Because this technology is in its infancy, terms have different meanings in different contexts. We use the term Micro Aerial Vehicle for HTA UAS platforms under 4.4 pounds--2 kilograms. This has specific value in a FAA context for North American first responders. Your video is the USAF concept of Micro which is probably less than 1/2 a pound (I have yet to encounter a written USAF definition for Micro). They have Small, Micro and Nano--and with Nano I think they mean REAL DARPA Nano--flea-sized.
If we are talking about a strike platform in order to arm an Argus it is probably in the 5KG and under size--this is the definition the Australian Air Force uses for MAV. The extra weight is needed for an adequate warhead/munition. And, something like the Argus would be needed to carry it. The result, however, is a second or third tier military with the power to strike with a PGM at 100+ miles for under $6M US. Ideally we would want the actual expendable MAV/munition to be under $20K--this is about 1/2 the cost of one Israeli Iron Dome missile. Just wanted to clarify, Ren, the MAV designation can be confusing. Fun stuff! IJO
