By John Guimond - Vericut Global Accounts Manager
Aerospace supply chain challenges are often framed as large-scale disruptions - geopolitics, supplier shortages, or capacity constraints.
But in reality, many of the most critical failures originate much earlier, and much smaller, within the manufacturing process itself.
The biggest risks in the aerospace supply chain don’t begin with major external shocks. They stem from compounding, day-to-day inefficiencies - particularly variability in CNC machining and insufficient NC program validation. As each business marches to its own ‘production schedule’ it often operates further and further away from its core mission.
Understanding these hidden failure points is essential for manufacturers looking to overcome the major challenges facing the supply chain in aerospace today, and to build a more predictable, resilient production environment.
A supply chain is only as stable as its least predictable process.
Ask anyone with regular involvement with aerospace manufacturers, and they’ll agree that these supply chains are not just complex - they are highly interdependent.
Thousands of suppliers might contribute to a single program. Parts arrive in sequence. Tolerances are tight. Delivery windows are fixed. There is very little room for variation, and even less room for error.
In this kind of environment, capacity and capability matter greatly. But neither of those is the real constraint.
The real constraint is predictability.
Because an aerospace supply chain does not break when a supplier is slightly slower than expected.
It breaks when a supplier cannot reliably predict what will happen when they press the Cycle Start button.
Where manufacturing variability actually impacts the aerospace supply chain.
I don’t believe that most aerospace supply disruptions begin with a major failure. If they did, it would be the regular subject of broadcast news.
They begin with small, ultimately avoidable uncertainties that, regrettably, compound.
Common Causes of Supply Chain Disruption:
-
Unvalidated NC programs: An NC program reaches the machine, but has not been fully validated.
-
Extended manual prove-out: A first article prove-out consumes many more hours than planned.
-
Toolpath inconsistencies: A toolpath behaves unexpectedly during actual cutting.
-
Scrap of high-value components: A high-value part is scrapped after extensive machining, resulting in wasted time and resources.
None of these common causes are unusual. In fact, they are often just considered “a part of the process”. But each of them allows a quiet, shadowy threat to seep in: variability.
And left untreated in a tightly coupled supply chain, variability very quickly transforms into disruption.
I don’t believe our aerospace manufacturers lack the technical capability to overcome these threats.
I think it’s just that too many manufacturing processes still rely on discovering, and dealing with them at the machine, rather than eliminating them before they ever have the chance to reach it.
Why manual prove-outs slow aerospace production.
If we’re talking at a strategic level, the production plans on the table quite fairly assume that once a program is released, it is ready. But on the shop floor, we know this is rarely the case.
For many aerospace manufacturers, manual prove-out remains a standard part of many workflows, and it absolutely exhausts a shop’s productivity.
Programs are run cautiously. Feed rates are reduced. Operators monitor closely, ready to intervene. What should be a simple, standardized production process becomes an extensive validation exercise.
Industry estimates suggest that inefficient prove-out and machining errors can increase production time by 20–50%, while scrap and rework costs can account for up to 10–15% of total manufacturing spend on complex aerospace components.
It’s also not uncommon for a part to require more than 500 hours of machining time. That’s almost 21 days. And often, a first-part article needs significantly longer than the overall machining time to prove out safely.
It doesn’t take a mathematician to work out that proving-out parts that require this much machine time aren’t just going to be expensive operations, but all-encompassing ones, too.
And it’s here where the void between strategic planning, and operational reality, really starts to widen.
Now imagine that once that part has been successfully proved out, an error occurs during the real machining: a probe breakage, or a toolpath collision.
Now that void has become so wide, your shop has just become the supply chain’s costly bottleneck.
High-value machined parts further expose the aerospace’s supply chain challenges.
We all know that aerospace manufacturing has always involved difficult materials, complex geometries, and demanding tolerances. What has changed is the economic weight of each individual part.
As mentioned, large structural components and critical assemblies often involve hundreds of hours of machining. The raw material itself may represent a significant investment before a tool even touches it.
In that context, variability is not a minor inconvenience - it is a concentrated risk.
A single error does not just result in scrap. It consumes valuable machine hours, disrupts schedules, and impacts downstream assembly. Plus, recovery is not immediate, and in many cases, not simple.
