Electronic warfare is fast becoming the new frontier of modern combat where dominance over the spectrum can decide the outcome of a battle. In this exclusive discussion, Air Veteran Dr. Sheikh Akhter from DefenceXP speaks with Mr. Gajendra Kashyap, Co-founder and CTO of NextLeap Aeronautics, to explore how India is building next-generation drone systems capable of Electronic Warfare (EW), Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), and spectrum control.
From AI-driven mesh networks to indigenous SDR innovations, this conversation offers deep insights into how India’s defence ecosystem is preparing for the invisible wars of the future – where speed, data, and electromagnetic dominance will define power.
Can you briefly share your perspective on how the role of drones has evolved in electronic warfare and signal intelligence?
Drones are becoming a strategic game changer and the role of drones in EW is still evolving. With the development of smaller drones, frequency agility, SDRs, the strategy has changed from brute force to precision operations in EW and SIGINT. Depending on mission context, drones can operate autonomously in radio silence to achieve a specific intelligence mission.
From your experience, what are the biggest advantages drones bring compared to traditional EW/SIGINT platforms (like aircraft, ground stations, or satellites)?
Traditional EW/SIGINT platforms whether flown by pilots in the air or on ground are large and require a massive infrastructure for operations. Smaller drones are rapidly deployable from a small place. Portability of the drone-based solution is a significant advantage. A secure network of drones with AI enabled EW features can achieve specific results without costing too much compared to traditional systems.
What should be the Indian Armed Forces’ top three operational requirements for EW/SIGINT-capable drones operating across the Army, Navy and Air Force?
- Clearly, modern warfare requires agility, reconfigurability (think AI enabled SDRs)
- Open architecture to integrate multiple systems, allowing inter-operability.
- Think system of systems approach.
Given India’s threat environment and geography, where (and in which roles) should drones be prioritized for EW/SIGINT: littoral zones, forward battle areas, hinterland, high-altitude ISR, or maritime choke points?
India is a large country with a very diverse internal and external geo-political context. Therefore, there are internal and external threat scenarios to be evaluated. Stability and security are paramount, so India must strengthen all areas and fast.
How can drones be effectively used for spectrum monitoring and signal intelligence collection in contested environments?
This is a very good question. These functions are implemented by advanced SDRs and the drones then become merely a payload carrier. When I worked on a project recently involving SIGINT capabilities, it was evident that there are limitations with drones as flight time is limited due to battery technology. Small and medium drones also suffer from the fact that they can’t carry large antennas which may be essential for SIGINT. There are some unique solutions to this problem and if the mission is known, then the combination of drones and SDR based solutions enable superiority. While, tethered drones can offer flight time advantages, they can only be stationary again limiting the function. They can work as relays too. Multiple drones sharing specific surveillance tasks may also be an option.
What are the technical enablers (antennas, sensors, payloads) that make drones suitable for EW missions?
Over the last few years as the drone technology has been evolving rapidly due to deployment in wars. I have seen new frequency spectrum, types of antennae designs and payloads emerging. Antennas, sensors, payloads all are important enablers to achieve EW missions.
How effective are drones in jamming and spoofing enemy communications, GPS, or radar compared to ground-based EW systems?
As mentioned earlier drones offer the advantage of precision operations. They can get close to the target compared to ground based systems and provide much better results. There are interesting projects being done worldwide. A swarm of drones can also provide
Can drones realistically function as airborne repeaters or mobile network nodes to maintain resilient communications?
Drones can function as airborne repeaters or mobile network nodes. It is up to the force to decide the mission parameters and partners to deliver it.
What is the significance of self-healing or mesh networks in drone swarms for spectrum control?
A mesh network is built through multiple communicating nodes through various paths, where network failure is managed to ensure communication persists.
A self-healing nature implies that the user does not need to intervene if a connection is dropped or node failure happens, the system is programmed using various strategies to manage the failure.
A self-healing mesh network is advantageous as it minimizes down time, improves reliability, scalability and resilience. Therefore, a self-healing mesh network could work very well for a swarm of drones which can be an element of surprise in the EW scenario.
Which sensor and antenna suites (frequency coverage, gain, directionality) would deliver the best trade-off of performance, weight, and power for India-fielded EW/SIGINT drones?
This question cannot be answered as the solution depends on the problem context.
For contested electromagnetic environments, what anti-jamming, anti-spoofing and anti-tamper design features are essential for Indian drones?
For contested environment anti jamming measures include frequency hopping, hopping across bands, Controlled Radiation Pattern Antennas to nullify interference, Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS), adaptive power control, signal filtering and shielding.
