India’s strategic environment is shaped by its geographic diversity and its position between two nuclear-armed neighbors, Pakistan and China, with whom it shares contentious borders. The western frontier with Pakistan has been a hotspot due to historical conflicts and ongoing tensions. At the same time, the northern and eastern borders with China, particularly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), have seen escalating friction, exemplified by the 2020 Galwan Valley clash.
India’s armed forces continuously evolve to address emerging security challenges, especially along its northern borders. Military exercises are a cornerstone of any nation’s defence strategy, serving as a vital mechanism to train troops, test equipment, refine tactics, and project power. In the case of India, a country with a complex geopolitical landscape and diverse security challenges, such exercises are indispensable.
“Exercise Prachand Prahaar,” whose name translates to “fierce strike,” emerges as a significant undertaking by the Indian Armed Forces. It was conducted from March 25 to 27, 2025, in the high-altitude terrain of Arunachal Pradesh and was a large-scale joint military drill. The exercise aimed to enhance interoperability between the Army, Air Force, and Navy while demonstrating India’s capabilities in multi-domain warfare.
Exercise Prachand Prahaar builds upon the foundation laid by Exercise Poorvi Prahar, conducted in November 2024, which focused on the integrated application of aviation assets. The current exercise expanded this concept by validating a fully integrated approach to surveillance, command and control, and precision firepower across all three services, reflecting the evolving nature of joint military operations.
Objectives. India’s military exercises serve multiple purposes, from testing new doctrines to improving service coordination. Exercise Prachand Prahaar had well-defined objectives. The multi-domain exercise tested India’s ability to conduct operations simultaneously on land, in the air, at sea, in space, and in cyberspace. The exercise emphasised seamless integration between the three services, enabling efficient command and control structures. Given the proximity to India’s northern borders, the exercise simulated combat scenarios in challenging mountainous terrain, demonstrating readiness in a high-altitude environment. The exercise incorporated modern warfighting tools such as UAVs, loitering munitions, and electronic warfare systems. Other objectives would be:-
Rapid Deployment & Mobility. Evaluating the efficiency of deploying forces, including Special Forces, artillery units, and air assets in high-altitude environments.
Precision Strikes. Validating the efficacy of long-range rockets, drones, loitering munitions, and fighter aircraft in neutralising simulated enemy targets.
Joint Surveillance & Intelligence. Utilising UAVs, satellites, and reconnaissance aircraft to enhance real-time intelligence-sharing.
Electronic & Cyber Warfare Integration. Testing the resilience of Indian forces in an electronically contested battlefield with cyber threats.
Logistics & Sustainment. Assessing how well the tri-services can sustain long-term operations in challenging terrain and adverse weather conditions.
Highlights of the Exercise.
The exercise commenced with a large-scale deployment of surveillance assets, including long-range reconnaissance aircraft of the Indian Air Force (IAF), maritime patrol aircraft from the Indian Navy, focusing on domain awareness, and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and satellites for real-time intelligence gathering. This phase emphasised situational awareness, allowing for precise target identification and battlefield management.
Once targets were identified, the exercise progressed to a synchronised firepower demonstration. The arsenal employed included Fighter aircraft such as the Rafale and Su-30MKI, which delivered precision airstrikes, long-range rocket systems, and medium artillery from the Indian Army, and attack helicopters like the HAL Prachand, which provided air support. The firepower phase illustrated India’s capacity to conduct joint operations under an electronically contested environment, integrating cyber and electronic warfare techniques.
A critical aspect of the exercise was the demonstration of rapid mobility and logistical efficiency. The armed forces executed airborne insertions of Special Forces to simulate offensive operations in enemy territory. The exercise was conducted in a networked environment with joint command centers ensuring seamless ground, air, and naval communication. Battlefield medical support drills were part of the exercise, reflecting the importance of combat casualty management in high-altitude warfare.
Strategic Implications.
Exercise Prachand Prahaar was conducted in the eastern sector, primarily in Arunachal Pradesh, an area of strategic importance due to its proximity to the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China. The exercise aimed to enhance combat readiness, validate new operational concepts, and assess the capability of Indian forces to conduct joint high-altitude warfare.
The exercise reinforced India’s military preparedness, particularly along its northern borders, where high-altitude operations are crucial. Given China’s assertiveness along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the exercise demonstrated India’s ability to mobilise and execute joint operations effectively.
