The distinction between conflict and control blurs when satellites begin to orbit through the cosmos like fighter jets in space, creating a new arena where the stakes are higher than ever. Orbital dogfights, once imagined to be the realm of science fiction, are now a sobering reality. In March 2025, according to US observations, China had deployed a set of satellites capable of performing knotty, synchronized orbital maneuvers. One of the American generals described it as “dogfighting in space.” The arena, once considered peaceful and for exploration, is increasingly becoming militarized, raising urgent questions about the fate of outer space as a shared frontier.
THE REVELATION:
On March 18, 2025, at the McAleese Defense Programs Conference, General Michael Guetlein, Vice Chief of Space Operations, verified what military analysts and commercial trackers had long suspected. In 2024, a fleet of Chinese satellites, including four Shijian-6 (05A and 05B) and three Shiyan-24C, was observed performing synchronized orbital maneuvers. These satellites navigated their path with such precision around each other, resembling tactical combat drills. Guetlein characterized it bluntly: “We watched them do dogfighting in space.”
This exposure made headlines worldwide, first covered by outlets such as Defense News, Air and Space Forces Magazine, and the South China Morning Post. While China has characterized the Shiyan program as focused on “space environment monitoring.” Nonetheless, Analysts note that while these technologies may have peaceful uses, they also pose significant concerns regarding the destabilization of space security. The label, like dogfighting, might sound dramatic. Still, it sums up the escalating concern: satellites are no longer passive instruments of communication and observation but maneuverable assets capable of disablement, interference, or even attack.
THE CONTEST OF NARRATIVES:
But here comes the critical question: how to effectively frame this story? Whenever they talk about satellites, Chinese sources insist they are experimental platforms for peaceful use and scientific ends. While Western defense media highlights the threat, it brings forward China’s actions as aggressive regarding orbital warfare. It mirrors the broader geopolitical narratives of great power competition. Language, here, also plays a vital role. Experiment sounds harmless, while dogfight sounds like combat. Both perspectives outline the fundamental issue: Outer space is becoming an arena where mistrust and competition are escalating, without sufficient international regulations.
All of which begs us to think: Are we blowing things out of proportion when it comes to harmless tests, or are we failing to recognize the serious threat of space being weaponized? This tension not only mirrors the biased media but also the haziness of space programs themselves. The narrative itself is part of the strategic competition. China barely discloses its space activities. On the other hand, the USA not only showcases deterrence by publicly disclosing such developments, but also invests significantly in its counterspace capabilities.
THE LEGAL VACUUM:
International law, however, lags far behind these realities. The Outer Space Treaty (OST) 1967, a framework of space governance, prohibits the use or placement of weapons in space or in orbit. But it says very little about the dual-use satellites now on display. Jamming devices, maneuvering satellites, and robotic arms all fall into a gray zone.
The US promotes voluntary “responsible behavior” norms, while China talks against the “weaponization of space”, yet both are advancing their capabilities. Efforts to create a new legal framework at the United Nations have been blocked by geopolitical mistrust. This gap or legal vacuum allows great powers to continue their shadow game. Orbital dogfights do not yet engage in live combat, but they indicate a future where satellites could be legitimate targets in times of crisis. No boundaries increase the risk of escalation. A single misread maneuver could be mistaken for an attack, provoking retaliation on Earth.
That’s the reason why analysts warn of a “new Cold War” dynamic. Just as in the past, nuclear armament was defined as great politics; orbital sanctuary is becoming a new litmus test of technological and strategic dominance. It is not only about competition but entrapment: both sides build more unique and aggressive capabilities because they fear the other will do so first. This creates a classic security dilemma.
IMPLICATIONS:
These intricate details are quite unsettling. China’s Shiyan-24C and Shijian-6 are not static; they are capable of conducting close approaches to other satellites. These maneuverable spacecraft are designed for short-distance operations. These close-proximity satellites and maneuvers are “rendezvous and proximity operations” (RPOs). In theory, these maneuvers can help with debris removal and satellite servicing. In practice, they can jam, inspect, or even physically disable another state’s satellite. Defense experts mentioned that China had already displayed robotic arm technologies in previous satellites. This suggests a capacity to reposition objects in space. The line between peaceful use and potential attack is very thin.
Not only China. The USA, Russia, and even smaller nations with such capabilities also explored RPOs for years. The USA used maneuverable satellites capable of close approach. The Soviet Union itself tested “co-orbital” anti-satellite systems decades ago. What is the only difference in the new context? The US-China rivalry is characterized by the perception that every technological advancement is part of a larger struggle for dominance.
A CALL FOR RESTRAINT:
The showcase of China’s “dogfighting” satellites should not only put red alert and spark alarms: it should stimulate urgent action. Transparency measures, binding norms, and crisis communication channels on proximity operations are essential. Through the UN Committee, a cooperative framework on peaceful uses of Outer Space or bilateral agreements must be strengthened, not sidelined.
It is, therefore, not naive to demand, but it is reckless to ignore. Just as nuclear arms control was established during the Cold War rivalries, space governance must be pursued even in times of mistrust. The alternative is a hidden arms race above our heads, unseen until satellites start falling from the sky.
CONCLUSION:
The metaphor “dogfights” highlights both the impressive technical advancements and the strategic dangers we face today. Satellites moving in precise patterns around one another are not just scientific experiments; they also indicate a troubling trend toward militarizing the global commons of space. Today’s rehearsals may become tomorrow’s battles if left unchecked. Choice is clear; let space be dominated by rivalries or reclaim it for cooperation and peace. The former option risks leading humanity into conflict in the skies we once viewed with hope. The latter requires foresight, restraint, and above all, the acknowledgement that space is too crucial to surrender to the logic of war.
