{"id":1866,"date":"2025-08-12T07:37:07","date_gmt":"2025-08-12T05:37:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/?p=1866"},"modified":"2025-06-08T09:49:43","modified_gmt":"2025-06-08T07:49:43","slug":"electronic-warfare-on-the-ground","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/?p=1866","title":{"rendered":"Electronic warfare on the ground"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n

U.S. Army cyber warfare experts are rediscovering electronic warfare (EW) for ground operations, as centralized command authorities combine cyber and EW operations into a new discipline known as spectrum warfare.<\/strong><\/p>\n

By\u00a0J.R. Wilson<\/h4>\n

The Pentagon defines Electronic Warfare (EW) as military action involving the use of electromagnetic energy and directed energy to control the electromagnetic spectrum or to attack the enemy. EW consists of three divisions: electronic attack, electronic protection, and electronic support; EW is employed to create decisive, stand-alone effects or to support military operations by generating various levels of control, detection, denial, deception, disruption, degradation, exploitation, protection, and destruction.<\/p>\n

While its early history is debated, the first known use of an EW capability \u2014 the interception of wireless communications \u2014 occurred in 1904, during the Russo-Japanese War.<\/p>\n

EW is sometimes considered to be interchangeable with cyber warfare, which involves the actions by a nation-state or trans-national organization to attack and attempt to damage another nation\u2019s computers or information networks using such methods as computer viruses or denial-of-service attacks.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Army is the first American armed force to combine the two, merging EW units and specialists scattered throughout service organizations with its Cyber Command \u2014 a 21st Century creation within all military branches and, most recently, recognized as a fifth domain of war (along with air, ground, sea and space) with the creation of the U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) as the nation\u2019s tenth Unified Combatant Command.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

While those elevated cyber to a level never applied to EW, they did not answer the question of where EW and cyber warfare begin, end, and overlap.<\/p>\n

As of October 2018, Army leaders sought to resolve that by migrating their EW workforce to the cyber branch. They are going through a series of mobile training teams on how to do planning in the cyber domain as part of the Army\u2019s new effort to insert cyber and electromagnetic activities cells organically within brigade combat teams to provide EW\/cyber warfare domain planning to commanders.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe way that we\u2019re transforming our electronic warfare professionals is they will become cyber operators,\u201d says Maj. Gen. John Morrison, commander of the Cyber Center of Excellence. \u201cThey will be the face inside our brigade combat teams and our maneuver formations for cyber operational planning. They\u2019re complementary. You cannot look at EW professionals and cyber operators in isolation.\u201d Morrison made his comments in May 2018 at the AFCEA Defensive Cyber Operations symposium in Baltimore.<\/p>\n

This new approach and related technologies and warfighter training mark a significant change in the operations of ground maneuver forces that is also likely to see effects on U.S. Marine Corps and Special Operations concepts of operations (CONOPs) and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).<\/p>\n

Crucial time<\/h3>\n

It comes at a crucial time for the U.S., as Pentagon planning and emphasis moves away from fighting asymmetric wars in Southwest Asia against less advanced enemy states, insurgents, and terrorist organizations. Now military forces are refocusing their attention on potential conflicts with near-peer and peer adversaries in the Pacific and Europe. It also is the first time in some six decades that the United States has not been the unquestioned military technology leader.<\/p>\n

Throughout the history of warfare, \u201cboots on the ground\u201d has been the catch phrase for the successful defeat and conquest of an enemy (the atomic bomb-forced surrender of World War II Japan notwithstanding). In the 21st Century, the value of individual warfighter has increased as they have become nodes in the battlespace network \u2014 walking sensors and EW\/cyber warfare platforms to combat close proximity enemy electronics like robots, radar installations, communications, and precision-guided munitions. Combined with advanced vehicle-mounted EW capabilities, they will be crucial to dominating the electromagnetic spectrum.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"1902maesr<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

The Lockheed Martin Symphony system is a radio-controlled improvised explosive device (RCIED) defeat system. Symphony provides global ground EW solutions to U.S. forces and partner nations with the ability to defeat current and emerging IED threats and is interoperable with other jamming devices.e at Marine Corps Training Area Bellows, Hawaii.<\/p>\n

This expansion of EW capabilities across all ground forces also reflects the convergence of offensive and defensive EW and cyber warfare capabilities and the move toward more software-defined systems, which began with the software-defined radio (SDR), where a single piece of hardware can be repurposed in the field in real-time with software changes.<\/p>\n