One of the exercise’s most notable outcomes was its emphasis on jointness. As the Indian military transitions towards integration, drills like Prachand Prahaar provide valuable insights into improving inter-service coordination.
The exercise sent a clear strategic message to both regional adversaries and allies. To potential aggressors, it showcased India’s combat readiness and willingness to engage in multi-domain warfare. It reaffirmed India’s role as a security provider in the Indo-Pacific region to allies and defence partners.
Exercise Prachand Prahaar provided crucial lessons shaping future defence planning and warfare conduct. The modern battlefield increasingly relies on electronic and cyber warfare, requiring continued investment in network-centric capabilities. Logistics and mobility remain critical, particularly in high-altitude conflict zones. The exercise highlighted India’s strides in defence indigenisation, with systems like the HAL Prachand attack helicopter playing a pivotal role.
Conclusion
Exercise Prachand Prahaar was a landmark military drill reinforcing India’s preparedness for future conflicts. It showcased the Indian Armed Forces’ ability to conduct high-intensity operations across multiple domains, leveraging cutting-edge technology and joint force integration. As India modernises its military and enhances its strategic posture, such exercises will play an increasingly vital role in ensuring national security and regional stability.
Please Do Comment.
For regular updates, please register your email here:-
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
My Article published on the Chanakya Forum Website
on 24 Mar 25.
A recent Indian defence committee has recommended increasing private sector participation in military aircraft manufacturing to enhance the Indian Air Force’s capabilities. The committee, led by the defence ministry’s top bureaucrat, submitted its report to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, who has directed that the recommendations be implemented promptly. The report emphasises the need for private companies to work alongside Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to achieve self-reliance in aerospace manufacturing. It suggests implementing short-, medium–, and long-term measures to expedite the production of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) variants, including Mk-1, Mk-1A, and Mk-2, to address delays and strengthen the IAF’s operational readiness.
India’s aerospace and defence sector has undergone significant transformation in recent decades, evolving from a predominantly state-controlled domain to increasingly embracing private sector participation. Fighter jet production, a critical component of national defence, has traditionally been the preserve of public sector undertakings (PSUs) like Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, with the government’s push for indigenisation, self-reliance, and modernisation under initiatives like “Make in India,” the private sector is emerging as a vital player in this high-stakes industry. This article examines the intricacies of how private companies contribute to India’s defence capabilities and what lies ahead for this evolving partnership.
Historical Context
India’s journey into fighter jet production began in the mid-20th century, heavily reliant on foreign technology and licensing agreements. The 1960s saw HAL commence production of the Soviet-designed MiG-21 under license, marking the start of India’s aircraft manufacturing journey. Over the years, HAL expanded its portfolio, producing aircraft like the Jaguar, Mirage 2000, and Su-30 MKI, all under similar arrangements with foreign OEMs. These efforts established HAL as the cornerstone of India’s defence aviation industry, supported by other PSUs and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
The push for Indigenous fighter jet development gained momentum with the HF-24 Marut, designed by German engineer Kurt Tank in the 1960s. However, the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas program, initiated in the 1980s by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) with HAL as the production partner, represented a significant leap towards self-reliance. The Tejas, inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF) in 2016, showcased India’s ability to design and build a modern fighter jet, albeit with substantial reliance on imported components.
Historically, private sector involvement in fighter jet production was minimal. The defence sector’s strategic importance, high capital requirements and restricted access to advanced technology confined manufacturing to PSUs. While effective in establishing a foundational aerospace industry, this PSU-centric model faced limitations in scalability, innovation, and meeting the IAF’s growing demands, setting the stage for private sector inclusion.
A series of progressive policy reforms have driven the shift towards private sector involvement in defence manufacturing, including fighter jets. Launched in 2014, the “Make in India” initiative sought to bolster domestic manufacturing and reduce import dependency, with defence identified as a priority sector. This program encouraged private companies to participate in defence production by fostering a conducive business environment and promoting collaborations with global players.
A pivotal policy change was the liberalisation of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in defence. Previously capped at 26%, the FDI limit was raised to 74% under the automatic route in 2020, with provisions for up to 100% on a case-by-case basis for critical technologies. This opened doors for foreign OEMs to invest in India, often in partnership with private Indian firms, facilitating technology transfer and capacity building.
