logo
How A Grisly Injury Threw $5 Billion Drone Startup Shield AI Off Course

How A Grisly Injury Threw $5 Billion Drone Startup Shield AI Off Course

Forbes13-05-2025

InApril of 2024, a handful of U.S. Navy officers gathered outside of Fort Stockton, Texas, to watch defense tech unicorn Shield AI demo its latest drone. Called the V-BAT, the autonomous aircraft was designed to launch and land vertically without a runway and could be piloted through war zones where GPS wasn't reliable. Shield had yet to announce a major contract for it, and the U.S. Navy's support was crucial to the company's hopes to sell thousands of the $1 million drones to the Pentagon.
But as the 12-foot-long V-BAT came in for a landing, things went sideways. Unlike most drones, which don't require physical intervention, Shield's operators needed to assist the drone in landing vertically, like a SpaceX rocket. Instead it dropped to the ground and tipped over, resulting in a grisly incident: When a U.S. service member approached the drone, his fingers were caught in the spinning blades and partially severed.
Shield AI has emerged as a lead contender in the increasingly crowded race against competitors like Anduril and AeroVironment to outfit the U.S. military with killer drones. The $5 billion-valued startup, founded in 2015 by brothers Ryan and Brandon Tseng, sells a suite of hardware and products, including autonomous piloting software that has been used to fly fighter jets. In March, it raised $240 million in a funding round led by Korean conglomerate Hanwha and American defense contractor L3Harris with the goal of preparing the military for the future of autonomous warfare.
The V-BAT, though, has been the company's primary revenue driver. 'I have personally led the effort to scale revenues from zero to hundreds of millions of dollars in the defense sector,' Brandon Tseng, a former Navy SEAL, told a Congressional committee in September, 'something maybe only three to five people have achieved in the past 30 years.'
Shield's 1,000-strong workforce has been encouraged to embody a warrior ethos, with slogans like 'Do what honor dictates' and 'Live as a servant leader.' But the incident with the U.S. Navy, which hasn't previously been reported, has spotlighted the risks brought by a new generation of hard-charging military startups seeking Pentagon contracts while hyping their companies to Silicon Valley investors, sometimes at the expense of physical safety.
'The V-BAT was not as...mature as I had thought it was when we acquired the company.'
A spokesperson for U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command said in a statement that the service member had three fingers partially amputated during the incident. The person made a full recovery after four months and is now 'performing all duties without limitations.' (The service member declined to comment.) The spokesperson declined to provide information about the result of an investigation into the incident, and directed requests to the U.S. Naval Safety Command, which declined to comment.
CEO Ryan Tseng, confirming the U.S. Navy incident to Forbes, said that flight restrictions were imposed on the drone by U.S. military customers for several months. 'It's the opposite of our mission if somebody gets hurt,' Tseng said in an interview with Forbes. 'We exist to protect service members and civilians.'
Tseng said that the V-BAT 'had been flying almost 10 years, with a perfect safety record,' adding, 'The event was a surprise, and it was one that, frankly, I feel terribly about.'
But Forbes found that for years, as Shield raised hundreds of millions of dollars from investors like Andreessen Horowitz and billionaire Thomas Tull's USIT, its executives overlooked engineering issues and safety hazards that ultimately scuttled contract opportunities, according to former employees, internal documents and legal filings.
In 2022, almost two years before the U.S. Navy member was injured, Shield's then-quality assurance manager 'reported a safety issue involving danger of propeller strike/injury to personnel due to unsafe blower handling,' according to a lawsuit he filed against the company in October related to disability accommodation (at the time, Shield denied the safety claims in its legal response; the lawsuit was settled). Then in 2023, an employee's shirt was sucked into a propeller and shredded during a test flight, according to multiple people, one of whom raised alarms internally.
Brandon Tseng, president and co-founder of Shield AI, said he plans to remain at Shield 'forever, until our mission is accomplished at grand scale.'
After flagging concerns about the V-BAT to executives, two former employees told Forbes they were fired; they said they were aware of several other employees being fired for similar reasons. Two others told Forbes they became disillusioned and resigned when no action was taken regarding their complaints about the drone. 'You either had to do what you were told, or you would be let go,' said one former employee who worked on the V-BAT and was fired last year. 'Even though we knew from experience what they wanted us to do was unethical.'
'I reject the notion that we don't take concerns seriously,' Tseng said. 'We have a culture where across the organization, people call balls and strikes as they see them.'
When asked why Shield AI didn't adequately address the propeller hazard when employees first flagged it, Tseng said 'numerous' safety improvements had been made to the V-BAT. 'Today, V-BAT retains a perfect record of no injuries when following trained procedures,' he said.
Tseng said the company has since passed two Pentagon safety audits (the units that conducted the audits didn't respond to a comment request). He also said Shield has addressed the propeller hazard in an upgrade to the V-BAT announced last month, which included new landing gear that removed the need for human assistance during landing and take-off. He added that the drones now have warning stickers near the fan ducts, and that employees wear flight suits — a requirement imposed after the incident involving the shredded shirt. 'We have continuously invested in a safety culture,' he said.
The company had hoped to generate more than $400 million in revenue and become profitable this year, mostly due to V-BAT sales, according to financial projections shared with investors in 2023 obtained by Forbes. Shield no longer expects to hit those financial targets, or reach profitability in 2025, Tseng told Forbes. 'The mishap delayed the decision process of many potential customers domestically and internationally,' he said in a written comment. 'We are back on track now.'
