U.S. navy inspecting Boeing-made Hornet jets after finding fatigue ‘cracks’

WASHINGTON – The U.S. navy says it will inspect fighter jets made by Boeing after discovering “fatigue cracks” on more than a dozen aircraft deployed overseas.

The service says it plans to complete inspections of all 636 Hornet aircraft within the next two weeks.

It will then decide whether to ground planes or restrict flights.

The first crack was discovered during a routine flight inspection.

The navy says there are 112 Hornets deployed on carriers worldwide.

The planes affected have flown between 5,000 and 7,500 flight hours.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/10/24/7194111-ap.html

Just to be more precise, the cracks were found in A-D models, which are the ones being inspected. The E/F models aren’t affected.

surely u know entire Russian budget:D. ur dealing with wealthiest country on world. with 10 years of continous surpluses that no other country on this scale has achieved untill point and that combine with very high intellectual capacity that is unmatched in the world. only $400m spent on developing MKI compared to that 5 times figure for F-16E. what they can do with $3b R&D other countries cant do it with $30b.

I know that the US defense budget is larger than Russia, China, and Western Europe. As far as unmatched intellectual capacity.:rolleyes: (industrial espionage perhaps).

AAM see things from top. SAM is from bottom it has to reach certain heights and speeds.

AAMs see things from the top if they’re launched at a lower flying aircraft. It also depends on what kind of motor they have, and how it’s optimized(long burn, very high accelleration, etc…)

Flanker radar ranges are classified but rest assured it is among the best in the world. Flanker is datalinked with A-50/MIG-31. It has no problem of being at right place and right time.

As are US radar ranges. US aircraft are also datalinked, and with more AWACS(as well as other airborne assets). You continue to use the protection of Russian airspace scenarios. What are the capabilities of these aircraft if forward deployed, and they meet each other? Which side do you think has greater expeditionary assets?

Actually i am not optimistic but i have given pessimistic assumptions. The amount of money that Russia spent on defence in past 5 years is much more than in past 20 years put togethers. that combines with technological advancements give sufficient reasons for advancement.

How much has the USAF spent compared to Russia? More than the entire Russian defense budget.

U dont want to make seeker active at thos ranges. I was just indicating that long range BVR is as much possible and effective as long range SAM.

You said the AAM could see it’s target from launch to intercept. Long range SAMs are considerably larger than any AAM(even acounting for the launch speed and altitude), and their ranges will be longer.

Flanker does not need afterburner as its sensors can see much further than anyother aircraft. It is mere threat of long range weopons and Flanker ability to stay long time that will force opponent to make stupid mistake like running from battfield where it can be hit by much longer range Air to surface missiles on ground.

Flanker can see further than APG-63 (v) 2, 3, and 4, APG-77, etc…? What size target? If the Flanker gets in WVR you can rest assured it’ll be using A/B, and if it wants to launch at high Mach numbers, it’ll have to use A/B.
You’re still assuming the Flanker is flying over Russia, and with a large amount of fuel left. There are a lot of other scenarios that aren’t as favorable for the Flanker. The Flanker doesn’t have any AAMs for use against fighters that are so long ranged that a foe will run. You keep asserting that a missile that can engage an emitting AWACS at 400km, can also engage a fighter at ranges like that. It won’t even spot a Typhoon/Rafale until about 90km, much less a Raptor/Lightning. The Flanker on the other hand will stick out like a sore thumb emitting at that power level.

It is closer to reality with amount of money they are spending compared to 90s.

That has nothing to do with guessing the level of detuning an export weapon has. The biggest amount of detuning is most likely in areas of ECM, and modes available, rather than engine burn time/radar power output.

That seeker performance was from 2003 and export. i am expecting seeker performance all the way upto the target in 2008.

I don’t doubt that advancements have occurred in the last 5yrs, but I think you’re pretty optimistic about what they might be, and how soon they’re in service on operational weapons. Here’s a quote from your post that you might want to read more closely-

“This seeker is unique in its capabilities and performance over previous generation models,” he explained, “and it is also unique in that no other firm in the U.S. or Europe or anywhere else has ever designed such a system.” Akopyan’s new seeker is capable of locking on to targets at more than 44 miles, which is two to two and one-half times the range of other active radar homing seekers, and–depending on the speed and altitude of the target–the missile has an effective range of 125 to 188 miles. “Any weapon that it is fitted with becomes the longest range active homing missile in the world,” he stated

Those specs are against legacy fighters with 5-10m2 RCS. Even against an F-16 that range is gonna be significantly diminished, not to mention against Typhoons/Rafales/Super Hornets/Raptors/Lightnings.

Here the function of Multirole fighter comes. Flanker has more staying power in subsonic regime upt 4.5 hours. It can stay in air untill enemy fighters run out of fuel and than launch Klubir missile against them on the ground. Flanker gives alot of flexibility that no other fighter in world can do. Thats the whole point of simultaneous engagement in air and ground.

The Flanker may have a 4.5 hr endurance, but that’s not 4.5 hrs of combat, where extreme manuevering and afterburners are being used. Part of that endurance is getting to and from its station. It’s disengenuous to compare max range with full fuel load, when that might not be the state the Flanker’s in when it has to start fighting. You’re also assuming that the Flankers were able to get airborne before their base was taken out, which may not be the case.

It is quite realistic that are showing limited ranges with there weopons.

Realistic based upon your guesstimate?:rolleyes:
Do you have one shred of evidence that it’s realistic in 2008 to say that Russian radars and weapons can be assumed to have 2x(or more) the range of export models? That’s known in the technical jargon as jive talkin’.:cool:

It does not preclude other seekers nor anyway for Ruaf use they will not even disclose.

Because those other seekers would have different capabilities, as they’d rely on the launch aircraft’s ability to designate a target, rather than passively homing in on the radar energy from the AWACS.

It is not counter intuitive. u lock on at 300km and target moves 100km away in mean time but missile will still hit at 400km or maybe more it fired from MIG-31BM which allows twice the speed of anyother 4th generation fighter.

You’ve obviously not read much about missile performance, if you believe that a tail shot can be made at a missiles max kinematic range. You still haven’t answered how the Foxhound/Flanker are gonna see a low RCS target at 400km(or 800km for that matter :rolleyes:) You also haven’t responded as to what they’ll do once they start actively emitting, giving their positions away to everything flying. Do you honestly believe that their foes are just gonna sit there at that point, as cooperative targets?

All these figures are down graded export version. If they advertize 400km for Su-35. Expect 800km for Su-27SM2.

You have quite an active imagination. What’s the range gonna be next week, as they’ll have had time to improve the radars and retrofit every fighter by then?:p

I’ve seen this model and variants of this model over the net. Is this considered the most accurate design of what the PAK-FA may look like?

If that is accurate, it looks like there’s significantly less emphasis on planform alignment, not to mention the engine nozzles RCS, vs. the F-22.

MIG-31 and Su-27SM are not Anti-AWACS only. They are against all kinds of airborne vehicles from slow moving heli to hypersonic missiles.

I realize that, but the ultra long range AAMs are for use against high priority(but low manuevering/speed) targets(i.e. AWACS, Tankers, etc…).
The Foxhound/Flanker aren’t gonna be able to engage F-18E/F/22/35/Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen, at 400km.

There is nothing the US has that Russia can’t build.

Each military has several unique things, but past that, it’s pretty dead on.

10-20yrs later perhaps.:cool: