• Project Astra is an experimental effort to reimagine what AI agents can be in the future.
• I got to test out the new AI technology at Google's I/O conference. 
• I danced with the AI agent and spoke with Gregory Wayne, the head of Project Astra. He's a human. 

Project Astra was the coolest new technology Google showed off at its I/O conference on Tuesday.

After the keynote, journalists were herded over to a demo area for Project Astra. It's an experimental effort to reimagine what AI agents can be in the future.

"We've always wanted to build a universal agent that will be useful in everyday life," Google DeepMind chief Demis Hassabis said.

Once at the test location, Google let four journalists at a time into little demo booths. Before we went in, while waiting in line, two members of the Project Astra team from DeepMind walked us through how to use the technology. 

They described four modes for us to try out: Storyteller, Pictionary, Free-Form and Alliteration.

Free-Form mode

We tried Free-Form mode. Max Cherney, a journalist from Reuters, held up a Google-provided Android phone and pointed the camera at me.

"Describe his clothes," Max said.

Google's Gemini model reviewed the phone's live video and said I was wearing casual clothes. An accurate, solid answer. 

I started dancing and Max asked, "what is he doing now?" Gemini responded incorrectly, kind of. It said I had put on sunglasses. Which was true, because I'd put on some sunnies to dance. But it didn't spot the dancing. Admittedly, I was dancing badly, so maybe the AI model gets a pass on that. 

No stock quotes

Then Max asked Gemini to critique my attire, because he wanted Gemini to do some analysis and share a point of view. 

The AI model said "I can't provide stock quotes right now." We all stopped as the AI magic had abruptly ended. 

A car and a story

I then moved to a large touch screen that offered the four modes to try. I chose Pictionary. I drew a really bad car, and Gemini said "that looks like a car."

I asked it to put the vehicle in an interesting story. "The sleek, blue car sped down the highway, a lonely traveler on a moonlit night," Gemini said. 

I had the car drive into a marketplace and Gemini said doing that would be unsafe in reality, but it could make a good story plot twist. 

"Is that it?" Gemini asked. 

I drew a table of fruit at the market. It was even worse than the car. Then I said someone should steal fruit in the story. 

"Ah, a fruit thief adds an interesting twist! Are they getting away with it so far?" Gemini said. 

At this point, the demo ended and we were ushered out of the booth.

Gregory Wayne and Captain Cook

Just outside, I ran into Gregory Wayne, the head of Project Astra. He's been at DeepMind for about a decade and we discussed the origins on Project Astra. 

He said he's been fascinated by how humans communicate using language. Not just written and spoken words, but all the other forms of communication that make human interaction so rich and satisfying. 

He recounted a story about when Captain Cook arrived in Tierra del Fuego and met the inhabitants. They did not speak the same language, so they communicated through actions, such as picking up sticks and throwing them to the side, which signified that Cook and his crew were welcome. 

Wayne and his colleagues were fascinated by the story because it showed all the other ways that humans can communicate with each other beyond what people are taught to do through written words and speaking aloud. 

Beyond chatbots

This is part of what inspired Project Astra, Wayne said. It's all about going beyond what chatbots do right now, which is mostly understanding written and spoken words and conducting simple back-and-forth conversations, where the computer says something, then the human does, then the computer again and so on. 

One of the main goals of Project Astra is to get AI models to comprehend many of the other things going on around text and speech-based communication. That might be hand signals, or the context of what's going on in the world at the moment of the conversation. 

In the future, this could include something like an AI model or agent spotting something in the background of a video feed and alerting the human in the conversation. That might be a bicycle approaching, or telling the user when a traffic light changes color. 

The options are endless, and also include an AI model understanding, through kind of reading the room, that it should stop talking and let the human say something. 

SuperEvilMegaCorp

I told Wayne about the slightly disappointing moment when Gemini didn't critique my clothes and instead said it couldn't provide stock quotes right now. 

He immediately looked at my T-shirt, which has a real startup logo on it that reads "SuperEvilMegaCorp." Wayne theorized that Gemini saw the corporation name and guessed that we wanted to know financial information about this company. 