The Strategic Partnership (SP) Model, introduced in the 2017 Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP), marked another milestone. Designed to foster long-term collaborations between private Indian companies and foreign OEMs, the SP Model identifies private firms as Strategic Partners in manufacturing major defence platforms, including fighter aircraft. The selection process emphasises financial stability, technical expertise, and manufacturing capabilities to create a robust domestic defence industrial base.
Revisions to the DPP further supported this shift. The DPP 2016 introduced the “Buy (Indian-IDDM)” category—Indigenously Designed, Developed, and Manufactured—prioritising equipment with at least 40% Indigenous content. Offset clauses in defence contracts, mandating foreign vendors to invest a percentage of the contract value in India, have also incentivised partnerships with private companies. These policies collectively signal a departure from the PSU monopoly, inviting private sector innovation and investment.
Current Involvement of the Private Sector
The private sector’s role in Indian fighter jet production is multifaceted, spanning manufacturing, supply chain contributions, and support services. While HAL remains the primary assembler of fighter jets like the Tejas, private companies are increasingly integrated into the production ecosystem.
Supply Chain Contributions. In the Tejas program, private firms supply critical components and sub-systems. Dynamatic Technologies, for instance, manufactures the front fuselage of the Tejas, demonstrating the precision and reliability private players can offer. Larsen & Toubro (L&T) contributes to various aerospace projects, leveraging its engineering expertise, while Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) participates in component manufacturing and assembly processes. These collaborations reduce HAL’s burden and enhance production efficiency, paving the way for a more robust and agile production ecosystem.
Offset Obligations. Major defence deals have catalysed private sector involvement. The 2016 Rafale deal with France’s Dassault Aviation, involving 36 fighter jets, included offsets worth billions. Reliance Defence and Engineering partnered with Dassault to fulfil these obligations, producing components and establishing a manufacturing facility in Nagpur. Such partnerships generate business for private firms, facilitating skill development and technology absorption.
Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO). Beyond production, private companies are making inroads into MRO services, which are essential for maintaining fighter jet fleets. TASL has established advanced MRO facilities that service military and civilian aircraft, while Mahindra Defence Systems supports aerospace equipment. These services ensure operational readiness, a critical factor given the IAF’s ageing fleet.
Emerging Technologies. Some private firms are exploring adjacent fields like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Companies like TASL and Adani Defence & Aerospace are developing drones and building aerospace expertise that could eventually support fighter jet programs. While UAVs differ from manned fighters, the technological overlap strengthens the private sector’s aerospace capabilities.
Technology Transfer and Innovation. Technology transfer remains a cornerstone of private sector growth. Collaborations with foreign OEMs provide access to advanced systems, such as radar and propulsion technologies, while joint ventures encourage co-development. Private firms also invest in innovation, exploring additive manufacturing (3D printing) and artificial intelligence to streamline production and reduce costs. Over time, these efforts could lead to fully indigenous fighter jet designs.
Role of MSMEs. Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are the backbone of the aerospace supply chain. These firms produce smaller components—fasteners, wiring harnesses, and sub-assemblies—supporting larger private companies and PSUs. By integrating MSMEs, the industry can enhance efficiency and scalability, fostering a broader industrial ecosystem and providing opportunities for growth and innovation.
Key Defence Production Private Companies. Several private companies have shown interest in participating in fighter jet manufacturing, either independently or in collaboration with HAL and foreign OEMs.
Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) has emerged as a leader in India’s private aerospace sector. Its joint venture with Lockheed Martin to produce aero structures, including wings for the C-130J Super Hercules, showcases its manufacturing prowess. Although the F-16 production proposal did not materialise, TASL’s capabilities position it for future fighter jet projects.
Mahindra Defence Systems. Mahindra has leveraged its automotive expertise to enter defence manufacturing, supplying aircraft components and expressing interest in the SP Model. Its partnership with Airbus for helicopter components reflects its ambition to expand into fighter jet production.
Larsen & Toubro (L&T). L&T’s decades-long experience in defence engineering includes contributions to the Tejas and other platforms. Its advanced manufacturing facilities and focus on precision engineering make it a strong contender in aerospace production.
Adani Defence & Aerospace. It aims to enhance India’s self-reliance in defence manufacturing. While active in UAVs, avionics, and MRO, it seeks partnerships for fighter jet production but lacks an indigenous fighter aircraft program.
