Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Velkanika]

Were Zumwalts ever at one point intended to act as carrier escorts or were they envisioned purely as independent strike assets like SSGNs?

DD(X) had that as a design role, so technically yes. You can absolutely use USS Zumwalt as one as well, but she'll need to be fitted with a few million dollars in additional hardware so she can target the SM-6. The MK 57 is fully compatible with the Standard Missile family, and my understanding is that she was just never fitted with the right computers and radio transceivers to actually communicate with the missiles.

Also, my internet died on me in the middle of that conversation yesterday. I'll post something about that later on when I have time.

[Velkanika]

DD(X) had that as a design role, so technically yes. You can absolutely use USS Zumwalt as one as well, but she'll need to be fitted with a few million dollars in additional hardware so she can target the SM-6. The MK 57 is fully compatible with the Standard Missile family, and my understanding is that she was just never fitted with the right computers and radio transceivers to actually communicate with the missiles.

Also, my internet died on me in the middle of that conversation yesterday. I'll post something about that later on when I have time.

What transceivers???

It doesn't have the radio equipment for the specific data link to provide post-launch data to the missile.

[Velkanika]

SPY-3 is the datalink radio, just like SPY-1. It also provides terminal guidance.

The problem was that Standard's datalink was designed to work with SPY-1, which is S-band. SPY-3 is X-band. Raytheon has since developed a dual-band datalink, not only for the Zumwalt, but to market Standard to all the other X-band users out there.

And if the Navy's testimony to Congress is true, they never had it installed for some reason.

[Velkanika]

If an Arleigh Burke found itself in the unfortunate situation of having to face three Type 052D destroyers all by itself, is it reasonable to believe that the Burke would not live to fight another day? Or would it be reasonably be able to prevail in the battle?

On paper, the Burke is going down. In practice, the Burke will probably be able to break contact with minor to moderate damage after a brief engagement. The Chinese warships don't have nearly as many anti-ship options as literally almost all of the Standard Missile SAM series has a surface attack mode, and I seriously doubt a Chinese captain will want to sit around long enough to be bombarded with multiple salvos of dozens of SAMs. The battle would likely be short, sharp, and inconclusive. It comes down to the Burke being able to throw more missiles at the enemy than they can adequately deal with while retaining sufficient defensive armament to survive their likely return barrage.

As a side note, that old simulation I ran in CMANO for your carrier battle has been morphing into a more serious scenario in my free time. I'm using it to explore some interesting tactics for how to hide a battle group in merchant traffic the US Navy invented in the 50s, and might end up on the actual CMANO site as a submission for the Community Scenario Pack.

[Velkanika]

"Surface attack mode" isn't some unique quality of Standard.

IIRC, the Chinese copy of the SA-N-12 Grizzly and the HQ-9 don't have that capability.

[Velkanika]

You're misreading the article.

On the other hand the guidance method of HHQ-9 (as opposed to HQ-9) is poorly understood. There's a notable lack of illuminators on Type 052s.

It's highly likely that the HHQ-9 uses active radar terminal guidance and some kind of mid-course update datalink. Technically the hardware can probably execute surface-to-surface attacks, but there is nothing in all the information I've read about it to indicate that it has a surface attack capacity. I've seen nothing along those lines in any reliable public forum we have access to as civilians.

[Velkanika]

Even if it lacks the long-range antiship capability of SM-6, it can certainly engage surface targets out to the radar horizon. This isn't a sophisticated or specialized technique.

In the typically Roskian scenario described above, SM-6 counts for little, as it's doubtful it can be used over-the-horizon without targeting support. Hitting a ship with a bearing-only ESM track would be a tall order for an AMRAAM seeker.

SM-6's antiship capabilities have been heavily publicized because it's the only organic long-range antiship weapon available to any USN surface combatant built this century.

Of course, this being NS, Velkanika has jumped straight to counting tubes while ignoring the more significant problem of finding and fixing the target. Three ships have a significant advantage over one in this respect.