SuperEvilMegaCorp is a gaming startup in Silicon Valley that is not publicly traded, so there's no real-time stock information to be had. Gemini didn't know that. Maybe it's learning this right now, though.   

• While promoting Project Astra, Google CEO Sundar Pichai teased the possible return of Google Glass.
• Pichai told CNBC that Google is working on prototype glasses to work with Project Astra's AI model.
• The first Google Glass was originally launched in 2013 and was a remarkable commercial failure.

Google Glass might be ready to make a comeback.

In an interview with CNBC on Tuesday, Google CEO Sundar Pichar teased the possible return of the wearable technology, integrated with Google's new multimodal AI assistant, Project Astra.

"Project Astra shines when you have a form factor like glasses," Pichar told CNBC. "We are working on prototypes."

In the Project Astra demo, the prototype glasses help the wearer enhance schematic plans on a whiteboard, interpret a drawing meant to reference the Schrödinger's Cat paradox, and create a band name based on a Golden Retriever and its stuffed toy tiger.

Representatives for Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

In his CNBC appearance, Pichar didn't elaborate further on the prototypes under development or how soon Project Astra will be implemented into wearable tech like glasses.

However, users commenting on the demo quickly congratulated Google for reinvigorating the technology that stopped production nearly a decade ago.

"Google Glass has RE-entered the chat," one user quipped below the YouTube video promoting Project Astra and featuring the prototype glasses.

"I do think the Google Glass was ahead of its time, and now is the ideal time to rerelease it, especially after Apple and Facebook's sudden interest in this market," another wrote.

The original Google Glass debuted in 2013 but was a remarkable commercial failure. Initially toted as the way of the future, wearers of the tech were mercilessly mocked, and the release of Google Glass 1.0 was marred by literal and figurative headaches during production, as author Quinn Meyers noted in his book "Google Glass: Remember the Internet no. 3."

Production on the original Google Glass was ultimately discontinued in 2015, though two enterprise editions were attempted in 2017 and 2019, respectively. Sales on both were discontinued by 2023.

However, given the Project Astra demo, it appears Google never fully gave up on its plan, and a resurgence of the tech featuring Google's latest iteration of its Gemini AI assistant may be very close on the horizon.

• Mark Zuckerberg's 40th birthday bash featured recreations of his old bedrooms.
• Bill Gates, in a black hoodie, hung out in a replica of Zuckerberg's Harvard dorm room.
• Gates and Zuckerberg both dropped out of Harvard to pursue their own ventures.

Mark Zuckerberg's 40th birthday bash gave us a glimpse of an alternate universe where Zuck and Bill Gates are college roommates.

Zuckerberg showcased the party in a Tuesday Instagram post. The slideshow shows him in mini-replicas of some of his former cribs — including the Harvard dorm room where he launched Facebook.

Gates, in a black hoodie, blue-gray gym shorts, and tennis shoes, was crouched on a little red sofa next to him.

"Grateful for my first 40 years! Priscilla threw me a little party and recreated a bunch of places I lived in the early days," Zuckerberg wrote in his Instagram caption.

Zuckerberg's wife, Priscilla Chan, also recreated her husband's childhood bedroom, his first apartment, and a pizzeria where Zuckerberg said he "basically lived in college."

The Meta CEO attended Harvard University between 2002 and 2004. He dropped out before he finished his schooling soon after he founded Facebook.

Gates's story is similar: He attended Harvard between 1973 and 1975 but dropped out to start Microsoft.

At the party, Zuck was dripped out in a chain necklace.

Zuckerberg has recently changed his style, opting for more plain tees and gold chains. The look has drawn comparisons to "mob chic" trends and rapper swag.

He also sported a black shirt that read "Carthago delenda est" in old English lettering. The Latin message translates to "Carthage must be destroyed" and was famously uttered by Cato the Elder.

It's unclear if Zuckerberg wanted anything to be destroyed at his birthday party, but he reportedly uttered this phrase on the day Google Plus was launched in 2016.

