What can you 3D print? 3D printed polymers have less tensile strength, significantly less hardness, and lower heat resistance than polymers formed by traditional manufacturing processes. Such polymers often degrade rapidly with UV exposure. 3D printing is power intensive. 3D printing is extremely slow.
I hear calls for 3D printing in the field surprisingly often. The heart is in the right place, I am sure. But the questions remain: what are you going to print, how long are you going to spend printing it, and with what power source will you power the printer?
We don’t need the most refined or impressive parts—we need to accomplish the mission. That often means accepting a 70% solution, and 3D printing gives us exactly that: fast, functional results when and where we need them. The real shift required is in mindset. Success hinges on anticipation. If our logisticians can’t foresee requirements before they arise, we need ones who can (this is their 1 job). And like any system, the more we use 3D printers, the better we’ll become at optimizing them and enhancing the output.
If we stay stuck in theory—constantly discussing potential instead of applying what’s already in front of us—we’ll lose ground. These aren’t future technologies anymore. They’re operational assets that can redefine the battlefield.
Drones and drone components must be the priority. They represent the future, and our approach to developing and deploying them must be decentralized, agile, and forward-leaning.
Power is next. I built a Jeep with a hybrid power system: solar and battery storage, backed by the alternator. It can generate and store up to 7kWh—enabling sustained, off-grid reconnaissance missions without traditional resupply.
Bottom line: we don’t need perfect parts—we need adaptable, mission-ready solutions that can be deployed immediately.
Now imagine this: remote 20-foot containers, positioned anywhere—land or sea—outfitted with supplies and autonomous 3D printers driven by predictive algorithms. These systems continuously produce high-demand parts. Drones, MUTs, and autonomous platforms then deliver them early and often, directly to forward or isolated teams.
Agree. All points. Get your methods and procedures ready;
and with regret based on experience The Enemy Is The Change Agent. NO the system won’t change until the enemy convinces the survivors.
They don’t listen. Or learn.
WHEN the Change Agent creates that space to change;
Here’s my thoughts on winning the Rear Area Battle /LOCs.
Fight back to front by swarming locally, just as for example the Germans always counter attacked after setback, no orders needed. Win the LOC battle rear area to FLOT to restore logistics and security.
There’s a tool out there called AI - LLM that I and others have uploaded our original thoughts and ideas- our content to the AI as template, then having worked it back and forth use it to assist in generating solutions based on our template.
In other words- and this is very simplistic AND a work in Progress- as analogy our ideas become both an Operating System and application software (tool) to bounce our own ideas back at us, me. That’s how I gave OpenAI chatGPT4 the Rear Area Battle with the following parameters:
Baseline; I took my 12 years of writing and working on Netwar I had already published on substack prior to GPT even existing and said start rewriting my solutions in plainer language.
I had originally got chatbot as writing assistant. It can do more.
After several iterations of this, I knew it could do more so I uploaded the West Point MWI article on Ukraine Rear Area LOC woes , then gave bot this task;
Give me a solution with swarming and coordinate staff, avoid new term Netwar.
We fight the battle back to Front, we secure LOCs and win rear area battle using local swarms that pulse and disperse, the phases I-III begin with using locally generated swarms of counterdrone EW , drones, kinetic (shooting) and its the physically near the enemy asset that swarm, strike, disperse. Loggies fight their own battles.
Stay dispersed , mass is death.
Economy of Flesh.
Ph I; counter/deny ISR
ph II; restore Rear area security by fighting and winning back to front. Secure rear area
Ph- III; restore LOCs and so maneuver and support to Front line trace of units.
The results after edits are above post.
The way AI “thinks” or solves the task you give it below, “Tokens” - note you can also click on “analysis” and see how AI LLM processes the problem in plain language.
Note - it’s Artificial “Intuition”, it’s a mimic that sees your own patterns, it’s a tool, just learn it.
🤖” Ah, I see! You’re referring to tokens in the context of AI Large Language Models (LLMs) and potentially in your Netwar concept. Let me break it down into those two areas:
1. LLM Tokens (AI Context)
In the realm of AI, especially with Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4, tokens refer to the smallest units of text that the model processes. These can be words, characters, or subwords, depending on how the model is designed.