That's true, but then I'd have expected to see some mention that it can do that somewhere.

Bearing-only OTH attacks with an SM-6 are entirely possible, but I wouldn't try it due to the presumed battlefield being the South China Sea. A "miss" is liable to find and attack a civilian boat or ship before it runs out of fuel given how much traffic is in that body of water.

The Burke does have excellent sensors on its SH-60 Seahawks to assist in the target detection phase of the battle. The Helix knockoffs carried by PLAN destroyers don't have sensors nearly as capable, especially if we're talking about Electronic Warfare and searching for the enemy warship(s) without radiating. If the helicopters are using active radar, they still won't know if the contact is hostile until they ID it visually or observe it behaving like an enemy warship.

[Velkanika]

Are you suggesting that SM-6 flies around like a cruise missile searching for targets?

Once the radar is on, it will attack the first object detected that matches its targeting parameters. You remember that fishing boat the Taiwanese put an anti-ship missile through last month when they accidentally fired one during an inspection of one of their missile boats?

[Velkanika]

(Image) It's not an antiship missile. It's a solid fuel rocket with a burn time measured in seconds launched damn near into space on a ballistic trajectory. It has to know where the target is fairly precisely in the first place. It's not going to fly around looking for the first ship or fishing boat or whatever it comes across. Totally reliant on offboard cueing over the horizon.

So you lob it in a ballistic arc in the direction of the enemy, and let it dive on anything it finds in a long strip of ocean it can scan as it flies. Bearing-only attacks with SM-6 on surface targets is likely something the Navy wanted.

In any case, a naval battle between a lone Arleigh Burke-class and a PLAN Surface Action Group composed of three Luyang III-class destroyers probably would break out at very close range. None of the warships involved have much in the way of reconnaissance to aid them in their search and would probably stumble into the battle. The most plausible scenario to me would be someone's helicopter flying around IDing various ships in the area would stumble across and be shot down by a hostile warship, at which point dedicated AShMs would be fired first. Unfortunately for the PLAN SAG, the Burke can use its SM-6s against warships after the former are out of AShMs. The option to use really good SAMs as short-range AShMs is a good backup choice for the US Navy once the Harpoons, and in the future Tomahawks or LRASMs, are gone.

[Velkanika]

So you lob it in a ballistic arc in the direction of the enemy, and let it dive on anything it finds in a long strip of ocean it can scan as it flies. Bearing-only attacks with SM-6 on surface targets is likely something the Navy wanted.

It doesn't work that way.

You need to know the distance to the target with reasonable accuracy to put it on the proper ballistic path. Thus, bearing-only attacks are out. Otherwise you will vastly over/undershoot the target and with its motor expended it won't be able to correct itself, and that presumes it can even spot the target. During the first half of the ballistic arc the missile will be unable to track anything at all, and given the seeker limitations will likely need to get reasonably close to track a target, meaning it will have to already be on course for that target (as AIM-120 is designed to be, using mid-course guidance) in the first place. It can't fly a search pattern like a cruise missile, like AMRAAM it needs mid-course guidance to put the target in its acquisition basket.

No offense meant, but there's literally not enough known about the SM-6 for me to really respond to that. It could have a fairly wide scan angle to facilitate this kind of use, or it might just literally be an AMRAAM seeker on a RIM-67. We've long since crossed into wild speculation territory, and we're going to start arguing in circles in a few posts at this rate.

Three ships against one means that one of the three ships or their helicopters are likely to spot the Burke before it finds the entire battlegroup. In which case the Burke is at a serious disadvantage as it is fighting at most one known enemy plus two unseen enemies or at worst three unseen enemies (if spotted by helicopter). It is outnumbered and severely outgunned. The three Chinese ships can then work to coordinate their attack freely and concentrate their superior firepower. At the WVR ranges the Standards would be useful at for anti-ship roles, the Type 52Ds can likely use their own missiles in this role and can also bring three guns to bear against the Burke's one.

