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.)

Rs 1,136-cr digitisation contract under scanner

Quaid Najmi
Feb 24
3 min read

Disclosures on pricing and volumes in a five-year modernisation project have raised questions about costs and oversight.

Mumbai: A project described as a routine “digital transformation” of Maharashtra’s registration machinery has raised eyebrows after regulatory disclosures indicated that its billing could reach a staggering Rs 1,136 crores over five years. The Inspector General of Registration & Controller of Stamps (IGR), which comes under the state’s revenue department, has issued a Letter of Intent to a consortium led by the Navratna public-sector firm RailTel Corporation of India Ltd., alongside the Nashik-based infrastructure company Ashoka Buildcon Ltd.


The consortium has been appointed as managed service provider for a comprehensive modernisation of IGR offices across the state. The five-year turnkey contract covers end-to-end operation and maintenance of IT systems, networks, cloud services and application infrastructure, as well as the scanning of official documents. Execution is scheduled to run until March 19, 2032.


It is the financial structure, rather than the scope, that has prompted unease. The approved rate for scanning registered documents is Rs 24.75 per page. Industry sources say prevailing market prices for bulk document scanning typically range between Rs 3 and Rs 6 per page - roughly a quarter of the contracted rate.


Costly Contract

In identical filings with the NSE and BSE last week, the consortium partners referred to historical data in the request for proposals showing that an average of 9.18 crores pages were scanned annually over the past five years. At the agreed rate, this would translate into payments of around Rs 227 crores a year, taking the projected total to about Rs 1,136 crores over five years. The contract does not specify a ceiling, and payouts are expected to vary with actual volumes.


Critics and watchdogs argue that the absence of a fixed cap, combined with a per-page charge well above market levels, leaves room for inflated bills or padded volumes. Prafful Sarda, a Pune-based social worker, questioned the rationale for outsourcing the task. Even if Rs 10 per page were taken as a generous benchmark using advanced machines, Sarda asked, “what is the need to award the scanning contract at a massive cost to outsiders when the state government can itself do it at a much lower cost.”


He also raised doubts about the composition of the consortium. “What is the expertise in IT-related work of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., which is a road infra developer. Moreover, scanning is an easy process – a 100-page file can be scanned and uploaded in barely five minutes. Massive discounts are offered for bulk works. Are the IGR staffers so over-burdened that scanning work has to be outsourced at exorbitant public cost?” Sarda said.


According to him, contractors would gain access to sensitive land and property records, as well as information on real-estate preferences and market trends, potentially giving them an early advantage in identifying future development opportunities. He compared the case to what he described as the IRCTC spending Rs 2,619 crores on website upkeep and maintenance over three years, along with Rs 1,950 crores in UPI fees, figures cited in an RTI reply and reported earlier by this newspaper.


When contacted, a spokesperson for Ashoka Buildcon said the company was a minority partner in the RailTel-led consortium and that “hence, we are not allowed to speak in the matter.” The spokesperson also declined to comment on when the five-year contract would commence, noting only that the stipulated completion date is March 2032.

Comments

bottom of page