For anti-spoofing system design one can consider using multi-source verification of data, Machine Learning-Based Detection, Signal Authentication, Real-Time Signal Integrity Monitoring.
These methods can be used on any drone, not just Indian drones.
How should drones be architected to act as mobile spectrum managers / airborne repeaters for resilient C2 in Indian formations (mesh networking, MANET, SATCOM integration)?
This is a very big and complicated question. The answer involves utilization of several advanced technologies.
- Use of SDRs is obvious.
- Multiband antennas to cover large array of bands
- ECM integration to prevent jamming and spoofing
- Use of AI processing units with trained models to detect jamming, spoofing and configure system parameters.
- Self-healing mesh networks with multi-hop relays.
- Secure C2 links with FHSS, DSSS etc., quantum resistant encryption
- GNSS independent navigation systems
What advances are needed in rugged electronics, hardened communications, and anti-jamming for drones in high-threat environments?
Cognitive communication systems along with secure communications are the way to advance in addition to the technologies cited above.
How do you evaluate the trade-off between low-cost expendable drones and high-value, heavily hardened drones for EW missions?
The trade-off in selection depends on the objective to be achieved and the user must make a choice based on the desired results.
Of course, advanced hardening comes at a price, and the drone may become too expensive to risk and thus resulting in low or zero utility due to fear of loss.
The low-cost drones can be deployed in huge numbers, may be be very effective perhaps to destroy a source.
The outcome in either case is very different.
Are there specific frequency bands or spectrums where drones can be particularly effective in surveillance or control?
This is a good question. If this was answered publicly, there wouldn’t be a trade secret. On the other hand, we know from the Ukraine-Russia war that new spectrums are being explored and used. So, there are numerous possibilities depending on objectives.Operational Integration & Doctrine
What is the ideal model for integrating EW/SIGINT drones into Indian joint operations — dedicated service fleets, tri-service shared assets, or brigade/regiment level attachments?
There are different solutions depending on operational context. High altitude ISR can remain with dedicated service fleets which share information with all forces. Whereas, dedicated light payload assets can be allocated at brigade level.
There could be a hierarchy created with high, medium and low altitude drone nodes with active and passive elements to have different effects.
From an operational integration point of view, a system of systems approach in which, vehicle (ground, air, sea) nodes can enter and leave a mesh network any time and all forces have an information sharing network from redundant operations monitoring and command centre. This shared, redundant and open architecture would be an ideal choice.
How can EW drones be tactically employed with manned platforms and ground EW units to create layered electromagnetic advantage while minimizing fratricide and civilian interference?
The answer lies in the question itself, that we need to create a layered deployment architecture and secure, mesh enabled networks with authentication mechanisms, AI enabled pattern detection techniques need to be utilized to minimize fratricide.
Considering India’s push for Atmanirbhar capability, what components (payload, RF front-end, comms stack) should be prioritized for domestic development and which can be pragmatically sourced abroad?
This question is deep and invites a response from different perspectives.
If we look at the country next door, which has made leaps in drone technology and RF systems such that the whole world uses their technology for drones is an achievement. They’re so good that Indian armed forces have ordered and bought drones built with Chinese parts in loads. Their policy framework is such that import duties on chips and raw materials are low at around 3%. They have easy access to materials do R&D and build technologies to dominate the market.
In India, we pay a customs duty with all the different taxes between 12-28%. So, are we really promoting innovation to make the raw materials accessible? India is not making chips any time soon and till then, it would be wise to keep this low to allow development of technologies essential to our use cases. This is important because it drives the build or buy decisions. Build experience forces people to acquire knowledge and become self-reliant.
Most drones due to strict requirements for anti-jamming, anti-spoofing, encryption, zero trust security, end up using imported items and there is only a countable number of suppliers to list the origin of these systems. If we always keep importing, the dream of becoming self-reliance cannot be accomplished. Indian companies don’t want to sell OEM boards because they fear being exposed of using an imported board.
Depending on the type of drone, the RF system may be highly integrated on a single board or more boards if the drone is meant for long distance communication. To become self-reliant, we cannot say that we will do only antenna, front-end, signal processing. Every aspect of system must be mastered, else we’re still reliant on imported knowledge.
Prioritisation must be done for
- SDRs as all these advanced features for EW resistant operations are implemented through SDRs.
- With communication systems indigenous communication software stacks become very important.
- Adaptive communication will require AI processors.
