If it were beneficial in total, most transonic planes would have it. The only aerodynamic advantage over backward swept wings is higher manoeuvrability, which isn't a priority here. This isn't a dogfighter. My money is still on better payload distribution.
more effective control of the ailerons
Not sure what that means. I don't think agility is a priority with a jet-powered drone. Or benign stall characteristics.
reduction in vortices formed by the wingtip which would increase drag and decrease efficiency
That is negligible. We know how to reduce wingtip vortices, and reverse sweep is not the answer. Raked wingtips as used on the 787 and the larger-wing versions of the 777 and the 777X are optimal for transonic flight. Blended winglets are a close second, as used on the A350 and A330neo. Again, not forward sweep.
This thing also does not look very refined aerodynamically, and there are many more things that could be done to reduce drag that are much cheaper. Wing-body fairings come to mind to reduce interference drag, or winglets if you really want to go there. This has all the looks of "Eh. Good enough. Send it!", which makes sense given the urgency.
I wonder what the design decision was for the forward-swept wings. These typically decrease lateral stability and increase structural weight, because they require substantially higher stiffness for flutter-resistance compared to straight or rear-swept wings. Maybe so the main wing spar can be further aft to have a larger contiguous payload bay. The HansaJet had forward-swept wings for a similar reason (no main spar in the cabin).
Possibly a Trembita, then. Probably using a valveless design rather than the fragile valve system on the original V1. Even cheaper than the already cheap and simple Schmidt-Argus valved pulsejet.
Nice soundtrack. Ironically it was a song inspired by Glasnost, when the Soviet Union finally seemed to open up to the west and become more transparent and democratic ("Wind of Change").
Umm. That video is 2 years old. So is there any new news?
And as with all these, including the Terrafugia Transition, the Klein AirCar will be both a bad car, and a bad plane. There are just too many conflicting requirements to make any single vehicle perform well in both areas. In almost all practical cases, everyone will be better off with a plane and a cars (or 10 cars, one at each airfield to which one flies regularly), instead of one of these, and it will be cheaper, too. And available now. And faster (92 knots cruise? Really? A Cherokee 140 is faster), have higher payloads, etc., etc.
True enough. But it's still quite literally "playing with fire". Maybe necessary, but terribly dangerous to the operators, too; much more so than most "refined" weapon systems.
"Weapon Safety" is a thing.
I find "loitering munitions" fine, people should just get used to correct non-sensationalist terminology. Or maybe sacrificial drones, or cruise missiles, although these traditionally have no loiter phase. But Kamikaze has the very strong implication of a human sacrifice, I find equating that with a single use or expendable drone to be in poor taste. Cruise missiles have been "smart" at least since the late 1980s, so that's nothing new, either. Just because this one can fly in circles for a while does not make it more sacrificial than faster, straight-flying ones.
Why do people keep calling these "Kamikaze"? The point of the Kamikaze was that there was a human pilot inside, who was going on a suicide mission. These are just inanimate things. Drones, cruise missiles, whatever, NOT kamikaze.
Or else I will start calling all bombs, artillery shells, all munitions that destroy themselves at the target, "kamikaze":
"Germany has agreed to send more kamikaze ammunition for the Gepard anti-aircraft systems, along with a number of IRIS-T kamikaze anti-aircraft missiles, and 50 Taurus kamikaze cruise missiles." "The US have announced that they would deliver 15,000 new kamikaze artillery shells to Ukraine."
There's no such thing as a MiG-24. (MiG has only ever used odd-numbered model designations, though I don't know why. But it's one of the reasons why it was a safe bet for Top Gun to use "MiG-28", being sure not to refer to any real aircraft, past, present or (probably) future.
Although I'm a bit late, it is worth mentioning, that the Tu-22M3 is not just a variant of the Tu-22. The Tu-22 was a completely different aircraft, and the Tu-22M retained the name only for political reasons. The Tu-22M3, though, is actually a development of the Tu-22M, most notably with different air intakes.
Probably "Interesting", but it wasn't very hard. Probably within limits for the airframe, although the right nacelle came too close to the ground for comfort. But this kind of inane commentary is why I stopped watching BigJetTV. I much prefer Simon Lowe, who is also a better videographer, with his first published videos predating youtube.
It's not a cruise missile. It's ECM and reconnaissance/intelligence gathering.