An American company plans to start producing engines for Javelin and Stinger missiles using 3D printing

An American company has announced the introduction of a new approach to the design and production of solid rocket engines based on 3D printing. Developers expect that the introduction of additive technologies will lead to faster and cheaper production.

The company's chief executive, Joe Laurienti, explained that the project, called Lynx, involves printing solid rocket motor casings and components for small systems such as the Javelin, Stinger and GMRLS missiles.

The developers of Ursa Major hope that in the future, the widespread introduction of 3D printing into the production process of solid propellant engines will quickly replenish the stocks of the above-mentioned weapons that have been fairly “depleted” in recent times.

Laurienti emphasized that the approach proposed by his company can not only speed up production, but also rebuild production to a different model of solid rocket engines without large-scale re-equipment or additional costs.

The main advantage of this approach is the ability to abandon the construction of additional factories to replenish a depleted arsenal. We wanted this feature to be very flexible. The Lynx project might be working on Javelin one day, GMLRS the next, and AMRAAM the third. And it's actually possible

- explained the executive director of the company.

Regarding product design changes, Laurienti added that the new design for 3D-printed engines will allow some components to be manufactured as a single unit, as opposed to the traditional approach of creating different parts separately and then joining them together. According to him, this will reduce the number of parts required, increase automation and reduce overall cost.

Laurienti noted that Lynx can print about 50 small motor casings up to 2,5 inches in diameter in three days. Traditional manufacturing processes to produce that many engines could take about a month, he said.

Meanwhile, the developers promise that in the future their printer will be able to create objects up to 22 inches wide. In addition, the company has already developed several metal alloys that it can use in 3D printing, including high-strength nickel alloys, as well as titanium and aluminum.

While the Lynx project is not currently working on the Javelin, GMLRS or Stinger programs, the company said it believes the 3D printing system could certainly help close production gaps in these vital programs.

Comments

[I'm mine]

For the production of such piece goods as the javelin and stinger, in peacetime the use of 3-D printers is quite justified. And in wartime, the “old grandfather’s” method is better - casting

[credo]

...The developers expect that the introduction of additive technologies will lead to faster and cheaper production...

As far as one can judge from the principles of doing business in the US military-industrial complex, the issue of accelerating and reducing the cost of weapons production has never been in first or second place for them.

[Myths]

3D metal printing is more expensive than casting. 3D printing is not as thin as casting and will require post-processing; the engine is not the body; any inaccuracies and sagging will affect the quality. Plastic is easier to print if you have the equipment and specialists.

[pettabyte]

Casting/stamping of metal and plastic allows you to do a lot and quickly.
But sometimes it will be made up of parts. This means that qualifications and engineers are needed; they are generally needed for production.

The printer is the same. It’s not that qualifications are needed there as in the example above. A crowd of macaques can handle it.
In return, a complex part can be made monolithic (as opposed to stamping).
But there is no speed, the price goes through the roof compared to casting (but this is a joy for them, because the amers know how to saw in the defense industry like no one else).
For a wildly intricate form or a one-piece item, the printer is good, but production on them is a perversion.

[APASUS]

Laurienti noted that Lynx can print about 50 small motor casings up to 2,5 inches in diameter in three days. Traditional manufacturing processes to produce that many engines could take about a month, he said.

Do they make jewelry rings or rocket engines?

[Escariot]

Quote: APASUS

Laurienti noted that Lynx can print about 50 small motor casings up to 2,5 inches in diameter in three days. Traditional manufacturing processes to produce that many engines could take about a month, he said.

Do they make jewelry rings or rocket engines?

2.5 inches is 63 mm.

[APASUS]

Quote from Escariot

2.5 inches is 63 mm.

I'm talking about time, not size.

[APASUS]

Laurienti noted that Lynx can print about 50 small motor casings up to 2,5 inches in diameter in three days. Traditional manufacturing processes to produce that many engines could take about a month, he said.

Do they make jewelry rings or rocket engines?

[Amateur]

Laurienti noted that Lynx can print about 50 small motor casings up to 2,5 inches in diameter in three days.
...
the Lynx project is not currently working on Javelin, GMLRS or Stinger programs,

Well, natural UAC. “We will definitely do it by December 31. We will clarify the year in working order if there is decent funding...”

[bone1]

How can an engine be made using 3D printing? - if only the powder charge is printed

[pettabyte]

And we can also print with aluminum.
It seems that RusAl also tried to make machine tools here, if I’m not confused. I definitely did print dust.
Well, judging by this from the article:

In addition, the company has already developed several metal alloys that it can use in 3D printing, including high-strength nickel alloys, as well as titanium and aluminum.

This is exactly metal printing.

However, I don’t know how it is in terms of hardening/annealing, whether it turns out to be a complete mess, like fig welding with snot - I can’t say for that.