Epirus Leonidas Demonstrates Microwave Counter-Drone Swarm

In a field demo that reads like science fiction for aviation safety, Epirus showed how a single high-power microwave beam can neutralize a swarm of drones. During a live-fire exercise at Camp Atterbury in late August, the Leonidas system disabled 61 drones with 100% success, culminating in a dramatic performance where more than four dozen drones fell from the sky in unison after a single pulse. This is not a flashy one-shot kill, but a calculated demonstration of how directed energy can disrupt or disable the electronics that make modern drones fly. For defense planners, the takeaway is clear: a well-tuned counter-drone microwave capability can transform a swarming threat into a controllable sytu ation, reducing risk to personnel and critical infrastructure.

Epirus’s Leonidas is part of a family of directed-energy systems that use long-pulse microwave beams to disrupt the electronics inside small UAVs. The shift from earlier magnetron-based designs to Gallium Nitride (GaN) semiconductors makes the weapon smaller, lighter, and far more robust in field conditions. GaN reduces heat buildup and power drain, enabling a platform that can be mounted on armored vehicles or tactical vehicles and still operate safely around bystanders. The result is a more practical counter-drone solution that can be quickly deployed in real-world environments without lengthy cooling or maintenance cycles. The system’s software-driven waveform customization lets operators tailor the engagement to the drone type, flight profile, and engagement geometry, which is essential for controlling a swarm rather than just brute-forcing a kill tally. In plain terms, Leonidas can adjust the beat of its energy to maximize effect while minimizing collateral risk to nearby civilians or friendly forces.

One of the most compelling aspects of this approach is the “one-to-many” capability. The Leonidas platform can strike a large group of drones in a single pulse, while also creating selective no-fly corridors that let friendly aircraft pass through protected airspace. This dual capacity—rapid swarm defeat and controlled safety zones—maps directly to modern mission needs where drones come in varied sizes, from micro-quadcopters to larger fixed-wing platforms. In practical terms, the technology can be deployed to defend critical facilities, public events, or logistics hubs where a swarming threat could otherwise overwhelm traditional countermeasures. As Epirus CEO Andy Lowery framed it, the weapon’s electromagnetic interference approach is designed to be mission-capable for counter-swarm operations, not merely a standalone demonstration of power.

Powered by GaN: Why Leonidas Is Different

The leap to GaN semiconductors is a pivot point for microwave counter-drone systems. Unlike older vacuum-tube designs, GaN devices generate higher power densities with better thermal management, enabling longer-range and more mobile platforms. This matters for a counter-drone microwave mission because range and mobility determine how quickly responders can engage incoming swarms, and how safely such engagements can be conducted in populated or mixed-use airspaces. Leonidas’s software-centric control also allows for rapid reprogramming to handle evolving drone architectures, which is critical as adversaries experiment with swarms that can switch formations or alter flight paths in response to sensors and jamming. In short, this is less about a single shot and more about adaptable, persistent defense that can scale with a threat.

From Swarm Determent to Safe Delivery: Tactical Implications

The demonstration underscores a broader trend toward no-kill, soft-kill interference that disrupts a drone’s operation without causing unintended harm elsewhere. Directed-energy countermeasures work by perturbing or temporarily disabling the drone’s electronics, creating a window for interception, safe landing, or geofenced denial zones. This aligns with regulatory shifts in several jurisdictions that aim to balance national-security needs with civilian safety. For operators, the technology offers a way to neutralize threats quickly, reduce post-incident risk, and maintain civilian airspace integrity during high-stress events. Yet the growing deployment of directed-energy weapons also raises questions about export controls, standardization, and interoperability with air-traffic management and other defense systems. Policymakers will be watching closely as vendors and operators refine thresholds for deployment, frequency bands, and power limits to avoid unintended interference with nearby communications and infrastructure.

Conclusion

The Leonidas demonstration marks a turning point in how militaries and security forces perceive drone threats. By combining GaN-based power, sophisticated waveform control, and a true one-to-many engagement capability, Epirus is advancing a practical cousin to the broader field of directed-energy weapons. For the civilian-industrial sector, the emergence of compact, mobile high-power microwave systems signals both opportunity and responsibility: opportunity to protect critical operations from disruptive swarms, and responsibility to ensure safe, lawful use in shared airspaces. As drone technology accelerates, layered defense strategies that fuse sensors, mobility, and zero-distance impact on electronics will likely become standard practice rather than exceptional measures. The takeaway for industry readers is simple: counter-drone microwave technologies are moving from proof-of-concept to real-world capability, with implications for defense, aviation safety, and the regulatory landscape alike.