Charles R. Goulding and Preeti Sulibhavi explore how South Korea’s bold push into U.S. Navy shipyards is bringing advanced 3D printing technologies to the heart of American shipbuilding.
The last year has seen major movement by South Korea’s shipbuilding heavyweights in relation to the U.S. market — not just globally, but quite explicitly for the U.S. Navy and U.S. shipyards. At the same time,3D printing is emerging as a key enabler for these ventures. For us, the converging trends of Korean shipbuilding investment, U.S. naval demand, and print-based manufacturing present a compelling story.
Korean Shipbuilders Targeting U.S. Navy Shipbuilding
South Korea’s “big three” shipbuilders (Hanwha Ocean, HD Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samsung Heavy Industries) have clearly signaled a pivot toward U.S. shipbuilding. According to Defense News, on 16 September 2025, representatives of those companies announced “major shifts in current shipyard operations … to cooperate with the Pentagon and revitalize American shipbuilding.”
For example, Hanwha — which acquired the U.S. shipyard in Philadelphia — is establishing two hubs: one production facility in Philadelphia, and another maintenance/repair hub in Busan, South Korea. The stated aim is to handle about 11 U.S. Navy vessels annually via the Busan center.
HD Hyundai Heavy is also in talks to buy a U.S. shipyard, according to a Reuters report of 18 Sept 2025. In that interview by Reuters, HD Hyundai said it targets ≈ 3 trillion Won (~US$2.2 billion) in annual U.S. Navy warship revenue by 2035. Taken together, these moves are part of South Korea’s broader pledge of up to US$150 billion (of a total US$350 billion in U.S. investment) to bolster U.S. shipbuilding under the banner “Make America Shipbuilding Great Again” (MASGA).
Why the urgency? The U.S. ship-construction capacity has eroded substantially: one 2025 report notes U.S. shipyards had just 0.04 % of global commercial shipbuilding capacity in 2024. Meanwhile, Korean and Chinese yards capture approximately 83% of the global capacity. The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Government are concerned about both volume and skilled-labor shortages, and Korea brings both manufacturing scale and modern shipbuilding practices.
In short, Korean firms are bringing their ship-building heavy-equipment, digital manufacturing, and process know-how into the U.S. market and pressing toward naval contracts, repair/overhaul (MRO) work, and broader commercial shipbuilding on U.S. soil.
Why This Matters for the U.S. Navy & Shipbuilding Industry
For the U.S. Navy, partnering with Korean yards offers several potential benefits.
- Volume and throughput – Korean yards build ships quickly, thanks to modular construction, integrated supply chains, and high utilization. HD Hyundai points out that it can build Aegis-equipped destroyers in just 18 months—far quicker than many U.S. peers.
- Skilled workforce and operational discipline – U.S. yards are reported to face retention issues and low productivity compared to major yards in Asia. Korean companies hope to bring their training, process optimization, and digital workflows to U.S. operations.
- Supply-chain modernization – By establishing U.S. production hubs (or acquiring them), Korean firms create localized supply chains, shorten lead-times, reduce reliance on imports, and improve control of component manufacturing.
- Defense-industrial synergy – This is not just commercial shipping: the navy, warships, MRO and alliances with Korea strengthen the U.S.–Korea defense industrial base and help the U.S. compete strategically, especially in the Indo-Pacific region.
- Digital manufacturing & additive technologies – Korean companies are bringing additive manufacturing and digital manufacturing workflows into the ship-building world, which can shorten build times, reduce logistics burdens, and enable smarter fleets.
However, it’s not without challenge: U.S. laws such as the Jones Act and the Byrnes-Tollefson Amendment restrict foreign shipyards from particular kinds of warship construction. Korea’s companies acknowledge that a U.S. manufacturing base is essential if they are to truly engage in U.S. Navy ship production.
Ultimately, the Korean play can strengthen U.S. ship-production capacity—but only if the partnerships effectively transfer technology, train U.S. employees, and navigate regulatory hurdles.
The 3D Printing Angle: Why It’s Important, What’s Already Happening
Here’s where the additive manufacturing (AM) side comes into focus—and why this matters for a shipbuilding story.
Why 3D Printing Matters in Shipbuilding
- Lead-time reduction: Large ships require hundreds of thousands of components, many custom or low-volume. Traditional sourcing can take months. 3D printing enables on‐demand production of specialized parts (e.g., complex fittings, brackets, pipes, engine-chamber components) closer to the build site.
