The New Age of Military Manufacturing: Part 3
Identifying key enabling technologies for the military industrial base of the future.
From the desk of James Blythe -
With both the Navy and Army heavily investing in manufacturing in 2024, the relevance of this series continues to expand for those of use State-side. Additionally, on-going conflicts in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip continue to draw on American munition stockpiles. Surplus dwindles. The result is testing the limits of the military industrial base if not our Armed Services at large. There doesn’t seem to be a quick end in-sight to America’s foreign policy entanglements.
Key to meeting these commitments will be America’s ability to generate not only the materials of war but a wide range of manufactured products currently sourced from foreign lands.
But how to tackle that? Having established a sort of introduction to modern military thinking and the sorry state of the American industrial base, it’s now time to start discussing capabilities and potential solutions. We’ll start in this part with an overview of technologies identified by the United States Federal Government (USG) as critical to the future of “advanced manufacturing”. By understanding the priorities and capabilities of “today” we can begin to form our understanding of the industrial base of “tomorrow” and how it might shape future military affairs.
As in previous sections, most of our attention will be given to the United States, its policies, and Armed Services. It is worth noting that electronic manufacture will continue to be a tremendous challenge. Admittedly, this is not an area of particular strength for your author but I’ve collected my thoughts here. I’d be interested in additional feedback from those knowledgable in “what’s current” for those of you so inclined.
Introduction
In recent years, the Department of Defense (DOD) appears to have accepted the dismal state of the military industrial base in the United States. Multiple administrations have sought to address this issue since the early 2000s. As recently as 2022, however, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has not been satisfied with the outcomes of key efforts made by USG to remedy these shortcomings. [1] A network of institutes to push development of manufacturing technologies was established under the Manufacturing USA banner — jointly funded by the DOD and Department of Energy (DOE) — to address this critical capability gap in domestic manufacturing. Among the key motivators for this investment were perceived threats to national security, concerns about reliance on foreign manufacturing for critical energy infrastructure, and a $130B trade deficit in advanced manufacturing technologies. [2]
Progress is being made but often outcomes are nebulous and metrics for success not well defined. Naturally, the ability to successfully manufacture modern weapon systems and produce materials necessary for military sustainment is directly related to these efforts in civilian markets.
Of primary concern is the ability to link strategic goals to executable investments and receive tangible deliverables with demonstrable benefits.
In an effort to focus the USG’s efforts at buoying its domestic manufacturing base, the National Strategy for Advanced Manufacturing was developed. It seeks to direct future investments by focusing investments in five key areas — sustainable decarbonization, innovation in microelectronics and semiconductors, advanced manufacturing in the bioeconomy, innovation in materials and process technologies, and leadership in smart manufacturing. [3] It is worth noting that the National Strategy for Advanced Manufacturing is not dedicated to DOD agencies or the Armed Services and is reflective of larger national priorities associated with civilian industries.
Within that document, decarbonization and bioeconomy topics are primarily related to sustainability concerns and life sciences topics respectively. Although these are relevant to the Armed Services they fall somewhat outside the scope of our investigation — being the manufacture of tools, weapon systems, and supporting logistics infrastructure. As such, those topics will not be discussed here.
Using USG’s National Strategy for Advanced Manufacturing as a base, this section will identify specific technologies key to future military affairs in an effort to link the strategic with the tactical. This will be addressed in four sections — advanced materials, advanced processes, electronics manufacture, and smart manufacturing enablers. In each section, a short overview of the state of each industry will be given and then analysis developed (in brief) by the author on the key enabling technology areas necessary to support the military of the future.
In order to understand the rationale for the analysis herein, it is important to consider the following assumptions -
- Civilian and military markets are inseparable and inherently interrelated.
- Defense budgets in the United States are unlikely to increase on a per Gross Domestic Product basis in the near future.
- Defense manufacturing spending in the United States are small compared to commercial manufacturing interests.
As a result, a healthy civilian manufacturing base is key to the effective mobilization of military production. This document will assume that any technologies developed for military applications are relevant to commercial industry and visa versa. Further, it is assume that the military has limited ability to drive truly novel technology development (via spending) on a large scale and will be forced to align with their commercial counterparts in industry to some degree.
