The service has decided to move on from the current Multi-Function Electronic Warfare Air Large (MFEW-AL) platform and approach. MFEW is the Army’s only airborne electronic warfare — with limited cyber — capability organic to combat aviation brigades to support maneuver commanders on the ground. The Lockheed Martin-made technology is a pod-mounted capability on a MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone, though officials have noted it was designed to be platform agnostic — provided the platform had the right power requirements.

The Army began developing the requirements and acquisition effort for MFEW over 10 years ago, awarding Lockheed the contract in 2019. The program has faced steep challenges for years with the department zeroing out procurement funding in its fiscal year 2022 budget. Following that decision, Army leaders sought to demonstrate that the service could make the system work in a variety of environments, especially considering the persistent need for aerial electronic attack.

Officials continued to maintain that following the zeroing out, the Army was making progress and the technology would be a critical enabler for multi-domain operations, even projecting it would equip the first unit with it in fiscal 2026 following initial operational test and evaluation.

The Army now wants to look at alternatives, either from the other services or the commercial sector, pivoting away from the MFEW platform as it exists currently, Brig. Gen. Wayne “Ed” Barker, program executive officer for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, said in a series of interviews.

Barker and his team briefed the changes to Congress last week.

“We’re pivoting to a more incremental approach focused on some of the existing capabilities that are out there with either sister services or other entities … within the EW space and trying to baseline what’s out there — and then [examine] what would it take to grow to meet the requirements from an MFEW standpoint,” he said. “The challenge will always be, and the Army acknowledges, the fact that we’re going to have the demand for aerial EA. And it’s [a question of] how do we close that gap?”

The problem, according to Barker, was when MFEW began, the Army didn’t necessarily have all the acquisition authorities it does now such as other transaction and middle tier of acquisition.

Over a decade ago, when the capability development document was finalized, MFEW was locked in and the Army didn’t have the latitude to learn, according to Barker.

That old mentality of locking in strategies and capabilities meant that the system was based on technology and threats with uncertain futures.

“When something has a degree of uncertainty and you try and codify it and then you’re not allowed to iterate and make adjustments, if any of that uncertainty or the risk of the uncertainty is realized, then it really can impact you,” Barker said. “What happened was so much of the uncertainty from a technology standpoint and the threat was realized, and without the mechanisms from a contractual standpoint or a requirement standpoint to pivot based on those changes, it just was not in an optimal position to be successful.”

Electromagnetic spectrum technologies and concepts have rapidly evolved over the last 10 years, leading the Army to now desire a more rapid approach and agile funding to be able to adjust in near real-time to the environment that is primarily software-based.

The initial requirement and capability for MFEW was all-encompassing, which has proven to be problematic now. The Army has instead opted for a more iterative and needs-based approach to requirements, issuing what it dubs “characteristics of needs” documents that are just a couple of pages of broad-based wishes for capabilities that industry can respond to rather than hundreds of pages of prescribed requirements.

As it stands right now, the current capabilities aren’t meeting the needs for MFEW.

Part of the discussion is framed around how the Army itself if evolving. Just over a month ago, the service unveiled a sweeping transformation initiative to become leaner and more agile. As part of the plan, it will no longer be procuring Gray Eagle drones and it will be divesting of some combat aviation brigades, which were key to MFEW.

Sensors, to include electronic attack capabilities, can now be strapped onto small and attritable drones that are significantly cheaper and easier to operate than larger, more exquisite systems.

As such, Barker said the Army isn’t totally starting from scratch with MFEW, noting officials are going to “leverage other people’s work” and take a more iterative approach to grow into something on the electronic attack front that can meet the Army’s requirement that still remains for aerial EA.

The old MFEW approach is much different than how the Army sought to build its Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team (TLS-BCT) capability, which was devised roughly six years ago and awarded to Lockheed in 2021. It was an integrated electronic warfare, signals intelligence and cyber platform and had been described as a key enabler of Army priorities — considering the service has been without a program-of-record jammer for decades — that will support multi-domain operations.

The Army used middle tier of acquisition and other transaction authority for that program. About a year ago, it decided to alter its initial approach to TLS-BCT, which was envisioned to first to be mounted on Strykers and then Army Multi-Purpose Vehicle variant prototypes. The Army decided last year to split up those functions.

Outside experts had always voiced concern with such a setup given the highly classified nature and authorities that come with signals intelligence and the issues associated with putting that on the same platform as electronic warfare tools. Moreover, putting a highly classified platform so close on the battlefield posed challenges as well.

