TACKLING THE CHINESE CONUNDRUM BY INDIA: PART II

 

THE EVOLVING BATTLEFIELDS

“Survival on an evolving battlefield is directly proportional to agility of mind and adaptability.” – Col RS Sidhu

 

Backdrop

Evolution is a never ending process in nature, as evidenced from the fact that 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. In this nature’s game of evolution, adaptability is the key to survival. Only those species have survived that have adapted best to catalyst events.

What holds true for individuals and species, also holds good for human endeavours. Applying a similar analogy to the domain of human civilisations and nations, the ever evolving domain of warfare has exercised maximum impact on the course of human history and the future of human species as a whole. It is axiomatic that war fighting, the oldest human vocation, has continuously evolved alongside the human species, fueling all round scientific and technological advancements.

It would, therefore, be logical to conclude that a vibrant nation is one that voluntarily adapts and evolves its war fighting machinery with changing times, and not forced into military reforms on encountering failure.

What Drives Evolution in War Fighting

War is a serious endeavour where no quarter is asked or given, with a victor take all consequence, and no prize for the runner-up. Armies the world over have strived to ensure victory on the battlefield by seeking advantage through all means, fair and foul, and developing superior weapons and innovative strategies.

This evolution in war fighting stems from two primary factors. The first is survivability; the second being the decision-time matrix on the battlefield. The two are at the root of all evolution in weapons, mobility, protection, and doctrinaire development.

Survivability – Survival is the key to victory on the battlefield, around which war fighting doctrines, tactics, and development of weapons is shaped. This is predicated on protection, mobility, and firepower of the fighting force, relative to its adversary. The endeavour being to orchestrate a favourable survivability environment of own force, while degrading that of the adversary.

Decision-Time Matrix – It is the time taken on the battlefield to observe actions, orientate to their implication, decide the future course of action, and execute the action, in concise words the ‘Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action’ (OODA) Loop. Battlefields are inherently opaque due to the impact of multifarious intangible factors, such as leadership, training, resilience in face of adversity, that make it difficult to factor likely enemy reaction in a given set of circumstances. Quite often, the relativity in reaction time makes the key difference between victory or defeat. Hence, battlefield strategies are factored to beat the OODA Loop of the adversary. This results in securing pivotal advantage by denying enemy the time and space for optimum employment of his combat potential on the battlefield.

The Evolving Battlefield                                                                     

Unidimensional to multidimensional: Cerebral – > Land –> Sea –> Air –> EM Spectrum –> Space. The stimulus to fight, first emerged in the human cerebral space. This makes it the ‘first dimension’ of war. Thereafter, warfare widened in time and space to sequentially cover the dimensions of Land, Sea, Air, EM Spectrum, with Space emerging as the ‘Sixth Dimension’.

Three factors that have had most impact on the outcome of wars on these dimensional battlefields are firepower, protection, and mobility. They are so deeply entwined, that gaining technological advantage in any one factor can upset the battlefield equilibrium making the critical difference between victory and defeat. The parallel evolution in the three factors, over time, is reflected below…    

Firepower: Hand –> Projectiles –> Powered –> Smart & Autonomous –> Directed Energy

Mobility: Homogenous –> Animal –> Mechanical –> Aerial –> Teleportation

Protection:  Camouflage –> Body Armour –> Fortification –> Electromagnetic Shield –> Energised Space

Evolution in these battle defining factors has been a near constant. However, the speed of current technological advancements has thrown up two major challenges; assimilation of technology, and doctrinal changes in war fighting. Whereas earlier the warfighting doctrines drove technological developments, now it is the speed of technological development that is driving changes in doctrines of war.

Even while the modern armies are still struggling to assimilate the current technologies, the race to develop next generation weapons of Directed Energy, Teleportation for mobility, and Energised Space protective umbrella, that are likely to be a reality in an alarmingly close future, shall generate more complex challenges.

Emerging Challenges

While the battlefield has seen continuous development through time, the disconcerting speed and nature of this evolution is throwing up unprecedented challenges. The introduction of dimensions of Cyberspace and Space have made the battlefield highly complex. However, the battlefield survivability of Cyberspace and Space based surveillance, communication, and weapon platforms is an indeterminate factor, as their EM signatures also make them vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes. Hence, redundancy in their deployment shall have to be factored, alongside continued relevance of traditional battle drills and tactics.

Concept -> Technology -> Concept – Hithertofore, it was the war fighting doctrine that influenced technological advancements. Today, it is the rapid pace of technological advancements that is driving doctrinaire development. The emerging challenge is the need to ‘Integrate new technologies & Assimilate emerging conceptual changes in war fighting, literally in the face of the enemy’.

Shift from ‘Seeing’ to ‘Sensing’ – The technological advancements have transformed the battlefield environment beyond human sensory reach. The ultra long range automated observation, detection, and kill platforms have effectively marginalised the human combatant. It would be apt to state that the maxim ‘What I can see I can hit’ now needs to be replaced by ‘What I can sense I can hit’. This has brought about the biggest challenge in the evolving battlefield…the shift from ‘human sensory perception’ to ‘technical sensory perception’!

Remote Controlled Battlefield – New Weapon Systems, UAVs, Drones, Loitering Munition, Robots, UGVs, Autonomous Systems, Exoskeletons, Spy Satellites have transformed the battlefield. The introduction of the new domain of cyberspace warfare has inverted the traditional command & control structure. Space based observation and communication technologies are resulting in upward centralisation of decision matrix, leading to remote controlled battlefield environment. On the other hand, the survivability factor is forcing the field forces into dispersed operational deployments. This is causing unprecedented challenges, a deep chasm between a remote and protected decision making hierarchy that is isolated from the more vulnerable fighting elements.

