UPDATE: DefenseTech has learned that while Maj. Gen. Comer did work at AIC when the company was a subcontractor to Sikorsky during CSAR-X competition, he was acting only as a consultant to AIC at the time he wrote the note posted on DefenseTech last week — but not on the CSAR-X account.
Maj. Gen. Comer replies:
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, hottest, loudest, and most expensive helicopter. That’s all I said. It’s true.
We again want to thank alert readers, and Maj. Gen. Comer, for clearing the record…
– Christian
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
I am a little confused. Why would AIC still have Maj. Gen. Comer listed as the Exec. VP if he was only a consultant? Just curious.
I am a little confused. Why would AIC still have Maj. Gen. Comer listed as the Exec. VP if he was only a consultant? Just curious.
http://www.aicworld.com/index.cfm?section=management_team
Their last news item is September 25, 2006 so it seems to reason they are sluggish in updating their Website:
http://www.aicworld.com/index.cfm?section=news
The reference the MG makes to AIC being bought out appears to have occurred Q2 of 2006:
http://www.vishalsoin.com/investments.htm
R&W magazine (Sept 06) says MTC Technologies, Inc. “bought all of AIC
Seems like a good time to summarize: Occam’s Razor seems to be the best guide.
1. The General has voiced long-held personal, and dare we say ‘expert’ opinions as to what is the best airframe.
2. For at least a portion of the time, he was in the employ of one of the competitors.
3. There is no detectable, material, differences in his opinion as his employment status changed.
Therefore (to me) his employment status is/was irellevant. However, as an ‘expert’, his arguments and opinions would be of interest wouldn’t they? Especially to aerospace companies trying to divine what the military wants next, eh?
BTW: A buddy of mine knew Comer at Herbie (Hurlburt) and isn’t really a big fan, but he agrees with the General’s opinion of the H-47: wrong platform for CSAR.
So much for that idea…and I was so hoping for it, too!
Is it so hard to believe that General Comer’s opinions could be based on his years experience and intimite ties with SOF operations? The points he makes do not lean towards a selection of the HH92 per se, as the same arguments and rationale could be made for the US101.
Seem’s like much blabber about nothing-The Gen is one sided and not in favor of the Boeing product and is collecting from Sikorsky thru AIC-how do you get thrown over the side but are still listed as Exec VP-SEEMS very one sided.
The facts are a contract competition was held with a fly off and the Lockheed and Sikorsky products failed could not do what the contract asked it to do-The Boeing product far execeeded the others and was selected.
The Army SOF forces (160th SOAR) have been using the 47E and 47G in the GWOT since it started for direct combat missions. The other thing to note here is the MH60K is not being used in that fight as it can’t perform that mission-not powerfull enough no lift no range and on and on.
Lockheed and Sikorsky quit whinning and move on.
>>The facts are a contract competition was held with a fly off and the Lockheed and Sikorsky products failed could not do what the contract asked it to do-The Boeing product far execeeded the others and was selected.
Facts? What facts? Have you seen the “contract”? Have you read the RFP?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. All 3 helos were rated as at least “Acceptable” for block 0 performance by the Air Force in their FPR in Sept 06. Nobody “failed could (sic) not do what the contract asked it to do”.
Response to C.Foskey post: August 29, 2007 07:05 AM
“Is it so hard to believe that General Comer’s opinions could be based on his years experience and intimate ties with SOF operations? The points he makes do not lean towards a selection of the HH92 per se, as the same arguments and rationale could be made for the US101.”
What I find “hard to believe” is that the General knew at all what the USAF’s actual requirements were for the new acft, and wondering why if he didn
I think his rationale for opposing the 47 is perfectly clear from his letter to congressman Murtha. Anyone with 24 years of SOF aviation experience should well be considered an “expert opinion” regardless of intimate knowledge specific AF requirements for a paticular contract. Perhaps Gen Cormer believes the AF requirements were what was flawed, if that is what led to the conclusion that the 47 was the best for CSAR based upon his experience with AC in that role. It very well may be that he, as well as many others, believe the AF specified a need for a smaller helicopter than the 47 from the earliest stages of this whole debacle, and takes exception to the fact that a heavy lift airframe was selected. Either way, I obviously cannot speak for the retired general.