Zuckerberg's birthday post ended with a video message from his closest family and friends set to "In Da Club" by 50 Cent. Some friends sent sweet and heartfelt well wishes, while others opted to roast the tech billionaire.

"I can't believe you're 40, you old piece of shit," one unidentified person said.

Representatives for Zuckerberg and Gates did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• Google demonstrated Gemini-powered updates for Gmail at its developer conference on Tuesday.
• Gemini will be able to pull, summarize, and organize information from all over your inbox. 
• The features show just how incredible Gmail could get with an AI-powered assistant.

One of the big takeaways from Google's big developer conference on Tuesday was just how incredible Gmail looks like it's about to get.

Google's signature email service is already beloved and indispensable for many, with more than 1.8 billion users worldwide. But the coming updates and seemingly smooth integration of Google's AI model Gemini could take Gmail to the next level.

In a live demonstration during the Google I/O keynote, Aparna Pappu, vice president of Google Workspace, announced three updates coming to Gmail that will use a Gemini-powered Side Panel Assistant:

Summarize

The first feature is a summarize option, where Gemini can read through a long email thread and summarize the main points, saving you from having to scroll up and read replies you may have missed.

Q&A

The Q&A function allows Gmail users to simply ask a question that Gemini can answer by referencing all of their emails and attachments. Examples given include, "What time do doors open for the Knicks' game?" and "When are my shoes arriving?" Rather than have to search for an email, open it, and read through it to find the answer you're looking for, Gemini can do it for you.

Contextual smart reply

The third feature is contextual smart reply, where Gemini suggests potential email responses. Unlike basic predictive response tools, the new function will suggest customized responses based on Gemini reviewing what's already been discussed.

Google said the features will first roll out to Google Workspace Labs, a program where users can experiment with AI, in the coming months.

The AI-powered assistant could transform the Gmail experience

If you're still not sure exactly how useful the new Gmail features could be, Pappu walked through a real-life use case.

In her example, she was trying to schedule someone to do roof repairs on her house. First, Gemini summarized a long email thread with one of the potential contractors for her to review. But she couldn't remember what the quotes were from the other two contractors she contacted.

Rather than have to search through her inbox, find the other emails, remember the various quotes and availability of each, she simply asked Gemini to "compare my roof repair bids by price and availability."

Within moments, Gemini returned a brief summary of each bid, accessing and compiling the relevant information from three different email threads, making it easy to quickly compare them.

When she went to reply, Gemini's suggested response options showed it understood the back-and-forth up to that point.

Integration into other Workspace products

Google also showed just how well integrated the Gmail of the future could be with other Workspace products, like Google Sheets.

In another example, Pappu asked Gemini to help her organize and track receipts.

Within moments, Gemini scanned the inbox and compiled all the receipts into a detailed and neatly laid out spreadsheet — a process that could take hours if completed manually. Users can also have Gemini automate this process, so receipts in the future would automatically be organized and added.

Overall, Google's demonstrations showed just how impressive AI-powered features could be in Gmail.

For those who rely on Gmail in their professional and personal lives, the integration of Gemini sure looks like it might be a game-changing AI assistant.

• The F-22 Raptor, a fifth-generation fighter, has a reputation as the top US air superiority fighter.
• But the stealth fighter jet lost mock dogfights to older jets, like the German Eurofighter Typhoon.
• So is the Raptor or the Typhoon the superior fighter? The answer: it depends on the circumstances.

Despite the F-22 Raptor's reputation as the world's most capable air superiority fighter, the stealth jet has lost a number of notional dogfights over the years to older and less advanced platforms like the F-16 and even the Navy's electronic-warfare specialist, the EA-18G Growler. But few exercises have done more damage to the mighty Raptor's reputation than a series of training dogfights with German Eurofighter Typhoons that took place just about a decade ago.

These losses may have been notional, but some people clearly took them seriously. So seriously, in fact, that German Eurofighters were spotted wearing F-22 kill markings on their fuselages after telling the press that they had "Raptor salad for lunch."

