How the DoD is Scaling Additive Manufacturing for Strategic Readiness: AMUG Conference 2025

As additive manufacturing continues its shift from experimental capability to core logistics infrastructure, stakeholders across the Department of Defense and industry face mounting pressure to accelerate adoption without compromising on standards, security, or interoperability. 

The Additive Manufacturing for Military Forward Deployment and Rapid Sustainment panel at the 2025 AMUG Conference brought together experts familiar with multiple branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, but as moderator Daniel Braley highlighted, they were speaking in a personal capacity. 

Acquisition delays to fragmented digital infrastructure continue to stall progress; however, tangible solutions are already underway, including policy changes and workforce modernization, as well as distributed manufacturing cells. The conversation highlighted the urgency: AM must be as operationally agile and digitally integrated as the missions it supports.

Five takeaways from the Forward Deployment and Rapid Sustainment panel

Slow acquisition undermines innovation: There’s a major mismatch between the pace of software development and the speed of defense contracting. Solutions that are ready today often become outdated by the time the DoD can procure them.

TRLs and MRLs are critical: Technology and manufacturing readiness levels determine how and when new tools can be adopted, and many companies entering defense aren’t aware of them.

Program of record status is a major shift: The Navy’s move to make additive part of its formal acquisition program (under the Maritime Industrial Base) marks a major turning point, with regular funding and staffing.

Additive solutions are too often made by engineers for engineers: There’s a need for simplification, standardization of training, and UI/UX improvements for frontline operators.

DoD will 3D print what it needs in wartime: IP concerns may constrain peacetime workflows, but in a conflict scenario, DoD will manufacture what it must.

Defense and Additive: Pentagon’s Strategic Bet on Digital Manufacturing Infrastructure

AM is not solely a technology play; it’s a critical enabler for supply chain resilience, especially under operational constraints. This was the clear message from the panel.

Thomas Murphy, Director of Defense Manufacturing Technology at the New Jersey Innovation Institute (NJII), outlined a model centered on de-risking across three axes: hardware, software, and people. “We de-risk hardware and software where we can test and verify different providers more easily than they might be able to do through acquisition,” he said. “And de-risking personnel is workforce development, providing training programs, certifying them, and handing them off to DoD partners to hire.” Firsthand military experience, combined with institutional proximity to acquisition bodies like DEVCOM, informs NJII’s approach: serving as a “surrogate” lab for validating technologies before full-scale deployment.

At 3YOURMIND, North America Vice President William Cuervo brings a more unconventional lens: part policy, part software. The company provides a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solution for part identification and order execution. “The goal is to help the DoD navigate obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages with data-driven clarity.” The software stack has already been deployed in partnership with the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, and builds on a longstanding collaboration with the Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC).

For Michael Guinn, a former leader of additive efforts at US Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the operational context remains paramount. Now Managing Director of KVG Advanced, Guinn juggles commercial efforts with support roles in acquisition for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. KVG operates forward-deployed manufacturing cells that service not only the US military but also allied forces. “It’s about ensuring the supply chain reaches the point of need, not just technically but logistically,” he noted. The company’s infrastructure spans multiple locations, creating a distributed mesh of capability that reduces lead times and dependence on traditional manufacturing.

Michael Pecota, who provides contract support to the US Navy, underscored the importance of readiness at the tactical edge, with a view toward integrating AM into standard naval operations.

Policy, Platforms, and a Push for Readiness in Forward-Deployed Manufacturing

3YOURMIND’s Cuervo cautioned against the common image of expeditionary AM as limited to “an FDM printer in a Humvee.” While polymer printing in austere environments is one element, Cuervo argued the real complexity lies in managing end-to-end workflows (spanning part identification, validation, and print execution) across a diverse set of technologies and security domains. “It’s not a magic solution,” he said. “There’s a lot of things happening before a part is printed, and depending on the technology, there’s a lot of stuff happening after that part comes out of the build chamber as well.” The aim: help operators assess logistics data, match needs with capabilities, and then orchestrate production—either in-theatre or back through the chain to better-equipped facilities.

That chain structure is a key consideration, explained Guinn at KVG Advanced. “The DoD is trying to create an ecosystem of networks all the way to that point of need,” he said. “You might have more capability as you step back.” While additive is most often discussed at the frontlines, he stressed, “every single link in that chain is critical for logistics.”

Defining where additive happens, and what is meant by terms like “expeditionary” or “intermediate,” can be its own logistical headache. “Terminology matters,” said Michael Pecota. “Expeditionary can mean something different to each service, or even to different elements within the same branch.” On the aviation side, “intermediate” might mean a depot slightly removed from flight-line operations, while on the sea side, it could refer to capabilities deployed aboard a ship.

Standardizing these operations requires more than machines and personnel; it demands an institutional policy that codifies how AM integrates into military workflows. Pecota described his experience implementing just such a policy into the Naval Aviation Maintenance Program, a move he said was long overdue. “Every job in the fleet is done ‘in accordance with’ an instruction. Additive had no such instruction,” he said. “Even if you had the data, the materials, the training, there was still a barrier. What do you sign off on?”

The Navy’s afloat policy authorises commanding officers aboard ships to make use decisions for 3D printed parts on-site. “You’re in charge of the ship. You probably were going to do this anyway,” Pecota said. “Let’s give you a little authority and guidance on how to do it as safely as possible.”

As tensions increase globally, the conversation is shifting from theory to execution. “Once you go into wartime, it’s all hands on deck,” Guinn added. “Anything you can do to iterate and stay in the fight becomes critical.” Policies, platforms, and IP agreements are all levers in a system that must balance agility with accountability. 

