Defense Tech: what are startups building now?
In our defense tech market deck, you will find everything you need to understand the market
SUMMARY
Defense tech startups are building autonomous aircraft and ships, counter-drone weapons, cheaper missiles, battlefield software, military space systems and, increasingly, the factories needed to produce all of them at serious scale.
The biggest shift is that startup defense products are moving out of the prototype phase. Defined missile orders, tens of thousands of drones, delivered ground vehicles and military software contracts now sit alongside the giant funding rounds.
Autonomy runs through almost every category. Startups are putting it into aircraft, boats, ground vehicles and spacecraft, while a second layer of companies is building the software that lets fewer operators coordinate more machines.
The drone boom has also created its own counter-market. Cheap aircraft make expensive interceptors difficult to justify, which is pushing militaries toward robotic guns, interceptor drones, high-power microwaves and other systems with much lower costs per engagement.
Missiles are becoming an unusually important startup category. Anduril, Castelion and Covenant are designing weapons around commercially available components, simpler assembly and production rates measured in thousands rather than treating manufacturing as something to solve after the weapon is designed.
That production mindset is spreading through the whole industry. Hadrian is automating defense-parts manufacturing, Saronic is planning a multi-billion-dollar shipyard, and smaller companies are attacking bottlenecks such as wire harnesses and deployable drone factories.
Battlefield AI looks most convincing when it disappears into practical military work. The strongest products currently connect sensors, weapons and autonomous fleets, fuse messy data and reduce the number of interfaces an operator has to manage.
Military autonomy is getting quite advanced in navigation, sensing and coordination, but weapons release remains a much more controlled boundary. The harder unresolved problem is whether one operator can reliably supervise many autonomous systems when communications, sensors and targeting information start failing at the same time.
Maritime and space startups show that the market is expanding well beyond small drones. Autonomous vessels are moving toward larger ships with meaningful payloads, while newer space companies are building maneuverable spacecraft and command systems for active military operations in orbit.
The pattern underneath all of this is industrial as much as technological. Militaries want more machines without adding one operator for every machine, more weapons without paying premium prices for every shot, and production lines capable of replacing losses quickly during a long conflict.
This market map, featured in our defense tech market deck, highlights top companies and startups in the defense tech market
Why is so much money going into defense tech startups right now?
Defense tech startups are pulling in huge amounts of money because military buyers are finally spending heavily on the products younger companies know how to build: autonomous systems, cheaper weapons, battlefield software and faster factories.
The size of the funding boom depends heavily on how “defense tech” is defined, so one giant market number can be misleading. The cleaner way to see what is happening is to look at the largest recent rounds.
Anduril raised $5 billion. Shield AI announced $2 billion of equity and preferred financing. Helsing raised $1.8 billion, Saronic $1.75 billion, Quantum Systems $1.2 billion and Castelion roughly $1 billion. Those six financings alone add up to about $12.8 billion. Five of those companies have major autonomous-system businesses. Castelion is building mass-producible hypersonic weapons.
Military demand now points in the same direction. The Pentagon’s Drone Dominance program is built around roughly $1 billion of purchases and more than 200,000 drones by 2027. NATO has created a Scale-Up Package to connect newer defense companies with military demand, private capital and factories. Its latest innovation priorities also put air defense, long-range strike, logistics and rapid fielding near the center.
The interesting part is the overlap. The companies receiving some of the largest checks are working on the same problems militaries are actively trying to buy their way through.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest defense tech market report.
Are defense tech startups basically just building drones?
Defense tech startups are heavily focused on autonomous machines today, but small flying drones are only one part of what companies are actually building.
Shield AI, Helsing, Quantum Systems and Anduril are working on autonomous aircraft. Saronic and Kraken Technology are building uncrewed boats. Forterra and Overland AI are putting autonomy into military ground vehicles. True Anomaly is developing maneuverable spacecraft and orbital mission software.
A second group builds the systems around those machines. Allen Control Systems makes robotic counter-drone guns. Epirus attacks drones with high-power microwaves. NODA AI coordinates different autonomous systems through one software layer. Hadrian builds automated factories for defense parts. Castelion and Covenant are going directly into missiles.
