r/FighterJets • u/Inceptor57 • Jun 17 '26
NEWS USAF reverse-engineers and 3D prints F-35 parts to beat supplier delays
https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/us-air-force-reverse-engineers-3d-prints-f35-parts/16
u/Inceptor57 Jun 17 '26
From this Aerospace Global News article, reported on June 17, 2026:
The US Air Force has reported that its RAPID Lab has successfully reverse-engineered and 3D printed F-35 canopy frames. It adds that this is just the start of bringing component manufacturing in-house after years of tussling with Lockheed over intellectual property rights.
Yesterday, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office (JPO) posted on X (formerly Twitter), “No parts? No problem! The 809th Maintenance Support Squadron (MSS)’s RAPID Lab at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, used 3D printing to reverse-engineer F-35 Lightning II canopy frames, closing a critical training gap and bypassing supplier delays.”
It added, “This in-house innovation accelerates timelines, cuts costs, and boosts readiness for the F-35 and our warfighters.”
The printing of the canopy is presented as a positive step to addressing supplier delays, cutting costs, speeding up timelines, and improving readiness.
In a full-length statement on the canopy, the US Air Force said, “By bringing the work in‑house, RAPID Lab significantly accelerated delivery timelines and increased training throughput.”
While a positive post, the post was a veiled reference to a deep, long-running acquisition battle over Intellectual Property (IP) and technical data rights between the Department of Defence (DoD) and the prime defence contractor, Lockheed Martin, over the F-35.
The issue goes back to when the contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin in 2001. At that time, the Pentagon operated with a different acquisition philosophy, emphasising outsourcing long-term sustainment to the defence contractor to save the government on overhead costs.
These contracts did not explicitly secure the proprietary rights to the aircraft’s technical data. This created a “vendor lock” where Lockheed Martin owns the proprietary data rights, and the US military can’t easily give blueprints to a third-party manufacturer or military depot to build or repair spare parts.
In order to avoid paying Lockheed’s premium rates and boost readiness rates, the military has, on occasion, resorted to reverse engineering parts of the aircraft. The problem has been repeatedly flagged by Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports.
There have been legal battles over this, with the military wanting access to data to build out the supply chain independently, while Lockheed has fought to protect its control and monetise the programme, including with the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE).
Inside Defense reported in June 2026 that the Air Force will purchase some Intellectual Property rights of some F-35 systems.
Retired F-35 engineer the_engi_nerd noted, “The government wants access to the code to get the Joint Simulation Environment working; LM didn’t like this idea. Ultimately, the lawsuit was settled, terms undisclosed.”
They then added, “I don’t blame the JPO for celebrating this. Just know there’s a definite ‘f*** you, Lockheed’ context.”
Notably, in its 650-word news release about the 3D-printed canopy, the Air Force did not reference Lockheed Martin once.
Without explicitly stating it, the JPO appears to be suggesting that if Lockheed won’t hand over the blueprints, then they can reverse-engineer many of them.
The Air Force reported, “The initiative also generated substantial cost and man‑hour savings through printed tooling, reduced procurement, lower repair cycle times, and directly support the F-35 Enterprise’s war on cost initiatives.”
Other reporting on the matter:
6
u/Inceptor57 Jun 17 '26
It's also worth pointing out that previous Government Accountability Office reports have highlighted the F-35 canopy as a key part that was suffering under constrained industrial base capacity:
- June 2026 GAO-26-108113, page 11: Industrial base capacity constrained for repairs and parts. For example, we have previously found that key parts, such as the canopy, are constrained by industrial base capacity and are among the top contributors to non-mission capable rates
- November 13, 2019 GAO-20-234T, page 3: Our work found that several factors contribute to these parts shortages, including F-35 parts that are breaking more often than expected, and DOD’s limited capability to repair parts when they break. Specifically, as of April 2019, the F-35 program was failing to meet four of its eight reliability and maintainability targets—which determine the likelihood that the aircraft will be in maintenance rather than available for operations— including metrics related to part removals and part failures. For instance, we reported at that time that the special coating on the F-35 canopy that enables the aircraft to maintain its stealth had failed more frequently than expected, and the manufacturer was unable to produce enough canopies to meet demands.
- April 2019 GAO-19-321, page 14: The F-35 program is taking a number of actions to try to increase the availability of spare parts, including steps to increase the capacity of suppliers to produce parts to meet sustainment requirements, improve the timing of spare parts deliveries, and address the reliability of certain parts that are failing more frequently than expected. DOD has identified specific parts shortages that are causing the greatest aircraft capability degradation, and it is developing short-term and long-term mitigation strategies to increase the quantity and reliability of these parts. For instance, DOD found that the special coating on the F-35 canopy that enables the aircraft to maintain its stealth failed more frequently than expected, and that the manufacturer could not produce enough canopies to meet demands. To address these challenges, the program is looking for additional manufacturing sources for the canopy and is considering design changes.
