Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Omarios]

So basicly when this thread is going to reach 500 pages its gonna close?

[Gallia-]

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

You can make it "quasi-monocryalline" by controlling how much power the laser applies (which determines how much the powder is heated) in order to ensure that each layer is direction aligned and solidified so as to form a pseudo-monocrystalline crystal structure. But even then the reason you want monocrystalline blades in the first place is because with a polycrystalline part (which contains grain boundaries) you need grain-boundary strengthening alloying components which usually have a deleterious effect on the thermal properites of the part (ie a lower service tmperatue). However with something like inconel 718, which can be made using DMLS, having directional grain boundaries can actually improve the creep and rupture resistance of the alloy.

The thing is with a DMLS or SLM (selective laser melting) machine you can repair cracks in a monocrystalline turbine blade (cast as single crystals) which are normally un-repairable because the alloys used are considered non-weldable and non-join-able. You can try fixing it with laser welding but this usually results in things like undesirable crack propagation and grain formation which is obviously bad. So normally if you have a turbine blade that gets chipped or cracked you would throw it out and replace it with a new one. With a DMLS or SLM machine though you can seal the crack without any superfluous crack or grain boundary formation because it uses scanners with a much higher scanning velocity which can precisely control how the grain is formed as the part is sintered. So you could remove the cracked turbine blade from an engine, put into the DMLS machine (which is about the same size as most commercial 3 axis CNC mills) and repair it before putting it back in the engine.

literally years away

maybe decades

So basicly when this thread is going to reach 500 pages its gonna close?

yes

a new one will be made

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

\
literally years away

maybe decades

the future is now, thanks to science!

http://www.3ders.org/articles/20160204- ... nters.html\
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG_yZmwPhIU
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 090029/pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 5714702784

[Gallia-]

no

it's not

the first aircraft engine using any substantial quantity of SLM parts is the GE9X, which is five years away or so

maybe another five to ten years for something like Pratt & Whitney to start incorporating them into military engines

no word on whether or not SLM turbine blades actually going to show up, or when, since GE9X is only using a few sintered fuel nozzles

the 16 blades are carbon fiber and made through traditional machining and autoclaves

:^)

[The Corparation]

Its not the technology doesn't exist. Its that the technology is not being used to print new parts in the hangar of a carrier, nor is likely to see such use for a decent amount of time.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Its not the technology doesn't exist. Its that the technology is not being used to print new parts in the hangar of a carrier, nor is likely to see such use for a decent amount of time.

Newer engines are going to use more PMCs and CMCs for compressor and turbine blades (respectively) which are lighter than their titanium/nickel metal equivalents and because they're not metal they obviously can't be made/repaired using laser sintering. Small metal parts like fuel nozzles or injectors is likely what you'd make with stuff like DMLS. If you have it on a ship you could also use it make and/or repair various small gears and other mechanical parts like bolts or fasteners which the ship and/or aircraft would need.

[Gallia-]

it's much easier to simply replace an engine than try to fix it

sorry this is a fact

shipboard repair will be

1) engine broke
2) pull engine and replace
3) put engine on plane back to usa for disposal or repair at naval maintenance depot

if that

your wacky dumb ideas about turning a ship into a factory are made redundant by the same factories already existing on land

the retarded ns fetish of self sufficiency strikes again, and is disproven by real life's confidence in being able to move things with proper supply chains which are ultimate more important than being able to manufacture things in situ

it might make sense for engineering troops of a ground army or air force who can actually afford to move around small factory shops (and i do mean small, like three people and a welding torch) and produce parts in the field but this already exists since each soldier is issued a sewing kit anyway

a more plausible if still p. ridiculous scenario is the extinction of the attack carrier

[Velkanika]

lol

you are backpedaling already?

incredible

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.

support this ludicrous statement first before you try to say that "3d printing" (which is a retarded name for prototyping and sintering) is used

obviously laser sintering exists it's like twice your age

too bad it's only used for realtively small and minor parts like fuel injection nozzles

nothing serious

you ahve zero idea how engines are made much less what sintering is actually capable of though i guess so it's to be expected

but this is public knowledge which youre too lazy to support with real facts i guess instead you have the same view of manufacturing that a journalist who writes clickbait articles online has

except you probably spent less time researching it because the journo did all the "hard work" on that front

You want to try saying all that again without acting like a prima donna jackass, or are we done with this conversation?

[Gallia-]

no i dont, because your statements are super silly

[Velkanika]

Well then, don't expect me to pay attention to anything you post until your attitude improves. Most of the regulars here probably have at least an AA degree, so acting like you're in middle school isn't really getting you anywhere.

[Gallia-]

Also to return to the discussion about nuclear bombs vs. The Modern US Navy.