Challenges Faced by Private Companies
Private companies face significant hurdles in entering fighter jet production despite growing involvement.
High Capital Investment. Aerospace manufacturing demands substantial upfront investment in infrastructure, technology, and skilled manpower. The long gestation periods before returns materialise deter many firms, particularly more minor players.
Technological Barriers. Fighter jet production requires mastery of complex technologies—avionics, propulsion, and materials science—that PSUs like HAL have developed over decades. Private companies often lack this expertise, relying on foreign partnerships that may limit technology transfer.
Bureaucratic Procurement Processes. The defence procurement system is notoriously complex, with lengthy tendering, evaluation, and approval stages. This can discourage private firms accustomed to faster commercial cycles.
Competition with PSUs. HAL’s entrenched position and government backing create an uneven playing field. Private companies must compete with HAL’s economies of scale and establish relationships with the IAF.
Quality and Certification. Fighter jets demand uncompromising quality and safety standards. Private firms must navigate rigorous certification processes, such as those mandated by the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC), adding time and cost.
Future Prospects
The private sector’s role in Indian fighter jet production is set for significant expansion, driven by policy continuity, market demand, and technological advancements. Government initiatives such as Atmanirbhar Bharat and the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) foster a stable investment climate, encouraging private firms to engage in aerospace manufacturing. Policy measures like strategic partnerships and increased foreign direct investment (FDI) limits further enhance private sector participation.
Market demand is another key driver. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is undergoing rapid modernisation, with plans to replace ageing aircraft and induct advanced fighters. Additionally, India’s ambition to become a defence exporter presents lucrative opportunities for private companies. Countries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa could become potential buyers, bolstering the case for increased private production.
Technological advancements are also reshaping the industry. Additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and advanced materials reduce entry barriers and enable new players to contribute. Collaborations with global aerospace firms can further accelerate technology absorption.
However, for private firms to succeed, key enablers must be addressed. Streamlining procurement processes, enhancing R&D funding, and developing a skilled workforce are critical. Bureaucratic hurdles and financial constraints have historically hindered private participation, but targeted reforms could unlock their full potential. If these challenges are managed effectively, private companies could be pivotal in next-generation fighter projects like the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). This would strengthen India’s defence manufacturing ecosystem and enhance its strategic autonomy in aerospace technology.
Conclusion
The involvement of the private sector in Indian fighter jet production marks a paradigm shift from a PSU-dominated landscape to a collaborative ecosystem. While challenges like capital intensity and technological gaps persist, the opportunities—driven by policy reforms, IAF requirements, and global partnerships—are immense. Companies like TASL, Mahindra, and L&T exemplify the potential of private enterprises to enhance India’s defence capabilities. As the nation strives for self-reliance, the private sector’s role will be pivotal in shaping a robust, innovative, and competitive aerospace industry, ensuring that India’s fighter jets soar not just in the skies but also as symbols of industrial prowess and strategic autonomy.
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
References:-
Singh, Abhijit. “Public-Private Partnership in Indian Defence Manufacturing: A Strategic Perspective.” Journal of Defence Studies, vol. 16, no. 2 (2023): 51-78.
Raghavan, Ramesh. “The Role of Private Companies in Defence Production: Lessons from Global Models.” Strategic Analysis, vol. 45, no. 1 (2022): 29-50.
Mehta, Sameer. “India’s Quest for Fighter Jet Autonomy: Challenges and Opportunities for the Private Sector.” Air Power Journal, vol. 17, no. 3 (2022): 12-35.
Sharma, Arvind. “HAL and the Evolving Role of Indian Private Defence Firms.” Journal of Defence Research and Development, vol. 19, no. 4 (2023): 88-105.
Chakrabarti, Rajesh. Defence Economics in India: The Transition to a Military-Industrial Complex. Oxford University Press, 2020.
Sinha, Rakesh. Privatisation and Defence Manufacturing in India: The Road Ahead. Routledge, 2019.
Pandit, Rajat. “HAL and the Private Sector: A New Era in Indian Fighter Jet Production.” The Times of India, March 10, 2023.
Peri, Dinakar. “Adani and Tata’s Role in India’s Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) Project.” The Hindu, August 12, 2023.
