top of page

By:

Commodore S.L. Deshmukh

31 October 2024 at 8:30:19 am

The Beam That Blinds the Drone

As cheap drones reshape the battlefield, India’s T-SHUL BEAM points to a future in which electronic warfare may matter as much as firepower The drone has definitively become the weapon of choice for the modern battlefield. Cheap, expendable and increasingly autonomous, unmanned aerial vehicles can now threaten troops, armour, airfields and critical infrastructure without requiring the attacker to risk a pilot. Their proliferation has created a corresponding demand for counter-drone systems...

The Beam That Blinds the Drone

As cheap drones reshape the battlefield, India’s T-SHUL BEAM points to a future in which electronic warfare may matter as much as firepower The drone has definitively become the weapon of choice for the modern battlefield. Cheap, expendable and increasingly autonomous, unmanned aerial vehicles can now threaten troops, armour, airfields and critical infrastructure without requiring the attacker to risk a pilot. Their proliferation has created a corresponding demand for counter-drone systems that can respond quickly and at a cost proportionate to the threat. This is where beam-based anti-drone technology enters the picture. Broadly, such systems fall into two categories. Hard-kill systems use concentrated laser energy to physically damage or destroy a drone. Soft-kill systems, by contrast, use radio-frequency or electromagnetic energy to disrupt the electronic links that allow a drone to communicate, navigate and transmit information. Sophisticated Weaponry Hard-kill laser systems focus an intense beam of light on a vulnerable part of an incoming UAV - its carbon-fibre structure, control surfaces, battery or other critical components. The concentrated energy rapidly heats the target, potentially burning through its structure or disabling optical sensors and bringing the aircraft down. India’s DRDO has demonstrated a 30kW laser system, while Israel’s Rafael has developed the Lite Beam system. Soft-kill systems take a different route. Rather than physically destroying the aircraft, they interfere with the electronic architecture that keeps it airborne. Directional radio-frequency energy can disrupt command-and-control links, video feeds, telemetry and satellite-navigation signals such as GPS or other GNSS services. Depending on the drone and the nature of the disruption, the aircraft may be forced to land, return to its launch point or lose control. It is in this category that the T-SHUL BEAM system developed by Indian defence company IG Defence deserves attention. T-SHUL BEAM is a man-portable, directional counter-drone system designed for tactical deployment. Its multi-band radio-frequency architecture is intended to target several of the links on which unmanned aerial systems depend, including command-and-control, telemetry, video transmission and GNSS navigation. Its directional configuration allows an operator to concentrate electronic countermeasures on a particular aerial target rather than indiscriminately radiating energy across a large area. That matters on a battlefield where the warning time against a small UAV or first-person-view drone may be measured in seconds. The appeal of such a system is therefore not simply that it can counter a drone. It is that it can potentially bring counter-drone capability closer to the soldier and to the tactical edge. Large counter-UAS installations have their place, particularly around fixed and high-value assets. But forward units require systems that can move with them, be deployed rapidly and operate against small, low-cost unmanned platforms without imposing the logistical burden associated with conventional weapons. The T-SHUL BEAM’s significance also lies in its proposed integration with an artificial-intelligence-enabled battle-management architecture. IG Drones, the original equipment manufacturer, has stated that T-SHUL BEAM has been integrated with GRID, its indigenous AI-powered platform. The GRID architecture is intended to bring sensors, intelligence systems, unmanned platforms and command elements into a common operational framework. The attraction of such integration is obvious. Countering drones is increasingly less about a single weapon and more about the speed of the kill chain: detecting a threat, identifying it, deciding what response is appropriate and directing that response before the target disappears. An AI-enabled command architecture can potentially improve situational awareness, facilitate real-time threat detection and coordinate different systems operating simultaneously. This is particularly relevant as drone warfare evolves from isolated attacks towards increasingly complex and potentially swarming operations. A battlefield crowded with drones cannot be managed effectively if every sensor and weapon operates as a separate island. The advantage will increasingly belong to forces capable of turning disparate streams of information into a coherent picture and responding at machine speed. The T-SHUL BEAM’s reported demonstration at Pokhran represents another step in India’s attempt to build a domestic ecosystem spanning drones, counter-drones, artificial intelligence and electronic warfare. Counter-drone warfare is likely to be a recurring requirement rather than a niche capability. Importing every component of such an ecosystem would leave India vulnerable to supply-chain disruptions, technology restrictions and foreign-exchange pressures. Indigenous development, even when undertaken by relatively small private-sector companies, can broaden the country’s technological base and give the armed forces greater freedom to adapt systems to their operational requirements. Economics of the Contest Yet the real measure of any counter-drone system will ultimately be operational rather than promotional. Electronic warfare is inherently a contest between countermeasure and counter-countermeasure. Drone designers can alter frequencies, communications protocols, navigation methods and levels of autonomy. A system that is effective against one generation of drones may require modification against the next. The battlefield, in other words, will remain a technological arms race. The economics of the contest nevertheless favour directed-energy and electronic-warfare solutions. A conventional interceptor expends a missile or projectile against each target. A beam-based system can, subject to its power supply, engagement envelope and other operational constraints, engage targets without expending conventional ammunition. The marginal cost of an interception can consequently be dramatically lower. The beam also travels at effectively the speed of light, removing the flight time associated with kinetic interceptors. In densely populated areas or around sensitive infrastructure, bringing down a drone with a projectile can create its own hazards. Electronic disruption, when properly controlled, offers the possibility of neutralising the threat without sending an interceptor crashing back to earth. These advantages should not obscure the limitations. Soft-kill systems depend on the vulnerabilities of the target’s electronic architecture and may be less effective against increasingly autonomous drones that require fewer external communications. Weather, range, power availability, frequency management and the sophistication of an adversary's electronic countermeasures can all affect performance. No single technology is likely to provide a complete answer. The future of counter-drone warfare will therefore belong not to the beam alone but to layered defence combining. The emergence of systems such as T-SHUL BEAM suggests that India is beginning to build the technological pieces of that architecture at home. (The writer is a retired naval aviation officer and a defence and geopolitical analyst. Views personal.)

