Join War on the Rocks and gain access to content trusted by policymakers, military leaders, and strategic thinkers worldwide.
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series exploring the modernization of defense manufacturing. Please also read the first: “The Additive Manufacturing Mirage in Defense.”
If the role of additive is shifting away from the savior of manufacturing, then what will replace it as the true reindustrialization of manufacturing? There is an emerging consensus of an “agile factory”, which is theorized as a production ecosystem that mixes multiple manufacturing processes, old and new, orchestrated with advanced software and automation. Instead of betting on one technique to solve every problem, agile factories leverage each process for what it does best and combine them to achieve results no single method could. In many ways, this approach is simply pragmatic engineering, but it’s now turbocharged by digital integration and clever process innovations. This enables a “high mix, high volume” potentiality able to produce different products on the same value streams. Think of it as the fast-food mentality. Different products that leverage similar ingredients, being manufactured and assembled on the same assembly line.
In an agile defense factory of the future, one might see 3D printers, machining centers, robotic welding arms, and other forms of advanced automated manufacturing all operating in concert. The key is integration: By digitally coordinating these processes, a design can be split into modules made by whichever method is most efficient for that piece. Traditional processes like machining, rolling, and casting aren’t made obsolete by additive. Instead, they are enhanced when used alongside it, guided by modern software with artificial intelligence capability.
The benefits are broken down into four clear metrics: quality, cost, throughput, and risk reduction. Optimization of cost would enable expensive printers that are utilized only for the portions that need them, while cheaper high-throughput processes handle the rest. For instance, instead of printing an entire valve body, an agile approach might print only an internal core with complex channels and then install it into a conventionally fabricated outer housing. The result leverages additive’s strengths without paying its price for the whole component.
Hybrid production lines could achieve higher throughput by creating parallel tasks. While some parts are printing, this flow enables other parts of the assembly to be simultaneously formed, cut, or prepped. The flexibility of using a process like additive and incremental forming enables a path from low-rate initial production to full-rate that is faster. Instead of waiting, these agile methods begin producing immediately, and if needed, scale using conventional methods for surge. This flexibility could be the difference between meeting an urgent military ramp-up or being unable to support the warfighter.
The reliance on a single manufacturing process is a monumental single point of failure. The Department of Defense’s biggest projects emphasize not putting all its eggs in one basket. The same logic applies inside the factory — a diversity of manufacturing techniques yields a more resilient industrial base. It can also stimulate competition and innovation, as teams find creative ways to combine methods for better results.
Defense contractors are already moving in this direction. Many of the larger primes now boast “digital factories” where robotic machining cells, additive machines, and automated inspection systems co-exist. While these companies don’t advertise pivoting away from it, they are certainly pivoting away from the idea of additive-only. Virtually every program that uses additive also involves significant conventional manufacturing. In fact, the Pentagon’s own industrial base programs reinforce this mix: the largest single line item in the Fiscal Year 2026 advanced manufacturing budget, the Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment program, dedicates over $2.3 billion to strengthening the defense workforce in welding, machining, fabrication, fiber optics, and additive manufacturing. In other words, the Department of Defense is funding welders and machinists alongside 3D printers. This acknowledges that future defense production needs all of the above. As one analysis of the 2026 budget put it, the U.S. armed forces are “doubling down on additive,” but are also under orders to integrate that technology with broader advanced manufacturing efforts.
The most forward-thinking strategy is to embrace additive as “a single part of a larger solution,” not a standalone solution. Commercial industry learned this first. Outside defense, companies in automotive, aerospace, and medical fields have found success by pairing 3D printing with conventional production in a “systems-like approach”, where manufacturing, engineering, and logistics all work together to maximize overall efficiency. The military, by contrast, initially tried to bolt additive onto its existing processes, treating it as a plug-in tool for the same old supply chain model. That approach largely “has not been successful,” one analyst notes, because it failed to change the overall system and expectations around the technology. The answer would be to invest in a mix of technologies (e.g., AI-driven process control, robotic sheet forming, high-speed machining, plus additive). This creates an endgame that enables a unified manufacturing capability that could rapidly adapt to produce various defense products.
The real disruptive upside isn’t in the hardware alone. It’s in software, which includes the digital thread, design tools, and orchestration that tell each machine what to do and when.
The Weight of the Warfighter
Additive manufacturing undoubtedly has a permanent place in the future of defense production. Its ability to unlock new designs, streamline supply chains, and enable point-of-need fabrication addresses many challenges faced by the U.S. military. The ongoing Department of Defense investments, nearly a billion dollars a year and growing, reflect a recognition that additive should be part of our industrial toolkit if we aim to field advanced systems faster and cheaper than our adversaries. However, the lesson from the past decade proves that while 3D printing is a powerful aid, it cannot support the entire weight of the warfighter’s needs. It thrives when used in tandem with other manufacturing techniques rather than in isolation. As a 2019 defense manufacturing review concluded that additive “cannot answer all the toughest defense challenges” on its own, but when its strengths are combined with complementary methods, the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.
Embracing this balanced approach can have a controversial but healthy side effect as it forces tough questions about where our money is going. Billions are being sunk into additive. Are we getting equal payoff from investing in advanced casting techniques, smarter robotics, or ultra-fast machining? The answer might be uncomfortable.
In sum, the future of defense manufacturing won’t be won by any single process. It will be won by those who combine processes into a cohesive, flexible whole. Agile manufacturing won’t be only depots and prime defense contractors — it extends to mobile, forward-deployed nodes. Units would produce parts of consequence in theater, using the same software as at home. America’s strength has always been its innovation and industrial bench. By leveraging 3D printing as part of a larger ensemble, rather than as a solo act, we stand the best chance of fielding the cutting-edge arsenals we dream of, at the scales we desperately need. The agile factory is how we get there. By leveraging many machines and methods with one purpose, the Defense Department will be ready to adapt and deliver when it matters most.
John Borrego is the senior vice president of aerospace and defense at Machina Labs. He has extensive experience in aerospace and defense, spanning both heritage primes and high-growth startups. He has held technical and leadership roles at Northrop Grumman, SpaceX, Rocketdyne, and Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he focused on advanced manufacturing for aerospace and defense applications. His work bridges traditional defense industrial power with emerging agile technologies. Opinions expressed in this article are his own and do not reflect the views of any company or government agency.
**Please note, as a matter of house style, War on the Rocks will not use a different name for the U.S. Department of Defense until and unless the name is changed by statute by the U.S. Congress.
Image: Christopher Estrada via DVIDS.
