Abstract: The militarisation of space and the rise of AI-driven electronic warfare have created dual frontiers in modern conflict, demanding innovative strategies to ensure operational resilience and sustainability. This caused substantial challenges of orbital congestion, anti-satellite (ASAT) operations, and the evolution of electronic warfare. By integrating concepts such as orbital suppression, stealth technology, and adaptive electronic combat frameworks, the analysis highlights actionable strategies to address the complexities of these contested domains.

Problem statement: How can nations effectively address the vulnerabilities posed by the militarisation of space and the evolution of electronic warfare while ensuring operational sustainability and strategic dominance?

So what?: To secure dominance in space and electronic warfare, policymakers and military strategists must adopt adaptive frameworks that emphasise sustainability, integration, and innovation. Non-destructive ASAT strategies, orbital suppression models, and AI-driven electronic combat solutions offer the conceptual shift needed to address these evolving challenges. Immediate investments in multi-domain defence systems and the incorporation of predictive intelligence technologies are essential to maintaining strategic superiority.

Dual Frontiers of Modern Conflict

Space and electronic warfare have emerged as the pivotal arenas of 21st-century conflict, reshaping defence strategies worldwide. Satellites and the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) are indispensable for modern military operations, facilitating reconnaissance, navigation, and command and control. However, this dependence exposes critical vulnerabilities in these domains, where threats evolve faster than current strategies can mitigate them.[1]

The increasing weaponisation of space further complicates global stability. Nations such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Russian Federation (Russia), and the United States of America (U.S.). have developed technologies capable of disabling orbital assets, shifting space from a frontier of exploration to one of contention.[2] Similarly, artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled electronic warfare systems are transforming the EMS into a battleground where rapid decision-making determines outcomes.[3] These challenges demand innovative, adaptive frameworks to secure dominance while maintaining operational resilience.[4]

The increasing weaponisation of space further complicates global stability.

Why Existing Space and Electronic Warfare Strategies Fail to Establish Deterrence and Dominance

Fragmentation in Strategic Approaches

Current space warfare strategies are largely reactive, relying on kinetic anti-satellite (ASAT) systems that create more problems than they solve. For example, Russia’s 2021 ASAT test generated over 1,500 pieces of debris, endangering critical orbital pathways.[5] Such brute-force approaches escalate tensions and compromise the long-term sustainability of space operations.[6] These debris fragments pose long-term collision risks to operational satellites and spacecraft, potentially triggering Orbital conjunction effects that could render entire orbital regions unusable for decades. Moreover, such actions escalate geopolitical tensions, undermining international stability and complicating efforts to establish norms of responsible behaviour in space.[7]

Moreover, the lack of comprehensive international policies governing ASAT deployment fosters ambiguity, creating a volatile environment where actions are easily interpreted as escalatory.[8] This governance gap reduces the effectiveness of deterrence strategies, prompting adversaries to develop countermeasures at an accelerated pace.[9]

Static Electronic Warfare Postures

In the EMS domain, traditional electronic warfare (EW) methods—such as broad-spectrum jamming—are increasingly ineffective against modern, decentralised threats. Adversaries leveraging AI and autonomous systems can dynamically adapt to jamming, rendering static EW postures obsolete.[10] Without adaptive systems capable of learning and evolving in real-time, nations cannot maintain an operational edge in contested environments.[11] For instance, broad-spectrum jamming was employed during the Gulf War to disrupt enemy radar and communication networks. However, these techniques inadvertently interfered with allied operations by disrupting navigation signals and causing miscommunication between friendly forces. Such unintended collateral effects highlight the limitations of traditional electronic warfare methods, particularly in environments where precision and coordination are critical to mission success.[12]

Broad-spectrum jamming was employed during the Gulf War to disrupt enemy radar and communication networks.

Failure to Integrate Multi-Domain Operations

The siloed approach to space and electronic warfare exacerbates these challenges. Spaceborne assets often operate independently rather than as components of an interconnected defence network. This disjointed structure leaves gaps in situational awareness and response coordination, particularly against hybrid threats spanning multiple domains.[13]

Although the U.S. Department of Defence’s Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority Strategy (2020) underscores the need for multi-domain synchronisation, its implementation remains fragmented, leaving defence systems vulnerable to coordinated saturation attacks.[14]

