Doesn’t seem to have too many moving parts; what could go wrong?
It’s a flock of geese away from a crash.
Lotta small props, too much airfoil area. Very innefficient.
LOL. You are, of course, correct to point out the parts-count to weight ratio or whatever you want to call it. But to counter that you have to give Darpa points for REDUNDANCY. So a couple of props fall off. You keep right on flying.
Redundant operating systems overachieved.
Looks like a fixed wing scale up of drone technology to me. I bet the electric motors have plenty of design margin and there is ample thrust for fault tolerance.
I find the top wing curious. The bottom appears to be the airfoil while the top appears flat. Maybe the top is there for turbulence reduction across the top and sides of the motor housings.
I like it. A diesel genset in the fuseleage could make for hours of lumbering over a battle zone. Add in a ground troop support electronics payload, and tell it to autonomously circle a set of GPS coordinates. Give our troops 24/7 eyes and ears.