With the Air Force's Next Generation Air Dominance fighter cruising toward service in the coming decade, it now seems likely that the mighty Raptor will retire without ever firing a shot at another aircraft in anger, making these simulated combat exercises and a handful of exciting intercepts the extent of the Raptor's air-to-air legacy.

So what is that legacy exactly? Is the F-22 truly as dominant as people believe? Or is this fighter's biggest advantage not stealth… but hype?

Where it all started…

Arguments about the F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon largely stem from German Eurofighters' participation in the Air Force's large-scale Red Flag air combat exercises over Alaska in 2012.

Red Flag is an advanced aerial combat training course that pits a wide variety of aircraft, often from multiple nations, against large-scale and realistic threats meant to simulate a real near-peer fight.

That year, Germany sent 150 Airmen and eight Eurofighter Typhoons from JG 74, or the Luftwaffe's 74th Tactical Air Force Wing, to Eielson AFB in Alaska to participate in a wide variety of missions over two weeks. Included among them was a series of close-range Basic Fighter Maneuver (BFM) drills with America's Raptors. BFM, of course, is fighter-pilot parlance for dog fights.

After the exercises were over, Germany's Eurofighter pilots arrived at 2012's Farnborough International Air Show, where they were quick to discuss their victories over the F-22. According to David Cenciotti's coverage for The Aviationist, Germany's Typhoon pilots explained that when the F-22 was flying with external fuel tanks attached and fighting within visual range, Typhoons were often able to outclass the Raptor.

How does the Eurofighter Typhoon compare to the F-22 Raptor?

Despite their generational differences, the F-22 Raptor and Eurofighter Typhoon actually have a number of things in common. They were both originally designed to serve as air superiority fighters born out of the Cold War, with the Typhoon first taking to the skies in 1994 and the F-22 following behind in 1997. Likewise, both fighters ultimately entered service in the early-to-mid 2000s, with the Typhoon entering active duty in 2003 and the Raptor, once again, following behind in 2005.

But despite these aircraft being designed at around the same time to serve in similar capacities, they differ dramatically in how they go about accomplishing their mission.

The F-22 Raptor was always meant to be a revolution in airpower, leaning heavily into America's groundbreaking stealth technology to produce what was — and remains — the stealthiest operational fighter on the face of the planet. But it's not just stealth that makes the Raptor a capable platform. It also boasts a high degree of sensor fusion and advanced avionics that allow for an extreme degree of situational awareness while reducing cognitive load for the pilot. In other words, the F-22's onboard computers allow the pilot to devote more attention to the fight and less to operating the aircraft.

"When you're flying the Raptor, you're not thinking about flying the Raptor," explained F-22 pilot Randy Gordon in a lecture he gave at MIT, "You're thinking about employing the Raptor. Flying is secondary."

But the F-22 isn't all about stealth and sensor fusion. It also incorporates elements of what might be considered 4th-generation dogfighting design: like thrust vector control or the ability to orient its jet nozzles independent of the airframe to perform incredibly aerobatic maneuvers, a high thrust-to-weight ratio, and an M61A2 20mm Gatling gun that can fire its onboard 480 rounds at a blistering rate of 6,000 per minute.

"Raptor has vector thrust: Typhoon doesn't," RAF Typhoon pilot and squadron commander Rich Wells told Breaking Defense in 2013. "What the aircraft can do, it's incredible. The Typhoon just doesn't do that."

And while it usually carries a total of eight weapons internally (six AMRAAMs and two AIM-9 Sidewinders), it can be fitted with four external pylon stations for additional munitions when it's tired of speaking softly and decides to become its own big stick.

As a result, the F-22 bridges two combat philosophies offering such a high degree of stealth and situational awareness that it can win most fights before the opponent even knows that it's there, alongside a highly respectable slew of traditional dogfighting traits that allow it to stand and swing with the most dynamic hotrod dogfighters of the previous generation.

