Drones and EMP Weapons: The Convergence and Strategic Implications for Future Battlefields
Original Article By SemiVision Research [Reading time: 25 mins]
Principles and Classification of Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons
Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons are a class of directed-energy weapons that disable electronic systems by releasing intense electromagnetic energy in an extremely short time. EMPs can arise from natural phenomena such as nuclear detonations and lightning, but modern military EMP weapons generally refer to non-nuclear devices. Depending on the energy source and technical approach, conventional EMP munitions are typically divided into two main categories:
Electrical (capacitor-powered) EMP munitions: These use high-power electrical sources—such as charged capacitors or pulsed power generators—to drive an antenna or microwave tube and emit a strong electromagnetic pulse. For example, multiple capacitors can be rapidly discharged to produce power on the order of billions of watts, then converted by a specialized oscillator (such as a virtual cathode oscillator, vircator) into a short, high-frequency electromagnetic pulse. A key feature of electrical EMP munitions is that they can discharge multiple times without destroying the device (i.e., generate repeated pulses). Their trigger duration is extremely short, and the output energy is concentrated in the high-frequency microwave band (typically >100 MHz), making them particularly effective against modern electronics. Their limitation lies in the size and energy density of the power source, which constrains the peak power achievable in a single pulse.
Explosive (chemical-driven) EMP munitions: These generate an EMP using the energy released by chemical explosives, and are often referred to as explosion-driven EMP devices. A representative mechanism is the explosive flux compression generator, which uses an explosive detonation to compress the magnetic field within a coil, producing an enormous current pulse that radiates an EMP. Explosive EMP munitions are typically single-use—the device is destroyed in the explosion—but in return they can produce a much higher peak pulse power than electrical systems. Because the explosive energy directly drives the electromagnetic generation, the resulting impulse can be extremely strong and cover a larger area. Reports indicate that conventionally designed directional EMP munitions may achieve an effective lethal radius ranging from several hundred meters to several kilometers (depending on pulse power, frequency, and atmospheric absorption). The downside is that they cannot be fired repeatedly; they are inherently one-shot weapons.
It is also important to note that EMP weapons can be broadband or narrowband. Nuclear EMP spans a wide spectrum—from extremely low frequencies up to tens of MHz—whereas conventional non-nuclear EMP tends to favor ultra-wideband, high-frequency pulses in the nanosecond regime. Ultra-wideband EMP, with its wide spectral content, couples more readily into different circuits and can disrupt or damage a variety of electronic systems; narrowband microwaves, by contrast, can produce resonance effects at specific frequencies. Regardless of bandwidth, the core mechanism of an EMP pulse is electromagnetic induction, which introduces transient currents and high voltages inside electronic systems, destroying components or disrupting circuitry.
Mechanisms by Which EMP Damages Electronic Systems
The concept of pulse power and why it is essential for EMP weapons by using intuitive analogies and simple quantitative reasoning. Pulse power is a technology that dramatically increases instantaneous power by releasing stored energy within an extremely short period of time. The key idea is not to increase the total amount of energy, but to compress the time over which that energy is released, thereby multiplying peak power. To illustrate this, the page uses a bucket-of-water analogy. In a slow, continuous (DC) scenario, water flows gradually from a faucet into a bucket, representing low-power output sustained over a long duration—similar to a conventional power supply, such as 100 watts delivered over 10 seconds. In contrast, the pulse scenario involves tipping the bucket over and releasing all the water at once. Although the total amount of water (energy) is the same, releasing it instantaneously produces a far greater impact, corresponding to extremely high power delivered over a very short time. This principle underpins pulse power systems and explains how EMP weapons can generate massive electromagnetic effects without requiring large total energy reserves.
This diagram illustrates the core principle of pulse power: the total energy remains constant, while the release time is compressed. The green line represents a low, steady power output of 100 watts sustained over 10 seconds, corresponding to a long-duration, low-intensity energy release. In contrast, the red spike shows the same amount of energy released in just 10 nanoseconds, resulting in an instantaneous power level of 100 gigawatts. The yellow curve visualizes the energy distribution before and after time compression, highlighting how energy that was originally spread over a long period is concentrated into an extremely short interval. Although the total energy is identical in both cases, compressing the release time produces a peak power that is orders of magnitude higher, which is the fundamental mechanism behind pulse power and EMP generation.