Aegis Baseline 6 and beyond (starting with DDG-79) have incorporated COTS computers into various systems, including helm and Aegis Combat System, to replace the radiation hardened UYK-43s and other "frivolous" things that would keep these ships operating in nuclear combat. Baseline 7.1 is being retrofitted to all Ticonderogas, with 2018 being the set date for completion, and at least USS Bunker Hill is compromised because she has 7.1 and the commercial computers that aren't hardened.

All Flight IIA Burkes are also compromised against nuclear attack, and its probably been retrofitted to the older Burkes, so RIP fleet defense. Not really important though since the Burkes are somewhat tangential to fleet defense, the Ticonderogas are all gone soon and probably with it the USN's carrier fleet.

So I was wrong.

The future isn't grim. The future is finished.



Cue a technothriller where Zumwalt, Freedom, Winston S. Churchill, Ronald Reagan, and Vicksburg get caught in a nuclear attack and only Vicksburg's combat system survives the TREE to be able to fight back against the wave of missiles and save the carrier from certain destruction. Oh wait, that's Red Storm Rising.

Maybe when the US Navy's carriers are all turned into reefs courtesy of 1980s naval tactics then SSN-21 can win the war by herself.

[Spirit of Hope]

Also to return to the discussion about nuclear bombs vs. The Modern US Navy.

Aegis Baseline 6 and beyond (starting with DDG-79) have incorporated COTS computers into various systems, including helm and Aegis Combat System, to replace the radiation hardened UYK-43s and other "frivolous" things that would keep these ships operating in nuclear combat. Baseline 7.1 is being retrofitted to all Ticonderogas, with 2018 being the set date for completion, and at least USS Bunker Hill is compromised because she has 7.1 and the commercial computers that aren't hardened.

All Flight IIA Burkes are also compromised against nuclear attack, and its probably been retrofitted to the older Burkes, so RIP fleet defense. Not really important though since the Burkes are somewhat tangential to fleet defense, the Ticonderogas are all gone soon and probably with it the USN's carrier fleet.

So I was wrong.

The future isn't grim. The future is finished.

(Image)

Maybe when the US Navy's carriers are all turned into reefs courtesy of 1980s naval tactics then SSN-21 can win the war by herself.

You're right, the US Navy is completely inadequate for dealing with the nuclear war scenarios of the 1980's. It's a good thing then that the situation the US and the world find itself in in 2016 are very different from the situation of 1980. Which you know, might explain why the armed forces of the United States, and the rest of the world, have changed their thinking about war.

[Gallia-]

Also to return to the discussion about nuclear bombs vs. The Modern US Navy.

Aegis Baseline 6 and beyond (starting with DDG-79) have incorporated COTS computers into various systems, including helm and Aegis Combat System, to replace the radiation hardened UYK-43s and other "frivolous" things that would keep these ships operating in nuclear combat. Baseline 7.1 is being retrofitted to all Ticonderogas, with 2018 being the set date for completion, and at least USS Bunker Hill is compromised because she has 7.1 and the commercial computers that aren't hardened.

All Flight IIA Burkes are also compromised against nuclear attack, and its probably been retrofitted to the older Burkes, so RIP fleet defense. Not really important though since the Burkes are somewhat tangential to fleet defense, the Ticonderogas are all gone soon and probably with it the USN's carrier fleet.

So I was wrong.

The future isn't grim. The future is finished.

(Image)

Maybe when the US Navy's carriers are all turned into reefs courtesy of 1980s naval tactics then SSN-21 can win the war by herself.

You're right, the US Navy is completely inadequate for dealing with the nuclear war scenarios of the 1980's. It's a good thing then that the situation the US and the world find itself in in 2016 are very different from the situation of 1980. Which you know, might explain why the armed forces of the United States, and the rest of the world, have changed their thinking about war.

yeah

which is why theyre going to lose the next war



might as well argue for non-VLO AWACS/ELINT and going back to F-4 Phantoms

except that's exactly what the US Navy has done because "RH is expensive hurrr"

[Spirit of Hope]

You're right, the US Navy is completely inadequate for dealing with the nuclear war scenarios of the 1980's. It's a good thing then that the situation the US and the world find itself in in 2016 are very different from the situation of 1980. Which you know, might explain why the armed forces of the United States, and the rest of the world, have changed their thinking about war.

yeah

which is why theyre going to lose the next war

The next war against whom?

[Gallia-]

yeah

which is why theyre going to lose the next war

(Image)

The next war against whom?

red china obviously

if you arent prepared for a war though, why do you expect to win it?

this is worse than the us army hurring around in MRAPs which can at least be fixed by a battalion getting shafted by ICMs or something

of course half the us army is prepared for a big war since its HBCT and HBCT is like god's own brigade almost and perfectly fine

the us navy is 100% fuckered in naval combat it's only good for fighting random brown people the incumbent administration decides to invent a reason to go to war with

otoh the USAF is funding RH computers based on 65 nm CPUs so it might be salvagable if the USN and USAF can ever work together instead of the tick-tock shafting of each other's programs and forcing upon one another

although at this point the US Navy probably needs a real RH computer forced upon it

[Spirit of Hope]

The next war against whom?

red china obviously

if you arent prepared for a war though, why do you expect to win it?

this is worse than the us army hurring around in MRAPs which can at least be fixed by a battalion getting shafted by ICMs or something

Red China, who has no reason to go to war with the United States and no real allies to support it in such a war.

Meanwhile the United States has a number of allies, strong economic ties with China that go both ways, and a strong technological edge in a number of fields.

I'm thinking the global political situation would have to change quite a bit if the US and China were to start shooting at it. Such a change in the global situation that would potentially lead to the possibility of this shooting war would almost certainly bring about changes in the US armed forces.

The US is preparing to win what it envisions as the most likely next war, knocking over some dictator who decides to upset the status quo.

[Gallia-]

red china obviously

if you arent prepared for a war though, why do you expect to win it?

this is worse than the us army hurring around in MRAPs which can at least be fixed by a battalion getting shafted by ICMs or something

Red China, who has no reason to go to war with the United States and no real allies to support it in such a war.

Meanwhile the United States has a number of allies, strong economic ties with China that go both ways, and a strong technological edge in a number of fields.

I'm thinking the global political situation would have to change quite a bit if the US and China were to start shooting at it. Such a change in the global situation that would potentially lead to the possibility of this shooting war would almost certainly bring about changes in the US armed forces.

The US is preparing to win what it envisions as the most likely next war, knocking over some dictator who decides to upset the status quo.

what if i told you

that was what the us always envisioned as the most likely next war

didnt give them any excuses to negligently disregard the safety of sailors and soldiers fighting the atomic war of the hypothetical future then

why now?

nothing really cahnged except the soviet union exploded and people got to pretend that the world was any different for 25 years

[Spirit of Hope]

Red China, who has no reason to go to war with the United States and no real allies to support it in such a war.

Meanwhile the United States has a number of allies, strong economic ties with China that go both ways, and a strong technological edge in a number of fields.

I'm thinking the global political situation would have to change quite a bit if the US and China were to start shooting at it. Such a change in the global situation that would potentially lead to the possibility of this shooting war would almost certainly bring about changes in the US armed forces.

The US is preparing to win what it envisions as the most likely next war, knocking over some dictator who decides to upset the status quo.

what if i told you

that was what the us always envisioned as the most likely next war

didnt give them any excuses to negligently disregard the safety of sailors and soldiers fighting the atomic war of the hypothetical future then

why now?

nothing really cahnged except the soviet union exploded and people got to pretend that the world was any different for 25 years

Yes the Soviet Union disintegrated, dramatically reducing the size and power of the next largest competitor to the US.

With the collapse of the USSR came the removal of the alliance that went with it, some of whom those members joined the US's alliance.

Which further stabilizes the world stage of the major powers.

But yes let us ignore this major shift in the political, economic, and social status of the world.

P.S. Describing China as red is kinda funny.

[Gallia-]

you are just stringing words together with no clue of what they mean

for example, you clearly think "major power" and "great power" are synonymous, except "great power" had a very specific meaning that only applies through analogy today: the old world order i.e. the congress of vienna and specifically the eurasian empires (british, french, italian, german, ostensibly ottoman, etc. etc.) that enforced it are the only meaning of "great powers" with a plural

there is only one "great power" today

the usa and the new world order are at the greatest nadir since its creation at the end of ww2 tho

at least if the ussr was still around (or someone to expy the ussr, like red china) the usa wouldnt be so complacent and willing to try to police the world with an ever shrinking presence and ability to do so due to lack of money and lack of willingness to spend/acquire money

p. kennedy is correct about that, but im willing to hedge my bets until ive jumped off the precipice of civilization utterly before i announce the death of western civilization

[Rich and Corporations]

at least if the ussr was still around (or someone to expy the ussr, like red china) the usa wouldnt be so complacent and willing to try to police the world with an ever shrinking presence and ability to do so due to lack of money and lack of willingness to spend/acquire money

We're spending money. We're spending the most money.

We're wasting the money, ignoring the procurement lessons from decades ago.

Actually, why are we trying to project power against nations capable of fielding F-35 grade fighters?

[Gallia-]

the most money

because inflation means absolute dollar amounts are relevant i guess

israel is the last bastion of the new world order i guess

[Spirit of Hope]

the most money

because inflation means absolute dollar amounts are relevant i guess

israel is the last bastion of the new world order i guess

When the US is spending 3-4 times more on defense than the next guy, absolute dollars are kinda relevant.