Once we map the market that way, the current defense-tech boom makes more sense. Startups are spreading software, autonomy and faster manufacturing into almost every part of the military hardware stack.
| What startups are building | What it actually does | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Autonomous aircraft | Reconnaissance, strike, interception and combat support | Shield AI, Anduril, Helsing, Quantum Systems |
| Autonomous ships | Patrol, surveillance, strike and long-endurance missions | Saronic, Kraken Technology, HavocAI |
| Ground robots | Logistics, engineering and mobile weapons | Forterra, Overland AI |
| Counter-drone systems | Shoots, intercepts or electronically disables drones | Allen Control Systems, Perennial, Epirus |
| Long-range weapons | Cheaper cruise and hypersonic missiles | Anduril, Castelion, Covenant |
| Battlefield software | Connects commanders, sensors, weapons and autonomous fleets | Comand AI, Raft, Picogrid |
| Space systems | Surveillance, maneuver and orbital command | ICEYE, True Anomaly |
| Defense manufacturing | Makes parts, drones, ships and weapons faster | Hadrian, Firestorm, Senra |
As this chart shows, and as featured in our defense tech market deck, search interest in defense tech has risen sharply
What kind of military drones are startups actually building now?
Defense startups are currently building everything from roughly $5,000 expendable drones to fighter-sized autonomous aircraft, so “military drone” now describes several very different markets.
The cheapest end is growing fastest in unit numbers. The Pentagon’s Drone Dominance program says its first Gauntlet competition resulted in 30,000 drones being ordered. The wider program plans to buy more than 200,000 by 2027. Early acquisition documents expected average unit prices around $5,000 in the first phase and lower prices as volumes increased.
That purchasing model treats some drones almost like ammunition. Losing one in combat is expected.
Tactical reconnaissance systems sit further up the price and capability ladder. Quantum Systems won a $15.3 million U.S. Army contract for Vector AI after an evaluation covering flight performance, integration and manufacturing readiness. According to Quantum Systems, Vector logged more than 20,000 operational flight hours in Ukraine during 2025. Its current design includes anti-jamming technology and navigation that can keep working without GPS.
Strike drones are gaining more onboard intelligence as well. Helsing’s HX-2 has roughly 100 kilometers of range and is designed to operate in heavily jammed environments. Helsing previously announced plans to produce 6,000 HX-2 systems for Ukraine after an earlier 4,000-unit HF-1 order.
Then there are aircraft that look much closer to fighters. The U.S. Air Force has moved Anduril’s FQ-44 and General Atomics’ FQ-42 Collaborative Combat Aircraft into engineering, manufacturing and production, with plans for more than 150 combat-capable aircraft by the end of the decade. The FQ-44 has already completed a live-fire test using an AIM-120 against a digital target.
A cheap one-way drone and a fighter-sized CCA share the word “drone,” but little else. One creates mass through extreme affordability. The other creates mass by adding capable aircraft without adding another human pilot to every cockpit.
Why is everyone suddenly building systems to shoot down drones?
Counter-drone startups are growing so quickly because militaries urgently need cheaper ways to destroy cheap aircraft.
The economics are brutal. A multi-million-dollar interceptor can make sense against a cruise missile or fighter. Firing that same weapon repeatedly at drones costing a few thousand dollars burns through money and missile inventories at an unsustainable rate.
Allen Control Systems is one of the freshest examples of where the market is going. Its Bullfrog turret uses computer vision and robotics to automatically track and shoot small drones with conventional weapons. The company recently raised $200 million at a valuation above $2 billion and has committed to deploying 80 systems during 2026. It has also just announced a 191,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in Austin to increase production.
Perennial Autonomy uses another drone as the interceptor. The Pentagon gave the company a counter-UAS IDIQ with a ceiling of $500 million after earlier purchasing its Bumblebee interceptor. That $500 million represents the maximum available through the contract vehicle; actual orders determine the money Perennial ultimately receives.
Epirus avoids a physical interceptor altogether. Its Leonidas system uses high-power microwaves to disrupt electronics across multiple drones. The U.S. Army previously awarded Epirus $43.5 million for Leonidas systems, followed by an $11 million Marine Corps contract. More recently, Epirus demonstrated an effect against fiber-optic-controlled drones, which are particularly awkward for traditional radio-frequency jammers.
Those three companies show why this market will probably support several winners. A robotic gun is cheap to fire repeatedly. An interceptor drone can chase targets farther away. High-power microwaves become interesting when many drones arrive together.
Counter-drone defense is turning into its own layered industry.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest defense tech market report.
This chart, included in our defense tech market deck, shows annual VC investment in defense tech startups
Why are defense startups suddenly building missiles?
