This article first appeared in Defense Technology International.
One of the most ambitious forecasting projects of late is the U.S. Air Force’s Blue Horizons II, which wrapped in 2008, and was presented at a conference here in May by Col. John Geis, director of the Center for Strategy and Technology at Maxwell AFB, Ala.
Ambitious? How does a giant nuclear-powered flying laser sound; or a hypersonic bomber that launches satellites; or a tactical fighter firing laser and microwave beams?
The project began in 2005 because 10 years had passed since the last such venture, Air Force 2025. Conducted by USAF’s Air University, Blue Horizons II was led by seven faculty members aided by 49 researchers. Seven out of 10 people involved, Geis notes, were “rated operators” of Air Force systems.
The goal was to determine what technologies USAF would be best advised to support. The starting point was a range of possible future scenarios for global conflict. The next step was to evaluate capabilities, from the near-term to the futuristic, in each scenario. Finally, the team looked at what basic technologies would be needed to provide those capabilities.
The team picked four scenarios: a peer China, Middle East jihadist insurgency, failed state and a resurgent Russia. No real surprises. Geis emphasized that “China will be the supreme power on earth by 2040.” The study envisioned China having the world’s largest GDP by 2030, although “militarily it will take some time after that for them to catch up.” Internal dissent and China’s demand for energy and food will be potential sources of international friction.
One surprise was a finding that runs counter to accepted wisdom at top levels of the Pentagon: The same capabilities, by and large, proved to be most valuable in all scenarios — that is, there was no dichotomy between low-tech counterinsurgency weapons and what the Air Force would use to discourage antisocial behavior by China’s future leaders. Where there was a difference, it was for specific reasons. The study participants, for example, don’t expect non-state actors to develop counterspace weapons, so systems that were aimed at defeating such attacks scored low in insurgent and failed-state scenarios.
The overall top-scoring weapon concept was a UAV dubbed Pathfinder, an autonomous, stealthy vehicle incorporating powerful electronic jamming arrays, which could launch and control smaller UAVs, or operate as an autonomous wingman to manned aircraft.
Second on the list was a “cyberspace UAV,” an autonomous antivirus program that propagates over the Internet and detects cyberthreats before they affect U.S. defense systems.
After that came three lasers: a hybrid high-energy laser based in the U.S. and directed by spaceborne mirrors to destroy soft-to-medium ground targets; a space-based, solar-charged solid-state laser for missile defense; and a future airborne laser (FAL).
FAL is a huge nuclear-powered flying wing with a range of 80,000 naut. mi. that is capable of engaging soft targets like missiles at several hundred kilometers. Geis accepts that airborne nuclear power could be a political nonstarter, but says FAL would also be feasible with advanced conventional propulsion.
Of the top 10 concepts, five were unmanned vehicles and five used directed-energy weapons (DEW). Only five were kinetic attack systems and three of those were supercruisers or faster — the study found that a supersonic bomber was more valuable than a subsonic design. Another widely applicable use of DEW was aircraft self-defense, which ranked as the second most important group of technologies in the AF2025 study and placed third in Blue Horizons II.
Read the rest of this story, check out the Navy’s new UAV outlook, see why making a pilot optional is so darned good and soar with the long endurance UAVs with our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Pie In the Sky II
How about some x-wing fighters and maybe a battlestar or two?
I believe that unmanned fighting vehicles are the future of the US armed forces.
I keep hearing, “yeah China will be a major force someday, but it will take them years to catch up…”
Well, picture, if you will, a million Chinese soldiers rushing your position with AK47′s. Would it matter that they did not have the latest whiz-bang sights or the latest version of the Future Combat System?
We will face vastly numerically superior forces in the future and unmanned air and ground units will be the force multiplier in conventional warfare.
Also, the liberal news media will not be able to sway the public as much when we lose a few UAV’s. Of course the “People for the Ethical Treatment of Robots” might be a bit miffed…
A million soldier wave would be a totally useless attack against American positions.
Minigun x 30 @ 3000rpm = about a half hour to fire 1,000,000 rounds ( not 1 shot 1 kill obv)
+Artillery
+Air support
Numbers Don’t mean anything anymore, they didn’t in 480 B.C. against Greece and they certainly dont now.
War on that scale will NEVER happen again, unless it goes Nuclear, in which we would rather be fighting a 5 mile wide asteroid.
Lasers are the future weapon that will change warfare. With the ability to fire a 180,000 m/s beam capable of burning through tank armor, everything we know about war changes instantly. No aircraft can dodge them, No missile can avoid them. Not even artillery shells will be effective once battlefield lasers are created.
Breakthroughs in nanotechnology and physics will make these future scenario plans pretty much useless, the battlefield in a few decades will be as different now as it would be facing Navy SEALS against Roman archers.
It’s a study program at the USAF’s Air University with “…The goal was to determine what technologies USAF would be best advised to support.”
