Posted on 07/24/2009 11:47:37 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
The U.S. Navy found cracks in two of its older F-18A/B/C/D series of aircraft. The apparent cause was a missing fastener. But to be on the safe side, all 622 of these F-18s are being inspected. The navy has been watching its F-18 carefully, because as aircraft age, they develop unexpected cracks. And the F-18 fleet has been aging fast.
Over the last decade, the U.S. Navy found that their older F-18C Hornet fighters were wearing out faster than planned for. This was sort of expected with the F-18Cs, which entered service during the late 1970s and early 80s. These aircraft were to last about twenty years. But that was based on a peacetime tempo of operations, with about a hundred carrier landings (which is hard on the airframe) per year. There have been more than that because of the 1991 Gulf War (and the subsequent decade of patrolling the no-fly zone) and the war on terror. So to keep enough of these aircraft operational until the F-35 arrives to replace them in the next decade, new structural components (mainly the center barrel sections) are being manufactured. This is good news for foreign users of the F-18C, who want to keep their aircraft operational for longer. But if the tail cracks problem is not related to missing fasteners, that's another matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at strategypage.com ...
Carrier landings are hard on the hardware...
Time to invest in companies that make aluminum welding rods and super glue.
This is amazing... and our nuclear stock piles are getting old which about half are expected to fizzle in 10 years.
This reminds me of Post USSR for the Russians.
Too much time attached to the tanker.
Yep. You only have so many traps in an airframe. After that the aircraft goes to the boneyard.
Amazing isn't it? First the Berlin Wall comes down ('89), then the general drawdown in forces before and after GW1, then Clinton's "Peace Dividend", and finally the restructuring of the Total Force.
Apart from Ballistic Missile Defense we haven't made a serious re-investment in defence in 20 years.
The now killed by Congress and obama F-22 was one of our two solutions and the only one currently available. The other, the F-35, is a Fino, fighter in name only, and not an air superiority fighter like the F-22. It remains to be seen if it will be as effective as the F-16s, F-18s and AV-8Bs it is to replace.
In the mean time, the Russians have finally caught up with our F-15 and they and the Chinese are building and selling these improved fighters around the world as we are reducing our inventories by retiring our decades old airplanes while not buying new planes to replace them. We have done the same thing with our bomber inventory. Why are we committing this suicide?
these arent the super hornets..are they?
A friend was an engineer on the F 18 design team at McDonnell/Boeing.
They saw cracks years ago, and addressed them with reinforced support where the wings blend into the fuselage.
They identified one particular group responsible for hastening the fatigue on planes: Marine aviators. They like to treat their planes like their own personal airborne motocross bikes.
“Why are we committing this suicide?”
Because liberals are in power. The same thing happens every time liberals and moderates get control. They weaken our military defenses.
Reagan had to build our military strength up after the weakling Carter. Bush 43 had to do it after Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. Pray God we survive the Obamunist to rebuild again.
- JP
- JP
Two years ago, the U.S. Navy discovered that part of the wings on their F-18E (officially the "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet") were wearing out faster than expected. But an inspection of 476 F-18Es, only ten more were found to have cracks. The cracks indicated that, instead of lasting 6,000 flight hours, the portion of the wing that supports the pylons holding stuff (bombs, missiles, equipment pods or extra fuel tanks) is now expected to be good for no more than 3,000 flight hours.
The problem does not occur with the older F-18s (the A, C and D models) because, while they are also called F-18s, they are not the same as the F-18 E, F and G models. That's because, when the navy decided to build a replacement for the earlier F-18, they found they could get away with calling it an upgraded F-18 model. Thus, instead of it being called the F-24 (the next number available since the start of the Department of Defense's standard designation system in 1962) it could be called the F-18 E and F. While the F-18F looks like the original F-18, it is actually quite different. The F-18E is about 25 percent larger (and heavier) than the earlier F-18s, and had a new type of engine. By calling it an upgrade, it was easier for the navy to get the money from Congress. In the early 1990s, Congress was expecting a "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War, and was slashing the defense budget. That's when the "F/A" designation was also invented, ostensibly to indicate that the aircraft was a fighter (the "F") and light bomber (the "A" for "Attack"). There was a lot of commonality between the two F-18s, but they are basically two different aircraft.
I’ve never seen the “F/A” type designation used with respect to. The “E”, “F” or. “G” variants. I’ve only seen the “F for Fighter” used.
ping
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
These things were never intended to last forever.
For the U.S., F/A is used for E and F, EA (no slash) for the G.
Canada uses the designation CF-18A/B. Finland and Switzerland use F-18C/D.
Thus far, only Australia has puchased the Super Hornet, and their designation is F/A-18F.
Thanks. I hesitated to bring that up because you’re one of the guys that really keeps up on this kind of thing. I didn’t think it likely that you were incorrect, yet it did seem like writers were rather consistently referring to the later variant Hornets as simply “F-18E/F”, rather than “F/A”.
I figured that the Navy simply dropped the “F/A” designator — which sorta makes sense. Very few fighters are pure interceptors or ACM machines.
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.