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.)

E20’s Water Reckoning

Writer: Anusreeta Dutta
Anusreeta Dutta
Jul 29
4 min read

Maharashtra sits at the heart of India’s ethanol boom, but climate change and groundwater depletion threaten the sustainability of its biofuel ambitions.

Switching to E20 petrol, which is 20 percent ethanol, is one of India’s most ambitious energy reforms in recent times. The Ethanol-Blended Petrol (EBP) program has transformed the face of India’s sugar business by reducing crude oil imports and transportation emissions, increasing energy security, and raising farmer incomes. This change is happening in the heart of Maharashtra. Maharashtra hosts one of the largest sugar industries in the country and a large number of cooperative and corporate sugar factories. It has become an important contributor to the government’s ethanol blending target. Sugar plants have ceased to be merely sugar plants. They are becoming biofuel complexes of increasing sophistication, supplying ethanol to oil-marketing companies. The program has opened new revenue streams for mills, stabilized the price of sugar, and spurred investment in rural economies.


But there’s an uncomfortable reality behind this victory. Maharashtra is also among the most water-stressed regions of India. Droughts, groundwater depletion and climate-induced variability in rainfall pose a question: Can India’s ethanol revolution be sustained if it is based on one of the world’s most water-intensive crops?


Geostrategic Advantage

India imports around 85 per cent of its crude oil, which continues to be an economic and geopolitical challenge to energy security. Under the National Policy on Biofuels and the EBP Programme, the government hopes to replace some of the imported gasoline with domestically generated ethanol. This program has been a big boon for Maharashtra. Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka are among states that contribute a big part of India's sugar and ethanol production. The government has pushed mills to diversify away from sugar, with incentives such as interest subsidies, guaranteed procurement by oil marketing corporations, and differential pricing for ethanol made from sugarcane juice and molasses.


The advantages are clear. Ethanol has relieved the financial burden of sugar surpluses, increased the liquidity of the mills, and provided relatively stable profits to farmers. It has also contributed to India’s climate targets by replacing fossil fuels with renewable biofuels to some degree. But the long-term viability of these advances depends on an increasingly precious resource: water.


The problem is not ethanol itself but the feedstock used to make it. Sugarcane has a very small share of the cultivated land in India but consumes an inordinately large amount of irrigation water. It is one of the most water-intensive crops in the country, requiring between 1,500 and 2,500 millimetres of water to grow. This will increase the divide in Maharashtra. Marathwada is a region prone to drought and water scarcity. Rainfall has become more erratic with climate change; groundwater levels continue to fall in many districts. However, with environmental constraints, sugarcane agriculture has grown over the years, as it is still one of the most profitable crops in the state due to reliable procurement and strong political support. As ethanol consumption increases, water supplies become even more strained.


India’s clean energy revolution could inadvertently aggravate its water crisis if water supply is not factored into industrial planning.


Questionable Assumptions

Climate change has compounded the problem. Scientific forecasts predicted longer dry spells, more erratic monsoons, and more intense periods of rainfall in western and central India. These changes directly affect groundwater recharge and the reliability of irrigation. The assumption that sugarcane can be produced in unlimited quantities is increasingly questionable. Therefore, future ethanol policy should take into account both production capacity and ecological resilience. Agricultural systems that are increasingly sensitive to climate change cannot underpin a successful transition to a new energy system.


Diversifying feedstock sources beyond sugarcane is vital for the long-term viability of India’s ethanol program. One of such potential alternatives is second-generation (2G) ethanol produced from agricultural residues such as rice straw, maize stalks, bamboo, and other lignocellulosic biomass. Unlike sugarcane, these feedstock sources do not require additional irrigation and also help address the growing problem of burning crop residue. Similarly, surplus maize, damaged food grains and other non-food biomass can be used to boost ethanol production without adding to the burden of water-intensive agriculture.


India has begun investing in second-generation ethanol plants, but these account for an insignificant share. Further investment, technological innovation, and legislative support will be needed to scale up these technologies. This shift to more diverse feedstocks is not only an environmental one, but also one of long-term energy security. 

 

Maharashtra’s sugar lobby is politically powerful, making any talk of reducing sugarcane cultivation a controversial topic. Ethanol has brought financial security to many struggling mills, and sugar cooperatives have long influenced the state’s rural economy. But there should be no trade-off between farmers and environmental sustainability. Rural livelihoods depend on natural resources, and thus securing natural resources is central to securing rural livelihoods. India’s ethanol blending program has certainly boosted energy security, spurred investment in rural areas, and reduced dependence on imported fossil fuels. But not at the cost of environmental security. Energy security matters. India’s next move in its biofuel strategy has to go beyond meeting blending mandates. Policy design should consider water sustainability, climate resilience, and resource efficiency. Future policies need to aim at fast-tracking second-generation ethanol, broadening feedstocks, bolstering watershed management, and ensuring production fits with the regional ecological carrying capacity.

 

The true success of the E20 program will be decided if India can cut its oil imports without cutting groundwater, increasing water conflicts, or making agriculture more sensitive to climate change. Maharashtra is at the center of this struggle now. It is the ethanol capital of India and has an opportunity to show how clean energy and environmental sustainability can go hand in hand. Otherwise, today’s green fuel could become tomorrow’s water problem.


(The writer is a columnist and climate researcher with experience in political research analysis, ESG research, and energy policy. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page