- Multi-sensor data fusion requires processing of imagery and other sensors, so AI processing boards, chips must also be prioritized.
- Advanced encryption chips and associated software implementations are to be prioritized.
Indigenization is a long-term process. We have already been importing payloads and modules in some cases. Priority should be given to research and design of RF systems supported by policy framework. Research happens outside government structures also, so funds need to be made accessible.
What maintenance, training and spares-support model would ensure high operational availability of EW/SIGINT drones in austere Indian garrisons and naval bases?
Training is essential to operating and maintaining systems. The first step is to ensure that at acceptance stage the supplier has a training plan, all operations manuals, SoPs, maintenance manuals with predicted MTBF and maintenance cycle for all subsystems and components.
Training methods must be practical and demonstratable on a real product. Before the acceptance, the users must have already experienced and provided feedback on the system. It is important to start early for new systems, to improve the design. This allows having an operationally acceptable system.
For large, complex systems VR-based training methods work well and allow the user to experience the system without putting a real system at risk. VR training allows user to have cues to the next steps, without having to read through the manual. There’s also repeatability and consistency in procedure execution resulting in better training outcome.
Maintenance as imagined looking into the future must be built around well implemented BITE and ML assisted failure and fault prediction models. The maintenance prediction models allow resource, logistics and inventory management for spare parts. The interfaces used for understanding the prediction data must be simple and provide an output which allows understanding the fault and provides suggestions towards a potential solution in a methodical way, capitalizing on existing documentation built into the software. Therefore, the maintenance engineer/technician must be trained to use these tools also.
For high operational availability, it is important that the system design is modular, has built in reliability to ensure availability is greater than 95%. Maintenance personnels are fully trained and will be able to fix issues in less than 24 hours with parts delivery ensured in 72 hours.
What procurement approach (Make, Make II, strategic partnerships, off-the-shelf) best balances speed, cost and indigenization for fielding EW drones to the Indian Armed Forces?
Which rules of engagement, legal clearances and spectrum coordination procedures need to be defined before routine offensive EW drone operations over India’s borders or maritime zones?
Rules of Engagement
- Define permissible targets, engagement thresholds, and conditions under which EW drones may disrupt or degrade enemy systems.
- Define constraints on jamming or spoofing civilian frequencies or dual-use infrastructure.
- Clearly define boundaries between cyber operations and EW, especially when effects overlap (e.g., GPS spoofing, network denial, essential operations).
- Ensure EW actions do not interfere with friendly or allied operations, especially in joint or coalition environments.
Law of Armed Conflict
- Legal advisers must assess whether EW actions constitute an “attack” under armed conflict, especially if they affect civilian infrastructure or medical facilities.
- Offensive EW drone missions typically require approval from national command authorities or designated military commanders.
- Operations must be consistent with national laws governing military force deployment and use.
- EW operations must comply with principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.
- Compliance with treaties like the Geneva Conventions and any bilateral or multilateral agreements on spectrum use or drone operations.
Spectrum coordination procedures
- The TRAI is the central authority to manage spectrum access, deconflict usage, and approve frequency assignments.
- There must be an online automated systems to allocate temporary frequencies for drone control and EW payloads, minimizing interference.
- DGCA and TRAI must work together and define policies and regulations to ensure safe and legal spectrum use for drone communications.
- Defined SoPs must be respected and followed for rapid reprogramming of EW systems to adapt to changing spectrum environments and avoid fratricide.
What are the most plausible enemy counter-EW threats India should design for (e.g., sophisticated jamming, RF spoofing, capture/reverse engineering), and what counter-designs defeat them?
Here are some scenario examples and solutions:
- GNSS jamming => design GNSS independent systems
- RF spoofing => design authentication-based systems, use multiple verification techniques to detect spoofing.
- Jamming => Use FHSS across multiple bands or new spectrums, DSSS.
- Cyber-attack through malicious code injection => Implement zero trust security, encryption
How practical and cost-effective is the use of swarm tactics for saturating adversary EW defences in the Indian context — and what command/control safeguards are needed?
Swarm tactics offer a reasonable mix of affordability, adaptability, and disruptive power—especially for asymmetric actors or nations seeking to offset the conventional disadvantages.
These swarms are effective, and automated countermeasures need to be built to counter swarms through both physical swarm (hard kill) and EW measures (soft kill) methods. The payload must be dynamically reconfigurable to switch from jamming to spoofing.
Early detection and disruption of swarm is necessary for safety. AI is required to implement algorithms in countering swarm attacks. It must utilize multi-sensor data fusion to achieve desired action and outcome.
