The U.S. military is qualitatively different than its adversaries’ in a singular way—it fights at the end of long logistical systems. No other nation even approaches the United States in the capability and complexity of its supply network; 95 percent of the world’s extraterritorial military bases house U.S. troops.[1]Unfortunately for the military supply system, confronting all the major national security threats requires deployment of forces thousands of miles away. So much energy is devoted to supplying overseas forces for two reasons—those forces need to be able to operate without interruption, anywhere in the world, for an indefinite period, and today’s equipment is highly complex. Gone are the days when John Paul Jones could repair his ships at sea with material acquired in any port—until the emerging technology of additive manufacturing has finished bringing those days back.
Additive manufacturing—commonly known as 3D printing—offers a wealth of opportunities to the Department of Defense (DoD). Rapid prototyping allowed the Army to test a design change to the joint service aircrew mask at one-fifth the cost of conventional testing.[2]The Air Force has demonstrated the capability to produce novel helmets with embedded antennas.[3]And the Navy uses additive manufacturing to produce improved hydraulic manifolds for the V-22 Osprey, improving performance and saving weight.[4]As impressive as these developments are, none will revolutionize the operation of the armed forces. The real opportunity will be an overhaul of the defense supply system.
3D Printing Is Here
The process of computerized “printing” of a three-dimensional object first was demonstrated in 1987, and commercial sales began the following year, albeit of rudimentary devices. Additive manufacturing already has found a profitable niche in the aerospace industry, because it can efficiently and cost-effectively produce complex parts in low volume.[5]Existing technology is precise enough to produce automotive parts for Formula 1 race cars and nimble enough to produce high-end athletic footwear for Adidas.[6]Many commercial devices continue the historical use of polymers and resin to produce plastic objects, while newer systems can build with metal, biological tissue, food, and ceramics.
The military supply system already leverages a variety of tools—better and faster communication, data-driven demand analysis, and global transportation reach—to reduce occurrences of excess and insufficient inventory. Individual units, however, still are challenged with maintaining large inventories, purchasing critical parts on short notice, and obtaining parts for which replacements may no longer exist. Additive manufacturing may be able to provide effective low-cost solutions to these problems.
The National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute, better known as America Makes, was created in 2012 with the DoD as a founding partner. In 2014, President Barack Obama set a goal that the military “be able to download digital blueprints they can use to 3D print new parts and repair equipment right there in the field.”[7]All branches of the armed services continually seek new applications for the technology.
The Navy has implemented a number of initiatives and has begun to see a return on its investment. Vice Admiral Philip Cullom, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Readiness and Logistics, has called 3D printing a “breakthrough technolog[y] for our maintenance and logistics functions.”[8]The Navy’s “Print the Fleet” project is tasked with incorporating additive manufacturing into the supply system and placed a 3D printer on board the USS Essex(LHD-2) to test the concept of producing parts on demand.[9]
The Future of Supply
In the near future, every ship and submarine should have its own set of three-dimensional printers, each designed for a specific function and with adequate material and design files. These would be run by the supply department and would not require a new rating or even a training program—a sailor simply would match the desired part number with a design file and press print. No matter what breaks, the ship stays at sea. In addition to filling the gaps already present in the Navy’s enormous supply system (what crew can say it has never needed an unavailable part?), this would also allow the paring down of requirements for onboard storage. There would be no need to keep a set of large, fragile tools or see a plane grounded for weeks, waiting on a critical part; onboard printers would solve the problem. Larger and more expensive machines could be kept and maintained by shoreside facilities within the existing supply network.
The benefits of such a supply chain could help reduce our reliance on overseas infrastructure as well. Ships and submarines always will need food and the occasional liberty port, but those are plentiful and can be scheduled predictably. But untethering the supply chain from a physical place will liberate ships and submarines to stay on station as desired, limited only by the ability of crews to conduct corrective maintenance.
The expensive use of ships and helicopters to resupply likewise can be reduced. While overseas bases yield many benefits—“improving operational responsiveness to contingencies, deterring adversaries and assuring allies, and facilitating security cooperation with partner militaries”—they also represent an expensive use of personnel and infrastructure.[10]By reducing the dependence on shoreside establishments for logistics, the DoD will be freed to restructure its overseas footprints to meet strategic objectives.
