how something like that would operate off naval vessels. Or, for that matter around them. The helo isn't dead.
.