Defense startups are going directly into missiles now because militaries need thousands of long-range weapons and the traditional way of building them is too slow and expensive for that level of demand.
Anduril’s Barracuda-500M makes the production philosophy unusually visible. Its agreement with the U.S. government covers at least 3,000 complete systems over three years. Anduril says roughly 70% of Barracuda uses commercially available components and one missile can be assembled in around 30 hours with ten common hand tools.
The factory has clearly influenced the design of the weapon.
Castelion is trying to bring the same logic into hypersonics. The company recently raised roughly $1 billion to scale Blackbeard, taking its valuation to around $13 billion. Castelion says it has accumulated more than $500 million of U.S. military contracts over the previous 18 months. Its Blackbeard program is targeting early operational capability on the F/A-18 in 2027.
Covenant has pushed the volume argument even harder. The startup has emerged from stealth after raising $250 million and securing roughly €130 million in contracts. Its Anthem cruise missile uses widely available components, and the company has already conducted more than 200 test flights.
Covenant’s production targets are striking. Its German factory is expected to begin with roughly 1,000 missiles before targeting a 5,000-per-year run rate in 2028. Its Dallas plant is designed for a similar annual capacity. Reuters also reported that Covenant has secured long-term agreements for more than 4,000 jet engines over the next two years.
Missile design is becoming an industrial engineering problem as much as an aerospace problem. The companies gaining attention today are asking how quickly a missile can be assembled, how many suppliers exist for each component and how easily another factory can reproduce the line.
Why are defense startups building factories and shipyards too?
Defense startups are building huge factories now because proving a weapon works has become much easier than proving you can deliver thousands of them.
Hadrian is the clearest pure manufacturing bet. The company recently raised $1.37 billion at a valuation just under $8 billion. Hadrian builds highly automated factories for aerospace and defense parts and now operates four facilities. One new Alabama site is focused on submarine components through a public-private project valued at $2.4 billion.
Saronic has taken the idea much further into heavy industry. Its planned Port Alpha shipyard in Brownsville, Texas covers 835 acres and represents a planned $3.2 billion investment. The site is expected to start operating in 2028 and is designed to build medium and large autonomous or autonomy-ready vessels. Saronic expects more than 10,000 direct jobs once Port Alpha is fully developed.
Smaller companies are attacking less visible manufacturing bottlenecks. Senra Systems builds wire harnesses for missiles, aircraft, satellites and vehicles. Firestorm develops containerized factories that can manufacture drones much closer to where they are needed.
Even factory software is becoming a defense business. Harmoni has just raised $10 million to put AI-driven production tools into existing factories rather than requiring manufacturers to rebuild plants from scratch. The company already works with around 40 customers, mainly in aerospace and defense.
NATO is treating manufacturing capacity as a shared problem too. Its NATO Engine program connects defense companies that need production with industrial capacity that is already available.
Defense tech these days increasingly has two product demos: the weapon working, then the production line working.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest defense tech market report.
This chart, included in our defense tech market deck, shows why Anduril is winning in defense tech
Is battlefield AI actually useful yet?
Battlefield AI is already useful enough to win serious military contracts, especially when the software connects real sensors, weapons and autonomous vehicles instead of acting like a generic chatbot.
NODA AI recently received a $100 million Pentagon contract to scale autonomous mission-command software across different military services. NODA’s job is to let commanders coordinate mixed autonomous systems without forcing every drone, vehicle or weapon to come from the same manufacturer.
Raft has also moved well beyond a small software pilot. The U.S. Army recently awarded the company a five-year enterprise contract vehicle with a $99 million ceiling for data, AI and secure computing. Raft was also selected for the Space Force’s Kronos battle-management program.
Then Leonardo DRS agreed to buy Raft for $450 million in cash. That acquisition is a useful market test. A large established defense contractor is paying hundreds of millions of dollars for software that fuses battlefield data and helps operators make decisions faster.
Comand AI works closer to military headquarters. Its Prevail platform helps staffs turn large amounts of operational information into plans. During work with the Bundeswehr, Comand reported roughly four-times-faster planning and ten-times-faster terrain analysis. Those exact performance figures come from the company, so they should be treated as company-reported results. The deployment itself is harder to dismiss: Prevail has been used with military organizations in several allied countries, and Comand raised €32 million to keep expanding.
Picogrid attacks another basic frustration. Militaries buy sensors, drones, electronic-warfare systems and weapons from different companies, then struggle to make them talk to each other. Picogrid says its software now integrates more than 100 defense systems and recently raised $45 million.