The primary targets of EMP attacks are electronic and electrical systems of all kinds. From radios, computers, and communication networks to military electronics such as missile guidance systems and radar, all can be destroyed or disrupted by intense electromagnetic pulses within nanoseconds to microseconds. In essence, an EMP pulse is similar to a large-scale lightning strike or electrostatic discharge: an extremely strong electromagnetic field induces excessive currents and voltages within circuits, burning out transistors, integrated circuits, and other precision components. Unprotected equipment may fail instantaneously—ranging from temporary outages or forced reboots to permanent, irreparable damage.
For example, EMP generated by nuclear detonations can induce destructive currents over hundreds of kilometers, burning out power grid transformers and causing widespread blackouts. Although small, conventional EMP munitions have a more limited range, they are nonetheless devastating to unshielded electronics within the affected area: computers, communication base stations, electric vehicles, and similar systems can be instantly disabled, data may be lost, and circuits may overheat and melt down. The EMP effect was empirically demonstrated as early as 1962 during U.S. and Soviet high-altitude nuclear tests, when electromagnetic pulses from a high-altitude detonation caused streetlights in Hawaii—hundreds of kilometers away—to go dark and communications to fail . As modern electronic components become more highly integrated and operate at ever-lower voltages, they become increasingly susceptible to EMP-induced breakdown. Consequently, the very high level of electronic integration in modern military systems also makes them exceptionally vulnerable.
Fortunately, EMP does not cause immediate direct harm to biological organisms . The human body does not suffer “burned-out circuits” in the way electronic equipment does. However, the indirect effects of an EMP attack can still be life-threatening. For instance, the destruction of airport navigation systems could lead to aircraft accidents, while the failure of life-support equipment in hospitals could endanger patients. Thus, although EMP weapons are often classified as “non-kinetic” means of warfare, their impact on modern society may be no less severe than that of conventional explosives—manifesting as functional paralysis rather than direct casualties.
Historically, various countries have taken measures to reduce vulnerability to EMP. During the Cold War, some military electronic systems employed vacuum tube technology instead of transistors, because vacuum tubes are less sensitive to EMP and radio-frequency interference than microelectronic. However, vacuum tubes are bulky and inefficient, and are rarely used today. Another approach has been enhanced shielding: enclosing critical equipment in Faraday cages or metallic housings, and installing transient voltage suppressors on power and signal lines. Military communication facilities and command centers often incorporate EMP protection and electromagnetic hardening measures; for example, the U.S. strategic nuclear command aircraft E-4, known as the “Doomsday Plane,” is reportedly capable of withstanding strong EMP attacks. Nevertheless, it is extremely difficult to comprehensively shield large-scale frontline military equipment, and civilian infrastructure is almost entirely lacking in such protections. This reality makes EMP weapons a uniquely potent source of paralysis for both modern military systems and civilian society.
Japan’s EMP Munition Technology Research: Electrical, Explosive, and PLASMAGIC Approaches
Building on an understanding of the fundamental principles of EMP weapons, it is useful to examine a concrete case: Japan’s recent investment in EMP munition research and its chosen technological pathways. This case helps illustrate the broader trend toward the miniaturization and practical deployment of future EMP weapons.
As early as 2018, Japan’s revised National Defense Program Guidelines explicitly called for the development of “electronic warfare capabilities,” including high-power microwave and EMP weapons. In 2019, the Japanese Ministry of Defense released the Vision for the Construction of a Multi-Domain Integrated Defense Force, which clearly identified electromagnetic pulse (EMP) munitions as one of the core technologies. The document emphasized the short-term priority development of key capabilities such as land-based air defense systems and EMP munitions, while gradually pursuing miniaturized, platform-integrable EMP warheads with higher output power. This strategic framing indicates that Japan already regards EMP weapons as potential “game changers” in future warfare.
