Had a very lively chat with Anmol. We talked about a variety of topics, ranging from personal life to life in the air force. The chat included aspects related to motivation, stress management, decision making, air power, deterrence, new domains of war, Info warfare and a whole lot of other issues. One of the best podcasts.
Link to the podcast:-
Comments, views and suggestions are most welcome.
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.
Artificial intelligence (AI) and automation are revolutionising military aviation. These technologies enable maximum operational capability through autonomous flight, real-time decision-making, and enhanced resource management. They also raise significant safety concerns, including system reliability, ethical considerations, and the need for continuous human-AI interaction. Achieving an optimal balance between enhancing capability and ensuring operational safety is essential. This requires rigorous testing, adaptive standards, and human oversight to ensure mission success and promote safety.
Capabilities Enhanced by AI and Automation
Automation is transforming military aviation by adding new capabilities, enhancing combat effectiveness and efficiency.
Autonomous Operations and Swarm Tactics. AI enables autonomous take-off, navigation, and landing even in hostile or GPS-denied environments. Projects such as the U.S. Department of Defence’s Replicator vision of sending thousands of autonomous vehicles, including drones, on deployment by 2026. They intend to employ swarm intelligence to be utilised for reconnaissance, targeting, and swarming enemy defences. Boeing’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat is an example of a system that augments manned fighters by carrying out reconnaissance and engaging threats independently, de-loading pilot workload. India’s Combat Air Teaming Systems (CATS) and Rustom UAVs use sensor fusion technology, so that manned and unmanned platforms can work together in real time to attack and defend against threats.
Predictive Maintenance and Logistics. Predictive maintenance with AI analyses data from aircraft engines to predict failures, maintaining optimal scheduling and fleet availability. Digital twins, or virtual replicas that account for wear, damage, and flight history, allow faults to be preemptively identified before they occur. A 30% reduction in downtime and millions of dollars in savings can be achieved. The Air Forces and others have utilised these systems to improve logistics and strategic readiness, with aircraft still mission-effective.
Navigation and Decision Support. AI routes for safety and fuel optimisation. AI in emerging fighters such as DARPA’s Air Combat Evolution (ACE) program assists pilots with real-time battlefield analysis and threat identification. This aids faster and more accurate decisions. For instance, AI-controlled F-16s have executed high-speed manoeuvres exceeding 550 mph, responding to dynamic combat scenarios in increments of a fraction of a second.
Command and Control Improvements. The US Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) employs AI to enable unfettered sharing of information across air, land, sea, and cyber domains. This enables man-machine collaboration for rapid and precise decision-making. AI systems such as the XQ-58A Valkyrie demonstrate autonomous reconnaissance, jamming, and strike operations. They are force multipliers in network-centric warfare. These innovations disrupt the power balance, enabling a rapid response against emerging threats.
Safety Risks and Challenges
Just as AI enhances competence, it poses real threats that must be dealt with in order to promote safe functioning.
System Reliability and Failures. AI’s adapting behaviour can result in unpredictable effects, i.e., errors or bias, during exceptional incidents. Past software failures in military systems have led to accidents, and poor testing increases the potential for these effects. Premature deployment of unmanned systems can result in unforeseen lethal outcomes, i.e., in actual drone crashes during the Ukraine wars.
Ethical and Stability Implications. Autonomous systems can misinterpret circumstances, possibly worsening conflict or jeopardising global stability. Moral dilemmas arise with AI-generated lethal decisions, notably responsibility dilemmas under international humanitarian law. The swift proliferation of autonomous drones addresses actual threats in the world and not alleged dangers such as bioterrorism.
Certification and Regulatory Gaps. Current standards, such as DO-178C and MIL-HDBK-516C, do not fully account for AI’s adaptability. This creates challenges in validation and exposes hardware vulnerabilities. Unlike civil aviation, military applications often experience inconsistent safety compliance, complicating certification for AI-driven systems.
