This document discusses the potential use of additive manufacturing (3D printing) in defense logistics and supply chains. It outlines four options for incorporating 3D printing and evaluates their advantages and disadvantages. It also presents a case study on applying the criteria framework to select parts for a NH90 helicopter where 3D printing could reduce costs and lead times. The conclusions are that 3D printing shows promise for complex, low-volume parts with long delivery times and that further studies are needed to quantify the benefits.

1. Promising Enhancements of the Defence Logistics
Footprint Using Additive Manufacturing
Framework and Business Cases І Carla Andela, Nils Knofius, 28 April 2016

2. Content
Supply Chain
• Changes of the Supply Chain
• Advantages and disadvantages
Business Cases
• Air Force
• Conclusions and way forward
Promising Enhancements of the Defence Logistics Footprint Using Additive
Manufacturing, 15 June 2016
2

3. Promising Enhancements of the Defence Logistics Footprint Using Additive
Manufacturing, 15 June 2016
3
Supply Chain and Additive Manufacturing
Option 1:
3D printer Out
of AreaOption 2:
3D printer
Central location
Option 3/4:
• Commercially
AM products
• Partnerships
with industry
Depots
GP POE’s POD’s
Area of Deployment
RC
Customer
Local SupplyCivilian
Suppliers
Some using 3d-
printing
Demand
Goods
Legend:
GP = Groupage Point
POE = Point of Embarkation
POD = Point of Disembarkation
SC = Stock Center
RC = Replenishment Center
Customer
SC

4. Promising Enhancements of the Defence Logistics Footprint Using Additive
Manufacturing, 15 June 2016
4
Metal AM of complex metal products: Advantages and
Disadvantages
• Less setup costs and less tooling costs
• Lower development costs (increase the
pace of design to product)
• Eco friendly: less influence on CO2
• Shorter delivery time
• High complexity possible
• Flexibility (printing on-demand,
customisation)
• Lower production speed
• Higher investment costs
• Unclear responsibilities regarding IPR,
warranties, certification
• Process variability/ quality
• Not efficient for large series
• Limited choice of material
• Limited dimensions of product
• Complexity of the Supply Chain (3D
printing is added to the Supply Chain)
Advantages Disadvantages

5. Promising Enhancements of the Defence Logistics Footprint Using Additive
Manufacturing, 15 June 2016
5
Option 1: Out of Area
• Close to operation, short delivery lead
times
• Higher mission effectivity
• Fragile supply chain: Shipment of 3D printer
including, materials, etc.
• Lack of experience
• Personnel capacity
• Administrative task (configuration
management, file control, security etc.)
• Conditions: temperature extremes, limited
infrastructure, humidity, high dust levels
• Power supply?
• Operational time limits (90 to 130 days only)
DisadvantagesAdvantages

6. Promising Enhancements of the Defence Logistics Footprint Using Additive
Manufacturing, 15 June 2016
6
Option 2: Central location
• Controlling the production process
• Prototyping possibilities to fix problems
or get experience
• Exploitation of scale effects
• Extra training need for personnel
• Personnel capacity
• Administrative task (configuration
management, file control etc.)
• Longer delivery time than in Option 1
Advantages Disadvantages

7. Promising Enhancements of the Defence Logistics Footprint Using Additive
Manufacturing, 15 June 2016
7
Option 3 / 4: Industry - partnership
• Prototyping possibilities to fix problems
or get experience
• Sharing investment costs that reduces
risk of technological obsolescence
• Knowledge transfer about 3D printing
technology
• Less investments related to training,
administrative tasks, and personnel
capacity, compared to Options 1 and 2
• Extra costs for prototyping
• Compared to Option 1 and 2 lead times
are longer
DisadvantagesAdvantages

8. Promising Enhancements of the Defence Logistics Footprint Using Additive
Manufacturing, 15 June 2016
8
List of criteria for the selection of interesting parts
Technical:
• Type of part
• Part size
Supply Chain:
• Demand rate
• Supply risk
• Life cycle phase
• Resupply lead time
Economic:
• Sourcing costs
• Design ownership
• Safety stock
Technical
criteria
Part size
Material
etc.
Economic
criteria
Purchasing
costs
Design
ownership
etc.
Logistical
criteria
Demand rate
Order lead
time
etc.

9. Promising Enhancements of the Defence Logistics Footprint Using Additive
Manufacturing, 15 June 2016
9
Application at NH90 Case
1. Type of part: Repairables, excluding tooling and packing, excluding
modification standards
2. Part size: not considered
3. Demand rate: not considered
4. Supply risk: not considered
5. Life cycle phase: not considered
6. Resupply lead time: Supply delivery time
7. Sourcing costs: cost price of part
8. Design ownership: Fokker
9. Safety stock: not considered
Not considered= due to
data unavailability!

10. Promising Enhancements of the Defence Logistics Footprint Using Additive
Manufacturing, 15 June 2016
10
Application at NH90 Case
• Results:
• 100 parts were selected
• List is reviewed with Fokker on technical criteria
• Approximately 5 parts are promising
• Availability of technical data is essential!
• Additional information regarding material and dimensions received
• Next step: make cost estimation

11. Promising Enhancements of the Defence Logistics Footprint Using Additive
Manufacturing, 15 June 2016
11
Conclusions
• Complex products with long delivery times, and small series are interesting
• List of criteria is a good starting point to give guidance for identification
• Air Force case: the framework showed the need for sufficient data in
particular technical criteria
• Logistic database does not provide required data
• Next studies need to quantify the benefits of AM

12. NLR Marknesse
Voorsterweg 31, 8316 PR Marknesse, Netherlands
Fully engaged
Netherlands Aerospace Centre
p ) +31 88 511 4234 e ) MAMTeC@nlr.nl i ) www.nlr.nl
Questions?