More specifically, the Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA) of Japan, through its Ground Systems Research Center, has led a dedicated EMP munition technology research program. This effort focuses on improving two main approaches—electrical and explosive EMP systems—while also proposing an innovative concept known as PLASMAGIC. According to publicly released ATLA materials:
Electrical EMP munition approach:
This approach uses capacitor-based energy storage as the primary power source. High voltage is generated through pulsed-power circuits and then converted into EMP radiation by the emission section. Japanese researchers employ a Marx generator as the pulsed power supply, combined with a virtual cathode oscillator to generate microwave pulses. Early experiments confirmed the technical feasibility of this configuration, although initial EMP output levels were limited. In Reiwa 5 (2023), the research team completed a full-system integration test and successfully radiated EMP emissions. The key technical challenges identified include how to substantially increase EMP output and how to reduce the overall size of the system. Reports indicate that, following principle verification and design improvements, the EMP power density of the electrical approach has already been increased to 8.7 times the original baseline, with a future target on the order of a hundredfold improvement.Explosive EMP munition approach:
To overcome the power limitations inherent to electrical systems, Japan is also developing EMP generation technologies that harness the energy of chemical explosives in parallel. The basic concept is similar to traditional explosive magnetic flux compression, in which an explosive detonation serves as a powerful “seed energy source” to drive an EMP generator. Although the explosive approach is inherently single-use, its potential is substantial: the research goal is to achieve EMP output levels tens of times greater than those of electrical systems. To this end, Japan has proposed a distinctive concept known as an explosive plasma compression generator, namely the PLASMAGIC system.
PLASMAGIC is an acronym for Plasma Generator using Explosive Compression, referring to a device that generates plasma through explosive compression. In simple terms, it uses explosive detonation to produce high-temperature, high-pressure plasma, which then cuts across electrodes in a strong magnetic field to induce large electrical currents, ultimately releasing an extremely powerful electromagnetic pulse. The process can be summarized as follows:
An inert gas (such as argon) is sealed within an annular flow channel. Metal electrodes are placed on both sides of the channel, explosives are arranged around the exterior, and a pre-established static magnetic field B is applied.
Upon detonation, the explosive shock wave rapidly compresses the argon gas, raising its temperature and ionizing it into plasma.
Driven by the explosion, the plasma flows at extremely high velocity through the electrode gap and cuts magnetic field lines. According to the principle of electromagnetic induction, a large potential difference is generated between the electrodes, effectively functioning as an instantaneous magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generator .
This brief but extremely intense current pulse is then converted, via integrated circuitry, into electromagnetic radiation, resulting in a high-power EMP emission.
In essence, the PLASMAGIC device is an explosion-driven plasma generator capable of directly converting the chemical energy of explosives into electromagnetic energy output. By exploiting plasma conductivity and magnetic compression effects, its theoretical power significantly exceeds that of conventional explosive magnetic flux compression generators. Japanese sources suggest that PLASMAGIC could achieve output levels several tens of times greater than those of conventional explosive EMP devices. If successfully realized, this would mean that a relatively small warhead could generate an EMP effect comparable to that of a tactical nuclear detonation—without the radioactive side effects associated with nuclear explosions.
Of course, PLASMAGIC is still at an early exploratory stage. Japan’s Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA) has acknowledged that the technology has not yet been fully established and that there is a lack of prior design data to serve as reference points. The current research plan is to first derive key parameters through computer simulations in Reiwa 6 (2024), followed by physical experimental validation after Reiwa 7 (2025) .
The main technical challenges include ensuring that explosion-driven plasma can stably and controllably cut through magnetic fields to generate electrical current, as well as effectively collecting and radiating that current to form an EMP. At the same time, compressing all of these subsystems into a form factor suitable for deployment on missiles or unmanned aerial platforms represents a major engineering challenge. Nevertheless, if these technological hurdles are overcome, it would mark a significant leap in both the miniaturization and output power of EMP warheads, turning “non-nuclear electromagnetic munitions” into a genuinely practical and deployable means of warfare.
It is also worth noting that while Japan is actively advancing EMP weapon development, it places equal emphasis on defensive technologies. In the field of electronic warfare protection, Japan has proposed enhancing its capability to defend against EMP munition attacks. This includes the development of electromagnetic shielding, rapid circuit isolation, and related measures to mitigate damage when friendly systems are exposed to EMP strikes. Taken together, these efforts indicate that EMP offense and defense are becoming integral components of Japan’s multi-domain defense strategy.
Voitenko-Type Plasma Generators and Their Role in High-Power EMP Systems
A critical evolution in explosion-driven plasma generator design, comparing a conventional coaxial plasma generator with the more advanced Voitenko-type plasma generator. The comparison highlights how structural design choices directly determine plasma velocity, energy density, and ultimately the feasibility of generating high-power electromagnetic pulses (EMP) suitable for military applications such as PLASMAGIC-class non-nuclear electromagnetic weapons.
