5 ms·

This is probably one of the very few topics I may be able to add value here on Hacker News. As a service, the USMC are approaching bottom up innovation very se

This is probably one of the very few topics I may be able to add value here on Hacker News. As a service, the USMC are approaching bottom up innovation very seriously. https://mobile.twitter.com/marinemakers https://mobile.twitter.com/marinemakers The USAF is also very active in bottom up innovation. Another program is Hacking 4 Defense founded by Steve Blank, Pete Newell, and Joe Felter(leave of absence now performing role of US Assistant Undersecretary of Defence for South & Southeast Asia). Pete Newell(retired Army Colonel) stood up the Rapid Equipping Force a numbe of years ago to rapidly accelerate the development and deployment of tools to mitigate IED related casualties. Hacking 4 Defense(H4D) is running across a growing number of University campus to solve complex Defense problems using the Lean Start Up methodology using a modified lean canvas called the Mission Model Canvas. https://www.h4di.org https://www.h4di.org I am working to expand the use of H4D/MMC down here in Australasia. Happy to share more if anyone is interested. It’s great to see Marines given the latitude to experiment. It’s also great to see the often inaccurate stereotypes of Marines being rigidly disciplined and inflexible in thinking give way to the reality that Marines have very often conducted comprehensive tactical experimentation and innovation.

sandworm101 9y ago
Except that bottom-up development doesnt always work in the context of complicated systems. OK, the button works but does it work in all conditions the aircraft is designed for? Maybe a button here or there isnt much, but there are potentially hundreds of such instances on an aircraft. Small defects add up. Eventually something gives. It may sound cool to reduce costs and scream independance, marines like such things, but aircraft remain safe due to a religious dedication to parts managment. Start chipping away at that and you are asking for trouble.
- rubidium 9y ago
  Nobody is saying there isn't a place for good parts management, solid systems engineering, and quality control. But there's room for bottom-up ideas and rapid prototyping too.
- chriselles 9y ago
  I couldn't agree more on complex or extremely complex interdependent systems. We certainly wouldn't want to replace an impeller for a precision milled high performance turbo pump on a rocket with a 3D printed part as the risk of catastrophic failure would be enormous. But there is still great scope for field expedient replacement because of the simple fact that field expedient repair has occurred since mankind started killing each other in an organised fashion. I think much of the genuine risk of cumulative patchwork repairs increasing risk of catastrophic failure could be mitigated with a smart asset registry/history that could manage "go/no go" for depot level or higher maintenance/refurb. DOD would surely be one of the world's biggest consumers of duct tape. If just in time 3D printing can provide short term sustainment of assets that includes proper asset history documentation, the I would imagine that would be a net plus. Looking further into the future, I could easily imagine both 3D printing and production output auditing for common consumables and wear items as not just field expedient, but becoming the standard. Although I would think this will require a massive R&D/certification effort(so easier said than done), as well as designing this flexibility into future assets/platforms. "For want of a nail" comes to mind. For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost; being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for want of care about a horse-shoe nail. 3D print the nail, and then replace it in deport maintenance.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > We certainly wouldn't want to replace an impeller for a precision milled high performance turbo pump on a rocket with a 3D printed part as the risk of catastrophic failure would be enormous. A nitpick, but there are different kinds of 3D printing; on the higher end, companies like SpaceX actually do 3D-print rocket engine parts.
    - sorenjan 9y ago
      Koenigsegg 3D prints the variable turbo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNedUZxP8NU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNedUZxP8NU
  - greglindahl 9y ago
- bb88 9y ago
  "Stop the war, my button broke off, and I need a replacement." I foresee a requirement like this being added to defense contracts in the near future, basically requiring plans and easy replacement for the plastic bits. Then the defense department can either build their own parts or bid out the manufacturing of those parts.
gascan 9y ago
What in particular would you say is driving the USMC to this approach to innovation, compared to the other branches? Are they simply more exposed to unconventional warfare? Is it something about the type of person selected to be a Marine vs another branch? Something unique to their command staff? Etc.
- dfsegoat 9y ago
  I am not a Marine. But I would venture to guess it has to do with the tide of maintenance & resulting readiness issues the Corps. has historically had to deal with (their budget is tiny compared to USAF/Army), and the demands of running combat deployments non-stop since 9/11/01. Recently, they literally were pulling wings off of F-18s from museums, because several of their combat aircraft set to deploy in +2 weeks to places like Afghanistan and Iraq, were missing wings.
  - grkvlt 9y ago
    I'm not convinced about the 'pulling wings off of F-18s from museums' story - you're suggesting that aircraft about to deploy (in two weeks time, no less) had no wings and therefore combat missions ended up being flown with planes using the flight surfaces from museum exhibits? You may be thinking of the following story, when an F/A-18 that flew in the raid against Libya in 1986 needed a part (the hinge for the front left door of the nose wheel landing gear) which was no longer manufactured, and was eventually found on an aircraft on the USS Yorktown museum ship - although it didn't fit. [0] 0. https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/marines-scrounge-yorktown-museum-f-18-for-spare-parts-how-bad-is-it/ https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/marines-scrounge-yorktow...
    - dfsegoat 9y ago
      Yep I was mistaken. It seems the article you cited may have been the origin story. What I read, (and it changed in my head over time obviously to the point of perpetuating an urban legend) was from the military times in 2016 - which cites anecdotes that House Armed Services Cmte. Chairman, Mac Thornberry received firsthand [0]. Thanks for correcting me on this. [0] - https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/03/30/congressional-failures-just-forced-the-marines-to-raid-a-museum-for-aircraft-parts/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/03/30/...
avinium 9y ago
What's your experience trying to bring the same approach to Australia? In my experience, Defence/military here have been incredibly close-minded and resistant to change.
- chriselles 9y ago
  Hi Avinium, I’ve found slices of the US military to be incredibly innovative, forward thinking, and willing to take lots of small calculated risks. The USMC maker efforts are one bottom up effort, and I’m aware of a fantastic Air Force effort that has excellent support as well. Australia’s effort is more recent, I’m helping them to develop in-house innovation training as well as helping to shape an in-house innovation ecosystem/pipeline. I think a big part of successful implementation is culture change. On operations, we are expected to take calculated risks that include failing at times, in order to learn and iterate. The biggest issue is that in a homefront “camp” environment, everyone becomes risk averse due to frequent posting cycles(officers usually change roles every 2-3 years). Short posting cycles contradict the need for much longer term innovation pipeline outputs. I hope that helps?
b1daly 9y ago
All things equal, I (US Citizen) prefer that our military be effective and efficient. It troubles me though that there is virtually no public discussion on the unprecedented geographic scope , and time length, of today’s employments. This whole thread is interesting, and I think it is worth considering: to what end is all this innovation being applied? I have come to the conclusion that the professionalization of the services, coupled with the parasitic business model of the “defense industry,” has turned the US armed forces into a standing mercenary force. Ultimately, the blame for this lies with the corrupt electoral system in the US, and the unwillingness of our political leadership to exert a modicum of common sense, and reduce the scale of US military involvements. We can’t rely on institutions that many entities rely on for their livelihood/existence to put themselves out of business. It would be nice to see the military engage in disruptive innovation that would discourage open ended military conflict. (And the endless meddling in other countries ghastly civil wars.)
- unit91 9y ago
  >...has turned the US armed forces into a standing mercenary force. This statement makes no sense. A mercenary is "a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army" [1]. It's impossible to be a mercenary for your own country. 1. https://www.google.com/search?q=define+mercenary https://www.google.com/search?q=define+mercenary
  - b1daly 9y ago
    Jeez, I’m making a rhetorical point that the US army, which is not technically a mercenary army, as it is the official army of a sovereign state, has turned into an organization whose operations are driven by business interests.
    - jayliew 9y ago
      Just that there’s no confusion, the point of a civilian-controlled military is so that the military doesn’t do what the military wants. The military does what its people wants (or maybe needs), based on instructions from the civilian leader(s) voted into political office by the civilians. The military is but one of many tools in the toolkit of our civilian foreign policy makers. If you have an issue with how foreign policy is done, the right person/people in charge that should know are the politicians. They control the military.