“Had MFEW gone down that path [of OTA and middle tier like TLS], it may have been a different story,” Barker said. “That’s why I’m grateful for the authorities we have from Congress when it comes to those capabilities. I mean, that’s what’s allowed us to be very successful in a lot of different ways.”

New approach for TLS

Since the Army decided to split up TLS, there had been questions regarding what its approach would be for platform-based ground EW. The service awarded Mastodon Design, a CACI subsidiary, last year, for the dismounted version of the program. The Manpack capability is a dismounted electronic attack system that soldiers can use for direction finding and limited jamming on-the-move.

Now, the Army has decided to use the Manpack version as its primary ground-based jamming platform, rather than having a dedicated, vehicular-specific variant.

The plan is to use what the Army is calling a Modular Adapter Kit to mount the Manpack to vehicles. The Manpack for BCTs is the optimal solution for EW, according to Barker.

“We’re going to look at opportunities, both from a dismounted and then we’re also looking at adapter kits … which aren’t integrated,” Barker said. “It’s like strapping [or] tying onto the bustle rack of a Bradley or a tank to [at] least allow it to have a platform but not fully be integrated to where we’re worried about the [tactics, techniques and procedures] … with the platforms, which will also allow it to derive power from the platforms for greater capability.”

Lessons from Ukraine demonstrated that the old approach of integrating signals intelligence and electronic warfare onto the same vehicle was not survivable, Barker said. Using other transaction authority allowed the Army to iterate and pivot away from that approach, he added.

Moreover, along with the Army’s transformation efforts, it is moving away from certain platforms. Using a Modular Adapter Kit allows the service to be more agile to incorporate technology into whatever the Army decides to field and cut down lead times for costly and timely integration with platforms.

“You’re not integrating onto a platform which, in itself, is costly and takes a long time. That’s the goal. We’re starting to experiment with those. And that’s what we’re going to tell folks. That will allow us to get at the mounted formations at the BCT level, to get them that EW capacity,” Barker said. “It was really just a combination of the threat, technology and then force structure changes within the Army with a lot of the intelligence portions being pushed up to division and then the platform focus changing away from the Strykers and some of the other armored vehicles at the brigade.”

The Manpack solution was the first program-of-record jammer fielded to the Army in over 20 years, providing much needed capability. Now, it believes, it can speed up that delivery for other formations to get them critical tools to fight and win on the modern battlefield.

The Army is slated to field 51 brigades by the end of 2027 with the Manpack solution, seeking to iterate and change it along the way based on experimentation and the threat.

“It would be a crime on our part for the first eight [Manpacks] that we’ve done so far to be exactly like the way we do it for the last eight,” Barker said. “If we’re not learning and doing those things from each one of those [training and experimentation] events and having reps forward as those organizations either taking it forward in a theater or going to their rotations. There’s just so much experimentation going on out there right now and learning.”

For example, the Army has learned through ongoing experimentation that certain units in certain environments require slightly different capabilities. The 25th Infantry Division, based in Hawaii and operating primarily in the Pacific region, is operating under thick foliage and is more reliant on data systems with smaller pipes. The 101st Airborne Division, by contrast, will be a little less constrained, meaning the program community must adjust the kit accordingly based on how each unit fights.

The post Army moving on from MFEW aerial jammer, embracing backpack as ground-based solution appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Officials are finding from Ukraine’s conflict with Russia that the technology landscape can change in days, not months. As a result, the Army is pitching the need for fiscal nimbleness to be able to make changes to systems on the battlefield or procurement efforts to get soldiers the capabilities they require.

“Recognizing that we’ve made the shift from primarily what used to be a counter-IED focus to now one where we’re dealing with near-peer threats and a very, very contested battlespace. Flexible funding is one of the three areas we’ve talked about. Recognizing that even as we’ve seen in Ukraine, the EW changes in software that both sides are employing, often are done in a matter of days or hours,” Gabe Camarillo, undersecretary of the Army, told reporters on the sidelines of the annual AUSA conference. “We are looking at making sure that we can rapidly iterate our EW capabilities in a similar fashion. I think having the program and funding flexibility to do it will help us.”

At the end of the Cold War, the Army divested much of its electronic warfare inventory. During counterinsurgency fights of the last 20 years, soldiers used blunt jamming tools to thwart improvised explosive devices, which, in turn, inadvertently jammed friendly systems. Now, the service is trying to develop more sophisticated systems to directly compete with advanced adversaries, their tactics and capabilities.

