The U.S. Army is advancing plans to internally produce spare parts using additive manufacturing (AM) technologies—commonly known as 3D printing—to mitigate the long-standing issue of restricted access to proprietary technical data from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). This strategic pivot aims to enhance readiness and reduce logistical delays across the service’s global operations.
IP Roadblocks Undermine Readiness and Sustainment
For decades, military maintenance and repair operations have been hampered by limited access to OEM-controlled technical data packages (TDPs), which are essential for manufacturing or reverse-engineering replacement parts. These TDPs often include detailed CAD drawings, material specifications, tolerances, and quality control procedures—data typically protected under intellectual property law.
According to Maj. Gen. Robert Edmonson II of the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM), many critical systems lack government-owned TDPs due to legacy acquisition practices that did not prioritize full data rights. As a result, even minor component failures can lead to extended downtime while units wait for OEM-supplied spares or contract modifications.
“We’re not trying to infringe on anyone’s IP,” said Edmonson during a recent briefing at Aberdeen Proving Ground. “But we have a responsibility to keep our systems operational.”
Army Commands Coordinate Push Toward Organic Additive Manufacturing
The initiative is being spearheaded by several key Army organizations:
- Army Materiel Command (AMC): Oversees global logistics and sustainment functions.
- Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM): Focused on air platforms and missile systems support.
- Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM): Manages ground vehicle sustainment.
- Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM): Provides R&D expertise in materials science and manufacturing methods.
Together with CECOM’s Software Engineering Center (SEC), these entities are working on identifying high-priority components suitable for additive manufacturing without violating existing IP protections. The effort includes scanning legacy parts using high-resolution metrology tools like structured light scanners or CT imaging systems to generate digital twins that can be safely printed in-house.
Balancing Innovation with Legal Boundaries
The legal landscape surrounding defense-related intellectual property is complex. While the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) allows the government to negotiate for unlimited rights in technical data during procurement contracts, many legacy programs did not secure such rights—either due to cost-saving decisions or oversight during contracting phases.
This has left the Army in a bind: it owns the physical system but lacks digital sovereignty over its components. To navigate this challenge legally and ethically:
- The Army is prioritizing parts that are no longer supported by OEMs (“orphaned” components).
- Additive manufacturing is being used only after rigorous legal vetting ensures no infringement occurs.
- In some cases, reverse engineering is performed under exceptions such as “repair doctrine” or “fair use” when national security interests are at stake.
The service has also engaged with industry partners through initiatives like the Joint Additive Manufacturing Model Exchange (JAMMEX), which facilitates secure sharing of validated AM files between DoD entities and approved vendors under controlled access protocols.
Field-Level Applications Already Underway
The concept of forward-deployed additive manufacturing has already seen limited but impactful application across multiple theaters:
- U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM): Deployed polymer-based printers at logistics hubs have produced small plastic components like radio knobs or protective covers within hours instead of weeks-long shipping delays from CONUS depots.
- 82nd Airborne Division: Used metal AM systems at Fort Bragg for rapid prototyping of mounting brackets for night vision devices as part of their Project Convergence experimentation cycle.
- Army Futures Command: Has funded pilot projects exploring hybrid AM/CNC machines capable of producing hardened steel components suitable for tracked vehicle applications under battlefield conditions.
A recent example includes a printed fuel line bracket for an M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer that was fabricated onsite using an aluminum alloy printer after supply chain disruptions delayed official spares delivery by over two weeks—a delay that could have sidelined artillery support during live-fire exercises had AM not been available.
Toward a Digital Thread Ecosystem
The broader vision underpinning this shift involves creating an end-to-end digital thread—from design through production to fielding—within which all lifecycle data is integrated into a centralized repository accessible across commands via secure networks like SIPRNet or NIPRNet-compatible cloud environments.
This would enable predictive maintenance based on sensor feedback tied directly into printable part libraries; soldiers could scan a QR code on malfunctioning equipment and instantly retrieve validated print files tailored for their specific theater’s environmental conditions or material availability constraints.
Spearheading this transformation are platforms such as:
- Rapid Fabrication via Additive Manufacturing on the Battlefield (RFAB)
- Additive Manufacturing Operational Framework (AMOF)
- Additive Manufacturing Transition Cell at Rock Island Arsenal
Industry Reaction Mixed; Calls Grow for New Acquisition Models
The move toward organic production has drawn mixed reactions from defense contractors who warn that unlicensed duplication—even if well-intentioned—could undermine innovation incentives unless new frameworks are introduced that balance operational needs with fair compensation models for IP holders.
Some OEMs have begun offering “IP-as-a-service” licensing models where validated AM files can be leased per print cycle under blockchain-secured smart contracts—an approach being explored by NAVSEA and AFRL but still nascent within Army circles due to budgetary uncertainty around recurring licensing fees versus one-time ownership costs during procurement planning stages.
Conclusion: A Strategic Imperative Amidst Decentralized Warfare Trends
The U.S. Army’s push toward internal additive manufacturing capabilities reflects broader shifts toward decentralized logistics in contested environments where traditional supply chains may be degraded by peer adversaries’ anti-access/area-denial tactics or cyber disruption campaigns targeting depot-level sustainment nodes.
While legal hurdles remain significant—and cultural resistance persists among some acquisition offices—the strategic logic behind empowering soldiers with reliable local production tools is increasingly hard to ignore in an era defined by speed-to-effect requirements across multidomain operations theaters from Europe to INDOPACOM.
