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.)

The Hidden Subsidy in Global Agriculture

Writer: Parashram Patil
Parashram Patil
Jun 21
3 min read

The economics of agricultural trade has rested on a convenient assumption that labour is a factor of production, much like land or capital. Workers appear in equations as an ‘input,’ their contribution measured largely through productivity and wages. Yet in the fields of the developing world, where agriculture remains intensely dependent on human effort, this abstraction obscures a costly reality. Farmers are not inexhaustible resources. Their health is an economic asset and one that is being steadily depleted.


The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture was designed to create a rules-based framework for global farm trade. It disciplines subsidies, seeks to prevent market distortions and promotes efficiency. Yet, its underlying logic remains rooted in a view of labour as a static production block rather than a biological asset that requires maintenance and recovery. The result is a blind spot in the architecture of global trade.


Blind Spot

Across major cash-crop belts in India and elsewhere in the Global South, farming is sustained through relentless physical labour. Harvesting, planting and processing often involve long hours of repetitive, strenuous work under harsh conditions. The costs of this labour are visible not merely in wages but in deteriorating health. Musculoskeletal disorders, chronic fatigue and occupational strain are widespread. Smallholder farmers, constrained by thin margins and erratic cash flows, frequently postpone preventative healthcare or treatment until illness becomes unavoidable.


The concept of Farmer Health Capital (FHC) seeks to capture this neglected dimension. It treats physical, mental and social well-being not as welfare variables but as productive assets embedded within the agricultural economy.


Ill health reduces labour efficiency, increases downtime and raises vulnerability to shocks. Families facing medical emergencies often resort to informal lenders charging punitive interest rates, deepening cycles of indebtedness. Weakened farm communities become less productive and more dependent on public health systems already stretched beyond capacity. But these costs rarely appear in the price of agricultural exports.


This creates a subtle but significant distortion in global markets. Commodities produced without accounting for the depletion of human health effectively benefit from an unpriced subsidy. The burden of restoring workers’ well-being is shifted onto households, communities and public health budgets. In economic terms, the costs are externalised. The final product enters international supply chains at a lower price than would prevail if the true cost of sustaining the workforce were incorporated into production.


Critics may argue that correcting this imbalance would raise food prices and undermine competitiveness. Yet evidence suggests otherwise. Investments in farmer well-being need not be a drag on efficiency. Relatively modest interventions like field hydration systems, ergonomic harvesting equipment, preventative healthcare services and occupational health programmes can improve labour productivity significantly. Healthier workers are more efficient, lose fewer workdays and are better able to adapt to changing agricultural demands. Over time, these gains can increase total factor productivity sufficiently to offset the initial expenditure. Spending on farmer health resembles investment in infrastructure rather than consumption. It strengthens the productive base of agriculture while reducing downstream costs borne by health systems and governments.


Trade Policy

This has important implications for trade policy. The WTO currently classifies agricultural support measures according to their potential to distort trade. Yet spending on farm-gate health infrastructure often falls into ambiguous territory. Policymakers should rethink this framework. Investments that preserve the productive capacity of agricultural workers are fundamentally different from price supports or export incentives. They sustain the human capital upon which output depends.


A compelling case therefore exists for explicitly recognising farmer health initiatives under the WTO’s Green Box provisions, which permit government support deemed minimally trade-distorting. Such recognition would encourage member states to invest in rural health infrastructure, occupational safety and social protection without fear of violating trade commitments.


The reforms should not stop there. Agricultural markets also need mechanisms that improve financial resilience at the farm gate. Faster settlement of payments by processors and intermediaries would ease cash-flow pressures that often prevent farmers from seeking timely medical care or making productivity-enhancing investments.


Global agriculture faces no shortage of challenges. Yet one of its most important vulnerabilities remains largely invisible. The health of farmers is treated as a background condition rather than a core component of economic performance. But human biological capacity is the very infrastructure upon which global food security rests.


The WTO was created to govern trade in a changing world. Recognising Farmer Health Capital would be a small but significant step towards ensuring that the rules of global agriculture reflect the realities of those who work the land.


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

Comments

bottom of page