Conventional Coaxial Plasma Generator: Baseline Architecture
The upper portion of the diagram depicts a coaxial plasma generator, a relatively simple and well-established configuration. In this design, an inert gas—typically argon—is confined within a cylindrical container. High explosives are arranged around the container, and upon detonation, the gas is rapidly compressed and ionized, forming plasma that is expelled along the axis of the device.
The primary advantages of this coaxial configuration are its structural simplicity and ease of fabrication, making it suitable for early-stage experiments and proof-of-concept testing. However, its performance is inherently limited. The achievable plasma flow velocity is on the order of 15 km/s, which constrains the plasma temperature, density, and electrical conductivity. As a result, the amount of current that can be induced—and therefore the intensity of any resulting EMP—is capped. While sufficient for validating physical principles, this architecture struggles to meet the power density requirements of operational EMP weapons.
The central annotation marked “high output power” indicates the strategic research direction pursued by Japan’s defense technology community: moving beyond coaxial designs toward configurations capable of producing significantly stronger plasma flows and electromagnetic effects.
Voitenko-Type Plasma Generator: High-Performance Design
The lower portion of the figure introduces the Voitenko-type plasma generator, a more sophisticated and higher-output architecture. Instead of a simple cylindrical container, this design employs a spherical or hemispherical chamber combined with a metallic plate that functions as an electrode. The chamber is filled with inert gas, and explosives are arranged to symmetrically compress the gas upon detonation.
This geometry offers several decisive advantages. The spherical compression produces more uniform and extreme pressure and temperature conditions, enabling the formation of high-temperature, high-density plasma. The plasma is then forced through a narrow outlet or channel, dramatically increasing its flow velocity to 40 km/s or higher, more than two to three times that of the coaxial configuration. The metallic plate simultaneously serves as a structural boundary and an electrical interface, facilitating current collection and control.
Implications for EMP and PLASMAGIC Technologies
In explosion-driven EMP systems, plasma velocity and density are not secondary parameters—they directly determine how effectively the plasma can cut magnetic field lines, induce massive electrical currents, and convert explosive chemical energy into electromagnetic radiation. Faster, denser plasma translates into stronger induced currents and, consequently, more powerful EMP emission.
From this perspective, the Voitenko-type plasma generator represents a qualitative leap. Whereas the coaxial design demonstrates feasibility, the Voitenko configuration moves the technology into a regime where tactical-scale, non-nuclear EMP effects become realistic. This makes it a leading candidate architecture for PLASMAGIC-type systems that aim to deliver EMP intensities comparable to tactical nuclear effects, but without radioactive fallout.
The comparison shown in this figure reveals a deeper insight: the limiting factor in next-generation EMP weapons is not the availability of explosive energy, but rather plasma dynamics and structural engineering. Mastery of plasma compression geometry, flow control, and electromagnetic coupling is what enables miniaturized, high-output EMP warheads.
As such, Voitenko-type plasma generators are widely regarded as a key enabling technology for future EMP payloads deployable on missiles, loitering munitions, and unmanned aerial platforms. Their development marks a critical step in transforming EMP weapons from experimental concepts into operational tools capable of reshaping electronic-centric battlefields.
Electrical EMP systems emphasize controllability and repeatable electronic warfare, but are constrained in peak power.
Explosive EMP systems trade reusability for significantly higher output, making them suitable for one-time breakthrough strikes.
PLASMAGIC represents the potential upper bound of non-nuclear EMP technology; if successfully realized, it could fundamentally reshape future electronic warfare by delivering near–tactical nuclear EMP effects without nuclear detonation.
The Application Prospects of Drone-Mounted EMP Weapons
The integration of EMP weapons with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is widely regarded as a highly disruptive combat model in future warfare. The mobility and covert-approach capabilities of drones, combined with the non-kinetic nature of EMP weapons, give this pairing unique tactical value.
Armed drones have already demonstrated their impact in recent conflicts. If, in the future, UAVs are equipped with EMP warheads or HPM (high-power microwave) directed-energy devices, they could disable enemy air-defense systems and armored formations without direct physical contact. This concept is far from science fiction. As early as 2012, the U.S. military tested the CHAMP (Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile), a cruise missile capable of flying over a target area and disabling computers and electronic equipment inside buildings through microwave radiation. Russia has also announced plans to equip its sixth-generation combat drones with microwave weapons, indicating that major military powers are actively exploring the integration of EMP/HPM systems onto unmanned platforms.