From Part 2, a few additional guidelines for our analysis can be established. Militaries must be capable of acting in multiple domains in multipl locations simultaneously. As a result, an effective military will need to field a wide-array of capabilities in each domain. This means that both technologies suited to deployment in conventional production environments and agile, field-deployable manufacturing technologies will be relevant in the future of military manufacturing. The latter is a set of use-cases that have not previously been realized in full and will be defining of the new age of military manufacturing.
This section will only develop the state-of-the-art and identify key technologies for development. The following section (Part 4) will discuss the deployment and utilization of these technologies and how their usage will define the DOD’s vision of MDO.
Advanced Materials
Within military applications, advanced material investments are unlikely to, in themselves,— provide major gains in capability or changes in the effectiveness of weapon systems in the near future. Hypersonics — in aviation, aerospace, or long range precision fire applications — and truly novel electronics may be the only exceptions to this. Otherwise, the largest potential benefits in advanced material developments for the militaries of 2040 and beyond will be the improved utilization and economy of existing materials and domestic on-shoring of production capability.
Despite years of investment in a variety of nanomaterials, graphene-based composites, and high-performance ceramics, the vast majority of manufactured products are still based on conventional metal alloys, polymer composites, and commodity plastics. For metals, ferrous alloys (iron-based) and aluminum remain dominant. Titanium, magnesium, and a range of coating technologies make up the balance in most components. High density material options like tungsten (heavy metal), depleted uranium, and tungsten carbide (ceramic) are prominent in armor and anti-armor applications, their use waxing-and-waning based on the needs of the day. In composites, conventional carbon, graphite, glass, and aramid fibers are proliferate in armor and aviation applications. Some use of ultra high molecular weight polymer products have become more common over the past decade.
Advancements in modern ceramics have been substantial due in large part to programs funded within the Future Combat Systems program and its derivatives. [4] A range of these materials including silicon carbide, alumina, titanium diboride, and others are in current usage. Adoption of ceramics for armor has been relatively slow in the United States except where essential. This is the result of the economic constraints of fielding large quantities of the material on expansive vehicle fleets. European militaries, however, maintain smaller fleets and thus often make more extensive use of advanced ceramics.
It is known that the United States has demonstrated significant maturity in the ability to design and fabricate armored fighting vehicles using the most advanced composite and ceramic technologies for at least 20 years. Figure 1 shows initial concepts of the Composite Infantry Fighting Vehicle based on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
This series of studies and material development activities resulted in significant lessons-learned prompting a complete redesign of an “advanced material ground vehicle” to take best advantage of new approaches in design and manufacturing (at the time). A concept vehicle was produced knowns as the Composite Armored Vehicle technology demonstrator, shown in Figure 2.
Neither the CIFV or CAV concepts were fielded in any known configuration. Individual armor packages transitioned to other production platforms (in part) as described in open literature. Nanocomposites and graphene-based materials have been demonstrated in laboratories for military applications. No known articles have transitioned to public programs of record at this time.
The lesson being that advanced material technologies exist to significantly lightweight or optimize the performance of specific weapon system but that cost and other logistical issues have largely prevented transition to modern militaries. This is a lesson worth considering for the next era in the manufacture of advanced weapon systems.
Major advancements in production-scale material improvements this decade have been largely marginal. Improvements in various material systems are no longer defined by pushing “what is possible” but by optimizing for specific properties or finding more cost-effective methods of producing existing ones. General improvements in a given material system are often limited to 15% or less due to the maturity of most material sciences. In these instances, often designers are trading improvements in some properties for degradation in others.
The trend that emerges as a result of this survey is that cutting edge material development often does not drive the fielding of the vast majority of weapon systems. Continuing pressure on U.S. budgetary futures means this is unlikely to change.
It is then more likely that the capabilities of future militaries to field “advanced materials” is related to the ability to produce the necessary commodities as near-to-home as possible and do so at a reasonable cost.