The useful battlefield-AI market is becoming quite practical: connect messy military data, reduce operator workload and control more machines through fewer interfaces.
How autonomous are these military systems actually getting?
Military startup products are already highly autonomous in navigation, sensing and coordination, while human control remains much more visible around weapons release and mission-level decisions.
The Collaborative Combat Aircraft program gives us a good picture of where the boundary sits today. The U.S. Air Force has given Shield AI, Anduril and Collins Aerospace production options for mission-autonomy software. The Air Force deliberately separated that software from the aircraft itself, which means an aircraft can receive a new autonomy stack without redesigning the whole platform.
The FQ-44 live-fire test makes the current limit equally clear. The autonomous aircraft carried and fired an AIM-120, yet the Air Force explicitly emphasized human oversight for weapon release.
Smaller drones increasingly handle much more of the flying themselves. Quantum Systems’ Vector has vision-based navigation for GPS-denied conditions. Helsing’s HX-2 is designed to continue operating when electronic warfare degrades normal communications. Shield AI’s Hivemind is built around onboard perception and decision-making, reducing the need for a constant remote-control link.
The biggest change is happening at the operator level. Military programs increasingly assume one human will supervise several machines. That could mean several strike drones, several aircraft or eventually a mixed group of vehicles performing different jobs.
We still do not really know how far that model can scale in a chaotic fight. Ten machines behaving well in a controlled exercise is very different from ten machines dealing with jamming, damaged sensors, unexpected civilians, confusing targets and broken communications at the same time.
Autonomy is already real. Reliable autonomy under the worst battlefield conditions is still the harder part.
This chart, included in our defense tech market deck, shows annual funding in defense tech startups
Are robot ships becoming a real military market?
Autonomous military ships are becoming a real procurement market now, with startups moving from small experimental boats toward vessels large enough to carry serious weapons, sensors and cargo.
As we saw earlier, Saronic is planning a multi-billion-dollar shipyard rather than preparing for a niche market. Its product range now extends to Marauder, an autonomous vessel around 180 feet long with a stated range of up to 5,400 nautical miles and around 150 metric tons of payload capacity.
The U.S. Navy is currently testing several suppliers through its Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel marketplace. Seven companies made the at-sea phase, including Saronic, Sea Machines, Leidos and HII. The Navy is looking for vessels with roughly 2,500 nautical miles of range, speeds around 25 knots and enough payload capacity to carry large containerized mission systems.
Britain has already placed a defined order at the smaller end. The Royal Navy awarded Kraken Technology a £12.3 million contract for 20 uncrewed vessels used by the Coastal Forces Squadron and Royal Marines. Kraken later raised $175 million at a $1 billion valuation to increase production and expand internationally.
HavocAI is going larger as well through a partnership with Hanwha around an autonomous vessel of roughly 200 feet.
Under the water, the market is earlier but already active. Anduril has developed its Dive family of autonomous underwater vehicles. Helsing has introduced the SG-1 underwater glider and Lura autonomy platform. Greensea IQ has won U.S. Navy work around autonomous underwater control systems.
Surface autonomy looks further ahead today because we can already point to competitive procurement, defined vessel orders and major new shipbuilding capacity. Undersea systems are following, especially for surveillance, mine warfare and infrastructure protection.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest defense tech market report.
What are defense startups building in space now?
Space-defense startups are currently moving beyond satellite imagery into maneuverable spacecraft, military command software and systems designed for much more active operations in orbit.
ICEYE represents the mature surveillance end. Its synthetic-aperture radar satellites can image through darkness and cloud cover. Sweden has signed a multi-year deal to acquire ICEYE satellites, software, data and ground infrastructure for its own sovereign military surveillance capability. The U.S. National Reconnaissance Office has also selected ICEYE US for commercial radar work.
True Anomaly sits further along the military spectrum. Its Jackal spacecraft are designed to maneuver around other objects in orbit, while its Mosaic software handles mission operations. True Anomaly raised $650 million earlier this year, taking total capital raised above $1 billion.
The important progress now comes from actual operations. The U.S. Space Force launched the VICTUS HAZE mission with True Anomaly and Rocket Lab and moved it into on-orbit rendezvous and proximity operations. The exercise is designed around spacecraft detecting, approaching and responding to other maneuvering objects in realistic scenarios.
True Anomaly has also been selected for the Space Force’s Kronos battle-management program and for work connected to space-based interception.
