I do not like the V-22 Osprey.

Plus, you can't beat the 25mm atop an M-113 with anything.

Even Ma Deuce looks askance at that kind of punch.

The V22 looks impressive, but that seems to be it's only redeeming feature and looks don't count for anything.
What concerns me most is the safety. If a plane suffers engine failure it can glide for a while, a helicopter can auto-gyrate. A tilt rotor aircraft will drop out of the sky. Until someone comes up with a solution to this the concept is just too dangerous.
As for upgrading the M113, I believe that a few nations have produced versions with better armour and weapons that the original battle taxi configuration proving there is still life in the design.

I heard that most of the kinks with the Osprey have been worked out (the last crash was in 2000 IIRC: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-losses.htm ). Most of the failures were due to lack of maintainance, etc. caused by Klintoon's defunding of the military. The only major problem today has been obtaining the necessary spare parts to maintain the aircraft. Remember the B-26? In 1943 no pilot in the Army Aircorps wanted to fly it until Colonel Doolittle flew it and said it was a great aircraft just that pilots were more comfortable landing at lower speeds... I think this is just the case with the V-22. The entire aircraft has been re done sense those crash days. The MV-22/CV-22 is like any other new technology which takes time to "season". Unfortunately, working out all the bugs has been quite expensive...

I'd take that website with a grain of salt. Carlton Meyer (the creator of the website)also claimed that we invaded Iraq for the oil. He also seems to be quite similar to that assclown Mike Sparks.

We already have the Bradley, which is generally superior to to the M113 anyways. But, I'm sure a modified M113 could be a decent urban combat vehicle.

Carlton Meyer lost a lot of readers because of his skewed political posture... but a lot of what he says about hardware systems is right on the money.
We have the Bradley... yes... but it is a much bigger and heavier vehicle than what the Stryker LAV is supposed to be. The Stryker LAV isn't even what the Stryker LAV was supposed to be. The Bradley needs as much logistical support as an M1, which defeats the purpose behind it.
These wheeled LAV's are not rocket science... we've had them for ever with the Marines, Canada has them, most Armed Forces around the world has them... we were just very late to the game in the US Army. And when we finally arrived, we arrived, past the due date, over budget, over sized, and over weight, but we did arrive in style and the Strykers are proving to be a hell of a good fighting vehicle.
The V-22's on the other hand - completely different story. The promise of the V-22 was more lift capacity, longer range, with a higher top speed for reduced flight time. Those are good promises. Those promises made the Armed Forces BEG to develop the damn things.
They have proven to be faster than the helicopters they are supposed to replace. That is true. But they burn way more fuel, have in most cases a shorter combat radius, and can not carry nearly as much as the birds they are supposed to replace. The V-22 is the Modern Day Sgt York. Just because they haven't crashed one doesn't mean all the bugs are ironed out. They still blind the pilots and crew when they land on anything other than a meticulously swept runway. They are still unarmed. The "Combat Missions" they are flying - are not into or out of actual "Combat Zones". They are ferrying small items and personel to and from secured locations. A horribly expensive taxi and not a combat vehicle by anyone's standards.

Good points. A jet-powered Osprey would probably be superior to the version we have now. AFAIK the Osprey isn't and wasn't intended to be a combat vehicle, rather a transport that bridges the gap between aircraft and helicopters. Take from that whatever you will.

Well, let's look at what the branches wanted them for.
The Navy wanted them for high speed long range SEAL insertion and extractions.
The Navy also wanted them for ASW work. Sonar dipping to locate targets and dropping torpeadoes to prosecute those targets. That means quickly moving to different locations, gaining and dropping altitude, holding stations.
The Marines wanted them for high speed assaults, extractions, observation, and supply work supporting the assaults.
The Air Force wanted them for high speed long range insertions and extractions of their Parajumpers for Pilot Recovery.
The Army, they were hoping these things could replace the Blackhawks which at the time of all the hooplah, were having issues with flying near power lines and crashing. They then backed off once they saw the problems so they switched their efforts to the LHX program. Which also got cut.
Now, pretty much everything everyone wanted the Osprey for... was Combat Mission Profiles. Of which the V-22 fails at all of them. The bird can not do simple Combat Maneuvering... a fast ditching of altitude in VTOL or transitional flight means the bird suddenly decides to drop like a stone because of rotor wing stalls and that nasty vortice problem.
Using a jet engine instead of a bladed turboshaft engine would solve some problems... but add more. You think the brownouts are bad with those big slow rotors? A jet wash would magnify the problem, making landing on anything other than a carrier deck a complete nightmare as well as increase the already crazy fuel consumption.
Fact of the matter is, a Tilt Rotor is just a failure at the conceptual level.
The only way I can see the tilt rotor design as having any sort of value out side of fiction... is in the area of RPV/UAV.

My biggest beef is there isn't a gun on it. As to the safety and problems with it, sounds to me like the same crap the F-16 had to deal with getting off the ground, so I say only time will tell.

Hmm...I'm sure future versions of the Osprey will have most of the problems worked out...they're planning on making a larger V-44 version that's to replace the C-130.

Rather than go the failed Osprey route (those over huge rotors and the extra wing space just make it a TARGET), why not utilize the Harrier variable vector thrust system, rather than shoving those huge, easily shootable ramjets onto long, easily shootable wings?

"As to the safety and problems with it, sounds to me like the same crap the F-16 had to deal with getting off the ground,"

Problem is, time has told. They've been working on this tilt rotor design for as long as I can remember. Nope, correction, longer by far than I've been alive.
Starting here
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10326

And Here.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=597

And I'm not sure but I think they've killed a lot of pilots.

Dump over-the-horizon landings and use improved navalised Blackhawks.

Blackhawks are nice... but I would say we should be adopting these bad boys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NH90

When in doubt, get a Sikorsky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-92

22 troops, 190 miles per hour (6 mph faster than the NH90), and 921 mile range (almost double the NH90).

The NH90 looks prettier, but two more rifles, a little faster and twice the stretch sell me.

Isn't that going to become the new Marine One?

That'd be neat. But I'd love to see our boys riding a Sikorsky.

You just don't ride a BMW motorbike when you've got Harleys.