The future?

USAF77

Banned Member
30 years from now where do you think Global air powers will be?

Systems?
Balance of power?
New systems being developed?
AA systems it will be facing?

In short, who will be the players "industry's" and what will they be playing with? Also what will they have in the developing pipeline?

Thank you.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
30 years from now where do you think Global air powers will be?

Systems?
Balance of power?
New systems being developed?
AA systems it will be facing?

In short, who will be the players "industry's" and what will they be playing with? Also what will they have in the developing pipeline?

Thank you.
30 years is a little too far forward to predict accurately in my opinion. Also we should limit the scope of the conversation of a finite number of countries instead of saying "Global air powers".

I would suggest considering a 10-15 year timeframe.
 

USAF77

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
I chose 30 years for a few reasons. First its the general lifetime of an airframe system. Second its a long enough time frame for a shift in a power balance. 10 to 15 years is to short.

Such a discussion would have been fun in 1982. But unsurprising if it was reopened in 1992. Also I got out in '81 and my kid is going in now. I was wrong with my guesses back then, well most of them.

But who fore saw the end of the Cold War in '81? I thought it would out live me.

In aeronautics 10 to 15 years is nothing.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I chose 30 years for a few reasons. First its the general lifetime of an airframe system. Second its a long enough time frame for a shift in a power balance. 10 to 15 years is to short.

Such a discussion would have been fun in 1982. But unsurprising if it was reopened in 1992. Also I got out in '81 and my kid is going in now. I was wrong with my guesses back then, well most of them.

But who fore saw the end of the Cold War in '81? I thought it would out live me.

In aeronautics 10 to 15 years is nothing.
10 to 15 years can be realistically predicted. As it stands the lifetime of an airframe may be 30 years, but the life-time of fourth generation designs at this point will be over 50 years. The Flanker was a product of the early 80s, but upgraded Flankers will be rolling off the production lines through 2020, meaning they'll be in service through ~2050. At which point the Flanker will be something like 70 years old. So while an individual airframe may only live for 30 years, the family of aircraft will endure much much longer.

Your point with regards to the Cold War is why I wouldn't consider 30 years a timeframe we can predict with any degree of accuracy here.
 

USAF77

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
10 to 15 years can be realistically predicted. As it stands the lifetime of an airframe may be 30 years, but the life-time of fourth generation designs at this point will be over 50 years. The Flanker was a product of the early 80s, but upgraded Flankers will be rolling off the production lines through 2020, meaning they'll be in service through ~2050. At which point the Flanker will be something like 70 years old. So while an individual airframe may only live for 30 years, the family of aircraft will endure much much longer.

Your point with regards to the Cold War is why I wouldn't consider 30 years a timeframe we can predict with any degree of accuracy here.
I respect your opinion, and to a degree agree with it. However back in 1978, in my 2nd year in USAF, a British general named Sir John Hackett wrote a fictional book called, "The Third World War", which envisioned a World War between the West and the Soviet pact in 1985. In the book he referred to first night strikes by a top secret USAF tactical fighter called the "Frisbee" which was, unbelievably, able to penetrate the densest Air Defense network in the world without being seen.

Mind you this was 2 years before the first successful test of the "Have Blue" project, 5 years before it became operational in a squadron, 13 years before it was first used in war. This general saw in 1978 the long term future of Air Warfare was in LO technology and that it was a war winning tech, "BTW the opening strikes of the Frisbees, in the book, against Soviet CNC, probably won the war by the West".

So here we are 34 years later seeing how RCS is a basic component is almost every fighter design made by almost every war plane Industrial base. How did this guy see it 34 years ago? And who could have envisioned such a world as we have now 34 years ago?

So I probably wont be alive in 30 years. But I wonder what % of US airpower will not only be stealth but pilotless? Will we have another bomber and what will it be? "I find the idea of a $500 million mixed part stop gap bomber to be ridiculous".

I wonder where the Russian and Chinese Industrys will be, and more importantly, what effect their exports to 3rd parties will have. Will America even be able to sustain a lead? Will France's Aero Industry survive? Will the EF be the last fighter the EU produces? Will we even have a air delivered nuclear part of our triad. Will hypersonic actually be produced? Will it be manned? Will many of our Allies even be able to afford to be on the cutting edge of Tech? Will they feel the need?

So I understand your point. Please understand mine. It needs no real crystal ball to see where air power will be in 10 years but Im filled with nothing but questions about what it will look like in 30. Thats why Im asking "30 years". I have opinions but Im still forming them for a later post.

Thank you.
 

SpartanSG

New Member
Trying to predict 30 years into the future is no easy task that will require a lot of guesswork/assumptions.

Nonetheless, this is my take from what little I understand are the challenges faced in the military aerospace industry:

1. Cost of developing a new generation of manned military aircraft is getting prohibitively expensive. There have been several models put forward to manage cost:

a. The EADS approach of sharing costs between regional countries with similar defence (e.g., the Typhoon and the Jaguar before it).

b. The global consortium approach where friendly countries anywhere in the world can join (i.e., the F-35 program).

c. Bilat collaboration where a country with the expertise develops an aircraft that is co-funded by 2 countries (e.g., PAK-FA and to a lesser extent JF-17).

Going it alone is still possible (see China's J-20), but require seriously deep pockets.

However, these issues apply to manned aircraft. And if manned aircraft are on the way out, than its a different ball game altogether as unmanned aircraft currently appears to be more affordable (as compared to manned aircraft).

2. If the assumption is that unmanned aircraft will dominate the skies in the future, than the countries with the most advanced (i) aerospace, (ii) space and (iii) IT industries will probably be the leading air powers 30 years down the road.

Here's why I think those 3 industries are the critical ones.

(i) Top end aerospace industry know-how is needed to develop and build a LO unmanned aircraft. It may features such as morphing wing (for different flying speeds and altitudes) and potentially even have real cloaking capabilities making it all but invisible across the entire EM spectrum.

(ii) Space know-how is needed because unmanned aircraft need not be restricted to operate only within the atmosphere (X-47?). Hence, advanced materials will be needed for the aircraft to be able to fly in low orbits as well as survive re-entry into the atmosphere. This will give the aircraft a truly global reach.

(iii) IT know-how is needed to program the unmanned aircraft for cooperative autonomous operation (i.e., operate with an unmanned wing-man or in swamps) or in collaboration with manned aircraft. It will need to be able to perform combat manouevres while doing collision avoidance with other aircraft.

Well, that's my take on it.
 

USAF77

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Excellent post sir. Its fascinating to try and predict where the unmanned airframe situation will be in 30 years. I think theres no question the USN will have unmanned strike aircraft operational in this time frame. Most of all for opening nights strikes. My guess is they will have precision hypersonic weapons in the 1,000 lb class.

I do not think USAFs F-22 and F-35 will be our last manned fighters and multi-roles. We will still need a pilot inside a air superiority fighter. I also dont think there will be a "stop gap" bomber. The next bomber we make will be a hypersonic Global strike one. Again, "manned".

I agree the race will be against war planes with enhanced LO capabilities and AA systems that can defeat them. America will be the forfront of the first ; The Russians the second. The Russians will want a credible LO air defense platform. Credible enough to sell. Credible enough to carry the avionics and missiles they will really want to spend the cash on. Their ground AA systems will be their main focus.

30 years from now America will still be the only country with true "new" strategic bomber. The TU-160 is the last for the Russians. The Chinese, if anything , will buy or lease. They will go the missile route. I just dont see the Chinese as a major player yet in 30 years. Their emphasis will still be on their sphere of influence and their air power priorities will be much like the Russians. The fact is the Chinese have to many priorities to have one priority. Its going to take them 10 to 15 years just to get the J-20 where they want it.

West Europe will not make fighters in competition again. The exception being Sweden. The market will still be there so why ruin a good thing? Fascinating how a country of 9 m can keep producing a fighter that sells so well.

I think space will be exploited. Nobody will put nukes up there but its a good way for our enemies to hurt us on the cheap. I think an arms race in space will heat up.