For instance, during the 2008 conflict between Georgia and Russia, Russia demonstrated the effectiveness of coordinated saturation attacks by simultaneously targeting terrestrial communication systems and jamming satellite links. This multi-pronged attack exploited the lack of integration between spaceborne and terrestrial assets, crippling Georgia’s ability to respond effectively. Despite the U.S. Department of Defence’s 2020 Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority Strategy calling for multi-domain synchronisation, the event highlighted the vulnerabilities inherent in the fragmented approach to integrating space, terrestrial, and electronic systems. The lack of cohesion allowed Russia to overwhelm Georgia’s defence systems, illustrating the risks of disjointed strategies in an increasingly complex threat environment.[15]

Resource and Cost Constraints

Another major challenge is the resource-intensive nature of existing systems. For example, intercepting a single missile often requires multiple layers of defence, including ground-based radars, command-and-control centres, and interceptor missiles, which incur significant costs. This approach is not scalable in scenarios involving saturation attacks or prolonged engagements.

Similarly, space-based systems, such as geostationary satellites, are expensive to deploy and maintain, making them attractive targets for adversaries seeking to impose asymmetric costs. The high cost of deploying and replenishing these assets limits the ability of nations to sustain dominance in a contested environment.[16]

Space-based systems, such as geostationary satellites, are expensive to deploy and maintain, making them attractive targets for adversaries seeking to impose asymmetric costs.

Integrating space assets and electronic warfare (EW) systems does not necessarily make defence operations cheaper; in fact, it often increases the complexity and cost of the required infrastructure. However, the key benefit of this integration lies in its ability to provide a more resilient and responsive defence network. By synchronising space-based, terrestrial, and electronic systems, military forces can ensure greater situational awareness and faster decision-making, which are critical in countering sophisticated, multi-domain threats. For example, a fully integrated system allows for predictive capabilities in response to cyberattacks or electromagnetic disruptions, which could otherwise render space-based assets vulnerable. In contrast, siloed systems often result in inefficiencies, delayed responses, and vulnerabilities in the face of coordinated adversarial tactics. Thus, while the initial investment may be higher, the long-term strategic advantage outweighs the costs by ensuring operational continuity and superior defence capabilities.[17]

How Space And the EMS Are Connected and Why Does It Matter?

Space and the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) are intrinsically connected, as nearly all spaceborne operations depend on the EMS for communication, navigation, and data transmission. Satellites, the backbone of modern military and civilian infrastructure, rely on specific frequencies within the EMS to transmit global positioning systems (GPS) signals, secure military communications, weather forecasting, and reconnaissance. Similarly, terrestrial systems utilise the EMS to maintain real-time links with orbital assets, enabling precise command and control. This interdependence means that disruptions in the EMS—whether from jamming, spoofing, or cyberattacks—can compromise space operations and vice versa. For example, an adversary targeting satellites through electronic warfare can effectively sever critical EMS links, degrading situational awareness and crippling military capabilities. This intersection underscores the need for integrated strategies that address vulnerabilities across both domains simultaneously, ensuring resilience and operational continuity.[18]

The Weaponisation of Space: Challenges and Strategies

The Militarisation of Space Assets

Space has transitioned from a domain of exploration to one of contention, with nations investing heavily in technologies aimed at dominating orbital environments.[19] The weaponisation of space includes kinetic ASAT weapons, such as direct-ascent missiles, and non-kinetic systems, such as directed energy weapons. These developments underline the strategic importance of space as a military domain while simultaneously heightening risks to global stability.[20]

Space has transitioned from a domain of exploration to one of contention, with nations investing heavily in technologies aimed at dominating orbital environments.

Dr Enayati’s The Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare: Exploring Anti-Satellite Operations proposes a hybrid ASAT framework that minimises collateral damage while maintaining operational superiority. His emphasis on non-kinetic measures, including electromagnetic bombardment and cyber operations, provides a sustainable solution to countering adversarial satellites.[21]

Orbital Congestion and Debris

The rise of commercial and military satellites has led to increasingly congested orbital pathways. With over 7,500 active satellites currently in orbit and thousands more planned, the European Space Agency (ESA) warns of collisions that could make certain orbital zones unusable for decades..[22]

Dr Enayati’s Redefining Orbital Suppression Dynamics introduces scalable, non-destructive measures, such as Smart Target Acquisition Protocols (STAP), to temporarily disable enemy satellites without generating debris. This approach aligns with international efforts to maintain orbital sustainability.[23]

A Paradigm Shift in Space Warfare

Control Without Destruction

Traditional space warfare strategies prioritise the destruction of adversarial satellites, often resulting in long-term challenges such as space debris. Dr Enayati’s orbital suppression model focuses instead on control, utilising non-kinetic measures to deny adversaries access to critical orbital zones while preserving the operational environment for allied systems.[24]

Traditional space warfare strategies prioritise the destruction of adversarial satellites, often resulting in long-term challenges such as space debris.