The Eurofighter Typhoon, on the other hand, wasn't aiming to reinvent the existing air superiority model, so much as to perfect it as it was. Its delta-wing design, a shape nearly adopted by the F-22's defunct bomber sibling, offers a high degree of subsonic maneuverability alongside increased lift and range. The design, as well as the materials that make up the Typhoon, all lend it a higher degree of stealth than you might find in most comparably advanced 4th-generation fighters.

In fact, according to Eurofighter promotional materials: The aircraft is built with advanced composite materials to deliver a low radar profile and strong airframe. Only 15% of the aircraft's surface is metal, delivering stealth operation and protection from radar-based systems."

Like many other fighters, including the F-22, the Typhoon also leverages electronic warfare capabilities to obscure its radar return. And unlike the maintenance-heavy Raptor, the Typhoon was designed to be easy to maintain, assembled out of 15 interchangeable modules to minimize repair time. When up close and personal, the Typhoon's Mauser BK27mm gun fires at either 1,000 or 1,700 rounds per minute, with 150 rounds carried onboard.

Since entering service, the Typhoon has matured into an extremely capable multi-role platform, leaving its air superiority roots behind to become one of the most well-rounded fighters in service today, leveraging its 13 hard points for a wide variety of mission sets.

"The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high G forces), very impressive," explained Gen. John P. Jumper, former Air Force Chief of Staff and among the few pilots to have seat time in both the Raptor and Typhoon. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. — all absolutely top-notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."

The Typhoons pair of Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan engines aren't quite as powerful as the Raptor's, propelling the Eurofighter to a top speed of Mach 2, vice the Raptors 2.25 — but top speed doesn't mean much in a fight, and the Eurofighter's comparatively lower weight allows for a better thrust-to-weight ratio for the Typhoon (in its interceptor configuration) than a similarly equipped Raptor.

F-22 vs. Eurofighter Typhoon: What do we know about the exercises?

Although many details remain murky, there are some things we know for sure about these 2012 dogfight exercises. Based on pilot statements, we know that at least some (if not all) of them were one-on-one engagements. Most importantly, they occurred within visual range with a number of reports stating that the Raptor was carrying stealth (and aerobatics) hindering external fuel tanks.

This distinction is essential because it means the fighting began under a forced pretense that effectively neutered the Raptor's greatest strength: its ability to use stealth and situational awareness to dictate how an engagement begins and, if the reports of fuel tanks are true, its aerobatic maneuverability.

In real life, F-22 pilots would almost certainly be aware of the Typhoon before the Typhoon was aware of it, allowing the Raptor to put itself into an advantageous position before the fighting began (or simply taking out the Typhoon from beyond visual range). And it goes without saying that no pilot would dogfight for their lives with external fuel tanks still hanging from their wings.

This type of exercise is common in military training, however, and could be compared to offensive and defensive positions in scholastic wrestling. A neutral start in wrestling begins with both athletes on their feet — this would be like two fighters flying into an exercise in the same way they might in real life.

Starting in a defensive (or disadvantaged) position, on the other hand, is when one wrestler begins the period on their hands and knees, with their opponent next to them on one knee with an arm over their back (the advantage). In the case of these specific exercises, the F-22 played the role of the disadvantaged wrestler starting from its knees — playing to the Eurofighter's strengths, rather than its own.

But like in wrestling, we should note that starting in a defensive or disadvantaged position isn't an excuse for losing. It's just part of the game.

Some allowances were also made for the Eurofighter before the fighting began. While the F-22 was carrying external fuel tanks that, to some extent, compromised both its aerobatic and stealth performance, the Eurofighter Typhoon that participated in one-on-one dogfights against the Raptor was allowed to fly not only without fuel tanks, but without any external munitions at all. This not only improved the Typhoon's maneuverability, but it also couldn't happen in a real fight lest the Eurofighter be left with nothing but its guns.

"There were two mornings where we flew against them 1v1. We pulled off all the tanks to get the most alpha [angle of attack]; the Eurofighter really is an animal with no tanks," Germany's Maj. Marc Gruene, one of the pilots who participated in the drills, explained.