One of the most important EW initiatives today is the C4ISR\/EW Modular Open Suite of Standards (CMOSS), which seeks to converge EW in such a way as to leverage a lot more software-defined radio, says David Jedynak, chief technology officer at the Curtiss-Wright Corp. Defense Solutions Division in Ashburn, Va.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat means you\u2019re not limited to a specific vehicle for transmit and receive type applications, which gives you a lot more flexibility in terms of what hardware and software can be intermingled on a platform,\u201d Jedynak says.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat includes using one type of sensor to cross-cue or provide a larger picture,\u201d Jedynak continues. \u201cFor example, using a jammer\u2019s power amplifier for broadcast communications or, in reverse, using a communications system as a jammer or comm gear, tuned appropriately, as a poor man\u2019s SIGINT [signals intelligence] \u2014 maybe more of a COMMINT [communications intelligence] \u2014 to add more nodes in terms of spectrum warfare.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tactical electronic warfare<\/h3>\n

An example of this is the VMAX and VROD Dismounted Electronic Support\/Attack system planned for insertion into tactical forces in Europe. VROD, which stands for Versatile Radio Observation and Direction, detects electronic frequencies and creates a virtual map of the electronic environment. VMAX, which stands for VROD Modular Adaptive Transmit, enables soldiers to conduct focused electronic attacks at certain frequencies in the spectrum.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the last couple of years, there has been prototyping of VMAX and VROD handheld systems, so there is a desire to create offensive and defensive effects within the peer and near-peer arena,\u201d explains Avetis Ioannisyan, director of the BAE Systems Adaptive Sensors Group in Hudson, N.H. \u201cThe idea of having warfighters forward-deployed and having EW capabilities is very valid,\u201d Ioannisyan says. \u201cAnother, more vehicular, is Sabre Fury. These are designed to inform TTP about the value and capabilities of SIGINT for the warfighter.\u201d<\/p>\n

Those tools were being delivered in late 2017 to the Army 1st Infantry Division\u2019s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team at Fort Riley, Kan. At that time Army Lt. Gen. Paul Ostrowski, principal military deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASAALT), explained their value to the Senate Armed Services Committee.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"1902maesr<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

Army cyber operations specialists from the Expeditionary Cyber Support Detachment, 782nd Military Intelligence Battalion (Cyber), from Fort Gordon, Ga., provided offensive cyber operations as part of the Cyber-Electromagnetic Activities (CEMA) Support to Corps and Below (CSCB) program.<\/p>\n

\u201c[Commanders now] have the situational understanding of signals of interest in their area,\u201d he told the committee. \u201cThey then have the opportunity to do two things: either strike that particular capability with respect to indirect fires or to jam it [with] a limited jamming capability.\u201d<\/p>\n

Spectrum is central to EW and cyber warfare. Because of this, dealing with them as independent efforts in securing military information networks may create cyberspace or electromagnetic spectrum vulnerabilities, Army leaders believe.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Army Cyber and Electronic Warfare Operations Field Manual, released in April 2017, outlines the service\u2019s thinking: \u201cEmploying cyberspace and EW capabilities under a single planning, integration, and synchronization methodology increases the operational commander\u2019s ability to understand the environment, project power, and synchronize multiple operations using the same domain and environment.\u201d<\/p>\n

That has gained emphasis with growing evidence, from operational doctrine and actual implementation, that China and Russia view information operations and electromagnetic spectrum dominance as critical to any future conflict, especially, but not limited to, peer and near-peer.<\/p>\n

Cyber and EW<\/h3>\n

Maj. Gen. Robert M. Dyes Jr., acting director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center at Fort Eustis, Va., wrote a preface to The U.S. Army Concept for Cyberspace and Electronic Warfare Operations 2025-2040, released in January 2018. \u201cDefeating future enemies that possess advanced capabilities calls for land forces operating as part of integrated joint teams that conduct simultaneous and sequential operations across multiple domains,\u201d Dyes wrote. \u201cIn a multi-domain battle, future Army forces will fight and win across all contested spaces to create windows of advantage across multiple domains that enable Joint Force freedom of action to seize, retain and exploit the initiative.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Army will operate in and through cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum and will fully integrate cyberspace, EW, and electromagnetic spectrum operations as part of joint combined arms operations to meet future operational environment challenges,\u201d Dyes continued. \u201cThese operations provide commanders the ability to conduct simultaneous, linked maneuver in and through multiple domains and to engage adversaries and populations where they live and operate. They also provide commanders a full range of physical and virtual, as well as kinetic and non-kinetic, capabilities tailored into combinations that enhance the combat power of maneuver elements conducting joint combined operations.\u201d<\/p>\n

