
Yes, geogen, there is an alternative, but the USN would never do it.
USN uses a structural durability technology called "Fatigue" to determine the structural safety of their airplanes. Basically, that means if a structural crack exists, the airplane is unsafe and is grounded. During design and development (SDD), fatigue analysis and ground test is conducted to four airplane lifetimes of expected usage. When any crack appears, a failure is declared, and corrective action (redesign, beef up, etc) is taken. For an 8,000 hour airplane, it must pass 32,000 hours without cracking. Why are airplanes allowed only 1/4 of ground test lifetime? Due to the extreme variability of fatigue analysis and test and variability in actual usage compared to design usage.
USAF uses a more modern and realistic structural concept called Fracture Mechanics, in which crack growth is analyzed, tested, and tracked during service usage. It was developed about 40 years ago to solve structural problems with the extremely high strength steel in the F-111 wing pivot system and has been applied to all USAF airplanes since then. Due to the much higher knowledge base of fracture mechanics, cracks are permitted in flying airplanes until they reach a critical length. Analysis and ground test are conducted to two airplane lifetimes, compared to four in Fatigue criteria.
The key point is that USAF airplanes are allowed to fly with safe cracks and the USN airplanes are not. The USN method is un-necessarily conservative and leads to earl;y, expensive SLEP programs like the above proposal.
The USN will likely never change their outdated procedures, preferring to do it "the Navy way". Their F-18s will be put through the SLEP program and most of them likely do not need repairs yet.