Autonomous · GPS-denied ·
Vertical Takeoff · Multi-Sensor Detection.
Real-hardware validated. Intercept demonstrated.
Built for threats others have no answer for.
DESIGNED BACKWARD FROM THE THREAT.
Engineering Thesis
Existing counter-UAS architectures were designed for different threats. Three assumptions that no longer hold for Class I: that threats are RF-controllable, that platform size grants sensor range, that cost parity is irrelevant. Intercepting an FPV drone with a guided missile costing tens of thousands of euros doesn't solve the problem. It shifts it.
Re-Definition
What does it actually take to reliably stop Class I FPV drones at scale? A platform that operates on the same physical plane at close range. Sensing without depth estimation. Guidance without black-box NN. An architecture follows.
FOUR ARCHITECTURAL DECISIONS.
Existing interceptor systems force drone hardware into missile-like geometries — so classical guided-missile algorithms can run on them. We take the inverse path: our algorithm is built from the ground up around the X-frame geometry that makes offensive FPV drones so dangerous today. We harness their physical strengths — instantaneous thrust vectoring, hover capability, sub-second response against evasive targets — instead of engineering them away.
Quad Architecture
Higher agility and higher lateral force than a fixed-wing. A quad platform meets an FPV threat at close range on the same physical plane. Lower unit cost than comparable fixed-wing platforms of the same class. One person, one system, one takeoff.
Minimalist & GPS-Denied by Design
One fixed-mounted camera and an IMU is enough. No GPS, no LiDAR, no stereo cameras, no gimbal. Onboard state estimation directly from the camera image — operates in electronic warfare environments and in GPS-denied conditions without fallback paths to RF infrastructure. Structurally immune to RF jamming and therefore one of the few kinetic responses that also work against fiber-optic-controlled FPVs.
Vertical Takeoff
No ramp, no launch infrastructure. One-person-deployable, designed for mobile infantry and convoy operations. Where existing counter-UAS systems require stationary deployment.
Deterministic Guidance
Vision-based guidance with explainable, deterministic trajectories. Edge-AI exclusively for detection. The engagement decision runs through classical control engineering, not through black-box NN. Reduced sensor architecture, reduced failure modes.
WHY QUAD, NOT FIXED-WING.
| Criterion | Fixed-Wing | Quad (HERAKLES) |
|---|---|---|
| Engagement Geometry | Long-Range, Loiter | Close-Range, Pursuit |
| Lateral Agility | limited | high |
| Take-off Infrastructure | Ramp required | Vertical, infantry-deployable |
| Unit Cost | higher | lower |
| Threat-Class Match | Class II/III | Class I |
Class II/III fixed-wing interceptors address a different threat profile. Against Class I FPV threats at close range, the quad architecture is structurally superior.
INTERCEPTOR ANATOMY.
THREE-PHASE DEFENSE.
Multi-sensor detection across three parallel paths:
- Acoustic detection in proximity range — triggers camera-swivel toward source
- Visual detection with wide-angle tracking after camera alignment
- Manual operator trigger: button press launches search mode, interceptor ascends and scans 360°
Operator-Authorization gates takeoff. Post-launch the system operates autonomously in the terminal phase. Disengage-Override is available to the operator at all times.
Vision-based guidance with onboard state estimation. Kinetic collision as effector mechanism, no warhead against personnel or infrastructure.
VALIDATION STATUS.
In-house simulation environment with full flight dynamics, calibrated sensor-noise models and parameterized threat profiles. Batch-evaluation across thousands of engagement scenarios against evasive, accelerating and sensor-noisy targets. Identical code path between simulation and flight hardware closes the classic sim-to-real gap. Multi-seed testing with pre-registered pass/fail criteria.
Standardized bench routines for every hardware iteration: powertrain characterization, sensor calibration, failsafe verification and authorization logic under realistic load profiles. Automated regression tests safeguard function and safety before any field deployment. Closed-loop engagement stable on bench under real-time constraints.
Controlled flight campaigns on secured test ranges. Stepwise escalation from platform verification through tracking engagements to a fully-autonomous intercept of an evasive FPV threat under operator authorization. Every real flight feeds sim and bench back with empirical data. Target class, engagement geometry and test conditions are disclosed via video.
TRL 6 — system prototype demonstrated in relevant environment.
ROADMAP.
[ Q1 2026 ]
Sim validation of the engagement pipeline completed — batch evaluation across broad engagement scenarios passed.
[ Q2 2026 ]
First Intercept ✓ — first fully-autonomous intercept of an FPV threat in real hardware. Hardware build and bench validation completed.
[ Q3 2026 ]
Multi-target engagement · Detection-range extension · Robust engagement against aggressive evasion maneuvers
[ Q4 2026 ]
Field validation in realistic environments · Platform iteration v2 · Hardening against weather and environmental variability
Real-Hardware-Validated. Pre-Seed Round opens Q3 2026.
Engineering briefings available under NDA.