For example, the majority of armor providers for metallic and ceramic systems are sourced from foreign entities headquartered in Sweden, Germany, the UK, Australia, and Russia. Aluminum and titanium are particularly problematic due to reliance on international markets and providers. At any given moment, access to these materials may fluctuate based on the state of global trade and evolving geopolitical considerations of the time. Conventional metallic and ceramic armor product has increasingly transitioned into commodity markets where lowest-cost-minimum-requirement procurement strategies dominate.
Recent supply chain disruptions during Covid-19 further reinforce this. Ventures such as Iperion X and Flash Bainite are attractive for the potential to produce high quality materials domestically and cost effectively. Any gains in material performance that result from novel processing are desirable but secondary in importance.
There are challenges to developing domestic production of raw and finished material stock for all material types. Asian and European markets currently provide a significant amount of low cost, high quality product. It is difficult for domestic providers to be competitive in commodity markets and reduces the overall market share they can capture. As military activities are not major drivers for most material producers it is difficult for the DOD to push specialty materials of their choosing except at great cost. Production orders are too dispersed and order quantities too low to realize effective economies of scale. Additionally, there are few guarantees For example, construction consumes ~50% of steel purchasing in the United States with automotive consuming the next largest share. In aluminum markets, food packaging and commercial aviation drive the majority of usage. The majority of titanium is utilized as titanium dioxide (ceramic) for coloring of paints and coatings. The result is that these commercial industries, in turn, drive the production requirements, standards, cost and availability of their associated products. Defense markets for armor, specialty naval alloys, or boutique high-performance materials are largely secondary.
Key to enabling effective domestic production of critical materials will be the consolidation of product usage in design and fabrication. Military actors will need to leverage existing commercial product wherever possible in innovative ways and make focused investments in a small number of military-specialty products. This is not an uncommon practice today, but rather it will be increasingly important for system designers and manufactures to maintain and refine these practices to ensure domestic availability and a healthy supply chain.
As a result of these points, the future of “advanced materials” is less likely to reside in the invention of wholly novel products but rather in holistic application of design, manufacture, and domestication of existing product types. This seems to be supported by the historical rate of adoption associated with the most novel and advanced materials technologies on the market. Affordability and availability will continue to drive material development and adoption in the new age of military manufacturing.
Advanced Processes
Within the National Strategy for Advanced Manufacturing the only process discussed by name is additive manufacturing (AM). Although this is an important tool in the future of military manufacturing, commercial industry has shown that its most efficient use is as a prototyping aid and a highly specialized production tool. The concept of AM as a general purpose catchall way to automate and “Ctrl + P” manufacturing is not viable. This results from a lack of economy associated with using additive to deploy products developed for conventional manufacturing approaches. It is possible to utilize AM in a more general way but requires the user to accept an order of magnitude cost increase in production and degradation in product performance. Thus far, no commercial or military actor has demonstrated a long term or systematic willingness to pursue this type of approach.
To realize the next phase of advanced manufacturing for national defense a larger suite of tools and capabilities is needed than what can be provided by AM alone. By looking at AM as a single tool utilized to recognize a specific set of capabilities and specialty products it is possible to achieve significant advantages in military manufacturing.
This is evident based on approaches taken by Rheinmetall Land Systems [5] and demonstrated by the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force [6] in current and previous conflicts. Forging, casting, machining, welding, heat treating and coating operations remain critical to the development of an effective fabricated product. In some instances, effective design for AM can mitigate or eliminate the need for conventional processing of a part but in general it is unlikely to be possible to have a wholesale printed solution in the near term future using existing design approaches.
Within advanced process toolsets, technologies can be divided into two categories. First, those that are suitable for a production environment. Second, those suitable for an austere environment — i.e. being field deployable to an extent and utilizable at a forward operating base or other similar location. Each manufacturing process currently in-use will have its niche to fulfill in future military production activities. Decision-makers should be wary about placing all importance on a single category of techniques or technologies.
As with advanced materials, the future of advanced processes must be exploited by holistic application of improving technologies rather than brand-new ones. A major hurdle that domestic manufacturing in the United States faces is a reluctance to rethink incumbent designs and business models. This will increasingly be to the detriment of national security as the United States does not support an environment conducive to competing with existing European and Asian manufacturing models.