sandworm101 9y ago

Except that bottom-up development doesnt always work in the context of complicated systems. OK, the button works but does it work in all conditions the aircraft is designed for? Maybe a button here or there isnt much, but there are potentially hundreds of such instances on an aircraft. Small defects add up. Eventually something gives. It may sound cool to reduce costs and scream independance, marines like such things, but aircraft remain safe due to a religious dedication to parts managment. Start chipping away at that and you are asking for trouble.

rubidium 9y ago
Nobody is saying there isn't a place for good parts management, solid systems engineering, and quality control. But there's room for bottom-up ideas and rapid prototyping too.
chriselles 9y ago
I couldn't agree more on complex or extremely complex interdependent systems. We certainly wouldn't want to replace an impeller for a precision milled high performance turbo pump on a rocket with a 3D printed part as the risk of catastrophic failure would be enormous. But there is still great scope for field expedient replacement because of the simple fact that field expedient repair has occurred since mankind started killing each other in an organised fashion. I think much of the genuine risk of cumulative patchwork repairs increasing risk of catastrophic failure could be mitigated with a smart asset registry/history that could manage "go/no go" for depot level or higher maintenance/refurb. DOD would surely be one of the world's biggest consumers of duct tape. If just in time 3D printing can provide short term sustainment of assets that includes proper asset history documentation, the I would imagine that would be a net plus. Looking further into the future, I could easily imagine both 3D printing and production output auditing for common consumables and wear items as not just field expedient, but becoming the standard. Although I would think this will require a massive R&D/certification effort(so easier said than done), as well as designing this flexibility into future assets/platforms. "For want of a nail" comes to mind. For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost; being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for want of care about a horse-shoe nail. 3D print the nail, and then replace it in deport maintenance.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > We certainly wouldn't want to replace an impeller for a precision milled high performance turbo pump on a rocket with a 3D printed part as the risk of catastrophic failure would be enormous. A nitpick, but there are different kinds of 3D printing; on the higher end, companies like SpaceX actually do 3D-print rocket engine parts.
  - sorenjan 9y ago
    Koenigsegg 3D prints the variable turbo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNedUZxP8NU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNedUZxP8NU
- greglindahl 9y ago
bb88 9y ago
"Stop the war, my button broke off, and I need a replacement." I foresee a requirement like this being added to defense contracts in the near future, basically requiring plans and easy replacement for the plastic bits. Then the defense department can either build their own parts or bid out the manufacturing of those parts.