I’m at a loss as to why anyone wouldn’t want this study or to comment that there’s nothing to be gained in studying advanced technology.
Does anyone know or care what avionics or weapons sensors have changed since 1995?
It’s not the super duper flying nuke laser maker that will happen. It’s the multiple target fire control system. It’s looking forward.
Making cracks about the mainstream media and referencing AK47s in a story about a USAF strategic study is off-target and counter productive.
Good MOrning Folks,
This appears to be another attempt for the USAF to justify why it should be an equal branch of the military services to the Army and the Navy.
Of the four scenarios the most likely is the failed state either a for “stan” of the old Soviet Union or a Latin America country that falls victim to the narcos. By mid century the population of Russia at it’s current rate of decline will fall to about 110-100 million people. There is a far greater likely hood that the United States will have to come to the aid of Russia in a time of military crisis.
The Chinese even in it’s current modernization is still an inward looking country and the emphasis on internal security is far greater then any appetite for international military adventures.
Even the area at the greatest risk of Chinese of intervention by China, the South China Sea, the Chinese are going slow. Their most provocative have been moving their Jin class SSBN Submarine, minus their missiles which are still under development, to Hainan’s Yulin Navel Base and basing the first J-12′s off the line on Hainan Island. What China’s intentions are still on a matter of speculation.
It is still way to premature for the United States to plan any hard contingency for the South China Sea theater.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I don’t believe China to be looking at the world through a traditional military lens, as I think they’ve come to understand that the way to “take control of the world” is by managing resources, commerce, and population attrition. I think anyone who thinks American UAV’s will be a deal changer has to also understand that the UAV’s are cheap to produce and utilize, and, if another country was to use military force, they would be using them as well. Might as well be playing Risk on a computer (or boardroom ala Spies Like Us).
I think my point was missed. China has 1 Billion more people than the US. We as a nation continually write them off, because they lag behind in technology.
Maybe the AK47 example was bad, but how about being rushed with a million modern tanks? How much longer will they lag behind as we keep sending our manufacturing to China, because our greedy business men can make more profit there?
We need to wake up, yes we are the super power, but how many other nations that were super powers are just average nations now? We need to continue to invest in advanced technology, especially unmanned fighting platforms, for future conflicts.
Lets do basic R&D for Blue Horizons 2 anyway, maybe more jobs.
But have to dump that nuclear powered flying wing unless its a UAV type.
Love the satellite laser system.
But do basic R&D.
Expand that alone for jobs.
& reuse Nuclear flying wing for Convt uses (minus Nuke powerplant).
Develop satellite laser IE 007 Diamonds are Forever, Goldeneye, final Pierce Brosan 007 movie 2002.
Heavy R&D that fighter shooting Lasers.
Got go to 80K feet for use.
Mach 7
I guess the sharks with friggin laser beams on their heads is a Navy program.
Good Evening Valcan,
A really good post and I guess the world is coming to an end because I agree with most of it. I thinks the is the end of DT.
On the Air Force, the only thing I could add is that the role of long range strategic bombing/missile/cruise missile attack(s) should be under the jurisdiction of the AF.
The new command, “Air Force Global Strike Command” that was activated at Barksdale AFB, La. last Friday is an example of where the AF should be headed, although a politicaly lousy name, it is a step in the right direction. Right now of course this new command is nothing more then an effort to consolidate what is left of the old SAC, it could turn into a powerful combat strike formation with UAV’s at it heart.
Army. I agree the ground air support role should revert from the AF to the Army again, and the should Army develop a “Marine style” air traffic control system.
The AF clearly doesn’t want to do this critical mission. On the ground when the Army and marines are operating as a joint force the air support function should be blinded together under which ever service has the Command responsibility.
Navy. Simple because of geography the Navy has to be the dominate military service of the United States. I do disagree with you on the role of naval offshore gunfire, with stand off weapons that have ranges in the 100′s of miles that are cheap the naval gun like the Coast Artillery rifle is obsolete.
With the exception of the carriers the big heavy ship is not the future of Naval warfare. The Burke destroyers at 9600 tons vs. the 2,200 ton vs. the Fletcher of WWII is a prime example of getting to fat.
The Marines. I don’t see the Marines as the dominate land combat service, their whole doctrine is against it. The current Marine Corp at 220K personal is probably to large for the Corps current support and logistical base. I still think the role that amphibious warfare plays should be re-though and maybe blended with some unloved Army units like the 75th. Infantry and the Transportation Command at Ft. Story Va.
Although you didn’t mention it Special Ops. will have to have a seat at the table and either be enlarged to where they have their own chain of command and separated out of their mother service formations like SEALS, Army Special Forces and CSAR that are un loved, and moved an independent Special Ops TO&E or back to their parent organizations. The current developing institutionalization of the ground battle, Combat phase, COIN, Stabilization and Sustainment gives no special role to Spec. Ops.