Advances in binder-jet additive manufacturing, high speed machining (and machine controls), co-bot welding cells, and portable coating technologies are most critical to future military production activities. These technologies balance cost feasibility with the needed technical capability to make effective products. Additionally, non-field-deployable manufacturers will see benefit in taking greater advantage of a wider array of cast and forged products enabled by the rapid development of molds and dies. Key among process selection for the future will be identification of cost-effective capital investments to mitigate pricing impacts for military and civilian customers.
Commercial manufacturers in highly developed infrastructures with access to tooling and extensive logistics chains are likely to adopt advanced process technology in niche applications as best suits their businesses. To gain the capabilities needed by militaries in 2040 and beyond military manufacturers must invest in new ways of thinking about business, design, and production activities. This is essential as realizing new capabilities needed in manufacturing processes — to best equip and service the warfighter — is likely to result in production inefficiencies in other areas traditional of concern to the “old way” of doing business. Thus the focus of “advanced processes” should not necessarily be in the development of new ones but better utilization of existing ones.
Electronics Manufacture
Within the manufacture of electronics there are two key thrusts for the future. First, is the great need for domestic production of critical chips and electronic products. Second, is the manufacture of truly novel electronic systems. Unlike our previous discussion areas, a significant amount of design and technology advancement here will be a critical discriminator for national defense and the ability to field the systems necessary to act and coordinate conflicts in multiple contested domains.
Modern defense products are increasingly reliant on advanced electronics in order to meet the needs of the physical and digital battlefield. This is not a recent development. Night vision systems, global positioning capability, and advanced telecommunications capabilities have been showcased as far back as the Gulf War. Critical advances in these areas have been demonstrated during the Global War on Terror. The Ukraine conflict has demonstrated the effect that truly modern weapon systems powered by advanced electronics can have on a vastly superior fighting force utilizing dated technologies, tactics and logistics approaches.
The Covid-19 epidemic and rising global tensions in Asia and Europe have highlighted America’s reliance on foreign purveyors of this critical hardware. Previous administrations have made significant investments to on-shore some of this critical technical capability and won’t be discussed at length. It is likely that significantly more investments will need to be made before America is able to be self-sufficient in this regard.
In the case of novel product manufacture, we have already been given glimpses of what is possible. AM is unlikely to revolutionize conventional manufacturing but rather enable the creation of truly novel products if one can think of new ways to design systems and do business. AM has demonstrated the ability to print and deliver a wide range of conventional and microelectronics products. [7][8] Ability to print a range of wiring, sensors, and semiconductor elements has also been demonstrated. [9][10] To date, there have been no known instances of production adoption of AM within chip manufacturers, PCB fabricators, or other electronics applications.
Additive approaches to electronics is unlikely to directly replace conventional production techniques utilized in industry today. What the development and adoption of these technologies does allow, however, is the ability to design and field completely new systems not producible by conventional means. Additionally, in manufacturing sectors where it is not viable to build a domestic supply base, additive may provide an substitute to make similar products in critical military applications and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers albeit at a significant cost increase or performance degradation.
Currently, powder bed fusion and directed energy deposition additive processes have been most widely utilized in manufacture of “electrical machines & components” but this technology is likely only to be viable in a conventional production environment. For field-deployable systems, binder-jetting additive, advanced micro-stereolithography processes and their various permutations will form a solid base for the future of advanced electronics manufacture.
Smart Manufacturing Enablers
Digital manufacturing has been a much discussed topic over the past twenty years. For the purposes of this conversation we will consider digital manufacturing, smart manufacturing, and Industry 4.0 to be synonymous terms. Smart manufacturing will be hereafter defined as a system of production — of goods or services — that harnesses the synergetic effects of integrating digitized services, automation, and machine learning to enable better ways of doing business. The traditional ideals of smart manufacturing are to realize lower costs, higher efficiencies, improved quality, and greater agility/responsiveness within a production environment. These are often discussed as open, general, multi-purpose systems which can respond to a large number of differing requests and needs.
