IMHO, mistake is that you always envisage future projections in linear terms. Only a very small slice of world history has really progressed in this way. Countries lose momentum for various reasons, demography, technology, political stalemates, civil wars, social depressions, millions of reasons... The potential of countries can change dynamically. The uniqueness of mankind in the phase of states in many ways it is related to this. By the mid of 1800s, in Abdulaziz era, the Ottoman Empire had third largest navy in the world. But all of Europe and the world saw that Ottomans was clearly seeing that nearing the end of its life. The political and military structure within the state had decayed, leaving it open to foreign intervention and provocation in all social and political spheres.
Europe lost its status as the main power centre after process that started with the world wars up to today. What has been lost is geopolitical momentum. By subordinating the security paradigm to environmental factors, it has limited itself, but in the period 1950-2010, it has created a great economic development. The EU project also has many dilemmas within itself, that was started with a motives like aimed for a return. Bcs, center of gravity of the world has shifted step by step. Especially the war in Ukraine has shown that the economic development and prosperity of life in the EU is fundamentally dependent on the security strategies of the Atlantic structure. It is like building a beautiful house but handing the key to the landlord, which they see themselves as savior.
Today there is no big difference in military capacity between the colonial era superpowers you mention and, for example, the western articulated Far Asian major powers (Korea for example). They will be likely to be even more disadvantaged over years. In short, what I am saying is not that the TAF has become a global superpower in 20 years, but that the balance of power in the world is going in a different direction.