How many of each fighter participated in these drills, what the rules of engagement were, and what the final kill ratios for each fighter were are all details that neither nation has disclosed, though there have been a number of claims made online. While these claims haven't been confirmed, they all report more wins for the F-22 than the Eurofighter, but F-22s clearly took home some losses as well.

Today's Eurofighter Typhoons come equipped with both a helmet-mounted targeting system to engage enemy fighters off-boresight (without aiming the nose of the aircraft at them), as well as the PIRATE infrared search and track (IRST) system that's potentially capable of spotting stealth fighters at distances as great as 30 miles out. This would have been a significant advantage over the F-22 — which carries neither capability to date — but at the time of these dogfight exercises, these systems were still being rolled out to Germany's Air Force, and the Typhoons that participated in the drills did not have them.

What happened when the F-22 and Eurofighter squared off?

According to the German pilots, once the fighting began, the F-22's thrust-vector control (TVC) actually hindered the Raptor, rather than helping it when sparring in close quarters with the Typhoon.

"The key is to get as close as possible to the F-22 and stay there. They didn't expect us to turn so aggressively," Gruene told Combat Aircraft magazine back in 2012. "As soon as you get to the merge… the Typhoon doesn't necessarily have to fear the F-22." 

(The Merge, for clarification's sake, isn't just the name of a great aviation newsletter. It's also what fighter pilots call it when two fighters meet head-on in a close-quarters pass.)

TVC does allow a fighter to perform extreme maneuvers, but they come at a high cost. In a dogfight, airspeed is life, and the exotic displays TVC allows all scrub a great deal of it. When the F-22 uses its thrust-vectoring nozzles to turn on a dime, the jet is vulnerable until it can regain airspeed. If it doesn't manage to score a kill immediately after performing such a maneuver, the Raptor becomes easy prey until its powerful pair of F-119-PW-100 turbofan engines can get all 70,000 pounds of fighter moving again.

Here's how it was explained by an unnamed Eurofighter test pilot to Cenciotti:

"If you are 'defensive' and your aircraft has Thrust Vectoring, you can possibly outturn your enemy, but that most likely won't prove to be a great idea: an energy fighter like the Typhoon will conveniently 'use the vertical' to retain energy and aggressively reposition for a missile or gun shot. Also the subsequent acceleration will be extremely time (and fuel) consuming, giving your opponent the opportunity to tail chase you forever, exploiting all its short range weapon array."

But even on the offensive, using TVC to quickly orient the nose of your fighter toward the enemy isn't always a good idea either. Because aggressive maneuvers strip the fighter of energy, you may score a kill against the opponent in front of you, but you're left vulnerable to any others nearby. This inherent issue with thrust vectoring combat tactics is really why no other American fighters are equipped with it, and in fact, Raptor pilots themselves will tell you that the real benefit of TVC in their aircraft is maintaining a degree of maneuverability while flying at a high angle of attack when control surfaces aren't as effective, rather than performing air show maneuvers in a dogfight.

At least two Eurofighters scored kills against F-22s… but there's more to this story

We know for sure that at least some (likely two) Eurofighters actually scored notional kills against their F-22 opponents in these drills. That story was quickly picked up by news outlets around the world, eager for a story about America's expensive Raptor failing to live up to expectations.

What we don't know, however, is how many kills Raptors scored against Typhoons, though it seems clear from official statements that the number was definitely not zero. In other words, the story wasn't that Raptors consistently lost to Eurofighters, but rather, that sometimes they did.

So what does that mean, exactly?

When aviation buffs start squaring off in the comments sections below articles and videos about their favorite (or least favorite) fighter platforms, it usually doesn't take long for the discourse to stop sounding like a well-informed debate and start sounding like 3rd graders arguing about whose dad can beat up who's. The complex context of air combat gives way to oversimplification and hyperbole until everything devolves into ad hominem attacks and seemingly made-up and uncitable statistics.

What can I say? Airplane folks go hard.

