This will not primarily be for rescue ops. This will be for supporting Marine standin operations on and within the first island chain. The marines have been trying to figure out how they can handle sustainment and logistics in that environment.
With a few hundred miles range, these craft would be suitable as one way island to island hoppers, or 2 way over the horizon ship to shore transports. For a sense of scale, its ~140 miles from Luzon to Scarborough Shoal (one of the contested islands in the South China Sea).
The "Viceroy" craft that Regent has mocked up on their website claims 180 mile range, 3500lb of cargo / 2 crew + 12 passengers.
EDIT: And to be clear, the article title says "to get", but the article makes clear, this is basically a testing and development contract. There's no certainty that the Marines will get this capability in any meaningful way. Probably better to replace with "to test". This is particularly important because the commercial version of this craft is also still in development and testing.
It seems like combat SAR in the maritime environment is what these are best at.
> The "Viceroy" craft that Regent has mocked up on their website claims 180 mile range, 3500lb of cargo / 2 crew + 12 passengers.
This is like 1/4th the size needed for minimum scale sustainment and support. Not to say that it won't be used for that in a pinch or for special operations, but it's pretty limited. Of course, there's been talk about building huge ones.
The company press release states "The second phase of work will examine seaglider capabilities across missions including contested logistics and medevac/casevac".
I agree that this would be useful for medevac/casevac, but I'm less sure about the search part of SAR. 180 miles is not a lot of range for searching.
I still believe this is primarily about contested logistics, because the USMC still hasn't solved that issue. One of the stand in force concept's biggest weakness right now is how will the marines go about sustaining the force. There's a lot of good ideas written down, but concretely they still don't have good solutions.
I think it's fairly clear that the Marines will look to unnamed undersea vehicles as one vector, but I think they're looking for flexibility and redundancy (and certainly the speed that these guys offer would be interesting).
What's written about SIFs is that the Marines anticipate the majority of SIFs to be deployed in the crisis building phase. They do not envision on day one of a shooting war, somehow dispersing all of their forces across the first island chain - they take for granted that they will somehow do that in the build up. After that, then ya, maybe just med/casevac and resupply is what they're after.
I have a hard time finding concrete examples, but I always envisioned an example detachment being roughly platoon sized. Basically, imagine being able to man a NMESIS launcher or two, ISR, and a squad or two of infantry for security. I think at that point, these vehicles become more viable for certain types of sustainment. You could for example priority rush more NSMs to a detachment.
> I think at that point, these vehicles become more viable for certain types of sustainment. You could for example priority rush more NSMs to a detachment.
Sure-- like 3 per trip. If they're not too long for the vehicle (they might be).
You might be able to barely sustain a platoon-sized force with a trip per day, but this seems very marginal.
The article never mentioned the search part of SAR, only the rescue part. The range is still something of an issue with that, though, as you'd need to be fairly close the people needing rescuing. So I still agree that contested rescue is likely a side mission for this.
> I have a hard time finding concrete examples, but I always envisioned an example detachment being roughly platoon sized. Basically, imagine being able to man a NMESIS launcher or two, ISR, and a squad or two of infantry for security.
Most of the scenarios I've participated in have involved reinforced companies.
While I'm sure the US military sees the obvious possible logisitical solution for the island chains - and I've read them saying that in the past - that doesn't mean there's something deceitful going on here.
Before you make national security depend on a new, developing technology, and one that is also in limited supply, you give that technology a simpler, smaller mission to try it out and to develop it. That is, they don't want control of the first island chain to depend on Regent Craft all-electric sea gliders quite yet.
Well TBF they will be likely primarily used to "rescue" marines off suicide deployments in 1IC. Marine haphazardly rebranded themselves into MLR / littoral regiment, AKA NMESIS missile battery uber drivers for Pacific theatre to stay relevant. But anyone with half a brain saw how proposal was not sustainable one way mission for crayon eaters. 12 passengers + 3500lb cargon won't reinforce much, i.e. replenish couple Naval Strike Missiles... but likely just supplies to keep the people going, but more realistically it's good for evacuating whose left + body bags because region is going to be saturated with PRC fires. This glider proposal is consoling marines MLR that yes, their rebranding / new conop/conemp isn't terminally stupid, there is an exit plan after hopefully the NMESIS squeeze off their shots, assuming they survive PRC drones/missiles etc.
