Our thanks goes out to an alert DT reader who brought to our attention a mitigating fact in the ongoing (fueled mostly by the protesting parties) debate over the CSAR-X program.
On August 21, DefenseTech posted a letter forwarded to us written by a former top general in the Air Force search and rescue community who had some pretty harsh words for the source selection officials and the ultimate decision to award Boeing with the CSAR-X contract.
He signed the letter with his name and former rank only. But what he left out is more revealing than what he put in his letter.
It turns out Maj. Gen. Richard Comer (ret.) is the executive vice president of Aerospace Integration Corporation based in Mary Esther, Fl. AIC announced with great glee in February of last year its selection as a partner with Sikorsky to do systems integration work for the companys HH-92 CSAR-X bid. Both Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin are protesting Boeings win.
In Comers letter, he outlines his credentials in the opening paragraph, but declines to mention hes employed by a Sikorsky subcontractor. He impugns the motives of the source selection officials in the Air Force, saying they were probably the victims of group think though he caveated his remarks by saying the officers were conscientious and honest in their decision.
Our reader knows Comer and was stung by his crass assertion without ever revealing that he has a financial interest in Boeings demise, selling his soul for 30 pieces of Sikorsky silver.
And he raises a very valid point. The source selectors in the DoD are precluded by law from discussing any of their motivations beyond the stated specifications and how the selected aircraft met them. But that hasnt stopped the protesters from pumping out info to folks like us here at DefenseTech undercutting Boeings win and fueling the fire of protest. The government folks can say nothing while the fur is flying.
Sober people can debate the strengths and weaknesses of the Boeing win. Were agnostic on the issue other than to say that it seems the Air Force picked a heavy lift helicopter for a medium lift job. Hearing the Boeing folks talk about the superior range, speed and payload of the HH-47 was kind of like hearing Boeing say the C-17 is better than the Lockheed Martin C-130of course, theyre different aircraft in separate classes.
But its starting to get to the point where the debate has devolved into the arcane world of defense contracting procedure and who dotted which i and crossed what t and when. At the same time, America has hundreds of thousands of troops worldwide in combat who will need this capability and it may start getting to the point where the bickering comes at the cost of our troops lives.
We want to extend our deep thanks to our readers for providing us important information that helps advance all the stories posted on DefenseTech. Its difficult for us to read all the comments on each post, so if you have crucial information that can help expand on the posts, please send an email to the EDITOR.
Wait a minute, are you telling me that blogs are peer-reviewed and respond to that review? I thought only the main stream media was capable of doing that.
Hopefully the points he makes arent completely overshadowed by the apparent conflict of interest in being objective. Though, it is hard to imagine he would have thought nobody would eventually have noticed his connection.
Hey guys,
I wrote the letter because I think the H-47 is not the right helicopter for the need. I did work for AIC and AIC had a contract with Sikorsky. AIC got bought out and threw me over the side. They had no room for me after that, so I left and became a consultant. I have advised AIC a couple of times since, mostly on SOF and overseas business. I do not have an affiliation with Sikorsky, but I do have friends in that company–as I do in Boeing and Lockheed.
There will be plenty of Chinooks available for the high altitude missions which may come up. There will also be some V-22s, an aircaft I am on record for supporting in greater numbers. The AF rescue mission will need to deploy quickly, fit in lots of LZs and will benefit from not flying the largest, hotest, and most expensive helicopter. That’s all I said. It’s true.
Rich Comer
Good Morning Guys,
Good work Christian. This story would be shocking if it didn’t apply to many other defense projects.
The fact that underpaid Flag Officers can jump from the Pentagon to the Defense Industry and peddle their influence with the next generation of Generals who command huge budgets that go largly unquestioned/unsupervised till it’s to late, is a major problem in the pentagon.
Maybe the Chinese PLA’s 9mm solution is the right answer for Generals like R. Comer and the Industry Executives who enticed him into this behavior they are all guilty of public corruption.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Ladies and Gents,
I used to work for General Comer at AFSOC, I don’t believe for a minute he would do a corporate sell out to keep a job. I believe as always that he put the information out that he believed was critical for putting the best equipment in our Combat Search and Rescue crews hands. Point Blank. Look at his career…you don’t put that much sweat and blood into something and then sell it out.
Just my two cents,
Major Rob Fleming
I have friends on both sides of this debate on CSAR — they work for the competing contractors. I knew all of them at the Air Force Academy where we were either classmates or in Rich Comer’s case he was an underclassman in the same squadron. I do not believe any of them are motivated by dollars — they all believe in providing the best product for search and rescue.
Don’t be distracted from the substance of Rich’s remarks based on who he now works for.