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.)

Uddhav faces another rebellion; decision today

Quad Najmi and PTI

Jun 17

3 min read

Six Lok Sabha MPs trying to move away; picture may be clear at today’s Parliamentary party meeting in New Delhi

Mumbai: A cloak-and-dagger crisis engulfing the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena has landed at the door of the Lok Sabha Speaker, with the party urging him to guard against any unlawful defection and issuing a whip directing its MPs to attend a meeting in Delhi on Thursday.

Amid the escalating crisis, a group of rebel Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders is learnt to have met Speaker Om Birla informally on Wednesday, claiming the support of six of the party's nine MPs in the Lower House, sources said.

Thursday's high-stakes meeting in Delhi will legally and physically define whether Uddhav Thackeray retains his parliamentary strength or faces another devastating party division, the third since Raj Thackeray split Shiv Sena in 2006.

Sources in Sena (UBT) said the rival camp still doesn't have the support of six MPs. They claim two of the six rebels have reportedly changed their mind.

In a swift counter-offensive to contain the damage, the party high command issued a mandatory three-line whip, summoning an emergency parliamentary party meeting in New Delhi on Thursday to force a physical showdown where the MPs will have to mark their presence physically.

The developments triggered a day of high political drama in the national capital, marked by a furious, expletive-laden press conference by Raut, a reported counter-meeting by the rebel faction with Lok Sabha Speaker Birla, and sharp condemnation from the Congress.

The internal fracture was visible at Sanjay Raut's press briefing, where only three other Lok Sabha MPs, Arvind Sawant, Anil Desai, and Rajabhau Waje, stood by him. The remaining six lawmakers were conspicuously absent; their exact whereabouts are unknown.

The Sena (UBT) has nine MPs in the Lok Sabha, and at least two‑thirds of them would be required to form a separate group. Apart from Desai, Waje and Sawant, the other six MPs are Sanjay Patil, Sanjay Deshmukh, Omprakash Raje Nimbalkar, Bhausaheb Wakchaure, Nagesh Patil-Ashtikar and Sanjay Jadhav

Not Reachable

The six MPs stopped responding or became unavailable since Wednesday forenoon, after which the party stopped contacting them.

They said when the party contacted Mumbai North East MP, Sanjay Dina Patil, he told party leaders that he was not with the rebel group. The party had asked them to submit a letter to the Lok Sabha Speaker, which he has not submitted so far.

Later in the day, sources claimed that the group of six rebel lawmakers had privately met the Lok Sabha Speaker to claim a two-thirds majority in the Lower House, the precise threshold required to escape disqualification under the anti-defection law.

Simultaneously, Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, who split the undivided Shiv Sena in 2022, was reportedly camping in Delhi to oversee the operational layout of the defection of MPs. He returned to his home town Thane in Wednesday night. He is reportedly studying all the legal aspects before taking a final call before the party’s foundation day on Friday.

Speaker’s Role

Following reports of the rebels' move, a loyalist delegation consisting of Raut, Sawant, and Desai rushed to meet Speaker Birla to file a formal representation urging him to reject any unlawful group alignment.

Desai argued that the legal provisions are strictly on the side of the original organisational structure.

"Under the law, a splinter group cannot simply merge with another party on its own, even if they have two-thirds support. Only the original administrative party holds that right," Desai told reporters, adding that the Speaker assured them he would thoroughly examine every legal aspect before rendering a decision.

The widening panic inside the party also triggered a public, familial disconnect involving missing Hingoli MP Nagesh Patil-Ashtikar.

While the MP remained unreachable, his son, Krushna Patil Ashtikar, the MVA's official candidate for Thursday's Maharashtra Legislative Council elections, released a video statement strongly defending Uddhav Thackeray.

"I am a Shiv Sainik of Uddhav Thackeray. There is no room for doubt when it comes to me," the younger Ashtikar stated.

The Beam That Blinds the Drone

Uddhav faces another rebellion; decision today

Recent Posts

Comments