Technology. That’s what is driving the whole war making process right now, and the U.S. is the only real player. China has a broad technological pool but it’s very shallow and the lack the sophisticated industrial base to develop any new concepts in a timely manner, the Russian’s have left the game, their future role will be that of being the supplier cheap recycled technology from the United States and China to those groups/states who chose to engage the united States.
Future up and coming players in y crystal ball in the arms race after mid century most likely will be the Ukraine, Brazil, the UK and South Korea in my opinion. The hot areas of conflict will be Africa, Latin America and the South China Sea and South Pacific. China and India will be pounding their chest at each other but the cost of a war would be to high for either country until one of them develops a fatal weakness.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
RE:”the study found that a supersonic bomber was more valuable than a subsonic design”
LOL!
I’m sure it did.
Look forward to reading it.
Worth checking out recent comments by russian senior defence staff on their need to counter US space based weapons and craft that can deliver munitions anywhere in the world in a few hours .
Maybe the US is a little further ahead than we think , I mean the sr71 is over forty years old and the b2 20 . ?????
“After that came three lasers: a hybrid high-energy laser based in the U.S. and directed by spaceborne mirrors to destroy soft-to-medium ground targets”
thats the line that raised my eyebrows the most, forget the nuclear aircraft…
made me chuckle, some laser in the US killing guys in afghanistan.
Anthony-
Is there some bible of “the cult of military technology” I haven’t read?
Military tech doesn’t win wars, its proper employment connected to correct strategy does. History is full of examples. If we face a thinking opponent, they will find ways to negate our advantage.
“Second on the list was a “cyberspace UAV,” an autonomous antivirus program that propagates over the Internet and detects cyberthreats before they affect U.S. defense systems.”
——
COL. CHARLES WILLIAMSON III had an interesting article on the af.mil botnet last year on the AFJ, “Carpet Bombing in Cyberspace”. http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3375884/
COL. STEPHEN W. KORNS had more to say about it in a article this year, “Botnets Outmaneuvered”.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/01/3801084
According to Col. Korns, a US automated defense system would not have helped when Russia attacked Georgia, since in the attacks, some originated from a US IP address. We would have shut down our own systems.
Also, the US “Einstein” cyber defense system is also facing delays. It seems that the latest version can detect attacks, but not much else. While the next version is being held up due to privacy concerns.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530431,00.html
I don’t know, IPv4 has inherent security holes. Maybe a security solution using intelligent hardware based routers to back track incoming packets would be the way to go. Would this be easier with IP Version 6?
This moronic project can only be have been thought of by an eighth grade frustrated school boy that has spent far much time reading comic books.
The only thing this airplane doesn’t do is cook food for the soldiers on the ground, but with a few of these wonder Star Trek comic book planes in the air there will be no need for soldiers.
I doubt that who ever wrote this article has ever been on the ground, and if he ever was he shouldn’t have been due to the fact that he was obviously mentally impaired from the start.
Jesus H. Christ
None of the current or planned DEW envision taking out tanks. Ground targets would probably be more along the lines of the Scud launcher parked next to the church or school. Even then the laser would only be used to simply disable it, not blow it up in some Star Wars-esque explosion, kind of defeats the purpose since we can already blow it up in a Star Wars-esque explosion with a JDAM.
Even ABL used against missiles or possibly aircraft doesn’t blow them up, they blow themselves up. The DEW just makes a failure point and the target flies itself apart essentially.
I think the point to the article is where should we focus research, on what emerging technologies. The draw back to the increases in computing power is that we can only do so much. There are still people on the back side of the computer that have to make people speed decisions. So we have to take a look at all the options and pick those emerging ones that seem the most promising.
I think UAVs, whether you are a fan or not, are proving themselves as a newcomer well worth being developed further. The ABL while research and prototype at the moment, is showing a DEW system can be viable.
I’m not thrilled with the idea of nuclear reactors flying around in the jet stream personally.
I think the last time a bunch of frustrated eighth grade boys who spent way to much time reading comic books got together, they decided to run the country.
We need these future weapon systems, because the Liberal tactic of “just talking with our enemies” obviously is not working. Funny how Obama was going to fix all the worlds problems with communication, yet we still have issues with Iran, N. Korea, etc…
On the other side, does any one think Press Secretary Gibbs is the US version of Iraq’s Comical Ali? “No Obama didn’t bow to the Saudi king, he bent over to shake his hand…”
Jones ,respectfully i beg to differ with you that all technologies are plausible.
FLYING NUCLEAR REACTORS:this tech was tried for the US in the 50 (projects NERVA and PLUTO,even the extinct Soviet Union have a project)
Flying Lasers(ABL,ATL,and another one of the Soviet Union).
The hybrid high-energy laser based in the U.S. and directed by spaceborne mirrors to destroy soft-to-medium ground targets and the space-based, solar-charged solid-state laser for missile defense were part of the SDI (Ronnie Reagan) in the 80′s.
The R@D that the military sponsor bring us things like Internet(ARPAnet),satelites(the space race),and even tang and velcro.