Human Factors. There can be an overdependence on AI, causing pilot proficiency to be lost, particularly in manual flying and quick decision-making. Control handover between human pilots and AI may be challenging in a crisis. There can be automation bias that causes pilots to ignore critical cues. New ideas, e.g., AI-checked conditions of ejection seats and well-being of the pilot, are thrilling but require scrupulous application so that it does not create unforeseen problems.
Cybersecurity Threats. Military aircraft powered by AI are vulnerable to hacking, spoofing, and adversarial attack. These can invalidate important systems and bring about disastrous failures. Cybersecurity plays an important role in maintaining operational integrity.
Balancing Capability with Safety: Strategies and Frameworks
Various measures are being taken by military forces across the globe to contain risks and maximise benefits from AI.
Strict Testing and Phased Introduction. Projects such as Replicator and DARPA’s ACE target strict testing in complete simulations to predict infrequent events and provide reliability prior to deployment. Phased integration within simulated areas provides additional robustness. Autonomy training conducted by the U.S. Air Force employs onboard sensors for enemy detection, while periodic manual flight and emergency procedure training maintain pilot proficiency.
Human-in-the-Loop Systems. Human control over major decisions, particularly the application of force, is important for secure integration of AI. AI is used as a co-pilot and never a replacement, with override rights still under human pilots. For example, autonomous jet test flights like those for the XQ-58A Valkyrie include standby pilots to ensure control.
Redundancy and Fail-Safes. Various safety features, such as manual reversion modes and fallback emergency provisions, enable pilots to regain control when AI systems fail. Tough validation procedures, as those in place for Helsing’s Centaur agent and its interaction with Saab’s Gripen E, enable AI to integrate with installed systems securely.
Certification Standard Development. The development of a systematic safety approach to AI-critical systems involves reviewing existing standards, such as MIL-HDBK-516C and the EASA AI Roadmap, conducting a gap analysis to identify where weaknesses lie, iteratively revising standards to incorporate AI-specific conditions, and examining them in depth to remove overlaps and new requirements. It adapts civil and military systems to deliver effective verification, validation, and continued airworthiness for AI systems.
Talent Development and Recruitment. Artificial intelligence technologies for weather forecasting, maintenance, and operational decision-making enhance readiness through optimising training. Hire AI specialists to monitor and refresh high-risk models under strict testing to provide long-term reliability and safety.
Conclusion
Military aviation is being transformed by artificial intelligence and automation. They provide capabilities that have never been seen before in terms of autonomy, decision-making, and logistics. They bring significant safety, ethical, and strategic problems, too. The future relies on man-machine collaboration, where AI augments human decision-making and not substitutes it. Through constant testing, adaptive certification standards, robust cybersecurity, and ethical governance, militaries are able to leverage AI potential while reducing risks. Ongoing global forums, such as 2025 panels, present cooperation and human control across the globe to ensure AI assists airpower responsibly, balancing capability and safety in driving sustainable advancement.
Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.
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:-
Cummings, M. L. (2017). Artificial intelligence and the future of warfare. Chatham House.
Eraslan, E., Yildiz, Y., & Annaswamy, A. M. (2019). Shared control between pilots and autopilots: Illustration of a cyber-physical human system. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 49(5), 436–447.
Heydarian Pashakhanlou, A. (2019). AI, autonomy, and airpower: The end of pilots? European Security, 28(4), 523–538.
Hobbs, K. L., & Li, B. (2023). Safety, trust, and ethics considerations for human-AI teaming in aerospace control. Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, 20(6), 280–293.
Jurado, R. D. A. (2024). The current state of standardisation of AI for civil and military aviation. Safety Science, 169, 105178.
Jurado, R. D. A. (2025). Enhancing safety in military aviation: A systematic approach to the development of AI certification standards. Aerospace, 12(1), 72.