Unnithan, Sandeep. “How Private Players Are Transforming Indian Defence Manufacturing.” India Today, November 15, 2022.
Singh, Rahul. “India’s LCA Tejas and the Private Sector: The Growing Role of Private Industry in Aerospace.” Hindustan Times, July 20, 2023.
Mitra, Joydeep. “The Rafale Offset Deal: How Private Companies are Gaining from India’s Fighter Jet Deals.” Business Standard, September 25, 2023.
Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS). The Future of India’s Indigenous Fighter Jet Development: Role of Private Sector. CAPS Report No. 231, 2023.
Observer Research Foundation (ORF). Public-Private Collaboration in Indian Defence: Global Lessons and Local Challenges. ORF Special Report, 2022.
Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA). Self-Reliance in Indian Defence: Evaluating the Private Sector’s Role. IDSA Monograph No. 82, 2023.
Carnegie India. India’s Fighter Jet Ecosystem: Bridging the Capability Gap through Private Sector Involvement. New Delhi: Carnegie India, 2023.
Kumar, Rohit. “The Evolution of the Tejas Fighter Jet: Indigenous Capability and the Role of Private Sector.” Defence and Security Review, vol. 24, no. 3 (2022): 15-37.
My Article was published on the Indus International Research Foundation Website on 20 Mar 25.
In the modern battlefield, timely and accurate information is paramount. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force in various sectors, and its integration into the military is particularly notable. AI’s integration into strategic and tactical decision-making transforms military operations by enabling leaders to anticipate potential threats, optimise resource allocation, and make faster, data-driven decisions. AI rapidly becomes a core tool for enhancing military decision-making, revolutionising strategies, and operational efficiency. It reshapes how military leaders approach battlefield tactics, logistics, and strategic planning through rapid data processing, sophisticated simulations, and predictive analysis. As armed forces worldwide increasingly adopt AI technologies, the implications for strategy, tactics, and operational efficiency are profound. While AI offers unprecedented benefits, its integration in military contexts introduces ethical concerns and strategic challenges that are central to its future role.
The Evolution of AI in Military Applications. The military’s interest in AI is not recent; it dates back several decades. The initial exploration of AI technologies in military contexts began in the 1950s and 1960s, focusing on simulations and rudimentary decision support systems. Over the years, advancements in machine learning, data analytics, and computational power have dramatically enhanced the capabilities of AI systems. In the 1960s, AI research focused on symbolic reasoning and game theory, with early applications in strategic simulations. The Cold War era spurred investments in AI research as nations sought technological advantages. The Gulf War in the early 1990s highlighted the importance of information superiority. AI technologies began integrating command and control systems, enabling real-time data analysis and enhanced situational awareness. The development of drones and unmanned systems marked a significant shift, with AI increasingly applied to operational contexts. Today, AI applications in the military encompass various areas, including autonomous vehicles, predictive analytics, intelligence gathering, and combat simulations. Countries like the United States, China, and Russia are investing heavily in AI research to enhance their military capabilities.
Benefits of AI in Military. Integrating AI into the military offers significant benefits, including increased efficiency, accuracy, and situational awareness. AI technologies streamline processes and enhance operational efficiency. By automating routine tasks, military personnel can focus on strategic planning and execution. AI systems improve the accuracy of military operations by providing data-driven insights that reduce human error. Analysing data in real time enhances decision-making, particularly in high-stakes environments. AI technologies improve situational awareness by integrating data from various sources, providing commanders with a comprehensive understanding of the battlefield. These practical advantages underscore the importance of AI in military decision-making.
AI in Military Contexts.
AI in the military can be broadly classified as data analytics, autonomous systems, decision support, and cyber defence. Its ability to quickly process large volumes of data and identify patterns has made AI a powerful tool for intelligence analysis, operational planning, and logistics optimisation.
Data Analytics and ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). AI-driven data analytics enhance ISR capabilities by analysing satellite images, social media data, intercepted communications, and more to identify potential threats. AI systems analyse real-time ISR data, recognising patterns that may indicate enemy movements or hidden threats. Machine learning models trained on historical data help predict potential adversarial actions, giving military leaders a tactical advantage. For example, deep learning models analyse satellite and drone imagery, identifying military installations, troop movements, or equipment locations with minimal human input. By providing commanders with this intelligence in near real-time, AI reduces the time needed to make informed tactical decisions.
