July did not only feature more defence stories than usual, this month’s headlines showed additive manufacturing being selected for the jobs that matter in wartime production: rapid iteration, local substitution, and tolerable failure modes. The month’s most jarring signal was the British Army using a Bambu Lab printer to produce FPV attack drones during an exercise, reported not as a tech demo, but as a practical way to compress time and cost at the tactical edge.
Read alongside Ukraine’s intensifying fight against Shahed-type drone swarms, the point becomes sharper. Additive is not “supporting” modern conflict from the margins; it is being used to thicken the supply of attritable systems and to keep redesign cycles close to the point of use.
Fleet integration, not pilot theatre
The U.S. Navy’s Letter of Intent with AML3D matters because it signals structured adoption, an attempt to turn wire-arc additive manufacturing from episodic capability into routine sustainment. That shift in US Navy WAAM fleet expansion changes the bar: qualification, throughput, and operator training become the real constraints, not enthusiasm.
A separate budget analysis reinforced the same conclusion from another angle: additive manufacturing is increasingly visible where procurement becomes policy, inside line items and program language, rather than confined to skunkworks. The story is not that spending exists; it is that AM is being accounted for as part of readiness. Read our analysis to understand how much of the U.S. defense budget relates to additive manufacturing.
Propulsion as the scoreboard
July also made the propulsion race hard to ignore. China’s state-owned AECC reported a successful test flight of a turbojet engine produced entirely via 3D printing, flown in Inner Mongolia to 4,000 meters. That is a strategically legible claim: it places additive manufacturing directly inside the performance envelope where export controls, materials science, and production repeatability collide.
On the Western side, NASA’s Paul Gradl framed the maturity curve with unusual bluntness. Laser powder bed fusion, he said, has reached a “semi-normalisation”, the new frontier is large-scale DED, new alloys, and the discipline of qualification. His description of engine hardware approaching two metres in diameter, built with “thousands of cooling passages”, is less a boast than a reminder: the hard problem now is running long builds reliably and proving them, again and again. Read our interview about NASA Artemis additive manufacturing, and more.
Meanwhile, Argive’s 3D printed microturbine for MGI’s SkyShark drone sketched a different, equally modern logic: propulsion miniaturised, manufacturable, and iterated quickly, exactly the kind of component class where additive’s design freedom translates into operational options.
AI enters the workflow stack, quietly but decisively
While defence pulled demand downstream, AI pulled capability upstream. Sloyd’s shift toward text-to-3D and print-aware export presets is a signal of where “design” is being redefined: away from CAD competence and towards AI 3D model generation generating printable geometry with guardrails.
NVIDIA’s PartPacker goes further in a more industrial direction: part-based 3D models generated from a single 2D image, designed to keep components editable rather than fused into a monolithic mesh. NVIDIA’s 2D-to-3D AI modeling matters for additive because editability is leverage over multi-part assemblies, over multi-material intent, and eventually over manufacturing automation.
The hangover: consolidation meets market bifurcation
If July’s battlefield stories suggested acceleration, the industrial balance sheet told a colder truth. Desktop Metal’s bankruptcy filing and agreement to sell foreign subsidiaries closed another chapter of the SPAC-era expansion, this time with less drama than inevitability.
Stratasys’ move to acquire Nexa3D assets is the same cycle, viewed from the buyer’s side: capability preserved, ownership concentrated, portfolios rationalised.
CONTEXT then provided the datapoint that makes the whole year cohere: growth and decline are happening at different price points. In Q1 2025, total system revenues rose 5% year-on-year, driven by entry-level 3D printer market growth, while industrial revenues fell. Over one million sub-$2,500 machines shipped globally; Chinese vendors accounted for the overwhelming majority; Bambu’s unit growth was particularly strong. Industrial shipments, by contrast, declined, less a rejection of AM than a reflection of higher interest rates, delayed capex, and buyers choosing to wait.