The progression is worth watching. Space startups first built cheaper satellites and commercial imagery. The newer companies are building spacecraft that deliberately maneuver around other spacecraft, plus the software needed to coordinate them. Military space is becoming much more active.
This chart, included in our defense tech market deck, compares the main business model options for defense AI contractors
Are military ground robots finally useful?
Military ground robots are useful today when they get narrow, dangerous jobs such as moving supplies, clearing obstacles and carrying weapons.
Overland AI has just received a $20 million U.S. Army contract for an Engineer Autonomous Breaching Capability. The system is being built to help soldiers cross defended obstacles and minefields, turning autonomy into a specific battlefield function rather than a general robotics experiment.
Forterra is pursuing the same area. It recently won another Army Sandhills contract covering autonomous breaching and terrain-shaping operations, with autonomous Ford F-250 vehicles handling tasks such as zone clearing and line-charge deployment.
Forterra also works with Oshkosh Defense on ROGUE-Fires, which turns a military vehicle into an autonomous missile launcher. Two delivery orders for the Block 2 configuration total $92 million.
Ukraine gives us another useful production test. Forterra says it built and delivered 105 Lancer autonomous ground vehicles in less than six months.
The Army’s wider Last Tactical Mile work points toward similar jobs: ammunition resupply, casualty evacuation and communications support.
These are much easier problems to justify than building a general-purpose robotic infantryman. A vehicle that autonomously carries ammunition through a dangerous route creates value immediately, even if the software cannot cope with every situation a soldier can.
Ground autonomy is becoming real through boring jobs first. That is probably exactly how it should scale.
Which defense startup products are actually being bought at scale?
Defense startups have finally started crossing into meaningful production, although the gap between a contract ceiling and an actual order still makes many defense-tech headlines look bigger than the underlying business.
A production order tells us how many products a customer is committing to buy. An IDIQ creates a purchasing channel with a maximum value. Prototype contracts sit earlier in the process. Those distinctions matter enormously when judging whether a startup has truly reached scale.
Anduril’s Barracuda deal is unusually clear: at least 3,000 missiles over three years. Britain’s Kraken contract specifies 20 boats. Forterra has $92 million of ROGUE-Fires delivery orders and says it has already delivered 105 Lancer ground vehicles to Ukraine.
As seen above, Drone Dominance goes much larger in unit numbers. The first phase produced orders for 30,000 drones and the full Pentagon program targets more than 200,000 by 2027. Those purchases will be spread across multiple winning suppliers.
Software can reach scale differently. NODA AI has a $100 million contract for autonomous mission command. Raft’s Army vehicle has a $99 million ceiling, so actual revenue will depend on subsequent orders. Perennial’s $500 million counter-UAS IDIQ has the same distinction.
This is probably the biggest practical change in defense tech over the past few years. Startup-built missiles, drones, autonomous ground vehicles, ships and software now sit inside real procurement pipelines instead of endlessly moving from one demonstration to another.
| Startup product | Current evidence | What the number actually means |
|---|---|---|
| Anduril Barracuda-500M | Minimum 3,000 missiles over three years | Defined production volume |
| Drone Dominance winners | 30,000 drones in first phase | High-volume competitive purchase |
| Forterra ROGUE-Fires | $92M across two delivery orders | Production orders |
| Forterra Lancer | 105 vehicles delivered to Ukraine | Real delivered volume |
| Kraken uncrewed boats | 20 vessels for £12.3M | Defined customer and quantity |
| NODA AI | $100M mission-command contract | Major software award |
| Raft | Army IDIQ with $99M ceiling | Maximum purchasing capacity |
| Perennial | Counter-UAS IDIQ with $500M ceiling | Maximum purchasing capacity |
This chart, featured in our defense tech market deck, shows the share of revenue generated by each customer segment in the defense tech market
So what are defense tech startups actually building now?
Defense tech startups are building around three things above all right now: autonomous machines, weapons cheap enough to buy in large numbers and factories capable of producing both quickly.
The biggest immediate market is still autonomous aircraft. Cheap drones are being ordered in tens of thousands, while larger systems such as the Air Force’s CCA are moving into production. Counter-drone companies are growing alongside them because every new wave of cheap aircraft creates another demand for cheap interception.
Missiles may be the more surprising startup category. Anduril, Castelion and Covenant are designing long-range weapons around production volume from the beginning. Covenant’s plan for factories capable of reaching 5,000 missiles a year shows how aggressive that ambition has become.