Tseng told Forbes that Shield has recently signed contracts valued at more than $100 million for European government customers, including for V-BATs sent to Ukraine (he declined to disclose the customers). The company also has a five-year V-BAT contract with the U.S. Coast Guard, with a potential $200 million value if the order is fulfilled, and announced agreements with Taiwan and Japan governments, but has not disclosed their value.
In the months after the U.S. Navy incident, Tseng said he suggested to the board that he should step down as CEO. 'I have always felt like I owed this team the absolute best possible leader,' he said. 'I was the guy on the side of the ship as it was racing forward.'
Last month, Tseng announced publicly he would step aside, telling Forbes he would become co-president of the company with his brother. A new CEO, Gary Steele, who previously led cybersecurity companies Splunk and Proofpoint, is set to take over this month. 'I'm excited to work with him to build a great company that makes mission impact,' Tseng said. As for the co-president role: 'Brandon and I will both take on external facing roles, forming relationships with customers globally.'
The company declined to provide a comment from Steele. Brandon Tseng said in a statement he plans to remain at Shield 'forever, until our mission is accomplished at grand scale.'
Investors Hanwha, Andreessen Horowitz and USIT didn't respond to a comment request. 'Shield AI is proving that autonomy at scale is not only possible but inevitable,' L3Harris spokesperson Sara Banda said in a statement.
Launched in 2015, Shield AI initially aimed to solve a fatal problem dogging U.S. service members in the Middle East: clearing buildings held by adversaries. Brandon Tseng was intimately familiar with the danger as a former SEAL, and pitched Ryan — an entrepreneur who had sold a startup that made wireless charging pads to Qualcomm — on a company to sell drones that could fly through buildings and detect dangers before soldiers went in.
Its first product, a quadcopter called Nova they claimed could autonomously navigate buildings, helped Shield secure early investment from the Pentagon's Defense Innovation Unit and Andreessen Horowitz, which led two early funding rounds into the company totalling $30 million. But as the U.S. shifted its focus from Middle East war zones to China tensions, the Nova drones struggled to secure larger Pentagon contracts. The company said it no longer sells the Nova.
In 2021, Shield acquired Martin UAV, a longtime developer of the V-BAT, and sold investors on its potential with plans to enhance the device using its autonomous AI software, known as Hivemind, which it claimed could allow a single person to pilot multiple V-BATs. Investors, including Point72 Ventures, poured in $200 million for a funding round that valued the company at $1 billion. 'We want to climb the unmanned systems food chain,' Tseng told Fortune at the time. (Point72 declined to comment.)
Shield AI said its V-BAT drones have completed more than 150 missions in Ukraine.
But the V-BAT, which had been in development for more than a decade, was an imperfect drone with limited success selling to the Pentagon. The aircraft was plagued by product defects, including cracked fuselages and faulty fuel systems that clogged with air bubbles, according to six former employees. The engineering issues were evident during multiple demos with U.S. military officials when V-BATs fell out of the sky; for example, two were lost in as many days during one set of demos for the U.S. Navy at a California facility in 2023, according to a person who was there (which Tseng confirmed). In other cases, the V-BATs crashed into the ocean during flight tests from ships ('We have lost aircraft over the ocean, as has every other vendor of [comparable] aircraft,' Tseng said).
'The V-BAT was not as, I'll just speak for myself, mature as I had thought it was when we acquired the company,' Tseng said. 'And the people we bought the company from, frankly, I think that they thought it was more mature than it was.'
Now, Tseng says the company's woes are in the past. In addition to addressing the propeller hazard, Shield announced a major overhaul of the V-BAT last month. With the Hivemind software, it can fly more than 80 miles and stay in the air for more than 13 hours, while carrying more than 40 pounds of payload. In Ukraine, V-BATs have completed more than 150 missions, he said. The 'aircraft is, tip to tail, just a radically better airplane,' Tseng said.
He plans to stay with Shield 'as long as possible.' In recent months, he has championed a flurry of announcements — a software partnership with Palantir to control autonomous systems, and with Airbus to install Hivemind on an autonomous helicopter. Shield has $1.9 billion in 'credible opportunities in our sales pipeline,' he added, and the company expects to announce new European contracts in the coming months.
But plans for the V-BAT were notably absent from the press release announcing Shield's latest funding in March. Instead, the company focused on how it would use the new capital to scale its Hivemind platform — ideal for its new CEO, Steele, whose background is in software. 'I think he'll be better at the job than me,' Tseng said.
Still, the brothers continue to talk a big game. 'I can confidently say no defense-tech company started after 2015 has made more strategic impact on the battlefield than @ShieldAI,' Brandon posted on X last week.
Ryan agrees. 'I don't want to name companies,' he said, 'but I think that we have made a really tremendous impact.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise
Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise

Bloomberg

time7 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise

Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Katie Nixon, Northern Trust, Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan, Dan Dolev, Mizuho, Rashad Bilal & Troy Millings, Earn Your Leisure, Matthew Griffin, Bloomberg News, Barry Bannister, Stifel, Jess Menton, Bloomberg News, Ed Ludlow, Bloomberg News, Stacy Rasgon, Bernstein Research, Frances Katzen, Douglas Elliman, Brett Winton, Ark Invest, Tony Zaccario, Stretch Zone, Nicole Camarre, 43North. (Source: Bloomberg)

Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes

New York Times

time16 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes

By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store