Intelic is a European defense-tech company building software that enables military units to operate drones and other unmanned systems with a single platform. The company started in 2021, before the post-2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine made defense tech mainstream, and had to fight early challenges that are hard to imagine today.
“It took nine months to get a bank account,” Maurits Korthals Altes (CEO and founder) says, pointing to how reluctant institutions were to engage with the sector at the time. Now, the same bank is approaching the company with financing offers, a sign of how quickly the market has shifted.
In this conversation, Maurits shares how Intelic evolved from an autonomy-first vision into a product focused on command and control, and how trips to Ukraine exposed the gap between lab assumptions and frontline reality. He also explains why Europe’s fragmented market makes a horizontal software approach more resilient than fully vertically integrated “neo-primes.”
What Problem Are You Solving?
To give some context, I have a technical background and studied mechanical engineering. In 2017, I started working as a student at a newly formed robotics and autonomous systems unit in the Netherlands, and I stayed for about 3.5 years.
When I joined, the military was already very focused on Crimea and the situation in the Donbas. Society in general, at least in the Netherlands, was not. I was surprised, but over time I became captivated by the mission and by what they were trying to achieve.
There were also many budget cuts in the Netherlands, and the thinking was: a new threat is emerging, but the army is smaller than before. How do we solve that?
Robotics was seen as part of the solution. In that unit, we researched the state of the art and how to continue development so these systems could fulfil their promise.
After graduating, I wanted to build something with impact at scale, not just prototypes. Together with colleagues, I founded Intelic in 2021. Five months later, Putin invaded Ukraine.
Initially, we saw that unmanned systems were limited on the software side. Hardware matters a lot, but real progress had to be made in software. We focused on autonomy: reducing the number of operators, making systems safer to use, and reducing reliance on continuous communications links.
Over time, our product focus shifted. Today, users mainly know us for a command-and-control interface that can control many types of unmanned systems. We focus mostly on drones, but we also support ground vehicles and surface vessels.
What Does That Look Like in Practice? Are You Replacing Existing Ground Control Stations?
Yes. We integrate into the system itself and replace the existing ground control station. We can also run in parallel at first, especially for complex systems, so you do not lose functionality. For smaller quadcopters, fixed-wings, and VTOLs, we can fully replace them immediately.
We support commonly used open-source protocols, so integration is relatively straightforward. Some older companies have heavily customised stacks because the open-source community was less developed when they started. Newer drone companies often use the open-source stack with fewer modifications, which makes it easier for us. But both are manageable.
How Do You Think About Your Position in the Market? Is This an “Operating System” Play?
People often ask if we want to be like the Android for drones. Market-dynamics-wise, there are similarities because a central command-and-control station creates a network effect. The more systems connect, the more valuable it becomes.
But I am hesitant to call it an operating system. We are an application. We provide functionality on the drone and a command-and-control interface for operators. In that sense, we are closer to something like an application layer.
What is important is that we can combine multiple unmanned systems and also integrate third-party software. For example, if a specialised team develops an interceptor-detection model, we can integrate that into our pipeline and bring it to multiple OEMs. We can help accelerate adoption.
What Triggered the Shift Toward Command-and-Control?
A big inflection point was our first trip to Ukraine in January 2024. By then, we were a little over two years old. We had made a lot of progress, but the gap to operational reality was still too big.
Ukraine showed us the fundamental problems on the battlefield. Things accelerated quickly after that. It was also when we raised seed funding, €2 million. In hindsight, it is a relatively small ticket compared to what some rounds look like today, but it was enough to help us become more product-oriented.
It pushed us to improve development processes, deliveries, versioning, and more to deliver a product consistently and quickly. And it changed the focus. Instead of pursuing “full autonomy” as the headline, we leaned into what operators needed most: clarity, integration, and simplicity under pressure.
We still use our autonomy heritage. Think about it like driver assistance in a car. If you automate small steps first, then more and more, you reduce the number of buttons and the complexity for the operator. That is where autonomy creates value today.
How Do You Integrate With the Rest of the Military Software Stack?