Dr. Enayati’s Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare: Redefining Orbital Suppression Dynamics goes deeper into the practical implementation and operational details of orbital suppression. He outlines how non-kinetic measures, such as electromagnetic weapons, can effectively neutralise the functionality of adversary satellites without resorting to destruction, which often leads to long-term debris and destabilises the orbital environment. Enayati emphasises the use of Terrestrial-Based Orbital Suppression (TBOS) systems, which involve the deployment of advanced ground-based systems capable of emitting focused electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) to temporarily disable satellite electronics. These EMPs do not physically damage the satellites, preserving their long-term utility and reducing the likelihood of space debris generation.

Enayati further details the integration of these systems into a broader, layered defence architecture, where space-based and terrestrial assets work in tandem to provide persistent orbital coverage. The idea is to deny adversaries access to critical orbital zones while maintaining operational flexibility for allied forces. This model of controlled suppression, coupled with rapid-deployment capabilities, allows for a more dynamic response in real-time situations. Dr. Enayati also highlights the adaptability of TBOS systems, which can be calibrated for specific missions and adjusted depending on the nature and scale of the threat, making it a versatile tool in modern space warfare. Through this framework, Enayati advocates for an evolution in military strategy that focuses on control, denial of access, and operational sustainability, offering a more strategic and less destructive approach to space dominance.[25]

Terrestrial-Based Orbital Suppression (TBOS)

A key innovation within the orbital suppression framework is TBOS, which uses ground-based electromagnetic systems to neutralise satellites. This approach reduces the reliance on costly spaceborne weapons while ensuring rapid deployment capabilities.[26]

Integrating Redundancy and Resilience

Dr Enayati advocates for a multi-tiered architecture combining orbital, suborbital, and terrestrial systems to ensure continuous operations even under sustained attack. This redundancy is crucial for withstanding saturation attacks and maintaining functional superiority in contested environments.[27]

Dr. Enayati’s emphasis on integrating redundancy and resilience within the orbital suppression framework offers a more systematic and adaptive approach than many contemporary strategies, including those employed by the U.S.  and the PRC. While both nations have begun to integrate orbital, suborbital, and terrestrial assets into their defence infrastructure, the key difference lies in the level of integration and the flexibility offered by Dr. Enayati’s proposed multi-tiered architecture. Current U.S. and PRC strategies primarily focus on creating multiple layers of defence but often rely on distinct, siloed systems, which can create operational inefficiencies. For instance, while the U.S. uses a combination of space-based and ground-based assets for redundancy, these systems are not always designed to interact in real-time, which can delay responses to complex threats like saturation attacks or coordinated adversarial operations.

Current U.S. and PRC strategies primarily focus on creating multiple layers of defence but often rely on distinct, siloed systems, which can create operational inefficiencies.

In contrast, Enayati’s model advocates for a seamless integration between all domains—orbital, suborbital, and terrestrial—that enables real-time communication and coordination across all platforms. This level of interconnectivity ensures that, even under sustained attack, operations can continue without significant disruption, as each tier can quickly compensate for the other’s vulnerabilities. Furthermore, Dr. Enayati’s framework focuses on decentralising control, allowing for more agile responses in the event of a crisis. His system’s integrated, adaptive nature contrasts with traditional approaches that, although effective in certain scenarios, may struggle to maintain resilience in the face of highly dynamic, multi-domain threats. Enayati’s approach provides a more robust solution for ensuring long-term space superiority by incorporating flexibility, adaptability, and real-time integration.[28]

Stealth Technology in Space: Enhancing Survivability

The Vulnerability of Orbital Assets

Satellites are inherently vulnerable to detection and targeting due to their predictable orbits and constant emissions. Nations like the PRC and Russia have developed increasingly sophisticated tracking and targeting systems capable of neutralising high-value assets in space. These systems rely on radar, infrared sensors, and other advanced technologies to detect, track, and potentially disable satellites with pinpoint accuracy. The vulnerability of orbital assets is exacerbated by the increasing number of objects in space, making it more challenging for these assets to operate unnoticed or unchallenged.[29]

Why Hasn’t Stealth Technology Been Implemented in Space So Far?