On the flip side, three against one means the Burke is also more likely to find the PLAN warships first among the merchant traffic. All of the warships involved have radar reduction features, so this is really a contest of who can find the fishing boat that's not like the others first. Especially if the Type 52Ds are operating in a formation.

I bet some navy or raytheon guy was like "Hey! We have a missile that can fly 250 nautical miles in a ballistic trajectory and carries an active radar homing system! Lets give it the capability to be used as an anti-ship missile!"

More like "this is already within the missile's capabilities by nature and with a simple software update, so let's publicize it as an extra bullet point when lobbying for more funding."

Yep, the RIM-66 has already been used in the anti-surface role during Operation Praying Mantis to great effect.

It will be all fun and games for the three type 52Ds until the burke pops out over the horizon and impales them with a dozen Mach 3.5 SM-6 and SM-2ER missiles each.

They would probably shrug off a decent number of Standard hits. Modern warships are extremely tough and the Standards have small warheads. If we want to talk warhead weight, HQ-9 has a warhead weight more than twice that of SM-6.

One of the Type 52Ds would probably spot the Burke first, then call the other two to help pummel it beneath the waves.

Yep, they could probably survive being bombarded with quite a few Standards. It really comes down to how well the damage control teams handle it and where the missiles hit.

TBH, this comes down to luck more than anything else.

[Velkanika]

No offense meant, but there's literally not enough known about the SM-6 for me to really respond to that. It could have a fairly wide scan angle to facilitate this kind of use, or it might just literally be an AMRAAM seeker on a RIM-67. We've long since crossed into wild speculation territory, and we're going to start arguing in circles in a few posts at this rate.

There's more than enough known.

RIM-174 uses the seeker of AIM-120C-7 with the body and rocket motor of RIM-156A. And probably a handful of software changes to go along with it.

It does not have abnormally large coverage because it does not need it and it would defeat the point of developing RIM-174 using off-the-shelf components with the minimum changes required. RIM-174 is first and foremost a SAM designed to be guided toward its target via mid-course datalink until the target falls within its acquisition basket. This does not require a huge scanning range or wide-angle tracking capbilities. Any AShM roles are entirely secondary and are only there because a radar that can lock a plane can lock a ship with some software modifications, and the Navy is trying to claim this missile can do everything (including BMD) as a means of protecting the program from any potential funding issues.

Let me put it to you another way; I don't want to get an interesting phone call tomorrow by stumbling across something that we shouldn't know about the SM-6 by guesswork.

Why would they be in a blatantly obvious formation? This entirely defeats the benefit of having multiple ships. I'm not sure why you're presuming incompetence on the part of the Chinese while the Burke crewmen are for some reason master tacticians.

Just saying, there are plenty of reasons for warships to sail in formation for one reason or another. Even if they're not, three warships among a bunch of commercial and civilian shipping are easier to find than one warship.

If by "great effect" you mean "took five missiles to put a single missile boat out of action and not even manage to immediately sink her" then yes, indeed, "great effect."

Every sailor onboard the IRIS Joshan was injured or killed by the Standard hits. IIRC, when she was sunk with naval gunfire no personnel were observed abandoning ship or conducting damage control as she burned.

If by "luck" you mean "probability" then, yes, it does.

What formation is the enemy in? Where are they relative to each other? Who finds who first? Are any of the missile salvos sufficient to penetrate the defenses on a warship? What systems are damaged or destroyed when a ship is hit? Does one side or the other decide to withdraw, and does the other side attempt a pursuit? Does the weather get involved? Do civilian ships provide targeting information for one side or another? Do land-based aircraft or satellites get involved, and are they effective? Does a mistake or series of mistakes caused by fatigue or inexperience cause something weird to happen?
Probability can give a good simulation, but some factors aren't modellable. Reality is often stranger than fiction, because the latter must be reasonably plausible in order to maintain the attention of its audience.

There's a show called "The Last Ship", and the USS Nathan James is hunting for pirates defended by the New Chinese Government. From what I've seen of the trailer, its likely that the Arleigh Burke gets significant damage but escapes. The Nathan James is the only ship in the area, and the 3 Type-052Ds are the entire chinese navy (practically)

From what I could tell, the Nathan James detects all three chinese warships on passive radar, and the Chinese warships are not using their helicopters at all.

I'm done. Arguing over some RP incident where things can be worked out is enough. Arguing over television is pointless and probably belongs in NSG or A&F.

[/quote]
The Last Ship might have some of the sexiest CIC sequences in all of military fiction, but it's still a TV show. I'm not going to argue about that one either.

[Velkanika]

Let's all recall that the US government once seized copies of a table-top RPG on the mistaken idea it held informaiton on hacking government computers.

Yep, and the Secret Service will never live it down.

[Velkanika]

How does this look so far?

Please be gentle, it is my first time...

Well, you've lucked out then. There's not a whole lot wrong with what you've got so far.

Remove the 20mm Oerlikons entirely, as those are useless for air defense after 1948. By the 1970s when you ordered these carriers, they are less than useless against fast jets and guided missiles.

The other major issue is your air wing composition. I'm assuming you fixed the real life jet blast deflector problems and hangar height limits that prevented the actual Midway-class carriers from operating the Tomcat, but the actual aircraft mix is not what I'd recommend for a carrier this size. The Super Tomcat would have been capable of launching anti-ship missiles and carrying bombs, but they can't take the role of the Vikings and conduct fixed-wing ASW. You've also got wasted space with all of those helicopters; this is a CATOBAR carrier, so use it for fixed wing! I recommend a mix of two fighter squadrons (F-14), one strike fighter squadron or an attack squadron (F/A-18/A-6), an early warning squadron (four E-2s), a tactical electronic warfare squadron (four EA-6B/EA-18G), an anti-submarine squadron (six S-3A/B), a Carrier Onboard Delivery detachment (two C-2), and a helicopter anti-submarine squadron (six SH-60Fs plus two HH-60Hs). That brings you to 52 fixed wing aircraft and eight helicopters, which will fit and give you an enormous boost in striking power plus the ability to detect, attack, and destroy enemy submarines well beyond their effective torpedo range.

The biggest error you made is the aircraft you put into the air wing, which is very common on this site. As amazing as the Super Tomcat would have been, it would not be able to attack surface targets as well as an A-6 Intruder or F/A-18 Hornet. The Tomcats are best used for hunting other aircraft first and bombing targets second. You were thinking along the right lines when you included the Hawkeyes, but you failed to incorporate EW aircraft to suppress enemy air defenses for your strike aircraft. You also failed to include cargo aircraft for underway replenishment, which is a common but serious error on NationStates. You want to have fixed-wing ASW aircraft like the Viking, as it gives you the ability to reach out and attack enemy submarines hundreds of nautical miles beyond the maximum range of your helicopters in a very short period of time. You want to keep subs as far away from your carrier as you can. You're also relying on helicopters for too much given that this is a CATOBAR carrier, not a STOBAR or STOVL carrier which carry aircraft with severe weight limitations.

[Velkanika]

Well, you've lucked out then. There's not a whole lot wrong with what you've got so far.

Remove the 20mm Oerlikons entirely, as those are useless for air defense after 1948. By the 1970s when you ordered these carriers, they are less than useless against fast jets and guided missiles.

