1300-1309: Welcome and Overview – Greg Kilchenstein (OSD-MR) Presentation
1309-1310: Administrative Notes – Debbie Lilu (NCMS)
1310-1330: NAVSEA: Expeditionary Maintenance in Theater and Sustainment Technology (CAPT Eric Morgan / Stephen Black) Presentation
1330-1350: Naval Expeditionary Sustainment and Repair (NESAR) Technologies – Janice Bryant (NAVSEA)
1350-1410: USMC Forward Deployed Additive Manufacturing – MSgt Doug McCue
1410-1430: NAVAIR – Selective Electroplating Technology Improvements (SETI) (Luzmarie Youngers / Jack Benfer – FRCSE)
1430-1445: USMC Expeditionary Fluid Analysis System (EFAS) – Anton Schager (MARCOM) Presentation
1445-1500: Joint Additive Manufacturing Model Exchange (JAMMEX) Live Demonstration – Catrina Murphy (DLA) Presentation
1500: Wrap-Up Presentation
Event: On 28 July 2020, the Joint Technology Exchange Group (JTEG), in coordination with the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS), hosted a virtual forum on “Expeditionary Repair”.
Purpose: The purpose of this forum was to examine and share information on new concepts and technologies being planned or developed to improve DoD maintenance operations in an expeditionary environment. The forum provided an operational overview followed by discussions on specific technologies that support expeditionary maintenance operations.
Welcome: Greg Kilchenstein (OSD-MR) welcomed everyone to the forum and thanked the presenters and all the listeners for their attendance. He also stated how important expeditionary repair is to maintain readiness and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD equipment in forward locations.
Administrative: This was an open forum. The presentations, along with questions and answers, were conducted through Adobe Connect. Only two of the six presentations were also available online at the JTEG website at http://jteg.ncms.org/ due to sensitivity/proprietary considerations. A separate audio line was used. We had over 110 participants from across DOD, industry, and academia join in the forum.
Expeditionary Maintenance in Theater and Sustainment Technology – CAPT Eric Morgan (OPNAV) discussed how the Navy is moving to become more agile and sustainable. He presented a Maritime Sustainment “Five Vector Model” that detailed the “5 Rs” from the joint capability area core logistics functions (Refuel, Rearm, Resupply, Revive, and Repair). He concluded with an explanation of how the Naval logistics concept of the 5 Rs would operate to support a theater.
Naval Expeditionary Sustainment and Repair (NESAR) Technologies – Janice Bryant (NAVSEA) discussed the efforts to identify and field technologies that enable ship’s to “self-repair” and enable maintenance and repair work in non-traditional locations. She stated that self-repair requires a new blend of maintenance and manufacturing to produce what is needed with what is available. She then described several ongoing sustainment and repair technologies to include a mobile robot with a magnetic track system capable of climbing a steel wall which can be combined with a multi-use end effector, expeditionary smart boxes, and controlling drone swarms used to scan and inspection large areas. She concluded with a description of “Pop Up Production Cells” which provide an ability to implement technologies quickly in an agile manner to provide immediate effect.
USMC Forward Deployed Additive Manufacturing – MSgt Doug McCue (MARCOM) described the Advanced Manufacturing Operations Cell (AMOC), established in Jan 2019, that provides advanced manufacturing (AM) and rapid fabrication support to address readiness issues. The cell also serves as technical experts for the Fleet Marine Force (FMF) and the Program Management Offices (PMO) and evaluates emerging advanced manufacturing technologies to include conducting prototype experimentation. The Marine Corps has over 300 AM printers and over 400 parts in the repository. MSgt McCue provided details on the expeditionary fabrication (XFAB) that consists of a deployable suite of small and medium 3D printers capable of printing parts from polymer, metal, and blended materials, and the tactical fabrication (TACFAC) consisting of a deployable suite of small 3D printers and tools capable of printing polymer parts, tools, and training devices. He also described a number of current projects to include AM part candidacy, automated TDP analysis, Construction Scale Additive Manufacturing (CSAM), and Expendable Ship to Shore Connector.
NAVAIR – Selective Electroplating Technology Improvements (SETI) – Jack Benfer (FRCSE) explained that selective plating, also known as brush plating, is a portable process used to apply localized electrodeposits without immersion per MIL-STD-865. It is used to protect/repair localized damaged plating, apply a corrosion protective coating in specific areas on production parts, correct dimensional defects made during machining or for general dimensional restoration. He explained the SETI technology roadmap and described several key topics to include static port SAA B117 testing and results, P-8 Poseidon Static Port DemVal, and the development of larger tools.