Simulation and War Gaming. AI-powered simulations are invaluable for testing different scenarios in war gaming exercises. These simulations incorporate diverse factors, including adversary capabilities, weather, and terrain, to provide a realistic projection of possible outcomes. Such tools allow leaders to plan and rehearse operations, identify weaknesses, and refine strategies. AI simulations support large-scale strategic planning and small-unit tactics, helping teams understand the consequences of their actions before taking them on the battlefield. War gaming simulations also train and prepare soldiers and officers for complex and high-stress situations through realistic, AI-generated scenarios.
Predictive Maintenance and Logistics Optimisation. AI enhances logistics by predicting when vehicles or other equipment may need maintenance, ensuring that military assets are operational when required. Predictive maintenance uses AI to analyse sensor data from equipment, forecasting failures before they happen and reducing operational downtime. For instance, AI predicts tank engine wear or helicopter rotor fatigue based on operational data, allowing maintenance teams to perform pre-emptive repairs, which can be critical in conflict scenarios. This application is more efficient and potentially life-saving, a testament to the significant role AI plays in military operations.
Autonomous and Semi-Autonomous Systems. Autonomous systems driven by AI are reshaping the modern battlefield. Drones, ground robots, and other unmanned systems operate with varying degrees of autonomy, performing ISR, transport, and combat tasks that traditionally require human soldiers. These systems extend operational capabilities, allowing military forces to engage in high-risk missions with minimal direct exposure to human personnel.
Unmanned Aerial and Ground Vehicles. AI enables drones and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) to operate autonomously in complex environments. Equipped with computer vision and machine learning algorithms, these systems navigate hostile terrain, conduct reconnaissance, and sometimes engage targets without direct human intervention. These AI-driven vehicles can also perform multi-mission roles, often shifting from reconnaissance to combat, depending on mission needs. This flexibility allows commanders to adapt real-time strategies, using the same resources for multiple purposes, improving efficiency, and extending operational reach.
Swarm Technology. Swarm technology, in which groups of autonomous systems work collaboratively, represents a new frontier in military robotics. AI allows swarms of drones to communicate, make collective decisions, and adapt to changing environments, enabling them to overwhelm defences, conduct coordinated surveillance, and jam enemy signals. In a combat situation, drone swarms could confuse adversary radar systems or execute diversionary tactics, creating openings for human-operated forces. This level of coordination and adaptability would be almost impossible without AI, which processes environmental data and adjusts the swarm’s behaviour in real-time.
Autonomous Combat Systems and the Kill Chain. One of the most controversial uses of AI in the military is automating the “kill chain”, the sequence of decisions from target identification to engagement. While current norms generally require human oversight, there is a growing interest in developing systems that can autonomously engage targets under specific circumstances. This application raises profound ethical and legal questions, as fully autonomous combat systems could operate beyond human control, making decisions with lethal consequences. Concerns over accountability, discrimination between combatants and civilians, and the potential for accidental escalation of conflicts are central to debates on the future of such technologies.
Cyber Defence and Information Warfare. Cyber warfare is a crucial area where AI aids in protecting military assets from digital threats. With its ability to rapidly detect anomalies, AI helps military cyber teams identify potential intrusions and respond to cyber attacks, significantly improving defence against increasingly sophisticated adversaries.
Threat Detection and Response. AI-powered systems monitor military networks, identifying unusual activities and rapidly flagging potential threats. These systems can differentiate between normal and malicious behaviour by analysing network patterns, user behaviour, and system performance. Machine learning models constantly adapt to new tactics and techniques cyber adversaries use, making them crucial in mitigating advanced persistent threats (APTs). AI also plays a role in “active defence,” where it identifies an intruder and takes countermeasures, potentially isolating affected systems or misleading the adversary. Such rapid response mechanisms enhance cyber security in ways that are challenging to achieve with human teams alone.
Information Warfare and Disinformation Detection. Information warfare has become a critical aspect of military operations, with adversaries frequently spreading misinformation to undermine morale and erode public trust. AI-driven tools can identify disinformation patterns by analysing social media and other communications platforms and flagging content designed to mislead or destabilise. AI’s ability to monitor, detect, and counteract information attacks helps protect soldiers and civilians from psychological manipulation while countering adversarial narratives that aim to weaken resolve or incite division.