The other major issue is your air wing composition. I'm assuming you fixed the real life jet blast deflector problems and hangar height limits that prevented the actual Midway-class carriers from operating the Tomcat, but the actual aircraft mix is not what I'd recommend for a carrier this size. The Super Tomcat would have been capable of launching anti-ship missiles and carrying bombs, but they can't take the role of the Vikings and conduct fixed-wing ASW. You've also got wasted space with all of those helicopters; this is a CATOBAR carrier, so use it for fixed wing! I recommend a mix of two fighter squadrons (F-14), one strike fighter squadron or an attack squadron (F/A-18/A-6), an early warning squadron (four E-2s), a tactical electronic warfare squadron (four EA-6B/EA-18G), an anti-submarine squadron (six S-3A/B), a Carrier Onboard Delivery detachment (two C-2), and a helicopter anti-submarine squadron (six SH-60Fs plus two HH-60Hs). That brings you to 52 fixed wing aircraft and eight helicopters, which will fit and give you an enormous boost in striking power plus the ability to detect, attack, and destroy enemy submarines well beyond their effective torpedo range.

The biggest error you made is the aircraft you put into the air wing, which is very common on this site. As amazing as the Super Tomcat would have been, it would not be able to attack surface targets as well as an A-6 Intruder or F/A-18 Hornet. The Tomcats are best used for hunting other aircraft first and bombing targets second. You were thinking along the right lines when you included the Hawkeyes, but you failed to incorporate EW aircraft to suppress enemy air defenses for your strike aircraft. You also failed to include cargo aircraft for underway replenishment, which is a common but serious error on NationStates. You want to have fixed-wing ASW aircraft like the Viking, as it gives you the ability to reach out and attack enemy submarines hundreds of nautical miles beyond the maximum range of your helicopters in a very short period of time. You want to keep subs as far away from your carrier as you can. You're also relying on helicopters for too much given that this is a CATOBAR carrier, not a STOBAR or STOVL carrier which carry aircraft with severe weight limitations.

Super Tomcat 21 would have GE-F110-129 engines and more than 2,000 extra ibs of fuel compared to the F-14D while also being only several hundred pounds heavier due to extensive use of composites in the rebuilt airframes. Attack super tomcat 21 (AST-21) would have been the strike fighter derivative of the ST 21 and would have carried even more fuel along with FLIR and a terrain following radar in the place of the phoenix missile fairings and and an IRST/TCS under the nose along with a new radar with ISAR capability.

AST-21 would be able to carry more bombs to a longer distance faster than an F/A-18E and would have superior AtA capability as well. For the carrier air wing I'd suggest 2 fighter squadrons of 12 ST-21s, 1 strike fighter squadron of 12 AST-21s, an early warning squadron of 4 E-2s, an EW squadron of four EA-18Gs, a helocpter ASW squadron of 8 MH-60R/Ss, and a COD detachment of two C-2 greyhounds. So 46 fixed wing aircraft and 8 helicopters.

Broadly speaking, we've settled on the same air wing composition however I do question why you dropped the S-3 Viking ASW squadron. Fixed wing ASW can attack search for and attack targets at standoff ranges but helicopters are limited to submarine threats that are close to if not already within torpedo range of the task force.

AST-21 is a viable strike fighter in the vein of the Strike Eagle, which is indisputably one of the finest strike fighters ever made. They'll fill the strike roll very well until they are replaced with stealth aircraft. I forgot about this proposal, so props for suggesting it.

[Velkanika]

Broadly speaking, we've settled on the same air wing composition however I do question why you dropped the S-3 Viking ASW squadron. Fixed wing ASW can attack search for and attack targets at standoff ranges but helicopters are limited to submarine threats that are close to if not already within torpedo range of the task force.

AST-21 is a viable strike fighter in the vein of the Strike Eagle, which is indisputably one of the finest strike fighters ever made. They'll fill the strike roll very well until they are replaced with stealth aircraft. I forgot about this proposal, so props for suggesting it.

Yeah I guess you could keep the S-3 around. SV-22 could be looked into as a possible ASW aircraft.