The desktop goes to war
The most revealing detail in the British Army’s Bambu Lab story was not the brand of 3D printer, but the setting: a field workshop under camouflage netting, powered by a portable generator, next to a Land Rover. During Exercise Bull Storm in Kenya, soldiers printed and assembled FPV drones in roughly four hours each after receiving the print files by email, with technicians fitting electronics to complete the builds. The claimed economics were stark: about £400 per drone versus roughly £2,000 for typical commercial, “Army-ready” FPV systems. Bambu Lab military drone manufacturing was only possible with “special purpose clearance” from the Military Aviation Authority, a small bureaucratic phrase that reads like a larger institutional shift.
Ukraine 3D printed drone program production provides the grimmer, larger context. As Shahed-type attacks scaled, Ukraine’s response was not to search for exquisite countermeasures but to industrialise interception at a tolerable unit cost. Wild Hornets’ print-farm imagery, rows of Elegoo and Bambu Lab machines producing plastic components, says something blunt about modern procurement: capacity is now partly measured in spools, spare nozzles, and the ability to iterate designs without waiting for a supplier. The numbers do the persuading. The article cites claims of “tens of thousands” of anti-Shahed drones contracted, with interceptor costs reported at $1,000–$5,000 against missile-based air defence measured in millions per shot.
Capital follows the micro-factory
Firestorm Labs’ $47m Series A (plus $12m venture debt) reads like the financial version of those field workshops: money moving toward deployable manufacturing, not just deployable platforms. The round, led by NEA and joined by defence-linked investors including Lockheed Martin Ventures and Booz Allen Ventures, was framed around scaling an additive “factory-in-a-box” concept, its containerised xCell micro-factory designed to produce modular airframes at the point of need and reconfigure systems for different missions. The rare insight from Firestorm defense drone funding is that investors are underwriting throughput and logistics compression as much as aeronautics: manufacturing capacity is being treated as a frontline constraint worth venture money.
The other frontier: printing inside cells
July’s scientific outlier served as a useful antidote to the month’s battlefield pragmatism. Researchers at the J. Stefan Institute and the University of Ljubljana reported 3D printing functional microstructures directly inside living cells using two-photon polymerization, including microlasers and tracking “barcodes,” with submicron features and a 24-hour viability study in which 55% of cells with printed structures remained alive. The work is not “near-term manufacturing” in any commercial sense; its value as a signal is that additive’s ambition keeps expanding even as industrial AM is forced into discipline. July, in other words, managed to be both more institutional and more strange.
The month’s unfashionable conclusion
July’s real story is that additive manufacturing is becoming two things at once: a tool of mass improvisation (cheap machines, fast drones, local fixes) and a discipline of slow proof (qualified propulsion, materials science, months-long builds, procurement language). The industry will keep arguing about “maturity”, but July supplied a simpler test: where institutions will accept risk, they deploy fast; where they cannot, they demand evidence. and they make you pay for it.
Read more in our series looking at the 3D printing news for 2025, plus how did additive manufacturing expert forecasts match the reality of the year?
3D Printing Forecasts vs Reality 2025
Additive Manufacturing in 2025 Executive Summary – Part One
Additive Manufacturing in 2025 Executive Summary – Part Two
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year January 2025
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year February 2025
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year March 2025
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year April 2025
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year May 2025
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year June 2025
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year July 2025
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year August 2025
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year September 2025
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year October 2025
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year November 2025
3D Printing Industry Review of the Year December 2025
The 3D Printing Industry Awards are back. Make your nominations now.
Do you operate a 3D printing start-up? Reach readers, potential investors, and customers with the 3D Printing Industry Start-up of Year competition.
To stay up to date with the latest 3D printing news, don’t forget to subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter or follow us on LinkedIn.
While you’re here, why not subscribe to our Youtube channel? Featuring discussion, debriefs, video shorts, and webinar replays.