A network of ECCM measures infused with data coming from EO, IR, RF signals, fed to AI algorithms to enable automatic action through and redundant, secure, integrated, central command control system is required. Again, a System of Systems approach is needed.
How should the Services and MoD structure R&D funding and testing regimes to accelerate validated EW/SIGINT drone capabilities (rapid prototyping, live-fire trials, cross-service testbeds)?
- Basic Research: Fund long-term innovation in signal processing, AI-driven spectrum analysis, and stealth communications.
- Applied Prototyping: Allocate fast-track grants for field-ready EW/SIGINT drone systems with modular payloads.
- Favor startups/companies which do end to end design work, manufacturing of both hardware and software development in India. There should not be any board imported from abroad after initial prototyping and development.
- Favor startups/organizations with established systems engineering and management process compliant to ISO standards for engineering and quality compliance and ability to certify with full end to end traceability. They must also have a plan in place for training operations team, maintenance team, lifecycle support.
Over the next 5 years, which single capability (e.g., persistent high-bandwidth SIGINT, rapid-deploy anti-GPS spoofing, or airborne mesh for denied comms) would most increase India’s electromagnetic operational advantage — and why?
Among all, I believe low power mesh network nodes would be more useful and efficient from an operational advantage point of view for multiple applications. They will allow spectrum wide use cases and help with EW and GNSS denied environments.
Mesh network will improve interoperability among systems and act as force multiplier when systems and forces are integrated. Airborne mesh networks will improve communication, resilience. Multiple mobile, swarm nodes will be hard to jam simultaneously.
How do you see the role of AI in enhancing drones’ effectiveness in EW and SIGINT?
As mentioned earlier multiple times, AI/ML adoption is now essential part of the systems design wherever adaptive control/behaviour is needed.
Do you expect autonomous spectrum management (AI deciding in real time which bands to jam, spoof, or secure) to become a reality?
Indeed, there’s no doubt that machines will have to become aware, smarter to manage this load dynamically but always supervised by a human and needing approval. The AI/ML must provide the decision logic justification for the human to validate before the final decision.
For instance, to mitigate design choice related risks in aerospace industry we use dissimilar software concept, wherein the target hardware utilizes two different software to achieve safety. This software is designed by two independent teams. I imagine that a similar standard/regulation must be applied for AI assisted decisions that there are two models developed by two independent teams. These two models are then given the same problem to solve. They provide the output in the same format. The user can then decide which is closer to reality and make an informed decision. The justification to do this is to ensure that AI/ML models are not delivering a biased result or wrong decision. Right logic based on policies, which is traceable to the decision is key.
What ethical or policy concerns arise when using drones for offensive EW or SIGINT missions (e.g., civilian spectrum interference)?
Offensive EW operations can unintentionally disrupt civilian communications, GPS, aviation systems, or emergency services.
There’s limited public knowledge and transparency about SIGINT. SIGINT missions often involve intercepting communications, which can infringe on the privacy rights of civilians. On the other hand, persistent SIGINT can erode civil liberties and public trust.
Indian armed forces have been buying and operating drones in the ISM band. This itself is a violation of the ISM band usage for military purpose. The ISM bands are suffering interference from the already crowded 2.4 GHz band.
How should militaries balance cybersecurity and electromagnetic resilience in drone operations?
Cybersecurity is fundamental to electronic systems; this is non-negotiable whether on ground or in the air. Cybersecurity and EM resilience are both essential for drone operations. There are sufficient and suitable measures available for cybersecurity considering the chip and software from the installation and configuration perspective. The challenge is in the air during use while relying on spectrum use. Therefore, EM spectrum becomes the medium through which an attack may be carried out. It is necessary that cybersecurity and communications, EW teams communicate and share their needs, analysis, risks and arrive at a workable solution.
In the next 5–10 years, what do you foresee as the most game-changing capability drones will bring to the electronic warfare domain?
The most important innovations will happen in the following areas:
- Navigation technologies independent of radio signals as EW has changed and current vision-based tech is expensive.
- Autonomy in drones through AI.
- resilient and healing mesh networks (effective distributed swarms).
- AI for real-time adaptive spectrum usage and effects.
- AI for swarms for collaborative task sharing and utilization of resources.
- Scaling of swarm drones in number and their capabilities.
- Evolution of networked and layered architecture with drones at different strategic altitudes.
- Higher integration of drones into defence systems supported by higher degree of autonomous operations supported through mesh networks.
- Propulsion technologies for endurance will enhance the required air time for SIGINT operations.