Kirwan, B. (2024). The impact of artificial intelligence on aviation safety culture. Aerospace, 11(10), 863.
Lopes, N. M. (2025). Challenges and prospects of artificial intelligence in aviation: A bibliometric and systematic review. Journal of Air Transport Management, 128, 102054.
Mayer, M. (2023). Artificial intelligence and human-autonomy teaming in military systems. Journal of Defence Studies, 7(3), 45–61.
Molnar, T. G., Kousik, S., Singh, S., & Ames, A. D. (2024). Collision avoidance and geofencing for fixed-wing aircraft with control barrier functions. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 32(5), 1954–1967.
Rashid, A. B. (2023). Artificial intelligence in the military: An overview of capabilities and risks. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2023, 1–12.
Sachdev, A. K. (2021). Artificial intelligence in military aviation. Air Power Journal, 16(2), 1–18.
Tafur, C. L., Gómez, J. A. Y Martínez, P. (2025). Applications of artificial intelligence in air operations. Aerospace Science and Technology, 152, 109123.
Article Published in the Oct 25 Issue of The News Analytics Journal.
Hybrid operations, unlike traditional warfare, bridge martial coercion with non-military measures like sabotage, cyberattack, disinformation, interference in elections, energy blackmail, and weaponised migration. These processes are intentionally vague, cheap but high-impact, allowing state / non-state actors to destabilise their competitors without crossing transparent thresholds.
The Russian hybrid war strategy has been a security concern for the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They are improperly exposed to geography, population, and history relative to Russia. But the danger does not end there in the Baltics: Poland, Finland, and Germany are also at risk from shared energy and digital infrastructure, political interdependence, and disinformation.
Critical infrastructure, notably submarine cables, energy supplies, and digital networks, has also been a key target. With an assault upon such an asset requiring minimal effort but with the ripple effect containing security, economic, and psychological consequences, at least 11 North and Baltic Sea underwater cables have been severed since 2023, both demonstrating the technical possibility and the deniable nature of such an act. This article examines hybrid war strategy across the Baltic states, quantifying regional resiliency and defining policy measures to be taken in defence of their infrastructure.
Hybrid Threats and Activities
Hybrid war threatens Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania seriously, attacking the cohesion of society, infrastructure, and democratic procedures using methods of sabotage, cyberattacks, disinformation, and disruptions of energy supplies. These are intended to destabilise the Baltic States without triggering traditional war, exploiting vulnerabilities in linked systems.
Information Warfare and Propaganda. Disinformation works extremely well in hybrid warfare, often used through AI-generated content, deepfakes, and tailored social media campaigns on Telegram, TikTok, and local networks. All are designed to produce narratives around specific strategic interests, and linguistic or cultural minorities are the target to be manipulated into divisions. For example, messages can utilise themes of discrimination, nostalgia for the past, or suspicion of international coalition-building. Cultural projects, including patronage of institutions that advance other narratives, can build dual information spaces that undermine social cohesion. Classic cases such as the 2003 Lithuanian presidential foreign-linked funding scandal illustrate how external actors exploit political weaknesses. Current disinformation operations are more likely to derogate support for active conflicts, destabilise international partnership trust, and amplify societal fault lines.
Subversion and Sabotage. Low-tech sabotage can be thoroughly debilitating to social cohesion and infrastructure. For example, the 2024 arson assault on a Vilnius storage facility disclosed weakness in key logistics networks. Likewise, the demolition of historic monuments across regions has been utilised as a means of stirring ethnic or cultural tensions. Deployment of incendiary devices transported through logistics networks in attacks also demonstrates the capabilities for covert disruption. Attacks on key infrastructure, e.g., submarine cables carrying transatlantic communications, financial transactions, and military communications, are conventionally attributed to an accident but cause concern about intentional sabotage. These attacks highlight the asymmetric benefits pursued through precision disruption, taking advantage of vulnerabilities in interdependent systems.
