Ex-F-22 engineer to sue Lockheed for stealth design

From Flight International's Stephen Trimble article and DEW Line blog:

DATE:30/06/09
SOURCE:Flight International
Ex-F-22 engineer to sue Lockheed for stealth design
By Stephen Trimble


A stealth expert on the F-117 and B-2 programmes intends to file suit against Lockheed Martin later this week for concealing alleged deficiencies with the stealth coatings for the F-22.
The pending lawsuit accuses Lockheed of knowingly providing defective coatings used to reduce the aircraft's radar and visual signatures, and covering up the problem by adding 272kg (600lbs) worth of extra layers.
The lawsuit comes after the Department of Justice declined an opportunity under the Fair Claims Act to take up the case under seal.
Now, Darrol Olsen, who was fired by Lockheed in 1999, has turned to the US District Court in California's central division to seek justice.
Olsen wants to be re-instated with back-pay plus interest since losing his job more than a decade ago, says Samuel Boyd, Olsen's attorney. Olsen also is asking the court to order Lockheed to pay the US government $50 million for each of the 183 F-22's currently ordered, says Boyd. That amount equates roughly to the cost of the allegedly compromised stealth technology on each jet.
Lockheed was not immediately able to comment on the lawsuit.
Olsen began his Lockheed career in 1979 at Skunk Works, where he worked on developing new composite materials for the F-117, according to court documents. Olsen bounced between the F-117 and Northrop's B-2 programme during the 1980s, finally returning to support Northrop's B-2 flight test programme in 1990.
In 1995, Olsen finally joined Lockheed's materials and processes engineering group in Marietta, Georgia, to work on the low observables system for the F-22.
The F-22 requires three layers of coatings to reduce its radar signature, according to Olsen's statements in his case.
A primer seals the surface of the aircraft skin and helps with the adhesion of the next layer. Next, a conductive coating with silver flakes mixed with polyurethane materials is applied to keep radar waves from bouncing back to the emitter source. Finally, a topcoat layer has properties, including metallic materials, to reduce heat, which lowers the risk of radar detection.
"If those coatings are not effective, the other stealth measures of the aircraft's design are negated," the lawsuit says.
Olsen claims he witnessed Lockheed management misleading USAF officials about the quality of the stealth coatings. Olsen's supervisors instructed him not to speak at meetings with USAF officials.
In 1998, Olsen claims he refused to participate in an award ceremony that falsely honoured his team for solving problems he knew still persisted.
Lockheed also schemed to avoid government inspections of the coatings, secretly shipping batches of the stealth materials to the homes, the lawsuit states.
Although Olsen was fired for "failure to follow instructions" in 1999, the lawsuit says, he believes the problems have never been fully addressed.
In March 2008, an F-22 sustained major damage after a small strip of stealth coating inside the engine nacelle peeled off and was ingested by the fan blades of the Pratt & Whitney F119 engine.
In November, John Young, who stepped down in May as under secretary of defence for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters he was concerned about the F-22's stealth, or low observable, maintenance requirements.
"I would highlight in general the maintenance on the airplane is too high," Young said. "They're struggling with some of the LO and other issues, and there's clearly work that needs to be done there to make that airplane both capable and affordable to operate."

Ex-Lockheed engineer sues Lockheed for F-22 stealth fraud
By Stephen Trimble on June 29, 2009 5:01 PM

Lockheed Martin has been sued by a former engineer who claims the company knowingly supplied defective stealth coatings for the F-22, according to the legal document posted below. I'm following up with the former engineer's attorney and Lockheed Martin for further comment.

[UPDATE 1: The lawsuit was filed by the attorney for Deepwater whistleblower Michael DeKort, who writes on CGreport.com that he helped Darrol Olsen file the lawsuit about the F-22.]

[UPDATE 2: I should note that Darrol Olsen and the attorney are seeking "all appropriate" damages. According to the whistleblower statute, that includes re-instatement and restored seniority, two times the amount of back pay lost plus interest and compensation for attorney's fees. Olsen says in the lawsuit he was dismissed by Lockheed in 1999 for "failure to follow instructions".]

[UPDATE 3: Olsen's attorney is traveling in Europe. I am holding off on a news story until I can speak with him. Check for updates here either later tonight or early tomorrow. So far, Lockheed Martin has no comment.]

