Retrofit kits versus complete vehicles

This reveals a two door export strategy, sell autonomy as a kit where allies already have usable trucks or tactical vehicles, and sell a finished robot where the fleet base is missing or too hard to adapt. That matters because defense buyers rarely replace whole vehicle fleets just to add software. A retrofit path fits existing budgets, maintenance shops, and training pipelines, while complete vehicles cover missions that need a purpose built platform from day one.1 2 3 4

• SPARK was launched in March 2025 as an upfit that adds OverDrive software, sensors, and compute to wheeled and tracked vehicles already in service. Overland frames it as a way to avoid the long timeline of buying entirely new autonomous systems.1 2
• Overland also sells full vehicles, ULTRA and later IBEX. IBEX is built on the Polaris MRZR platform and uses the same software and SPARK hardware stack. That gives buyers a fallback when their local fleet is too old, too fragmented, or not suited for the mission payload.3 4
• The closest export playbook is Shield AI in aircraft, where a foreign customer bought both the vehicle and autonomy software, then added local offices and partners to support deployment. That shows allied demand can expand beyond U.S. programs, but only when software, hardware, and in country support travel together.5 6

The next step is a split market. Countries with large installed fleets are likely to start with retrofit autonomy, then standardize on a small number of validated platforms. Countries building new unmanned units from scratch are more likely to buy complete vehicles first. The winners will be the vendors that can support both motions with the same autonomy stack.1 3 4 5 6