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.)

Uncovering the Invisible History of Indian Journalism

Writer: Bhalchandra Chorghade
Bhalchandra Chorghade
Feb 28
3 min read

For more than seven decades, the Press Trust of India (PTI) has been the silent engine driving Indian journalism, delivering news with speed, accuracy and credibility across the nation. Yet, the stories behind the stories, the human drama inside newsrooms and the relentless effort that transforms events into headlines have largely remained invisible. 'What They Don’t Teach You in Journalism Schools' lifts that veil, offering a rare and compelling journey into the inner workings of India’s most influential news agency.


Edited by Sameer C. Mohindru, the book is not merely a collection of anecdotes, it is a carefully curated archive of lived experiences. Through first-hand accounts from PTI reporters, editors and desk professionals, it reconstructs some of the most defining moments in modern Indian history—wars, political upheavals, assassinations, diplomatic crises and social transformations. Each narrative is grounded in rigorous fact-checking and enriched with context, making the book both historically valuable and narratively engaging.


What distinguishes this work from conventional journalism memoirs is its focus on the invisible labour of newsmaking. The book captures the intensity of high-pressure moments when seconds matter, decisions are irreversible, and the stakes are national. Readers are drawn into the nerve centres of journalism, where reporters race against time, editors weigh words with precision, and technical teams ensure that information travels seamlessly across vast distances. These behind-the-scenes episodes reveal journalism not as a glamorous profession, but as a demanding craft built on discipline, judgment, and resilience.


Equally significant is the book’s tribute to PTI’s unsung heroes—the engineers, technicians, desk editors and field reporters who have sustained the agency’s reputation over decades. Many of them operated in anonymity, signing off with initials rather than names, embodying a culture where institutional credibility mattered more than individual fame. In an era increasingly dominated by personal branding and instant opinions, these stories serve as a powerful reminder of journalism’s foundational values: objectivity, accuracy, and public service.


The foreword by former Jammu and Kashmir Governor N. N. Vohra reinforces the book’s importance, describing it as a commendable effort to preserve the legacy of PTI’s veterans. His reflections underscore how the agency’s work intersected with the corridors of power—Prime Ministers, diplomats, security establishments, and policymakers—offering readers a nuanced understanding of how news and governance often converge behind closed doors.


Beyond its historical and professional significance, the book also functions as an informal textbook for aspiring journalists. It exposes the gap between what journalism schools teach and what the profession actually demands. The title itself is a subtle critique of academic training, suggesting that the true lessons of journalism are learned not in classrooms, but in newsrooms and on the field. For students of media, the book offers practical insights into ethics, decision-making, teamwork, and the pressures of real-time reporting.


At a broader level, 'What They Don’t Teach You in Journalism Schools' is also a reflection on the evolution of Indian media. As news consumption shifts towards digital platforms and algorithms, the book invites readers to reconsider the enduring relevance of institutional journalism. It reminds us that credible news is not an accident, but the outcome of painstaking processes and collective effort.


Engaging, informative and deeply reflective, this book is more than a tribute to PTI—it is a chronicle of Indian journalism itself. Whether one is a practicing journalist, a student of media, a historian or simply a reader curious about how news is made, this volume offers rare insights and enduring lessons. In preserving the voices of those who shaped India’s news narrative from behind the scenes, the book performs an invaluable service—not just to journalism, but to history.

Comments

bottom of page