Additive manufacturing also will tackle the problem of obsolescence, as when Naval Undersea Warfare Center Keyport printed replacement circuit card clips for an out-of-production legacy submarine server system in 2014.[11]Parts unavailability costs the Navy $750 million per year.[12]Military equipment often outlasts production lines—and sometimes manufacturers. Future procurement contracts easily could include a clause that the military be entitled to standardized, printable designs.[13]Manufacturers may prefer to license designs to the military from the start and free themselves from the uncertainty of future demand and the expense of maintaining production capability.
The Future Is Close
Despite the promise additive manufacturing shows, it will not be a panacea. The capability to produce complex parts within exacting tolerances is limited. Many spare parts are too complex to be manufactured at sea or include exotic or dangerous materials. It is unlikely the Navy would want to print replacement nuclear fuel cells even if it were possible. Many procedures will continue to require extended maintenance periods and specialized equipment, and there may be limits to how willing the defense industry will be to undermine a profitable part of their business model.
Powerful defense contractors undoubtedly will demand compensation for the loss of traditional manufacturing revenue, as well as assurance that their intellectual property will not be shared. No new military technology should be expected to solve every problem, and additive manufacturing is no different. A realistic assessment of its benefits as well as its limitations is paramount to the successful leveraging of additive manufacturing.
It nevertheless represents a golden opportunity. The Navy—and the entire DoD—should seize it and get ahead of an emerging technology to develop it to suit the military’s needs now.
[1]David Vine. “The United States Probably Has More Foreign Military Bases Than Any Other People, Nation, or Empire in History,” The Nation, 14 September 2015, www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/.
[2]U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Defense Additive Manufacturing: DOD Needs to Systematically Track Department-wide 3D Printing Efforts,” October 2015, 16.
[3]Ibid.,27.
[4]Matthew J. Louis, Tom Seymour, and Jim Joyce, “3D opportunity in the Department of Defense: Additive manufacturing fires up,” Deloitte University Press Review, 2014, 13.
[5]Alwyn Scott, “Exclusive: Boeing’s Space Taxis to Use More Than 600 3D-Printed Parts,” Reuters, 3 February 2017, www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-space-exclusive/exclusive-boeings-space-taxis-to-use-more-than-600-3d-printed-parts-idUSKBN15I1HW.
[6]Matt McFarland, “A Formula 1 Team Is 3D Printing Race Parts,” CNN, 11 April 2017. money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/technology/formula-1-3d-printing/index.html. See also “Adidas’s High-Tech Factory Brings Production Back to Germany,” The Economist,14 January 2017, www.economist.com/news/business/21714394-making-trainers-robots-and-3d-printers-adidass-high-tech-factory-brings-production-back.
[7]Barack Obama, Speech at the White House, 25 February 2014, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov /realitycheck/photos-and-video/video/2014/02/25/president-obama-speaks-manufacturing-innovation?page=34#transcript.
[8]Louis et al., “3D opportunity in the Department of Defense,” 22.
[9]“Print the Fleet,” NavSea press release, www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NSWC_Dahlgren /WhatWeDo/PrinttheFleet/InHouse_DNeck_Print_the_Fleet_Trifold.pdf. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Defense Additive Manufacturing: DOD Needs to Systematically Track Department-wide 3D Printing Efforts,” October 2015, 25.
[10]RAND Corporation, “Overseas Basing of U.S. Military Forces: An Assessment of Relative Costs and Strategic Benefits,” 2013.
[11]Louis et al., “3D opportunity in the Department of Defense,” 11.
[12]Jon Freeman and Giacomo Persi Paoli, “Additive Manufacturing and Obsolescence Management in the Defence Context,” RAND Europe, 2015, 6.
[13]Ibid.,9.
Lieutenant Kramer graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 2011 with a B.S. in aerospace engineering. After completing initial submarine officer training, he reported to the USS Charlotte(SSN-766) at Pearl Harbor. He is currently a postgraduate student in Ljubljana, Slovenia, as an Olmsted Scholar.
For more great Proceedings content, click here.