The current debate around additive manufacturing in defense raises a broader question: when supply chains are under pressure, do we actually have the knowledge, data and industrial capacity to keep producing the parts we need?

A recent Het Financieele Dagblad article has put additive manufacturing in defense under the spotlight. The Dutch Ministry of Defence awarded a €6 million tender for three metal 3D-printing systems, two of which will be supplied through a Dutch company but manufactured by Chinese producer ZRapid. The decision has raised concerns within the Dutch manufacturing industry about dependency, access to production knowledge, and the long-term strength of the European industrial base.

The discussion matters, but the bigger question is not simply where a machine is built. What matters as much is whether Europe retains the knowledge, data and manufacturing capacity required to produce critical parts when normal supply chains come under pressure.

The machine is only part of the capability

Owning a 3D printer does not automatically create manufacturing independence, because the machine is only one element in a much broader production process. To manufacture a critical component reliably, organizations also need access to the design data, material specifications, process knowledge, quality requirements and engineering expertise behind the part.

This becomes particularly important when production needs to move from one supplier or location to another. A CAD file on its own is rarely enough. The manufacturing route also needs to be understood, repeatable and validated if the part is expected to perform in the same way every time.

Manufacturing sovereignty therefore goes beyond equipment ownership. It also depends on who controls the knowledge required to turn a design into a qualified physical component.

From spare parts to manufacturing readiness

One of the applications mentioned in the FD article is the use of additive manufacturing to support rapid repair of battle damage. This is a powerful use case, but it can easily be oversimplified into the idea that a part breaks and a replacement is simply printed on demand.

In reality, the important work happens long before the part is needed. Organizations first need to identify which components are suitable, ensure the design is available or recreated, select the right material and process, and define the quality and inspection requirements.

Only once that work has been done, on-demand manufacturing becomes operationally useful. This is the difference between having access to a machine and genuine manufacturing readiness.

Digital inventory changes the spare-parts model

Traditional spare-parts strategies rely heavily on physical inventory, which means parts are manufactured in advance, stored and moved through the supply chain when demand appears. That model will remain important, especially for high-volume and mission-critical components, but digital manufacturing creates another option for parts where holding physical stock makes less sense.

For suitable components, organizations can maintain the data and validated production route needed to manufacture the part when required, rather than rely entirely on years of physical inventory. The important point is that a digital inventory is not simply a database of CAD files. It only becomes valuable when those files are connected to a manufacturing process already understood and proven.

This creates a shift from storing parts to maintaining the ability to produce them.

The supply chain can increasingly move data as well as parts

The Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service has highlighted the potential advantage of producing spare parts closer to where they are needed, reducing the logistical dependency of traditional supply chains. The same principle applies beyond defense, particularly for ageing equipment, obsolete components and low-volume parts, where conventional replacement routes can become slow or uneconomical.

Instead of asking only where a spare part is stored, organizations can increasingly ask where that part could be manufactured if the original supply route disappeared. In that sense, part of the future supply chain becomes digital, because production knowledge and manufacturing data can be transferred before the physical component is produced.

That does not remove the need for logistics, but gives organizations more options when traditional supply chains become constrained.

Digital manufacturing does not mean printing everything

It is also important not to reduce this discussion to additive manufacturing alone. Some parts are excellent candidates for 3D printing because of their geometry, low volumes, tooling requirements or lead times, while others are better suited to CNC machining or another established production method.

In some cases, a component may need to be redesigned before an alternative manufacturing route makes sense, while in others the original process will remain the best option. A resilient manufacturing strategy therefore starts with the part and its requirements, rather than with a specific machine or technology.

The more useful question is not whether a component can be 3D printed, but how it can be produced reliably, repeatedly and within the required timeframe if the existing supply chain is no longer available.

Resilience comes from having more than one route

No organization can manufacture everything itself, and Europe does not need to become completely self-sufficient to become more resilient. What matters is reducing situations in which there is only one viable route to production.

If a supplier disappears, an organization should understand whether another supplier could produce the same part. If tooling becomes unavailable, it should know whether an alternative manufacturing process is possible, and if demand increases suddenly, it should know whether additional qualified capacity exists elsewhere.

That is where digital manufacturing becomes strategically valuable, because it can create additional production routes without forcing companies or defense organizations to abandon their existing suppliers or carry large amounts of additional inventory.

Building capability before disruption happens

At Shapeways, we see this challenge across defense, robotics, industrial manufacturing and hardware, even though the applications and requirements are very different. In each case, the underlying issue is the same: organizations need manufacturing systems that can adapt when demand, suppliers or operating conditions change.

Additive manufacturing, CNC machining and digital production workflows can create that flexibility, but their value is greatest when alternative production routes are developed before they are urgently needed. Identifying critical parts, understanding how they can be manufactured differently, and validating those routes early can turn manufacturing flexibility from an emergency response into a planned capability.

The objective is not to replace every existing supplier or bring every manufacturing process in-house. It is to ensure that one disruption does not automatically remove the ability to produce.

The current debate around defense 3D printing should therefore be seen as part of a broader conversation about industrial capability in Europe. The origin of the machine matters, but so do the engineering knowledge, production data, skills, quality systems and manufacturing capacity that surround it.

Manufacturing sovereignty is ultimately less about how many machines an organization owns, and more about whether it can still make the part when it is needed.

Source

Article basis: “Defensie koopt 3D-printers bij Chinees bedrijf, Nederlandse industrie slaat alarm,” Het Financieele Dagblad, 21 September 2026.