Cyberattacks. Cyber war is a key component of a hybrid strategy, and organisations often conduct distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on government buildings, energy organisations, and public services. For instance, in 2022, a cyberattack on a Baltic energy organisation disconnected thousands of customers’ services. In showpiece events, as for the 2023 Vilnius NATO Summit, cyberattacks were conducted on public websites and ministries to cause embarrassment and instability.
Espionage. Espionage is used to support these activities, with nationals being said to be recruited to collect intelligence or conduct minor sabotage operations. These activities are intended to erode confidence and destabilise institutions by taking advantage of insider access or local dissatisfaction.
Energy Security Risks. Energy infrastructure is the main target in hybrid warfare as well, and physical and cyberattacks are employed to discredit confidence in alternative energy sources. Diversification policies like Baltic connection to the EU power grid in 2024 or construction of LNG terminals and pipelines have mitigated these risks. Nevertheless, ongoing attacks on critical infrastructure are employed to point towards the long-term problem of safeguarding energy networks against hybrid methods.
Organised Migration. Organised waves of migration, such as the 2021 EU border crisis, demonstrate that humanitarian crises can be manipulated for strategic motives. Migrants from war-torn areas were redirected to border areas, swamping indigenous governments and challenging regional security responses. Such crises are intended to challenge global coalitions and politicise public discussion of migration and security, exerting pressure on governments and societies.
Military Intimidation and Amplification of Support for Hybrid Operations. A display of military strength in strategic regions can serve to enhance hybrid strategies by providing the context of a credible threat. Mass movements, mimicking rapid penetrations into extensive areas of terrain or clandestine activities in border regions, increase tensions and augment the impact of clandestine operations. They capitalise on geographical proximity and cultural ties to vulnerable areas, thereby enhancing the perceived threat of escalation.
Election Interference. Election interference is a popular hybrid method that employs cyberattacks, the leakage of sensitive information, and disinformation as tools to influence public opinion. Social media mobilisation campaigns predicated on the amplification of controversial issues—whether nationalist feelings or ethnic grievances—can influence closely fought elections. They seek to de-legitimise the democratic institutions and undermine those governments amenable to confronting strategic interests.
Preparedness and Reactions of the Baltic States
Despite the seriousness of the threat, the Baltic States have largely been resilient. They have come a long way in countering such vulnerabilities with modernisation, social integration, and neighbourhood cooperation. Investments in energy diversification, for instance, Lithuania’s terminal for liquefied natural gas and Baltic disconnection of old energy grids in 2024, have been curtailing reliance on the outside world. Nevertheless, critical infrastructure such as underwater cables, energy networks, and democratic systems is an attractive target for low-cost, deniable assaults.
Societal and Institutional Resilience. The NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) is hosted by Estonia. Cyber defence and information warfare coordination are instead functions of Lithuania’s National Cyber Security Centre and Latvia’s Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. Civil defence institutions—such as Estonia’s 15,000-strong National Guard—facilitate rapid mobilisation in times of crisis.
Energy Independence. Integration of the Baltic States’ power grid with European grids, the Świnoujście terminal in Poland, and the Klaipėda LNG terminal are achievements of energy security. These steps limit Moscow’s influence and bolster NATO’s strategic depth.
Integration of Russian speakers. Rights of citizenship have been granted, investments made in learning the Russian language, and the recognition of cultural identities. These steps reduce alienation, but existing tensions between policies of integration and nationalist explanations that emphasise linguistic homogeneity.
Interagency Coordination. Interagency coordination is weak. Border control, crisis management, and intelligence exchange often do not operate in a coordinated manner. Latvia’s border guards, for example, have been criticised compared to more advanced Estonian and Nordic counterparts. NATO and American surveillance capabilities compensate to some extent, but reform at the national level remains to be accomplished.
