WHITE PAPER

Additive Manufacturing in the

Department of Defense

Bruce Kaplan
Program Manager
Acquisition and Product Support

Joshua Crouse
Consultant
Acquisition and Product Support

Russell Salley
Senior Consultant
Acquisition and Product Support

Colin Finfrock
Consultant
Acquisition and Product Support
Jason Ray
Managing Director
J.T. Ray & Associates

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE | MATERIEL MANAGEMENT

Additive manufacturing (AM), the process that builds 3D objects by depositing

materials in successive layers, has garnered tremendous attention in the
military. Imagine a future in which U.S. forces could fully produce critical,
but otherwise unavailable, parts on demand in the optimal location along the
Department of Defense (DoD) supply chain. That is the promise of AM, and not
surprisingly, DoD leaders are making targeted investments in AM capabilities
with the goal of improving readiness and sustainment.
The pace of technology improvements explains the excitement. Advances in computing power
and software, input materials, machine speed, and performance have all expanded AMs potential
beyond prototyping and into the production of genuine end-use components. Undoubtedly, AM has
the capability to produce end-use parts that improve design, reduce waste, shorten time to market,
and reduce lead time. Its happening today at GE, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and many other
companies around the world.
Despite how rapidly the technology is advancing, it is important to remember that AM is not a
push-button technology. The above-mentioned firms have conducted rigorous assessments of
their supply chains and developed a business case for producing select end-use components
where it is effective and economical to use AM. After years of investment, development, and
refinement, the pioneers have created a component-specific, end-to-end production process.
For DoD to successfully use AM technology, it must leverage the innovations of the defense
industrial base while developing an organic capability. However, DoD faces many challenges it
cannot afford to take lightly. As DoD moves toward integrating AM into its operations, it must
not let the hype blind it from the realities required for implementation, as depicted in Figure 1.

Months

Traditional Manufacturing
Production
Time
Part
Selection
and
Business
Case
Analysis

Additive
Manufacturing

Engineering and Approval

Engineering
Design and
Modeling

Material
Selection
and
Qualication

Prototyping
and
Iteration

Manufacturing
Process
Approval

Post
Processing

Days

Testing and Certication

Dimensional
Quality
Control

Months

NonDestructive
Testing
CT-SCAN

Destructive
Fatigue
Testing
Tensile Bars

Certication
and
Approval

Months

Time to produce and deliver rst time AM parts

Figure 1. Practical Timeline to Complete the Entire Additive Manufacturing Process

In this white paper, we identify four main challenges to fully realizing AM in the military:
1. AM Process Maturity

3. Leveraging AM for Obsolescence

2. Technical Data Packages

4. Repeatability.

We cut through the hype and offer practical suggestions for addressing the challenges and
moving forward toward the rich future that AM promises.

MATERIEL MANAGEMENT | ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Challenge 1: AM Process Maturity

AM is often touted within DoD as a technology that can dramatically shrink the supply chain by
providing soldiers and sailors the ability to print parts on-site, on-demand, and in mere hours,
rather than waiting months for traditional manufacturers. Proponents believe AM can build
anything, anywhere, nearly instantaneously, and reliably produce these parts without significant
variability. The reality is quite different. AM requires significant upfront and back-end support for
the production of end-use components. Moreover, parts produced by using AM can vary drastically
from build to build due to the significant number of variables associated with the process.
While the idea of printing parts on-site, on-demand, anywhere in the world is an attractive vision,
we are not there yet. To get there, DoDs efforts must be grounded in the current reality of AM
technology. The truth is that the process to additively manufacture certified end-use parts is
not quick or simple. Printing itself is just one piece of a larger, more complex process. As shown
in Figure 1, the engineering and approval functions required for DoD to move forward with
producing an end-use part will take months. The same goes for the testing and certification
process on the back end.
As DoD moves toward integrating AM into its operations, leaders and policy makers must
understand the full scope of what the AM process involves. Understanding all that comes into
play will help DoD get to the desired ends sooner: decreased lead time, lower inventory levels,
and improved readiness.
DoD can begin with these steps:
Educate its broader leadership on the realities and limitations of the current state of AM
technology to set more realistic expectations and have all champions of AM operating under
the same set of assumptions.
Invest more heavily in understanding the engineering, approval and testing, and certification
processes. The majority of money and time spent producing AM parts will be concentrated in
these areas, and they deserve equal or perhaps even more attention than the actual printing
of the part.
Focus on where AM can add value now, and recognize that achieving the full benefits of AM
will take time. Small wins will keep the AM momentum moving forward and will add up to
bigger wins over time.