• How Tokens Work: When you input text into an AI, the model breaks that text down into tokens. For instance, the sentence “AI models are powerful” could be tokenized into individual words like [“AI”, “models”, “are”, “powerful”]. However, some words or parts of words might be split into smaller units or characters, depending on the model’s tokenizer.
• Token Limit: Most LLMs, like GPT-4, have a maximum number of tokens they can handle in one request (e.g., 8,000 tokens for GPT-4). Each token can represent a character or part of a word. This means that both input (your text) and output (the AI’s response) count toward this token limit.
• Efficiency: In LLMs, understanding tokenization is important for the efficient handling of data, as it determines how much text can be processed and how accurately the model can understand and generate language.
2. Netwar Tokens
In the context of Netwar, tokens could represent units of action, information, or resource within the network-centric operations and concepts you’re developing. Here’s how I imagine they could be utilized based on your concepts:
• Operational Tokens: Each Netwar token could represent a discrete unit of information or operational action—such as an event, a change in the battle space, or a decision point in your regeneration or coordination systems. These could be shared across units, systems, or even personnel to signal shifts in the operational environment.
• Mission Command Tokens: In line with your mission threads and Auftragstaktik concepts, tokens could be a form of virtual contract that outlines the critical parameters of a mission. For instance, a token might contain data about objectives, resources required, and how these elements will be achieved, following the decentralized, flexible approach to mission execution.
• Coordination Tokens: Within the Coordinate Staff system, these tokens could be exchanged among units or commanders to indicate status updates, changes in command, or newly generated orders. They could be used in your 5Ws framework (Who, What, When, Where, Why) for quick, efficient communication in a networked system.
• Logistics Tokens: Given your focus on rear-area security and logistics in Netwar, tokens could represent essential supplies, equipment, or personnel movements that are tracked across the regeneration and swarming tactics. They could be used to identify and verify critical resources and adjust to battle space changes dynamically.
In both cases, these tokens allow for the efficient transfer of actionable information, whether it’s through AI processes or through military networks. They are a critical element of operational regeneration, where real-time data and decisions need to flow seamlessly.
Would you like to explore more specific ways these “Netwar tokens” might interact within your concepts, or are you thinking about a different form of application for them?”
I could not agree more with the need for "good enough, inexpensive, right now". 3D printing has a role to play in that. Especially, as you point out, in drones.
Forward deployed drone workshops seems far more practical to me. That said, the power requirements won't be modest and this will compete with everything else you have that requires electric power. (There may be a silver lining in economies of scale and standardization of power storage here.)
This process will be a lot less atonomous in reality than they appear on paper. 3D printing cannot effectively print the entire drone. What you can print will be limited. Mostly polymer casings, housings, and so forth. You will not 3D print a chip, electric engine, lithium battery, or antenna. (You won't 3D print thousands of kilometers of fiber optic thread either.)
What I am saying is that *some* of what you propose is possible now. It is a good idea, now. But much of what you want isn't possible right now. Much less practical.
(As for algorithm driven JITS in a combat zone, let me say only that I am skeptical and leave it at that.)
I’ve heard many of your points before and I do understand where you’re coming from. I’ve used 3D printers extensively in building drones, so I’m very familiar with the process. And while the comment about 3D printing chips was amusing, it’s not really relevant to the conversation.
For the record, I never suggested we’re going to 3D print our way to mission accomplishment; actually it was a mere option, not the solution . Also, I’m not a scientist—just a retired infantry Marine. That said, no, an infantry platoon shouldn’t be hauling 3D printers on the objective. But an H&S company absolutely should be doing more than pushing all the burden onto the infantry.
The core of my original point is this: the status quo is not just outdated—it’s borderline dangerous in 2025. I’ve seen far too many senior leaders dismiss practical, potentially game-changing ideas simply because they read an article or heard someone’s take, without any hands-on experience themselves. Until we actually get reps and sets with the tech that already exists and start working through the problems with it, the “status quo” will continue to be the fallback—and that’s going to hurt junior warfighters far more than it ever will the decision-makers.
