Uswa Khan-Aerospace-MDS

In recent decades, there have been substantial developments in the aerospace industry around the globe. With considerable increase in funding, innovation in the aerospace sector has gained significant momentum, fostering more competition in the respective domain. In 2021, around USD10 billion capital was invested in space companies. Similarly, the United States (US) and China have been actively investing in the aerospace capabilities, local industries, and human resource for both military and commercial purposes.

In navigating the debate surrounding the significance of aerospace in modern times and the pursuit of aerospace superiority between the US and China, an essential precursor is a nuanced understanding of the term ‘aerospace.’ Beyond its lexical amalgamation of air and space, aerospace constitutes a strategic juxtaposition, akin to a sophisticated chess match unfolding across the mediums of air and space. According to Major Carl Baner, ‘Air assets are governed by the laws of aerodynamics and tend to be more flexible and more responsive. Space assets are governed by orbital mechanics and tend to cover wider areas of the earth and provide a more continuous presence’. Moreover, in his book ‘Aerospace Power in the Twenty-First Century – A Basic Primer’, Dr Clayton K.S. Chun, a former officer in U.S. Air Force notes that, ‘Aerospace power includes air, space, and the integration of air and space power’. Based on these definitions, three key takeaways can be drawn: first, the term ‘aerospace’ reflects a synergy among various mediums and operational assets. Second, the essence of aerospace lies in the apt utilisation of both aerodynamics and orbital mechanism; and third, if this orchestration is conducted to its full capacity, it will lead to an unequivocal superiority over adversaries.

When it comes to utilising space above Earth’s surface for military operations that align with national objectives, aerospace power is an essential component. The Gulf War (1990-1991), for instance, witnessed the use of satellites along with deployment of US air power assets. During Operation Desert Storm, US satellites provided real-time imagery to its Air Force’s combat aircrafts i.e., F-16 which enabled them to locate and eliminate Iraqi military strategic assets, both stationary and mobile. All these military campaigns in operation Desert Storm relied heavily on aerospace assets. More recently, during the Russian-Ukraine war, Elon Musk’s Starlink, an advanced satellite system, enabled Ukrainian Aerial Reconnaissance unit to accomplish surveillance and conduct intelligence collection operations against Russian forces. The intrinsic value of space systems in enhancing terrestrial activities ranging from communication to navigation and intelligence – further underscores their critical role in military operations.

Aerospace superiority transcends being merely a technological achievement; it is a strategic cornerstone that seamlessly integrates military prowess, strategic behaviour, and economic strength. This concept is particularly evident in the current era, characterised by the ongoing aerospace rivalry between the US and China. This struggle highlights how aerospace dominance is not just about technological advancements but also involves strategic and economic dimensions, shaping global power dynamics. This competition extends beyond the skies, encompassing the space domain, where both states are vying for supremacy in anti-satellite capabilities, cyber-systems, hypersonic systems, and manoeuvrable space crafts in addition to the separate international space stations. This strategic race underscores the pivotal role of aerospace superiority not only in conventional defence but also in shaping the future of technological innovation, economic growth, and global influence.

For instance, the US boasts a long-standing tradition of substantial investment in the aerospace industry, with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) playing a pivotal role in the country’s space programme, particularly in research and development. The country also has a robust private sector with leading aerospace and defence companies like Northrop Grumman, SpaceX, Lockheed Martin. According to a report published by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), the Aerospace and Defence (A&D) industry contributed approximately USD 952 billion in sales revenue in 2022 and economic value of USD 418 billion.

China has risen as a formidable contender in the aerospace industry, making significant investments and advancements in companies, Research and Development (R&D), modern stealth technologies, aerial capabilities, low-altitude economy and the modernisation of its Air Force. This progress presents a direct challenge to US air superiority. The private aerospace sector in China grew from 376.4 billion yuan in 2015 to 836.2 billion yuan in 2019, registering a compound annual growth rate of 22.1%. This sector is projected to surpass 2.4 trillion yuan by 2024. With companies like China Aerospace Corporation (CASC), and others playing a greater role in space technology development, China has built a burgeoning commercial aerospace sector. The country’s ambitious space programme, which includes plans to launch crewed spacecraft to the moon by 2030 and develop nuclear-powered space shuttles by 2040, aims to make it a global space power by 2045. Along with other space research efforts, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) has also been exploring Mars, and crewed space flights.

Aerospace superiority has now become a critical factor in determining a nation’s security, defence standing, and ability to protect its interests in a deeply interconnected world. The intense rivalry between the US and China encapsulates this reality, illustrating a strategic contest that goes beyond technological rivalry to profoundly affect global security and economic stability. Moreover, the unfolding discourse makes it obvious: the future world order will likely be defined by those who command aerospace superiority, decisively shaping the balance of power on the global stage.

Uswa Khan is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. She can be reached at: [email protected].

Design Credit:  Mysha Dua Salman


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 »