Replies

Mobile airports won't be obsolete, any more than the steel on target capability of an 18 inch gun. They will be less relevant as the primary weapons system, and more of a target.

I agree that rail guns and lasers will be of paramount importance, but keep in mind that drones will be able to outperform and outnumber piloted craft, and possibly overwhelm more static systems. Advances in missiles would make a carrier platform difficult to defend, especially in a saturation attack. (Recall Kamikaze attacks, only now much faster and in far greater numbers).

Tactical nukes would change the equation even more, and the question of a strategic response would come into play. While condemnation of the first to use a tactical nuke is likely, there is a definite question about whether the will exists to use strategic weapons, and the possible responses (militarily and otherwise) to such an attack.

But, assuming that threshold is not crossed, and the conflict is confined to more conventional weapons, at some point the cost to overwhelm a defensive weapons system is far less than the cost of the target, not to mention crew, and the time to replace that asset would make the expenditure well worth making.

With a few advances in AI, a drone can be taught to fly as well as possible for the airframe in a couple of hours of uploading programming and targeting data.

A human pilot takes far longer.

Programming which would permit coordination between drones (or autonomous attack plans in the event drone to drone communications are jammed) with targeting solutions and trajectories calculated and acted on with a speed no human can match will all be achievable.

In any war in which air asset attrition is a factor, the drones have a replacement rate as fast as the production line can crank out airframes which will be expendable, too; pilots will be much harder to replace.