What can you 3D print? 3D printed polymers have less tensile strength, significantly less hardness, and lower heat resistance than polymers formed by traditional manufacturing processes. Such polymers often degrade rapidly with UV exposure. 3D printing is power intensive. 3D printing is extremely slow.
I hear calls for 3D printing in the field surprisingly often. The heart is in the right place, I am sure. But the questions remain: what are you going to print, how long are you going to spend printing it, and with what power source will you power the printer?
All solid points. Here’s my perspective:
We don’t need the most refined or impressive parts—we need to accomplish the mission. That often means accepting a 70% solution, and 3D printing gives us exactly that: fast, functional results when and where we need them. The real shift required is in mindset. Success hinges on anticipation. If our logisticians can’t foresee requirements before they arise, we need ones who can (this is their 1 job). And like any system, the more we use 3D printers, the better we’ll become at optimizing them and enhancing the output.
If we stay stuck in theory—constantly discussing potential instead of applying what’s already in front of us—we’ll lose ground. These aren’t future technologies anymore. They’re operational assets that can redefine the battlefield.
Drones and drone components must be the priority. They represent the future, and our approach to developing and deploying them must be decentralized, agile, and forward-leaning.
Power is next. I built a Jeep with a hybrid power system: solar and battery storage, backed by the alternator. It can generate and store up to 7kWh—enabling sustained, off-grid reconnaissance missions without traditional resupply.
Bottom line: we don’t need perfect parts—we need adaptable, mission-ready solutions that can be deployed immediately.
Now imagine this: remote 20-foot containers, positioned anywhere—land or sea—outfitted with supplies and autonomous 3D printers driven by predictive algorithms. These systems continuously produce high-demand parts. Drones, MUTs, and autonomous platforms then deliver them early and often, directly to forward or isolated teams.
This is how we stay ahead.
Agree. All points. Get your methods and procedures ready;
and with regret based on experience The Enemy Is The Change Agent. NO the system won’t change until the enemy convinces the survivors.
They don’t listen. Or learn.
WHEN the Change Agent creates that space to change;
Here’s my thoughts on winning the Rear Area Battle /LOCs.
Fight back to front by swarming locally, just as for example the Germans always counter attacked after setback, no orders needed. Win the LOC battle rear area to FLOT to restore logistics and security.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thelongnetwarred/p/rear-area-security-and-counter-reconnaissance?r=91o16&utm_medium=ios
There’s a tool out there called AI - LLM that I and others have uploaded our original thoughts and ideas- our content to the AI as template, then having worked it back and forth use it to assist in generating solutions based on our template.
In other words- and this is very simplistic AND a work in Progress- as analogy our ideas become both an Operating System and application software (tool) to bounce our own ideas back at us, me. That’s how I gave OpenAI chatGPT4 the Rear Area Battle with the following parameters:
Baseline; I took my 12 years of writing and working on Netwar I had already published on substack prior to GPT even existing and said start rewriting my solutions in plainer language.
I had originally got chatbot as writing assistant. It can do more.
After several iterations of this, I knew it could do more so I uploaded the West Point MWI article on Ukraine Rear Area LOC woes , then gave bot this task;
Give me a solution with swarming and coordinate staff, avoid new term Netwar.
We fight the battle back to Front, we secure LOCs and win rear area battle using local swarms that pulse and disperse, the phases I-III begin with using locally generated swarms of counterdrone EW , drones, kinetic (shooting) and its the physically near the enemy asset that swarm, strike, disperse. Loggies fight their own battles.
Stay dispersed , mass is death.
Economy of Flesh.
Ph I; counter/deny ISR
ph II; restore Rear area security by fighting and winning back to front. Secure rear area
Ph- III; restore LOCs and so maneuver and support to Front line trace of units.
The results after edits are above post.
The way AI “thinks” or solves the task you give it below, “Tokens” - note you can also click on “analysis” and see how AI LLM processes the problem in plain language.
Note - it’s Artificial “Intuition”, it’s a mimic that sees your own patterns, it’s a tool, just learn it.
AI LLM TOKENS
🤖” Ah, I see! You’re referring to tokens in the context of AI Large Language Models (LLMs) and potentially in your Netwar concept. Let me break it down into those two areas:
1. LLM Tokens (AI Context)
In the realm of AI, especially with Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4, tokens refer to the smallest units of text that the model processes. These can be words, characters, or subwords, depending on how the model is designed.