- Supply-chain resilience: By printing parts on-site or locally, yards reduce reliance on overseas shipping of components, multi‐tier suppliers, and long lead-time vendors. For U.S. shipyards that may be operating under capacity or skill constraints, this is a competitive edge.
- Design complexity & weight savings: AM allows more optimized structures (internal lattices, fewer welds, custom geometries), which in naval/defense can yield weight savings, improved performance, or reduced maintenance burdens.
- Digital workflows & localization: Shipbuilding is moving into digital twin design, modular build, digital parts libraries — AM sits naturally in that ecosystem. Importantly for Korean players working in U.S. yards, AM offers a localization path: digital files can be transmitted, printed locally, reducing import/tariff issues.
- Maintenance, repair & overhaul (MRO) benefit: Many shipyard tasks are MRO: replacing obscure parts, small batches, unpredictable demands. Printed parts on demand can cut downtime and inventory costs—critical in naval readiness. Indeed, there’s an explicit Korean initiative for 3D printing in MRO.
What Korean Companies Are Doing (and Fabbaloo Has Covered)
- In the August 2025 Fabbaloo article “U.S.–Korea Trade Deal: A Game-Changer for 3D Printing in the Korean Industry,” we noted how Korean firms like Hyundai, Hanwha, and Samsung stood to use 3D-printing-enabled localization in the U.S. under the new trade deal.
- The Fabbaloo article “Hanwha Philly Shipyard: Anchoring the Future of Shipbuilding with 3D Printing” detailed how Hanwha’s U.S. yard was deploying metal AM for ship components—fittings, valves, structural elements, replacing traditional procurement models.
Now the practical evidence:
- The article from Metal Additive Manufacturing on July 17, 2025, reported that Hanwha Ocean and Hanwha Systems have introduced metal additive manufacturing in the U.S. at the Philly Shipyard to reduce component import dependency, shorten build times, and serve the LNG‐carrier + warship markets.
- In Korea, the March 2025 LMITAC article reports a consortium of HMM and HD Hyundai Heavy aims to 3D print ship components (carbon steel powders, on-demand parts) by December 2025, targeting MRO segments and reduced inventory burdens.
- And a June 2025 TCT magazine article notes that Korean researchers additively manufactured a spherical titanium alloy high-pressure tank passing a 330-bar cryogenic test, showing advanced metal AM capability in the country.
Korean shipbuilders aren’t just talking about building in the U.S.; they’re already embedding additive manufacturing into their shipyard and MRO workflows. That makes their U.S. entry even more strategically significant.
How 3D Printing Enhances the U.S. Shipyard Strategy
Bringing 3D printing into the U.S. yards offers a number of advantages, aligning with the Korean firms’ intent:
- Localized production of specialty parts: Instead of importing parts built in Korea, Hanwha can print in Philadelphia, reducing logistics/tariff complexity and boosting U.S. value-add.
- Faster turnaround for naval maintenance: With AM, repair centers (e.g., Busan hub or U.S. location) can produce missing or obsolete components quickly — a major plus for Navy readiness.
- Workforce up-skilling and digital capability transfer: AM requires new kinds of digital manufacturing skills, which help training programs in the U.S. yards and raise the productivity ceiling.
- Competitive differentiation: U.S. shipbuilders historically lag in throughput and productivity; a Korean-led yard offering AM-enabled workflows might outperform and attract contracts.
- Supply-chain flexibility: Given global supply-chain fragility, being able to produce certain parts on demand in the yard reduces risk from overseas disruptions.
- Integration with digital twins & modular build: Korean yards already use highly modular construction and digital design; adding AM strengthens that platform when transplanted into the U.S. environment.
In short, the additive-manufacturing capability is a key enabler to make the Korean investment in U.S. shipbuilding economically viable and competitively differentiated.
Risks, Regulatory Hurdles & What to Watch
While much of this looks promising, a few caveats and watch points:
- U.S. legislative/regulatory constraints: As noted earlier, foreign firms face legal barriers in U.S. naval shipbuilding (e.g., the Byrnes-Tollefson Amendment). Korean firms recognize that a U.S. base is essential if they are to gain direct warship production contracts. \
- Skilled-labor gap & retention: Korean executives point to U.S. shipyards’ labor-retention issues and lower productivity; achieving Korean-level throughput will require major workforce training.