Challenge 2: Technical Data Packages

Technical data packages (TDPs) include all of the technical elements necessary for the production
of end-use components, as shown in Figure 2. Unfortunately, few DoD-owned TDPs contain all of
these elements in a consistent or compatible format. Yet, without them, producing components by
using AM is not possible.

Figure 2. Elements of the Technical Data Package Required for Additive Manufacturing
2

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE | MATERIEL MANAGEMENT

The lack of available comprehensive TDPs remains one of the major issues prohibiting DoD
from fully adopting AM. In fact, 77 percent of the parts that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
manages do not have TDPs. Of the remaining 23 percent, most are in 2D format and not optimized
for 3D manufacture.
DoD may buy, license, or reengineer the needed TDPs, but none of these options is easy, quick,
or cheap. First, the DoD acquisition system makes procuring government purpose rights to TDPs
challenging and prohibitively expensive. Second, even if the acquisition process were easy, the 3D
models can exist in about 50 different file formats, many of which are proprietary.
Going forward, leaders and policy makers should develop a rapid process to acquire, rent, or
reengineer and approve TDPs. One option is to create a system that provides DoD with temporary
access to the TDPs essential for producing AM parts, at a cost that is less expensive than buying
technical data rights. DoD can start creating such a system through the following:
Collaborate with the private sector to structure contract language around acquiring temporary
access to technical data.

Despite how
rapidly the
technology is
advancing, it is
important to
remember that
AM is not a
push-button
technology.

Identify parts for which it would be useful to acquire TDPs temporarily.

Identify a system capable of executing this type of temporary exchange.
Reach DoD-wide consensus for a standardized TDP format, to include a universal 3D file
that can be accessed by all necessary stakeholders.

Challenge 3: Repeatability

Production or part repeatability is the ability to reproduce an output with the same material
properties. Without repeatability, DoD cannot predict performance and, therefore, cannot have
confidence in the AM parts it produces.
The hype around AM suggests that AM can reliably produce end-use parts that meet the exact
same standard from build to build. Given the current state of AM technology, the reality is that
repeatability is very difficult to achieve, even in a lab environment. Outside of the lab environment
(that is, at the DoD depots, and in forward-deployed locations where DoD hopes to implement AM
capabilities), repeatability poses even more of a challenge.
DoD has only just begun to explore the use of AM in forward-deployed environments with polymer
printers. For example, in 2012, the Army Rapid Equipping Force deployed two AM expeditionary
labs to Afghanistan. This capability enabled warfighters and engineers to interact and develop
rapid prototypes of polymer parts. However, rapid prototyping with polymers is quite different from
producing end-use metal parts that meet specifications to support weapons systems. A pilot in a
fighter jet needs 100 percent confidence that an AM-produced part will not fail under the pressure
of extreme G-forces.
A number of variables can affect repeatability:
Feedstock uniformity

Platform stability

Temperature and humidity

Vibration

Air quality

Training and skill sets

Power dependability

Machine calibration.

Inert gas supply

Even with the most current AM technology, feedstock, and stringent process controls, repeatability
is difficult to achieve in a lab. On the battlefield, controlling the same variables will be far more
3

MATERIEL MANAGEMENT | ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

challenging. AM has the potential to affect readiness on the front lines, but currently, end-use parts
produced in forward-deployed environments seem unlikely to meet the necessary consistency
standard. Until the repeatability challenge can be solved by AM technology advances, DoD should
focus on understanding the process to achieve repeatability.
As DoD moves forward integrating AM into its operations, it must first develop and demonstrate
repeatability for both polymer and metal parts in a lab environment. The lessons learned from
achieving repeatability for one part would then apply to developing the production standards
and processes for other AM parts. Once DoD develops a catalog of parts that are repeatable in
a lab environment, the next step is to send TDPs to other locations for production tests. Achieving
repeatability with a TDP sent from another location would be a huge step in achieving a deployable
capability that could produce reliable end-use parts.

AM can be
a solution
for some
obsolescence
challenges,
but it is not
necessarily a
quick or easy fix.