[UPDATE 4: Click here to read Flight's news story. The document shown below is a draft copy of a lawsuit expected to be filed later this week. It was posted prematurely on the web by a consultant to Darrol Olsen's lawyer, Samuel Boyd.

Olsen's complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/16864124 - worth reading. I wonder if his revelations won't attract foreign technical intelligence.

Another put out man? Looking at Raptors being serviced at Elmendorf under snow, washed with water with technicians walking on the wings makes me think that guy stuck in late 90s with his technology level claims.

Interesting read, full version on scribed... a couple of problems however.
1. The aircraft OUTPERFORMS the Air Force requirements in speed, supercruise, turning and range.
2. Even if he "was" correct in 1999 if the problem was fixed they may pay him off just to shut him up and keep info out of public records.
3. If the problems haven't been fixed, for reasons of national security it will be tossed out of court and he will still be paid off.

No matter what happens, this never goes to court and he gets paid. It will all go away quietly. The Air Force and LM will both put out statements he is wrong (even if he isn't) cite national security and close the case. This guy gets paid no matter what, which is all he wants anyways... most likely.

By SMSgt Mac on June 30, 2009 6:10 AM
Coincidentally, today at work I had a conversation with a materials expert on a past LO program. She told me this was nothing new to her, as she was brought in to defend her company against many similar claims. Based upon our discussion, and without further elaboration because I have no intent of assisting any ambulance chasers, I predict the 'former engineer' will lose.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -lock.html

I wonder how this is going to play in the face of SecDef Gates wanting to cut the program. There are going to be those in favor of buying more of the jets if they can get em at a lower price (if it turns out that what this fella's saying is true). Likewise there are those who will use this as another reason the F-22 is useless. Nevermind that Lockeed Martin also produces the F-35, the jet Gates wants to buy...

It is interesting though. Remember the photos of Raptors with the nose paint stripped off? There may be a more mundane reason than "the jet was flying really fast". And there are pics of RAM stripped off in other places like the leading edges of the wing for example. What I cannot believe though, is that this implies the USAF accepted the F-22 on blind faith and didn't test it, something I find extremely unlikely (but deeply disturbing if that was the case). Wouldn't the USAF conduct it's own RCS tests?

To quote from Flight International's on-line news article:
"The lawsuit comes after the Department of Justice declined an opportunity under the Fair Claims Act to take up the case under seal."
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... esign.html

So the US Department of Justice - even under the new Administration - decided not to file suit against Lockheed . . . Sounds like this guy is going to have a flimsy case. I suspect that this purely about the money. If this guy was a real "whistleblower" it would have come before Congress or the GAO (which was always anti-Raptor) long before now.

flateric wrote:Olsen's complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/16864124 - worth reading. I wonder if his revelations won't attract foreign technical intelligence.

I was likewise surprised by the technical details quoted by Olsen. I would have thought that even the most rudimentary details regarding low observable coatings would have been protected for security reasons.

The main question is why Olsen was so shy about said problems since 1999, and surprisingly decided to 'tell world the truth' just now.
10 year gap because he has signed some classification documents?

Part about his bosses that continued to buy RAS from 'bad' suppliers as maniacs, and then purchase of 'right' RAS from Northrop B-2 program suppliers - that was not tested 'because of unsuccessful previous results' with 'wrong' RAS - looks a bit strange. Not talking of Olsen's disclosure of propertiary data from former employer - I have heard many times that stealth tech leaders, Lockheed and Northrop - were not very entusiastic about sharing their stealth achievements with other aerospace companies even under DoD pressure (A-12 ATA case comes to mind).

Hi,

Very interesting reading!
By now it should be clear if the F-22 is struggling with its coating (durability, functionality, ...).

It seems to me that project follow-up by the Air Force was not an optimal one: haven't they done any kind of checks on their one to verify what's in the presentations (for example taking samples and having them analyzed independently)?

Maybe this is one of the many (?) reasons why production of the F-22 is capped at less than 190 jets.
Does LM have a track-record of "promising too much" - also compared to other players in the business (like NG)? Is it possible to compare F-22 and B-2 (for example in terms of maintainability?

Would be interesting to know if the USAF has changed its Project Management procedures for the F-35 (i.e. lessons learned from the F-22) in this respect?

