war and warfare – Air Marshal's Perspective

May 8, 2025May 8, 2025

671: PAKISTAN’S BACKWARDS MARCH: LED BY THE GENERALS, PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE

My article published on the IIRF and “Life of Soldier” website on 08 May 25.

“While most nations have an army, in Pakistan, the army has a nation.”

— Widely cited in analyses of Pakistan’s civil-military ties

Pakistan, a nation born from the aspirations of a free and prosperous Muslim homeland, finds itself trapped in a cycle of stagnation and regression. The title “Pakistan’s Backwards March” encapsulates a grim reality: a country with immense potential is being held hostage by its power structures, particularly the omnipresent influence of its military establishment. Led by the generals, this march backwards is a betrayal of the nation’s founding ideals and a burden borne disproportionately by its people. Understanding the historical and contemporary dynamics of military dominance reveals that Pakistan’s elusive path toward a more democratic and equitable future can only be charted by its citizens. However, the time for this charting is not just now, but now or never.

The Generals’ Grip: A Historical Perspective

Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan’s military has positioned itself as the ultimate arbiter of the nation’s destiny. The country’s early years were marked by political instability, with weak civilian governments unable to consolidate power. This vacuum allowed the military to subtly and overtly step in as the self-proclaimed guardian of national interests. The first military coup in 1958, led by General Ayub Khan, set a precedent that still haunts Pakistan. Subsequent coups under Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf entrenched the military’s role as the dominant force in politics.

The military’s justification for its interventions has often been cloaked in the rhetoric of stability and security. Pakistan’s volatile geopolitical environment has been cited as a reason for the need for a strong, centralised authority. The Kashmir conflict, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the post-9/11 war on terror further amplified the military’s influence, as it positioned itself as the bulwark against external and internal threats. However, this narrative conveniently obscures the military’s role in perpetuating instability to maintain its grip on power.

The military’s dominance is not merely political; it extends into the nation’s economic and social fabric. Through sprawling business empires like the Fauji Foundation and the Army Welfare Trust, the military controls vast sectors of the economy, from agriculture to real estate. These enterprises, often tax-exempt, operate with little transparency, siphoning resources that could otherwise fund public services. Meanwhile, the military’s influence over media and civil society stifles dissent, ensuring its narrative remains unchallenged.

The People’s Burden: Economic and Social Costs

The consequences of this military-led governance model are borne by Pakistan’s 240 million citizens, who face a litany of challenges exacerbated by the generals’ priorities. The economy, perpetually on the brink, is a stark reflection of mismanagement and skewed resource allocation. Pakistan’s GDP growth has lagged behind its South Asian neighbours, averaging around 3-4% annually over the past decade, compared to India’s 6-7%. Public debt has skyrocketed, with external debt surpassing $130 billion in 2024, driven by loans from the IMF and bilateral creditors like China. This economic burden is not just a statistic, but a daily struggle for the people.

The military’s outsized budget is a significant drain on national resources. In 2023, defence spending accounted for roughly 4% of GDP, dwarfing allocations for education (1.7%) and healthcare (1.4%). While the military justifies its budget by citing security threats, the lack of transparency raises questions about how these funds are used. Meanwhile, ordinary Pakistanis grapple with inflation rates hovering around 10-12%, unemployment affecting nearly 10% of the workforce, and a poverty rate that leaves over 40% of the population below the international poverty line.

Socially, likewise, the military’s dominance has stifled democratic institutions and civil liberties. The judiciary struggles to uphold the rule of law, often cowed by military pressure. Political parties, while complicit in their failures, are frequently manipulated or sidelined through engineered elections or disqualifications. The 2018 elections, widely criticised for military interference, saw the rise of Imran Khan’s PTI, only for Khan to later fall out with the establishment, leading to his ouster in 2022 and subsequent imprisonment. This cycle of co-optation and discardment undermines democratic continuity and public trust.

Once a vibrant space for debate, the media now operates under severe constraints. Journalists face harassment, censorship, and even violence for criticising the military. Social media platforms, while offering some resistance, are increasingly monitored, with laws like the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act used to silence dissent. Civil society organisations, too, face restrictions, leaving little room for grassroots movements to challenge the status quo.