There are, however, reasonable arguments to be made from both sides of this debate, which I'll try to capture below:

The Raptor-fan argument

Those in the Raptor camp will contend that exercises like these, with their contrived circumstances and intentionally one-sided rules of engagement may be good for training, but they're a poor measure of a fighter's actual performance in the absence of broader context. The very nature of these exercises set out to put the Raptor at a disadvantage, eliminating the platform's greatest strengths — its stealth and beyond-visual range capabilities, in favor of an old-fashioned shoot-out the likes of which haven't been seen at scale since the Vietnam War. According to media reports, the F-22 "decimated" the Typhoon when able to engage from beyond visual range because it didn't have to fly with one wing tied behind its back.

In a real fight, the F-22 would likely be aware of the Typhoon's presence well before the Typhoon was aware of it, and even if the Eurofighter and pilot proved too quick on the stick to be taken out with an AMRAAM at long distance, the Raptor could use its superior situational awareness and low observability to close in on its European foe from an advantageous position, greatly improving its chances of success.

And perhaps most importantly of all, Raptor fans will argue that Germany was bragging about scoring a few kills against the Raptor… but they never once claimed that the Eurofighter won more sparring matches than the Raptor did. They simply claimed that it won some, and that was with a number of distinct advantages handed to them.

The fact of the matter is, the headline-grabbing story wasn't about Eurofighters dominating the F-22… It was about two of them managing to score wins at all against an aircraft many think of as invincible.

The Typhoon-fan argument

Those in the Eurofighter Typhoon's camp, on the other hand, will argue that these exercises, like real combat, aren't about being fair. The Eurofighter's ability to stand and scrap with the Raptor in close quarters is proof positive that the Typhoon is capable of competing with the most advanced (and expensive) fighters on the planet when it comes to close-quarters air combat.

And that, combined with its improved avionics and beyond-visual range capabilities that have manifested since that interaction, make the Eurofighter Typhoon one of the best pound-for-pound fighters anywhere on the planet.

Its foreign-sales price is, after all, right around $124 million — which is an incredible bargain compared to the estimated $400 million or so per Raptor, at least, when you include its research and development costs in each F-22's price tag.

Even if Raptors did score more kills against Typhoons than the Germans did against Raptors as a number of sources have reported, the fact that the 4th generation Eurofighter was a genuine threat to the F-22 at all proves that its supremacy isn't as assured as so many Raptor fanboys like to believe.

But the truth is…

Both of these arguments are right. The F-22 Raptor isn't considered the most dominant air superiority fighter in the sky because it can't lose. That's not how combat works — heck, it's not how any kind of fighting works. No matter how capable, no matter how advanced, no matter how well trained, anyone can find themselves knee-deep in a disadvantage they can't overcome.

Eric Wicklund, a former Operations Specialist in the US Navy, made this point rather eloquently earlier this year:

"World War II ace, Erich Hartmann is the highest scoring ace, ever, with 352 kills. That doesn't mean he never lost. He got shot down 16 times! He's still the greatest ace, because he won much more often than he lost."

The F-22's advanced avionics, high degree of maneuverability, and extremely low observability all make it an incredibly capable platform, but nothing makes a fighter invincible. If you stack the deck against anything, it'll find its limits — and it's important to note that finding those limits, of both the pilot and the platform, is the real reason these exercises exist.

Red Flag isn't about winning internet dog fights, it's about going on to win real ones. Taking home a few W's in a series of staged exercises doesn't mean nothing, but it doesn't mean everything either.

The truth is, the Eurofighter Typhoon is an incredibly capable 4th generation fighter, but when you pit it against a 5th generation fighter, that stealthy opponent — be it F-22, F-35, or maybe even J-20 — is likely going to win most engagements in a relatively boring (and rather sneaky) way.

But if these stealth jets happen to find themselves within gun's reach of the Eurofighter, the victor isn't as easy to divine. And that's an important lesson for both 4th and 5th generation pilots to take away from these exercises.