Strengthening Baltic Defences against Hybrid Threats
Strengthening Baltic defences against hybrid threats involves building inclusive integration, establishing a Comprehensive Resilience Ecosystem (CORE), protecting critical infrastructure, modernising electricity laws, enhancing transparency, and strengthening regional and international cooperation. The following are recommendations:
Facilitate Inclusive Integration. Enlarge programmes to provide equal civic, economic, and political opportunities to cultural and language minorities to build national unity in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Envision a Comprehensive Resilience Ecosystem (CORE). Design an integrated system among the defence, cybersecurity, energy, and communications sectors to develop national resilience in the context of hybrid threats, tailored to Baltic priorities and imperatives.
Guard Critical Infrastructure. Prioritise the protection of submarine communications cables and offshore energy installations, taking advantage of regional cooperation in protecting these critical networks.
Modernise Legal Frameworks. Encourage the modernisation of international treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to counter hybrid threats to maritime and critical infrastructure, with the Baltic States coordinating regional action.
Increase Transparency in Deployments. Clearly inform Baltic citizens of regional defence measures to reassure them while dissuading potential aggressors, highlighting national sovereignty.
Upgrade Specialised Forces. Upgrade the Baltic special forces and civilian defence units with assistance from premier intelligence and surveillance capabilities in cooperation with allied countries.
Upgrade Regional Exercises. Regularly conduct exercises such as BALTOPS and Baltic Sentry, which include cyber, maritime, and information warfare exercises, to attain greater readiness and interoperability of the Baltic forces.
Launch Multilingual Campaigns. Develop multiple-language communication strategies to address different communities, counter fake information, and foster social cohesion across Baltic communities.
Enhance Monitoring and Reaction. Collaborate with national cyber units and regional allies to track disinformation in real-time, quickly discredit fakes, and possess a Baltic-led reaction.
Enhance Intelligence Sharing. Enhance Baltic States and European and Indo-Pacific partner cooperation to enhance early warning and reaction to hybrid threats.
Advance Global Norms. Advance global norms to safeguard crucial infrastructure such as submarine cables and cyberspace, and make the Baltic States leaders in securing the global commons.
Conclusion
Defending Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania against hybrid war is not a regional security problem, but ensuring democratic nations and preserving resilience in a conflict-filled environment that insinuates informational, digital, and physical space. By investing in societal cohesion, infrastructure security, and regional cooperation, the Baltic States can put the solution to hybrid threats and ensure long-term stability.
Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.
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.
Chivvis C. S, “Understanding Russian Hybrid Warfare and What Can Be Done About It”, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2017.
European Council on Foreign Relations, “Russian Influence and Hybrid Strategies in the Baltic Sea Region”, Policy Brief, 2023.
Kasekamp A, “Baltic Security Strategy Report”, Tallinn: International Centre for Defence and Security (ICDS), 2019.
Åtland K, “Russia’s Hybrid Warfare and the Baltic States: An Assessment of Threats and Responses”, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 36(2), 123–145, 2023.
Bērziņa I, “The Baltic States’ Response to Russian Hybrid Threats”, Defence Studies, 22(3), 345–367, 2022.
Berzins J, “The Baltic Security Dilemma: Hybrid Threats and NATO’s Response”, Riga: Latvian Institute of International Affairs, 2024.
Clark, D. & Hakala, E, “Submarine Cable Security in the Baltic Sea: Vulnerabilities and NATO’s Role”, NATO Review, 15(4), 1–12, 2023.
Galeotti M, “Hybrid War and Little Green Men: How It Works and How to Counter It,” The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 29(3), 401–423, 2016.
Kofman M. & Rojansky M, “Russia’s Hybrid Warfare Toolkit: Lessons from the Baltics and Ukraine”, Foreign Affairs, 102(5), 78–90, 2023.
Pynnöniemi K. & Saari S, “Russia’s Information Warfare in the Baltic States: Actors, Tools, and Impacts”, Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2022.airs, 2022.
