Why Defense and MedTech Are Accelerating Metal Additive Manufacturing

Metal additive manufacturing has moved beyond the experimental phase.

Laser powder bed fusion—commonly referred to as LPBF, DMLS, DMLM or SLM depending on the machine manufacturer and terminology being used—is now operating within some of the most demanding production environments in the United States.

For years, metal 3D printing was discussed as a future manufacturing technology. It promised lighter aerospace components, shorter supply chains, patient-specific medical implants and a solution for obsolete or difficult-to-source parts.

Today, that future is becoming operational.

Across U.S. Defense and MedTech, LPBF and DMLS are being adopted because they can solve problems that conventional manufacturing methods cannot always address efficiently.

In Defense, the main drivers are readiness, supply chain resilience and the availability of legacy components. Meanwhile, MedTech adoption is being driven by implant performance, patient-specific design and the ability to manufacture complex porous structures.

However, the challenge in both markets is no longer simply buying a metal 3D printer.

Manufacturers must control the complete process, qualify components, demonstrate repeatability and recruit people who understand how to move additive parts from development into regulated or mission-critical production.

As a result, metal additive manufacturing is becoming part of America’s strategic manufacturing infrastructure.

What Is LPBF or DMLS?

LPBF stands for laser powder bed fusion. DMLS means direct metal laser sintering and is a widely used commercial term for technology within the metal powder bed fusion category.

In simple terms, the process uses a laser to selectively fuse fine layers of metal powder. Each layer is created from a digital model until the complete component has been built.

Consequently, manufacturers can create geometries that would be difficult, expensive or impossible to produce through casting, forging or machining alone.

These can include:

• Internal cooling channels
• Lightweight lattice structures
• Controlled porous implant surfaces
• Consolidated multi-part assemblies
• Patient-specific geometries
• Topology-optimized aerospace components

The design freedom is one of the most obvious advantages of LPBF. Nevertheless, the printer itself is only one part of the manufacturing system.

Powder chemistry, particle characteristics, build orientation, support strategy, laser parameters and machine condition all affect the build. In addition, heat treatment, machining, surface finishing, inspection and documentation can influence the performance of the finished component.

That complexity helps to explain why adoption has accelerated in sectors where the operational or clinical value is strong enough to justify the additional process control.

Defense and MedTech are two of the clearest examples.

Why the U.S. Defense Sector Is Investing in Metal Additive Manufacturing

The U.S. Defense sector faces a manufacturing challenge that LPBF is particularly well suited to address.

Aircraft, ships, submarines and ground systems can remain operational for several decades. During that time, original suppliers can disappear, tooling can be lost and traditional manufacturing routes can become uneconomical.

For example, producing a small quantity of replacement components through casting or forging may involve long lead times and significant tooling costs. In some cases, the original manufacturing route may no longer exist at all.

Metal additive manufacturing creates another option.

Because LPBF can produce low-volume, high-value components without the same tooling requirements as many conventional processes, it can offer a more practical route for difficult parts. It can also enable part consolidation, lightweighting and localized production.

For Defense organizations, these benefits can improve equipment availability and reduce reliance on long or vulnerable supply chains.

Additive Manufacturing as a Readiness Tool

The U.S. Navy has provided one of the clearest signals of how the role of additive manufacturing is changing.

NAVSEA reported that the Navy accelerated additive manufacturing from a promising capability into a warfighting capability during 2025. Its programs reportedly achieved significant lead-time reductions while expanding the use of distributed manufacturing and frontline production.

That distinction matters.

The strategic value is not simply that a component can be printed. Instead, the real advantage is that an approved component can potentially be manufactured more quickly, closer to where it is required and without waiting for a lengthy conventional supply route.

A delayed component can affect maintenance schedules, platform availability and operational readiness. Therefore, when additive manufacturing reduces that delay, it becomes more than a manufacturing technology.

It becomes a sustainment capability.

From Emergency Workaround to Approved Supply Route

Early Defense applications of additive manufacturing often focused on prototypes, tooling, temporary repairs and low-risk components.

The current phase, however, is different.

Defense organizations are developing more structured frameworks to determine:

• Which components are suitable for additive manufacturing
• Which materials and machines are qualified
• Who is authorized to manufacture the part
• How technical data and digital files are controlled
• Which inspections must be completed
• How repeatability and traceability are demonstrated

This qualification infrastructure is the real adoption story.

An LPBF component is not considered suitable simply because it was produced on an approved machine. Instead, the powder batch, parameter set, build file, operator, machine condition, heat treatment, post-processing and inspection route may all need to be controlled.

Accordingly, organizations that manage this complete digital and physical workflow will be able to scale additive manufacturing more effectively than those treating it as a stand-alone printing process.

Naval Manufacturing Moves Toward Production

Naval applications are technically demanding. Components may be exposed to pressure, corrosion, vibration, fatigue and thermal cycling while remaining in service for extended periods.

For that reason, trust and traceability are essential.

Recent naval programs have demonstrated that additive manufacturing can support large and complex metal components—not only small fixtures or temporary replacement parts.

Furthermore, the Navy’s activity reflects growing interest in distributed manufacturing.

In a contested logistics environment, the ability to manufacture or repair approved components closer to the point of need could strengthen supply chain resilience and improve fleet readiness.

Air Force and Army Applications

The U.S. Air Force is also using additive manufacturing to address supply chain and sustainment challenges associated with legacy aircraft.

However, the issue is rarely whether a replacement component can be printed. The greater challenge is demonstrating that it is airworthy, repeatable and appropriately documented.

The Army has also used additive manufacturing within advanced propulsion programs. In these applications, LPBF can contribute to complex engine components, part consolidation and high-performance designs.

Moreover, aerospace and propulsion programs benefit from more than supply chain speed. LPBF can support complex internal features, reduce component count and enable geometries that conventional processes may struggle to reproduce.

Why MedTech Is Adopting LPBF and DMLS

While Defense adoption is closely connected to readiness and supply chain resilience, MedTech adoption is being driven by geometry, biological performance and patient fit.

Metal additive manufacturing is particularly valuable for medical implants because it can produce controlled porous structures directly within a component.

Traditional machining remains essential to medical device manufacturing. However, it can be limited when producing intricate internal lattices and complex porous surfaces.

By comparison, LPBF allows these features to be designed into the implant itself.

This can support:

• Bone integration
• Implant fixation
• Anatomical fit
• Reduced component weight
• Patient-specific designs
• Complex reconstructive procedures

As a result, metal additive manufacturing is now established across spinal, orthopedic, cranial, maxillofacial and dental applications.

Spine and Orthopedic Implants

Porous titanium spinal cages are one of the most recognizable examples of metal additive manufacturing in MedTech.

LPBF enables manufacturers to create implant structures that combine mechanical support with surfaces intended to encourage bone growth and fixation.

Similar principles are also being applied across orthopedic implants, including acetabular cups, tibial components and complex reconstructive devices.

Importantly, the value is not that the component has simply been 3D printed. The real advantage is that additive manufacturing makes clinically useful structures possible.

For manufacturers, this can create opportunities to improve implant performance, differentiate product platforms and develop designs that would be difficult to manufacture conventionally.

Patient-Specific Medical Devices

Cranial, maxillofacial and reconstructive implants demonstrate another major advantage of additive manufacturing: the connection between medical imaging and production.

Patient scan data can be converted into a digital model and used to design a component around an individual patient’s anatomy.

Once approved, the design can be manufactured using LPBF and completed through controlled post-processing, cleaning and inspection.

This workflow can be especially valuable in complex trauma, tumor reconstruction and anatomical repair, where standard implant sizes may not provide the required fit.

Similarly, dental manufacturers are using digital workflows to produce patient-specific metal frameworks, implant components and other customized devices.

FDA Regulation and Quality Management

Medical additive manufacturing is not an uncontrolled custom manufacturing environment.

A patient-specific implant must still be designed, manufactured, inspected, cleaned and documented through an appropriate regulatory and quality framework.

FDA guidance on additive manufactured medical devices addresses areas including design, material controls, process validation, build orientation, post-processing and device testing.

In addition, the FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation became effective on February 2, 2026. The revised regulation incorporates ISO 13485:2016 into the U.S. medical device quality framework and reinforces the importance of risk management, process control, traceability and quality system compliance.

For additive manufacturers, this means the question is never simply:

“Can this component be printed?”

Instead, the more important question is:

“Can it be designed, manufactured, cleaned, tested and documented consistently enough to satisfy regulatory expectations and protect the patient?”

Qualification Is the Shared Battleground

Defense and MedTech have different customers, operating environments and regulatory structures.

Nevertheless, both face the same fundamental challenge: qualification.

In Defense, manufacturers must demonstrate that a printed component can operate safely and reliably in its intended environment.

For MedTech, the requirement is to demonstrate that the device and its manufacturing process meet the relevant safety, performance and quality standards.

Both sectors depend on control of the complete process, including:

• Powder sourcing and traceability
• Machine qualification
• Parameter control
• Build preparation
• Heat treatment
• Hot isostatic pressing
• CNC machining
• Surface finishing
• Non-destructive testing
• Dimensional inspection
• Cleaning and contamination control
• Production documentation

Consequently, in-process monitoring, digital thread systems, powder management, automated inspection and standardized material data are attracting significant investment.

If manufacturers can qualify processes more quickly without weakening control, LPBF adoption can scale much faster.

Ultimately, the strongest organizations will not necessarily be those with the newest printers.

They will be the ones that can prove repeatability.

The Hidden Constraint: Additive Manufacturing Talent

Hardware is not the biggest barrier to metal additive manufacturing adoption.

People are.

Although a company can purchase an LPBF machine, that does not automatically give it an industrial additive manufacturing capability.

Production requires specialists who understand how design, materials, processing, post-processing, quality and regulation work together.

Demand is increasing for professionals including:

• Metal Additive Manufacturing Engineers
• LPBF Process Engineers
• Applications Engineers
• Materials Scientists and Metallurgists
• Manufacturing Engineers
• Quality and Validation Engineers
• Non-Destructive Testing Specialists
• CNC and Post-Processing Engineers
• Regulatory Affairs Professionals
• Additive Manufacturing Program Managers
• Production and Operations Leaders

The most difficult candidates to find are not people with a general interest in 3D printing.

