Mustafa Bilal-Ai-Air-Com-Oped thumbnail-July-2024-AP

The imagination of military aviation enthusiasts has remained captivated by the idea of self-flying fighter aircraft for decades. Hollywood tried to cash in on this back in 2005 with the release of Stealth which depicted an AI-controlled Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) slated to replace human pilots in the future. However, developing any absolutely autonomous aircraft has remained a distant dream. Technologically advanced states are now accelerating research and development to finally turn this dream into a reality.

In this regard, the United States (US) has been at the forefront of trying to realise the transformative potential of AI in military aviation, spearheaded by the collaboration between the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). While their efforts at developing autonomous air platforms were ongoing, Top Gun: Maverick hit the cinemas in May 2022. The opening sequence had the following quote, ‘These planes you’ve been testing, one day, sooner than later, they won’t need pilots at all.’ Few movie-goers would have thought that by December, a heavily modified F-16 fighter jet outfitted with two AI agents by AFRL and DARPA would take to the skies for the first time. The AI agents continued to undergo significant enhancements in trials throughout 2023. Interestingly, it took more than 100,000 software improvements before they were deemed capable of taking on a human pilot last September in the first real-world dogfight between man and machine.

Flash-forward to May 2024, USAF Secretary Frank Kendall made international headlines for flying in the same AI-controlled jet. Surprisingly, the AI agents went toe to toe with an experienced human pilot which prompted Secretary Kendall to candidly draw comparisons between AI and humans by pointing out the latter’s inherent limitations. Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this flight was a live demonstration of the pace at which the US has been able to refine its AI agents in under a year. But what caught the media’s attention was how he alluded to the eventuality that automation in aviation would replace humans.

The conversation around whether human pilots should remain in the cockpit in future conflicts is part of the larger international debate concerning lethal autonomy centred on whether humans should remain ‘in the loop’. While the US has given repeated assurances that the integration of AI in the military would uphold safety and ethical norms, it remains to be seen whether they make good on these assurances. Even Secretary Kendall acknowledged the dilemma of being disadvantaged if restrictions were imposed on absolute autonomy in a potential conflict. This could have been a veiled reference to China’s blazing advances in developing AI-enabled military systems.

It is noteworthy, however, that ‘autonomy’ denotes a spectrum of independent control and the challenges of employing absolutely autonomous air combat platforms were highlighted even in Stealth, where the futuristic AI-controlled UCAV disobeyed orders of the commanding pilot and got another pilot killed. The scene highlighted that operational concerns over lethal autonomy have existed since the idea of autonomous flight started taking flight in popular imagination. Understandably, it then made sense why USAF officials were quick to dismiss claims of AI going rogue in air combat simulations last year. The incident underscored that such concerns were indeed not confined only to the realm of fiction considering the unpredictable ‘blackbox’ nature of AI.

For now, the silver lining is that prominent US officials have frequently underlined that all current R&D efforts by DARPA and AFRL in aviation AI are aimed at augmenting human pilots, not replacing them. Their expectation is that a pilot with 100 flight hours could artificially come at par with an officer having ten times as much experience. Moreover, they try to assuage ethical concerns by stressing that their overarching objective is to improve manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T).

Relatedly, there is an old adage in the military that trust is gained in teaspoons and lost in buckets.  As such, pursuing human pilots to relinquish control to an AI agent would be the key challenge for effective collaboration. For instance, it took pilots years to get accustomed to even the Auto Ground Collision Avoidance System (GCAS) which averted possible collisions and saved lives. This could explain the US’ insistence that fostering trust between the human pilot and the AI agents is the core objective of all ongoing AI programmes. It is intriguing to observe that, despite being at the forefront of technological innovation, US scientists are deeply focused on enhancing AI with trustworthiness – a fundamental human trait. This emphasis underscores the recognition that technological advancement alone is insufficient without ensuring ethical considerations and reliability in AI systems

This fact lends credence to the notion that in the future of military aviation,  air combat will remain both a science and an art. While AI is likely to excel in the science aspect, leveraging its computational processing to undertake real-time analysis of data; it is human pilots who have mastered the art of air combat by having the cognitive flexibility to respond to unforeseen circumstanced scenarios while AI’s decision-making is heavily constrained by a limited dataset. Therefore, the future of military aviation rests on effectively leveraging the strengths of both man and machine.

Mustafa Bilal is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad. He can be reached at [email protected]


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 »