The concept of stealth technology for orbital assets has long been a subject of interest, but its implementation has faced several significant barriers. The fundamental issue lies in the unique nature of space operations. Unlike terrestrial vehicles, satellites cannot rely on traditional forms of stealth—such as camouflage or low-observable shapes—due to the extreme conditions and requirements of space travel. Space-based assets must maintain highly predictable orbits to ensure their functionality, meaning their position and trajectory are easily detectable by sophisticated tracking systems. Additionally, satellite surfaces must withstand extreme temperatures and radiation in space, which complicates the integration of stealth materials without compromising satellite performance and durability.

The concept of stealth technology for orbital assets has long been a subject of interest, but its implementation has faced several significant barriers.

Furthermore, while terrestrial stealth technologies—such as radar-absorbent materials used on stealth bombers—focus primarily on minimising radar cross-sections, applying similar principles to space would require entirely new materials and designs. The challenge lies in detecting and hiding the satellite and ensuring that these stealth techniques do not interfere with the satellite’s critical communication, data processing, and power systems.[30]

Why Dr. Enayati’s Solution Is Different

Dr. Enayati’s innovative approach, as laid out in The Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare: Integrating Stealth Technology in Orbital Assets, addresses these unique challenges by focusing on a multi-faceted approach to stealth. Rather than relying solely on reducing radar visibility, Enayati’s solution incorporates multiple layers of protection, ensuring that stealth does not come at the expense of a satellite’s functionality.

One key innovation is the use of radar-absorbent coatings designed specifically for harsh space conditions. These coatings can absorb or scatter radar waves, making it more difficult for adversaries to track satellites using conventional radar-based methods. In contrast to previous approaches, which aimed to reduce radar visibility in a narrow frequency range, Enayati’s coatings are engineered to operate across a broader spectrum, including both traditional radar and infrared detection systems.[31]

One key innovation is the use of radar-absorbent coatings designed specifically for harsh space conditions.

Enayati also introduces thermal signature management, which involves modulating the satellite’s heat emissions to avoid detection by infrared sensors. This is particularly important because, in space, satellites are often detectable due to the heat they radiate from their onboard systems. By reducing these emissions, satellites become less visible to adversaries relying on thermal infrared tracking. Additionally, Enayati advocates the use of active decoys, which create false signals to confuse enemy tracking systems, offering an additional layer of defence without compromising the satellite’s primary mission.[32]

These measures are practical and feasible with the advancements in materials science, AI, and satellite design. While the technology to implement radar-absorbent coatings and thermal management systems has existed for some time, Dr. Enayati’s comprehensive framework integrates these elements into a cohesive and adaptable system that ensures operational longevity and survivability in highly contested environments. This integrated approach sets his solution apart from previous attempts, which typically focused on one form of stealth without considering the full spectrum of threats or the operational needs of the satellite.[33]

In short, Dr. Enayati’s stealth technology for space assets represents a paradigm shift in satellite defence. By combining radar-absorbent coatings, thermal signature management, and active decoys, he provides a holistic solution that protects orbital assets from detection and ensures they remain functional and effective in increasingly hostile space environments. This innovative framework offers a sustainable and scalable model for future space operations, addressing the vulnerabilities that have hindered satellite survivability in the past.[34]

The Evolving Role of Electronic Warfare: AI and Autonomous Systems

Electronic warfare (EW) has undergone significant transformation with the introduction of AI-driven technologies that enable faster decision-making, adaptive countermeasures, and automated targeting. As the complexity of the battlefield increases, these technologies offer real-time responsiveness, essential for countering sophisticated threats in modern warfare. However, the integration of AI and autonomous systems in EW introduces new vulnerabilities. Adversaries have begun deploying AI-powered drones and robotics capable of evading traditional countermeasures, complicating defence operations. These systems can adapt to defensive tactics in real-time, rendering static, pre-programmed responses ineffective. This rapid evolution of threats underscores the necessity for adaptive and intelligent defence mechanisms.

Electronic warfare has undergone significant transformation with the introduction of AI-driven technologies that enable faster decision-making, adaptive countermeasures, and automated targeting.

Dr Enayati’s Revolutionising Electronic Combat addresses these challenges by introducing the Adaptive Intelligent Electronic Protection Plan (AIEPP) and Autonomous Unmanned Electromagnetic Combat Stations (AUECS). These systems leverage artificial intelligence to dynamically assess emerging threats, making autonomous decisions to counter adversary actions without human intervention. The AIEPP continually focuses on learning from incoming data to refine defensive strategies, ensuring allied systems remain resilient against increasingly sophisticated attacks. AUECS, on the other hand, enables unmanned systems to patrol and engage in electromagnetic combat autonomously, neutralising adversarial devices without endangering personnel or critical infrastructure.[35]

The Naval Dimension

EW is not limited to terrestrial or orbital domains; its impact extends significantly into maritime operations. The rise of submersible swarms and unmanned-underwater vehicles (UUVs) represents a new challenge for naval forces, particularly in contested waters where traditional defence systems may be ineffective. These swarms can disrupt naval assets, evade detection, and overwhelm existing sonar-based detection systems. The United States Navy has begun to explore autonomous underwater warfare systems, but much of this technology is still in its developmental stages, and a comprehensive countermeasure strategy is lacking.

