Navy says 3D printing cut lead times 70% in 2025; a supplier says it printed submarine parts in under five weeks, not 17 months

Jan. 21, 2026 — The Navy said 3D printing moved from experiment to supply chain in 2025, cutting lead times by 70 percent in its headline example. Separately, a supplier printed submarine components in under five weeks against a typical 17-month wait. Here's what happened, what it cost, and what went wrong.

Cost and outcome (as of Jan. 21, 2026)

Outcome: NAVSEA said additive manufacturing went "from a promising capability to a warfighting capability in 2025, slashing lead times by 70 percent." (NAVSEA, Jan. 21, 2026)
Cost: AML3D's prototype tailpiece order was "valued at approximately A$156,000." A single polymer part from the Navy's Southeast Regional Maintenance Center "accounted for over $300,000 in cost avoidance." (AML3D, Jan. 6, 2025; NAVSEA, Jan. 21, 2026)
Lead time: The tailpiece components were printed "in less than five weeks compared to an average 17-month lead-time via traditional manufacturing." (AML3D, Jan. 6, 2025)

The 17-month wait

AML3D, an Australian company, said it delivered copper-nickel prototype tailpiece components for the Virginia-class program "for testing and for in-service trials," with "planned, in service installation" on a submarine in 2025. (AML3D, Jan. 6, 2025)

It said it had worked for about two years with the Navy's Maritime Industrial Base program and BlueForge Alliance "to meet emergent material readiness needs for U.S. submarines." (AML3D, Jan. 6, 2025)

Rear Adm. Jonathan Rucker, the program executive officer for attack submarines, was quoted: "Through partnerships like the one with AML3D, we are creating resiliency and robustness domestically." (AML3D, Jan. 6, 2025)

The first installed part

Newport News Shipbuilding said it "recently installed its first metal 3D-printed part on a submarine," a copper-nickel deck drain assembly, after approval steps with NAVSEA. (Newport News Shipbuilding, Sept. 17, 2025)

"We've experienced challenges getting the right material in a timely manner since COVID," said Jamie Sample, who ensures material availability for the Virginia-class submarine program. "Additive manufacturing is a lever we can pull to get material on time and improve schedules." (Newport News Shipbuilding, Sept. 17, 2025)

Zach Gaskins, who led the installation team, said it had "no challenges other than those typically associated with the nature of this type of job," and Newport News wrote that some "didn't even believe it was 3D printed." (Newport News Shipbuilding, Sept. 17, 2025)

Across the fleet

NAVSEA said Marotta used metal printing to cut "the traditional lead time (29-weeks) by 70 percent for a critical valve aboard Navy destroyers," bypassing bottlenecks "related to porosity and part rejection rates." (NAVSEA, Jan. 21, 2026)

The SERMC polymer part was a fan rotor for a chilled-water pump that "is not available to purchase separately in the Navy supply system," which had required buying a whole new pump. (NAVSEA, Jan. 21, 2026)

NAVSEA said Huntington Ingalls installed a printed 450-kilogram metal valve manifold on a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier; the Rota maintenance center cut repair times 80%; and streamlined material processes "reduced testing requirements by over 60%." It has released three additive material specifications, MIL-PRF-32802 to 32804. (NAVSEA, Jan. 21, 2026)

The Navy also used a polymer printer installed on an in-service submarine to restore a critical piece of equipment on a Coast Guard vessel, NAVSEA said. Partners such as Hunt Valve are certifying new parts, and NAVSEA said printing "is no longer viewed as an emerging experiment, but as a readiness enabler fully integrated into planning, maintenance, and sustainment." (NAVSEA, Jan. 21, 2026)

What went wrong

Supply chains were the bottleneck. The shipbuilder cited material delays "since COVID"; the Navy had to buy a whole pump to replace one fan rotor. (Newport News Shipbuilding, Sept. 17, 2025; NAVSEA, Jan. 21, 2026)
Different parts. The five-week tailpiece was for testing; the installed part was a deck drain. (AML3D, Jan. 6, 2025; Newport News Shipbuilding, Sept. 17, 2025)
One example behind the 70%. NAVSEA's headline figure matches its single Marotta valve example. (NAVSEA, Jan. 21, 2026)
What we don't know yet: whether the AML3D tailpiece was installed, and how many printed parts are now in the Navy's catalogue.

Our follow-up question for NAVSEA

How many additively manufactured part numbers are approved for submarines and destroyers, and what is their average lead time against conventional supply?

Sources

Alisha Tyer, NSWC Carderock Division Public Affairs, “Navy Expands 3D Printing to Frontline Fleet Operations in 2025,” NAVSEA, Jan. 21, 2026. navsea.navy.mil
Newport News Shipbuilding (HII), “One Small Part for the Virginia-Class Submarine Program, One Giant Leap for Additive Manufacturing,” NNS To Go, Sept. 17, 2025. nnstogo.com
AML3D, “AML3D supports AUKUS supply chain with Virginia-Class Components,” Jan. 6, 2025. aml3d.com

Disclosure: [not in copy] Editor placeholder