Anyway Im exhausted and probably just babbling. My son joined USAF today and I had a long day. I hope all of you had a good one.
 

colay

New Member
I think DEWs will be a game changer once they have worked out the bugs. Nothing will be able to outrun them and they will swat anything that can be detected from the skies.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
Given the chronic economic stagnation of the Atlantic Zone, I think you can safely assume that what we see in service today is what will need to serve until about mid century.

I know that there are loads of fancy designs and brochures out there selling the "new" next generation, but the chance of the majority ever becoming reality before mid century is zilch. The Atlantic Zone is in a period of long term annual cuts, with each cut always sold as the last.

The question is then how quickly can the Pacific Zone make progress and take the lead........
 

USAF77

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
I think DEWs will be a game changer once they have worked out the bugs. Nothing will be able to outrun them and they will swat anything that can be detected from the skies.
Already recognized by some potential foes. Thus the renewed interest in cruise missile technology in formerly ballistic missile enamored states.

The West can expect DEW systems across the board. From close air support to ABM. Once again the Russians seem focused on the anti-air applications of DEW. We can expect them to export that as well. We can expect the Chinese to have a robust counter space DEW in place. Maybe AA as well.

Lets hope nobody is shooting at missile detecting satellites. But they probably will be.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
The future? - Defense Technology & Military Forum
30 years from now where do you think Global air powers will be?

Systems?
Balance of power?
New systems being developed?
AA systems it will be facing?

In short, who will be the players "industry's" and what will they be playing with? Also what will they have in the developing pipeline?

Thank you.
Assuming the following conditions:
  • Autonomous weapon systems will remain politically unacceptable.
  • The communications bandwidth bottleneck will prove insolvable.
Then manned combat aircraft will remain the norm. Drone aircraft will still be present in large numbers for a other uses.

Most new systems will center around the network.
  • Physical separation of search and track functions and terminal intercept functions for AAMs. Removing the search and track functions from the individual missile systems will significantly reduce overall costs.
    • Active long search and track functions will be increasingly delegated to AWACs type platforms, operating in conjunctions with dedicated ECCM craft to supply bi-static inputs. Any ground based active systems will operate intermittently only when needed and be very mobile.
    • The network will also integrate passive data from multiple platforms, including orbiting mini-sats. Mini-sats will rely on small size to avoid detection, and large numbers to make targeting them a questionable use of resources other than DEWs.
    • Once tracked the system will select and cue a variety missile launch systems, including both ground and air based, as the targets enter their engagement range.
      • Long range ground launched batteries will be mostly one-shot disposable launchers set up in disbursed locations. The missiles themselves will handle the terminal stage homing using a combination of active and passive sensors.
      • Medium and short range ground systems will be mobile to minimize vulnerability to SEAD missions.
      • Most vehicle weapons mounted in turrets and remote weapon stations will have a AAA capability using remote cuing and on-mount narrow field of view LADAR systems. Strafing will be too dangerous to conduct, and helicopters will be survivable only behind masking terrain.
    • Aircraft, either converted bombers, military transports, or specialized drone aircraft, may be deployed as additional batteries drop launching long range SAM’s to cover huge areas.
    • All missile systems will have some ABM capability. SRBM and IRBM will be of questionable worth and replaced by a combination of stealth cruise missile and hypersonic missiles. Both will be capable of sensing and evading attacks in order to survive till they get to the target.
  • Offensive systems will rely on stealth capabilities for aircraft and cruise missile. Hypersonic missiles will be unable to avoid being detected by passive sensor systems, but may be able to win through with speed and evasive maneuvers.
  • DEW, if perfect, will first be used in the CRAM/point defense role. It is possible that they may make field fortifications viable despite the widespread use of smart weapons. First long range application will probably be in the ABM role. AAA will come later because of the ‘dwell time’ requirements.
Overall this will probably be a period favoring the defense.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
This general saw in 1978 the long term future of Air Warfare was in LO technology and that it was a war winning tech, "BTW the opening strikes of the Frisbees, in the book, against Soviet CNC, probably won the war by the West".