In response to C. Foskey at August 29, 2007 12:27 PM
“Anyone with 24 years of SOF aviation experience should well be considered an “expert opinion” regardless of intimate knowledge specific AF requirements for a particular contract.”
I commend you for being up front in your work on the S-92 program…and would add since you did in fact work in this area, you would “know” what the AF asked for in the RFP for the next CSAR acft.
However, I also think it would foolish to ask YOU to build a proposal w/out telling you what the requirements are…and equally foolish to claim to know what machine may best meet these needs w/out knowing what the requirements were in the first place.
But for the sake of argument…Does the “anyone” you refer to extend to those with 24+ years of SOF/CSAR experience who disagree with the General, such as those who participated on the source selection team?
Does this “anyone” w/ 24+ yrs include the current AFSOC Commander who approved the requirements that went out to industry?
Does this “anyone” include the Air Force Chief of Staff and Office of Sec Def’s Joint Requirements Oversight Counsel who concurred with the requirements as well?
Or does this pass go only to those with 24+ yrs experience of those who share your opinion?
The other thing is that the Air Force’s hands are tied. By law, they cannot outline their ultimate rationale for the selection of the HH-47. Sikorsky, Lockheed, and critics like Major General Comer have much less restrictions.
I think one of two solutions is in order: Eitehr place a gag order on all companies involved during the protest process, or let the Air Force defend its decisions in public, and with the same PR tactics used by those who do not like them.
Harold, the thing is, the Air Force has tried to defend themselves.
It’s not like they have any information that we don’t – the Air Force chose the more expensive helicopter, and one that, by Boeing’s own admission, was not fit for the mission. If anything, they haven’t answered the common sense questions coming from the warfighter.
Also, doesn’t the AF have the burden of proof after the sweetheart deal they gave Boeing in the tanker scandal.
I guess my question is, after the 2002 tanker scandal, is the Air Force still in bed with Boeing? And when will the needs of the troops take precedence?
I’m sorry, Harold. My brother is a Marine, so I guess I just get a little fired up when I feel like politics trumps what is best for the troops.
The Chinook is a good copter – there’s just no meausre by which it is a search and rescue helicopter.
Response to Matt’s August 31, 2007 05:06 PM Post:
“Harold, the thing is, the Air Force has tried to defend themselves.”
- In what way has the USAF had the opportunity to defend its decision in the public forum?
- No service is permitted to release and source selection proprietary data in public.
It’s not like they have any information that we don’t – the Air Force chose the more expensive helicopter, and one that, by Boeing’s own admission, was not fit for the mission. If anything, they haven’t answered the common sense questions coming from the warfighter.
- What information does the public have the equals the information the source selection team was privy to?
- How did Boeing “admit” their candidate was not “fit for the mission”?
- The USAF is not permitted by law from listing, item by item how they rated each candidate against the hundreds of validated requirements.
- Sadly, all we have is the “bottom line” dollar quote released by GAO, but we don’t know what is IN that quote that may effect price.
- You may wish to pick an aircraft that others will take into battle with the lowest cost, but this cost doesn’t necessarily reflect equal or better capability than a higher price solution.
- This is where the DoD acquisition term “best value” comes into play…it’s not how MUCH one spends, but what they get for the money.
Also, doesn’t the AF have the burden of proof after the sweetheart deal they gave Boeing in the tanker scandal.
- There were at least 20 complains raised in the original “protest” and the GAO upheld ONE.
- The one point upheld related to logistical cost across the life cycle,
- GAO did NOT find any systemic wrong doing by the USAF.
- It would appear the USAF met the “burden of proof” in many ways.
I guess my question is, after the 2002 tanker scandal, is the Air Force still in bed with Boeing? And when will the needs of the troops take precedence?
- In BED w/ Boeing?
- But not in bed w/ Lockheed who is the nations largest defense contractor?
- And NOT in bed w/ Sikorsky who has received the “no-bid” contract to build the Marines next generation heavy lift helo the MH-53K and hundreds of new H-60′s for the Navy?
- Needs of the troops?
- Would these include the CSAR troops who WROTE the CSAR-X requirements?
- And perhaps the CSAR troops who performed the evaluation?