upvote
I would guess that a military version would be a hybrid: electric motors as in all the e-VTOL prototypes, enough battery power to comfortably take off, land and maneuver in combat conditions, and a small hydrocarbon-fueled engine to recharge the battery while cruising.
reply
What problem would a hybrid solve for military? Military doesn't care about emissions and this doesn't offer resilience like fully electric does (recharge anywhere, reliability).
reply
The same problem that a hybrid architecture solves for ships: the ability to use physically small electric motors with very high power density that are mechanically decoupled from the rest of the vehicle. This lets a bunch of designs pull off neat thrust vectoring tricky with much simpler and lighter components than a mechanical thrust vectoring system would need.

(Electric azimuth thrusters are becoming common in large ships for roughly this reason, too.)

reply
> ships

That's a tangent from most sensitive vehicle to weight to the _least_ sensitive one.

reply
The military cares a lot about range, signature reduction, and especially fuel efficiency. Reducing fuel usage reduces the logistical train necessary to sustain units in the field.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2025/01/22/army-tries-out-n...

reply
How is it going to reduce fuel consumption by nearly doubling the weight?
reply
I don't see how these style of drone like aircraft could possibly be better for personnel or gear transport over a collective rotor helicopter. A bigger rotor is more efficient, can lift more, and can autorotate to a safe landing after taking the inevitable battle damage and losing power.

I mean I could be wrong, im certainly not an expert in future military design and strategy, but I just don't see any advantages once you start scaling these to the size needed to move humans. The only potential I can see is multi-rotor designs being easier to learn to pilot over a collective rotor design, but I don't see any modern military considering a few weeks off a pilot's training being worth the trade off in range, capacity, and safety.

reply
Can we settle in the middle and trial them for cargo first? Seems obvious for deliveries.
reply
deleted
reply
> Can we settle in the middle and trial them for cargo first?

There is an existing market for passenger eVTOL to and from airports. Using that as a beachhead makes way more sense than trying to develop a de novo niche.

reply
Oh market is def there. I mean validating technology on cargo.
reply
> validating technology on cargo

The tradeoff is you have to build a cargo business. That costs money and leadership attention. Racing for the beachhead, given sufficient access to capital, is the more focused strategy. (This is a good example of how bootstrapped versus financed companies can be radically different in their technical debts, time to market, culture and discipline around validating hypotheses.)

reply
Why are larger drones better than smaller suicide drones that can have bombs attached to them and built by the thousands per day in a dark factory?
reply
Different configurations are better for different missions. Small suicide drones have very limited range, weak sensors, and can't carry much cargo or a large enough warhead to take out hardened targets. Hopefully we'll never get into a conflict with China, but if we do the platforms will have to be much larger just due to the greater ranges involved.
reply
Range, for one, if what you're referring to as a mental model is 15" prop size quadcopters with an artillery shell strapped to them. For use <50km.

Now look at a photo of a human standing next to a shahed-136 size UAV for a totally different size scale.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/11/in-europe-the-p...

reply
I see. Thanks for both your answers.
reply
The 'final' decision was recently made to go ahead with the massive project for this, which is eventually intended to replace the UH60/Blackhawk type platform. Traditional big money defense contractor stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_MV-75_Cheyenne_II

reply
The military operates more than one type of aircraft. I don't think an MV-75 will fit very well on an FF(X), for example.
reply