Education and healthcare, critical for human development, remain woefully underfunded. Pakistan’s literacy rate hovers around 60%, and its public schools are plagued by dilapidated infrastructure and teacher shortages. Strained by population growth and inadequate facilities, the healthcare system leaves millions without access to basic care. These failures are not merely administrative; they reflect a deliberate prioritisation of military interests over human welfare.

The Vicious Cycle: Instability and Dependency

The military’s dominance creates a vicious cycle of instability and dependency. By undermining civilian institutions, the generals ensure that no alternative power center can emerge, perpetuating their indispensability. This weakens governance, leading to economic crises that necessitate foreign bailouts. The IMF’s repeated interventions (Pakistan has availed itself of 23 IMF programs since 1958) come with austerity measures that hit the poor hardest, further fuelling discontent.

Foreign policy, too, is shaped by military priorities, often at the expense of national interests. Pakistan’s alignment with the U.S. during the Cold War and the war on terror brought billions in aid but also drew the country into conflicts that destabilised its northwest. While promising infrastructure development, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has deepened Pakistan’s debt to China, with opaque agreements raising concerns about sovereignty. The military’s control over foreign policy limits diplomatic flexibility, as seen in Pakistan’s strained relations with India and its delicate balancing act between the U.S. and China.

Internally, the military’s counterterrorism operations, while necessary, have often been heavy-handed, alienating communities in regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Baloch insurgency, fuelled by economic marginalisation and human rights abuses, is a case in point. Forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, attributed to security forces, have deepened mistrust, making reconciliation elusive.

A Path Forward: Reclaiming Pakistan’s Future

Breaking the backwards march of Pakistan requires a fundamental reorientation of its entrenched power dynamics. For decades, the military establishment has held disproportionate sway over national policy, foreign relations, and even economic priorities, often at the expense of democratic development and civilian governance. This imbalance has fostered instability, weakened institutions, and stifled public dissent. To move forward, the people of Pakistan must reclaim their agency and demand accountability from both military and civilian leaders. This means bolstering civil society, protecting press freedom, and empowering grassroots democratic movements. Actual progress will not come from external aid or authoritarian “stability,” but from an engaged citizenry that insists on transparency, the rule of law, and genuine representation. Reclaiming power from entrenched elites will be difficult. Still, it is the only path toward a more equitable, prosperous, and sovereign Pakistan—one where the state serves its citizens, not the other way around.

The first step would be strengthening civilian institutions. A robust judiciary, free from military influence, is essential for upholding the rule of law. Political parties must prioritise internal democracy and governance reforms over short-term alliances with the military. Civil society, including media and NGOs, needs space to operate without fear, fostering a culture of accountability.

Economically, reallocating resources from defence to development is critical. Investing in education and healthcare can unlock Pakistan’s human potential, creating a more skilled and productive workforce. Economic diversification, beyond reliance on agriculture and textiles, is also necessary to reduce vulnerability to global shocks.

Foreign policy must be wrested from military control and aligned with national interests. Normalising relations with India, particularly through trade, could unlock economic benefits for both nations. A balanced approach to global powers, avoiding over-dependence on any single ally, would enhance Pakistan’s sovereignty and diplomatic leverage.

Conclusion

Pakistan’s backwards march, orchestrated by its generals, is a tragedy of squandered potential. The military’s dominance has enriched a small elite while impoverishing the masses economically and democratically. Yet, the resilience of Pakistan’s people offers hope. Pakistan can reverse its trajectory by empowering civilian institutions, prioritising human development, and fostering a culture of accountability. The path is fraught with challenges, but the alternative of continued regression is unthinkable. The generals may lead the march, but it is the people who pay the price, and it is they who must ultimately chart a new course.

Breaking this backwards march requires a fundamental reorientation of Pakistan’s power dynamics. Most importantly, the people must reclaim their agency. The time to act is now, for Pakistan’s future is in the hands of its people.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

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:–

1. Haqqani, H. (2005). Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

2. Siddiqa, A. (2007). Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy. Pluto Press.

3. Cohen, S. P. (2004). The Idea of Pakistan. Brookings Institution Press.

4. Jalal, A. (1990). The State of Martial Rule: The Origins of Pakistan’s Political Economy of Defence. Cambridge University Press.

5. World Bank. (2024). Pakistan Economic Update 2024. World Bank Group.https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/pakistan/publication/pakistan-economic-update

6. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2023). Pakistan: Staff Report for the 2023 Article IV Consultation. IMF.

7. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Pakistan Economic Survey 2022-23. Government of Pakistan.

8. Freedom House. (2023). Freedom in the World 2023: Pakistan. Freedom House.

9. Rizvi, H. A. (2000). Military, State and Society in Pakistan. Palgrave Macmillan.

10. Small, A. (2015). The China-Pakistan Axis: Asia’s New Geopolitics. Oxford University Press.

11. Lieven, A. (2011). Pakistan: A Hard Country. PublicAffairs.

12. Malik, I. H. (2016). Pakistan: Democracy, Development, and Security Issues. Oxford University Press.

13. Ahmed, Z. S. (2013). Civil Society and Democracy in Pakistan. Routledge.

14. The Economist. (2023). Pakistan’s Political Crisis: The Military’s Long Shadow. The Economist.

May 7, 2025May 7, 2025

670: COLD WAR 2.0: MILITARY ASPECTS AND IMPACT ON INDIAN SECURITY

My contribution to the book

“Cold War 2.0 and India”

The world is witnessing the emergence of a new Cold War, often referred to as Cold War 2.0, primarily driven by intensifying geopolitical, economic, and technological rivalries between the United States and China, with Russia playing a significant role. Unlike the ideological battle of the original Cold War, this modern conflict is fuelled by strategic competition for global influence, military dominance, and economic control. Key drivers of Cold War 2.0 include China’s rise as a military and technological superpower, the US-led effort to counterbalance Beijing’s influence, and Russia’s challenge to Western dominance. Arms build-ups, strategic alliances, hybrid warfare, and advancements in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, space warfare, and hypersonic missiles mainly characterise Cold War 2.0. For India, this renewed great-power rivalry presents both opportunities and challenges. Understanding the military dimensions of Cold War 2.0 is crucial and necessary for analysing its impact on global stability, the evolving nature of warfare, and the strategic recalibrations required for nations like India to safeguard their security interests.

Drivers of Cold War 2.0

The re-emergence of great power competition in the 21st century has led to a period characterised by heightened strategic rivalry between the United States and China, with Russia playing a significant but secondary role. Unlike the original Cold War, which was primarily an ideological struggle between capitalism and communism, this new iteration is driven by geopolitical, economic, technological, and military factors. These factors have reshaped the global order and fuelled an environment of sustained strategic hostility, making Cold War 2.0 a defining feature of contemporary international relations.

One of the most significant drivers of Cold War 2.0 is the rise of China as a global superpower, challenging the longstanding dominance of the United States. Over the past four decades, China has undergone an economic and military transformation that has propelled it to the forefront of global politics. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s massive infrastructure and investment project spanning Asia, Africa, and Europe, has been a key instrument in expanding Beijing’s influence. While China claims that the BRI is purely an economic initiative, Western policymakers see it as a geopolitical tool to increase China’s leverage over developing nations. Furthermore, China’s military expansion, most notably in the South China Sea, has alarmed the United States and its regional allies. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has also aggressively pursued technological dominance, particularly in fields such as artificial intelligence, 5G, and quantum computing. The rapid ascendance of China as a comprehensive power has disrupted the global balance, triggering countermeasures from the United States, including trade restrictions, sanctions on Chinese technology firms, and strengthened military alliances in the Indo-Pacific. This great power rivalry, rooted in China’s challenge to U.S. hegemony, is a fundamental driver of Cold War 2.0.

The second major driver of this new Cold War is the resurgence of Russia as a revisionist state seeking to undermine Western influence and reassert its geopolitical ambitions. Although Russia lacks comparative economic power, it remains a formidable military force with vast energy resources and a willingness to engage in aggressive foreign policies. The war in Ukraine has strengthened the perception of a new Cold War, with Russia aligning itself more closely with China, Iran, and North Korea to counterbalance Western power. Russia’s actions have not only escalated tensions with the United States and Europe but have also contributed to a broader global realignment, with countries being forced to take sides in this emerging bipolar struggle.

The erosion of American unipolarity and the fragmentation of the liberal international order have also played a crucial role in driving Cold War 2.0. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States emerged as the world’s sole superpower, ushering in a period of unchallenged American dominance. However, U.S. global influence has waned in recent years due to domestic political polarisation, costly military interventions, and economic challenges. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drained American resources. They damaged its credibility, while the rise of populist movements and political divisions have weakened Washington’s ability to project unified global leadership. The decline of unipolarity has created a more competitive and unstable international system, where power is increasingly distributed among multiple actors, setting the stage for heightened strategic rivalry.

Economic decoupling and technological competition between the United States and China constitute another major driver of Cold War 2.0. The global economy, once characterised by deep interdependence, is now experiencing a shift toward fragmentation as Washington and Beijing seek to reduce their reliance on each other. The U.S. has imposed sweeping restrictions on Chinese technology firms, particularly in semiconductor manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and telecommunications, citing national security concerns. In response, China has accelerated its efforts to achieve self-sufficiency in critical industries, investing heavily in indigenous innovation and supply chain resilience. This technological decoupling is not just an economic issue—it has profound military and strategic implications, as control over emerging technologies will determine the balance of power in future conflicts. The race for supremacy in AI, quantum computing, cyber warfare, and space exploration is now a central battlefield in Cold War 2.0, with both sides striving to outmanoeuvre each other in the next frontier of global dominance.

Finally, the ideological and political divide between democratic and authoritarian systems has reinforced the divisions of Cold War 2.0. The United States and its allies promote liberal democracy, human rights, and a rules-based international order. Meanwhile, China and Russia advocate for state sovereignty, authoritarian stability, and non-interference in domestic affairs. The contrast between these governance models has led to intensified ideological competition, with both sides seeking to expand their influence globally. The U.S. has framed its rivalry with China and Russia as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, rallying allies to counter Beijing’s and Moscow’s influence in international institutions. Meanwhile, China’s “Global Security Initiative” aim to portray the West as a declining power, promoting an alternative world order.

Military Aspects of Cold War 2.0

The evolving geopolitical landscape of the 21st century has increasingly drawn comparisons to the original Cold War. The military dimension of Cold War 2.0 is particularly critical, as it shapes global security dynamics through arms races, power projection, strategic alliances, and hybrid warfare. The military aspect of this renewed competition manifests in several key areas.

One of the most visible military aspects of Cold War 2.0 is the modernisation and expansion of nuclear arsenals. While the U.S. and Russia still maintain the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons, China’s rapid nuclear build-up has become a central concern for Western policymakers. Unlike during the first Cold War, when the U.S. and Soviet Union were the primary nuclear superpowers, the emergence of China as a third major nuclear player significantly altered the strategic calculus. Beijing has also been expanding its missile silos, developing hypersonic delivery systems, and pursuing advanced nuclear-powered submarines, signalling its intent to establish a more robust second-strike capability. At the same time, Russia’s suspension of the New START treaty, coupled with its threats of tactical nuclear weapon use in Ukraine, has reignited fears of a new nuclear arms race. The U.S., in response, is modernising its nuclear triad, investing heavily in next-generation intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), stealth bombers, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. These developments indicate that nuclear deterrence strategies are again at the forefront of great power competition.

Beyond nuclear weapons, conventional military capabilities have also been undergoing significant transformation. The trend is towards increased investment in stealth aircraft, long-range precision strike systems, autonomous combat platforms, and integrated air and missile defence networks. For its part, China has undertaken one of the most extensive military modernisation programs in history. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has rapidly expanded its naval and air forces. Despite economic constraints, Russia has focused on asymmetric warfare strategies, leveraging advanced air defence systems, hypersonic missiles, and electronic warfare capabilities.

A defining feature of Cold War 2.0 is the race for military superiority in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and autonomous warfare. Unlike the first Cold War, where military advancements were primarily centred on nuclear and conventional weaponry, digital and cyber capabilities are expected to shape modern conflicts. AI-driven autonomous drones, robotic combat units, and cyber warfare tools have become central to military planning. Quantum computing, if fully realised, could render current encryption methods obsolete, drastically altering cyber defence strategies. The cyber domain has emerged as a battlefield, with state-sponsored cyber attacks targeting critical infrastructure, defence networks, and economic systems. As nations develop offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, the risk of cyber escalation and strategic instability increases significantly.

Hybrid warfare, a strategy that blends conventional military tactics with cyber, economic, and information warfare, has also become a defining characteristic of Cold War 2.0. China employs hybrid tactics involving disinformation campaigns, cyber-attacks, and proxy militias, leveraging economic coercion, political influence operations, and grey-zone warfare. The U.S. and its allies have responded with countermeasures, including economic sanctions, cyber counteroffensives, and the strengthening of information warfare capabilities. Unlike the Cold War of the 20th century, where direct military confrontations were largely avoided, the modern iteration features a greater degree of low intensity. These asymmetric conflicts blur the line between war and peace.

Impact of Cold War 2.0 on Indian Security

The emergence of a second Cold War has profound implications for India’s security. One of the most immediate effects of Cold War 2.0 on India is the increased militarisation of the Indo-Pacific region. As the United States seeks to contain China’s growing military and economic influence, it has strengthened its ties with allies and partners. This has enhanced defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, and joint military exercises. It has drawn India into the broader US-China confrontation, making it a target for Chinese actions, such as aggressive border moves, cyber warfare, and economic coercion. The 2020 Galwan Valley clash between Indian and Chinese forces was a stark reminder of how geopolitical tensions manifest as direct security threats for India.

Another major concern is the growing China-Pakistan nexus, which has intensified in response to Cold War 2.0. China has significantly increased its defence, economic, and nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, which directly impacts India’s security. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), challenging India’s territorial claims. China’s supply of advanced military hardware, including fighter jets, submarines, and missile systems, has strengthened Pakistan’s military capabilities, altering South Asia’s conventional and nuclear balance. There are also concerns that China could use Pakistan as a proxy to destabilise India.

India’s maritime security has also been affected as Cold War 2.0 extends into the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). China has expanded its naval footprint through bases in Djibouti and potential dual-use facilities in Sri Lanka, Pakistan (Gwadar), and Myanmar. The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has increased its submarine patrols and surveillance activities near India’s maritime boundaries, challenging India’s dominance in its strategic backyard.

Technological competition in Cold War 2.0 also affects India’s security, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI), cyber security, and space warfare. The US and China are engaged in a technological arms race, and India must navigate this landscape carefully. Increased focus on Indigenous defence production under “Atmanirbhar Bharat” (self-reliant India) is a direct consequence of this competition.

Diplomatically, Cold War 2.0 presents India with both challenges and opportunities. While the US-India partnership has grown stronger, India remains cautious about being seen as a mere US ally. India has historically valued its strategic autonomy, as seen in its continued engagement with Russia despite Western pressure. India relies on Russian military hardware, including S-400 missile systems, and has resisted aligning too closely with US-led security pacts. However, this balancing act is becoming increasingly difficult as Cold War 2.0 escalates, forcing India to make difficult choices.

Economically, Cold War 2.0 presents risks for India’s trade and supply chain security. The US-China decoupling has disrupted global trade, affecting India’s access to key technologies, raw materials, and markets. The push for friend-shoring and near-shoring has led companies to diversify supply chains, offering India an opportunity to attract investments as an alternative manufacturing hub. However, China remains one of India’s largest trading partners, and an outright economic confrontation would be costly. India must, therefore, navigate a complex economic environment, securing its interests without alienating key partners.

Conclusion

Cold War 2.0 has fundamentally reshaped the global security landscape, with military competition emerging as a key aspect of great-power rivalry. Driven by China’s rise, Russia’s resurgence, and the United States’ efforts to maintain its strategic dominance, this new geopolitical contest is marked by military build-ups, shifting alliances, and technological arms races. The military developments have made the world more unstable, with regional conflicts and proxy wars serving as potential flashpoints for broader confrontations. For India, Cold War 2.0 presents both security threats and strategic opportunities. The growing China-Pakistan nexus and Beijing’s assertiveness along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) pose direct military challenges to India. The militarisation of the Indian Ocean, the threat of cyber warfare, and disruptions to global supply chains further complicate India’s security environment. To navigate this evolving conflict, India must bolster its military capabilities, strengthen regional partnerships, and maintain its strategic autonomy to avoid outright confrontation. As Cold War 2.0 continues to unfold, the global military balance will be shaped by how nations adapt to this new era of great-power competition, making it essential for India to proactively safeguard its national security while leveraging opportunities to enhance its geopolitical standing.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

References:-

Khosla Anil, “Cold War Redux: Military Aspects of Cold War 2.0”, 16 Dec 24, https://55nda.com/blogs/anil-khosla/2024/12/16/558-cold-war-redux-military-aspects-of-cold-war-2-0/

Allison, Graham. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.

Kaplan, Robert D. The Return of Marco Polo’s World: War, Strategy, and American Interests in the Twenty-First Century. Random House, 2018.

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Updated ed., W.W. Norton & Co., 2014.

Gady, Franz-Stefan. “The Future of High-End Warfare: What the Next US-China Conflict Could Look Like.” The Diplomat, 2023.

Doshi, Rush. The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order. Oxford University Press, 2021.

Mazarr, Michael J., et al. Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives. RAND Corporation, 2018.

Nye, J. S. (2012). The future of power in the 21st century. Foreign Affairs, 91(2), 90–104.

Menon, Shivshankar. India and Asian Geopolitics: The Past, Present. Brookings Institution Press, 2021.

Pant, Harsh V. The US Pivot and Indian Foreign Policy: Asia’s Evolving Balance of Power. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Shankar, Arvind. “India’s Role in a Fragmented Global Order.” The Print, 2023.

Mohan, C. Raja. Samudra Manthan: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2012.

Singh, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra. “The Impact of US-China Rivalry on India’s Defence Strategy.” Observer Research Foundation, 2023.

Rajagopalan, Rajeswari Pillai. Space and Nuclear Deterrence in Indo-Pacific: A New Strategic Triangle. Observer Research Foundation, 2022.

May 6, 2025May 7, 2025

669: INDIA’S PERSISTENT EYES IN THE SKY: STRATOSPHERIC AIRSHIP PLATFORMS

My article was published on “The EurasianTimes” website

on 05 May 25.

On May 3, 2025, India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) achieved a significant milestone by successfully conducting the maiden flight trial of its Stratospheric Airship Platform at Sheopur, Madhya Pradesh. Developed by the Aerial Delivery Research and Development Establishment (ADRDE) in Agra, the lighter-than-air platform reached an altitude of 17 km, carrying an instrumental payload during a 62-minute flight. The test validated critical systems, including envelope pressure control and emergency deflation mechanisms, with sensor data collected to refine high-fidelity simulation models for future missions. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and DRDO Chairman Dr. Samir V. Kamat hailed the achievement, emphasising its potential to enhance India’s earth observation, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. This positions India among a select few nations with indigenous stratospheric airship technology. The successful trial, conducted amid heightened India-Pakistan tensions, underscores DRDO’s focus on advancing high-altitude, long-endurance platforms to bolster national security and surveillance, marking a pivotal step toward operationalising these pseudo-satellite systems.

Stratospheric Airships

In an era where connectivity, surveillance, and environmental monitoring are paramount, the innovative stratospheric airship platforms, high-altitude, lighter-than-air vehicles operating at 20–30 km, offer a transformative solution. These unmanned, long-endurance systems, often called High-Altitude Platform Systems (HAPS), combine satellites’ endurance with terrestrial systems’ flexibility. Positioned above commercial air traffic and weather systems, they promise to deliver telecommunications, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and scientific research at a fraction of the cost of traditional satellites.

Technology. Stratospheric airships are aerostatic vehicles that rely on helium-filled envelopes for buoyancy, allowing them to float in the low-density air of the stratosphere. Unlike fixed-wing HAPS or balloons, airships use propulsion systems, typically electric motors powered by solar panels or hydrogen-based regenerative fuel cells (RFCs), to maintain station-keeping or navigate over specific regions. Their design incorporates lightweight, UV-resistant materials to withstand harsh stratospheric conditions, including temperatures as low as -60°C, intense ultraviolet radiation, and ozone corrosion.

Components. The primary technical challenges include developing lightweight materials, optimising energy efficiency, ensuring thermal management, and achieving reliable control in a near-vacuum environment. These hurdles have historically delayed operational deployment, but recent advancements are closing the gap. Key technological components include:-

- Envelope and Materials. The helium-filled envelope, often made of advanced composites like polyethene or Mylar, must balance strength, weight, and durability. Innovations in nanotechnology and multi-layered fabrics enhance resistance to environmental degradation.
- Power Systems. Solar panels and energy storage (batteries or RFCs) enable continuous operation. RFCs, which generate electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen, are particularly promising for long-endurance missions, as demonstrated in Japan’s Stratospheric Platform (SPF) program.
- Payload. Airships carry modular payloads (20–1,500 kg) tailored to specific missions, such as phased-array antennas for 4G/5G connectivity, high-resolution cameras for ISR, or sensors for environmental monitoring.
- Control Systems. Autonomous navigation and station-keeping require sophisticated algorithms to counter stratospheric winds, which are milder than jet streams but still challenging. Machine learning and real-time data processing are increasingly integrated for precision.

Applications

Stratospheric airships are versatile platforms with applications across civilian, commercial, and military domains. These applications position stratospheric airships as a cost-effective alternative to satellites, with the added benefit of reusability and rapid deployment.

Telecommunications. Airships can provide broadband connectivity to remote or underserved regions, acting as “pseudo-satellites.” For instance, Mira Aerospace’s ApusDuo HAPS delivered 5G connectivity in Rwanda in 2023, demonstrating the potential to bridge the digital divide. Unlike satellites, airships can be repositioned or serviced, offering flexibility for dynamic network demands.

Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR). Their ability to loiter over specific areas for extended periods makes airships ideal for ISR.

Environmental Monitoring. Airships with sensors can monitor greenhouse gases, climate patterns, or natural disasters. Sceye Inc., a New Mexico-based company, is developing airships to track environmental changes, supporting global sustainability efforts.

Scientific Research. High-altitude platforms enable ground-breaking scientific research, such as atmospheric studies, astronomy, and other research requiring stable, high-altitude vantage points. NASA’s proposed Centennial Challenge aims to incentivise airship innovations for scientific missions, inspiring a new era of discovery.

Military Applications. Beyond ISR, airships could support GPS jamming, missile defence, wartime communications, electronic warfare and the potential for stealth detection.

Advantages & Limitations

Advantages. Stratospheric airships provide compelling advantages over traditional platforms like satellites. Their cost-effectiveness is a key benefit, with development, launch, and maintenance costs in the millions, far below the billions required for satellites. This affordability democratises access to high-altitude capabilities. Flexibility is another strength; unlike geostationary satellites, airships can be repositioned, serviced, or upgraded to meet evolving mission needs, enabling dynamic applications such as telecommunications or surveillance. Their long endurance—capable of missions lasting months or even years—reduces the need for frequent replacements, enhancing operational efficiency. Additionally, accessibility is improved by operating below orbital altitudes, avoiding the complexities of space debris and stringent international space regulations. These attributes make stratospheric airships an attractive alternative for tasks like broadband delivery, environmental monitoring, and intelligence gathering, offering a versatile, cost-efficient bridge between terrestrial and space-based systems.

Limitations. Stratospheric airship platforms face significant limitations that hinder their widespread adoption. Technical complexity remains a primary challenge, as lightweight materials, efficient energy storage, and precise control systems require further development to ensure reliability in the harsh stratospheric environment. Limited operational systems exacerbate this issue, with most airships still in the prototype phase and scarce real-world flight data to validate performance. Environmental challenges also pose risks, as stratospheric conditions—extreme cold, UV radiation, and ozone exposure—demand robust designs to prevent envelope degradation or thermal failures. Additionally, regulatory hurdles complicate deployment, as coordinating airspace usage and navigating international regulations, particularly for cross-border missions, remains a barrier. These challenges necessitate substantial investment in research, testing, and regulatory frameworks to transition stratospheric airships from experimental to operational systems, unlocking their potential for telecommunications, surveillance, and environmental monitoring.

Development status

The concept of stratospheric airships, pioneered in the 1960s with Raven Aerostar’s High Platform II reaching 70,000 ft in 1969, gained traction in the 1990s as materials and solar technology advanced. Despite high costs and complexity, recent global efforts signal a resurgence, driven by improved designs and commercial potential, as seen in Google’s Loon (2013–2021).

United States. The U.S. pursued stratospheric airships through Lockheed Martin’s High Altitude Airship (HAA) and DARPA’s ISIS for ISR, but both were cancelled due to cost overruns. Aerostar’s HiSentinel reached 74,000 ft in 2005, proving viability. Sceye Inc. now leads the scaling of solar-powered airships in New Mexico for broadband and environmental monitoring, with expansion planned for 2025.