This assertion is substantiated in numbers we can confirm: in its earliest appearances at Red Flag back in 2006 and 2007, F-22s racked up 144 and 241 wins respectively, but lost a handful of jets as well to lowly 4th generation fighters like the F-16C — which was the first platform ever to down an F-22. in a mock dogfight. In fact, in the F-22's first air-to-air outing (without being limited to within visual range), it took out eight F-15s without them ever managing to paint it with a target.

But… if you can get in close with the F-22 and eliminate its technological advantages, the Raptor is just another aircraft in a fight for its life.

"The Raptor's unique capabilities are overwhelming, but as soon as you get to the merge, which is [admittedly] only a very small spectrum of air combat, the Typhoon doesn't necessarily have to fear the F-22 in all aspects. We gain energy better than the F-22 when we are slow, for example," Fighter Wing 74 commander Col. Andreas Pfeiffer said of the mock engagements.

This all reminds me of something an American intelligence contractor told me years ago about US special operations units. They're the most elite operators in the world with the best training, the best equipment, and the best support… but just about every Navy SEAL, Delta operator, or Army Ranger who's been killed in combat over the past two decades wasn't taken down by a similarly elite group of ISIS or Al-Qaeda commandos. More often than not, it's a poorly trained young man with a poorly maintained AK-47, no body armor, and some luck on his side.

You can give your warfighters all the advantages in the world, but nobody knows how a fight will play out until it does. In fact, according to Air Force Col. Thomas Bergeson, in Red Flag exercises, "you have a great day if you lose only 10% of your forces." And he's not alone.

"If you see numbers where you never have a loss, I don't think you're training to your full ability," explained Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver, 27th FS commander, back in 2007. "If you don't, at some point, have that simulated loss, we're not going to push ourselves to be as capable as we are."

That's the unfortunate reality of defense technology analysis. The real answer is rarely pithy, rarely simple, and rarely can stand on its own without some broader context. The internet prefers that we speak in concise absolutes, but the only incisive answer you can really give when asked which out of the two contemporary platforms is best is… it depends.

It depends on the mission, the circumstances, the rules of engagement, the pilots, the mission planning, the training, the budget, the over-arching combat doctrine, and if any of the pilots had two extra cups of coffee this morning and is distracted by the pressing need to find a toilet.

"No matter how magical the F-22, any pilot can make a mistake, explained Air Force Lt. Col. Dirk Smith in 2007. "The beauty of Red Flag is that we were able to go out and practice our tactics in a challenging scenario, make a mistake, learn a lesson, and be that much better prepared for actual combat."

So what's the verdict between the F-22 Raptor and Eurofighter Typhoon?

Can the Eurofighter Typhoon beat the F-22 Raptor in a dogfight? The answer is an unequivocal yes. It's a very capable jet, and, under the right set of rare and unusual circumstances, just about anything could beat the F-22. In fact, if you were really impressed by the F-22 kill markings on those Typhoons, you should know that they've been applied to other aircraft after notional victories… including at least one A-10 Warthog (alongside another mark for an F-16 kill).

But are F-22 pilots losing sleep over this? The answer there is no.

"When the sensors work and each plane talks to each other, the Raptor is nearly untouchable when things are right," F-22 pilot Mike 'Dozer' Shower said in Bertie Simmonds" book, F-15 Eagle.

"The F-22 versus a 4th-generation fighter is like having two football teams against each other, and one of them [the F-22] is invisible!"

People don't call the F-22 Raptor the reigning king of the skies because it never loses. Having the F-22 Raptor on your wing in the sky, like Micheal Jordan on the basketball court or Chesty Puller on the battlefield, isn't a guarantee of victory. They all have a few L's on their resumes.

Nobody wins all the time. Not even the mighty Raptor.

But if you want to get a fight going in the comments anyway… I still think my dad could have beaten up yours.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published in January 2023.

READ MORE FROM SANDBOXX NEWS

• Built over 150 years ago, the first machine gun is still influential
• Dark Eagle is one of the US military's most promising hypersonic programs
• Six tips to mentally prepare for Navy SEAL training
• How much does it cost to train an Air Force pilot? A LOT
• Celebrating the highest military honor in the US