4 ms·

NGAD + MUM-T likely in next 10 years, but not for export. US allies also now doing their own 6th gen program, i.e. JP-UK-IT-SE (Global Combat Air Programme), FR

NGAD + MUM-T likely in next 10 years, but not for export. US allies also now doing their own 6th gen program, i.e. JP-UK-IT-SE (Global Combat Air Programme), FR-DE-ES (Future Combat Air System) and 4.5 gen SKR (Bormae), but that's still 10-20 years away. So in meantime 35 only obvious choice for anything over 4.5 gen. I do agree that AI fighters the future. Simply because once you engineer without human limits, flight envelopes / performance will shift in attacker favour. Anti-air missiles work by arbituaging gap unmanned and manned limits. I can see performant UAVs being magnitude more capable in dodging anti air to the point where it becomes not feasible in terms of cost and magazine depth to try to even shoot them down, especially from naval platforms, i.e. 500 VLS cells in carrier group with 30% dedicated to AA might successfully interdict 50 manned fighters and need 200 to overwhelm, but with manned fighters that might only be effective against 5 unmanned, or 20 unmanned to overwhelm. Realistically less because ships become significantly less useful if they have disproportionately focus on anti air. Basically skip job of stealth of being difficult to detect to being nearly impossible to hit in the first place. Hence airforce betting/pouring 1000 F35s worth of $$$ on B21s that's difficult to detect and fly in altitudes that's difficult to hit, straight from CONUS.