Licensing, Standards, and the Critical Role of Simplicity

The next phase of deployment, into contested theatres and away from permanent logistics chains, requires agreement across OEMs, the Department of Defense, and software providers on how to license, certify, and manage digital part files.

NJII’s Murphy likened the ideal licensing model to the music industry. “I’ve heard it called the iTunes model,” he said. “You’re sending it digitally, both parties get what they need—the OEM gets compensated, and the warfighter gets the part where and when they need it.” But licensing remains stymied by both data availability and trust. Michael Pecota of NAVAIR recalled a case involving early UAV platforms where even the OEM had no clear documentation on why certain components were made from carbon fibre. “We’ve gotten into the habit of overengineering everything so we don’t have to know the true minimum requirements,” he said.

Security, of course, remains a sticking point. “Every enterprise knows how to secure their systems,” said Cuervo of 3YOURMIND. “But in a collaborative digital thread, who pays? Who owns it? Whose cyber protocols do you follow? That’s the conundrum.”

Training and usability also emerged as critical gaps. Cuervo and others emphasised that the warfighter isn’t necessarily a machinist or engineer and that AM systems and software must reflect that. “People are creating additive solutions by engineers, for engineers,” Pecota said. “If they’re not comfortable using that equipment, they won’t use it. It won’t be their first choice to solve the problem.”

To address this, Navy training programs are consolidating data standards across branches and focusing on technical literacy. “We reached out to every service to get examples of open technical data packages,” Pecota said. “That way, someone in a joint operation can actually read and act on it, no matter where the file came from.”

Murphy noted that AM operators are often expected to run machines after long shifts with no sleep and little support. “They’ve got primary jobs, fighting, maintaining readiness. not babysitting a 3D printer,” he said. Guinn echoed the point: “The gear is out there, but if the next person doesn’t know how to use it, it gets dusty. The issue isn’t the tech, it’s training and confidence.”

Readiness won’t come just from metal 3D printers in shipping containers, it will depend on whether operators are trained, files are licensable and shareable, and systems can run in unstable environments with minimal supervision.

Additive’s Procurement Challenge: Speed, Standardization, and Secure Sharing for a New Supply Chain

As additive manufacturing matures into a critical pillar of defense sustainment strategy, industry leaders and military officials say policy and procurement must evolve just as quickly. While hardware capabilities have expanded across the services, from shipboard metal printers to expeditionary containerized units, many of the most pressing problems relate not to the machines, but to licensing, certification, and acquisition.

Even when technology is physically present, procurement remains a bottleneck. “Whether it’s TRL 9 or TRL 2,” Cuervo said, referring to the DoD’s Technology Readiness Levels, “it can still take years to get it into the hands of an operator.” “I align on requirements today based on what our software can do today,” he said. “By the time the DoD procures my solution, maybe in one to two years, that version is obsolete.” He called for “rapid acquisition of commercial solutions” as a parallel requirement to rapid sustainment. 

Pecota agreed, urging private-sector developers to understand Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs)—two frameworks that dictate when and how technologies can be adopted across the defense enterprise. “If there’s one thing you Google when you leave, make it TRL,” he said. “It determines what level of the organization you can work with and what funding they can use.”

Workarounds to conventional procurement processes are gaining traction with a panelist referencing the Defense Industrial Base Consortium as a channel for expedited contracting. 

Still, integrating additive manufacturing into the larger defense industrial base (DIB) remains a challenge. “It’s a problem with how the DIB operates at scale.” At the Navy, steps are already being taken to do just that. Pecota described work on new manning documents and the transition of additive from collateral duty to primary responsibility for machinery ratings. “For the first time, additive is becoming a program of record under the Navy’s maritime industrial base,” he said. “That comes with regular congressional funding, paid staff, and logistics support.”

But connecting the frontlines in the Pacific with the contiguous United States engineering capacity remains a major hurdle. The constraints on technical data persist. The lack of minimum performance specs for legacy parts, and the legal liability associated with converting them to additive, is a recurring obstacle. One OEM representative pointed to risk ownership as the true bottleneck. “If a part wasn’t originally additive and we’re converting it, who owns that risk?” he asked. “That’s not just IP, it’s liability.”

Thomas Murphy from NJII returned to the idea of dual-use validation to mitigate some of those risks. “If commercial sectors adopt the digital thread and digital warehousing, it supports defense adoption too,” he said. That cross-sector validation could offer OEMs new revenue while easing DoD access to parts files.

Finally, Cuervo stressed the urgent need for solutions beyond the part repository model. “Software beyond CAD, beyond build prep, is still missing,” he said. “DoD has the printers. They need the workflows, tools that can be used by sailors, not engineers.”

Even with ongoing advances, panelists cautioned that additive manufacturing must avoid isolating itself from traditional practices. “We should be asking: what can we learn from conventional machining, from contracting systems, from supply chain tools?” Pecota said. “Additive is not as far ahead as we think, and we won’t get there by pretending we are.”

The future of defense sustainment will not be defined by 3D printers alone, but by the ability to integrate additive manufacturing seamlessly into a broader industrial and logistical framework. That requires standardizing training across services, accelerating software-driven workflows, clarifying IP licensing and liability models, and embedding AM into the existing defense industrial base, not running parallel to it. With geopolitical tensions rising, the DoD is no longer asking whether it should manufacture parts in the field, but how to do so safely, quickly, and at scale. 

Additive shouldn’t be different; it should be part of the system. The task now is to ensure the system is ready.

Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards?

Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.

You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.

Featured image shows Daniel Braley moderating the Forward Deployment and Rapid Sustainment panel. Photo by Michael Petch.