This convergence essentially defines the electromagnetic spectrum, rather than cyber warfare alone, as the real fifth domain of war, as the spectrum becomes more crowded with military and civilian transmissions. In an urban conflict, that greatly expands potential targets and vulnerabilities \u2014 especially if the rules of engagement call for as little interference with or damage to civilian systems as possible.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe future operational environment will be more unpredictable, complex, and potentially dangerous than today,\u201d the EW\/cyber warfare concept document warns. \u201cThe physical structure of cyberspace will be extremely vulnerable to attack by an array of destructive weapons, including high-power microwave munitions and laser systems, which are increasingly effective against digitized, miniaturized and integrated circuits. Because these challenges and changes can occur swiftly, the Army must adopt advanced cyberspace operations capabilities at a more rapid rate than current capability development time lines, even while in a constrained fiscal environment.<\/p>\n

\u201cState and non-state actors will invest in capabilities to protect their access to cyberspace and disrupt or deny access to others,\u201d the document continues. \u201cUse of these capabilities has the potential to negate current Army combat power and technological overmatch. Less capable adversaries will also use a variety of improvised weapons and technologies, such as global positioning system jammers and radio-frequency weapons, that utilize the electromagnetic spectrum to exploit Army reliance on technology.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"1902maesr<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

An electronic warfare specialist trains on the Versatile Radio Observation and Direction system at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.<\/p>\n

The role of autonomous systems<\/h3>\n

The document also addresses the evolution of autonomous systems in the battlespace, from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to robots, with each generation relying on more and more advanced artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. While such systems will enhance the offensive and defensive capabilities of ground forces, they also comprise new dangers if compromised by enemy EW\/cyber warfare attacks, making fail-safe technologies and software crucial to their control and data integrity.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve been investing a tremendous amount of money in machine learning and AI to automatically adapt to the environment,\u201d BAE Systems\u2019s Ioannisyan notes. \u201cTypically, an EW attack begins with a change in jamming modes; some form of AI is required to do that quickly. Future battles will be fought across multiple domains and we must win the first battle, which will be spectrum. We need SDR\u2019s that can conform on the fly while under attack.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Army plans to continue to acquire EW to support ground-based attack,\u201d Ioannisyan continues. \u201cThe leverage will come when you have interoperability between all the airborne and ground robotic systems. The Army already has demonstrated having a forward-deployed unmanned platform being controlled from an Apache provides a lot of value to the warfighter; a similar progression is likely on the ground.\u201d<\/p>\n

The rapid pace of technology advances \u2014 from materiel properties and switching architectures to ever-shrinking components and power requirements \u2014 have increased the speed and capacity of operations and the number of ways to attack the electromagnetic spectrum.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you want to induce an electronic effect on the enemy, jam them without being detected by using smart, low-power effects. You must use synchronous, smart techniques to be protected from counter-EW,\u201d Ioannisyan says.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne enabler is signal fratricide, being able to maintain friendly C2 networks while disrupting the enemy. If you can do force structure, operate in a high signal-dense environment, adapt to enemy actions, have threat agility and electronic protection and mitigate signal fratricide, you will effectively win the first battle for the electromagnetic space.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dramatic reductions in size, weight and power (SWaP), combined with greater sensor range and sensitivity, have enabled EW\/cyber warfare capabilities down to the individual warfighter level, revolutionizing the commander\u2019s operational options. Employing them as well on remote, robotic and autonomous systems, including artillery and rocket EW munitions, dramatically expands the conduct of electromagnetic spectrum operations with small signature platforms and minimal risk to Army forces and non-combatants.<\/p>\n

Ground-based electronic attack<\/h3>\n

\u201cGround-based electronic attack is certainly a critical capability for the future,\u201d points out Niraj Srivastava, manager of EW Systems at Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems in Cambridge, Mass. \u201cTools like EWPMT [Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool] Raven Claw will enable operators to manage the entire electromagnetic spectrum. EWPMT Raven Claw can coordinate electronic attack activities across multiple EW assets. It can identify and coordinate a whole host of responses, everything from direction-finding to electronic attack to specific signals of interest.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cA quick reaction capability version of EWPMT, Raven Claw is already deployed in Europe for managing EW systems. It provides electronic warfare officers with a first \u2014 the ability to operate in the field without dependency on a host server or external data,\u201d Srivastava says. \u201cNow EWOs can be off-network, operating on last-known-data as well as real-time feeds for intelligent, actionable EW. [It] does more than just planning; it remotely controls EW systems [and can] provide RF signal analysis and geolocation capabilities.\u201d<\/p>\n

