tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post1042077853452884836..comments2024-03-28T18:57:15.124-06:00Comments on Wash Park Prophet: CSAR-X Lessons Not Learned?Andrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-38776932080994393142007-07-29T07:15:00.000-06:002007-07-29T07:15:00.000-06:00The comments attributed to McCain are NOT those of...The comments attributed to McCain are NOT those of the Senator, but are taken from a letter sent TO the Senator by Dr. John F. Guilmartin, Jr...a former USAF helicopter rescue pilot who retired 20 years ago...<BR/><BR/>Sadly, Dr Guilmartin is misinformed as to the current requirements for the new CSAR helicopter, based upon lessons learned in large part from recent events, and changing battle field conditions levied more than 20 years since he retired.<BR/><BR/>True, USAF rescue helo's can be refueled in flight today, but there is a point where RISK to the tanker acft from enemy threats becomes unacceptable (if your tanker gets shot down...they you do NOT have the magical long range do you?), this is why the range requirement becomes a major issue for any of the CSAR helo candidates.<BR/><BR/>As to payload...Dr Guilmartin was NOT a member of the USAF's CSAR-X Source Selection team. He did NOT read any of the proposals tendered by the vendors, and therefore cannot speak from an informed position as to how "payload" has been measured by the USAF, nor can he evaluate how each contender's payload capability impacts mission performance.<BR/><BR/>In a nutshell...Dr Guilmartin uninformed comments based upon his outdated understanding of CSAR's concept of operations has done a disservice to his CSAR brethren and has helped to spread confusion providing a disservice to Sen McCain.<BR/><BR/>While I'm sure Sen McCain means well...he can't be blamed for poor oversight when his staff is feeding him information from poor sources.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-35903760214002722152007-07-09T14:34:00.000-06:002007-07-09T14:34:00.000-06:00You could be right, but, if so, I'd welcome you to...You could be right, but, if so, I'd welcome you to provide some of those facts, rather than simply name calling and relying on your personal authority (which when you post as "anonymous" isn't very authoritative).<BR/><BR/>Also please note that, rather than "buying into the Media and Political Sludge," I have very carefully simply noted that the arguments made by a couple of Senators sound reasonable to me on their face, and suggested that the Air Force defend its position with facts.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-24989349432215859462007-07-09T12:46:00.000-06:002007-07-09T12:46:00.000-06:00First of All, You're buying into the Media and Pol...First of All, You're buying into the Media and Political Sludge that is intended to "Buy" time for the losers. Look at ALL of the facts (not the Media coverage), do some ~actual~ research, and you'll see the USAF chose the right bird for the job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com