> How long did it take it for the Osprey to make it into service?
I was curious so I went and looked;
1981 - Initial development contract awarded
1983 - Bell/Boeing submitted their prototype and since it was the only submission, they were awarded the contract
1985 - Osprey designation established, first full size prototypes under development
1988 - First Osprey was finished
1989 - First testing of the prototypes started and first flight in helicopter mode (several of the prototypes crashed)
1994 - Bell/Boeing received production contract for EMD phase
1997 - First EMD flight + more testing
2005 - Full rate production authorized
2007 - Marines began fielding them
They were still testing the various modes (carrier onboard deliveries, etc) into the 2020s but the most favorable case is that it took over 25 years from prototype to service.
COD wasn't "testing various modes." It was a completely new requirement to replace Navy C-2s which were reaching end of life. It wasn't part of the original contract; it was a completely new "oh, we have this on the shelf and it's fit enough for purpose."
Except it isn't - the V-22 fleet is currently limited to flight 200nm or less due to mechanical concerns. [1] I'm not sure what the US Navy is currently doing or planning for near-future COD. (Beyond ordering more Ospreys. [2]) Pray they don't end up in a real hot war with a peer adversary, I guess?
These are nothing like the Osprey. The Osprey is way more complex. If one of the engines goes out on the Osprey, there is linkage that will allow the remaining engine to continue to power both rotors. Nevermind the mission profiles are completely different.
How long did the SR-71 take to make it into service? How long did the F-22 or F-35 take? None of those answers have anything to do with the other.
Eh, yes and no. They tend to have a pretty strong relationship to each other. But we've all been party to swiss army knife projects that get shit all over by stakeholders because they don't agree about what the right balance of "shitty at everything" ought to be.
Worth noting that the Cold War ended in the middle of the Osprey's development, and the peace dividend really stretched out the timeline for a lot of programs of that era. With higher consistent funding like we're seeing now, stuff will probably be adopted faster
My father was a Marine in the late 80's, early 90's and would talk about the Osprey being in development. They were still in development 20 years later when I was a Marine. I did get to fly in one before getting out though.
A perfect match for the modern Marine Corps! (Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but a Marine Corps that has abandoned amphibious assault and port seizure in favor of helping the Navy with sea control has arguably lost its reason for existing.)
It will have many of the same issues too, common to all ground-effect sea planes, namely that wave height, rogue waves, weather conditions, and the ability of pilots to remain highly focused will be major limiting factors.
From the wiki I take it they have yet to build and fly a full-sized prototype
"A 1/4 scale model was successfully demonstrated in 2022 in Narragansett Bay"[1]
Also I assume radar-proof is just because it's a ground effect vehicle that will never fly high enough to show up on radar it certainly doesn't look all angular like a stealth bomber. In which case my bicycle is also radar-proof?
Thanks for sharing, I honestly wish this company the best electric planes are a hard problem to solve and it's good to see anyone making an honest effort.
However to poke just a little fun this line stands out as a hilarious marketing claim that cannot possibly be true
"Almost all (98%) of UAE coastal residents are interested in riding a seaglider, according to our global consumer survey."
It's also interesting to note that the CEO has appeared on no fewer than 13 different podcasts between mid-2022 and last week which is I suppose how one would go about getting a high value US defence contract these days.
> Also I assume radar-proof is just because it's a ground effect vehicle that will never fly high enough to show up on radar it certainly doesn't look all angular like a stealth bomber. In which case my bicycle is also radar-proof?
From the way the article is worded, it does seem the author is only considering air search radar with this claim. Without low observability features, this will show up on surface search and surveillance radars. There might be an initial period where some radars fail to register it because they reject it as a possible target due to its kinematics. If craft like this become common, though, the signal processing algorithms will be updated to handle them. Most can already deal with very low-flying helicopters anyway.
That said, just because it isn't angular doesn't mean it doesn't have low observability features. Radar absorbing material would still make it harder to detect. So would more subtle elements of the physical design. I don't think "radar-proof" in that section header is justified, though.
Even on airborne radars like AWACS, they can detect ground movement. They typically have a filter to ignore things under certain speeds as they are not typically concerned about traffic near highway speeds. However, the proposed speeds for this thing would still show up with those filters enabled. It would be interesting to see what minimum speeds would be.