First Dimension Challenges – The most interesting aspect of the emerging challenges is that they are emanating from technological developments in the ‘Fifth and Sixth Dimensions’ of the battlefield, but are impacting the ‘First Dimension’ of war, the ‘Cerebral Space’. The fast paced development of newer technologies has made redundant the existing doctrines of war, forcing doctrinaire changes. Quite interestingly, despite revolutionary technological developments, it reinforces the continuing relevance of the human factor in war. It is the military with more ‘agile and adaptable cerebral space’ that shall rule the future battlefields.

‘Survivability of Major Weapon Platforms’

The biggest challenge thrown up by the advanced technologies is their impact on the survivability of the major weapons platforms, such as the Armoured Fighting Vehicle, Aircraft Carrier, and the manned aircraft. Several influential defense experts have already sounded the death knell of these weapons that have dominated their respective battlespace for more than half a century, citing their prohibitive cost and vulnerability to mass attacks from relatively inexpensive and highly advanced automated kill platforms.

But the issue is highly complex, and needs an in depth review. In the ‘Land Dimension’, the OODA Loop of the marching infantry was sought to be breached by introduction of war elephants, horsed chariots, and horsed cavalry units and formations. These mobile elements over time were succeeded by the armoured fighting vehicles, which have also evolved over more than a century of their operationalisation.

The wars between Azerbaijan – Armenia, Russia – Ukraine, US & Israel – Iran, and even the 90 hrs of India – Pakistan standoff conflict during ‘Operation Sindoor’, have highlighted varied and often contradictory learnings. There is no ‘one fit’ answer for multiple battlefield contingencies. Innovation, adaptation, and agility in a swift changing battlefield scenario is the need of the future battlefields. 

The requirement of power projection dictates that the major weapon platforms in the land, sea, and air dimensions are essential to carry the battle deep into the heart of the enemy.  Hence, the need is to equip them with next generation Directed Energy firepower to tackle massed attacks, and advanced composite armour and EM protection suite to improve survivability. The advanced militaries are already experimenting with mixed units of ‘networked’ manned and autonomous platforms to optimise survivability and enhance combat lethality of these major weapon platforms. This is to be followed through with changes in organisational structure, and doctrinaire changes in war fighting. The Mechanised Forces, Carrier Strike Groups, and Strike aircraft packages need to metamorphose into ‘networked weapon platforms’ to outsmart and kill the networked threats.

‘Mental mobility’, is the most nebulous and least understood term that forms the bedrock of combat effectiveness of the mechanised force, and takes years to internalise. The new age weapons only reinforce the import of a military mind that is agile, innovative, and yet robust to counter the emerging battlefield challenges.      

Changes Envisaged in Defensive Operations

Some of the likely changes in traditional defensive operations that may be considered are…

Forward Zone – Reduced deployment of troops in forward zone, by coverage with EM sensors as LP/OPs, autonomous weapon platforms, loitering munitions, sonic barriers (Havana Syndrome) and flares.

Main Defences – Mobile fortifications for swift reaction capability, sector kill zones for area denial.

Command & Control Headquarters – Mobility & Communication security.

Reserves – Mobility & Flexibility, with ratio of 1/3^rd deployed 2/3^rd reserves.

Philosophy of Offensive Operations

Organic Integrated Battle Groups & Subunits, Integrated Battle Groups.

Breaking Predictability.

Skirmish order Advance.

Swarm surge for attack.

EM shield.

Transforming Organisational Thought

The future battlefields will require greater technological aptitude in the users. This will necessitate changes in recruitment norms, and major overhaul in the training methodology. The ‘Agniveers’ shall be a bane for equipment intensive units, and a boon in manpower intensive units. This recruitment policy will need extensive tweaking of retention norms.   

The way forward for the armed forces establishment to keep pace with rapid technology inventions shall be by adopting a command structure that is agile, responsive, and innovative.

The military hierarchy must institutionalise more intimate engagement with Industry R&D and Production Centres from the conceptual to the production stage. One option is through regular attachment of personnel from ‘user units’ with the Industry, from R&D to the production stage.

Develop more agile organisational cultures and acquisition procedures, to reduce the time frame for acquisition and assimilation.

The Future of Battlefield Evolution

During the POTUS Donald Trump and PRC Chairman Xi Jinping summit of September 2026 at Washington, one of the more relevant subject indicative of the future direction that the battlefields are likely to evolve, was a discussion centred on ‘Safety Dialogue on Super Intelligence’, and agreement to establish an ‘AI Hotline’ between the two countries.

This development highlights two aspects requiring serious deliberations. The first is the use of nomenclature ‘Super Intelligence’ (SI) to replace the commonly used ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI). This nuance in redesignation goes beyond semantics. Reading between the lines, while AI technology is semi-autonomous, with a human interface safety cap; the SI is fully autonomous with inherent capability to evolve without human interface, or in extreme conditions override human safety controls. It substantiates what was uneasily hinted at, that the genie of AI is out of the bottle and there is no turning the clock back. 

Second is the agreement on establishing an ‘AI hotline’ between the US and China, akin to the ‘Nuclear hotline’. It is the most public acknowledgement of a future threat of an SI override over the nuclear button capable of generating a global crisis of survival.

The future battlefields shall increasingly reflect fusion of human ingenuity and SI analytic abilities in a symbiotic but uneasy partnership.