So here we are 34 years later seeing how RCS is a basic component is almost every fighter design made by almost every war plane Industrial base. How did this guy see it 34 years ago? And who could have envisioned such a world as we have now 34 years ago?
Maybe. Maybe this general was brilliant and had incredible vision. Or maybe a sufficiently large number of books about the future of air war were written by different authors that one of them was bound to be right. This doesn't mean the author was exceptionally good at predicting something. He just happened to be the one who was right.
 

colay

New Member
Thank you for an excellent post.
Indeed.
Re AWACS, I recall reading a while back where solicitations had been issued to industry for information on how to employ multiple UAVs to function,as receivers in a bi-static system with the radar transmitter being installed on an orbiting satellite. This would allow stealthy aircraft to be detected and tracked and would be more survivable than the current paradigm.
 

USAF77

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
You can still find the book used. He was, indeed, a great soldier ad a tremendous military and History scholar. He also quite accurately predicted the NATO, whom at the height of its power, decimated Saddam's military in PG-1. He saw the war winning edge of technology while the rest of us were shivering at the numbers fielded by the Warsaw pact. He also accurately predicted the Political racks in the Warsaw pact and the post war face of Europe was the mirror image of the wall coming down years later.

Much of it revolves around air power but its an all inclusive book on modern war.


Maybe. Maybe this general was brilliant and had incredible vision. Or maybe a sufficiently large number of books about the future of air war were written by different authors that one of them was bound to be right. This doesn't mean the author was exceptionally good at predicting something. He just happened to be the one who was right.
 

SpartanSG

New Member
On the issue of manned vs unmanned aerial platforms, there are numerous factors that will determine if there will be further manned fighters beyond F-35, and IMO 1 of the most critical factor is cost. If the cost of developing a next gen fighter continue to spiral upwards as it has historically, than it may well be unaffordable.

There is also the issue of capability/limitations. A manned fighter needs life support systems for the pilot and is thus limited to certain flight ceilings and 9G turns. An unmanned fighter is not limited by any of these. Technology & money permitting, an unmanned fighter can potentially have:

1. twice the service ceiling of any manned fighter;

2. able to pull G-loads far beyond what any manned fighter is capable of.

These 2 factors alone give unmanned fighters a tremendous advantage over manned ones. Imagine unmanned fighters operating above the ceiling and sensor coverage of manned fighters and picking them off at will.

Paradoxically, with the progress of stealth technology, I wonder if we may see a return to guns (instead of missiles) in fighters. Missiles require a signature to home in on, which may become increasingly difficult to get stealth becomes more advanced. Guns however can always fire towards a suspected stealth aircraft and see what happens. Bullets are cheap afterall.

With regard to Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), there are several categories. The short range ones are mainly IR, millimeter wave, acoustic, etc. The long range ones are lasers and rail/EM guns. But, there are several limitations for lasers:

1. Atmospheric attenuation. Clouds, rain, dust, fog, smoke, etc will make lasers useless (in other words, its a fair weather weapon).

2. Power requirement. Effective long range DEWs require a lot of power (e.g., Air-Borne Laser requires a jumbo jet).

3. Same point of focus. The laser needs to point at the exact same spot over time for it to burn through and damage the interior structure.

With these limitations, I seriously doubt any fighter sized aircraft will be capable of mounting an effective laser in the next 30 years (EM/rail guns are out due to size and the EMP they create when firing). Also, trying to point at the exact same spot on a moving aircraft/missile is a very difficult task. The additional issue is that ballistic missiles have heat shielding to protect them during atmospheric exit & re-entry. Using a laser to burn through that heat shielding takes time and may well take too long for it to be effective.
 

colay

New Member
I'm not convinced that a UAV that can do everything a manned platform can do equally well will be significantly more affordable. If,aircraft are paid for by the pound, you may save a little by removing cockpit,,seat and other life-support equipment. You will be paying more for robust and more capable systems that will be needed to compensate for the lack of a human pilot.
A UAV may fly higher and sustain higher G forces but those capabilities will,also entail higher costs as well. There will also be a large logistics tail involved in the operation of a UAV fleet which tends not to get much attention.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
On the issue of manned vs unmanned aerial platforms, there are numerous factors that will determine if there will be further manned fighters beyond F-35, and IMO 1 of the most critical factor is cost. If the cost of developing a next gen fighter continue to spiral upwards as it has historically, than it may well be unaffordable.
For a given set of characteristics – speed, range, payload, maneuverability, ceiling, etc. there is very little difference in cost between manned and unmanned aircraft. You shave some off by eliminating the pilot, but then add it back in the form of additional sensors, computers, and communications needed for effective unmanned operations.
There is also the issue of capability/limitations. A manned fighter needs life support systems for the pilot and is thus limited to certain flight ceilings and 9G turns. An unmanned fighter is not limited by any of these. Technology & money permitting, an unmanned fighter can potentially have:

1. twice the service ceiling of any manned fighter;

2. able to pull G-loads far beyond what any manned fighter is capable of.

These 2 factors alone give unmanned fighters a tremendous advantage over manned ones. Imagine unmanned fighters operating above the ceiling and sensor coverage of manned fighters and picking them off at will.
Service ceiling is limited more by the engine and inlet design than the presence of a human. At 130,000ft altitude you will be at twice the operational altitude of any jet powered aircraft built to date – wonder why? Also, as you go higher the capacity for high G maneuvers decreases because there is less air to get a ‘bite’ in.

If you are out of their sensor range, then they will be out of yours. And while you may be immune to cannon fire, building a missile to pop up to your altitude isn’t a significant challenge.
Paradoxically, with the progress of stealth technology, I wonder if we may see a return to guns (instead of missiles) in fighters. Missiles require a signature to home in on, which may become increasingly difficult to get stealth becomes more advanced. Guns however can always fire towards a suspected stealth aircraft and see what happens. Bullets are cheap afterall.
Bullets are cheap, but missiles can go faster and have much longer ranges, critical values when attempting to kill an aircraft that is almost as fast (or faster!) than your bullet.. Active radar will still work if you can guide the missile close enough to lock on, stealth technologies just reduce the effective range, they don’t make you invisible to radar, and IR systems will still work.

But as an alternative, how about a hyper-velocity laser beam rider along the lines of the CKEM? Only good for about 10km in the current design, but at Mach 6.5+ it gets there in about 2 seconds.
With regard to Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), there are several categories. The short range ones are mainly IR, millimeter wave, acoustic, etc. The long range ones are lasers and rail/EM guns. But, there are several limitations for lasers:
Laser and IR are the long range ones, rail/EM guns and millimeter wave are mid range, sonic is short range and probably only for underwater or crowd control. I understand that they can already produce some millimeter wave DEW effects using AESA radar.
1. Atmospheric attenuation. Clouds, rain, dust, fog, smoke, etc will make lasers useless (in other words, its a fair weather weapon).
There are holes in the absorption spectrum where these are of little effect. That is why the chemical lasers they tried out used such odd chemical reactions, like deuterium-fluorine or iodine-oxygen as the lasing media, 1 or both of the reactants are present in the atmosphere is only very small trace amounts.
2. Power requirement. Effective long range DEWs require a lot of power (e.g., Air-Borne Laser requires a jumbo jet).
The COIL laser was a monster from the start, and it was meant as a demonstrator for the beam pointing systems. The current generation of fiber optic and solid state lasers are much more compact, and don’t involve incredibly toxic chemicals.
3. Same point of focus. The laser needs to point at the exact same spot over time for it to burn through and damage the interior structure.

With these limitations, I seriously doubt any fighter sized aircraft will be capable of mounting an effective laser in the next 30 years (EM/rail guns are out due to size and the EMP they create when firing). Also, trying to point at the exact same spot on a moving aircraft/missile is a very difficult task. The additional issue is that ballistic missiles have heat shielding to protect them during atmospheric exit & re-entry. Using a laser to burn through that heat shielding takes time and may well take too long for it to be effective.
I am with you on a fighter sized DEW replacing conventional weapons in the next 30 years. It might be ready near the end of that period, but you are going to have to design the plane around it, so it won’t be quick to field.