Like you said AST-21 would basically be a naval strike eagle although unlike the F-15E it would have had sustained M1.3 supercruise with its GE-F110-129 engines and potentially 3D TVC nozzles. Apparently a tomcat re-engined with F119s (which could easily fit in the F-14s airframe, they're smaller than the original TF30 engines) with 113kN of dry thrust would have allowed for supercruise speeds approaching or even potentially exceeding M2 (yikes!) so if you're making a modern super-tomcat that would be something to look into along with an AESA version of the AN/APG-71, amongst other things.

Supercruise at or above Mach 2 would require a new canopy, as would flight anywhere near Mach 3 even at 30,000 feet. The canopy would go soft and blow in under that kind of sustained heat and dynamic pressure. I'd also stick to 2D TVC nozzles. Pitch is all you need from thrust vectoring if you've got wings and a rudder.

[Velkanika]

That looks pretty good. You could potentially make an "EF-14" to replace the EA-18G which could be the airframe of the super tomcat combined with the jamming systems of the EF-111 and/or EA-18G. This would give you more commonality between parts (making maintenance easier) as all your carrier based fighter jets would be F-14s. The huge radar of the F-14 and the large payload capacity of the super tomcat upgrade means you could have some serious jamming power. You could use the fuselage pylons for all the jamming equipment and then use the outer two wing pylons to carry a pair of HARMS and AMRAAMs.

That actually sounds pretty beefy for an escort jammer. The only issue I see with this idea is size, as Tomcats are really big by carrier aircraft standards. If you've got Tomcats for everything, space might become an issue rather quickly. On the other hand, it means it can keep up with the strike aircraft at all altitudes which simplifies things.

Ok so, no 20mms.
And:
24 x ST-21s
12 x AST-21s
4 x E-2s
4 x EA-18Gs
8 x MH-60Rs
2 x C-2s
6 x S-3Bs

For 52 fixed wing and 8 helis?

That air wing is perfect for a carrier that size. The only thing is the hanger will be a tight fit, but that's normal until you get into the supercarriers.

You've got a helluva offensive weapon with that air wing. Now make certain you RP with it at some point.

[Velkanika]

Completely wrong.

F-14 can be carried by Midway, in every sense of the word. What can't be done is necessary maintenance on the ejection seats due to lack of clearance in the hangar. This is not a huge issue as you make it seem, Midway can and did cat/trap F-14s just fine, and deck-loading is a thing that exists in the world.

E-2 was not only capable of being catted/trapped by Midway (as could anything else in USN inventory), she routinely carried detachments from units like VAW-115 on cruises. Clearly E-2 is able to be maintained within the hangar shops, which is only backed up by this random brochure I found comparing CVV and Midway a few years ago that says "E-2B" under "aircraft carried" on USS Midway. Reliable source for real.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... medium.jpg

http://navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv41-89/208.jpg

Yea I dug up the specific reference this morning (Right before I read this post) and am wrong on the E-2.

Unfortunately the maintenance issues with F-14 on Midway are a really really big problem. Being able to service the ejection seat and landing gear are among the most important post-flight maintenence items for carrier fighters. You can't do it, you can't fly it, only either ferry it or embark it.

Seeing as it's a 70s-built Midway variant, I'm inclined to believe the design could have been modified before construction to have enough hangar clearance to service the F-14 without compromising its ability to float. This ship is to the Midway-class what the European jump carriers are to the Sea Control Ship.

[Velkanika]

Seeing as it's a 70s-built Midway variant, I'm inclined to believe the design could have been modified before construction to have enough hangar clearance to service the F-14 without compromising its ability to float. This ship is to the Midway-class what the European jump carriers are to the Sea Control Ship.

Such a dumb line of "logic".

No. This couldn't, wouldn't, and shouldn't happen.

What website are we on?

[Velkanika]

Seeing as it's a 70s-built Midway variant, I'm inclined to believe the design could have been modified before construction to have enough hangar clearance to service the F-14 without compromising its ability to float. This ship is to the Midway-class what the European jump carriers are to the Sea Control Ship.