We do a lot of integration with battlefield management systems. Some well-known examples include ATAK and, in Ukraine, systems like Delta. Those systems are critical for sharing target information, video, and context. Integration lets drone teams operate more efficiently and share information faster.
A Lot of European Defense Tech Right Now Is Moving Toward Vertically Integrated “Neo-Primes.” Why Have You Opted for a More Horizontal Approach?
Vertical integration has benefits, but Europe is extremely fragmented. I struggle to see how you sustain the “one vendor owns everything” model at the volumes you want. You might see a few major players in different countries, but convergence to a single vendor across Europe feels unlikely.
There is also the innovation question. Software is moving very fast. Edge computing is improving every year. To sustain the value of vertical integration, you have to outpace it continuously. That is hard.
A more competitive model might be pragmatic drone manufacturers enhanced with our software, plus one or two specialised machine-learning models built by small teams quickly. That can be very hard to beat.
And Ukraine adds another layer. The market is full of small vendors, and it is unclear whether Ukraine is an outlier or a preview of what Europe becomes.
You Raised a Key Question: What Happens When Ukrainian Exports Open Up?
Exactly. Some people say that if there is peace, many Ukrainian companies will go bankrupt. But another scenario is that they expand into Europe and the US, flooding these markets with mature systems. That would be a huge shock to ecosystems that are only now scaling.
Others argue that Europe will protect local industry. Maybe. But I expect a very dynamic period: extreme growth, consolidation, new players, and bankruptcies, all in a short timeframe.
As a CEO, you want to make an educated guess and protect your company, but honestly, I do not think anyone knows exactly how it plays out.
What Were the Most Pivotal Decisions for Building the Company So Far?
Three things, all Ukraine-related:
First, it was the decision to go to Ukraine. Our first trip was a typical one: a Brave1 hackathon in Kyiv. It was eye-opening.
Second was working with frontline units. Kyiv is one thing. If you want to make a difference, you have to work with end users close to the front. It is dangerous and complex, but doable. You should do it with professionals. Hire people who have done this work, like former special forces or experienced military operators. Do not go in as cowboys.
Third was hiring a Ukrainian team. Even if you work with frontline units, if you have to travel constantly, you cannot match the pace. They live it daily.
Defense Procurement Is Notoriously Slow. How Did You “Decode” It as an Early-Stage Startup?
We started early and bootstrapped with R&D contracts. We did not raise external investment initially. That has benefits, but it is slow. Procurement cycles are slow. It takes time.
Today, many startups skip that phase by raising VC. It is faster, fair enough, but it is also a gamble. Later rounds are harder. If you do not land big contracts, you can run out of money because governments move slowly.
I like the “camel versus unicorn” analogy. You can move fast, but you can also move too fast and collapse.
For us, another key was B2B cooperation with other companies. B2G is important, but partnerships with other defense companies are much more flexible. You can reach out directly. The response rate to outreach in this space is incredibly high because everything is moving so fast, and people are looking for innovation.
What Near-Term Risks Keep You up at Night?
The biggest one is market structure. Will Europe build a pan-European industry, or will it stay fragmented and nationalised? What happens when Ukrainian exports open? It is unpredictable. You have to be adaptable.
How Do You Recruit Top Talent Today?
Three things.
First, the tech. The product is engaging and meaningful, and the problems are dynamic.
Second, the mission. Contributing to European defense and making an impact in Ukraine motivates people.
Third, the culture. We value commitment. You have to show up for end users. If something does not work, you go back, fix it, and go back again. Trust is everything. People who join often tell us they feel a lot of support and engagement across the team.
When You Think About Exit Scenarios, What Feels Realistic?
I would like an IPO, but that is an aspiration. M&A is also possible. If we are acquired, I do not think it will be a neo-prime because we do not fit the vertical integration philosophy.
A traditional prime is possible. A large software company focused on C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) and battlefield systems could also be a fit if they decide to make a strategic move into unmanned systems.
If You Could Start Over, What Would You Change?
I would have gone to Ukraine much earlier. And I would focus on becoming a product company earlier. We spent time on technological directions that we did not need in the end.
