Space as the New High Ground: Implications for National Security

Abstract

Space has emerged as a decisive warfighting domain, shaping intelligence, navigation, command and control, and escalation dynamics. For India, growing dependence on fragile and limited space assets combined with China–Pakistan space collusivity has created a serious strategic and operational vulnerability. Recent launch failures, navigation degradation, reliance on foreign ISR, and weak institutional integration highlight a widening gap between India’s space ambitions and its military requirements. This article argues that India faces a critical inflection point: without a shift from prestige-driven programs to resilient, constellation-based military space architecture and empowered command structures, space may become India’s weakest link in future conflicts rather than a force multiplier.

1 .Introduction: Space as a Strategic Vulnerability Space is no longer a benign support domain. It is a contested operational arena where surveillance, navigation, communications, targeting, and information dominance are determined. For India, space power is inseparable from national security, particularly in the context of a two-front challenge from China and Pakistan, persistent grey-zone competition, and the increasing likelihood of short-notice, limited conflicts. Warnings of a potential satellite crisis₁ should not be dismissed as alarmism. They reflect a deeper concern: operational asymmetry-the risk that adversaries may see more, decide faster, and act first. The failure of PSLV-C62, the fifth ISRO launch failure in seven years, must therefore be viewed not merely as a technical anomaly, but as a strategic indicator of systemic stress across India’s space ecosystem.

2. Launch Cadence and Access to Orbit.

2.1.Structural Constraints. India’s launch ecosystem remains dependent on a narrow set of platforms-the PSLV and GSLV families. While reliability has historically been high, low launch frequency constrains: –

• Rapid satellite replenishment.

• Constellation expansion.

• Military responsiveness during crises

The transition of PSLV production to industry consortia has not yet been matched by military-grade quality assurance and redundancy mechanisms. By contrast, peer competitors-most notably China-have adopted: –

• High cadence launch models.

• Industrial-scale production lines.

• Responsive and on-demand military launch concepts.

China’s annual launch rate now exceeds 60 missions₂, enabling both rapid deployment and swift reconstitution.

2.2.      Operational Implications – Limited launch availability directly affects: –

• Time-sensitive ISR deployment.

• 2.2.2.   Navigation constellation sustainment.

• 2.2.3.   Redundancy against kinetic and non-kinetic counter-space threats.

Without a responsive launch capability, India’s space posture remains vulnerable in contested scenarios.

• India’s Relative Decline in the Global Space Hierarchy.  Despite being one of only six nations with end-to-end space capability, India is losing relative ground across all three segments of the space economy: –

• Upstream: Launch systems and satellite constellations.

• Midstream: Data aggregation, processing, and fusion.

• Downstream: Operational exploitation and revenue generation.

            India’s decline is particularly evident in the commercial and dual-use domain. Its share of the global small-satellite launch market fell from 35 percent in 2017 to near zero by 2024₃, coinciding with reduced launch cadence and reliability.

4.         Navigation Sovereignty and Operational Risk – India’s navigation vulnerability is especially concerning. The denial of GPS access during the Kargil War prompted the development of NavIC, intended to ensure sovereign navigation capability. Two decades later, that autonomy is again under strain.

• Minimum requirement: Seven operational NavIC satellites.

• Current status (2026) :-

• Four fully functional.

• 4.2.2.   Two nearing end-of-life.

• 4.2.3.   NVS-02 failed to reach final orbit.

This degradation directly affects: –

• Precision-guided munitions and missile accuracy.

• UAV and loitering munition operations.

• Network-centric logistics and force mobility.

• Synchronization of civil–military infrastructure.

In contrast, China’s BeiDou system operates with global redundancy, hardened anti-jam features, and seamless military integration. The asymmetry in navigation resilience has direct implications for combat effectiveness in high-intensity or electronically contested environments.