trashtester 4y ago
I think most of what you write are possible futures. Though I'm not sure they're the only possible futures. As aircraft (and particularily unmanned ones) improve, air defense systems will be likely to change to meet the new challenges. I find it really difficult to conclude what the balance will be in that arms race (apart from the prediction that humans are not likely to be needed in every plante anymore). For instance, it may be that lasers mounted in ships (or even large planes) may become really good at countering many of the threats that appear. Then again, that could lead to mirror coating as a counter, but that may reduce stealth, and so on. Furthermore, the distinction between missile and aircraft can go away. We may get hybrids that have the range of aircraft, but the power an manouverability of missiles, but with very short range guns replacing the warhead, making them reusable. Launch platforms may also change. The B21 may very well be just as important for anti-air duty as the F-35, if the right kind of missiles/air launched drones are available. The F-35 on the other hand, can act as drone control platforms, privding more advanced sensors and compute than each drone would have. Over oceans, maybe surface ships become obsolete, but in addition to options such as lasers, rail guns and more advanced missiles, one needs to keep in mind that they can be hard to detect (if satellites are knocked out). Subs are likely to stay relevant, though, even though they too may become unmanned relatively soon.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  Many possible futures, but IMO for short/medium term projections one can narrow down if extrapolating from can be feasibly procured in time frame and limits of said hardware. Personally have extreme doubts on direct energy weapons for anything other than homeland defense where power/magazine is not issue. Like I don't see existing fleets being overhulled for enough power generation for sustained DE use. Maybe in new DDGX but that's 10+ years of developmeent and another 20+ years to be aquired in numbers. Only realistic answer to saturation missile strikes is advanced interceptors because you can counter salvo, which is more or less what expert panels on hypersonics from last few years have said. IMO fighter design is roughly going to be larger airframes for IndoPac theatre where you need long range, and extending that range will be even longer range stand off missiles vs bullets. Hi-lo mix of with sacrificial loyal wingman. B21 very likely can be used for mesh sensor + anti air. Space infra is heading starlink, both PRC and US have 10,000s constellations planned, I think surface ships doomed. Autonomous subs probably big. Biggest development for me will be volume aquisition of long range bombers like B21/H20 and prompt global strike / long range precision strikes. Drop ordnance accurately in volume or with speed, using platforms completely hosted from homelands = skipping all the layers inbetween and going strait for strategic targets on adversaries home front (i.e. all major energy infra). AKA conventional MAD. Everything else is incidental if conventional war has escalation rung equivalent to being nuked.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Ok, I think much of what you write are high likelihood possibilities, though I think it also depends on a lot of assumptions: > ike I don't see existing fleets being overhulled for enough power generation for sustained DE use. Ford class carriers have two A1B reactors, each capable of delivering 125MW of electricity. I believe that should be enough to power quite capable DE weapons (or railguns) when/if such reach maturity. A task force of 4 carriers would have 1GW+ between them. > Only realistic answer to saturation missile strikes is advanced interceptors... Any place where you can cut the kill chain will do:- Prevent them from seeing you - Stay out of reach - Shoot down incoming missiles - Cause them to miss - Survive being hit. > IMO fighter design ... I agree with most of what you write about fighters/aircraft. > Space infra is heading starlink Satellites are relatively easy to shoot down, though. In a war where carriers are sunk, I think satellites would be fair game too. And with eyes in space, spotting ships can be hard, especially if the ships are stealthy (vs radar). > long range bombers like B21/H20 and prompt global strike Even these rely on in-flight refueling. While better missiles may make them capable of self defence over oceans, they are vulnerable over land, where adversaries may hide using the terrain. > going strait for strategic targets on adversaries home front Here I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Chaina and the US will not be able to knock out each other's infra with conventional weapons with any kind of speed, especially across continents. Air defences are too effective for that, and the targets too many and too resilient. Only after a very prolonged campaign of SEAD/DEAD followed by large scale systematic bombing could that be done. History shows that this is extremely difficult, though. (Before WW2, a lot of people were saying exactly what you say here, that strategic bombing would be MAD, but that was far from the case.) I simply don't see such a war go on for that long without nukes. As it looks now, the next great war may be over Taiwan. The first stage of such a war would be the invasion itself (possibly after some period of SEAD). During the invasion, the US (+UK/Australia) would use carriers, subs and land based air (Japanese islands) to try to help Taiwan. Most combat would occur over the oceans. I'm sure the US navy is quite busy wargaming this already, including how close to Taiwan they could risk placing their carriers. If the invasion fails, naval warfare would be less relevant. Taiwan would turn into a long term unsinkable US carrier. If Taiwan falls, and the war doesn't end, there would be a period of naval warfare. The US would seek to force China to it's knees by blocking all trade. China would have to break such a blockade to defend their superpower status (they're highly dependent on ocean-going trade for almost everything). The US might still have access to bases in Japan, the Philipines and/or some other friendly nations in the area. In this case, it would be China (and Japan) that would depend on being able to have their surface ships survive. Eventually, i believe China would be able to retain Taiwan, but if there is a multi year blockade followed by multi decade sanctions, China might well go back to being a 3rd world country. And if China should be able to break US control over the open oceans, maybe they would become the new hegemon. Or, given their recent aggressive tendencies, maybe it would unite a large coalition against them.

trashtester 4y ago

I think most of what you write are possible futures. Though I'm not sure they're the only possible futures. As aircraft (and particularily unmanned ones) improve, air defense systems will be likely to change to meet the new challenges. I find it really difficult to conclude what the balance will be in that arms race (apart from the prediction that humans are not likely to be needed in every plante anymore). For instance, it may be that lasers mounted in ships (or even large planes) may become really good at countering many of the threats that appear. Then again, that could lead to mirror coating as a counter, but that may reduce stealth, and so on. Furthermore, the distinction between missile and aircraft can go away. We may get hybrids that have the range of aircraft, but the power an manouverability of missiles, but with very short range guns replacing the warhead, making them reusable. Launch platforms may also change. The B21 may very well be just as important for anti-air duty as the F-35, if the right kind of missiles/air launched drones are available. The F-35 on the other hand, can act as drone control platforms, privding more advanced sensors and compute than each drone would have. Over oceans, maybe surface ships become obsolete, but in addition to options such as lasers, rail guns and more advanced missiles, one needs to keep in mind that they can be hard to detect (if satellites are knocked out). Subs are likely to stay relevant, though, even though they too may become unmanned relatively soon.