A Scientist Who Built a Future

Writer: Suhas B Naik-Satam
Suhas B Naik-Satam
Aug 12
3 min read

PM Bhargava's greatest strength was his ability to combine scientific excellence with institutional vision.

The history of modern Indian science is often narrated through institutions, discoveries, and national programmes. Yet, behind these achievements are individuals whose vision and determination transformed the country's scientific landscape. Pushpa Mitra Bhargava was one such individual—a pioneering molecular biologist, institution-builder, and public intellectual whose influence extended far beyond the laboratory. In PM Bhargava: The Making of Modern Biology in India, Chandana Chakrabarti offers an illuminating account of a scientist who shaped a discipline and helped define the character and aspirations of post-Independence Indian science.


This is much more than the biography of an accomplished scientist. It is also the story of the emergence of modern biology in India. Through Bhargava's life and work, Chakrabarti traces the country's transition from traditional, descriptive biology to the frontiers of molecular science, while placing that transformation within the aspirations of a young nation determined to achieve scientific self-reliance.


Bhargava's greatest strength was his ability to combine scientific excellence with institutional vision. At a time when molecular biology was still an emerging field, he recognised its transformative potential and understood that India needed institutions capable of matching the world's best laboratories. His crowning achievement—the establishment of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) in Hyderabad—was not merely an administrative accomplishment; it was the realisation of an ambitious scientific vision. Chakrabarti presents the creation of CCMB as an act of intellectual imagination: an attempt to create an environment in which curiosity, originality, and rigorous scientific inquiry could flourish.


One of the book's notable strengths is its ability to place Bhargava's career within the evolving history of Indian science. The decades following independence were marked by optimism and nation-building but also by limited resources, bureaucratic constraints, and competing developmental priorities. Chakrabarti captures these complexities with balance, showing how Bhargava consistently resisted compromising on scientific excellence. He believed Indian scientists deserved world-class research environments and devoted much of his career to turning that conviction into reality.


Equally compelling is the portrait of Bhargava as a public intellectual. He viewed science not as an isolated academic pursuit but as an essential component of an enlightened and democratic society. His strong advocacy of scientific temper, opposition to superstition and pseudoscience, and insistence that public policy should be guided by evidence reflected a deeper commitment to reason as a civic value. Chakrabarti demonstrates that, for Bhargava, science carried ethical and social responsibilities alongside its intellectual ones.


The biography is also effective because it avoids uncritical admiration. Bhargava emerges not simply as a celebrated scientist but as an independent and often uncompromising thinker whose determination occasionally brought him into conflict with institutional authorities and prevailing orthodoxies. These episodes add authenticity to the narrative and reveal the tensions and challenges that accompany the creation of enduring scientific institutions.


Perhaps the book's greatest achievement is its portrayal of Bhargava as a deeply human figure. Behind the celebrated scientist was a man driven by intellectual curiosity, moral conviction, and a strong commitment to public service. His passion for biology was inseparable from his concern for education, scientific literacy, and the social responsibilities of science. In Chakrabarti's telling, the laboratory and society remain closely connected; scientific knowledge acquires its fullest meaning when it contributes to the larger well-being and intellectual progress of society.


The book therefore succeeds on two levels: as a biography of an extraordinary scientist and as a history of an important phase in Indian science. It reminds readers that building scientific capacity is not simply a matter of establishing laboratories or acquiring sophisticated equipment. It requires vision, institutional courage, intellectual freedom, and people willing to challenge established ways of thinking.


‘PM Bhargava: The Making of Modern Biology’ in India is consequently a valuable contribution to the literature on Indian science and its pioneers. Chandana Chakrabarti brings together the personal, scientific, institutional, and public dimensions of Bhargava's life to create a portrait that is both engaging and significant. The book is particularly relevant at a time when questions about scientific temper, evidence-based policy, research excellence, and the role of science in society remain important.


(The writer is the Chief Executive of The National Centre for Science Communicators, Mumbai. Views personal).

Comments

bottom of page