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...

min read

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 Homemaker’s Worth

C.S. Krishnamurthy

Jun 13

3 min read

One Sunday morning, I watched a neighbour rushing around his apartment in mild panic. His wife had gone to attend a family function for just three days. Suddenly, breakfast had become a challenge, medicines for his ageing mother were forgotten, school assignments remained unsigned, and the laundry basket resembled a small mountain.

With a sheepish smile, he confessed, “I never realised how many things she handles.” His experience is hardly unique. Most families function so smoothly that we rarely pause to ask a few uncomfortable questions.

Who keeps the invisible wheels turning? Who would manage the meals, schedules, emotional crises, school meetings, medical appointments, budgeting, caregiving, and countless unnoticed tasks that stitch together the fabric of family life? More importantly, what would be the economic cost of replacing every one of those functions?

Nation Builders

It is in this context, the recent verdict of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh, is more than a legal pronouncement, and invites a larger conversation. Describing homemakers as “nation builders,” the Court has directed that the loss of domestic care in motor accident compensation cases be assigned a minimum value of Rs.30,000 per month, subject to revision every three years. Significantly, this amount is separate from other heads of compensation and recognises the distinct value of unpaid caregiving.

Why is work considered valuable only when a salary slip accompanies it? Why do national accounts meticulously record the production of goods but often ignore the production of human capability? Can an economy truly measure its wealth while overlooking the labour that nurtures its future workforce?

Modern economies resemble magnificent skyscrapers. People admire the shining exterior, but seldom notice the foundation veiled beneath the earth.

Homemakers are those foundations. For generations, domestic work has occupied a strange blind spot, and have been viewed merely as family obligations rather than productive activity. Yet the household itself depends on this labour.

The Supreme Court rightly observed the irony of describing a homemaker as a “dependent” when the entire family is often dependent upon the homemaker.

Drawing upon earlier judgments and even the Supreme Court’s 2023 Handbook on combating gender stereotypes, the Bench preferred the term “homemaker” over “housewife” as the latter often carries the outdated assumption that women who remain at home contribute little economically. “Homemaker” recognises the enormous unpaid labour and monetary savings generated within households.

Economists have long recognised this truth. Nobel laureate Gary Becker described households as productive units that create human capital. Doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs and public servants do not emerge fully formed. They are moulded over years through discipline, affection, sacrifice and care. The first classroom is usually the home, and the homemaker its chief educator.

Studies estimate that women's unpaid caregiving contributes between 15 and 17 per cent of India's GDP. Yet much of this labour remains absent from conventional economic statistics. It is rather like admiring the fruit of a tree while refusing to acknowledge its roots.

Beyond Numbers

Of course, the contribution of a homemaker cannot truly be measured in rupees and paise. Can affection be monetised? Can emotional support during illness be assigned a market price? Can the countless acts of kindness that sustain family life be translated into accounting entries? Probably not.

Yet courts dealing with compensation claims must assign some pecuniary value. The Supreme Court itself acknowledged that no figure can adequately compensate for the loss of domestic care. The prescribed amount of Rs.30,000 per month is therefore a symbolic minimum, a stand-in rather than a perfect valuation.

The judgment arose from a tragic accident in Haryana dating back to 2001, but its implications stretch far beyond one family. It marks another milestone in the evolving judicial recognition of unpaid labour, building upon earlier decisions such as Lata Wadhwa, Arun Kumar Agrawal, Kirti, and the 2024 ruling which held that a homemaker's deemed income should not be lower than minimum wages.

Perhaps the greatest contribution of this judgment lies in its symbolism.

Nation-building does not occur only in Parliament, corporate boardrooms or laboratories. It also unfolds in kitchens, at dining tables and during late-night conversations between anxious parents and growing children.

A family resembles an orchestra. The audience applauds the performers under the spotlight, but someone must tune the instruments and coordinate the music. Homemakers have long performed this role quietly, without applause and often without acknowledgement.

After all, nations are built not merely by those who earn a living, but equally by those who shape the lives of those who do.

(The writer is a retired banker and author. Views personal.)

The Beam That Blinds the Drone

The Homemaker’s Worth

Recent Posts

Comments