Dr Enayati’s work in this domain, particularly the Enhanced Portable Depth Variable SOSUS and Autonomous Submersible Hunter Swarms (ASHS), provides innovative solutions tailored to counter these threats. The Enhanced SOSUS system expands the traditional sonar capabilities to detect and track submersible threats in real-time, even in deeper, more challenging environments. The ASHS, a network of autonomous submersible drones, works in tandem with the SOSUS to autonomously respond to emerging threats. These systems are capable of performing reconnaissance, neutralising threats, and coordinating efforts without direct human oversight, thus enhancing operational effectiveness and reducing vulnerability in the face of unpredictable and adaptive adversaries.[36]

Integrating Space and Electronic Warfare

Multi-Domain Synchronisation

The integration of space and electronic warfare demands a unified approach, where orbital, aerial, and terrestrial systems must work together to counter hybrid threats that span multiple domains. Dr.  Enayati’s frameworks highlight the importance of multi-domain integration, where various platforms—space-based, airborne, and ground-based—synchronise to create a seamless defence network. This approach ensures comprehensive situational awareness and allows for rapid responses to dynamic, multi-faceted threats. The ability to link space-based assets, such as stealth-enabled satellites, with adaptive EW systems enables real-time communication and tactical coordination, significantly enhancing the effectiveness of the overall defence posture.

The ability to link space-based assets, such as stealth-enabled satellites, with adaptive EW systems enables real-time communication and tactical coordination.

This multi-domain synchronisation contrasts with current strategies, which often treat space, electronic, and kinetic defence measures as separate entities. Dr Enayati’s model integrates these domains into a cohesive system capable of rapidly responding to threats across all layers of defence. This is particularly critical in addressing hybrid threats—such as those involving space and electronic warfare—that require seamless coordination between platforms. Such integration ensures that when one domain faces saturation or disruption, the other domains can adapt and compensate, maintaining a resilient and unbroken defence.[37]

AI-Driven Predictive Defence: Expanding the Frontier of Warfare

One of the most groundbreaking aspects of Dr. Adib Enayati’s contribution to modern warfare is his comprehensive application of artificial intelligence (AI) as a tactical enhancement and a strategic core of future defence ecosystems. Central to his philosophy is the recognition that in a world where adversaries now deploy intelligent swarms, hypersonic glide vehicles, autonomous subsurface systems, and electromagnetic warfare tactics, predictive AI systems must evolve into fully integrated, adaptive decision-making frameworks capable of operating under extreme electronic duress.

At the heart of Dr. Enayati’s innovations lies the Nightshade framework, a holistic cyber-electronic defence model that unifies AI, electronic warfare (EW), machine learning, and traditional combat intelligence into a single, fluid strategy. Unlike legacy AI-based predictive systems that function as isolated components, Nightshade creates a distributed, adaptive, and redundant architecture designed to anticipate, evolve, and execute in real time under the pressures of a dynamic threat landscape.

This AI-driven approach takes on even more significance in the realm of hypersonic threat detection and interception, where traditional defence mechanisms falter due to the compressed engagement windows. As Dr. Enayati points out, “hypersonic weapons disrupt the time-dominance equilibrium,” meaning only an AI system trained on massive streams of multispectral sensor data—with the ability to calculate intercept trajectories, threat intent, and escalation patterns—can manage the millisecond-scale reactions required to respond effectively.

Hypersonic weapons disrupt the time-dominance equilibrium.

Yet Dr. Enayati’s vision goes further than detection and countermeasure execution. He proposes an Adaptive Intelligent Electronic Protection Plan (AIEPP) — a concept predicated on the principle that electronic warfare defences must be modular, intelligent, and self-correcting. In practice, AI must monitor the entire electromagnetic environment, evaluate friendly and hostile signal activities, and reconfigure its defensive posture autonomously. AIEPP is not just a firewall; it is a living shield, flexing and reconfiguring its architecture in response to evolving battlefield conditions.

Whereas classical AI in military systems often falls short due to brittle rule-based logic or lack of adaptability to adversarial spoofing, Enayati’s AI design philosophy centres on survivability, redundancy, and autonomy. His Intelligent Independent Systems (IIS) and Networking in Depth (NID) concepts address a core weakness in many military AI applications — their dependency on centralised C2 (Command & Control). IIS and NID allow each node in the network to act as both a sensor and responder, reducing the system’s vulnerability to strategic decapitation strikes on centralised C2 hubs. This creates a mesh-based, peer-to-peer AI combat network, where decisions can be made locally even under conditions of electromagnetic isolation.

A critical component of Dr. Enayati’s predictive AI model is the Independent Electronic Battle Tracking and C2 (IEBT/C2). By integrating battlefield telemetry, signal intelligence, and mission-critical performance metrics into an AI-governed system, IEBT/C2 enables real-time reshaping of command strategy based on actual combat dynamics rather than delayed human interpretation. It represents an evolution beyond traditional “situational awareness”—toward real-time electronic battle choreography, orchestrated and optimised by AI across multiple layers of command.

Moreover, Enayati understands the necessity for adaptive jamming techniques (AJT) and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) as integral functions of AI predictive defence. Instead of operating on static jamming protocols, his system employs AI to monitor enemy telemetry and signal behaviour, decode frequency-hopping patterns, and execute precision-adaptive jamming that evolves in tandem with the adversary’s countermeasures. The goal is not just disruption, but domination of the signal environment, creating an asymmetric advantage in both information and action loops.

Enayati understands the necessity for adaptive jamming techniques and electronic counter-countermeasures as integral functions of AI predictive defence.

In terms of implementation, Dr. Enayati’s use of Autonomous Unmanned Electromagnetic Combat Stations (AUECS) and Adaptive Multidirectional Synchronised Illuminators (AMSI) further demonstrates his commitment to decentralised, autonomous AI operations. These AI-driven stations can be deployed to frontlines or strategic zones to enhance radar capabilities, detect stealth signatures, and launch countermeasures — all without human intervention. They act as AI-forward defence nodes, supporting the larger AIEPP and predictive defence structure.

Importantly, Dr. Enayati’s predictive defence architecture is not a theoretical exercise—it is modular, scalable, and hardware-ready. His emphasis on adaptive integration and development (AID) ensures that these AI systems can evolve alongside changing hardware environments and combat requirements. The AID philosophy advocates for self-modifying algorithms, capable of learning from both simulations and live combat data to evolve their behaviour without the need for periodic manual retraining.

Another essential element in this AI-driven defence vision is mission-specific force protection. Drawing from the Nightshade doctrine and expanded in the Advanced Adaptive Individual-Based Protection Suite (AAIPS), Dr. Enayati proposes the integration of micro-AI systems into individual soldier gear. This transforms every soldier into a node in the electronic defense mesh, capable of localized jamming, signal monitoring, and threat detection — even in the absence of higher-tier command infrastructure.

His view is that every element in the force—from soldier to drone to orbital asset—should be electronically and cognitively connected, capable of sharing, adapting, and executing in sync. This mesh intelligence, governed by AI, not only improves predictive accuracy but ensures resilience under degraded or contested environments.

One of the more futuristic yet vital components of this predictive defence strategy is using enhanced smart munitions (ESM)—AI-guided weapons that not only navigate and strike but also emit transient electromagnetic pulses to disable or blind enemy electronics upon impact. By embedding machine learning algorithms into the munitions themselves, these tools become decision-makers in flight, capable of selecting optimal impact vectors or switching targets mid-course in response to changing threat dynamics.

One of the more futuristic yet vital components of this predictive defence strategy is using enhanced smart munitions.

Despite his optimism, Dr. Enayati is realistic about adoption challenges. Legacy infrastructure, procurement bottlenecks, and concerns over autonomous AI accountability have long delayed the widespread integration of such systems. However, with the explosive growth in AI capabilities, improvements in real-time sensor fusion, and reduced computing costs, the barrier to entry is rapidly diminishing. His frameworks are designed for gradual integration, capable of functioning alongside existing systems while laying the groundwork for future autonomous warfare paradigms.

What separates Enayati’s predictive defence vision from other AI-driven military strategies is not just its technical sophistication but its philosophical clarity. He doesn’t treat AI as a supplementary tool—he frames it as the new nervous system of warfare. Just as biological organisms rely on neural networks for survival, modern defence networks must evolve into digitally intelligent organisms, capable of sensing, interpreting, adapting, and acting without hesitation or centralised control delays.

As AI continues to mature, Enayati’s architecture offers a blueprint for the future battlespace, where data is weaponised in milliseconds, and the advantage goes not to the largest force, but to the one that thinks, adapts, and strikes faster—with precision and predictive foresight. His work presents a defence model for today and a visionary doctrine for tomorrow’s AI-led security paradigm.[39]

Securing the Future of Warfare

Space and electronic warfare represent the ultimate frontiers of modern conflict. As nations increasingly militarise these domains, the stakes have never been higher. Once considered a neutral arena for exploration and scientific discovery, the space domain is now a strategic battleground. Satellites, essential for communication, navigation, reconnaissance, and missile defence, have become prime targets in conflicts, with adversaries developing increasingly sophisticated methods to disrupt or destroy these assets. Similarly, the EMS has evolved into a contested domain where control over communications and data flows is integral to military superiority. Both domains are characterised by a complex interplay of technologies and strategies, demanding innovative frameworks that address emerging threats and ensure operational sustainability over the long term.[40]

The evolving nature of these challenges necessitates comprehensive defence strategies that go beyond traditional, reactive measures. Conventional approaches, which often rely on brute-force tactics like kinetic ASAT weapons or broad-spectrum electronic jamming, fail to account for the long-term sustainability of space and electromagnetic operations. The creation of space debris from kinetic ASAT tests, for example, threatens the integrity of military satellites and disrupts the operational environment for civilian and commercial assets. Similarly, electronic warfare (EW) strategies that rely on static systems often struggle to keep pace with modern threats’ dynamic, adaptive nature, such as AI-powered drones and autonomous robotic systems. In these rapidly changing domains, traditional defence systems—while effective in the short term—are insufficient for securing dominance over time.[41]

The evolving nature of these challenges necessitates comprehensive defence strategies that go beyond traditional, reactive measures.

Dr. Adib Enayati’s pioneering contributions provide a much-needed roadmap for navigating these complexities, redefining the parameters of modern warfare. Through his work, Enayati introduces innovative concepts like non-destructive ASAT strategies, orbital suppression, and advanced AI-driven electronic combat systems, all of which offer sustainable, adaptable solutions to the growing threats in space and the EMS. His work represents a shift in how space and electronic warfare are approached, moving from reactive strategies that often exacerbate the problem (such as destructive ASAT operations and blanket jamming) to proactive, targeted, and non-destructive tactics that maintain the integrity of space operations while ensuring the security of critical assets. For example, Enayati’s orbital suppression techniques, which temporarily disable adversary satellites without causing long-term damage, provide an essential alternative to destructive ASAT systems. This shift helps mitigate the problem of space debris while still achieving strategic objectives.[42]

In the realm of electronic warfare, Enayati’s work with AI-driven adaptive countermeasures and autonomous systems provides the technological edge needed to defend against sophisticated and evolving threats. The Adaptive Intelligent Electronic Protection Plan (AIEPP) and Autonomous Unmanned Electromagnetic Combat Stations (AUECS) leverage artificial intelligence to dynamically adjust to new threats, learning from real-time data to enhance defensive capabilities. These innovations offer a significant advantage over traditional EW systems that are static and incapable of adapting quickly to rapidly changing adversarial tactics.[43]

Furthermore, Enayati’s multi-domain integration framework ensures that space and EMS defence systems work in unison, creating a cohesive, robust network of assets that can counter hybrid threats across terrestrial, orbital, and electromagnetic domains. This integrated approach allows for seamless coordination and communication between different layers of defence, enhancing situational awareness and response time. As space and the EMS become more congested and contested, the ability to operate effectively across multiple domains will be a critical factor in maintaining strategic superiority.[44]

As space and the EMS become more congested and contested, the ability to operate effectively across multiple domains will be a critical factor in maintaining strategic superiority.

Adopting these forward-thinking solutions is essential to achieving long-term security and stability in the contested domains of space and the electromagnetic spectrum. Enayati’s work not only offers practical, actionable frameworks but also provides a vision for a future where outdated strategies or siloed systems do not hinder military operations in space and the EMS. Instead, his innovative approaches lay the foundation for a resilient, adaptable, and sustainable defence infrastructure that can withstand the challenges posed by emerging technologies and hostile adversaries.

The future of warfare will be defined by the ability to secure and control the ultimate frontiers: space and the electromagnetic spectrum. As nations continue to race for dominance in these domains, adopting Dr. Enayati’s solutions will be essential for ensuring long-term security, maintaining technological superiority, and achieving operational sustainability in an increasingly complex and contested global environment.

 

---

Isabella T. Grant, with a master’s in aerospace engineering, has been working in advisory positions for various technology and aerospace manufacturers in Europe (2008 – 2022); currently a freelance Defence and Aerospace researcher and analyst. The views contained in this article are the author’s alone.

---

[1] Secure World Foundation, Global Counterspace Capabilities, 2023, https://swfound.org/resource-library/publications/2023/07/global-counterspace-capabilities-an-overview.

[2] European Space Agency, “Space Sustainability and Debris Challenges,” accessed October 2024, https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris.

[3] U.S. Department of Defence, Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority Strategy, 2020, https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2417222/electromagnetic-spectrum-superiority-strategy-released/.

[4] Adib Enayati, The Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare: Exploring Anti-Satellite Operations, 2024, 10.13140/RG.2.2.32664.00005, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32664.00005.

[5] Secure World Foundation, Global Counterspace Capabilities, 2023, https://swfound.org/resource-library/publications/2023/07/global-counterspace-capabilities-an-overview.

[6] European Space Agency, “Space Sustainability and Debris Challenges,” accessed October 2024, https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris.

[7] Adib Enayati, The Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare: Exploring Anti-Satellite Operations, 2024, 10.13140/RG.2.2.32664.00005, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32664.00005.

[8] Secure World Foundation, Global Counterspace Capabilities, 2023, https://swfound.org/resource-library/publications/2023/07/global-counterspace-capabilities-an-overview.

[9] U.S. Department of Defence, Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority Strategy, 2020, https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2417222/electromagnetic-spectrum-superiority-strategy-released/.

[10] Adib Enayati, Revolutionising Electronic Combat: Mastering Anti-Drone and Autonomous Robotics Operations, 2024, 10.13140/RG.2.2.25366.15684, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25366.15684.

[11] Adib Enayati, The Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare: Redefining Orbital Suppression Dynamics, 2024, 10.13140/RG.2.2.26471.66725, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26471.66725.

[12] Linda D. Kozaryn, “Electronic Warfare: The Gulf War,” The National Defense University Press, 1993, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/.

[13] Adib Enayati, Revolutionising Electronic Combat: Mastering Anti-Drone and Autonomous Robotics Operations, 2024, 10.13140/RG.2.2.25366.15684, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25366.15684.

[14] U.S. Department of Defence, Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority Strategy, 2020, https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2417222/electromagnetic-spectrum-superiority-strategy-released/.

[15] Adib Enayati, The Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare: Integrating Stealth Technology in Orbital Assets, 2024, 10.13140/RG.2.2.13549.19680, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13549.19680.

[16] U.S. Department of Defence, Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority Strategy, 2020, https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2417222/electromagnetic-spectrum-superiority-strategy-released/.

[17] Centre for Strategic and International Studies, The Russia-Georgia Conflict: A Study in Modern Warfare, 2008, https://www.csis.org/analysis/georgia-epicenter-strategic-confrontation.

[18] U.S. Department of Defence, Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority Strategy, 2020, https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2417222/electromagnetic-spectrum-superiority-strategy-released/.

[19] Idem.

[20] Secure World Foundation, Global Counterspace Capabilities, 2023, https://swfound.org/resource-library/publications/2023/07/global-counterspace-capabilities-an-overview.

[21] Adib Enayati, The Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare: Exploring Anti-Satellite Operations, 2024, 10.13140/RG.2.2.32664.00005, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32664.00005.

[22] European Space Agency, “Space Sustainability and Debris Challenges,” accessed October 2024, https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris.

[23] Adib Enayati, Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare: Redefining Orbital Suppression Dynamics, 2024, 10.13140/RG.2.2.26471.66725, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26471.66725.

[24] Idem.

[25] Idem.

[26] Idem.

[27] Idem.

[28] Idem.

[29] Idem.

[30] Idem.

[31] Idem.

[32] Idem.

[33] Idem.

[34] Idem.

[35] Adib Enayati, Revolutionizing Electronic Combat: Mastering Anti-Drone and Autonomous Robotics Operations, 2024, 10.13140/RG.2.2.25366.15684, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25366.15684

[36] Idem.

[37] Idem.

[38] Idem.

[39] Idem.

[40] Idem.

[41] Idem.

[42] Adib Enayati, Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare: Redefining Orbital Suppression Dynamics, 2024, 10.13140/RG.2.2.26471.66725, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26471.66725.

[43] Adib Enayati, Revolutionizing Electronic Combat: Mastering Anti-Drone and Autonomous Robotics Operations, 2024, 10.13140/RG.2.2.25366.15684, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25366.15684.

[44] Idem.