There are two primary implementation pathways for drone-mounted EMP weapons:
Single-use EMP attack drones:
This approach is similar to loitering munitions or suicide drones. A UAV carries a compact EMP warhead into the target area and detonates it at an appropriate altitude, releasing a powerful electromagnetic pulse that disables surrounding electronic systems. Because EMP effects do not require direct impact, accuracy requirements are lower than those of conventional bombs—detonation within the effective radius is sufficient. Such drones can be designed as low-cost platforms, since they are unlikely to survive after executing the EMP strike (especially when using explosive-based EMP warheads). Compared with sending manned aircraft deep into hostile airspace, the stealthy penetration and expendable nature of drones are particularly well suited to EMP missions.Multi-strike EMP drones:
This approach involves integrating reusable HPM devices onto larger UAVs or unmanned combat platforms. Examples include directional microwave emitters that can repeatedly fire high-power pulses to disable multiple targets. This requires the drone to carry sufficient onboard power or specialized pulse-power supplies, as well as robust thermal management. While this concept is still closer to the prototype stage, there are already early signs of feasibility. For instance, the U.S. startup Epirus has developed the “Leonidas” high-power microwave system, reportedly mountable on ground vehicles as an “electronic shield” against drone swarms [34]. In the future, similar systems could be miniaturized and mounted on large UAVs or even combat aircraft, enabling airborne directed-energy attacks. The advantage of this multi-strike approach is sustained combat capability—one platform can engage multiple targets—while its drawbacks include higher technical complexity and greater platform cost.
Regardless of the implementation path, the combination of drones and EMP weapons has the potential to play a distinctive role on the battlefield. On one hand, it offers overwhelming suppression capability. Traditionally, destroying a tank requires a missile to score a direct hit; by contrast, an EMP drone passing overhead could disable an entire column of tanks with a single pulse, shutting down engines, communications, and fire-control systems, effectively turning them into “blind and deaf” steel hulks. High-power microwave weapons can instantly incapacitate all electronic targets within a given area, achieving a “one-to-many” effect that conventional kinetic weapons—typically limited to one-to-one destruction—cannot provide. As the U.S. Army has noted, this makes EMP/HPM systems ideal for countering drone swarms and for neutralizing highly electronicized equipment formations.
On the other hand, EMP drones offer both stealth and non-lethal characteristics. Their stealth lies in the ability of small UAVs to penetrate at low altitude or exploit low radar cross-sections to approach critical enemy nodes, delivering EMP strikes before detection. This tactic—“stealthy penetration plus system-level paralysis”—could, in the early stages of a conflict, disable enemy command and control networks and core radar systems, plunging opposing forces into a state of confusion and disarray. The non-lethal aspect refers to the fact that EMP attacks do not directly destroy hardware or cause mass casualties. Instead, they may create strong psychological shock and chaos: equipment appears intact but suddenly stops functioning, often leading to collapse without direct engagement. By the same logic, using EMP drones against critical infrastructure such as power grids constitutes a form of “soft kill,” which may occupy legal gray areas under international law (discussed further later).
At present, countries around the world have already demonstrated strong interest and early experimentation in EMP-capable unmanned systems. Around 2020, Russia repeatedly showcased tests of vehicle-mounted or airborne microwave weapons used to destroy drone targets. The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory has promoted the CHAMP program as a validation of air-launched EMP weapons and is also considering ground- and air-based EMP systems for counter-drone defense. As these technologies mature, scenarios such as drones carrying EMP warheads to ambush enemy radar bases, or ground-based HPM systems firing pulses to neutralize swarms of incoming drones, are likely to move from the realm of science fiction into operational reality.
The Russia–Ukraine War: A Tug-of-War Between Electronic Warfare and Drones
Since the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine conflict in 2022, the war has provided a comprehensive demonstration of a modern battlefield in which drones and electronic warfare (EW) are deeply intertwined. Both sides have invested heavily in unmanned systems at tactical, operational, and strategic levels, while continuously engaging in an escalating cycle of electronic attack and countermeasure.
Ukrainian forces have employed a wide range of drones with remarkable flexibility—from modified commercial quadcopters adapted for bomb-dropping, to Turkey’s Bayraktar TB2 armed reconnaissance drones, and strategic UAVs supplied by the United States. On the battlefield, drones have been used for reconnaissance, artillery spotting, and aerial resupply, significantly compensating for Ukraine’s disadvantages in firepower and intelligence [45]. However, the Russian military possesses formidable electronic warfare capabilities and is widely believed to have deployed large numbers of jamming systems early in the conflict to suppress Ukrainian communications, radar, and drone control links. Russian ground-based EW systems such as Krasukha, along with Leer-3 jamming drones, have been used along the front lines to disrupt Ukrainian UAV data links and GPS signals, causing many drones to lose control and crash. According to NATO sources, Russian EW has been capable of “isolating Ukrainian units, disrupting command networks, and even completely disabling drones”. This at one point created a serious risk of Ukrainian drone capabilities being rendered ineffective.
Ukraine, however, responded rapidly with innovative countermeasures. One key adaptation was the introduction of Starlink satellite communications as drone data links, allowing UAV operations to bypass Russian ground-based jamming. Ukraine also developed AI-enabled autonomous flight capabilities, enabling drones to continue toward their targets using inertial navigation and image recognition even in heavily jammed environment.
Some Ukrainian drones have even adopted fiber-optic tethering, using physical cables to eliminate vulnerability to radio-frequency interference altogether. In addition, Western partners supplied Ukraine with various electronic warfare tools to counter Russian drones. A notable example is the EDM4S anti-drone rifle developed in Lithuania. This shoulder-fired jamming weapon emits directed electromagnetic energy to disrupt a drone’s remote control and GPS signals, causing it to crash or return to base. Ukrainian soldiers frequently use the EDM4S against small Russian reconnaissance drones, earning it the nickname “electronic grenade launcher.”
In many respects, the Russia–Ukraine battlefield demonstrates that “drone warfare is electronic warfare.” Both sides have continuously escalated their jamming and counter-jamming techniques. For example, Russia has reportedly developed what might be described as “lethal electronic protection” against Ukrainian loitering munitions—possibly involving the emission of high-power microwaves around armored vehicles to create a protective barrier that burns out the electronics of incoming drones. At the same time, the United States and NATO are testing similar “microwave air-defense shield” technologies. In 2024, the U.S. Army received its first IFPC-HPM (Integrated Fires Protection Capability – High Power Microwave) counter-drone systems produced by Epirus. These systems can generate an electromagnetic “force field” in the air, sweeping through and destroying incoming drone swarms in a single pass.
High-Power Microwave “Force Fields” and the Future of Counter-Drone Warfare
The rapid proliferation of drone swarms on modern battlefields has exposed a fundamental weakness in traditional air-defense systems. Missiles, guns, and even lasers are largely designed for one-to-one interception, making them inefficient and costly when confronted with dozens or hundreds of small, low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles. To address this challenge, the U.S. Department of Defense is actively testing a new class of counter-drone systems built around high-power microwave (HPM) technology—often described metaphorically as an electromagnetic “force field.”
Why Drone Swarms Break Traditional Defenses
Conflicts such as the Russia–Ukraine war have demonstrated how drone swarms can overwhelm conventional defenses through sheer numbers, low altitude flight, and unpredictable trajectories. Small UAVs can evade radar, saturate point defenses, and exploit the cost asymmetry between expensive interceptors and expendable drones. As a result, militaries are increasingly seeking solutions that can defeat many targets simultaneously, rather than one at a time.
HPM weapons offer exactly this kind of asymmetric response. Instead of relying on kinetic destruction, they emit intense electromagnetic energy that disrupts or permanently damages the electronic systems inside drones—flight controllers, navigation units, communications links, and power electronics—causing them to lose control and fall from the sky.
The IFPC-HPM Program and Epirus’ Role
One of the most prominent efforts in this space is the U.S. Army’s Integrated Fires Protection Capability – High Power Microwave (IFPC-HPM) program. Under this initiative, the Army has partnered with defense technology company Epirus, awarding a contract in early 2023 reportedly worth tens of millions of dollars. Epirus has since delivered multiple prototype systems for operational testing.
At the heart of this effort is the Leonidas family of HPM systems. Designed specifically to counter drone swarms, Leonidas emits powerful microwave pulses that can disable multiple UAVs within a defined sector or volume of airspace. Rather than tracking and engaging each drone individually, the system effectively creates an electromagnetic zone in which hostile drones cannot function.
The Meaning of a “Microwave Force Field”
The term “force field” does not imply a physical barrier. Instead, it describes a protective electromagnetic envelope generated by high-power microwave radiation. When drones enter this zone, their electronics experience intense electromagnetic stress, leading to overload, malfunction, or permanent damage. In practical terms, entire swarms can be neutralized in seconds.