The same idea now reaches the sea, ground and space. Autonomous boats are getting larger. Ground robots are winning contracts for breaching and logistics. Space companies are flying maneuverable spacecraft in military exercises. Battlefield-software companies are getting paid to connect these systems and reduce the number of separate tools an operator has to manage.
Then comes manufacturing. Hadrian is raising more than a billion dollars to automate aerospace production. Saronic is planning a $3.2 billion shipyard. Allen Control Systems has just added a large factory for counter-drone turrets. NATO is trying to make spare manufacturing capacity easier for startups to access.
Put all of that together and the current direction is unusually clear. Militaries want more machines without needing one extra operator for every machine. They want more weapons without paying premium prices for every shot. And they want factories that can replace losses quickly if a war lasts longer than existing stockpiles.
That is what defense tech startups are really building today.
| Where startups are building | Where it stands now | Examples | Our read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cheap autonomous aircraft | Already scaling in very large unit numbers | Quantum Systems, Helsing, Perennial | Biggest immediate volume market |
| Counter-drone defense | Moving quickly into production | Allen Control Systems, Epirus | One of the clearest current needs |
| Long-range missiles | Rapid industrial buildout | Anduril, Castelion, Covenant | Biggest new surprise |
| Autonomous ships | Moving into larger military vessels | Kraken, HavocAI | Could become a huge market |
| Battlefield AI | Serious contracts are appearing | NODA AI, Comand AI, Picogrid | Essential as fleets get more complex |
| Defense manufacturing | Capital and factory capacity are rising fast | Hadrian, Firestorm, Senra | Probably the most underestimated category |
| Ground autonomy | Real orders for narrow battlefield jobs | Forterra, Overland AI | Already useful |
| Space defense | Moving from sensing toward active operations | ICEYE, True Anomaly | Growing quickly |
| Undersea autonomy | Real products with earlier-stage scale | Anduril, Helsing, Greensea IQ | Important, still behind surface autonomy |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest defense tech market report.
OUR METHODOLOGY
This analysis examines what defense tech startups are actually building now and where those products are moving from funding and prototypes into procurement, deployment and industrial production. We broke the market into autonomous aircraft, counter-drone systems, missiles, maritime autonomy, ground systems, battlefield software, space and manufacturing, then compared the strongest evidence across those areas.
We prioritized recent, concrete evidence: military purchases, defined production orders, equipment already delivered, operational deployments, systems entering production, factory expansion and large financing rounds tied to identifiable products or capacity.
Official military and NATO sources carried the most weight when determining what governments are actively trying to buy or scale. Company disclosures were used for financing rounds, product specifications, production targets, operational figures and factory investments when those details were not available through government sources.
We also separated different types of procurement evidence. A defined production order provides stronger evidence of scale than the ceiling of an IDIQ contract, while delivered equipment tells us more than a prototype entering evaluation. Company-reported performance figures are identified as such when external validation is limited.
For comparisons between categories, we looked for several developments pointing in the same direction rather than ranking markets from one number. Procurement volume, military demand, operational use, production capacity, funding and product maturity all contributed to our read of which categories are already scaling and which remain earlier.
We treated defense tech as a product landscape rather than a rigid industry label. Companies were grouped according to what they actually build and the military function those products serve, which makes the shift toward autonomy, lower-cost weapons, battlefield software and faster manufacturing easier to see.
Key sources used for this analysis include: U.S. defense material on the Drone Dominance program and its first 30,000-drone order, NATO’s Innovation Scale-Up Package, the U.S. Air Force on FQ-42 and FQ-44 Collaborative Combat Aircraft production, the U.S. Navy on Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel testing, Space Systems Command on the VICTUS HAZE mission, Anduril on Barracuda-500M production, Quantum Systems on the U.S. Army’s Vector AI selection, Helsing on HX-2 production for Ukraine, Castelion on the first U.S. Navy Blackbeard delivery order, Overland AI on the Army’s autonomous breaching program, Forterra on Lancer production and delivery to Ukraine, and ICEYE on its sovereign surveillance agreement with the Swedish Armed Forces.
This chart, included in our defense tech market deck, shows how tactical networking platform technology has evolved over time
Related blog posts
- Defense Tech: what are the biggest challenges now?
- Defense Tech: what’s changing now?
- Defense Tech: what is getting real adoption now?
- Defense Tech: what is getting real adoption now?
