When we talk about aerospace in America, we talk about our great past achievements. We talk about the opportunities that lie ahead. We talk about how innovative our industrial base is. What we don’t talk about are the challenges and needs for transforming that innovation into actual production. In the fields of aviation, space, and national security, engineers are busy crafting new alloys, composites, and ceramics. They’re even pioneering cutting-edge manufacturing processes and sophisticated digital tools to inspect and certify parts. However, proving that a new material or manufacturing technique is viable is just the beginning of a long journey. It also needs to be characterized, qualified, integrated into designs, produced consistently, inspected, certified, and supported by a capable supply chain and workforce that can keep the momentum going. This distinction is vital.
A material that shines in a lab but can’t be economically qualified isn’t an industrial asset yet. The same goes for components produced by a niche supplier that can’t scale up. And then there’s the advanced factory filled with high-tech machines that can’t function without skilled individuals who truly understand everything from material behavior to quality assurance.
For policymakers looking to enhance America’s aerospace competitiveness, the challenge is broader than just focusing on technology innovation and advanced manufacturing; it’s about ensuring production readiness.
Navigating the Qualification Bottleneck
Aerospace companies have solid reasons for adopting a cautious approach to materials. Unlike car manufacturers who can introduce new materials into millions of components and gather extensive performance data, the aerospace industry often operates on a different scale. Production runs can be small, the environments harsh, service lives lengthy, and the stakes of failure incredibly high.
Qualification isn’t merely a bureaucratic hassle, rather it is a crucial part of engineering. The challenge arises when each new material or manufacturing process must navigate its own qualification hurdles. Companies often invest substantial time and resources in generating data on material properties, validating inspection methods, and meeting varying requirements across different customers and programs.
Take additive manufacturing, for example; NASA has implemented formal standards and certification processes for additively manufactured spaceflight hardware because creating a geometrically accurate part doesn’t guarantee that it will perform reliably in space. Factors such as process control and material properties are critical. While this thoroughness is essential, what needs to change is the amount of duplicated effort required to recreate existing knowledge.
The federal government should collaborate with industry, standards organizations, and academia to establish trustworthy, reusable qualification frameworks for advanced aerospace materials and manufacturing processes. Where feasible, data generated for one government program should be applicable to another. The focus of qualification requirements should shift toward demonstrated process control and performance rather than rigidly dictating how a part must be manufactured. The goal isn’t to lower standards but to avoid unnecessary repetition in engineering work.
Congress can play a role by directing agencies like NASA, the Pentagon, and the FAA to pinpoint where conflicting qualification requirements slow down the adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies. There’s also an opportunity to create an interagency initiative focused on common data requirements, digital material-property databases, and greater recognition of consensus standards. If the government finds itself repeatedly paying industry for similar qualification data, then there’s a clear inefficiency that needs fixing.
Supply Chains: The Backbone of Engineering Infrastructure
Once a technology is qualified, another challenge emerges: Can we produce enough of it? Recent disruptions have highlighted vulnerabilities in aerospace supply chains that companies have known about for years. Some of the most critical weaknesses lurk far below the prime contractor level, in firms that produce castings, forgings, specialty alloys, and electronics – items that often fly under the radar. A single missing component, even if it costs thousands, can delay the delivery of an aircraft or spacecraft worth millions.
The Pentagon has acknowledged this issue. Its National Defense Industrial Strategy emphasizes the importance of resilient supply chains and production capacity. This approach should be extended across the aerospace sector.
Policymakers should steer clear of defining supply-chain resilience merely as “buy American.” While domestic production capacity is essential, resilience also involves understanding the engineering aspects.
Where are the vulnerabilities? Which suppliers are hard to replace? Which materials have long lead times? Where has domestic expertise dwindled? Which production processes can’t quickly ramp up for increased demand? Answering these questions requires much better visibility throughout the supply chain.
The administration should spearhead a comprehensive assessment of the aerospace industrial base, building on existing capabilities to pinpoint critical materials and manufacturing processes where the U.S. lacks sufficient capacity or relies too heavily on a few suppliers.
The remedy may not always be subsidies. The government can also help by consolidating demand across programs, providing long-term procurement visibility, utilizing Defense Production Act authorities where warranted, supporting shared manufacturing infrastructure, or removing qualification barriers that hinder new suppliers from entering the market.
Industry shares responsibility here, too. Companies should treat supply-chain resilience as a design challenge. Just as engineers devise systems to handle technical failures, critical supply chains also deserve attention early in the design process when alternative materials and methods can be explored without incurring major redesign costs.
People Are the Heart of Advanced Manufacturing
Another major constraint that’s tougher to tackle through procurement policies are the people. Advanced manufacturing is sometimes portrayed as a realm where automation eliminates the need for skilled workers. However, anyone experienced in aerospace production knows the reality is quite the opposite. More sophisticated manufacturing doesn’t erase the need for skills; it changes the skills required.
A digitally connected factory still relies on machinists, technicians, welders, manufacturing engineers, materials engineers, quality specialists, and data analysts. These are the people who can interpret the information generated by increasingly automated systems.