USMC Expeditionary Fluid Analysis System (EFAS) – Anton Schager (MARCOM) discussed the EFAS which is a deployable, real-time, fluid analyzer to support Condition Based Maintenance practices for Marine Corps ground equipment. There are two tiers of analyzers: Tier I – A ruggedized portable fluid analyzer for use by tactical units while forward deployed in a field environment, and Tier II – a benchtop portable fluid analyzer and machine wear analyzer for heavy (tanks, tracks, LAV) and maintenance support units. Assessment from proof of concept demonstrated that upwards of 60% of the fluids tested did not require replacement, workload was reduced resulting in major time savings, units were able to routinely identify impending equipment failures, units were able to affect repairs prior to catastrophic failures, and units experienced a decrease in mobile contact team dispatches.
Joint Additive Manufacturing Model Exchange (JAMMEX) Live Demonstration – Catrina Murphy (DLA) provided an overview of the JAMMEX explaining that its’ purpose is to provide a secure web-based system to collaboratively share 3D models across DoD in support of additive manufacturing. JAMMEX objectives include leveraging available 3D models of all the services and allowing cross-service access, providing a streamlined collaborative process where approved models can be easily shared, searched, and downloaded, having the flexibility to support a variety of file formats, and being able to link to different systems using API (so users don’t have to conform to one tool). The overview was followed by a system demonstration.
Q&A – A Q&A occurred after each briefer finished their presentation. Questions and answers will be posted on the JTEG website with these minutes.
Closing Comments: Greg Kilchenstein thanked the presenters for their contributions and all the work being done to support expeditionary repair efforts across DoD sustainment. He suggested continuing the information exchange beyond the forum and the importance of collaboration within the DoD maintenance community.
- All cleared briefing slides were posted to the JTEG website at http://jteg.ncms.org/ prior to the forum start.
- Obtain Distribution “A” level slides for the remaining briefs.
Next JTEG Meeting: The next scheduled JTEG virtual forum is 25 August 2020, 1:00 – 3:00 pm EST. The topic is “Better Ways to Adopt and Develop New Capabilities”.
POC this action is Ray Langlais, firstname.lastname@example.org, (571) 633-8019
Expeditionary Maintenance in Theater – CAPT Eric Morgan (OPNAV)
Q1. How similar is the Navy Logistics Concept to the previous Sea Basing Concept?
A1. It uses an algorithm of Seabasing. Not as fancy as in the past. We use existing assets and have technology interchange between them.
Q2. Any specific technology capability gaps?
A2. Under expeditionary repair gaps include a deployable shop and dock, sub tender, deployable in shipping containers, and the expeditionary logistics ship concept (NEXGEN).
Q3. How important is Additive Manufacturing (AM) to Sustainment at Sea?
A3. AM is a critical component of the future concept. However, currently there is no single integrator.
Q4. In a conflict with a near-peer adversary where egress from the area is challenged, what steps are being taken to improve organic repair capability?
A4. It is o the list as a gap. Historically, we have had more capability. It has atrophied over time. The Navy recognizes we need more capability. There is no planned solution yet.
Q5. Does the Navy still have forging and casting operations at PACOM forward locations? If so, has the Navy assessed AM for tooling there?
A5. I believe so, but I cannot confirm. We are working on model based AM technology.
Naval Expeditionary Sustainment and Repair (NESAR) Technologies – Janice Bryant (NAVSEA)
Q1. What is the timeline between near, mid and far term capabilities cited on the target slide?
A1. It depends on the technology…what we are fielding and where. Probably tooling. I would like to see it speed up. I would like to see 5 years or less. Speed and agility are our biggest problems.
Q2. Any thoughts to being able to use the robot along with real time visualization (VR) for hazardous situations (e.g., fire damage inspections)?
A2. Absolutely. There is some good work being done on robotic solutions. For example, the Army’s robotic mine detector. There are a lot of existing technologies we could apply and adapt.
Q3. (Comment): Janice, if there is an effort to fly on commercial cargo aircraft (B-747 nose loader), you can keep the standard 20ft dimension, but it has to be accompanied by a PGF style pallet to accommodate efficient transportation to the repair location.
Q4. How are the NESTT targeted capabilities integrated with OPNAV’s Navy Logistics Concept?
A4. A mechanism is needed to receive the funds and apply to advance and march forward. I look forward to incorporating lessons learned.
USMC Forward Deployed Add Mfg – MSgt Doug McCue (MARCOM)
Q1. Does the Marine Corps print any metal parts in the field? Are they approved for use?
A1. We have printed some parts in the field, including metal parts for the LAV approved for use.
Q2. Can you expound on your red/yellow/green risk categorization and the approval authorization at each level?
A2. Green: No safety or damage risk. Items such as knobs and handles. If in the system, no additional approval is needed.
Blue: In the process of getting approved.
Yellow: Moderate risk. Requires approval from 05 Commander. Required to route through SYSCOM, but don’t have to wait on SYSCOM for approval.
Red: High chance of damage and/or safety (injury) concerns. SYSCOM approval required.
Q3. Is there a goal in terms of percentage to reduce SECREP or DSI inventories as a result of AM?
A3. As of now…no. Eventually, probably. We are still in the process of establishing what we can make.