Yes, AWACS has limited moving target indicator (MTI) capability. A full-featured maritime MTI radar would easily pick this up, provided the signal processing algorithms don't reject the track for moving too fast.
> Also I assume radar-proof is just because it's a ground effect vehicle that will never fly high enough to show up on radar
My guess is yes. Simply because the Caspian Sea Monster [1] was "the largest and heaviest aircraft in the world from 1966 to 1988", not at all stealthy looking, and simultaneously also "undetectable to many radar systems, as it flew below the minimum altitude of detection."
So yes, a much smaller craft will also be hard to radar. Notwithstanding that the tech has moved on at both the "detect" and "don't be detected" ends of the contest.
As I understand it, it's also easier and safer to fly these craft now, as they are computer-stabilised, which the 1960s design could not have been. And therefore easier and safer to fly them lower. (The Caspian Sea Monster "was destroyed following a crash caused by pilot error." )
I wonder why the title clarifies "for rescue ops".
Is there anything inherent to this technology that prevents it from being used for anything else? The article body insists on "demonstrations relevant to specific defense operations" which sounds quite broad and not limited to rescue ops in any way.
TBF, You never know when you might need to sneak up on a shoreside compound, go in and “rescue” a bunch of people from their beds, and get back out undetected.
Fast and water based I can sort of see, but there's no point to it avoiding radar. The range of 180 miles (assuming I read that correctly) also makes it pretty pointless for search and rescue. You would have to know where someone is, the weather must be good enough to land on water, and they can't be more than 60 miles away.
A NH90 helicopter is faster, at 190mph (300km/h) and have longer range at 500 miles (800km). It also doesn't have to land to rescue someone.
As other commenters have pointed out, search and rescue doesn't mean you're not going to get shot at. I agree with everyone else though that it's obviously going to be used for more than SAR.
Low altitude is no longer a viable strategy for evading radar. Especially with the advent of datalink enabled satellite and other forms of downward looking radar. The propellers show up on pulse doppler like a flashing emergency light. Especially over the ocean with so little ground clutter.
We already have all-electric trainers like the Bye eFlyer https://byeaerospace.com/ so I can see this "working", but I'm not certain how effective it would be compared to something as well-tested as the "stealth" version of the MH-6 helicopter that's been in production for about a decade.
Additionally, the basic non-stealth MH-6 airframe and power-plant configuration has been around since the 1960s so its base flight characteristics are well-known.
I suspect that in this case "seaglider" is just REGENT's marketing name, rather than a term with broader uptake. All the places I'm seeing the name 'seaglider' used in this context look like REGENT's prospective customers.
Sure, it seems to be this Regent that wants to make "seaglider" a thing.
You can understand why they don't use "ekranoplan" as the marketing term. Its going to only be familiar to those who are into Soviet History, Aviation trivia or specific Sci-Fi.
And it's not going to bring small, modern, electric craft to mind.
Thank you for bringing this up. All the marketing (and the "journalism" regurgitating it) are writing as though 'seaglider' is a word I ought to be familiar with, but have never encountered before. I had a lot of "these things seem a lot like an ekranoplane variant, but they're not calling them that" puzzlement.
"Our vehicle, called a seaglider, is an all-electric, wing-in-ground-effect craft that operates within a wingspan of the water's surface and couples the speed of an airplane with the operating cost of a boat."
Ground effect vehicles could be the thing that's needed to make drone based delivery a reasonable thing to do, especially around lakes. It's one of life's perennial disappointments that such things only get done in military terms and under the ludicrous notion they are rescue vessels.
Lol depending on what you’re delivering and whether you want the aircraft back to fly a second mission or not.
For civilian drone delivery there are some use cases where you can squeeze out a small profit doing drone-based delivery as opposed to conventional truck-based delivery, but it’s not a sure thing yet in general. A Transit van can cover a huge number of miles for a relatively small capital investment. Covering the same number of miles with a drone (even factoring in that you aren’t constrained by the road network and can do straight line flights) for lower cost is… hard.
That's never going to happen. Only a tiny fraction of the population live directly on lakeshores, and basically no warehouses. If drone based delivery is going to work then they'll have to fly out of ground effect to avoid structures and trees.