This is why approaches that rely on discovering issues during machining are becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Because, whilst the margin for error has narrowed, in many cases, the process has not adapted.
Why speed isn’t the answer for aerospace supply chain challenges.
When supply chains come under pressure, the instinct is to increase throughput. Add more machines. Increase utilization. Automate more processes.
These are all logical responses, but they still share that common assumption from earlier: that the underlying process is stable.
If it isn’t, increasing speed does not solve the problem - it just amplifies it.
Run an unstable process faster, and all you’ll do is increase the rate at which your problems occur.
The same applies to automation. Automated systems depend on consistency. Without it, they introduce new risks rather than eliminating existing ones.
The shift from machining parts to CNC simulation and validation.
The aerospace manufacturers navigating the challenging supply chain landscape most effectively are making a subtle, but important, shift.
They are no longer treating machining as the point at which problems are identified and corrected. They are treating it as the point at which a known, validated outcome is executed.
That shift changes the role of CNC simulation.
Instead of being a secondary check, it becomes a fundamental decision point. A way of confirming, with confidence, that your program will absolutely produce a conforming part before it ever reaches the machine.
This is where Vericut plays a role different from how it is often credited.
It is frequently positioned as a tool for programmers or manufacturing engineers. In reality, its impact extends much further.
By verifying NC programs, identifying collisions and over-travel, and enabling comparison between programmed geometry and design intent, Vericut removes a significant portion of the uncertainty that would otherwise surface during machining.
It replaces assumption with evidence, and in doing so, it changes the very nature of production from reactive to controlled.
How CNC simulation improves production predictability for aerospace applications.
When your processes become predictable at the machining level, the effect is not isolated.
Programs run as expected. First articles are produced with greater confidence and agility. Costly rework is reduced. Delivery schedules become more reliable.
Over time, that consistency defines how a supplier is perceived.
In aerospace, reliability is not judged solely by capability. It is judged by the ability to repeatedly deliver the same outcome under pressure.
Suppliers that can do that become easier to plan around. They introduce less risk into the system, and they become more valuable partners.
This is how a change in process at the shop floor level translates into stability at the strategic supply chain level.
Why this matters now.
The aerospace industry is in a period of rising expectations across multiple fronts.
Supplier agreements are being revised.
Compliance requirements are increasing.
OEMs are placing greater scrutiny on supplier performance.
And, at the same time, programs are becoming more complex, and the cost of disruption is increasing.
In that environment, the tolerance for uncertainty is shrinking.
Processes that rely on informal validation, extended prove-outs, or reactive problem-solving are becoming harder to sustain.
What is required instead is a higher degree of control, supported by systems that can demonstrate that control before production begins.
The real point of failure for the aerospace supply chain.
Aerospace supply chain challenges are often assumed to originate at scale, but in practice, they begin in the details. In the gap between what is expected to happen, and what actually happens when a machine starts cutting material.
Addressing these challenges requires more than increased capacity or automation. It requires eliminating variability at its source.
Aerospace supply chain resilience ultimately depends on reducing manufacturing variability and improving production predictability.
By validating machining processes before execution, manufacturers can remove uncertainty, prevent costly disruption, and deliver consistent, reliable outcomes.
As the industry evolves, I believe the future of aerospace manufacturing will not be defined by those who simply produce more, but by those who can produce with certainty, repeatability, and control.
About the Author
John Guimond was raised in the Pacific Northwest and has spent most of his career in the greater Seattle area, bringing more than 20 years of manufacturing experience to his work. His background spans running parts on the shop floor, leading teams through capital equipment decisions, and managing manufacturing operations focused on aerospace — giving him a well-rounded, hands-on view of the industry from multiple vantage points.
That foundation, paired with a passion for developing, innovating, and optimizing machining processes, shaped John's path through the industry. Before joining CGTech, he worked as an Account Manager for a leading global cutting tool manufacturer. In 2021, he stepped into his current role as an Area Sales Manager with Vericut, where he now supports the entire Pacific Northwest as an integral part of the aerospace supply chain — helping manufacturers get the most out of Vericut's industry-leading G-Code verification and simulation software and support.
