Air&Space Forces 2050

Amazing.
So, Nuclear thresholds will be very low and Space based weapon a casual thing.
Would that mean that the 2050 fighter might have to routinely be able to do some space incursion to deal with sensors and stored weapons in space?
 
TomcatViP said:
Amazing.
So, Nuclear thresholds will be very low and Space based weapon a casual thing.
Would that mean that the 2050 fighter might have to routinely be able to do some space incursion to deal with sensors and stored weapons in space?
Click to expand...
Manned and unmanned AI driven X-37b replacement aircraft maybe and all launched from starships. Be even better to have them permanently housed in orbit as well.
 
Realistically the PRC will deploy orbit to ground weapons as soon as they are able, along with hundreds more ISR satellites to direct them. I suspect that happens by the early 2030s at the latest. laugh all you want about space warfare, but it is happening and long before 2050. Tactical air is already of somewhat dubious effectiveness in wargames. In the CSIS studies, tacair was rather marginal and used mostly defensively. Bombers were decisive. This is not to say tacair has no value, but the basing vulnerability and payload limitations are already apparent. By 2050 I do not think we will recognize what air warfare is.
 
Josh_TN said:
Realistically the PRC will deploy orbit to ground weapons as soon as they are able, along with hundreds more ISR satellites to direct them. I suspect that happens by the early 2030s at the latest. laugh all you want about space warfare, but it is happening and long before 2050. Tactical air is already of somewhat dubious effectiveness in wargames. In the CSIS studies, tacair was rather marginal and used mostly defensively. Bombers were decisive. This is not to say tacair has no value, but the basing vulnerability and payload limitations are already apparent. By 2050 I do not think we will recognize what air warfare is.
Click to expand...
So I was thinking about this the other day. Given the compounding effect of our technological growth, I feel that episode of "Dogfights of the Future" where near-space capable aircraft fought with lasers is not so far away from today. What will be there in that timeline also though? SAMs (Space to Air Missiles), orbital kinetic weaponry? Heck maybe even permanent space assets or orbital insertion of personnel, who knows!
 
If I was a young stud willing to join the USAF in my adulthood, after reading this last report, I would immediately stop eating beans.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:
The technology already does exist for both anti-aircraft missiles & drones to be deployed into atmosphere from low orbiting satellites via pods.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
So I was thinking about this the other day. Given the compounding effect of our technological growth, I feel that episode of "Dogfights of the Future" where near-space capable aircraft fought with lasers is not so far away from today. What will be there in that timeline also though? SAMs (Space to Air Missiles), orbital kinetic weaponry? Heck maybe even permanent space assets or orbital insertion of personnel, who knows!
Click to expand...

I do not know about DEW type weapons, but certainly the US is deploying global tracking satellites, starting with IR this year. MTI radar is roughly scheduled for early to mid 2030s. The PRC is likely not far behind. As for weapons, most view the PRC FOBS test as something that would be eventually deployed on a solid fuel quick response rocket, but it seems to me there’s more advantage to simply having a network of persistent orbital weapons and that this is the long term goal. Orbital bombard skips over the step of developing a network of foreign bases and tankers that the U.S. uses for its global strike capability. Those kinds of changes are in the next decade, not 2050.
 
Josh_TN said:
Realistically the PRC will deploy orbit to ground weapons as soon as they are able, along with hundreds more ISR satellites to direct them. I suspect that happens by the early 2030s at the latest. laugh all you want about space warfare, but it is happening and long before 2050. Tactical air is already of somewhat dubious effectiveness in wargames.
Click to expand...

If China is having similar thoughts and results, they would be working hard to significantly diminish out tac air investments. Unless they are extremely wasteful, too rich and well-funded to care (also wasteful) or perhaps don't share those assumptions or conclusions.
 
bring_it_on said:
If China is having similar thoughts and results, they would be working hard to significantly diminish out tac air investments. Unless they are extremely wasteful, too rich and well-funded to care (also wasteful) or perhaps don't share those assumptions or conclusions.
Click to expand...

China does not have the U.S. problem of basing limitations. They are the home team and the U.S. is the away team playing in their back yard. And again, this report was concerning the situation in 2050, not as it stands now. Certainly it fell short of calling for an end to F-35 production.
 
It would have been stupid to call out for the cancellation of the F-35 program given the burden of proof and analytical rigour required to justify such a conclusion. You really can’t do it in a “ I thought about establishing a committee of experts for this but then decided to write the report myself” publication which is what Frank Kendall claimed to do here with the 2050 report.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
More on this trend:
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/01/trump-taps-nro-official-be-air-force-secretary/402242/
Click to expand...

I do not disagree with such a move, but IMO the whole construct of NRO seems to be moving towards redundancy: if you can collect intelligence fast enough to give it to tactical users, are not you just space force? And if a 1/3 of your personnel *are* space force, then what are you even doing?