But the heat shields are very vulnerable to damage during re-entry because they are operating at the limits of the materials, a small failure can easily cascade and become fatal. That is what happened to the Space Shuttle Columbia.
 

SpartanSG

New Member
I'm not convinced that a UAV that can do everything a manned platform can do equally well will be significantly more affordable. If,aircraft are paid for by the pound, you may save a little by removing cockpit,,seat and other life-support equipment. You will be paying more for robust and more capable systems that will be needed to compensate for the lack of a human pilot.
A UAV may fly higher and sustain higher G forces but those capabilities will,also entail higher costs as well. There will also be a large logistics tail involved in the operation of a UAV fleet which tends not to get much attention.
Manpower and training costs is 1 of the largest factors in fielding a capable manned air force. By going unmanned, the need to pay pilots (and the requisite training time measured in years) is removed. That's quite a bit of cost saving.

Logistics-wise there may not be much savings at all. However, if the unmanned fighters have a long enough range, they can potentially allow savings as they can operate from their main bases without having to re-locate to forward bases.

For a given set of characteristics – speed, range, payload, maneuverability, ceiling, etc. there is very little difference in cost between manned and unmanned aircraft. You shave some off by eliminating the pilot, but then add it back in the form of additional sensors, computers, and communications needed for effective unmanned operations.
Mostly agree, although I would consider the removal of the pilot to be a significant cost savings in itself. Cost of pilots is recurrent, but systems acquisition are one-off.

Service ceiling is limited more by the engine and inlet design than the presence of a human. At 130,000ft altitude you will be at twice the operational altitude of any jet powered aircraft built to date – wonder why? Also, as you go higher the capacity for high G maneuvers decreases because there is less air to get a ‘bite’ in.
That is based on the assumption that there are no significant advances in propulsion technology that will allow fighters to operate at higher altitudes. 1 possible technology under development is the ionospheric ramjet, but there is not a lot of info available on the internet on the capabilities of this propulsion technology.

If you are out of their sensor range, then they will be out of yours. And while you may be immune to cannon fire, building a missile to pop up to your altitude isn’t a significant challenge.

Bullets are cheap, but missiles can go faster and have much longer ranges, critical values when attempting to kill an aircraft that is almost as fast (or faster!) than your bullet.. Active radar will still work if you can guide the missile close enough to lock on, stealth technologies just reduce the effective range, they don’t make you invisible to radar, and IR systems will still work.
In my 1st post in this thread, I talked about future aircraft having cloaking fields. It sounds sci-fi, but is already being demonstrated in labs:

Physicists Create Magnetic Invisibility Cloak | Wired Science | Wired.com

Now, imagine an aircraft in a cloaking field that makes it invisible in the EM spectrum (spanning IR, UV, radar, radio and visual). How to detect and track such an aircraft?

The cloaked aircraft is probably blind since the cloak works both ways (i.e., nothing gets through the cloak from either side). Hence, the cloak will probably be turned off to allow the cloaked aircraft to see its surroundings, but turned on to hide it from incoming missiles. Such a cloak renders missiles obsolete, but is useless against bullets.


But as an alternative, how about a hyper-velocity laser beam rider along the lines of the CKEM? Only good for about 10km in the current design, but at Mach 6.5+ it gets there in about 2 seconds.
Regarding the speed of bullets, a typical rifle bullet has a muzzle velocity of ~Mach 3. If the firing platform is going @ Mach 3, that's a bullet going @ Mach 6 when it exits the muzzle. Travel time is not much more than 2 seconds either, particularly in the upper atmosphere where the air resistance is less.

Laser and IR are the long range ones, rail/EM guns and millimeter wave are mid range, sonic is short range and probably only for underwater or crowd control. I understand that they can already produce some millimeter wave DEW effects using AESA radar.