Not to mention of the top 15, 8 are allies of the US.

I actually agree that the US doesn't have spending that in line with the mission it is setting itself. That isn't the same thing as pretending that the US needs to spend money preparing for a nuclear war that is dramatically unlikely given the current world situation.

[Gallia-]

the most money

because inflation means absolute dollar amounts are relevant i guess

israel is the last bastion of the new world order i guess

When the US is spending 3-4 times more on defense than the next guy, absolute dollars are kinda relevant.

Not to mention of the top 15, 8 are allies of the US.

I actually agree that the US doesn't have spending that in line with the mission it is setting itself. That isn't the same thing as pretending that the US needs to spend money preparing for a nuclear war that is dramatically unlikely given the current world situation.

no it's not lol

this would be a good rebuttal if you knew what you were talking about

you apparently seem to think that nuclear war likely in the 80s or something but protip: it wasnt

it was at least as likely as it is now, or less likely, but the us navy still bought RH computers instead of commercial servers

buying COTS computers has a lot more to do with the lack of money to pay for development of new RH cpus rather than a lack of need

truly astounding tho

even the usaf knows it needs to prepare for nuclear war and is soliciting for new icbms, a new nuclear bomber, new RH computers, and new bombs

the us navy is somehow left behind i guess

they probably just lack the money to spend on developing next generation RH computers tho which fits with the running theme of "do more with less"

death of western civilization immanent

[Spirit of Hope]

When the US is spending 3-4 times more on defense than the next guy, absolute dollars are kinda relevant.

Not to mention of the top 15, 8 are allies of the US.

I actually agree that the US doesn't have spending that in line with the mission it is setting itself. That isn't the same thing as pretending that the US needs to spend money preparing for a nuclear war that is dramatically unlikely given the current world situation.

no it's not lol

this would be a good rebuttal if you knew what you were talking about

you apparently seem to think that nuclear war likely in the 80s or something but protip: it wasnt

it was at least as likely as it is now, or less likely, but the us navy still bought RH computers instead of commercial servers

buying COTS computers has a lot more to do with the lack of money to pay for them rather than a lack of need

truly astounding tho

The US thought it was more likely to engage in nuclear war. In the objectively view nuclear war want that likely, correct. The US was unable to objectively view the situation, and it didn't have all of the information.

It is about money, the USN can't get everything it wants. They have decided that it needs new and better computers more than it need ones prepared for nuclear war.

[Gallia-]

you

are

literally

objectively

wrong

this isnt like even mistaken this is objectively wrong, this is like "five seconds of google" objectively wrong jesus christ

where do you get what you objectively smoke? come on, even the 1982 FM-100-5 acknowledged that nuclear war was the least likely both now and in the future form of warfare the us military would find itself fighting

alb 2000 document expanded on it to include humanitarian stuff in the upper end of "most likely" but the spectrum of conflict probably dates back to the 1950s, t hey even have pictures of it in every single Cold War-era field manual:



what do you think militaries do? or history is? or anything? has there ever been a nuclear war? how is it more likely than anything else of which there has been literally hundreds of events?

or do you think the us military is made up of video game nerds instead of professional people with degrees and doctorates in their fucking jobs with the same level of professional detail and rigour needed as a lawyer or doctor or something equally offensive and pretentious?

do you even know what youre talking about?

it seems every time you reply to me, if you took everything you said and made it the opposite, it would be almost correct, but it's almost habitual and extremely grating please stop and actually bother to back up your statements with some meaningful that can be verified through google instead of empty deflections to divert your ignorance

so no i dont think you do or youre being deliberate about it?

the usn isnt just "not getting everything it wants" (although what it wants is pretty stupid a lot of the time), it's not getting everything it needs to actually do its job ffs this isnt hard to understand

you are like a brick wall tho cant wait until everything i say is blatantly ignored by you

the only branch of the us military bothering to invest in RH computers is the USAF because it habitually uses them due to its space mission, its trying to invent 65 nm RH computers (on Virtex chips), which will propel rad-hard into the early 21st century of ~2006, which may be a good starting point to replace the COTS regattas used in the zumwalt and newer aegis

but until rad-hard computers get serious development again the usn will be chronically vulnerable to TREE and other neutron effects from nuclear attack, despite all the surge protectors and hatch battening in the world

could rpobably be fixed if the USA doubled its defense budget and chose very judiciously what to invest in, as that wouldn't present terribly substantial amounts of money and it would ease up the current R&D nadir of the army and navy

but no the post cold war world means no wars ever again

literally korea all over again but this time the soviet union is a hawkish aggressive power that has never done anything for america, instead of a functionally benign adversary that mostly disagreed about how to split germany in two, and wanted to be left alone for most of its life to play with its tanks despite the west's attempts to pander to it (the ussr was slightly dawwtistic tho)