While some ground-based EW has been fielded, most advanced prototypes undergoing real-world evaluations, what the future of individual warfighter and small unit EW will look like remains an open question, with the answer in constant flux.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s probably too early to tell how future ground EW capabilities will be incorporated into the battlespace. A lot of ground capabilities are in the experimentation stage. If you look at what the Army is doing with their cross-network teams, they are learning how to do an air-ground, multi-service, integrated framework,\u201d says BAE Systems\u2019s Ioannisyan.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think every component has its own pros and cons,\u201d he says. \u201cThe real question is how does the battlespace network leverage the best of those capabilities to help the ground maneuver units put kinetic fire on their targets. Can the system itself decide if a specific target is better jammed from the air or hit by Hellfire from the air or by kinetic effects from the ground?\u201d<\/p>\n

In the past, EW typically has been segmented. The effort by the Army \u2014 which is being closely watched by the other services \u2014 to converge EW and cyber warfare is changing that.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe can\u2019t continue to have stove-piped systems and we\u2019re seeing requirements for systems to do all those and more demanding in terms of open architecture,\u201d says Joe Ottaviano, director of EW at the Lockheed Martin Corp. Rotary and Mission Systems segment in Syracuse, N.Y. \u201cCertainly there has been a lot of advancement in hand-held, carryable EW systems, offensive and defensive. Those have come a long way over the years as technology has improved. And as things become smaller and more compact, they\u2019ve gotten lighter.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re seeing the ability to put more capability into smaller footprints, such as jamming, which is giving everybody added flexibility in how they deal with those,\u201d Ottaviano continues. \u201cIt is all really handled though the convergence of EW and cyber across multiple access points. And, as we deliver these capabilities, systems we\u2019re now deploying, because of the way technology is changing, are being used in ways we never imagined.\u201d<\/p>\n

Multi-use hardware<\/h3>\n

As hardware is becoming ubiquitous, smaller, and more capable, the Army is requiring an open architecture set of capabilities with EW\/cyber warfare built-in, enabling the warfighter to use the same hardware for different mission-based functions. As the warfighter evolves from the concept of \u201cevery shooter is a sensor\u201d to every shooter is an EW\/cyber warfare node, the need to bring all that new data back to the commander \u2014 from the smallest unit to higher headquarters \u2014 as useful information to make real-time tactical decisions also increases.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are several communications paths that exist already and others coming online that enable this data to be used across the battlespace,\u201d Lockheed Martin\u2019s Ottaviano says. \u201cAs you open the aperture on EW, we\u2019re seeing more and more data, so there is a lot of effort going into data fusion, machine learning, AI and such. As you expand your sensors, the number of capabilities, you have to have a way for the system to narrow all that down, without taking away significant data. And each user has a different view on what that should be. We\u2019re seeing a priority for it to be tailorable to the level of data required by each user across the battlespace.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rapid innovation in the commercial world also leads to rapid innovation in EW and other military applications, with ground EW and associated applications expected to see a lot of innovation on which they can move quickly. Commercial technologies, typically based on industry standards, also make it easier to update existing systems and tie all platforms into the battlespace network.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe overall convergence of assets is the path forward, where ground is not a diverse and separate piece, says Curtiss-Wright\u2019s Jedynak. \u201cFrom a warfare perspective, you\u2019re trying to use all your assets together to achieve the goal, so why is EW any different? Ground has a lot of platforms, including individual warfighters, which means a lot of ways to sensibly and intelligently add EW capabilities that are very refreshable because you are leveraging open standards.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is critical to understand that EW today may not be the same as EW six months from now, just as the leading cell phone today won\u2019t be the leading cell phone in six months,\u201d Jedynak says. \u201cEW is shifting into a fast-paced technology area. There may be an advance in a totally different application, such as medicine, that may have applications in EW. You should expect to see developments coming quicker and quicker, especially with the Army Innovation Command saying they want to see new advancements, which is a massive change in government procurement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whatever form it may take, it is clear ground-based EW will be a critical part of future military TTPs and CONOPs, not only for U.S. and allied forces, but also for peer and near-peer adversaries, some of whom already may have surpassed the U.S.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re seeing EW coming to the forefront,\u201d says Lockheed Martin\u2019s Ottaviano. \u201cA lot of effort is going into electromagnetic management and it is becoming an extreme priority across the board. Technology is moving extremely quickly and systems must be able to operate in very different environments and produce tactically valuable information.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

U.S. Army cyber warfare experts are rediscovering electronic warfare (EW) for ground operations, as centralized command authorities combine cyber and EW operations into a new discipline known as spectrum warfare. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1893,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,37],"tags":[366,77],"class_list":["post-1866","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-military-tech","category-opinions","tag-ew","tag-us-army"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/EW.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1866","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1866"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1866\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1896,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1866\/revisions\/1896"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1893"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}