At its most extreme a factory would be fully automated and require little, if any, aid from workers. Orders would be received via cloud distribution, managed and resourced by computer algorithm, and production conducted by automated systems. All product data from design to delivery — including manufacturing parameters and quality assessments — would be stored and tracked in real time digitally. Live production data would be collected via a network of sensors from Internet of Things (IoT) enabled devices. Based on feedback from this system, quality metrics are tracked, processing parameters optimized (workflow or detail machine settings), sources of inefficiency addressed, and defects minimized. A diagram of such a system of smart manufacturing is shown in Figure 3.
In general, these digital approaches have not been successful as envisioned. At best, the ideal has seen limited adoption in commercial industries. Only the largest companies with the best defined product lines realize success in adoption of digital manufacturing approaches. Even then, there is typically not a wholesale embracing of the technology. Instead, select items and capabilities are fielded based on the product line and corporate risk tolerance. In this way, rather than being implemented as a general architecture for a wide range of tasks, smart manufacturing is often relegated to niche operations and product lines. For example, a company may adopt 3D scanning technologies to satisfy customers that desire greater conformity to 3D models on a particular product. Or specific manufacturing equipment may synch to a central authority that locks process parameters and work instructions. Or machines may collect in-situ imaging of a product as it’s being built to be utilized in defect identification. In most cases, implementation of such systems are incomplete. Data is often filed away on a server that is largely inaccessible to workers and engineers — except on special request from a customer — or stored in such a format that it can’t be effectively searched or parsed. It is not unusual for a company to have a repository of terabytes or more of process data that is largely ignored or left un-utilized.
In most instances, the vast majority of workflow in commercial, “digital factories” are maintained and driven manually. It is increasingly understood that smart manufacturing must exist at the confluence of IoT-enabled devices, machine learning, data storage/management, and the digital twin under a unified digital platform. With this understanding comes an assumption of interoperability, uniformity, and interchangeability within the system. [12]
Key technologies identified previously including co-bots, AM, and advanced CNC tools form the physical foundation of a smart factory. In summation, the components of smart manufacturing exist and are capable. However, full realization of the “smart manufacturing” ideal has not been successful. Focus now needs to be on integration of these technologies in a meaningful format.
In order to realize the true potential of smart manufacturing for military applications, these key questions must be answered.
- What is the primary benefit that is desired from implementation of smart manufacturing?
- Is smart manufacturing intended for general application or niche business/use cases?
- How will interoperability be achieved in production?
- How is the digital twin defined and where is it relevant in a product’s lifecycle?
- How will cybersecurity — or lack thereof — be utilized in the military application of smart factories within MDO?
- What second and third order effects of increased digitization are likely to affect the military applications of smart manufacturing?
Discussion of the State of the Art
Within each of the areas highlighted by the National Strategy for Advanced manufacturing, a common thread emerges. In most instances, we find that the future of military manufacturing is less related to the development of truly novel science and more in the effective utilization and integration of existing technologies in new ways. Old design mindsets and lack of systems thinking in business (military and commercial) present significant barriers to maximizing production capabilities for a range of defense and non-defense articles.
Additive is likely to be a major supplement to existing manufacturing technologies in most areas of production. However, this technology will not replace incumbent processes such as welding and machining. The significance of additive as a general, catch-all solution to corporate or military manufacturing woes has been over stated. Military actors are slow to understand the true significance of the technology. Development of binder-jet additive technology seems to have potential in most areas of new product production relevant to the military as a result of wide process capability and affordability. Unfortunately, the full potential of this technology has yet to be realized and has not seen the development of other additive processes. Investments in better understanding of the digital twin, advanced design made possible with smart manufacturing tools, and holistic management of military supply chains will be essential.
Otherwise, the majority of investments that will be critical to the new age of military manufacturing are related to the hardening of the domestic supply chain and on-shoring of critical materials and electronics technology.
Ultimately, completely new ways of building and maintaining weapon systems will need to be considered in order to achieve the DOD’s goals for readiness in 2040 and beyond. Actors who maintain the current approach of using technology to do “business as usual but better” will find themselves unable to respond to evolving threats within MDO.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that DOD budgets will rise significantly on a per GDP basis within the United States. Federal budgets are at record deficits and reliance on exports from Asia and Europe are massive. The result is that, even though significant overhaul of the US manufacturing base is needed, the DOD will have limited ability to finance such an effort in its totality. That being said, USG policy, regulation, and favoritism can have significant impacts on the direction an industry takes without necessarily requiring significant, direct, monetary expenditures. In the past, governments have been willing to throw their collective weight around in such a manner to achieve their goals. That being said, it is important for policy-makers to be careful when taking this approach as the second and third order effects are often unpredictable.
