Are We At "Peak" Ejection Seat? Imagining Where Escape Systems Will Be In 2055

Manned flight probably isn’t going anywhere, but the future of escape systems might be less about rocket science and more about human integration and comfort.

Let’s be forward-looking and speculative for a moment. I want to generate some discussion and have a bit of fun envisaging where the ejection seat market might be in 30 years and what “state of the art” technology might look like then.

I will caveat all this by saying that I’m an Escape Systems focused engineer and that there are awfully large number of different fields and expertise that need to feed into this discussion. But with that disclaimer out of the way, here’s my take on it all.

Are We At “Peak” Ejection Seat?

With the world looking increasingly to drones, UAVs, AI, and "one-way effectors," is there even a place for manned fast jets in the future battlespace?

The pilot of 2055 might not just be a pilot. They could be an ITACC (In Theatre Aerial Combat Conductor), managing swarms of unmanned systems from a manned platform. The job changes, but the human in the loop remains essential.

While I think it’s inevitable that we’ll see an increasing number of unmanned platforms, I don’t believe we’ll see the end of manned fast jets. We just might not be able to separate the need for a human in the battlespace—even if 'pilot' becomes the wrong word for them. Whether we call them pilots or something like ITACCs (In Theatre Aerial Combat Conductors), I think the requirement remains the same: we need someone up there to control the unmanned platforms, orchestrate taskings, and verify the data being used in the decision chain.

I struggle to believe we’ll rush to move away from the "human in the loop" method of accountability for lethal actions. We see AI companies touting fully autonomous weapons, but when we see problems, misfires, or poor decision-making, who’s going to be held liable? And how will we define acceptable “failure” rates for fully autonomous systems? (A tricky discussion that I’m not going to dwell on here).

There’s no denying we’ve probably moved past "peak" ejection seat in terms of market size. I struggle to envisage a world where we see larger fleets of manned fighter jets being fielded in 30 years—unless there’s some kind of compute crisis where silicon becomes scarce and/or prohibitively expensive and humans suddenly become dramatically more accessible than computers.

But I don’t think we’ll see this market shrinking to zero. Even when you look at current acquisitions—SAAB Gripen, Lockheed F-35, TAI KAAN, Tempest/GCAP, ADA AMCA, etc.—we’ve got a whole lot of aircraft being ordered and developed that will still be in service in 30 years and probably far beyond that. So, we’ll definitely still see aircraft with ejection seats flying in 2055.

Fewer seats, higher stakes. While we may see smaller fleets of manned fighters in 30 years, the pilots flying them will be more valuable than ever. The escape system market is changing, not vanishing.

Have We Reached “Peak” Technology?

The more interesting question in my opinion is: have we reached "peak technology" for ejection seats?

There have been significant gains in ejection seats over the past 20 years. The US16E (fitted to the F-35) represents a tangible improvement over previous seats (with electronic sequencing  and a wider anthropomorphic range to name 2 major improvements). We can all imagine a range of technologies that could improve seats further:

• Steering/vectored rocket systems that optimise for terrain clearance in low level ejections.

• Variable thrust/propulsion systems to ensure consistent performance and occupant acceleration across the occupant range of the seat.

• Further development of Auto Eject systems where the aircraft and ejection seat autonomously decide to eject the pilot in unrecoverable flight scenarios (discussed further below).

  
  

But the real question is: will anyone pay for those technologies to be developed? Or have we reached the point of "good enough"? We could improve performance, but the costs to do it might not justify the benefits. When you examine the "safe escape envelope" for modern seats like the Martin-Baker MK18 or Collins ACES5, they really do cover the vast majority of ejection scenarios.

An Aside On "Auto-Eject"

As a quick aside, while we can imagine an "auto-eject" system that decides to eject pilots in unrecoverable or pre-crash flight conditions, could we make that system reliable enough to convince pilots to surrender that control?

I would wager that whilst Auto GCAS (Ground Collision Avoidance System) is starting to gain traction, a generalized (i.e. always active) auto-eject system will never be implemented. Partly because the verification and certification for such a system would be a mammoth undertaking. But mostly because it would likely give everyone involved—pilots, maintainers, and the air forces—the absolute heebie-jeebies.

The Real Revolution “Make it Comfortable!”

I think if any fast jet pilots, both current or former, read this, the one thing they would cry out is: "Please for the love of god make the things more comfortable to sit in". There is very sound reasoning for why the seats are designed as the way they are currently, but it is also a legitimate complaint and a real impediment to long-duration missions. This is something that is going to become increasingly critical as Air Forces demand longer and longer endurance on new aircraft being designed.

We’re starting to see systems deployed in earnest to address in-flight urination finally (fantastic, as we all know how bad dehydration is for performance), but general comfort still needs to be addressed.

This is where I think we’ll likely see the most substantial changes over the next 30 years—and the majority of investment by air forces:

• Integration: Greater integration of the flight equipment and clothing pilots wear to improve comfort, especially in relation to G-suits, immersion, and NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) protection gear.

• Weight Reduction: An ongoing concerted effort to reduce weight and improve mass distribution of HMD-equipped helmets, for both G-performance and ejection safety reasons.

• Plumbing: Better integration of in-flight urination systems into the seats themselves to reduce the need for pilots to carry additional equipment onto the aircraft and maybe even provision for in-flight hydration in helmets.

The future of pilot safety isn't just about the ejection seat; it's about the entire mission. Lighter helmets to save necks under high-G, integrated hydration, and smarter suits are where the real innovation is needed right now.

Slightly More Pie in the Sky

The more fun thought experiment is in the slightly more pie-in-the-sky stuff we could see.

Should we be developing “dynamic” seat cushions that are comfortable and mould to the pilot's body during flight but instantly harden upon ejection? What about support systems for the pilot's neck and limbs during flight and high-g manoeuvres that can also act to restrain the pilot during ejection? We already see substantial reports of pilots struggling with their necks and backs due to the combination of HMD-equipped helmets and sustained G.

Should we be pivoting seats or looking at lying pilots down again to allow them to better cope with extreme G-manoeuvres? I’m sure all the aircraft aerodynamicists and radar cross-section guys would absolutely love to reduce the frontal area of the cockpit!

The Verdict

All of this will of course drive the innovation and collaboration across the airframers, pilot flight equipment and escape system developers.

So to conclude, do I think there are some huge potential wins there for improving the effectiveness of the pilot in the cockpit? Yes. And it is there where I would bet we’ll see the biggest change in escape systems over the next 30 years. A renewed focus on the human in the system whilst keeping ejection performance broadly in line with where it is now.

I think ejection seats still have a long life of military service ahead of them and there are some fascinating potential leaps in technology ahead of us.

It would be great to hear everyone else's thoughts on this—and feel free to tell me where I’m wrong!