Why Defense Innovation Has A Manufacturing Scale-Up Problem

Rush LaSelle is the CEO of Fathom Manufacturing.

gettyUkraine is expected to produce upward of seven million drones in 2026, roughly 500,000 per month. By comparison, the Pentagon’s $1.1 billion Drone Dominance program is expected to have ordered just under 200,000 drones cumulatively by February 2027.

This has caught the attention of every defense leader, investor and manufacturer focused on national security.​

​The U.S. boasts strong defense innovation. Startups, emerging defense companies and nontraditional suppliers are bringing forward autonomous systems, AI-enabled platforms, new materials and lower-cost hardware. Meanwhile, the defense sector is facing a manufacturing scale-up crisis as it tries to keep pace with rapidly accelerating defense technology.

The next step is moving these innovations into qualified, repeatable production quickly enough to matter.

In a previous role, I saw firsthand the qualification requirements involved in introducing polymer additive manufacturing to aerospace applications and building original equipment manufacturer (OEM) confidence in emerging processes. In another role, I worked with customers navigating similar challenges as they brought metal additive manufacturing into regulated orthopedic applications.

Today, as CEO of Fathom Digital Manufacturing, these same challenges are evident across aerospace and defense, medical technology, AI infrastructure and other technically demanding industries. While the technologies differ, the underlying challenge remains consistent: translating innovation into manufacturing processes that can meet the demands of production at scale.​

A prototype can prove that a new technology or design works, but it doesn’t always prove that the concept can be manufactured repeatedly, inspected efficiently, documented properly, protected digitally and scaled economically.​

Between prototype and full-rate production sits a critical middle ground: new product introduction, bridge production and low-rate initial production.

This is where engineering decisions become manufacturing decisions. Materials must be qualified. Processes must be validated. Critical dimensions must be established and inspection methods created. Suppliers must be coordinated. Technical data must move frictionlessly with great security. Quality records must be traceable.

In defense, these are the requirements that delay readiness.

My company recently saw this with a government-funded optical program for a Defense OEM. The design relied on using metal 3D printing because the geometry wasn’t practical with conventional manufacturing alone. Additive manufacturing enabled the design to be realized, but the part still required computer numerical control machining, electrical discharge machining, heat treatment, coating, inspection and full traceability with full Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) requirements.

NIST has identified these additional processing and qualification steps as significant challenges to bringing additively manufactured components into aerospace and defense applications.

Development saw a delicate orchestration of qualifying each process where changes in one impacted another. Changes in heat treatment and coating altered critical mounting surfaces needing to meet form, fit and function requirements. Quality documentation needed to be rigorous enough to support the program while remaining practical for multistep manufacturing and inspection processes.​​​

Success required close collaboration among the OEM, manufacturing team, suppliers and quality organization to reach a production strategy that supported an aggressive ramp schedule.​

In many cases, materials that enable rapid prototyping may not meet performance or qualification needs for volume production.

A geometry enabled by additive manufacturing may still require downstream machining or finishing. A drone component printed over a weekend for flight testing may later need to move to injection molding, changing material properties, tooling timelines, testing requirements and supplier qualifications.​

Fast-moving drone and autonomous systems programs often begin with urgency: Build, test, revise and fly. Speed is essential, given the military’s desire to ramp up production.

As programs move toward low-rate production and higher volumes, the questions change. How will the design be manufactured at rate? Which materials will survive the transition? Which suppliers are qualified? Can the production system support ITAR, AS9100 and CMMC-driven requirements?​

Companies focused on early-stage product development are increasingly supporting drone and autonomous systems programs through prototyping, design iteration, qualification support and low-volume production under these types of defense-market requirements.

The early work often centers on speed to support proof of concepts and in securing funding. The next gate is usually more difficult: determining how the program moves from additive prototypes or low-volume builds into a production pathway that can support cost, quality, schedule and scale.​

Integrated manufacturing partners or vertical integration proves valuable when programs are complex, timelines are tight, quality requirements are high and multiple processes must be coordinated. They reduce handoffs, preserve design intent and help align engineering, manufacturing and inspection decisions.

For mature, stable or commodity-like components, specialized suppliers can be better options. If an OEM has strong internal manufacturing engineering resources and the capacity to manage multiple vendors, a distributed supplier model can work well. The right model depends on where the risk sits: in the part, the process, the supplier network or the OEM’s ability to manage change while the program is still evolving.

Either way, programs that scale most effectively tend to pair urgency with production discipline. They understand and communicate which tolerances matter, which materials need qualification, which processes need validation and which suppliers can operate in regulated environments.

Defense startups and emerging technology companies can bring manufacturing partners into the discussion earlier while design decisions can still be influenced. Production intent should be evaluated before a program moves too far.​

Defense customers and primes can also pressure-test bridge-production plans, not only the demonstration. That means asking how a product will move through qualification, inspection, documentation and supplier readiness before full-rate production.

Investors should diligence manufacturing readiness with the same rigor they apply to technology readiness. A strong demo matters, but only with a credible path to repeatable production.​

Manufacturers have a responsibility. We need to provide practical feedback earlier, help customers understand trade-offs and build production pathways that balance speed, qualification and cost.​

America’s defense advantage has always depended on the ability to turn invention into fielded capability. That requires manufacturing systems, supplier networks, quality discipline, cybersecurity readiness and experienced people who know how to move complex hardware from prototype to production.​

Innovation can begin in a garage or lab, but deterrence depends on manufacturing execution.​​

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?