Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium volume pinglist.
Posted on 05/19/2007 8:54:40 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
WASHINGTON -- Engineers have uncovered a flaw in the Navy's top fighter jet that could reduce by half the aircraft's advertised service life and potentially cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in repairs, according to Pentagon documents and military and industry officials.
A mechanism inside the wings of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, manufactured by Boeing Co. , is wearing out prematurely, prompting the Navy to order the company to make changes in the plane's production as well as retrofit several hundred planes already operating off the decks of Navy aircraft carriers, according to a Navy official.
Officials stressed that they are not considering whether to ground the workhorse jet, because the problem does not affect its operation. Still, the "fatigue life issue," if uncorrected, would drastically shorten the $50 million aircraft's life span from 6,000 flight hours to 3,000 hours, the documents warn.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The Navy was in such a damn hurry to field SuperHornets to replace the better Tomcats that they're just now finding all kinds of structural fatigue problems. Fatigue testing should've been COMPLETED before fielding the jet. As usual, nobody will get burned because the guy who authorized it probably did so just before retiring. That's usually how this sort of thing goes.
Boeing better fix or give us a big refund!
It’ll cost zero probably because the dems won’t see the point in spending the money on them.
Screw the military, more social programs for the illegals!
I heard that. I’m damn sick of government paying contractors to fix screwups that are their own doing. It’s a Boeing problem, they need to fix it.
So it’s not covered under warranty?
From what I have read, Boeing IS going to fix it and the fix is an inexpensive one.
maybe the plan is to have the soon to be legal border jumpers fix them cheaper.
That sucks. That really stinks. And the darn Lightning II is taking way too long to get on line.
I fear you are right. The Liberal agenda is easy to understand, raise taxes, fund socialism and gun control so you can't do anything about it. Ever since the "Great Society" crap it has been the same.
So out of thousands of parts they find a design flaw that can be repaired. Thats a suprise?? Fighter aircraft are complex systems and every plane thats been through inventory has had similar issues.
The article also stated the plan has a planned lifespan of 6000 hours? Either its poorly written or completely false.
This plane is still cheaper than keeping the F14 in service. The F14 is a great aircraft but its time to retire Tom Cruise.
They should have built new F14’s.
“They should have built new F14’s.”
Sure lets keep an airframe designed in the late 60s and into the 70s in the inventory.
The key word being new.
Sure lets keep an airframe designed in the late 60s and into the 70s in the inventory.
A good design doesn't need much tweaking which was what the Tomcat 21, and the Attack Super Tomcat 21, aka ASF-14, were to be; enhancements and improvements to the original. Although some structural changes were proposed most of the work would have been new avionics and powerplants.
That being said, those buffoons at NAVAIR have struck again.
The problem now under scrutiny is manageable and fixable and nothing to get one's knickers in a knot about.
I left the aircraft business 35 years ago, I’m not exactly current, but maybe every one here ought to take a breath.
1. As far as “screwups” are concerned, fatigue is common in aircraft. For example, most airliners that you have ever flown in probably had growing fatigue cracks. I know this was true in my day. This is tolerable in readily inspectible components (e,g., wing planks in airliners) where design is redundant (failure of a single wing plank won’t be catastrophic). In this case, inspectors follow the progress of individual cracks and change out the planks at some point. Of course, three are parts that are hard to inspect and these are designed so cracks won’t initiate.
2. It’s my understanding that the F-18 has had heavier than expected use, which of course would exacerbate fatigue problems.
3. I realize that this is serious, but keep in mind that the posted article is from the NYT owned Boston Globe with another anonymous DOD source. They’re main interest is probably to divert defense money toward more pressing issues like relieving the plight of the left handed lesbian. (Or maybe it’s left handed guitar players).
Incidentally, wasn’t the F-14(Navy) pretty much an F-15 (Air Force) beefed up for carrier landings?
“That being said, those buffoons at NAVAIR have struck again.”
The F14 has thousands more parts than the Hornet. That increases the maintenance cost.
We’ll soon see substantially more use of unmanned aircraft to conduct missions. This will reduce the overall requirement for manned aircraft.
The Hornet is a good aircraft, cheaper and easier to maintain and accomplishes the mission.
The F-35 is the plane that is so good that the Navy can’t afford to be without it.
The F-35 was designed from the beginning to be used by US Navy, US Air Force, US Marines, and UK Royal Navy.
The FB-111 was the way it was because of the Navy requirements (internal weapons, ejection capsule, loiter time at a 600 mile distance from the carrier) that were promptly waived when Grumman began working on the F-14. Those were intended by the Navy to kill the FB-111 and the in depth intervention by the Department of Defense in Navy Weapons programs. It did.
And fix them soon, we ARE going to need them!
The F22 assembly line was up and running in Lockheed Marietta in 1993.
They moved it to GD’s facility, and delayed purchases.
Originally 750+ planes were going to be bought.
I doubt we by 250 now.
Ike’s beware the military industrial complex statement is turning out to be true. Tons o bucks wasted on programs that die ... Remember Tacit Rainbow SAM suppresion missiles - thought not .. whats a billion here or there, Sgt York DIVAD .... A12 ..... The list goes on. How many planes in China’s air fleet? It seems right now we have enough to fight 1/2 a war and 1/4 a war somewhere else.