• How Tokens Work: When you input text into an AI, the model breaks that text down into tokens. For instance, the sentence “AI models are powerful” could be tokenized into individual words like [“AI”, “models”, “are”, “powerful”]. However, some words or parts of words might be split into smaller units or characters, depending on the model’s tokenizer.
• Token Limit: Most LLMs, like GPT-4, have a maximum number of tokens they can handle in one request (e.g., 8,000 tokens for GPT-4). Each token can represent a character or part of a word. This means that both input (your text) and output (the AI’s response) count toward this token limit.
• Efficiency: In LLMs, understanding tokenization is important for the efficient handling of data, as it determines how much text can be processed and how accurately the model can understand and generate language.
2. Netwar Tokens
In the context of Netwar, tokens could represent units of action, information, or resource within the network-centric operations and concepts you’re developing. Here’s how I imagine they could be utilized based on your concepts:
• Operational Tokens: Each Netwar token could represent a discrete unit of information or operational action—such as an event, a change in the battle space, or a decision point in your regeneration or coordination systems. These could be shared across units, systems, or even personnel to signal shifts in the operational environment.
• Mission Command Tokens: In line with your mission threads and Auftragstaktik concepts, tokens could be a form of virtual contract that outlines the critical parameters of a mission. For instance, a token might contain data about objectives, resources required, and how these elements will be achieved, following the decentralized, flexible approach to mission execution.
• Coordination Tokens: Within the Coordinate Staff system, these tokens could be exchanged among units or commanders to indicate status updates, changes in command, or newly generated orders. They could be used in your 5Ws framework (Who, What, When, Where, Why) for quick, efficient communication in a networked system.
• Logistics Tokens: Given your focus on rear-area security and logistics in Netwar, tokens could represent essential supplies, equipment, or personnel movements that are tracked across the regeneration and swarming tactics. They could be used to identify and verify critical resources and adjust to battle space changes dynamically.
In both cases, these tokens allow for the efficient transfer of actionable information, whether it’s through AI processes or through military networks. They are a critical element of operational regeneration, where real-time data and decisions need to flow seamlessly.
Would you like to explore more specific ways these “Netwar tokens” might interact within your concepts, or are you thinking about a different form of application for them?”
I could not agree more with the need for "good enough, inexpensive, right now". 3D printing has a role to play in that. Especially, as you point out, in drones.
Forward deployed drone workshops seems far more practical to me. That said, the power requirements won't be modest and this will compete with everything else you have that requires electric power. (There may be a silver lining in economies of scale and standardization of power storage here.)
This process will be a lot less atonomous in reality than they appear on paper. 3D printing cannot effectively print the entire drone. What you can print will be limited. Mostly polymer casings, housings, and so forth. You will not 3D print a chip, electric engine, lithium battery, or antenna. (You won't 3D print thousands of kilometers of fiber optic thread either.)
What I am saying is that *some* of what you propose is possible now. It is a good idea, now. But much of what you want isn't possible right now. Much less practical.
(As for algorithm driven JITS in a combat zone, let me say only that I am skeptical and leave it at that.)
I’ve heard many of your points before and I do understand where you’re coming from. I’ve used 3D printers extensively in building drones, so I’m very familiar with the process. And while the comment about 3D printing chips was amusing, it’s not really relevant to the conversation.
For the record, I never suggested we’re going to 3D print our way to mission accomplishment; actually it was a mere option, not the solution . Also, I’m not a scientist—just a retired infantry Marine. That said, no, an infantry platoon shouldn’t be hauling 3D printers on the objective. But an H&S company absolutely should be doing more than pushing all the burden onto the infantry.
The core of my original point is this: the status quo is not just outdated—it’s borderline dangerous in 2025. I’ve seen far too many senior leaders dismiss practical, potentially game-changing ideas simply because they read an article or heard someone’s take, without any hands-on experience themselves. Until we actually get reps and sets with the tech that already exists and start working through the problems with it, the “status quo” will continue to be the fallback—and that’s going to hurt junior warfighters far more than it ever will the decision-makers.
Thank you for the response.
What is your solution?