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.)

Beyond the Plough

Writer: Parashram Patil
Parashram Patil
May 10
3 min read

India speaks grandly of its infrastructure but is apathetic towards the health of its farmers.

The Indian government speaks of grand projects like expressways, semiconductor plants, freight corridors and glittering digital stacks. Ministers speak confidently of transforming the economy into a USD 30 trillion behemoth by 2047, the centenary of independence and the symbolic horizon of ‘Viksit Bharat.’ While all this is well, an older form of infrastructure remains neglected: the physical and mental well-being of the Indian farmer.


Agriculture may no longer dominate India’s GDP, but it still underpins the livelihoods of nearly half the population. The farmer remains central not merely to food security, but to social stability, rural consumption and the broader political economy. Yet in official discourse, the farmer is often treated less as an economic actor than as a welfare recipient.


Missing Variable

This is a mistake. India’s next stage of economic development will depend not only on roads and factories, but also on what might be called Farmer Health Capital: the idea that the health of agricultural workers is itself a productive economic asset. If India wishes to become a rich country, it must begin to treat farmer well-being not as charity, but as capital formation.


Traditional economic models tend to regard labour as a fixed and interchangeable input. But farming is not factory work. Agricultural productivity depends heavily on judgement, resilience and adaptation. A physically exhausted or mentally distressed farmer is less capable of navigating volatile markets, climate shocks or increasingly sophisticated agricultural technologies. Precision farming, digital marketplaces and AI-driven crop systems demand cognitive agility as much as manual labour.


Economists have long recognised the importance of human capital in education and urban industry. Rural health deserves the same treatment. Ignoring the deterioration of this human asset creates what might be called an informational blind spot within GDP calculations.


The costs of neglect are considerable, though often invisible. Official agricultural accounting focuses obsessively on measurable inputs: fertiliser use, irrigation, power consumption and crop yields. Yet the true economics of farming include a quieter set of leakages.


Hidden Costs

Poor health reduces decision-making efficiency, particularly in navigating price fluctuations or adopting new technologies. Preventable illnesses and occupational hazards lead to operational downtime during critical farming periods. Meanwhile, medical emergencies frequently force rural households to divert savings away from productive investment and toward reactive healthcare expenditure.


These hidden costs can substantially inflate the real cost of cultivation. Some estimates suggest that health-related stressors may raise effective costs by as much as 15–20 percent. In a sector already vulnerable to debt cycles and climatic uncertainty, such erosion matters enormously.


This has implications for public policy. India continues to classify much rural healthcare spending largely as revenue expenditure. But if farmer health directly improves productivity and resilience, then such spending resembles investment far more than welfare. Maintaining the health of the agricultural workforce is no less economically important than maintaining railways, power grids or ports.


Indeed, schemes such as Ayushman Bharat and PM-Kisan acquire a different meaning when viewed through this lens. They cease to be politically convenient subsidies and instead become instruments of long-term capital formation. A healthier farmer is more likely to invest in productivity-enhancing technologies, manage environmental risks and remain economically active for longer.


There is also a geopolitical dimension to this argument. Global agricultural trade is becoming increasingly sensitive to questions of sustainability and ethical sourcing. Consumers and regulators in wealthy markets now scrutinise not merely how food is grown, but under what social conditions it is produced.


India has an opportunity here. By institutionalising some form of Farmer Health Capital Index—measuring access to healthcare, occupational safety and mental well-being, it could position its agricultural exports differently in global markets. Produce certified as originating from a health-secured and resilient farming workforce may command premium valuations, particularly in high-standard markets increasingly attentive to environmental, social and governance metrics.


Such differentiation would strengthen India’s competitive advantage at a time when agricultural exports face growing scrutiny from abroad. More importantly, it would align moral imperatives with economic incentives.


No country has ever become sustainably rich while allowing the human foundations of its productive economy to erode. India’s developmental debate often swings between welfare and growth as though the two exist in opposition. Farmer Health Capital suggests the distinction is false.


A malnourished, indebted and medically insecure farmer cannot form the basis of a trillion-dollar economy. Nor can a country realistically aspire to technological sophistication while neglecting the biological infrastructure upon which its food systems depend.


(The writer is a member of Maharashtra Agriculture Price Commission. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page