Dominic Gates, the best Seattle-based aerospace reporter from Ireland, has a scoop today about defective parts on the Lockheed Martin F-22.
According to Gates' story, Boeing, the F-22's aft fuselage supplier, last month filed a lawsuit against Alcoa, its former supplier. The suit alleges that Alcoa failed to properly forge certain parts for the F-22, so Boeing supplied hundreds of the parts to Lockheed before the defect was discovered in 2005.
The story also says the US Air Force has determined the defective parts -- struts that connect the wing to the forward boom of the aft fuselage -- are not a flight safety issue, and that the forward booms should survive a full service life of 8,000 hours.
At the same time, the USAF has also contracted Boeing to conduct inspections of the parts at undisclosed intervals, Gates reports. You know, just in case.
The story gives me an excuse to take the F-22 cutaway poster down from the office wall. I believe I have identified the struts that Gates is writing about. These are clearly not parts that you'd want to see crack up prematurely in a dogfight.
On this close-up, the parts are checked in red. The forward boom is the connecting point between the aft fuselage and the wing.
And here's a broader shot, with the area circled in red.
on April 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply
Posted images are of classified nature. Cease and desist.
on April 14, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply
I think the above comment is probably a joke, but -- in case DSS is reading -- let me explain.
The pictures come from an F-22 poster that's hanging on my office wall. The poster is one of Flight's famous cutaway drawings, in which the manufacturer invites our artist -- Giuseppe "Joe" Picarella -- to illustrate the aircraft in poster form.
Joe draws thousands of detailed parts drawings for nearly every poster he makes, and each one is reviewed by the manufacturer's security office for compliance with classification rules.
So there is no issue here, nor should there be. Anyone who assembles a good model of the F-22 knows as much about the structure of the aircraft as what you see in this poster.
on April 14, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply
Steve
The alarming thing is, that somewhere, somehow, someone probably does consider that drawing to be classified... not properly classified according to proper rules and regulations and procedure and a modicum of common sense... but 'sensitive', 'restricted', indefinably unreleasable. It’s on a Critical Information List we just made up. It’s compartmentalized – indeed it’s wholly mentalized in the we-have-taken-leave of-our-senses mania for secrecy that has poisoned every aspect of anything vaguely defense-leaning in the US.
Just look at the insanity that has already crucified the F-22 community over the harmless web musings of their display pilot.
I bet you there are people in the secrecy cult out there who would have a heart attack over that Picarella drawing, because firstly they have no clue what exists in the public domain, and secondly, they have utterly lost the ability to differentiate between what is really sensitive and important (very little) and what is not a problem (most things).
Plus, this all consuming culture of secrecy is great for making people think they’re important, and doing something oh-so-special and so it must be propagated as far as possible.
BEADWINDOW!
on April 14, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply
Airpower, you are probably correct.
The other thing that annoys me about the classification rules is how they seem to shift. You see things start out as unclassified, disappear into the black world, then pop back out again into the public domain. One wonders how many things go black just because they're having problems, or maybe because they're yielding unexpected benefits.
on April 14, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply
"Posted images are of classified nature. Cease and desist."
These days, keeping huge budgets in the billions all happy-smiley face is just as important as protecting "classified" information. There is that other "enemy" to worry about: An unfriendly congressman.
on April 16, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply
Well, if they insist on using forged parts, they're bound to be lower quality than genuine parts. Perhaps the local trading standards department should become involved?
on April 23, 2008 5:46 AM | Reply
Why didn't Boeing discover the defect in the parts when they were delivered initially by Alcoa? Quality control should have identified the defect and returned the parts to Alcoa for rework.