The main advantage of ground effect vehicles is lower fuel consumption over long distances. That's not a priority for the short range battery powered drones used by delivery services.
My startup is working on playing soothing music on drones using differential timing of rotor speeds. We've made some impressive inroads in the past few years. We're planning on adding a model that also plays birdsong for exactly this use case in the next couple of years!
So they are just at Phase 2 of developing prototypes with the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory? Ok, that explains why I've not heard/seen any deployment plans for these things within the next 5 years out here....which probably means if we do get them, we'll get them too late to influence the war with China over Taiwan.
Other comments are correct that the Corps isn't even close to solving the contested sustainment/logistics problems here in the First Island Chain, or in the South China Sea.
These seagliders are a nifty solution to the signature management issues, but their payload is tiny. We need the ability to move pallets of munitions or other cargo.
Are they drone evading though? Because if not, then this is a waste of time and taxpayer money. Literally any idiot can 3D print a drone capable of defeating tens of millions of dollars in military hardware from 15-20 miles away. We're not in Kansas anymore.
3D print a drone that will intercept a 180mph vessel from 20 miles away? You should consider putting together a prototype, I can only imagine you'd receive funding.
You're assuming pursuit. For intercept you don't need a 180mph drone, you just need a somewhat predictable trajectory. You're also assuming constant motion away from shore or other ships, at top speed. Drones with speeds of up to 225kph (140mph) are already in use in Ukraine, although their payload is designed to take down heavy drones and helicopters (only a couple of pounds), and their range is only 12 miles. Nothing a month or two of rather straightforward scale-up couldn't fix. That's before we consider the practical scenario where a larger drone just drops these over the target. And if we assume the adversary is China, there could be hundreds of these larger drones in the air, with dozens of smaller drones each.
I don't doubt that you can physically carry big enough of a payload on an intercept trajectory, I just doubt that a clandestinely manufactured quadcopter will be able to either autonomously track its target (not big enough to carry a radar) or be controllable from 20 miles away (even in Ukraine EW is pervasive).
More realistically they'd try to modify the targeting of their existing AtoA and send fighters. Which is kinda like a bunch of big drones carrying small ones.
Fighters and AtoA are extremely expensive and difficult to manufacture in quantity. You can make drones pretty much anywhere (with a steady supply of cheap flight controllers), for next to nothing, and strap all sorts of payloads to them. If I were the adversary, I'd send a bunch of cheap drones first, to deplete defensive ammo, and then _maybe_ send something heavy duty and expensive. Literally, one single rocket (not to mention a fighter jet) can cost as much as a couple hundred disposable drones. You tell me which is harder to defend against, one rocket or a huge swarm of semi-autonomous drones (computer vision in the terminal phase is quite common by now).
This will not primarily be for rescue ops. This will be for supporting Marine standin operations on and within the first island chain. The marines have been trying to figure out how they can handle sustainment and logistics in that environment.
You can read some wonkish article about this (back in 2022) https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/sustainment-of-the-stand-i... . You'll note that the article does suggest revisiting seaplanes as a distribution option.
With a few hundred miles range, these craft would be suitable as one way island to island hoppers, or 2 way over the horizon ship to shore transports. For a sense of scale, its ~140 miles from Luzon to Scarborough Shoal (one of the contested islands in the South China Sea).
The "Viceroy" craft that Regent has mocked up on their website claims 180 mile range, 3500lb of cargo / 2 crew + 12 passengers.
EDIT: And to be clear, the article title says "to get", but the article makes clear, this is basically a testing and development contract. There's no certainty that the Marines will get this capability in any meaningful way. Probably better to replace with "to test". This is particularly important because the commercial version of this craft is also still in development and testing.
It seems like combat SAR in the maritime environment is what these are best at.
> The "Viceroy" craft that Regent has mocked up on their website claims 180 mile range, 3500lb of cargo / 2 crew + 12 passengers.
This is like 1/4th the size needed for minimum scale sustainment and support. Not to say that it won't be used for that in a pinch or for special operations, but it's pretty limited. Of course, there's been talk about building huge ones.
I agree that this would be useful for medevac/casevac, but I'm less sure about the search part of SAR. 180 miles is not a lot of range for searching.
I still believe this is primarily about contested logistics, because the USMC still hasn't solved that issue. One of the stand in force concept's biggest weakness right now is how will the marines go about sustaining the force. There's a lot of good ideas written down, but concretely they still don't have good solutions.