This represents a qualitative shift in air-defense and counter-UAS doctrine. Where traditional systems are constrained by rate of fire and ammunition supply, HPM weapons can deliver repeated engagements as long as power is available. The result is a scalable, potentially lower-cost method for defending bases, maneuver forces, and critical infrastructure against massed drone attacks.
Key Advantages of High-Power Microwave Systems
HPM-based counter-drone systems offer several strategic advantages:
True one-to-many engagement: A single pulse can affect multiple drones simultaneously within the engagement zone.
Lower marginal cost per engagement: Unlike missiles or shells, HPM weapons do not rely on expendable munitions.
Effectiveness against swarm tactics: Electromagnetic effects are largely insensitive to evasive maneuvers or formation density.
Non-kinetic defense: Reduced risk of collateral damage from falling debris or missed interceptors.
These characteristics make HPM particularly attractive as drone swarms become faster, cheaper, and more autonomous.
Challenges and Limitations
Despite their promise, high-power microwave systems are not without challenges. Precise control of beam direction, power levels, and engagement geometry is essential to avoid interference with friendly electronics operating nearby. Thermal management, power generation, and integration into existing air-defense networks also remain significant engineering hurdles.
Moreover, adversaries are unlikely to remain passive. Hardened electronics, shielding, and distributed swarm architectures may reduce the effectiveness of future HPM systems, driving a continued cycle of adaptation and counter-adaptation.
The emergence of HPM “force field” concepts signals a broader transformation in air defense and electronic warfare. As drones increasingly define the character of modern conflict, the ability to deny airspace electromagnetically—rather than kinetically—may become a core element of future defense architectures.
What was once the domain of science fiction is rapidly becoming operational reality. In the coming years, scenes in which microwave systems silently sweep the sky, disabling entire drone swarms in a single engagement, are likely to become a familiar feature of modern warfare rather than a speculative one.
High-power microwave weapons have proven highly effective in destroying drones and other electronically dependent targets. Wherever the microwave pulse reaches, drone circuit boards can overheat, chips can be burned out, and aircraft can fall from the sky almost instantaneously. According to the system’s developers, any equipment containing electronic components is extremely vulnerable to this type of electromagnetic radiation—from drones and vehicle engines to night-vision devices, all of which can be disabled or permanently damaged. This reality underscores a new dynamic in the confrontation between electronic warfare and unmanned systems: on future battlefields, no side will be able to employ drones or precision-guided weapons effectively without control of the electromagnetic spectrum. In other words, gaining and maintaining electromagnetic dominance has become just as decisive as control of the air or the sea.
Drawing on the experience of the war in Ukraine, it is clear that the combination of drones and EMP tactics poses a profound challenge to traditional military equipment. If drones have already exposed tanks and armored vehicles to aerial attack, EMP weapons threaten to render these expensive platforms completely “blind and deaf.”
The difference between EMP warheads and high-power microwave (HPM) weapons can be understood in simple terms. An EMP warhead functions like a one-time, wide-area, system-level electronic shock weapon—often described as a non-nuclear “electronic bomb.” It delivers a massive electromagnetic pulse in a single event, capable of paralyzing large numbers of electronic systems simultaneously. By contrast, an HPM weapon resembles an electronic sniper rifle: it is reusable, precisely aimable, and designed to disable specific electronic targets through repeated, controlled microwave emissions.
When viewed through the lens of drone warfare, these differences become even more pronounced. Drones equipped with EMP warheads are best suited for the opening phase of a conflict, where the objective is to suppress air defenses, communications networks, and command-and-control chains in one decisive blow. However, this approach carries significant risks, including the potential for collateral effects on friendly forces and civilian infrastructure, as well as a higher threshold for authorization and deployment. In contrast, drones armed with HPM systems are better suited for counter-UAS missions and the precise neutralization of radar or communications nodes. Their ability to fire repeatedly and adjust tactics in real time gives them strong advantages in prolonged or dynamic engagements.
From a battlefield perspective, the core conclusion is clear: EMP is the sledgehammer, HPM is the scalpel. Future wars are unlikely to force a choice between the two. Instead, EMP weapons will be used to “reset” the battlefield at the outset of hostilities, while HPM systems will provide the means to maintain and control the electromagnetic battlespace over time.