Q4. Does the list of “parts approved to 3D print” tie to a predictive obsolescence database like “OMIS”?
A4. No. Not now. It is one of the process flows we are trying to incorporate into PTC Windchill.
NAVAIR – Selective Electroplating Technology Improvements (SETI) – Luzmarie Youngers / Jack Benfer (FRCSE)
Q1. Is this SETI effort aligned with the Navy’s and DoD’s Corrosion Programs?
A1. It is part of an SBIR program with COMFRC and is in the portfolio of the new NAVAIR Corrosion Prevention Board.
Q2. Are there limitations to what can be overcoated over the anodize layer deposited by SETI?
A2. Only limitations are with complex curvatures that cannot lay flat. Dealing with that limitation was outside the SBIR scope. We plan to address in Phase 3.
Q3. When are you targeting transition to the FRC’s?
A3. Following depot level…once evaluated in the environment we will collect the data and target the MALS.
USMC Expeditionary Fluid Analysis System (EFAS) – Anton Schager (MARCOM)
Q1. Is there a plan to incorporate an on platform capability, continual monitoring of the fluids?
A1. Yes, there is, but the extent and type of sensors are still TBD and would be implemented by the various platform owners, not by the TMDE office that is fielding the EFAS. The Marine Corps CBM+ team is looking at platform sensors and data loggers and they are collecting data using them in several proof of concept initiatives for several different vehicles right now. It should be noted however that platform sensors tend to monitor a single parameter per sensor (such as viscosity) and it is possible to have other issues with a fluid that that sensor will not alert to. Also, all sensors are not alike, different sensors can measure the same fluid characteristic in different ways (and sometimes provide different results depending on various factors). Some are better than others and each have pros and cons associated with them. Platform sensors can provide valuable real time information that can warn operators and maintenance personnel of deteriorating fluid conditions while an instrument such as an EFAS can provide a much more in depth analysis to pinpoint specific problems and test all the fluids characteristics vice one or two specific characteristics.
Q2. Do the systems work together? If the field level EFAS indicates contaminated fluid, does that necessitate field lab 33 testing to determining hardware condition?
A2. The FL33 and the added capability the FL58 provides can work together but are not required to. The FL33 should provide all the capabilities the mechanics need at the operational level to perform their mission. However, prior to removing an engine or transmission with a suspected fault (it has not yet failed) for evacuation to a higher level of maintenance the unit can take a fluid sample to their supporting maintenance organization and turn it in for a full machine wear analysis by an FL58 to confirm the wear. Those policies are still being developed as the Marine Corps moves towards implementing CBM+.
The FL33 capabilities were tailored to what a mechanic at an operational unit would need to test, including the presence of excessive machine wear particles, but not hardware condition. The FL33 provides fluid analysis to test a host of fluid characteristics, most of which are not tied to machine wear (unless the fluid has deteriorated to the point that machine wear is now taking place which the analyzer should have caught before it reached that point). For instance, if the FL33 indicated the presence of emulsified water, machine wear may not be taking place yet but the mechanic needs to pinpoint the source of the water contamination before it does. The presence of excessive soot can be caused in several different ways, again with no machine wear taking place, but the cause needs to be found and corrected.
If excessive machine wear particles are detected using the FL33 there may be cause for further analysis, but also there might not be. If the lubricating fluid had deteriorated to the point machine wear was taking place simply changing the fluid may correct the problem. After detecting excessive wear particles, a mechanic would likely change the fluid and filter and then monitor the component to see if excessive wear is still taking place or if the problem was corrected. If machine wear is still taking place from a source that is not correctable by changing the fluid (worn bearings, etc.) then the mechanic at the operational unit would monitor the rate at which the wear particles are being produced if it was somewhat low, or pull the component out for repair or rebuild if very high particle counts are still found. At the operational units a mechanic would not be tearing down an engine or transmission for rebuild so is not particularly interested in the exact composition of the wear particles and what they are indicative of, only that their presence is indicative of a problem.
Q3. Where does the data from EFAS go and how is it trended?
A3. All local. Stored local. Analysis and tests are still underway.
Q4. Do you have any advice for big Army who is reluctant to transition to an EFAS type capability?
A4. I think the Army is using less capability.
Joint Additive Manufacturing Model Exchange (JAMMEX) Live Demonstration – Catrina Murphy (DLA)
Q1. Are the model standard definitions registered in the NIEM (National Information Exchange Model)?
A1. We have a bi-weekly connection to RAPTOR.
Q2. What are the barriers to integrating Service-level repositories to JAMMEX?
A2. Basically, making the connection, authorization and mapping. API is a quick process.
Q3. If an end user needs to adapt a model to their specific use, are the models editable once downloaded without altering the original model?
A3. At this point remodel is performed after the edits. There are restrictions to keep versioning. Nothing is ever deleted.
Q4. Can manufacturing partners provide data and models for the JAMMEX system?
A4. If non-DoD, not at this time. A CAC card is required to access.