I think it's fairly clear that the Marines will look to unnamed undersea vehicles as one vector, but I think they're looking for flexibility and redundancy (and certainly the speed that these guys offer would be interesting).
What's written about SIFs is that the Marines anticipate the majority of SIFs to be deployed in the crisis building phase. They do not envision on day one of a shooting war, somehow dispersing all of their forces across the first island chain - they take for granted that they will somehow do that in the build up. After that, then ya, maybe just med/casevac and resupply is what they're after.
I have a hard time finding concrete examples, but I always envisioned an example detachment being roughly platoon sized. Basically, imagine being able to man a NMESIS launcher or two, ISR, and a squad or two of infantry for security. I think at that point, these vehicles become more viable for certain types of sustainment. You could for example priority rush more NSMs to a detachment.
Sure-- like 3 per trip. If they're not too long for the vehicle (they might be).
You might be able to barely sustain a platoon-sized force with a trip per day, but this seems very marginal.
The article never mentioned the search part of SAR, only the rescue part. The range is still something of an issue with that, though, as you'd need to be fairly close the people needing rescuing. So I still agree that contested rescue is likely a side mission for this.
Most of the scenarios I've participated in have involved reinforced companies.
> This will not primarily be for rescue ops.
It's a common meme in dual use tech. When you apply for funding you mention "search and rescue applications" and people know what's up.
Before you make national security depend on a new, developing technology, and one that is also in limited supply, you give that technology a simpler, smaller mission to try it out and to develop it. That is, they don't want control of the first island chain to depend on Regent Craft all-electric sea gliders quite yet.
How long did it take it for the Osprey to make it into service?
I was curious so I went and looked;
1981 - Initial development contract awarded
1983 - Bell/Boeing submitted their prototype and since it was the only submission, they were awarded the contract
1985 - Osprey designation established, first full size prototypes under development
1988 - First Osprey was finished
1989 - First testing of the prototypes started and first flight in helicopter mode (several of the prototypes crashed)
1994 - Bell/Boeing received production contract for EMD phase
1997 - First EMD flight + more testing
2005 - Full rate production authorized
2007 - Marines began fielding them
They were still testing the various modes (carrier onboard deliveries, etc) into the 2020s but the most favorable case is that it took over 25 years from prototype to service.
1. https://news.usni.org/2025/02/11/navy-marines-learning-to-ma... 2. https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2025/us-navy-...
How long did the SR-71 take to make it into service? How long did the F-22 or F-35 take? None of those answers have anything to do with the other.
>None of those answers have anything to do with the other.
There's a pretty direct correlation between number of stakeholders who need to not object and procurement time.
One trick pony spy plane go fast took no time at all.
F15 but stealth took years
F35 cluster fuck took decades.
https://theonion.com/soldier-excited-to-take-over-father-s-o...
I mean, I'm sure any real-world version of it would actually suck, though.
But certainly less romantic.
180 mile range, 180 knot speed, needs recharging infrastructure at both ends of the journey. This is a toy with very little operational utility.
A perfect match for the modern Marine Corps! (Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but a Marine Corps that has abandoned amphibious assault and port seizure in favor of helping the Navy with sea control has arguably lost its reason for existing.)
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-...
The "radar-evading" rather gives the game away.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan
But maybe this kind of thing is made out of materials more like a surfboard than an sr-71.
"A 1/4 scale model was successfully demonstrated in 2022 in Narragansett Bay"[1]
Also I assume radar-proof is just because it's a ground effect vehicle that will never fly high enough to show up on radar it certainly doesn't look all angular like a stealth bomber. In which case my bicycle is also radar-proof?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REGENT_Viceroy
They've done boat mode tests, but they haven't flown yet.
However to poke just a little fun this line stands out as a hilarious marketing claim that cannot possibly be true
"Almost all (98%) of UAE coastal residents are interested in riding a seaglider, according to our global consumer survey."
It's also interesting to note that the CEO has appeared on no fewer than 13 different podcasts between mid-2022 and last week which is I suppose how one would go about getting a high value US defence contract these days.