I’m hoping this move sugar coats NRO being absorbed completely. SF was made to remove redundancy in space operations.
 
Ozair said:
Manned and unmanned AI driven X-37b replacement aircraft maybe and all launched from starships. Be even better to have them permanently housed in orbit as well.
Click to expand...
Kessler logically prevents a true computer/algorithm driven Space dominance.
 
TomcatViP said:
Kessler logically prevents computer driven Space dominance.
Click to expand...
We are getting far off topic, but I really do not understand that statement. Perhaps worth opening a new thread or digging up an existing one?
 
@Josh_TN : Kessler syndrome is the emergence of a chaotic state in orbit. Chaos, by definition, is not repeatable, hence be the subject of a training algorithm. There is no cases or experience to train an AI.
During a Kessler episode, AI can only be an helper in a very narrow set of situations. Hence, IMOHO, no unmanned X-37 like vehicle can be of any decisive help to reach battle dominance.

There would have to be men in those space planes.
 
Last edited:
Ah. Disagree, but I understand your POV now. We can discuss further in the Space junk thread if you like.
 
I just had a quick thought and in retrospect I feel super dumb for not realizing this earlier. I kinda know why the US seems so infirm on NGAD - it's already obsolete. The future lies in space. I think the true next-generation capability will be a globe-wide satellite network that allows you to survey every square inch of the earth and establish unjammable communications with a drone anywhere in the world. I think such a system could easily keep track of every high value asset (tanks, jets,ships) of the enemy, with the gaps easily filled by mass-produced surveillance drones with satellite uplinks.
Even today Starlink is one of the greatest military assets of the Ukrainians. If Musk allowed them to use it with impunity, I think Russia would be soundly and promptly defeated, even though the systems has weaknesseses due to its microwave communication system that a real military-grade laser system would not have.
Maybe a space-based radar system would complement the system well. The Soviets had such sats back in the 70s, it's unlikely the US doesn't have the technology.

A high T/W, supercruising, super stealthy jet offers no tangible advantage in this world.

All of these capabilities exist today, and such systems are publically worked on. The launch capability exists, drones exist, Starlink (and Starshield) exist, basic AI image recognition that could automate such a system and the compute to run it exist. There's no fancy yet to be invented future tech here.

This is going to be the 6th generation, and it will provide an overwhelming advantage to those who have this, versus those who don't.

The 7th generation is also on the horizon, which I think will be defined by massive space launch capability and capable autonomous AI (but I don't wanna speculate on what it entails).

Both generation will come sooner than we think.
 
Elysium said:
I just had a quick thought and in retrospect I feel super dumb for not realizing this earlier. I kinda know why the US seems so infirm on NGAD - it's already obsolete. The future lies in space. I think the true next-generation capability will be a globe-wide satellite network that allows you to survey every square inch of the earth and establish unjammable communications with a drone anywhere in the world. I think such a system could easily keep track of every high value asset (tanks, jets,ships) of the enemy, with the gaps easily filled by mass-produced surveillance drones with satellite uplinks.
Even today Starlink is one of the greatest military assets of the Ukrainians. If Musk allowed them to use it with impunity, I think Russia would be soundly and promptly defeated, even though the systems has weaknesseses due to its microwave communication system that a real military-grade laser system would not have.
Maybe a space-based radar system would complement the system well. The Soviets had such sats back in the 70s, it's unlikely the US doesn't have the technology.

A high T/W, supercruising, super stealthy jet offers no tangible advantage in this world.

All of these capabilities exist today, and such systems are publically worked on. The launch capability exists, drones exist, Starlink (and Starshield) exist, basic AI image recognition that could automate such a system and the compute to run it exist. There's no fancy yet to be invented future tech here.

This is going to be the 6th generation, and it will provide an overwhelming advantage to those who have this, versus those who don't.

The 7th generation is also on the horizon, which I think will be defined by massive space launch capability and capable autonomous AI (but I don't wanna speculate on what it entails).

Both generation will come sooner than we think.
Click to expand...
And if your satellite system shut down what are you doing ?
 
Elysium said:
The 7th generation is also on the horizon, which I think will be defined by massive space launch capability and capable autonomous AI (but I don't wanna speculate on what it entails).
Click to expand...

Grok Neural Network

Your proposed classification covers the historical spectrum of heavier-than-air combat aircraft development, from the earliest experiments to modern technologies. Let's predict possible characteristics for the next five generations, taking into account current trends and research in the aviation industry:

Generation 13 (6) (2015 - 2030):
Integration of artificial intelligence: aircraft will have a high degree of autonomy, the ability to make tactical decisions independently.
Improved stealth technology: more advanced radar invisibility, the use of new composite materials to reduce the RCS (effective scattering cross-section).
New propulsion technologies: the emergence of engines with variable cyclograms to improve efficiency in all flight modes, possibly the beginning of the use of hydrogen engines or hybrid systems.