NIST’s 2026 analysis of the Manufacturing USA workforce identified 132 entry-level occupations and 235 associated skills and abilities across advanced manufacturing technology areas. This highlights that there’s no single “advanced manufacturing worker.” Workforce policies should reflect the varied backgrounds and experiences of the workforce.
The federal government needs to emphasize competency-based manufacturing education that aligns with the skills employers are looking for. Community colleges, technical schools, universities, apprenticeship programs, and businesses should collaborate to create programs that fit regional aerospace needs.
Congress should also support and enhance initiatives that connect education with real manufacturing environments. Programs within Manufacturing USA institutes are especially valuable because they bridge the gap between government, industry, universities, and workforce development. Their significance lies not only in the technology developed but also in their ability to transfer knowledge to companies and workers. Yet, industry can’t just pass the buck to the government.
Employers must establish clearer pathways into aerospace manufacturing, especially for technicians and skilled trades. Insisting on a four-year degree for roles that require proven technical skills limits the talent pool. Companies also need to consistently invest in ongoing training for their workers as manufacturing technologies evolve. A nation can’t rebuild its industrial capacity while neglecting the people who drive it.
Focus on the Journey from Invention to Production
There’s a common thread weaving through these challenges. We track research, acquisition milestones, program costs, and deliveries meticulously. Yet we often overlook the crucial period between successful technology demonstrations and reliable production. This gap warrants much more attention.
For vital aerospace technologies, agencies should start monitoring the time frames and major obstacles between technology maturation, material and process qualification, supplier readiness, and production. This isn’t just about creating another federal scorecard; it’s about identifying where promising technologies consistently hit roadblocks.
By addressing these challenges with urgency and collaboration, we can help unlock America’s full aerospace potential and ensure that our innovations don’t just remain ideas but become reality. If it takes five years to get a qualification, policymakers need to grasp the reasons behind it. When there’s only one domestic supplier for a crucial component, that’s something the government should be fully aware of. And if a new manufacturing process can dramatically reduce the number of parts but the qualification data can’t be transferred across different programs, that’s another important issue that needs to be highlighted. These are what we call industrial-readiness indicators. They could provide Congress with more than just anecdotal evidence when determining where intervention is truly needed.
Now, let’s talk about a practical aerospace manufacturing agenda for 2027. The administration and Congress have a real chance to bring together policies that often get tackled in isolation.
First, we need to initiate an interagency effort to eliminate unnecessary duplication in materials and manufacturing qualifications, all while keeping aerospace safety and reliability at the forefront.
Second, it’s vital to map out critical aerospace manufacturing dependencies beyond just the prime contractors. This will allow federal efforts to focus on actual single points of failure, fragile domestic capabilities, and essential materials.
Third, we should work on making qualification data more reusable. Government-funded materials and process data ought to be organized in a way that allows it to support multiple programs and agencies, rather than having to start from scratch every time.
Fourth, let’s be smarter with federal procurement. By providing stable demand signals, considering multiyear procurement when it makes sense, investing wisely in the industrial base, and establishing common technical requirements, we can give suppliers the confidence they need to invest in their workforce and capacity.
Finally, we must recognize that the manufacturing workforce is a crucial part of our nation’s aerospace infrastructure. We should expand competency-based training, create more apprenticeships and industry partnerships, and develop credible career pathways for technicians and skilled manufacturing professionals without insisting on four-year degrees.
None of these actions means lowering the high standards that have made American aerospace a leader. In fact, it’s the opposite. Aerospace manufacturing is challenging because it needs to be. Materials must endure tough conditions, processes must be reliable, parts need to be thoroughly inspected, and aircraft and spacecraft must function flawlessly when called upon.
But let’s be clear: having high standards doesn’t mean we should create unnecessary hurdles. The next wave of American aerospace leadership hinges not just on the inventions our scientists and engineers dream up, but also on whether our industrial base can qualify, source, and build these innovations at the speed and scale our country truly needs.
This is the manufacturing challenge we face, and how we tackle it might just determine how much of America’s incredible aerospace innovation makes its way from the drawing board into the skies and beyond.
References
1. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Manufacturing USA Program Strategic Plan, NIST Advanced Manufacturing Series 600-18 (March 17, 2026). NIST — Manufacturing USA Program Strategic Plan
2. Joseph Long et al., Analysis of the Manufacturing USA Occupation and Competency Framework, NIST Advanced Manufacturing Series 600-20 (June 2, 2026). NIST — Manufacturing USA Occupation and Competency Framework
3. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Standard for Additively Manufactured Spaceflight Hardware by Laser Powder Bed Fusion in Metals, MSFC-STD-3716 (Oct. 18, 2017). https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/msfcstd3716baseline.pdf?emrc=40e95c
4. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Specification for Control and Qualification of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Metallurgical Processes, MSFC-SPEC-3717 (Oct. 18, 2017). https://standards.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/standards/MSFC/Baseline/0/msfc-spec-3717.pdf
5. U.S. Department of Defense, National Defense Industrial Strategy (2024). Department of Defense — Release and Overview of the National Defense Industrial Strategy
6. U.S. Department of Defense, National Defense Industrial Strategy Implementation Plan (2024). Department of Defense — National Defense Industrial Strategy Implementation Plan Overview
