.png?width=133&height=43&name=Logo%20(4).png "Logo (8)"){kind=small}
What the Broader Defense Industry Can Learn From This Shift
For decades, 2D technical drawings were the backbone of defense acquisition, manufacturing, and sustainment. They served as the contractual authority, the manufacturing reference, and the long-term record for complex defense systems.
That model is changing.
Importantly, this transition did not begin recently. It began over a decade ago, as the Army recognized that drawing-centric technical data could not scale with increasing system complexity, compressed schedules, and modern manufacturing requirements. What started as early experimentation has evolved into a sustained modernization effort.
That direction aligns directly with the Department of Defense’s Digital Engineering strategy and DoDI 5000.97, which call for authoritative digital product definition, lifecycle continuity, and model-based deliverables that can be used well beyond engineering systems.
What is notable is not just the policy itself, but how clearly it reflects real, long-standing challenges across the defense industrial base.
Why 2D Drawings Are Not Enough
In theory, 2D drawings are precise. In practice, they often introduce risk as products move downstream.
Manufacturers, depots, and suppliers routinely recreate 3D geometry from 2D drawings because modern production, inspection, and sustainment workflows depend on 3D context. That translation step is expensive, time-consuming, and prone to interpretation errors. Every recreation introduces the possibility that design intent is misunderstood or lost.
As systems become more complex and schedules tighten, this gap only widens. What starts as an engineering artifact becomes a bottleneck to manufacturing, quality, training, and sustainment.
The Army has been explicit about this challenge. Recreating 3D data from 2D drawings increases cost, delays production, and creates avoidable quality issues. Moving to 3D Technical Data Packages eliminates that translation step and preserves intent from the start.
What the Army Is Really Standardizing On
The Army’s move is often described as a transition to “3D” or "MBD", but that undersells the intent.
What the Army is standardizing on is authoritative, model-based technical data that can be used consistently across acquisition, manufacturing, sustainment, and field operations. This includes:
- High-fidelity 3D geometry
- Embedded Product and Manufacturing Information (PMI)
- Associated technical documentation such as parts lists, specifications, and notes
- A secure, portable format that can be accessed without CAD authoring tools
As a result 3D PDF became strategically important. It provides a durable, CAD-neutral container for the Technical Data Package that can be consumed by engineers, suppliers, depot technicians, inspectors, maintainers, and program offices alike.
That portability matters. The Army needs technical data that remains usable over decades, across changing systems, tools, and organizations. A model locked inside a proprietary authoring environment does not meet that requirement.
The Role of Standards Maturity
The Army’s progress toward 3D Technical Data Packages has been reinforced by the steady evolution of the MIL-STD-31000 family of standards. What began as an early framework has matured through successive revisions, most recently MIL-STD-31000C, which reflects years of practical implementation and feedback across the defense industrial base. Over the years, 3D PDF has become the primary format that satisfies MIL-STD-31000 TDP compliance.
This standards maturity matters. It signals that model-based Technical Data Packages are no longer experimental. They are governed, repeatable, and ready to scale across acquisition, manufacturing, and sustainment environments.
Alignment with Digital Engineering Policy
DoDI 5000.97 reinforces a critical point that is often overlooked. Digital engineering is not just about how products are designed. It is about how authoritative product definition is managed, shared, and used across the lifecycle.
The policy emphasizes model-based approaches, digital continuity, and the ability to reuse authoritative data from acquisition through sustainment. In practice, this means digital product definition must travel beyond engineering systems and remain intelligible and trustworthy wherever decisions are made.
3D Technical Data Packages directly support that objective. By preserving geometry, PMI, and context in a lifecycle-ready format, they help maintain digital thread continuity without requiring every stakeholder to operate within the same PLM or CAD environment.
Implications for the Defense Industrial Base
For defense contractors and suppliers, the Army’s direction carries clear implications.
First, expectations around Technical Data Packages are changing. 3D is no longer a value-added extra. It is becoming the baseline for clarity, manufacturability, and sustainment readiness.
Second, collaboration increasingly depends on how well technical data can be consumed outside engineering. Manufacturing, quality, suppliers, and sustainment teams need direct access to authoritative product definition, not derived screenshots or flattened documents.
Finally, scale matters. Producing a few 3D Technical Data Packages manually is manageable. Producing thousands or hundreds of thousands of compliant, consistent TDPs across programs and suppliers is not.
Delivering Model-Based Technical Data at Scale
Operationalizing the Army’s vision requires more than authoring 3D models. It requires a repeatable way to generate, govern, and distribute Technical Data Packages that meet defense standards and can be trusted across the enterprise.
This includes:
- Consistent application of standards such as MIL-STD-31000B
- Preservation of PMI and design intent
- Secure handling of sensitive data
- Automated publishing from authoritative PLM sources
- Controlled application of CUI and program data markings
- Delivery of CAD-neutral formats that do not require specialized tools
When done correctly, this approach eliminates errors, shortens manufacturing cycles, and improves downstream execution. It also supports earlier and more accurate engagement with suppliers, which is critical in today’s constrained supply environment.
From Policy to Closed-Loop Execution
The Army’s move to 3D Technical Data Packages signals a broader shift across the Department of Defense. Digital engineering is no longer measured by how advanced models are inside engineering tools. It is measured by how effectively authoritative product definition is used across the lifecycle.
Recent Army and DoD initiatives show that the focus has moved beyond simply creating 3D Technical Data Packages. The emphasis is now on how those packages are exchanged, reviewed, and iterated across organizational boundaries.
One example is the OSD ManTech's Organic Industrial Base modernization project, which explored a variety of modernization strategies, including a closed-loop technical data exchange for 3D Technical Data Packages. These efforts highlight a critical reality. The value of 3D technical data is only realized when it can move securely and efficiently between engineering organizations, suppliers, reviewers, and program offices, while preserving context, traceability, and intent.
This is where digital engineering becomes truly operational. Not when models exist, but when authoritative 3D Technical Data Packages can be shared, reviewed, and resolved as part of a continuous, governed process.
As 3D Technical Data Packages have evolved, the focus has shifted to how the TDP is consumed, reviewed, and acted on across organizations. This is where model-based collaboration becomes essential. Rather than moving feedback into emails, screenshots, or disconnected documents, collaboration remains anchored to the authoritative Technical Data Package itself. Engineering, manufacturing, quality, suppliers, and program offices all engage with the same model-based definition, preserving context, intent, and traceability.
At scale, this becomes Digital Engineering Collaboration, ensuring decisions made around the model travel with the model, rather than breaking the digital thread as data moves downstream.
