Ex-Lockheed Engineer Says F-22 Skin 'Defective'

Talkback! Manufacturing.net is pleased to provide you an opportunity to share your opinions on any of the news stories or articles on our site. We reserve the right to edit/remove comments.
Viewing 18 User Comments	Add a Comment
F-22 11/11/2009 4:25:00 PM I like new fighter jets as much as the next guy but overdeveloping this technology does nothing to enhance our national security given the current threat pattern. It would be like building working on enhancing battleship technology.
Bet it happens all the time 11/11/2009 4:44:00 PM This doesn't surprise me -- I've experienced similar. As an engineer employed by a contractor doing military R&D, I found that laws of physics prevented realization of a design objective without endangering certain coworkers. Such can be the nature of R&D. However my employer pressured me to make this compromise anyway. Unable to break the laws of physics on short notice, I held firm to protecting my coworkers and was asked to leave the company. We all recall the engineer who warned of the infamous space shuttle o-ring failure. In the absence of extraordinary extenuating circumstances, for profit to trump safety is simply unethical -- period.
Ex-Lockheed Engineer Says F-22 Skin 'Defective' 11/11/2009 5:03:00 PM I still not get it, engineers are intelligent people and still some of the do not get it money is more important, than anything else....
F-22 11/11/2009 5:26:00 PM Until we have developed UAV fighters, we will need the F-22. Since we'll probably have to equip Iraq with F-15 and F-16 fighters at some point to support their military independence, we'll need to assure our ability to maintain swift air superiority in the likely event that we find ourselves at odds with a future, superseding Iraqi government. Thus, having aircraft that are vastly superior to the ones we've provided makes sense.
F22 11/11/2009 5:47:00 PM It sounds like a great deal, until 10 years from now Russia creeps 50 years ahead of us and becomes the new superpower, Obama needs money to give him 8 years, after that he just does not care. rather run us broke with a carbon tax.
I smell an AP rat 11/11/2009 6:02:00 PM In fact, this lawsuit might very well be hinky - maybe Olsen wants some "whistleblower" money? Or he may be disgruntled for some personal reason? We don't know if he even had any particular expertise in these coatings - Bluestein doesn't tell us. Was this one of these documentation disputes - nothing wrong with the actual product, just some trivial detail in the voluminous supporting documentation the military seems to require? If there is a real performance flaw in the coatings, surely the military can have found this in its acceptance testing? But again, Bluestein doesn't tell us. Bluestein's real goal here seems to be propagandizing for Obama administration policies - his last paragraph about "critics'" (that his, Bluestein's own) opinions on the need for this aircraft is completely irrelevant to the dispute at hand. Still got the thrills running up your leg, Bluestein?
Disgruntled workers 11/12/2009 3:12:00 AM You never know if these guys are right or not. There are plenty of contractors that don't know what they're talking about and if they get canned they claim some kind of fraud by their former employer. This would be one of those fields where few people really know what's going on.
Let's make 'em in China 11/12/2009 7:45:00 AM Let's have them built in China, I'll bet defects like this will be overshadowed by far worse discrepancies.
I have participated in performance testing 11/12/2009 9:06:00 AM of a design for NASA. I can guarantee that if something passes or fails a test (any test), then there is always sufficient documentation. That being said, test validity is pretty much dependent upon those individuals who set up and conduct the tests. The final "acceptance" tests always rest with those who are making the purchase (the military, in this case). While it is not a trivial task, verifying the "stealth effectiveness" of an aircraft is pretty simple. You fly it and see if radar will detect it.
The Great equalizer....money. 11/12/2009 12:42:00 PM Don't worry about the Russians. Money is everything, true here and also true there. Russians do not want the repeat the 1980's, bankrupting themselves to build star wars. They want to make money instead. The U.S.A. military technology has to be good enough so that we can dominate the international arms trade. That and Hollywood are the only remaining industries dominated by the United States.
Ex-Lockheed Engineer Says F-22 Skin 'Defective' 11/12/2009 3:56:00 PM it is hard to believe that Source control documents and Testing of the product and its associated documents and in-line application methods documents and Final sell-off control documents, some how get reworded to show compliance with so many inspectors involed in each purchase and use ..who bought off the testing labs??
Happens all the time? 11/13/2009 1:36:00 PM Laws of physics also says that if you cross the street and get hit by a car you get injured. Yet millions of people cross the street everyday and many still get hit by cars. It's called acceptable risk and if you don't cross the street, you never get to the other side. I also agree that this is a none story as the AP writer's real point was Obama canning the program and then he started to dig for dirt.
No way to know... 11/16/2009 1:52:00 PM Whether this guy has a valid complaint or not, because all of that data is going to be classified. If if it does get dragged out into the public domain, it will only serve to compromise the weapon's effectiveness, which I'm sure our enemies would be happy to see. So for now we will just have to do the same as the AP and speculate. I do agree that the timing of this story seems suspicious considering the govt. decision not to proceed with more F-22 production.
Fearfulness 11/16/2009 5:11:00 PM Dear fellow fearful patriots - as the citizens of the lone country that outspends the next 14 countries in military budgets altogether, I can only feel sorry for your pathetic arguments about threat level and impotance of hightech scrap metal engineering such as this UFO (useless flying object) - go on tell the US people how much the US is threatend by non-existence military forces and then claim that US government spending is out of bounce - what does a reasonable person call such tactic? None of you does know apprently - I'm happy to see at least one piece of military junk getting the boot, but military junkies in the US seem to be the norm !
to: Happens all the time? 11/17/2009 11:25:00 AM I understand acceptable risk as do most people (I think). The risk in my story was unacceptable.
to: Fearfulness 11/17/2009 11:34:00 AM If you're going to refer to arguments as "pathetic", it would be useful if you provided some rational for this claim. Although your post fails to make a logical argument, I think the gist of your comment is that you think there are not threats in the world and military technology is a waste of money. If you read history you'll see that those with the most military power generally get to run things. Its not necessarily right, but that's just the way it is.
RE: Fearfulness 11/17/2009 1:18:00 PM Dear Osama bin Laden, Your comments here are pathetic and useless. When you attacked America, you expected us to cower in fearfulness, but that's not the response you got. Go ahead, keep trying to attack. Your buddy Obama won't be in office in a couple of years, then we will continue to destroy your enterprise of "terrorism." We will have weapons like the F-22 to do that. All you have succeeded in doing is making us angry. Americans don't live in fear, we go out and kick a$$. Signed - A fellow patriot.
re: 'just the way it is' 11/17/2009 1:44:00 PM Pathetic: what military force in the world is there on record to threaten US continental securority after the colapse of the Warshaw pact? You answer ... but I say no country. The threat to the US is the finance disaster economy this country has brought to the world and now the world population overwhelmingly rejects US capitalism - fact#2 ... "most military power generally get to run things", where is your fact on that bold statement? Korea? Cuba?Vietnam? Iraq? All countries the US military has touched, devastated one could say - but what does the US run there?? Ahmm read more modern history I do advise! A lot of the US population seems to be exposed to too much sun for such Fata Morgana to occur - the Dollar will likely loose it's role as World currency soon ... then you probably will see clearly who 'gets to run things' in the World ...

Subscribe | About Us | Feedback