dirtyid 4y ago
Many possible futures, but IMO for short/medium term projections one can narrow down if extrapolating from can be feasibly procured in time frame and limits of said hardware. Personally have extreme doubts on direct energy weapons for anything other than homeland defense where power/magazine is not issue. Like I don't see existing fleets being overhulled for enough power generation for sustained DE use. Maybe in new DDGX but that's 10+ years of developmeent and another 20+ years to be aquired in numbers. Only realistic answer to saturation missile strikes is advanced interceptors because you can counter salvo, which is more or less what expert panels on hypersonics from last few years have said. IMO fighter design is roughly going to be larger airframes for IndoPac theatre where you need long range, and extending that range will be even longer range stand off missiles vs bullets. Hi-lo mix of with sacrificial loyal wingman. B21 very likely can be used for mesh sensor + anti air. Space infra is heading starlink, both PRC and US have 10,000s constellations planned, I think surface ships doomed. Autonomous subs probably big. Biggest development for me will be volume aquisition of long range bombers like B21/H20 and prompt global strike / long range precision strikes. Drop ordnance accurately in volume or with speed, using platforms completely hosted from homelands = skipping all the layers inbetween and going strait for strategic targets on adversaries home front (i.e. all major energy infra). AKA conventional MAD. Everything else is incidental if conventional war has escalation rung equivalent to being nuked.
- trashtester 4y ago
  Ok, I think much of what you write are high likelihood possibilities, though I think it also depends on a lot of assumptions: > ike I don't see existing fleets being overhulled for enough power generation for sustained DE use. Ford class carriers have two A1B reactors, each capable of delivering 125MW of electricity. I believe that should be enough to power quite capable DE weapons (or railguns) when/if such reach maturity. A task force of 4 carriers would have 1GW+ between them. > Only realistic answer to saturation missile strikes is advanced interceptors... Any place where you can cut the kill chain will do:- Prevent them from seeing you - Stay out of reach - Shoot down incoming missiles - Cause them to miss - Survive being hit. > IMO fighter design ... I agree with most of what you write about fighters/aircraft. > Space infra is heading starlink Satellites are relatively easy to shoot down, though. In a war where carriers are sunk, I think satellites would be fair game too. And with eyes in space, spotting ships can be hard, especially if the ships are stealthy (vs radar). > long range bombers like B21/H20 and prompt global strike Even these rely on in-flight refueling. While better missiles may make them capable of self defence over oceans, they are vulnerable over land, where adversaries may hide using the terrain. > going strait for strategic targets on adversaries home front Here I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Chaina and the US will not be able to knock out each other's infra with conventional weapons with any kind of speed, especially across continents. Air defences are too effective for that, and the targets too many and too resilient. Only after a very prolonged campaign of SEAD/DEAD followed by large scale systematic bombing could that be done. History shows that this is extremely difficult, though. (Before WW2, a lot of people were saying exactly what you say here, that strategic bombing would be MAD, but that was far from the case.) I simply don't see such a war go on for that long without nukes. As it looks now, the next great war may be over Taiwan. The first stage of such a war would be the invasion itself (possibly after some period of SEAD). During the invasion, the US (+UK/Australia) would use carriers, subs and land based air (Japanese islands) to try to help Taiwan. Most combat would occur over the oceans. I'm sure the US navy is quite busy wargaming this already, including how close to Taiwan they could risk placing their carriers. If the invasion fails, naval warfare would be less relevant. Taiwan would turn into a long term unsinkable US carrier. If Taiwan falls, and the war doesn't end, there would be a period of naval warfare. The US would seek to force China to it's knees by blocking all trade. China would have to break such a blockade to defend their superpower status (they're highly dependent on ocean-going trade for almost everything). The US might still have access to bases in Japan, the Philipines and/or some other friendly nations in the area. In this case, it would be China (and Japan) that would depend on being able to have their surface ships survive. Eventually, i believe China would be able to retain Taiwan, but if there is a multi year blockade followed by multi decade sanctions, China might well go back to being a 3rd world country. And if China should be able to break US control over the open oceans, maybe they would become the new hegemon. Or, given their recent aggressive tendencies, maybe it would unite a large coalition against them.