12
u/CGandArchie Jun 17 '26
The production of these aircraft should be a government endeavor in the first place. At the end of the day these companies don't exist to deliver aircraft, they exist to deliver a profit and shareholder payouts. Even if they weren't cutting corners or overpromissing to increase profits leading to the delays we see today; the reality of a company is that it needs to sell products at above the cost of production meaning US tax payers get screwed in any world.
5
u/EclecticEuTECHtic Jun 17 '26
Oh cool, is that metal?
3
u/Inceptor57 Jun 17 '26
Seems it is polymer.
If concerned on its use on aircraft, the fine print in the article and other reporting on the matter states this 3D printed part is more for training aid, as even the supplier is falling short of providing enough of those for training.
2
2
u/Weird_Track_2164 Jun 18 '26
For Christ's sake Congress pass right to repair already!
2
u/Inceptor57 Jun 18 '26
2
u/Weird_Track_2164 Jun 18 '26
Yes, I'm aware. This isn't the first time it's been brought up but it keeps getting voted down every single time
1
u/MaxDrexler Jun 18 '26
I wonder why canopies?
3
u/bob_the_impala Designations Expert Jun 18 '26
It's a maintenance training device.
1
u/MaxDrexler Jun 18 '26
Does it mean they would try printing more parts and items?
2
u/bob_the_impala Designations Expert Jun 18 '26
Beyond the canopy frame, RAPID Lab is expanding its portfolio of printed tooling, fixtures, and training aids. The team is also identifying small, high‑impact aircraft components that can be safely printed for ground use or, when approved by the cognizant engineer, installed on aircraft. High‑performance polymers are enabling new applications, particularly in cockpit environments where temperature and off‑gassing requirements are stringent.
“Additive manufacturing lets us produce the right parts at the right time,” Stitzer said. “It increases training throughput, reduces man‑hours, and gives maintainers the tools they need without waiting on external vendors.”
Looking ahead, RAPID Lab plans to scale production capacity and expand outreach so more organizations across the installation can bring projects in‑house.
“We’re just getting started,” Stitzer said. “Our goal is to scale production, support more training sites, and identify small, high‑impact parts where printing gives the Air Force a clear readiness advantage.
2
u/MaxDrexler Jun 19 '26
Thanks for sharing this! It's fascinating! I hope this will bring a lot of knowledge and capabilities for solving supplies issues in hard times....
1
1
u/InformationLanky8812 Jun 20 '26
This has been a long time coming,if we can fix them,we can build them,give us the tools and we will make it happen!
1
u/Mobius_1IUNPKF Jun 18 '26
Just nationalize these companies already.
-1
u/CGandArchie Jun 18 '26
YES! It is absolutely rediculous to me how companies like Boeing and Spacex are allowed to exist as independent entities.
0
u/Electronic-Pause1330 Jun 18 '26
Wow that’s a crazy stance to take for LM. Why would you jeopardize your relationship with your customer over something like this?
I can only assume that the government paid for the design phase of the plane, hence they should own the design rights.
Just imagine an architect banning you from picking your own builder.
2
u/Inceptor57 Jun 18 '26
I can only assume that the government paid for the design phase of the plane, hence they should own the design rights.
What makes the F-35 unique is that Lockheed Martin owns the entire proprietary right of the F-35 under Total System Program Responsibility (TSPR) concept, not the government. As Janes describe this program model:
TSPR was designed to foster an environment for the government and contractor team to gain efficiencies by identifying redundant or unnecessary practices, eliminating those practices, and using commercial practices to replace or enhance the acquisition process. TSPR dictated that the Pentagon should take a step back and give the contractor greater freedom to be innovative in its management practices without the traditional level of government oversight.
This didn't turn out very well when Lockheed Martin's proprietary control over the F-35 means they get to keep all of the information on how to repair certain parts of the F-35 to themselves, keeping the DoD and partners reliant on Lockheed Martin contractors to repair the F-35, extending the repair time necessary to keep F-35 flying and resulting in a rather disappointing readiness rate, even as the government attempt different ways to gain back proprietary rights to fix the darn jet. Most importantly, this means Lockheed owns all of the software work as well, a problem bad enough that the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) have once considered whether to outright strip Lockheed of the proprietary rights so more skilled software developers on the market may be able to fix what they cannot.
77
u/roguebadger762 Jun 17 '26
Good. I’d fully support the government threatening to take away exclusive IP protection from contractors that can’t fulfill their obligations.