AIR POWER

The onset of the twentieth century saw the emergence of air as a new medium for warfare that would be transformed into battlegrounds within the space of little over a decade. Despite their very basic form used to observe the battlefield, airplanes gave immense advantage to the user over the enemy forces. True to its characteristics of speed, reach, and height, airpower had evolved into an extremely lethal, useful, and efficient military means by the end of the twentieth century. Airpower was initially defined as “the ability to project military force in the third dimension,” and therefore, the primary purpose of any air force was to achieve air supremacy to dominate different battlegrounds in any conventional conflict.

The next medium explored for the development of new warzones was space. The space missions had started within a decade of the culmination of World War II, when the erstwhile Soviet Union successfully launched its first satellite Sputnik 1 on 4th October 1957. While Soviet’s satellite was crew-less, only a year later, the US launched its first manned spaceflight under the Project Mercury in 1958. The race to achieve mastery in space had already begun between the two superpowers of the time.

With the development in technology and the inclusion of space as a medium or the enabler and an independent domain, the definition of airpower has undergone substantial change in its essence. Airpower is now referred to as “the integrated employment of all air and space forces to control and exploit the air and space environments to achieve national security objectives.”

Likewise, efforts were made to define Aerospace Power also, because as a term Aerospace denotes both atmosphere and space. Aerospace as a concept is unique in the sense that it integrates necessary tools needed as part of the airpower to integrate with space equipment such as satellite, navigation, information, reconnaissance, surveillance, weather observation, and geospatial data. Aerospace power would continue to enjoy the inherent flexibility of airpower, with the addition of real-time data on the enemy’s sensitive installations, defenses, and intended moves.

While the purpose of reaching the space was primarily to improve communications, soon the elements of surveillance and reconnaissance crept in to keep an eye on the adversary. Typical to security-insecurity dilemma, both the superpowers of the Cold War era continued to send space missions with a purpose to develop capabilities to assist their land missions from space-based satellites. Hence, the need to develop counter-space weapons became a priority to deny the use of space for military purposes by the adversary.

While some nations were still developing fourth and fifth-generation fighter aircraft, the advanced countries had embarked upon developing cutting edge smart weapons using emerging technologies such Artificial Intelligence (AI), 5G and Internet of Things (IoT), Robotics, Hypersonic Vehicles, Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWS), etc.

While the debate continues on the legal, moral, and ethical use of space for military use, the fact of the matter is that space as a medium or the enabler has already been politicized and therefore weaponised. Most of the advanced and developed states have already established their Space Commands.

The purpose and objectives of the United States Space Command (USSPACECOM) are to organize and manage space operations to deter and defeat aggression in or form space. The US Space Command has invested heavily in space-related programs to defend its vital interests along with its allies.

Likewise, The Russian Space Forces are also established to provide aerospace warning, air, and space sovereignty. Interestingly, when the global powers define their objectives to defend and further their interests, it is meant that they would utilize all available means to achieve that.

Similarly, China has also restructured its space forces which also have control over electronic and cyber warfare. European Union is also not far behind in the race to achieve mastery in space technologies because NATO has already declared space as the fifth domain besides cyber security, land, air, and sea. Whereas, UK is following an independent plan of space development, which will assist Command and Control of requisite defences of their space capabilities.

It is necessary to mention that nearly each of the relatively developed states has a vibrant space programme already underway at different stages. However, the programmes of most of these states are primarily aimed at defending their satellites, monitoring the weather phenomenon, getting assistance for navigation, and access to geospatial information. Some of these states include Germany, France, Japan, Australia, Canada, Turkey, South Africa, and Brazil.

In the South Asian region, India has been actively pursuing its space programme since the 1960s. However, India took a major leap in its space initiatives by conducting an anti-satellite test in March 2019. With this test, India joined the exclusive club of China, Russia, and the United States in terms of deploying anti-satellite capability. India also conducted an exercise in July 2019 to integrate its space-related men and machines from all services.

Most of the advanced air forces are transforming themselves into aerospace powers to have the global perspective because the future belongs to the mastery in space.

Dr. Zia Ul Haque Shamsi  is the author of the book ‘Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan’. He is presently working as the Director at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS). The articl was first published in Daily Times. He can be reached at [email protected]

Image Source: Etfa Khurshid Mirza


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »