Human Machine Teaming and the Future of Air Operations
The increasing autonomy and digitization of battlefields implies a re-examination of Man Machine Teaming (MMT). While Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significant benefits, the human cognitive system remains unique until this day. Nonetheless, as demonstrated by the “centaur” approach, man-machine teaming offers even greater potentials than the two working separately.
Man Machine Teaming’s operational gains are thought to be tremendous, but so are their challenges. As the systems grow increasingly autonomous, their interaction with humans gets more complex, with AI slowly transitioning from a tool-like role to that of a crewmember. To make the most of this new collaboration, the very conception of these new technologies needs to be rethought in order to focus their designs on humans. Allowing humans to effectively interact with systems that have varying degrees of autonomy is expected to give armed forces a new factor of operational superiority.
Numerous countries are now developing MMT military program. In France, the “future aerial combat system” or SCAF carries these new stakes in the field of military airpower – a field where man-system integration is old and where its potentials are great. From logistic to swarming in, from flight assistants to “cobots”, the possibilities of effective man-machine teaming are wide and they are already reshaping the field of military airpower.
This content is available in French : La synergie homme-machine et l'avenir des opérations aériennes
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programs
Security Studies Center
Heir to a tradition dating back to the founding of Ifri, the Security Studies Center provides public and private decision-makers as well as the general public with the keys to understanding power relations and contemporary modes of conflict as well as those to come. Through its positioning at the juncture of politics and operations, the credibility of its civil-military team and the wide distribution of its publications in French and English, the Center for Security Studies constitutes in the French landscape of think tanks a unique center of research and influence on the national and international defense debate.
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
How does France’s nuclear deterrent contribute to the defense of Europe?
France’s nuclear deterrent, serving first and foremost to defend France’s vital interests, also contributes to the defense of Europe. This contribution has been recognized within the North Atlantic Alliance since 1974, but remains little known. In a speech closely followed by France’s European partners and its adversaries alike, President Emmanuel Macron announced a new concept for French nuclear deterrence: “forward deterrence” (dissuasion avancée). This article aims to explain the origins of this concept, outline its main pillars, and describe the partnerships that are sought. It then discusses the relationship with the U.S. doctrine of “extended deterrence”, and finally offers some ethical considerations.
Fury from the Skies. A Strategic Analysis of Air Campaign against Iran
What is the outcome of Operations Roaring Lion (RL) and Epic Fury (EF), launched by Israel and the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026?
Finland: The Ally Who Came in from the Cold
Among all European countries, Finland is perhaps the one whose strategic culture and military model have changed the least since the end of the Cold War. Built after the end of the Second World War to deter a potential new Soviet invasion, this model enabled Finland to serve as an example of European rearmament.
Stability under Pressure. A Pakistani View on Nuclear Deterrence after Pahalgam
The May 2025 India-Pakistan crisis after the Pahalgam attack has generated a familiar but incomplete debate: did nuclear deterrence work, or did it merely allow both sides to fight a limited war under the nuclear shadow? The better answer is that deterrence worked at the level at which it was designed to work. It prevented a general war and an uncontrolled vertical escalation, and kept nuclear weapons in the background. But it did not prevent India from attempting to carve out space for conventional action, nor did it prevent Pakistan from responding conventionally to restore deterrence credibility.