I could see this also for the personal aircraft market. An expensive sports car for the flyer who has everything. Replace the weapons bay with a baggage hold, or simply add a second seat for the arm-candy.
0:04 I've never heard Scaled Composites that way. The Scaled was find, but "com pos its" is a LOT closer to how Burt really says it, when I visited the place a couple decades ago - with the emphasis on the "pos" part.
2:43 And notable is that the US where the F-5 was designed and built WAS NOT one of the nations that adopted it (except in tiny quantities to simulate "aggressor" aircraft, like at the Top Gun school).
It was a mistake that the U.S. did not deploy the F-5 in volume. It was far better than the F-4 in the air to air role for less than half the cost. The F-5A did not carry the radar guided missiles the F-4 did, but since radar missiles of that era were near to useless (the Navy once fired 50 of them in a row in Vietnam without a single kill), that was a feature rather than a bug. Instead the F-5 put 20mm cannon and Sidewinders on target for minimum cost.
@@MaxPalmer-1 20/20 hindsight is wonderful. We had no way to know prior to extensive combat that those early radar guided missles would be so ineffective. Phantom WAS effective in the air-to-ground role though, when properly guided from the ground - F5 had noticeable less payload on bombs and napalm etc.
0:58 It looks a little like a F-107, the ONLY operational US fighter that put the jet intake HIGH like that - and was a nightmare to jettison from at low altitudes.
And still the Vanguard, using smart guided weapons, is certainly going to have a bigger impact on the battlefield per sortie. The F-5 relied on dumb bombs with standardized delivery profiles for accuracy. So I would argue the payload capacity isn't relevant as a measure of what impact the aircraft has on the battlefield.
The key idea that is often overlooked, even by generals, is that you win long wars of attrition by inflicting maximum destruction per dollar on the enemy. That is the idea all light fighters, from P-51 to F-86 to F-5 to F-16 to JAS 39 Gripen. Now that air power is moving towards drones that are better flown by AI "pilots" than any human ace could fly, cheaper to buy, and far cheaper to operate (no need for 250 hours of flight time per year to train), this type of fighter is the natural result. So yes, it is basically the same idea as the F-5 (most kills per dollar), whose design team was led by Edgar Schmued, who was also the chief designer of the P-51 and the F-86. Ed knew how to best define a fighter plane.
The design is for a drone. They’ve made a manned version for flight testing purposes.
It’s not designed to be pilot flown. The cockpit is only used for interim testing.
I get the F-5 comparison, but IMO this suits the role of a Forward Air Controller, like the Bronco.
It’s not fast enough, but there is definitely a market for small next gen export fighters
I could see this also for the personal aircraft market. An expensive sports car for the flyer who has everything. Replace the weapons bay with a baggage hold, or simply add a second seat for the arm-candy.
Looks like a later iteration of Burt's, "Mud Fighter".
A better example would be the Folland Gnat, particularly its combat successes against theoretically superior aircraft like the Canadair Sabres.
0:04
I've never heard Scaled Composites that way.
The Scaled was find, but "com pos its" is a LOT closer to how Burt really says it, when I visited the place a couple decades ago - with the emphasis on the "pos" part.
ULTRA low cost planes
Would be a good stealth tactic trainer.
Or light attack/patrol low observerbable
2:43
And notable is that the US where the F-5 was designed and built WAS NOT one of the nations that adopted it (except in tiny quantities to simulate "aggressor" aircraft, like at the Top Gun school).
But they bought boat-loads of T-38s which are a minor variation
It was a mistake that the U.S. did not deploy the F-5 in volume. It was far better than the F-4 in the air to air role for less than half the cost. The F-5A did not carry the radar guided missiles the F-4 did, but since radar missiles of that era were near to useless (the Navy once fired 50 of them in a row in Vietnam without a single kill), that was a feature rather than a bug. Instead the F-5 put 20mm cannon and Sidewinders on target for minimum cost.
@@MaxPalmer-1 20/20 hindsight is wonderful.
We had no way to know prior to extensive combat that those early radar guided missles would be so ineffective.
Phantom WAS effective in the air-to-ground role though, when properly guided from the ground - F5 had noticeable less payload on bombs and napalm etc.
0:58
It looks a little like a F-107, the ONLY operational US fighter that put the jet intake HIGH like that - and was a nightmare to jettison from at low altitudes.
The F-107 was never operational.
F-5 has almost 2800 kg ( 6200 pounds ) of payload capacity . That is a lot more that Vanguard can carry .
it's the concept, jesus
And still the Vanguard, using smart guided weapons, is certainly going to have a bigger impact on the battlefield per sortie. The F-5 relied on dumb bombs with standardized delivery profiles for accuracy. So I would argue the payload capacity isn't relevant as a measure of what impact the aircraft has on the battlefield.
luckily the Vanguard will have access to things like small diameter bombs
Probably would be good for to mass produce these
Is it a drone? Only makes sense for military use as a drone. Low cost/high performance and most effective in large numbers.
I want one! Maybe a hombuilt
Whats its purposs
Vanguard Looks like the german he 162 but modernized.
Should have made this a trainer
Nice voice!
The key idea that is often overlooked, even by generals, is that you win long wars of attrition by inflicting maximum destruction per dollar on the enemy. That is the idea all light fighters, from P-51 to F-86 to F-5 to F-16 to JAS 39 Gripen. Now that air power is moving towards drones that are better flown by AI "pilots" than any human ace could fly, cheaper to buy, and far cheaper to operate (no need for 250 hours of flight time per year to train), this type of fighter is the natural result. So yes, it is basically the same idea as the F-5 (most kills per dollar), whose design team was led by Edgar Schmued, who was also the chief designer of the P-51 and the F-86. Ed knew how to best define a fighter plane.
Hey, that's not an F107!
Looks like an effective affordable low RCS flying abomination
more like the He-162
Tell us you know nothing about the Model 437 without telling us you know nothing about the Model 437 🤷♂️
Looks like a GA jet, not even supersonic.
Ok
Another over hyped junk
sure looks like a fukton of layup tooling and assembly fixtures....stufu about little or no tooling you propaganda regurigitator