“A direct result of what we’re seeing in Ukraine is causing us to — our budget [request] that will come up next spring, you’ll see a significant increase in investment in unmanned aerial systems, counter-UAS and electronic warfare capabilities as well,” Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said at an event in September. “There’s a very tight cycle between the Ukrainians and the Russians in terms of developing a capability and then developing a counter to that capability. But one of the things the Russians have really been cycling quickly on is their EW capabilities, and that’s made it harder for the Ukrainians.”

As part of the flexible funding request — which also includes uncrewed systems and counter-unmanned systems technologies — the Army will be plussing up its electronic warfare budget, though top officials have been vague on exactly where those investments will be made.

According to the Army’s program office responsible for electronic warfare, the service embarked on a comprehensive review of its EW enterprise that spanned the scope of electronic attack, electronic protect and electronic support capabilities, also examining their relationship with signals intelligence as a means of ensuring it’s postured to address the current and emerging threats associated with large-scale combat operations.

“We considered major capability gaps, investments opportunities, trades, architecture considerations, and policy change requirements. Prioritization is on increasing EW capabilities at all echelons and formations from the company level all the way up to theater,” the program office said in a statement.

Some specific efforts mentioned by name include:

• The Electronic Planning and Management Tool, a command-and-control planning capability that allows service members to visualize potential effects within the invisible spectrum and chart courses of action to prevent their forces and systems from being jammed during operations. The Army is embarking on the EWPMT “Next” effort, which involves shifting to the Tactical Assault Kit framework, where applications for situational awareness data and geospatial visualizations can be created for better joint and coalition integration.
• The Spectrum Situational Awareness System, a new start in fiscal 2025 envisioned to be a commercial off-the-shelf solution that will provide sensing and visualization of what units look like in the spectrum and allow commanders to be able to sense and report in real-time their command post signature, sources of electromagnetic interference — either from coalition partners or the enemy — and what threat emissions look like.
•  The Modular Electromagnetic Spectrum System, which is related to command post survivability and could employ techniques to confuse and deceive adversaries born out of a prior science-and-technology effort called Modular Electromagnetic Spectrum Deception Suite (MEDS). That will be a new start in fiscal 2026.

Other capabilities in the Army’s current pipeline not mentioned include:

• The Multi-Function Electronic Warfare Air Large, a pod-mounted capability on a MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone serving as the Army’s only airborne electronic warfare (with limited cyber) capability organic to combat aviation brigades to support maneuver commanders on the ground.  
• The Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team Manpack system, the first official program in decades for a dismounted electronic attack capability that soldiers can use to conduct direction and signal finding with limited jamming on-the-move as well.
• The TLS-Echelon Above Brigade system, designed primarily for divisions, corps and Multi-Domain Task Forces to sense across greater ranges than its brigade counterpart.
• The TLS-Brigade Combat Team system, which was designed as the first integrated signals intelligence, cyber and electronic warfare platform and as initially conceived, was to be mounted on Strykers and then Army Multi-Purpose Vehicle variant prototypes. The Army has now decided to split up the platform, separating the signals intelligence and electronic warfare capabilities, and it will be pursuing a new architecture for its EW suite.

Army officials have also noted they want to move away from major programs that take years to develop through lengthy requirements, in favor of more commercial-based systems that have demonstrated maturity.

The program office added that the Army is considering several ways to be more agile in the electronic warfare space to include the potential consolidation of funding lines to allow for increased flexibility while maintaining acquisition discipline and oversight, and establishing contracting mechanisms to acquire and integrate software solutions faster.

As it currently exists, programs are set up as specific line items with specific pots of money. The Army can’t take money from one electronic warfare program line item and move it to another to adjust to real-world needs, if, for example, a certain technology has matured that could be surged to forces on the battlefield.

Flexible funding could allow the service to move those pots of money to where forces need them, or if a new technology comes along that is ready for primetime.

“You talk to a lot of these companies out there, with tech companies … they will tell you that six months from now, things are going to be completely different. We want to buy a modular, open system architecture systems that we can put any different kind of sensor on. I think that’s going to help with the money problem as well, and that we can continue to adapt,” Gen. Randy George, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters at the AUSA conference.

“Agile funding enables us to buy technology in tranches that work together in open architectures, with interchangeable parts, and software-defined components that can be changed quickly to meet our needs. This is how we move from named systems to capabilities. We have to be willing to make smaller bets within budget cycles and we have to pick winners with more frequency. We cannot buy programs for 10 years at a time anymore. Technology changes too fast,” George said during remarks at the conference.

Officials noted that Congress has been receptive to this need but also wary.