gascan 9y ago

What in particular would you say is driving the USMC to this approach to innovation, compared to the other branches? Are they simply more exposed to unconventional warfare? Is it something about the type of person selected to be a Marine vs another branch? Something unique to their command staff? Etc.

dfsegoat 9y ago
I am not a Marine. But I would venture to guess it has to do with the tide of maintenance & resulting readiness issues the Corps. has historically had to deal with (their budget is tiny compared to USAF/Army), and the demands of running combat deployments non-stop since 9/11/01. Recently, they literally were pulling wings off of F-18s from museums, because several of their combat aircraft set to deploy in +2 weeks to places like Afghanistan and Iraq, were missing wings.
- grkvlt 9y ago
  I'm not convinced about the 'pulling wings off of F-18s from museums' story - you're suggesting that aircraft about to deploy (in two weeks time, no less) had no wings and therefore combat missions ended up being flown with planes using the flight surfaces from museum exhibits? You may be thinking of the following story, when an F/A-18 that flew in the raid against Libya in 1986 needed a part (the hinge for the front left door of the nose wheel landing gear) which was no longer manufactured, and was eventually found on an aircraft on the USS Yorktown museum ship - although it didn't fit. [0] 0. https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/marines-scrounge-yorktown-museum-f-18-for-spare-parts-how-bad-is-it/ https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/marines-scrounge-yorktow...
  - dfsegoat 9y ago
    Yep I was mistaken. It seems the article you cited may have been the origin story. What I read, (and it changed in my head over time obviously to the point of perpetuating an urban legend) was from the military times in 2016 - which cites anecdotes that House Armed Services Cmte. Chairman, Mac Thornberry received firsthand [0]. Thanks for correcting me on this. [0] - https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/03/30/congressional-failures-just-forced-the-marines-to-raid-a-museum-for-aircraft-parts/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/03/30/...

avinium 9y ago

What's your experience trying to bring the same approach to Australia? In my experience, Defence/military here have been incredibly close-minded and resistant to change.

chriselles 9y ago
Hi Avinium, I’ve found slices of the US military to be incredibly innovative, forward thinking, and willing to take lots of small calculated risks. The USMC maker efforts are one bottom up effort, and I’m aware of a fantastic Air Force effort that has excellent support as well. Australia’s effort is more recent, I’m helping them to develop in-house innovation training as well as helping to shape an in-house innovation ecosystem/pipeline. I think a big part of successful implementation is culture change. On operations, we are expected to take calculated risks that include failing at times, in order to learn and iterate. The biggest issue is that in a homefront “camp” environment, everyone becomes risk averse due to frequent posting cycles(officers usually change roles every 2-3 years). Short posting cycles contradict the need for much longer term innovation pipeline outputs. I hope that helps?

b1daly 9y ago

All things equal, I (US Citizen) prefer that our military be effective and efficient. It troubles me though that there is virtually no public discussion on the unprecedented geographic scope , and time length, of today’s employments. This whole thread is interesting, and I think it is worth considering: to what end is all this innovation being applied? I have come to the conclusion that the professionalization of the services, coupled with the parasitic business model of the “defense industry,” has turned the US armed forces into a standing mercenary force. Ultimately, the blame for this lies with the corrupt electoral system in the US, and the unwillingness of our political leadership to exert a modicum of common sense, and reduce the scale of US military involvements. We can’t rely on institutions that many entities rely on for their livelihood/existence to put themselves out of business. It would be nice to see the military engage in disruptive innovation that would discourage open ended military conflict. (And the endless meddling in other countries ghastly civil wars.)

unit91 9y ago
>...has turned the US armed forces into a standing mercenary force. This statement makes no sense. A mercenary is "a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army" [1]. It's impossible to be a mercenary for your own country. 1. https://www.google.com/search?q=define+mercenary https://www.google.com/search?q=define+mercenary
- b1daly 9y ago
  Jeez, I’m making a rhetorical point that the US army, which is not technically a mercenary army, as it is the official army of a sovereign state, has turned into an organization whose operations are driven by business interests.
  - jayliew 9y ago
    Just that there’s no confusion, the point of a civilian-controlled military is so that the military doesn’t do what the military wants. The military does what its people wants (or maybe needs), based on instructions from the civilian leader(s) voted into political office by the civilians. The military is but one of many tools in the toolkit of our civilian foreign policy makers. If you have an issue with how foreign policy is done, the right person/people in charge that should know are the politicians. They control the military.