I believe that about the same point in its lifespan, F-14s were falling out of the sky left and right due to a variety of engine problems.
Thank ye Mr Cheney for destroying the F-14 program. Was the downgrade worth it?
Name me the Navy fighter that can out maneuver, carry more payload, longer mission range, and out run it. The money used to R&D the Hornet should have went into F-14 Avionics. We had the best airframe design for the job required. The Hornet was a significant downgrade.
“Name me the Navy fighter that can out maneuver, carry more payload, longer mission range, and out run it.”
Thats nice but do we still need it? I’m all for military power and love military aircraft but there are other alternatives to the F14.
Yes, we still need aircraft that can fly the fleet defense mission. When the Chinese or Koreans start popping off cruise missiles at the carrier, the F-18s aren’t going to be able to defend the carrier like the F-14 could. The Hornets will run out of fuel trying to dash to where they need to be to take a shot. They don’t have fuel capacity or carry Phoenix missiles like the Tomcat did.
It does seem a little low (Grumman was giving 7500 hours on the F-14D, the plane that Cheney rehected in favour of the Super Hornet)
These days with aircraft in service 20-30 years, 6000 hours is not excessive. How many hours do you think the A-10s or the BUFFS have on the clock?
The Navy wanted loiter at 600 miles. The internal weapons and ejection capsule came from the need to carry a "special store" at low level to the east of the Federal German Republic. It was not a Navy requirement.
But because of Strange McNamara's insistance that the F-111B be based on the Air Force requirement, they added to the weight which made it overweight and underpowered for carrier use.
All the fabrication tools for the F-14 were ordered destroyed by whom?
Cheney? If so he shouldn’t have done it. But in any case any new F14 would have had to be redesigned such as using modular components for easy maintenance like the F22 uses, while still retaining the characterics that made it a great aircraft.
Well it’s horrible, horrible timing as the Saudi, North African and European theatre is about 4-5 years away from busting open.
Just get the darn thing finished so we can spend a couple years working out all the bugs. Get 'er done.
The plane does and always has sucked.
Excuse makers and second besters are the only people who try and prop up this souped up “also ran”.
Now mind you, it is an American “also ran”. Therefore it is still one of the best in the World. But by normal [mine] American standards, it is whack.
You mean like the F-18? It's first flight was in 1974 and it's first year in service was not until 1983.
In initially choosing this piece of crap, the Navy avoided Congress' directions [oversight] by straight up lying to them, saying that the winner of the competition [F-16] was not carrier capable. The F-16 could've easily been made carrier capable. Regardless, they developed the losing aircraft.
They took the light, cheap YF-17 and jammed it with tech and weight, in turn producing an F-18 that had less maneuverability, less acceleration, and range no better than the 1952-vintage A-4, and cost almost three times as much as the F-16.
Since then they have constantly been tweaking this pig, vainly attempting to make something out of it. In 92' the Navy asked for more loot to "modify" the F-18 as the F-18E/F. But in reality this was funding for a brand-new aircraft, designed to get back to the original congressional requirements.
This plane sucks.
The only Tomcats we lost were die to pilot error. We did have quite a few A-6's mysteriously drop at about 1-5 miles after launch though. The F-14 was and put us against any Navy fighter still is the top fighter. This is just another bad choice like grounding the S-3 Vikings. In my four year on a carrier I don't know of one time the Tomcat on alert failed to launch. When you have an enemy craft approaching speed and time matters and every second counts keeping the plane away from the ship.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium volume pinglist.
Off the thread, but I gotta vent: With the 20 million new democrat voters about to be added, our "ability to do anything about it" is ended, perhaps permanently.
The really odd thing was the Air Force wanted a subsonic bomber. The Navy wanted a supersonic fighter. The requirement for supersonic flight drives a requirement for a thick, heavy rigid skin.
Of course the Navy also requred a keelson, rather than the lighter skin-stringer structure favored by the Air Force.
That must be why countries that don’t get US aid buy the F-18, rather than the F-16, and are pleased to pay twice the price of the F-16.
The key point of the F/A-18 was the dual capability. The Navy went from Defense Only F-14s and Offense Only A-6 aircraft to a dual mission aircraft. All the aircraft can play defense where there is a high threat, and all can play offense to exploit enemy weakness.
You are confusing the YF-17 and the F/A-18.
Just for comparison? What is the loiter time of the F-14 at 600 miles from the carrier?
Since when has getting there in half the time expected become a bad thing?
“Great new plane! (F18) Not as fast! Can’t carry as much! Less range!”
But can it do this? LOL
Guess what: C-130s have landed on carriers, and the F-14 carries less. Obviously the F-14 is a very inferior aircraft.
See, just by comparing two aircraft you can prove what ever you want.
Fact is: The Phoenix was compromised by Iran and never recovered their full potency after the countermeasures were developed by the Soviet Union. Sad but true. I love the AWG-9 but the world changed to Medium PRF radars for good reasons.
Do you know the spotting factor for the F-14 and A-6? Compared to the F-18?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.