This would have involved razing the ship down to the hangar deck level and building everything above it new with a consequent increase in weight and metacentric height. An increased metacentric height results in a longer rolling moment, which is not exactly desirable on a carrier.
To solve this problem you're going to have to re ballast the ship with a further increase in weight and draught which will in turn decrease speed, etc etc etc

everything has knock on effects.

Type:

Midway-class-derived Aircraft Carrier

The word "derived" implies that this has already been done in some form.

[Velkanika]

The word "derived" implies that this has already been done in some form.

No, it doesn't.

It would be an entirely new ship.

SCB-110.66 was a derivation. This is just a dumb idea lol.

If you're going to rework the ship from the sonar dome up, you might as well make CVV, which is so much better than Midway it's not even funny.

Fair enough. CVV was supposed to be a direct Midway replacement anyways.

[Velkanika]

how many lbs of clams did each RN frigate bring to the british fish market tho?

that's the real question

Not as many as this poor tormented boat.

[Velkanika]

Speaking of CODs for underway replenishment, what's all your opinion on the US Navy deciding to adapt the MV-22 as its future COD platform?

On the one hand, you can't fit a F135-PW-600 in the cargo hold unless you break it down. On the other hand, it can land vertically and sling loads for UNREP and you can 3D print most of what won't fit internally.

[Velkanika]

On the one hand, you can't fit a F135-PW-600 in the cargo hold unless you break it down. On the other hand, it can land vertically and sling loads for UNREP and you can 3D print most of what won't fit internally.

3D print...with what exactly?

If a carrier could make engines, it wouldn't need to bring them aboard.

Steel, plastic, rubber - you know, what most pieces of machinery are made out of.

In another 10 years, US carriers will probably have production facilities to print spare parts and possibly entire engines. The Ford-class certainly has the power for it. The main thing is waiting for metal printers to get to the point where they can print the pressure vessels and turbine blades.

[Velkanika]

Steel, plastic, rubber - you know, what most pieces of machinery are made out of.

In another 10 years, US carriers will probably have production facilities to print spare parts and possibly entire engines. The Ford-class certainly has the power for it. The main thing is waiting for metal printers to get to the point where they can print the pressure vessels and turbine blades.

what a world you live in

One stranger than fiction.

just have

v-22s with loads of iron ore and bauxite and nickel or whatever

and a giant hopper

3d print all engines

set sail and never return due to floating autarky

the most unfortunate thing is you dont realize how dumb your idea is tho

yes you can "print" (such a dumb term) metal parts with sintering

do you think these objects do not exist or something? they most certainly do exist

we have special congregation areas of such objects where "parts" can be "printed" by "operators"

they are called "factories"

not that engines rely on laser sintering for any significant portion of their production processes, the lathe and machining bit is still too reliable and good at its job

As is ye olde casting. I really don't see how you could sinter together a monocrystalline turbine blade...

3D printing lets you use, on average, half the materials to make an object about twice as strong due to being able to cut out all excess material from casting. 3D printers are amazing because they allow you to print objects that it would be impossible to cast in one piece using only the material you need exactly where you need it. You can also 3D print objects with moving parts, which is well beyond what casting can ever hope to do.

You don't even need to have to print jet engines for the technology to be amazingly useful at sea. Printing off replacement structural components, bolts, etc. will allow a carrier to reduce the size of its spare parts stores to what they need immediately. It will also allow a carrier to be able to repair more kinds of damage than they can currently, as entire wings can be fabricated on site to repair battle damage.

[Velkanika]

stranger than published fiction perhaps

now you are talking about whole composite casts or something

what an imagination you have

dont ruin it!

http://qz.com/667477/ge-fires-up-worlds-largest-commercial-jet-engine-using-3d-printed-metal-parts/

http://www.geglobalresearch.com/innovation/3d-printing-creates-new-parts-aircraft-engines