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.)

Fiery BJP-Shiv Sena clashes rock politics

Writer: Abhijit Mulye
Abhijit Mulye
Mar 23
3 min read

Fiery BJP-Shiv Sena clashes rock politics

Devendra Fadnavis Eknath Shinde
Devendra Fadnavis Eknath Shinde

Mumbai: Another episode of the cold war between Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and his deputy Eknath Shinde was seen on Monday when the state legislature gathered for the day’s business. A visibly angry Shinde came down heavily on Satara Superintendent of Police Tushar Doshi for allegedly manhandling his trusted aide Shambhuraj Desai a few days ago. In a strongly worded statement he called the incident as “murder of democracy” leaving Fadnavis upset.


Doshi is known as a close confidant of the CM, who also holds the home portfolio.


A prompt action by Deputy Chairperson of the Legislative Council Neelam Gorhe also added to the fissures between ruling partners, the BJP and the Shiv Sena. Gorhe ordered suspension of Doshi with immediate effect based on Desai’s complaint made in the House. Jaykumar Gore, a BJP minister, was prompt to oppose the suspension. “Please revoke the SP’s suspension as it has been ordered without going into the fact finding,” he said.


The tussle was an aftermath of the bitterly fought election of Satara Zila Parishad president last week. The BJP had registered a surprise victory in a contest the Shiv Sena–NCP bloc expected to win. BJP candidate Pooja Shinde, wife of Shiv Sena MLA Mahesh Shinde, had emerged as winner in that election. Reports of cross voting and last minute defections altered the expected outcome. Shiv Sena leaders alleged that two councillors were stopped from voting after being detained by police while on their way to the ZP building.


Desai told the Legislative Council that was manhandled by police personnel in plain clothes as he tried to enter the ZP building before the said election. “I was beaten by the police when I was going into the ZP building. I was bleeding,” Desai said describing the incident as unprecedented in his four decades in politics.


The allegation prompted Gorhe to order the suspension of Doshi and to direct local authorities to preserve CCTV footage of the incident.


Judicial Probe

Shiv Sena and NCP leaders demanded a judicial probe and attacked the BJP led Home Department in the Council, accusing the administration of allowing the BJP to engineer the result. The party’s charge sheet included claims that BJP workers were allowed inside the ZP building while Sena members were blocked. Gorhe’s order escalated the matter into a full blown institutional confrontation.


The BJP pushed back, defending the police and urging that facts be ascertained before punitive action. Gore, the BJP minister who led the party’s campaign in Satara, said the police were responsible for maintaining law and order and that only ZP councillors should have been inside the building during the election. He warned against suspending an IPS officer without first obtaining factual reports and suggested that thousands of workers had entered the premises, complicating the security situation.


Split in Sena

What has made the episode particularly damaging for the Sena is the public split within its own ranks. Mahesh Shinde openly contradicted Desai and accused him of acting out of frustration after an alleged plan to realign locally with the Congress and NCP SP failed. Mahesh Shinde said the local Sena cadre had been prepared to remain with the Mahayuti alliance and rejected Desai’s purported designs. He alleged that some of the people accompanying Desai faced criminal charges, including kidnapping, and that a scuffle had followed a complaint lodged by the son of an alleged kidnap victim.


The confrontation echoes earlier intra party tensions that have simmered since the party’s split and the rise of Eknath Shinde as a dominant force in state politics.


Emotional Rift

CM Fadnavis said the matter would be investigated and that action would follow the findings. His assurance did little to calm the storm in the legislature, where Shiv Sena ministers staged protests and demanded stern action against police officers.


Opposition parties seized on the controversy to allege “Operation Lotus” tactics and to question the fairness of the election process.


Beyond the immediate disciplinary and legal questions, the Satara episode has revealed deeper strategic and emotional rifts within the ruling coalition.

Comments

bottom of page