Challenge 4: Leveraging AM for Obsolescence

Obsolescence means the loss or impending loss of a manufacturer of items or raw materials. It
typically occurs near the projected end of a weapon system lifecycle, due to a decreasing demand
for sustainment and maintenance quantities.
Obsolescence issues plague DoD air, land, and sea platforms and have motivated DoD leaders to
investigate and pursue alternative sourcing methods such as AM. However, the fundamental challenge of pursuing an emerging technology like AM is that the capabilities are not yet established.
Today,1 DLA has just begun to identify which obsolete parts could potentially be candidates for
AM production, based on factors like material composition, size, and characteristics. As discussed
in the previous section, however, actually producing obsolete parts requires TDPs with a 3D model
and build instructions. In most instances, the TDPs for obsolete parts either dont exist in the
correct format or dont exist at all. To build these TDPs, DoD needs to reengineer the part for
AM production; this could take up to two years from design through certification.
That technical challenge gives rise to a whole set of significant business challenges that must be
addressed before considering AM for obsolete parts manufacture. The technical question of Can
we do it? is just one part of the puzzle. Equally important is Should we do it? The costs of acquiring TDPs and other direct costs, the opportunity costs of spending limited resources on AM, the
impact on mission readiness, and the effect on production lead time that results from the monthsto-years-long process cycle for producing AM parts for the first time all need to be considered.
AM can be a solution for some obsolescence challenges, but it is not necessarily a quick or easy
fix. DoD should pinpoint where AM can add the most value when it comes to producing obsolete
parts and take into account not only what is feasible, but also what makes good business sense.
DoD should take the following steps for dealing with the technical and business considerations
surrounding AM:
Develop and implement a decision support process that not only takes into account mission
readiness, but also weighs the business practically of using AM for producing obsolete
components. Factors weighing into the decision should include the life of the platform, the
quantity of parts needed over the lifecycle, and the components impact on mission readiness.
Establish long-term contract vehicles with metrology (reverse-engineering) companies that
streamline the reverse engineering acquisition process and shorten lead times.
Modify existing contracts with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and intellectual
property holders to increase access to TDPs and avoid the reverse engineering process that
can take over two years from start to finish.
1

DoD is using an AM parts pre-screening tool designed by LMI called the DLA Legacy Parts Pre-screening Tool.

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE | MATERIEL MANAGEMENT

Develop a rapid testing and qualification process for critical obsolete components that are
produced by using AM, so these parts do not get delayed in final qualification testing.
Establish a reporting system that allows program managers to submit potential AM candidates
along with a business case for review.
Review critically low-stock items more frequently to identify obsolescence issues before they
affect mission readiness.

Conclusion

AM holds great potential for meeting DoDs need for parts, but first, leaders and policy makers
must separate the technologys hype from its realities. With so much on the line, a clear-eyed view
of the tradeoffs and limitations are prerequisite to any campaign to get the most value out of AM.
Ensuring quality and reducing risk are paramount; first understanding the true current state of AM
will point to the right way forward for integrating AM into DoD supply chain and logistics operations.
If you have questions on this topic, please contact Bruce Kaplan (bkaplan@lmi.org), Russell Salley
(rsalley@lmi.org), Colin Finfrock (cfinfrock@lmi.org), Joshua Crouse (jcrouse@lmi.org), or Jason
Ray (jason@jtrassoc.com).
Bruce Kaplan is a program manager in LMIs Acquisition and Product Support Group. Mr. Kaplan has
over 30 years of experience in problem solving for defense and civil agencies, including research and
development on technologies and support on spare parts for weapon systems for DLA. A former Navy
Engineering Duty officer, he has a Master of Science in Management from MIT.
Russell Salley is senior consultant in LMIs Acquisition and Product Support Group. A retired Air Force
officer, he supports DLAs research and development efforts. Mr. Salley has a BS in Physics from the
U.S. Air Force Academy, an MS in Logistics Management from the Air Force Institute of Technology,
and an MS in Strategic Intelligence from the Joint Military Intelligence College.
Colin Finfrock is a consultant in LMIs Acquisition and Product Support Group. He has 7 years of
experience in supply chain and logistics and currently supports defense and civilian agency clients.
Mr. Finfrock has a BBA from Robert Morris University and an MBA from George Washington University.
Joshua Crouse is a consultant in LMIs Acquisition and Product Support Group. Mr. Crouse manages
DLA-focused projects to enhance enterprise processes and procedures. He has a BA from Juniata
College and is pursuing an MBA from Georgetown University.
Jason Ray is the managing director at J.T. Ray & Associates, an advanced manufacturing industrial
strategy consulting firm. Mr. Ray has worked with governmental organizations, small businesses, and
Fortune 500 companies to support the strategic implementation of additive manufacturing technology.
A former active duty Navy Supply Officer, he has an MBA from the Babson College's F. W. Olin Graduate
School of Business.

About us

LMI is a consulting firm dedicated to improving the management of government. With more than
1,000 consultants, we design and implement solutions to some of the toughest problems facing
government managers in logistics, information technology, and resource allocation. For 55 years,
LMI has placed our clients interests first.
Learn more at lmi.org

2016 LMI. All rights reserved. 121216