I also recall reading about the pilot Shagnasty mentioned.
I don’t remember where it was, but it wasn’t in any of the publications he mentioned. Might have been Time or Newsweek.
Eh, the Eurofighter beats the F-22 in every performance category that matters except for radar signature and raw speed, neither of which are terribly important in a modern multirole fighter IMHO. We’d be better off with something less stealthy and with a heavier payload, like the Gripen or the Russian’s S-37–the F-22’s strengths are wasted in modern air combat unless supported by heavier F-15s and near-useless for ground attack ops.
Drones are probably the wave of the future, but I’ve only read of them being piloted from nearby (e.g. pilots in trailers in Iraq/Kuwait/Qatar), not from all the way around the world in Las Vegas. Is this really current or fiction?
Typhoon has been described as ‘80% as good as the F22 for 20% of the cost.’
This is fact. They pilot them out of Nellis. They are not fighter planes, but rather surveillance planes fitted with air-ground ordinance (Predators).
Is there a cite for Eurofighter vs F-22A specs? I find this claim hard to believe (performance categories). Plus stealth is one of the most important aspects of air-air and air-ground in this day and age.
The current F-35A has an internal gun, but with about 2sec of ammo - so I think the days of the dogfight are coming to a close. The B and C models will have an optional gun pod.
Are the Predators run out of Nellis? I thought they were operated from more local control while the Global Hawks were operated from Nellis?
Well, there’d be a delay, right? Like when CNN talks to someone via satellite – there’s always a delay.
Here’s the article:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/May/Air_Force_Refines.htm
Article is a little dated but I don’t believe the Global Hawks are armed. I get 'em mixed up all the time, though, so they may be flying them out of Nellis. We had a tour there last year and the guide mentioned it, but I was paying too much attention the the a/c type. An article in the local paper recently about one of the local (to Nellis) remote pilots (same article Shagnasty mentioned) picqued my interest.
The delay is due to the satellite altitude. Geosynchronous satellites orbit at 22,223 miles, and the signal goes at an angle to get there; more than 44,446 miles round trip.
New York to Baghdad is 6000 miles. There is no delay when CNN talks to the reporter by telephone cable. I’d wager the military was faster communication than satellite.
Neat article, thanks!
Who did the describing?
Area 51 has been described as a UFO hub.
The people who actually build it.
Have you a credible cite–any at all?
Yup, simply by the speed of light, if it is halfway around the world, there will be a 1/14 second delay, which can definitely make a difference in a fight (for instance, the fastest human reaction time is around 1/10 second, so this would double it.) And that’s assuming speed of light!
To get optimal fighters one needs human pilots, or close-up controllers, (or automated AI fighters, but we aren’t there yet.)
I think the maiun purpose of the F22 is to keep factories open and people employed-the US has NO plausible enemies that necessitate such a huge expenditure. The Tornado /Eurofighter: is it intended to be a ground attack fighter as well? Who would they be attacking-some enemy on the order of Iran?
Actually, I just read an article (which I’ll try to find, IIRC it was in the Airpower Journal) where General Jumper explained that keeping the F-22 program alive and growing was “not because of the need for it now, but to develop those technologies to keep ahead of those 10 or 20 years down the road”.
I’ll have to dig for that cite. . . but I support keeping it around for that reason. Hell, look how long we’ve kept the B-52 in flight and productively. Necessity breeds invention, which breeds progress. . .
Tripler
The mother of invention is necessity. The mother of all bombs is about 36’ feet long and orange.
No, the mother of all bombs can squeeze inside a small suitcase. The father of all bombs inside a B-52. 
Let’s see, the USSR broke up, “freeing” Eastern Europe and we had a wave of claims that history had ended and that everyone could retire all their military.
Since that time, Iraq invaded Kuwait (and possibly threatened Saudi Arabia), the U.S. has supported an invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India had a brief warm spell, (cooling now, thankfully), Putin seems to be taking Russia back to a monarchy (and Russia has always felt threatened by Europe and has responded by acting “assertively”), Iran is still run by unpredictable types who may seek to “defend” Islam in some neighboring country (even if I believe they are not looking to conquer territory), North Korea is run by a nutjob, and China (which enjoys seeing a certain amount of unrest among other nations that will provide it markets to “support”) has not reduced any of its military budget.
I have no idea what politics will change in the former Russian republics, Turkey, the Mediterranean African countries, or Indonesia in the next 20 years, but I suspect you do not know, either. It is entirely possible that the F-22 or the Eurofighter is the wrong investment for future developments in weapons (much like the battlecruiser or the armed dirigible), but a claim that there is no need for development displays a rather naive approach to history.
Apart from actually working at the time with the people who build it, you mean?