- Supply-chain logistics and materials cost: Even with AM, primary materials (steel plates, specialized alloys), and large-scale modular blocks remain critical. Korea may bring process know-how, but existing U.S. yards may require significant capital investment.
- Tariffs, local content, and politics: The Korean investment is tied into a trade negotiation context (e.g., the US-Korea deal) and may face domestic political backlash in the U.S. around local jobs and national-security thresholds.
- Technology transfer and IP concerns: Korean-based AM technology may need to be imported/licensed into the U.S.; managing IP and workforce localization will be key.
- Scale and timeline: While the pledges are large (US$150 billion), actual ship-building output in U.S. yards will take years to ramp up. The additive programs likewise will mature over time.
The key takeaway is that the additive-manufacturing portion is not just a sidebar—it is core to how these shipbuilder investments can scale in the U.S. context with a competitive advantage.
Where This Leaves Us
Just this past October, HII (Huntington Ingalls Industries) hosted leaders from HD Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) at the company’s Ingalls Shipbuilding division this month for a three-day engagement to advance joint goals of the memorandum of understanding signed by the two companies in April 2025.
During the visit, leaders from HII and HHI exchanged insights on shipbuilding technology and manufacturing processes, discussing both commercial and military shipbuilding opportunities.
By 2025 and beyond, the convergence of U.S. naval demand, Korean shipbuilding scale, and additive manufacturing creates a distinctive strategic opportunity. Korean firms offer throughput, digital workflows, and AM-enabled component flexibility; the U.S. offers the defense contracts, ship-yard infrastructure needing modernization, and alliance logic. Here’s a quick summary:
- Korean shipbuilders are actively acquiring or planning U.S. ship-yard presence (Hanwha/Philly Shipyard, HD Hyundai talks).
- The U.S.–Korea trade deal and MASGA program provide political, industrial, and financial scaffolding for these moves.
- 3D printing is being deployed already by these firms — both in Korea and in U.S. yards — for ship components, MRO parts, and production workflows.
- That AM deployment is not experimental — it is a competitive lever: lower lead-times, localized supply, workforce training, more agile production.
- For the U.S. Navy, this could mean faster build/repair of vessels, a more resilient supply chain and higher productivity shipyards.
- For Korean companies, this is a major opportunity to export their ship-building model into the U.S., capture defense-industrial business and embed AM deeper in global operations.
- But the challenge remains: scaling production in the U.S., training and retaining workers, navigating law/regulation, and proving ROI in large war-ship programs.
The Research and Development Tax Credit
The now permanent Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit is available for companies developing new or improved products, processes, and/or software. 3D printing can help boost a company’s R&D Tax Credits. Wages for technical employees creating, testing, and revising 3D-printed prototypes can be included as a percentage of the eligible time spent on the R&D Tax Credit. Similarly, when used as a method of improving a process, time spent integrating 3D printing hardware and software counts as an eligible activity. Lastly, when used for modeling and preproduction, the costs of filaments consumed during the development process may also be recovered.
Whether it is used for creating and testing prototypes or for final production, 3D printing is a great indicator that R&D Credit-eligible activities are taking place. Companies implementing this technology at any point should consider taking advantage of R&D Tax Credits.
Conclusion
The Korean ship-building push into the U.S. Navy and U.S. ship-yard market is more than a business expansion—it’s a strategic industrial evolution. Korean firms bring process maturity, high throughput, global ship-building scale, and now additive-manufacturing competence. The U.S. side gains capacity, alliance leverage, and modern manufacturing methods. Additive manufacturing, far from being just hype, plays a tangible enabling role: reducing lead-times, localizing supply, supporting digital manufacturing workflows, and giving Korean-backed yards an edge inside the U.S. defense-industrial complex.
For our readers focused on 3D printing, this story ticks the boxes: large-scale manufacturing, national security implications, localization of production, digital file transfer, new materials, and workforce transformation. The question going forward isn’t just will it happen, it’s how fast and at what scale. How many U.S. Navy ships will be built or heavily repaired in Korean-backed U.S. yards using 3D printed parts? How much additive manufacturing will shift from boutique to mainstream in naval ship production? And how will these developments reshape the industrial base of the U.S. and Korea alike?
We are at the intersection of global defense, manufacturing supply-chain transformation, and the digitization of heavy industry. The Korean shipyard story is one of the most tangible manifestations of that intersection. We will keep watching the part-prints, the ship-hulls, and how they align.