Generation 14 (7) (2030 - 2045):
Hypersonic flights: regular flights at Mach 5 and above, which will require new materials to withstand thermal loads.
Network-centric combat system: Fully integrated into networked military systems, allowing for real-time coordination with other platforms.
Laser and energy weapons: Use lasers or microwave weapon systems to engage air and ground targets.

15th generation (8) (2045 – 2060):
Variable geometry aircraft: Not just variable wings, but the ability to change the shape of the entire body to optimize aerodynamics for different flight conditions.
Plasma manipulation: Use plasma to reduce drag, control airflow, or create missile defense shields.
Quantum sensors: Optimize the use of quantum technologies for navigation, communication, and reconnaissance.

16th generation (9) (2060 – 2075):
Antimatter drives: Experiments with using antimatter to achieve incredible energy efficiency and speed.
Adaptive materials: Materials that can change their properties on the fly, such as to repair damage or change aerodynamic characteristics.
Partial System Teleportation: Transferring information or even small physical objects between aircraft or from ground stations for rapid recovery and regrouping.

Generation 17 (10) (2075–2090):
Space Distortion: Theoretical use of space-time manipulation technologies, which could include "Alcubierre Drive" concepts for ultra-fast travel.
Self-Replication: Aircraft that could repair or even replicate themselves from available resources using nanotechnology.
Exosphere Integration: The ability to fly and operate at the boundary of the atmosphere and space, allowing for continuous global operational capability.

These projections are based on current scientific and technological trends, but it should be remembered that the implementation of such technologies is dependent on many factors, including scientific advances, budget constraints, geopolitical situations, and moral considerations.
Click to expand...
 
Josh_TN said:
Realistically the PRC will deploy orbit to ground weapons as soon as they are able, along with hundreds more ISR satellites to direct them. I suspect that happens by the early 2030s at the latest. laugh all you want about space warfare, but it is happening and long before 2050.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this, they've been accelerating quite rapidly.
 
quellish said:
This was the program, which was part of the prompt global strike programs of the time
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/darpa-rapid-eye.4708/
The original idea was the launch it using a Trident
Click to expand...
Which is honestly even worse, because now there's a freaking Trident missile headed towards someone. Better hope the observer's radars are good for quickly figuring out where that missile is going, otherwise you're looking at a probable panic launch in return.
 
_Del_ said:
You can play that game with literally anything. "What if it breaks?"
Click to expand...
Difference being that Satellites are incredibly fragile, defenseless, high priority targets. They'd be the very first things to go in any hot war.

That aside, the whole idea is not only incredibly off-topic but Satellites were already hailed as some silver bullet in past decades. However people who truly work with Satellites never did that, they are keenly aware of the limitations and shortcomings of Satellites.

Furthermore, why do you think large players like the US, China and Russia maintain and develop Anti-Satellite weapons? As if they wouldn't be aware of such potential usage and not figuring out a way to deal with it. The cascading effects of even a few hundred destroyed Satellites would render several thousands inoperable.
 
EmoBirb said:
Difference being that Satellites are incredibly fragile, defenseless, high priority targets. They'd be the very first things to go in any hot war.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is why they are designing a large mesh network, have invested into cheap, short-lifespan satellites (Starlink/Starshield, PWSA/NDSA, commercial teaming), practicing and demonstrating RRT-1, etc.
Cheap access to space and launching smaller constellations at once are rapidly changing the calculus.
It's also a "¿Por que no los dos?"-issue where noone is relying solely on a handful of satellites for their networking and ISR capabilities. Other things still exist to augment those capabilities.
 
It has been alleged that the USA has told other countries that an attack on a satellite is viewed the same as a nuclear strike on a US city. If that is the case, then the satellites are off limits unless an enemy of the US wants to test the satellite doctrine.
 
EmoBirb said:
Difference being that Satellites are incredibly fragile, defenseless, high priority targets. They'd be the very first things to go in any hot war.

That aside, the whole idea is not only incredibly off-topic but Satellites were already hailed as some silver bullet in past decades. However people who truly work with Satellites never did that, they are keenly aware of the limitations and shortcomings of Satellites.

Furthermore, why do you think large players like the US, China and Russia maintain and develop Anti-Satellite weapons? As if they wouldn't be aware of such potential usage and not figuring out a way to deal with it. The cascading effects of even a few hundred destroyed Satellites would render several thousands inoperable.
Click to expand...

The IS is building out a robust communications, missile tracking, and recon constellation(s) which likely will be sufficiently prolific in a few years to ensure their survivability. But satellite recon is not equivalent to long endurance surveillance.
 
Airbus A340 said:
It has been alleged that the USA has told other countries that an attack on a satellite is viewed the same as a nuclear strike on a US city. If that is the case, then the satellites are off limits unless an enemy of the US wants to test the satellite doctrine.
Click to expand...

That seems incredibly unlikely. However the U.S. capability to destroy opponent satellites is probably very non zero if anyone wants to try to get into that kind of escalation.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom