space – Air Marshal's Perspective

August 5, 2026

834: INTEGRATING AIR OPERATIONS FOR CREDIBLE CONVENTIONAL DETERRENCE

Article published in the inaugural issue of

ADITI NATIONAL STRATEGY MAGAZINE

Credible conventional deterrence is not a function of numerical superiority alone. It is the demonstrated capacity to impose unacceptable costs on an adversary. The cost is imposed at short notice, with sufficient speed, precision, and integration across all domains, with a message that aggression will not be rewarded but punished. In this sense, deterrence is as much a matter of perception as of capability. The adversary must believe that the costs of military action will outweigh any conceivable gain. That belief must rest on something more substantial than a declaratory posture. It must rest on observable, tested, and credible military power.

For India, the architecture of conventional deterrence has been evolving gradually. At its heart is the transformation in how the three services fight, plan, and operate together. Jointness, once an aspirational buzzword, is now the necessary operative principle behind India’s warfighting doctrine. The nation’s security establishment has recognised that the conventional deterrent value of its armed forces is only as strong as the degree to which those forces can act in concert, with speed, precision, and lethality, across all domains simultaneously.

A Collusive Threat Environment. Understanding why joint operations matter to conventional deterrence requires first understanding the threat environment in which India operates. India faces a collusive threat and the possibility of concurrent or coordinated military pressure from both China and Pakistan. This is not merely a theoretical construct. The deepening military-to-military ties between Beijing and Islamabad, evidenced by technology transfer, co-developed weapons systems, and coordinated diplomatic positions, mean that India cannot plan its conventional responses in a sequential or siloed manner. It must be prepared to fight on multiple fronts and in multiple domains simultaneously.

Doctrine of Punitive Deterrence. Pakistan’s long-standing strategy has been of sponsoring cross-border terrorism while sheltering behind its nuclear umbrella (bleed India through a thousand cuts). It has compelled India to rethink and change its conventional response. For decades, India’s posture was one of strategic restraint (absorbing provocations diplomatically and avoiding military action). That calculus has fundamentally changed as India has shifted toward a doctrine of punitive deterrence. Air strikes on terror camps have been carried out (Balakot in 2019 and Op Sindoor in 2025) as an instrument of punitive action.

Airpower Contribution to Conventional Deterrence. Deterrence refers to the ability to prevent an adversary from undertaking hostile action. It is achieved by convincing the enemy that the costs of aggression will outweigh any potential gains. Air power is an important part of military deterrence. It provides rapid military response options and creates strategic uncertainty for adversaries. The ability to strike with speed, precision, and unpredictability produces disproportionate strategic effects relative to the scale of force employed.

Misunderstood Roles. The Indian Air Force has repeatedly demonstrated that it can conduct joint operations while independently shaping strategic outcomes. Yet scepticism persists among some observers. Some view air power as an auxiliary arm supporting surface operations. This perspective is flawed as it ignores the inherent flexibility and reach of air power. Viewing air power through the narrow lens of close air support ignores its role in shaping the entire battlefield before the surface engagement begins. To relegate the IAF to a support arm is to ignore the vertical dimension that prevents conflict from degenerating into attritional, terrain-bound warfare.

Air Superiority as an Enabler of Joint Operations. No element of joint warfighting is more foundational to conventional deterrence than air superiority. Control of the air domain enables all other joint force activities: it shields ground and maritime forces from enemy air attack, provides real-time intelligence that improves situational awareness across the force, and enables deep strike against adversary command nodes, logistics centres, and critical infrastructure. Conversely, the absence of air superiority exposes every other component of the joint force to attrition and denial. The objective is not to achieve a permanent air superiority across an entire area of operations. A window to enable uninterrupted operations would suffice.

SEAD/DEAD as the Gateway. The Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defences mission is neither a secondary nor a preliminary task. It is the gateway through which the joint force enters the contested battlespace. An adversary’s integrated air defence network is its primary tool for denying the air superiority required for joint operations. The systematic suppression and destruction of that network (radars, fire-control systems, surface-to-air missile batteries, and command nodes) is therefore among the most operationally significant tasks the IAF performs and among the most strategically visible. An adversary that knows its air defence architecture can be comprehensively degraded in the opening hours of a conflict must factor that vulnerability into its pre-conflict calculations. That factoring is deterrence.

Demonstrated Capability and the IAF’s Evolution. The IAF has transformed from a tactical air force to a broad-spectrum aerospace power. The induction of airborne early warning and control systems gave the IAF the ability to manage the air battle across a vast area in real time. Aerial refuelling tankers extended strike ranges to operational depths. These capabilities fundamentally altered the adversary’s assessment of which assets were at risk. Stand-off precision capability enabled the IAF to engage hardened targets deep inside adversary territory without entering the engagement envelopes of the most capable surface-to-air missile systems.

Jointness as a Force Multiplier. While air power possesses independent strategic utility, its effectiveness increases when integrated into a joint operational framework. For India, the importance of this integration is amplified by the need for two-front planning. No single service has sufficient capacity to address the full scope of requirements on both fronts simultaneously. Joint planning that optimises the employment of air power across combat zones, that allocates strike, surveillance, airlift, and air defence assets according to operational priority rather than service entitlement, and that fuses the intelligence from all domains into a single coherent picture for commanders at every level, is the only organisational response adequate to the problem India faces.

The Maritime Dimension. Conventional deterrence is not a purely continental affair for India. The Indian Ocean Region is India’s strategic backyard and the artery of its economic prosperity. More than 80 per cent of India’s energy imports transit these waters. Any adversarial interdiction of these sea lanes, or a hostile maritime presence in the IOR, represents a direct threat to national interest. The Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept being employed by the maritime forces aligns with India’s broader strategy to control key chokepoints and sustain an uninterrupted supply chain in the IOR. Airpower (integral with IN and AF), operating within a networked joint framework, makes the maritime deterrent credible against both state and grey-zone threats.

The Emerging Domain Space and Intelligence. The exploitation of space has become indispensable to joint conventional operations. Space assets provide the persistent surveillance, early warning, precision navigation, and communications infrastructure upon which joint warfighting depends. The key challenge that India’s joint space and intelligence architecture must address is fusing multi-source intelligence into a single, coherent operational picture that field commanders can act upon with confidence. Space-based surveillance, airborne radar, electronic intelligence, and human intelligence currently flow through separate chains before being reconciled at higher levels of command. An intelligence fusion center, is required to create a Common Operational Picture.

Building a Credible Joint Deterrence Architecture. An adversary assessing India’s military balance would also evaluate mobilisation speed, reinforcement capacity, and sustainment resilience as carefully as it evaluates weapon and platform inventories. Several priorities emerge for India in translating these principles into a credible conventional deterrent.

- Strengthening joint planning at the operational and strategic levels must be institutionalised. The Joint Operations Control Centre, bringing all three services together into a single, real-time command-and-control node, is a critical step in this direction.

- Military reorganisation should prioritise meeting future challenges. A command-level joint structure for the space and cyber domains is a high priority. The existing joint Command (Andaman and Nicobar Command) on the eastern seaboard needs to be strengthened, and a similar structure needs to be established on the western seaboard.

- The theatre command concept is one means of achieving jointness, not an ultimate panacea. Its relevance is greater for expeditionary operations conducted with adequate resources, far from the homeland. The challenge is to formulate a model suitable for domestic needs.

- Expanding indigenous capability in critical systems enhances strategic resilience. It reduces dependence on foreign supply chains.

- Developing a multi-domain doctrine that genuinely integrates air, land, maritime, cyber, and space operations would enhance the deterrence value.

- Aerospace Doctrine’s assertion (that “space exploitation is integral to achieving national security objectives”) needs to be translated into institutional practice.

Concluding Thoughts

The character of warfare is changing rapidly. In contemporary warfare, the actions in space affect outcomes on the ground, electronic warfare shapes the effectiveness of kinetic strikes, and information operations condition the political environment. In such a scenario, no single service can act alone. The interconnectedness of the modern battlespace demands a high level of integration and coordination. The necessity of integrated multi-domain operations will increase as the security environment grows more complex.

India faces a two-front threat environment, has vast maritime responsibilities, and growing strategic obligations across the Indo-Pacific.

Joint air operations are the cornerstone for achieving credible conventional deterrence. The integration of aerospace power with land, maritime, cyber, and space capabilities is the work on which India’s deterrent credibility ultimately rests. All-around integration is required across planning, doctrine, and command architecture. An institutional culture needs to be shaped so that officers from all three services understand one another’s roles. India’s journey toward a credible conventional deterrent is inseparable from the journey toward jointness. The future of deterrence will depend on how effectively India integrates all domains into a coherent, credible, and lethal strategic instrument.

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 the respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

References: –

Cohen SP and Dasgupta S. “Arming without aiming: India’s military modernisation”, Brookings Institution Press (BIP). 2010.

Crowell L. “Multi-domain operations and the future of joint warfare”. Naval Institute Press (NIP). 2023.

Deptula, D. A. “Effects-based operations: Change like warfare”. Aerospace Education Foundation, 2001.

Government of India, Ministry of Defence. “Joint Doctrine of the Indian Armed Forces”. Headquarters, Integrated Defence Staff. 2023.

Gupta, A., “Building an arsenal: The evolution of regional power force structures”. Praeger. 2019.

Kapila, S., India’s defence modernisation: Structural constraints and strategic imperatives”. Journal of Defence Studies. 2021.

Air Mshl Anil Khosla. “Punitive deterrence: India’s evolving conventional response”. Blog “Air Marshal’s Perspective”, 2023. https://55nda.com/blogs/anil-khosla

Air Mshl Anil Khosla. “Air superiority and joint operations: The SEAD/DEAD imperative”. Blog “Air Marshal’s Perspective”, 2024. https://55nda.com/blogs/anil-khosla

Ladwig, W. C. Indian military modernisation and conventional deterrence in South Asia. “Journal of Strategic Studies”, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2014.942937, 2020.

Singh, S. “India’s military transformation: Challenges and imperatives”. Strategic Analysis 2020.

June 9, 2026

820: ARTEMIS II AND THE SECOND SPACE RACE FOR THE LUNAR RESOURCES

Article published in the jun 26 edition of the News Analytics Magazine

On April 1, 2026, the Space Launch System ignited at Launch Pad 39B at Kennedy Space Centre and punched the Orion spacecraft into a clear Florida sky. Onboard were Commander Reid Wiseman, Pilot Victor Glover, Mission Specialist Christina Koch, and Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen. Ten days and 1.4 million kilometres later, having looped around the far side of the Moon on a free-return trajectory and broken the distance record set by Apollo 13, they splashed down in the Pacific off San Diego. Artemis II was complete.

It is humanity’s first crewed journey to the vicinity of the Moon in more than fifty years. It was also the first test of Orion’s life-support systems with humans aboard in deep space. The Orion capsule’s computers ran 20,000 times faster than those used during Apollo, while the European Service Module, built by ESA, provided propulsion, power, water, and oxygen throughout. The Space Launch System, generating roughly 15 per cent more thrust than the Saturn V, performed without issue. Technicians were already beginning work on the hardware for Artemis III before the recovery ships reached the crew.

But the mission’s significance goes far beyond the engineering feat. Artemis II is a move in a geopolitical contest. The stakes are much higher than Apollo’s. The second space race has started, and this time the prize is not prestige alone.

From Apollo to Artemis. The first space race was about ideology. The United States claimed a symbolic victory over the Soviet Union when Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon in July 1969. Then the urgency collapsed for several reasons. These included budget constraints, a shift toward the Space Shuttle and low-Earth orbit, and the thawing of the Cold War. The pace became a domain of cautious cooperation, culminating in the International Space Station. Even that era is over now. The Artemis programme, announced in 2017, has revived lunar ambition on entirely different terms. The Artemis Program is built around a sustained presence and a plan to use the Moon as a proving ground for Mars.

Racing Blocs. The geopolitical architecture of the second space race is hardening into two distinct coalitions.

- The American-led bloc is around the Artemis Accords. It has now been signed by 61 nations, establishing principles for transparency, interoperability, and the legality of resource extraction under existing international law. The partners include Canada, ESA member states, Japan, the UK, Australia, and the UAE.

- China’s answer is the International Lunar Research Station, co-founded with Russia in 2021. Russia has become a junior partner in a China-led programme. China has recruited 13 countries to the ILRS framework, including Pakistan, Belarus, South Africa, and Venezuela, and is aggressively expanding that list through a “5-5-5” initiative. The initiative aims to enrol 50 nations, 500 institutions, and 5,000 researchers in lunar science by the early 2030s. Beijing is offering low-interest loans for ground stations, technology transfer guarantees and payload slots on Chinese missions.

- India occupies the middle ground. India has signed the Artemis Accords while simultaneously building indigenous capability. While joining the Accord, India is not a direct participant in the NASA-led Artemis Programme’s mission-driven hardware development, but rather a partner in its guiding principles. By joining, India aligns with international principles for space exploration. These include transparency, interoperability, and the peaceful use of space resources. The agreement fosters strengthening space cooperation between the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and NASA.

South Pole: Ground Zero for the Next Space Race. Every major programme (Artemis, the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program, and Chandrayaan) targets the same narrow strip of terrain. The reason is water ice, preserved for billions of years in permanently shadowed craters at temperatures around -173°C. Through electrolysis, that ice can be split into hydrogen and oxygen (which are useful for rocket propulsion). A reliable South Pole water supply could turn the Moon into what planners call a gas station in the sky. There is also helium-3 stock, deposited by solar wind over billions of years. It is estimated at around one million tonnes across the lunar surface. Helium-3 holds promise as a fuel for aneutronic fusion reactions that produce far less radioactive waste than conventional fission. The South Pole’s value is as much strategic as it is geological. Both Artemis and the ILRS are fixated on the same area.

US Increasing the Pace. The Artemis programme, announced in 2017, is built around a sustained presence around the moon. Artemis II was the crewed proof of concept for that ecosystem. Artemis III will test lunar landing equipment in Earth orbit in 2027. Artemis IV, carrying the first crew actually to land at the South Pole, is targeted for 2028. Each member of the accord is contributing hardware or expertise (Canada’s Canadarm3 for the Gateway, ESA’s service modules, and Japan’s logistics). The programme also integrates the private industry. SpaceX holds the Artemis IV lander contract, and Blue Origin holds the Artemis V contract. Intuitive Machines and Firefly Aerospace are conducting robotic precursor missions under NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services programme.

China Maintaining the Momentum. In roughly two decades, the China National Space Administration has gone from launching its first taikonaut in 2003 to landing a rover on the lunar far side, returning samples from the surface, operating its own space station, and sending a rover to Mars. The Chang’e programme has been methodical: Chang’e-4 became the first mission to soft-land on the far side in 2019; Chang’e-5 returned near-side samples in 2020; Chang’e-6 brought back far-side samples in 2024, the first time that had been done. Chang’e-7, scheduled for late 2026, will survey the south pole for water ice. Chang’e-8, in 2028, will test in situ source utilisation. China is targeting a crewed landing by 2030. The crewed mission will adopt a dual-launch architecture. The Long March 10 rocket will carry the Mengzhou spacecraft, which will carry three taikonauts. Another one will deliver the Lanyue lander. The two vehicles will rendezvous in lunar orbit. Two crew members will descend to the surface while a third remains above. The ILRS envisions a permanent facility near the Lunar South Pole being built and operationalised in three phases—reconnaissance through 2025, construction from 2026 to 2035, and full utilisation from 2036.

Indian Effort. India’s space programme has, in a short span, moved from ambition to achievement. In August 2023, Chandrayaan-3’s soft landing near the lunar south pole was a landmark moment. No nation had touched down on that terrain before. The feat placed the Indian Space Research Organisation in a category, until then occupied only by the United States, the Soviet Union, and China, in terms of demonstrated lunar landing capability. The follow-up mission, Chandrayaan-4, targets the MM-4 site on Mons Mouton at nearly 84 degrees south latitude. The return mission planned for 2028 will push India’s indigenous capability further still.

The Stakes. The Apollo contest was primarily a demonstration of ideological and technological superiority. The Artemis contest is about infrastructure and norms. Leadership in space is not symbolic. It shapes standards, partnerships and long-term strategic influence. Whoever builds the first permanent presence at the South Pole gains the standing to set the terms for everyone who follows. These include docking interfaces, communication protocols, and resource-extraction norms. The United States set them for the internet. China is making a methodical bid for the lunar space. The stakes are much higher than in the 1960s race. The logic is simple. Resources are needed to sustain presence, but presence is needed to access resources. What matters is who reaches first.

What Next. The Artemis programme is moving, but so is China’s IRLS. The ILRS coalition continues to add members. Artemis II proved the hardware works with people inside. The Orion heat shield held, the SLS performed, and the European Service Module delivered. Work on Artemis III and IV is already underway. On the other hand, China’s Chang’e-7 is planned for launch later in 2026 to map resources at the South Pole. The Long March 10 crewed vehicle is approaching its maiden flight. The window to set multilateral governance frameworks before the first permanent infrastructure goes into the ground is closing.

The Moon that humanity walked away from after Apollo 17 in December 1972 is returning to the centre of global attention. This time, not as a destination for brief visits but as a domain to be occupied, developed, and contested. The second space race is not a metaphor or a rhetorical convenience. It is a structural feature of twenty-first-century great-power competition. The race, playing out at a quarter-million miles, is just warming up.