Japan. Japan’s JAXA launched the Stratospheric Platform (SPF) in the 1990s, focusing on solar-powered airships with regenerative fuel cells. Prototypes were tested, but the program shifted focus by 2009. Japan’s early work on energy systems remains influential for long-endurance HAPS development.

South Korea and Europe. South Korea explored HAPS in the 2000s with limited outcomes. In Europe, Thales Alenia Space’s Stratobus targets ISR and telecom, aiming for five-year missions with a 2023 prototype. The TAO Group’s SkyDragon introduces a segmented design for stability, enhancing European innovation.

China. China’s Yuanmeng airship, tested in 2015, focuses on military surveillance and stealth detection. Ongoing programs by the Aviation Industry Corporation of China emphasise long-endurance airships for communication and reconnaissance.

Future Prospects

The future of stratospheric airships is bright, driven by technological advancements. Innovations in nanotechnology and composite fabrics will produce lighter, more durable envelopes, extending mission durations. Next-generation regenerative fuel cells (RFCs) and high-efficiency solar cells will ensure reliable power, critical for continuous operation in the stratosphere. Enhanced by machine learning and real-time wind modelling, autonomous control systems will improve station-keeping precision, minimising energy use. These developments will enable airships to loiter for months or years, offering cost-effective alternatives to satellites. By addressing technical challenges, stratospheric airships are poised to revolutionise telecommunications, surveillance, and environmental monitoring by 2030.

Commercialisation and global collaboration are accelerating progress. Companies like Sceye and Stratospheric Platforms are securing investments, reflecting market confidence in high-altitude platform systems (HAPS) for connectivity and monitoring. NASA’s proposed Centennial Challenge could spur international innovation, while public-private partnerships may streamline development. However, scaling production, reducing costs, and validating reliability through extended flight tests remain critical hurdles. If overcome, stratospheric airships could become mainstream solutions, particularly in regions lacking satellite or terrestrial infrastructure, transforming global access to data and security.

Conclusion

Stratospheric airship platforms represent a frontier in high-altitude technology, blending satellites’ endurance with terrestrial systems’ adaptability. From providing broadband in remote areas to enhancing military surveillance and monitoring climate change, their applications are vast and transformative. While historical efforts faced setbacks, recent advancements, such as India’s 2025 test, Sceye’s commercial push, and Thales’ Stratobus, signal a new era of viability. As materials, energy systems, and controls evolve, stratospheric airships are poised to redefine global connectivity, security, and scientific exploration, soaring to new heights in the decades ahead.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

References:-

Aerial Delivery Research and Development Establishment. (2025, May 4). DRDO conducts maiden flight trial of stratospheric airship platform. Press Release, Defence Research and Development Organisation. https://www.drdo.gov.in/press-release/drdo-conducts-maiden-flight-trial-stratospheric-airship-platform

Boucher, R. J. (1985). History of solar-powered airships: From High Platform II to modern HAPS. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 1(2), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(1985)1:2(45)

Chen, L., & Zhang, H. (2016). Development of the Yuanmeng stratospheric airship for military applications. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 29(4), 912–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2016.06.015

Colozza, A., & Dolce, J. L. (2005). High-altitude airship platform systems: Technical challenges and opportunities. NASA Technical Report, NASA/TM-2005-213427. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20050182976

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. (2009). Stratospheric Platform (SPF) program: Final report on solar-powered airship prototypes. JAXA Technical Report, JAXA-RR-09-012. https://www.jaxa.jp/publications/

Mira Aerospace. (2023, August 15). ApusDuo HAPS delivers 5G connectivity in Rwanda. Aerospace Technology News. https://www.aerospacetechnews.com/mira-aerospace-apusduo-5g-rwanda-2023

Sceye Inc. (2024, December 10). Sceye advances stratospheric airship production for broadband and environmental monitoring. Business Wire. https://www.businesswire.com/news/sceye-stratospheric-airship-expansion-2025

Thales Alenia Space. (2023, June 20). Stratobus: Progress toward 2023 prototype for ISR and telecommunications. Thales Group Press Release. https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/stratobus-2023-prototype-update

Tozer, T. C., & Grace, D. (2001). High-altitude platforms for wireless communications. Electronics & Communication Engineering Journal, 13(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1049/ecej:20010303

Yang, Y., & Wu, J. (2018). Advancements in regenerative fuel cells for stratospheric airships. Energy Conversion and Management, 175, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.08.072