Decision Support Systems (DSS). AI-based DSS provides commanders with actionable insights, predicting adversary behaviour and logistics needs and suggesting strategies to address dynamic battlefield conditions. AI’s benefits in military decision-making are substantial, enhancing speed, accuracy, and operational readiness. AI allows faster decision-making by processing information and identifying threats quicker than human operators. This speed is critical in time-sensitive combat situations where delayed responses can mean the difference between success and failure.
AI-enabled Systems.
Project Maven. Initiated by the U.S. Department of Defence in 2017, Project Maven aims to leverage AI to enhance the military’s ability to analyse drone footage and other visual data. By employing machine learning algorithms, Project Maven can automatically identify objects and activities in video feeds, significantly improving the speed and accuracy of intelligence analysis. According to the DoD, “Project Maven enables the Department of Defence to leverage AI and machine learning to make sense of vast amounts of data.” This project exemplifies the practical application of AI in military operations, transforming how intelligence is gathered and analysed.
Aegis Combat System. The Aegis Combat System is an advanced naval weapons system used by the U.S. Navy and allied forces. It employs AI to enhance threat detection, tracking, and engagement capabilities. Aegis integrates data from multiple sensors to provide real-time situational awareness, enabling rapid decision-making in combat scenarios.
Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) are a controversial application of AI in military operations. These systems can select and engage targets without human intervention, raising ethical and legal concerns. Proponents argue that LAWS can reduce risks to human soldiers and increase operational efficiency. However, critics warn that lacking human oversight in lethal decision-making could lead to unintended consequences. The United Nations has called for discussions on regulating autonomous weapons, emphasising the need for human accountability in such systems.
Challenges and Concerns.
Implementing AI in the military involves several practical challenges, including ethical concerns, data quality, adversarial threats, and potential over-reliance on technology. While AI presents significant opportunities for military decision-making, several challenges and ethical considerations must be addressed.
Data Privacy and Security. Integrating AI into military operations raises concerns about data privacy and security. Collecting and analysing vast amounts of data, including personal information, can lead to potential misuse or unauthorised access. Ensuring data integrity and protecting sensitive information are critical challenges for military organisations. Cyber security measures must be robust to prevent adversaries from exploiting vulnerabilities in AI systems.
Data Quality and Integration. AI systems require high-quality, structured data to make accurate decisions. Military data sources are often fragmented, making integrating and ensuring data quality difficult. If AI systems operate on poor or incomplete data, they may produce incorrect or unreliable decisions, which could have dire consequences.
Reliability and Trust. AI systems are not infallible and can be prone to errors, particularly in complex and dynamic environments. Building trust in AI systems is crucial for military personnel to rely on them in high-stakes situations. Ensuring the reliability and accuracy of AI algorithms requires continuous testing and validation. Military organisations must establish protocols to assess the performance of AI systems before deployment.
Ethical Implications, Accountability and Responsibility. Despite its benefits, AI in military decision-making raises moral and legal concerns, particularly regarding autonomy, accountability, and adherence to international laws. The potential for machines to make life-and-death decisions without human intervention raises concerns about accountability and moral responsibility. Accountability can be ambiguous in AI-driven operations. If an autonomous weapon causes unintended harm, it is often unclear whether responsibility falls on the AI developer, the commanding officer, or the operator. Establishing clear accountability is essential to prevent the misuse of AI technologies and to ensure legal and ethical conduct in military operations. The moral implications of using AI in warfare have led to calls for regulatory frameworks to govern the development and deployment of autonomous systems. Experts argue that human oversight is essential to maintain ethical standards in military operations.
Compliance with International Law. Many AI applications in warfare, such as autonomous drones and weaponised robots, may challenge existing international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, which govern the conduct of war and protect non-combatants. The potential for autonomous systems to make lethal decisions without human oversight raises questions about compliance with these international norms.
Adversarial AI and Deception. The potential for adversaries to exploit AI technologies poses a significant threat to military operations. Hostile entities can exploit cyber security vulnerabilities in AI systems to disrupt operations or manipulate data. For example, an adversary might feed false data into an AI system or use techniques to mislead autonomous systems, potentially leading to harmful or counterproductive decisions. Military organisations must develop counter-AI strategies and robust cyber security measures to safeguard their systems from adversarial threats. Collaboration with industry and academia can enhance resilience against emerging threats.