5.         ISR Density and Data Latency.       India’s ISR satellites are technologically capable but numerically sparse. Revisit rates lag behind leading space powers, limiting:-

• Persistent surveillance.

• Near-real-time targeting.

• Tactical decision superiority.

            Modern warfare demands a shift from a few exquisite satellites to proliferated Low Earth Orbit (pLEO) constellations, where minutes-not hours-define relevance.

6.         Data Sovereignty and Strategic Autonomy.           Increasing reliance on foreign commercial satellite data introduces vulnerabilities related to:-

• Availability during crises.

• Policy or contractual restrictions.

• Cyber and supply-chain exposure.

            Recent conflicts, including politically unstable regions such as Venezuela and Ukraine, demonstrate how access to space-based data can be leveraged as a strategic instrument. For military applications, dependence on external data sources dilutes sovereign decision-making and operational autonomy. End-to-end national control-from sensor to shooter-is therefore a strategic necessity.

7.         China–Pakistan Space Collusivity and Regional Encirclement. China’s space sector reforms have enabled it to use space power as a geopolitical and military enabler, reshaping regional balances: –

• In 2025, four Chinese satellites were launched specifically for Pakistan.

• Under the PIESAT–Pakistan agreement, China is providing 20 satellites worth USD 406 million, achieved by drastically reducing Pakistan’s indigenous space expenditure₄.

• China has extended satellite launch support to regional states such as Nepal, even as a Nepalese satellite was lost aboard India’s PSLV-C62.

These developments indicate a deliberate strategy to embed South Asian states into China’s space ecosystem, eroding India’s technological primacy and strategic influence in its immediate neighborhood.

8.         Institutional and Governance Challenges.

            8.1.      Defence–Civil Integration.   Despite reforms, coordination between civilian space agencies, defence users, and private industry remains sub-optimal. Military requirements often    enter development cycles late, resulting in:-

• Capability mismatches.

• Delayed induction.

• Limited operational tailoring.

4

            8.2.      Defence Space Governance. The Defence Space Agency (DSA) represents        progress but remains a coordinating body rather than a war-fighting command. It lacks:-

• Operational control over dedicated military space assets.

• Unified command authority.

• Direct integration with theatre-level planning.

By contrast, leading powers have elevated space commands to full operational status,             reflecting the centrality of space in modern warfare.

9.         Industrial Capacity and the Private Sector.           India’s private space sector has demonstrated innovation across launch vehicles, small satellites, and analytics. However, ecosystem maturity is constrained by:-

• Absence of assured demand.

• Fragmented procurement pathways.

• Slow absorption of indigenous technologies.

A predictable demand signal and structured defence integration are essential to scale industrial capacity meaningfully.

10.       Military Lessons from Operation Sindoor.

            10.1.    ISR Dependence.       Operation Sindoor exposed India’s reliance on foreign commercial    ISR. Indigenous satellite revisit cycles extended up to 14 days in certain sectors, forcing           dependence on external data providers. During crisis conditions, data access was selectively          delayed, highlighting the risks of ISR dependence when political or commercial constraints           intervene.

            10.2.    Electronic and Space Intelligence Asymmetry.     The operation also highlighted      the depth of China–Pakistan space and electronic intelligence cooperation: –

• China reportedly provided 129 civilian commercial satellite images of Pahalgam between January and April 2025₅.

• This ISR support facilitated planning and execution of the 22 April Pahalgam terrorist attack.

• China’s extensive ELINT architecture-over 170 satellites across multiple constellations-enabled Pakistan to claim electronic identification of IAF aircraft during the operation.

India, by comparison, operates EMISAT as a single experimental platform, with no             approved roadmap for a constellation-level ELINT capability.

5

11.       Counter-Space Threat Environment.         India’s limited space assets face growing threats:-

• Chinese proximity manoeuvres near Indian satellites.

• Ground-based jamming attempts from Xinjiang and Tibet (observed during Galwan            standoff).