Conclusions
Futurists and military fiction authors including FX Holden and PW Singer have long heralded the beginning of a new way of war looming on the horizon. The first stirrings of this have been witnessed in modern conflicts. It has also been made abundantly clear in popular literature and within policy decisions made within the DOD that advanced manufacturing will play a key role in America’s ability to remain relevant in this new world.
In 2023, it no longer seems possible for America to “spend its way” into modernization (or futurization) of the Armed Services. The current National Advanced Manufacturing Strategy highlights some relevant areas of investment but the linkage between high-level strategy and tactical execution is lacking. Similarly, much thought has been given to the potential “new age of military manufacturing” but opinions are divided on the details and it is possible that a significant amount of investment will be made with no appreciable outcomes having been realized.
Finding ways to maximize investments in technology will become essential and must be done selectively. Focusing on technologies with the greatest promise and lowest cost will be essential. Developing completely novel technologies for military usage is unlikely to result in more than a minor improvement over existing ones and will not enable the capability leap needed to realize a truly innovative fighting force. In this section, the following conclusions have been reached —
- Four critical areas for manufacturing investments in the United States include advanced materials, advanced processes, advanced electronics, and smart manufacturing enablers.
- Given the weakened state of America’s military industrial base, the first priority must be on developing domestic production capacity in these areas.
- The necessary capability leaps for the DOD will be realized through holistic rethinking of design and manufacturing paradigms and not development of completely novel technologies.
- Additive manufacturing is likely to play a significant role in future military manufacturing industries but has not — and will not — make irrelevant conventional fabrication technologies.
- Individual technologies supporting the ideal of a “smart manufacturing environment” are developed but full realization is in its infancy.
Hypersonics and advanced electronics are one focus area where truly novel technology development continues to be necessary for the future. Conventional manufacturing supply chains will require modernization to support the DOD’s vision of MDO. In addition, the ability to provide a more complete product at the point-of-use via field-deployable technologies is likely to be of greater emphasis. This is a relatively new area of military manufacturing and will have unique design and logistics requirements. The implications to manufacturers and technology developers is likely to be significant.
In the next section of this series, a vision for the new age of military manufacturing will be developed. It will describe the deployment of the technologies identified here and what capabilities might then be realized in their usage. Trade-offs incurred as a result in this shift of thinking will be examined in what detail is possible.
References and Footnotes
[1] Report GAO-22–104154 (Defense Industrial Base: DOD Should Take Actions to Strengthen its Risk Mitigation Approach)
[2] Report GAO-22–103979 (Advanced Manufacturing: Innovation Institutes Report Technology Progress and Members Report Satisfaction with Their Involvement)
[3] See National Strategy for Advanced Manufacturing by Subcomittee on Advanced Manufacturing (Committee on Technology).
[4] Reference Gooch, W.A., An Overview of Ceramic Armor Applications, Progress in Ceramic Armor (2004, The American Ceramic Society).
[5] Reference Rheinmetall’s Mobile Smart Factory.
[6] Referenece A. Ascilipiadis (MSgt.), Rapid Equipping Force uses 3D Printing on the Frontline.
[7] Reference A. Selema et al., Metal Additive Manufacturing for Electrical Machines: Technology Review and Latest Advancements.
[8] Reference H. Hassanin et al., Micro-Additive Manufacturing Technologies of Three-Dimensional MEMS.
[9] Reference P. Lall et al., Performance Characteristics fo Additively Printed Strain Gauges Under Differnt Conditions of Temperature and High Stress Loads.
[10] Reference patent R.G. Nuzzo et al., Methods and devices for fabricating and assembling printable semiconductor elements.
[11] Reference L. Monostori et al., Cyber-physical systems in manufacturing.
[12] Reference A. Zeid et al., Interoperability in Smart Manufacturing: Research Challenges.