Dependence on Technology and Operational Vulnerability. Over-reliance on AI could create vulnerabilities, particularly if these systems are compromised or disabled in combat. If soldiers and commanders become too dependent on AI-based decision support, they may lack the necessary skills or resilience to operate without these tools in high-stress situations.
Future of AI in Military Decision-Making
As AI technology evolves, its role in military decision-making will expand. Several key areas warrant attention for future developments. The trajectory of AI in military decision-making suggests further integration, with increased autonomy in combat systems, more sophisticated predictive capabilities, and enhanced collaboration between human and AI decision-makers. However, the future of AI in military contexts will depend on addressing current ethical concerns, refining regulatory frameworks, and developing global agreements on autonomous weaponry.
Ongoing Research and Development. Continued research and development in AI technologies will be critical for addressing military applications’ challenges and ethical implications. Collaboration between military organisations, academia, and industry can drive innovation. Governments and defence agencies should invest in research programs exploring AI’s ethical, operational, and technological aspects in military contexts. This approach will ensure that AI systems are developed responsibly and effectively.
Human-AI Teaming Models and Collaboration. The future of military decision-making will likely involve greater collaboration between humans and AI systems. AI can augment human decision-making by providing data-driven insights, while human operators can offer contextual understanding and ethical considerations. This human-AI teaming approach leverages AI’s data processing and pattern recognition strengths while preserving human oversight and moral judgment. Developing effective collaboration models will be crucial for maximising AI’s benefits in military operations.
Advanced Training and Adaptation. As AI tools evolve, military training will adapt to integrate AI-based decision-making into officer training and war gaming exercises. Future military professionals must understand AI’s capabilities and limitations to ensure they can use these tools effectively and ethically. Enhanced training programs are essential to prepare military personnel to integrate AI technologies. Training should focus on developing skills in data analysis, AI ethics, and human-machine collaboration.
Regulatory Frameworks. The rapid advancement of AI technologies necessitates the establishment of regulatory frameworks to govern their use in military operations. Such frameworks should address ethical considerations, accountability, and oversight in autonomous systems. International cooperation is essential for developing norms and standards regarding the use of AI in warfare. Establishing treaties or agreements can help mitigate the risks of autonomous weapons and promote responsible AI use.
International Collaboration and AI Arms Control. International collaboration and regulation will be essential to manage the risks associated with military AI. Nations may need to negotiate treaties similar to those that govern nuclear and chemical weapons, establishing protocols and limits for AI-driven autonomous weapons.
Conclusion
Integrating AI into military decision-making reshapes how armed forces operate, strategise, and engage in combat. While AI offers significant benefits regarding efficiency, accuracy, and situational awareness, it also raises significant ethical and operational challenges. As military organisations continue to explore AI technologies, addressing these concerns will ensure responsible and effective use in the field. Balancing AI’s benefits with the principles of international law and ethical warfare will be essential to shaping a future where AI is a responsible and effective partner in military decision-making. The future of military decision-making will depend on finding the right balance between leveraging AI’s capabilities and maintaining human oversight and accountability. As AI technology advances, ongoing research, regulation, and collaboration will ensure that its deployment in military contexts aligns with humanity’s broader goals and values.
Please Do Comment.
For regular updates, please register your email here:-
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
References: –
U.S. Department of Defence. (2017). Project Maven. Retrieved from DoD Website.
Richardson, J. M. (2016). “The Future of Naval Warfare.” Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute, 142(5), 24-30.
U.S. Army. (2019). Army Artificial Intelligence Strategy. Retrieved from Army.mil.
Scharre, P. (2018). Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
United Nations. (2019). Report of the Secretary-General on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. Retrieved from UN Website.
Hodge, N. (2017). “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Military Strategy.” Journal of Military Ethics, 16(4), 303-319.
Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency. (2021). AI Next Campaign. Retrieved from DARPA.mil.
Lin, P. (2016). “Why Ethics Matters for Autonomous Cars.” Autonomously Driven Cars: Ethical Implications of the Technology. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Altmann, J., & Sauer, F. (2017). “Regulating Artificial Intelligence in Warfare.” The International Journal of Human Rights, 21(2), 147-161.
Cebrowski, A. K., & Gartska, J. J. (1998). “Network-Centric Warfare: Its Origin and Future.” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 124(1), 28-35.