Regards
Markus

Next article about F-22 maintenance problems - and unfortunately next argument against continuing F-22 production.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03020.html

Regards

The complaint is very detailed to the point of violating the technology's security. I would give the guy a chance and look into this if I were investigating. Sure, "the BS is in the details", but the real truth always is as well.

I'd like to see what happens with this, if the coatings are defective, and Lockheed is forced to fix them, Mr. Olsen may be seen as a hero. I say this because the F-22 would be lighter and more stealthy if this problem was fixed, increasing the performance of the aircraft drastically. I would assume the aircraft would be fixed at no cost to the DoD. Now, if I were the DoD, and there was found to be wrong-doing on Lockheed's part, I would be hesitant to fund the F-35 without a full investugation.

A little bit of conspiracy theory:
What if they intentionally let the F-22 become an expensive, lower performing program, just to make the F-35 look good, giving them more overall control and proft? The F-35 is not as much of a shared aircraft with other companies.

Rapec wrote:Next article about F-22 maintenance problems

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03020.html

Regards

The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin

I seriously consider if we should read this *experd* beyond this point.

I'm not sure the autor of the article is meant to be an expert - rather a journalist gathering info from numerous sources, including experts. Sure, metallic skin sounds a little silly, but I would assume it's just layman speak for those silver flakes (mixed with polyurethane materials).

That article contradicts itself, laying out things that support further production.

Maks wrote:Hi,

Very interesting reading!
By now it should be clear if the F-22 is struggling with its coating (durability, functionality, ...).

It seems to me that project follow-up by the Air Force was not an optimal one: haven't they done any kind of checks on their one to verify what's in the presentations (for example taking samples and having them analyzed independently)?

Maybe this is one of the many (?) reasons why production of the F-22 is capped at less than 190 jets.
Does LM have a track-record of "promising too much" - also compared to other players in the business (like NG)? Is it possible to compare F-22 and B-2 (for example in terms of maintainability?

Would be interesting to know if the USAF has changed its Project Management procedures for the F-35 (i.e. lessons learned from the F-22) in this respect?

Regards
Markus

Lockmart put too much emphasis on coatings to reduce signature. Even during the demval phase of the ATF program it was somewhat publicly known that the YF-22 had issues with regards to the signature of the cockpit-forward section of the planform. Not too mention the rear section was going to be as bright as the north star on everyone's scopes.

Of course its easy to play armchair SecDef but the Pentagon chose the wrong contractor. Lockmart was still relying heavily on facteded designs for the ATB, cruise missile demval, and the ATF right up until circa 1987 when Northrop had more advanced capabilities. And then late one night after some bad pizza, just like In Jerry McGuire, some Lockheed engineer woke up in a cold sweat and realized the error of his ways and set forth to revamp its fugly ATF model.

What we have in the F-22 is a faster and longer ranged F-15 with a significantly reduced signature, but not a true stealth fighter. It was chosen for its A2A furball agility, and yet the AF/DoD has such disdain for letting the 22s go fist-to-fist with the rest of the world that they purposely left out helmet sighting out of the picture when every Ivan and Jackie Chan either has it or will have it. If you're not going to let it play aerobatics then you don't need its post-stall point the nose capability of the heavy tv nozzels and you would logically need more stealth, which the YF-23 offered. And if you're not going to play punch for a punch then have some EE whip up some nifty pop-in circuits for the side bays to comp for the larger signature. Or at least pop in a laser or two in there to fend off those nasty fart can chasers. All the 23 lacked was 2 more AAMs which there could have been room for if it were chosen the winner and then went through a redesign effore like the YF-22 did.

So much for the AF wanting a fighter that wasn't one step ahead of the world, but 2 steps ahead; looks like they only went with a 1 gen adavancement out of fear that the 23 was too radical.

Oh well, doesn't matter as Obama is now our leader and the rest of the world loves us again and there's no need for world class aircraft. Oh how I long for the days of Curtis Lemay and Kelly Johnson.

It's decades to late to fuss over the wrong choice, or percieved wrong choice of YF-22 over YF-23.

The F-22 was apparently chosen because there was less "risk". We're about to end the program at less than 190 a/c partly because it's been a PITA to make it work properly. Now can you imagine, had the F-23 been chosen and the "risk" proven to be much higher (i.e. we simply couldn't make it work at all like we'd hoped to), how many planes we'd have? Less than 100...