From the way the article is worded, it does seem the author is only considering air search radar with this claim. Without low observability features, this will show up on surface search and surveillance radars. There might be an initial period where some radars fail to register it because they reject it as a possible target due to its kinematics. If craft like this become common, though, the signal processing algorithms will be updated to handle them. Most can already deal with very low-flying helicopters anyway.
That said, just because it isn't angular doesn't mean it doesn't have low observability features. Radar absorbing material would still make it harder to detect. So would more subtle elements of the physical design. I don't think "radar-proof" in that section header is justified, though.
My guess is yes. Simply because the Caspian Sea Monster [1] was "the largest and heaviest aircraft in the world from 1966 to 1988", not at all stealthy looking, and simultaneously also "undetectable to many radar systems, as it flew below the minimum altitude of detection."
So yes, a much smaller craft will also be hard to radar. Notwithstanding that the tech has moved on at both the "detect" and "don't be detected" ends of the contest.
As I understand it, it's also easier and safer to fly these craft now, as they are computer-stabilised, which the 1960s design could not have been. And therefore easier and safer to fly them lower. (The Caspian Sea Monster "was destroyed following a crash caused by pilot error." )
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster
Is there anything inherent to this technology that prevents it from being used for anything else? The article body insists on "demonstrations relevant to specific defense operations" which sounds quite broad and not limited to rescue ops in any way.
My first assumption is that this is for stealth ops. "Rescue" doesn't need those features.
A NH90 helicopter is faster, at 190mph (300km/h) and have longer range at 500 miles (800km). It also doesn't have to land to rescue someone.
As other commenters have pointed out, search and rescue doesn't mean you're not going to get shot at. I agree with everyone else though that it's obviously going to be used for more than SAR.
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/regent
We already have all-electric trainers like the Bye eFlyer https://byeaerospace.com/ so I can see this "working", but I'm not certain how effective it would be compared to something as well-tested as the "stealth" version of the MH-6 helicopter that's been in production for about a decade.
Additionally, the basic non-stealth MH-6 airframe and power-plant configuration has been around since the 1960s so its base flight characteristics are well-known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_%C3%89ben-%C3%8...
See e.g. https://www.regentcraft.com/seagliders/viceroy and https://www.hawaiiseaglider.org/what-is-a-seaglider
It's the same craft with a different paint job
Yes, they are Wing-in-Ground craft
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster
The term is also being used for some underwater drones (see https://apl.uw.edu/project/project.php?id=seaglider and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaglider).
You can understand why they don't use "ekranoplan" as the marketing term. Its going to only be familiar to those who are into Soviet History, Aviation trivia or specific Sci-Fi.
And it's not going to bring small, modern, electric craft to mind.
For obvious reasons - which word would you rather introduce to the public: "Ekranoplan", or "Seaglider".
If anyone else is working on modern Ekranoplans, I'd like to know. But AFAIK, it's just one company working on it, and promoting it.
It is a ground effect vehicle.
Some of the drones are now even fiber optic guided and thus resistant to jamming by the competition!
For civilian drone delivery there are some use cases where you can squeeze out a small profit doing drone-based delivery as opposed to conventional truck-based delivery, but it’s not a sure thing yet in general. A Transit van can cover a huge number of miles for a relatively small capital investment. Covering the same number of miles with a drone (even factoring in that you aren’t constrained by the road network and can do straight line flights) for lower cost is… hard.
The main advantage of ground effect vehicles is lower fuel consumption over long distances. That's not a priority for the short range battery powered drones used by delivery services.
I think you are mistaken sir.
I live by a lake myself and i've just talked to my neighbors, and they all live by a lake too.
I'd love one of these in MS Flight Simulator or DCS.
Other comments are correct that the Corps isn't even close to solving the contested sustainment/logistics problems here in the First Island Chain, or in the South China Sea.
These seagliders are a nifty solution to the signature management issues, but their payload is tiny. We need the ability to move pallets of munitions or other cargo.
DIY drones can do that now never mind by the time this is actually in service.
More realistically they'd try to modify the targeting of their existing AtoA and send fighters. Which is kinda like a bunch of big drones carrying small ones.
Regardless, the US beat Russia to that too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins_X-112
oorah!
these are prop aircraft.
>radar evading
except for that insane heat signature coming from the half dozen DC motors and the RF emissions from them.
>electric
unless teslas making it...probably not...
this sounds like a pork project...or PR fluff.