There are holes in the absorption spectrum where these are of little effect. That is why the chemical lasers they tried out used such odd chemical reactions, like deuterium-fluorine or iodine-oxygen as the lasing media, 1 or both of the reactants are present in the atmosphere is only very small trace amounts.
I understand that there are troughs in the absorption spectrum. But here's the thing about these troughs, they are known and counter-measures can be easily developed to cover this gap when lasers become operational. These counter-measures probably cost a lot less than the cost of developing and fielding laser systems.

And in areas where haze, sandstorms, snow storms, dust-storms, etc (e.g., Asian Brown Cloud [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_brown_cloud"]Asian brown cloud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]) are common, lasers are not going to be of much good.

The COIL laser was a monster from the start, and it was meant as a demonstrator for the beam pointing systems. The current generation of fiber optic and solid state lasers are much more compact, and don’t involve incredibly toxic chemicals.

I am with you on a fighter sized DEW replacing conventional weapons in the next 30 years. It might be ready near the end of that period, but you are going to have to design the plane around it, so it won’t be quick to field.
I am of the view that lasers are good outside the atmosphere, and the solid state lasers have great potential for application in space. Particularly when nuclear powered satellites are developed.

Within the atmosphere, there are too many limitations for use of lasers as a lethal weapon.

But the heat shields are very vulnerable to damage during re-entry because they are operating at the limits of the materials, a small failure can easily cascade and become fatal. That is what happened to the Space Shuttle Columbia.
I understand that issue. Hence, the idea of the Air-Borne Laser to attack ballistic missiles during exit or re-entry. However, this occurs at a high altitude and attacking ballistic missiles with lasers when they are re-entering the atmosphere is a lousy idea as the resulting debris from a successful attack will likely land in the vicinity of its target anyway.

Attacking it with lasers on the ascent out of the atmosphere is a good idea, except the need for the laser to be close enough. That's feasible for not-so-large countries such as North Korea, but not for huge countries like Russia.

The other limitation of lasers is that it is a single target weapon, since 1 laser can only attack 1 target at any one time. This means that it can easily be saturated since each attack at long range takes some time for the laser to burn through the target sufficiently to cause any damage. Hence, the MIRVs in service since the Cold War is already problematic for a laser weapon to defeat.
 

ltdanjuly10

New Member
While General Sir John Hackett wrote a fine book, I am almost certain that the "Frisby" scenes did not occur in his book but rather in Larry Bonds/Tom Clancys Red Storm Rising, I can not be sure as it has been a good number of years since I last read either novel.

In any case, you would not have to be a visionary in 1978 to predict the advent of the stealth aircraft, several periodicals had already written on the subject. In 1975 Defense Daily wrote one on Stealth Fighters and in 1976 Aviation Week and Space Technology reported that Lockheed had been awarded the contract for a stealth aircraft demonstrator. Somewhere around that time there was even an article in Janes about stealth, even mentioning Lockheed as primary contractor. By 1980 Secratary of Defense Harold Brown (Under Carter) held a press conference officially announceing that the United States was working on stealth aircraft, this was done for political reasons (to counter accusations that Carter was week on defense) much to the horror of the USAF.

I would argue that even a span as short as a decade can be hard to predict. In many of my older reference books someone has predicated that airfields are obsolete, VTOLs are the wave of the future or even that by the early 2000s manned aircraft would be totally unsurvivable. I have a number of novels set in a world in which the Soviet Union is alive and kicking in the late 1990s. Remember back in the 1980s when a lot of people were saying that Japan would be the worlds leading economic power, then the Japanese economy took a hit and now all those predictions seem foolish.

In the next decade for example, we could face such surprises as a Isolationist United States, an economic collapse or civil war in the PRC, the dissolution of NATO and the rise of Brazil or India as a superpower. Any one of those is could happen and anyone of them would change the balance of power, procurement requirements and so on. Will the trend of asymeytrical warfare continue? will the rise of a multipolar world fuel a new arms race? Are Nuclear weapons on a decline or will proliferation continue. Perhaps WW3 is just on the horizon.
 
Top