• Growing orbital congestion and debris risks.

With limited redundancy and slow reconstitution capability, Indian satellites remain high-value, low-survivability targets, increasing escalation vulnerability in future conflicts.

12.       Strategic Challenges Summarized.

• Declining launch reliability and cadence.

• Insufficient satellite production scale.

• Delayed ITU filings and loss of orbital slots.

• Fragile navigation sovereignty.

• Absence of military-grade constellations.

• Underpowered Defence Space Agency.

• Dependence on foreign ISR and SATCOM.

• Slow progress in Atmanirbhar space electronics.

13.       Recommendations: Towards a Military–Strategic Reset.

13.1.    Shift from Prestige to Power Human spaceflight and symbolic missions must not crowd out funding for military ISR, navigation resilience, and responsive launch capability.

13.2.    Establish a Full Space Command. Transform the DSA into a Space Command with operational authority, dedicated cadres, integrated Space–Cyber–EW planning, and an independent budget.

13.3.    Adopt Constellation-Based Military Architecture. Move away from single-satellite missions toward distributed ISR, ELINT, and SSA constellations with rapid replenishment capability.

            13.4.    Immediate Capability Gap – Accept Uncomfortable Stopgaps. In the short term, the             Indian Defence Forces may have to:-

• Directly acquire complete ISR satellites from foreign vendors and Launch             them from foreign soil, to prevent critical capability gaps.

This is sub-optimal but unavoidable. Such systems must remain military-owned, military-tasked, and data-sovereign.

6

1. Prefer Indian Satellites, even if Launched Abroad. A superior alternative is to:-

       13.5.1.  Procure satellites from Indian private start-ups and use foreign launch         services temporarily₆.

This preserves payload logic, encryption, and data sovereignty, while bypassing current domestic launch constraints and strengthening India’s commercial space base.

13.6.    Accelerate Atma-Nirbharta in Space Electronics. Prioritize indigenous space-grade semiconductors, radiation-hardened components, and secure encryption systems.

13.7.    Treat Orbital Slots as Strategic Assets. Fast-track ITU filings through a national task force, recognising spectrum and orbital slots as irreversible strategic real estate.

14.       Conclusion.      The launch anomalies of 2025-26 serve as a strategic warning. India must reorient its space Programme from symbolic achievements to war-fighting relevance and ecosystem-scale resilience. Strategic autonomy is not merely the ability to build a rocket rather it is the ability to sustain a functional orbital presence under the duress of peer-level electronic and kinetic interference. India’s future conflicts will be fought under conditions of information saturation, compressed decision cycles, and contested space access. If India does not reorient its space ecosystem toward war-fighting relevance, it risks being blinded in the first hour of a future conflict. Space, once a supporting domain, must now be treated as a core instrument of national power. In a security environment shaped by China–Pakistan space collusively, Atmanirbhar military space capability is no longer optional. It is foundational to deterrence, survivability, and operational success across the domains.

End Notes

¹ Lt Gen Rakesh Sharma (Retd), “TOI Bharat” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYgsra-W9Vs

² Zhou Lei China Daily Hong Kong “China’s space program records stellar year of firsts” https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/626741

³ Brig Anshuman Narang (Retd) Hindustan Times “A call to reenergise the Indian space ecosystem” https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/a-call-to-reenergise-the-indian-space-ecosystem-101768491795489.html

⁴ Levina, Resonant News “Pakistan Inks $406.4 Million Deal with China for Orbital Satellite Constellation” https://resonantnews.com/2025/09/13/pakistan-inks-406-4-million-deal-with-china-for-orbital-satellite-constellation/

⁵ TOI “Operation Sindoor : China gave Pakistan Air Defence & Satellite Support” https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/operation-sindoor-china-gave-pakistan-air-defence-satellite-support-report-says/articleshow/121263123.cms

⁶ Brig Anshuman Narang (Retd) Atmanirbhar Soch