Instead, employers need professionals who have successfully taken metal additive components from early development through qualification and into repeatable production.

In Defense, this may require experience with ITAR-controlled programs, AS9100, airworthiness, naval standards, secure technical data and mission-critical qualification.

Meanwhile, MedTech employers may require knowledge of ISO 13485, FDA submissions, process validation, design controls, risk management, biocompatibility, sterilization and implant manufacturing.

These combined skill sets remain relatively scarce. Consequently, talent availability is likely to become one of the most significant constraints on the market as adoption increases.

When Does LPBF Make Commercial Sense?

LPBF is not the right manufacturing process for every metal component.

Casting, forging and machining will remain essential across Defense, aerospace and medical device manufacturing.

However, the business case for LPBF is usually strongest when several of the following conditions apply:

• The component has a complex geometry
• Production volume is low or medium
• Conventional tooling is expensive or unavailable
• Lead time is creating an operational problem
• Weight reduction has a high value
• Multiple parts can be consolidated into one component
• The design contains internal channels or inaccessible features
• A porous or lattice structure creates a functional advantage
• The component is patient-specific
• A legacy component no longer has a reliable supply route

Defense and MedTech regularly meet these conditions.

Both sectors produce high-value components where performance, availability and qualification can be more important than achieving the lowest possible unit cost.

In Defense, the economic benefit may be measured through reduced downtime, shorter maintenance periods or improved platform availability.

By contrast, the MedTech business case may come from clinical value, implant performance, product differentiation and the ability to serve complex patient requirements.

The Companies Positioned to Benefit

The opportunity created by metal additive manufacturing extends beyond machine manufacturers.

Instead, it includes the entire production ecosystem:

• Metal powder suppliers
• Additive manufacturing service providers
• Heat-treatment and HIP specialists
• Precision machining companies
• Surface finishing providers
• Inspection and metrology businesses
• Medical device manufacturers
• Defense contractors
• Software and digital thread providers
• Qualification and testing laboratories

Increasingly, customers require more than printing capacity.

They also need design support, material expertise, process development, post-processing, inspection and documentation delivered through one controlled workflow.

As a result, the market is moving toward more integrated manufacturing models.

From Additive Experimentation to Industrial Infrastructure

Metal additive manufacturing is moving into a more serious phase of adoption across the United States.

In Defense, it is becoming part of sustainment, readiness, propulsion and distributed manufacturing strategies.

At the same time, it is already embedded within spinal, orthopedic, cranial, dental and patient-specific implant production in MedTech.

The hype surrounding 3D printing has faded. However, that may be a positive development.

What remains is a maturing industrial technology being applied where it solves genuine manufacturing, supply chain and performance challenges.

LPBF will not replace traditional manufacturing, and it does not need to.

Instead, its value is highest where conventional routes are too slow, too constrained or unable to produce the required geometry.

The next stage of adoption will depend on whether manufacturers can turn metal additive manufacturing from a specialist capability into a repeatable, qualified and scalable production system.

For U.S. Defense and MedTech, that race is already underway.

Building a Metal Additive Manufacturing Team?

Kensington360 connects advanced manufacturers with the engineers, materials specialists, quality professionals and operational leaders needed to scale industrial metal additive manufacturing.

Learn more about our Additive Manufacturing recruitment expertise or explore our specialist MedTech recruitment services.

You can also view our current Industry 4.0 vacancies or contact Will Hollis directly to discuss your MedTech hiring requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between LPBF and DMLS?

LPBF stands for laser powder bed fusion and describes a category of metal additive manufacturing processes in which a laser fuses metal powder one layer at a time.

DMLS, or direct metal laser sintering, is a commercial term commonly used for technology within the same broader process category. However, terminology can vary between machine manufacturers and technical standards.

Why is LPBF growing in U.S. Defense?

LPBF can help Defense organizations address long lead times, obsolete components, fragile supply chains and demand for complex, low-volume metal parts.

In particular, it is valuable in sustainment, aerospace propulsion, naval manufacturing and applications where conventional tooling is expensive or unavailable.

Why is DMLS important in MedTech?

DMLS and LPBF can produce porous titanium implants, patient-specific devices and complex geometries that conventional machining may struggle to create.

Therefore, the technology is increasingly used across spinal, orthopedic, cranial and dental applications.

Is metal additive manufacturing replacing traditional manufacturing?

No. Casting, forging, machining and other conventional processes remain essential.

Instead, LPBF is most valuable where components are complex, high-value, low-volume, supply-constrained or require functional geometries that traditional manufacturing cannot produce efficiently.

What is the biggest barrier to LPBF adoption?

Qualification is one of the biggest barriers.

Manufacturers must prove that components and processes are safe, repeatable and suitable for their intended use. Consequently, they need controlled materials, validated parameters, qualified equipment, post-processing, inspection, documentation and specialist engineering expertise.

.