“In my experience, appropriators in particular, are leery of what they see as slush funds. But I think, given the dangerous environment we’re in and the recognition by everyone that technology is evolving as rapidly as it is, there’s more openness to this,” Wormuth told reporters. “We’ve been talking to both members, but also clerks and PSMSs on the Appropriations Committee about how we can perhaps consolidate budget line items into fewer pools and have the ability, as a result, to be able to move money around … We’re not trying to eat the whole elephant all at once. We’re trying to start with more of a pilot approach, see if that works, and if members and their staffs feel like they can have the oversight and transparency that they need to have to do their jobs, we may, in the future, be able to expand it.”

The post Army seeks more flexible funding on electronic warfare capabilities, programs appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Those units are part of Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George’s so-called transforming-in-contact concept, where the service plans to use deployments and troop rotations to test new equipment — mainly commercial off-the-shelf gear — that could allow units to be more responsive on a dynamic battlefield.

According to George, there are three areas where the Army needs to be faster and more adaptable when it comes to delivering equipment to forces, due to how challenging the threat environment is and the cat-and-mouse aspect of countering opponents’ moves: unmanned aerial systems, counter-UAS and electronic warfare.

Those transforming-in-contact units include: 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division — the first mobile brigade combat team — 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division and 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division.

Given the rate of change in the electromagnetic spectrum, enabled by software-defined systems that can be altered as fast as a patch is able to be developed and delivered, the Army wants to prioritize tools that can be fielded rapidly.

“My number one talking point in terms of our equipping for the future is our focus on doing limited prototyping and rapid fielding of mature [commercial-off-the-shelf/government-off-the-shelf] products,” Kenneth Strayer, project manager for electronic warfare and cyber at program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, said in an interview previewing his remarks that he’s slated to deliver Wednesday alongside the Army capability manager for EW at the TechNet Augusta conference.

“The pendulum consistently swings and we’re going back towards the need and the desire to get equipment, limited prototypes, in the hands of units very quickly so that they can learn, they can iterate, and we can get early, good enough capability out to the field,” he added. “We’re looking at off the shelf. We don’t want to do all the development in house. I don’t think we need to because there’s now a competitive marketplace out there to be able to buy ready products or things that need minor modification and integration. Long, long list of vendors who are offering some very effective capability for remote sensors and [software-defined radios] and digitization.”

Part of that change is necessitated by observations from Ukraine in which the cat-and-mouse game of systems being countered and counters being countered, are occurring in hours or days as opposed to the Cold War paradigm of weeks, months or years.

The Army is now trying to get out of the business of major programs that take years to develop through lengthy requirements, tweaks and user tests, shifting the way it talks about strategies and prioritization, but Strayer declined to quantify the ratio or percentage of commercial versus major government-run programs in the future. In some cases, though, these exquisite systems are necessary to build for specific needs.

One such system is the Multi-Function Electronic Warfare Air Large (MFEW) that serves as the Army’s only airborne electronic warfare (with limited cyber) capability organic to combat aviation brigades to support maneuver commanders on the ground. The Lockheed Martin-made technology is a pod-mounted capability on a MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone. It has been under development for roughly seven years.

“It’s not like I can go out and just go buy a pod that does this. It required a lot of detailed engineering and testing and packaging. That’s part of the reason why MFEW is taking perhaps longer than some people hope it would because there are problems out there that requires that level of engineering and acquisition,” Strayer said. “We would prefer, whenever possible, to not go down that pathway.”

Strayer said he’d like to get MFEW in the hands of a transforming-in-contact unit following the system’s limited user test next year, but that might be a ways off. Currently the program is getting ready to perform airworthiness certification on the Gray Eagle. Once that’s completed, officials will perform a developmental test at the beginning of next year with a limited user test at the end of the year. Pending the results of that, Strayer said he’d like to get the initial pods in the hands of a unit in 2026.

MFEW has done some support at Fort Drum, New York, with the 10th Mountain Division to demonstrate the payoff of having that high-capability airborne, long-range platform. There were favorable comments from the unit during their recent exercises, Strayer said.

One of the best examples of the new approach is the Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team Manpack system, the first official program in decades for a dismounted electronic attack capability that soldiers can use to conduct jamming on-the-move as well as direction and signal finding with limited signals intelligence capabilities.

The system, made by Mastodon Design, a CACI subsidiary, was previously used by U.S. Special Operations Command, allowing the Army to shrink down the timeline for much of the necessary vetting and testing of a new program. The Army awarded Mastodon a nearly $100 million procurement and fielding contract earlier this year.

“It was a huge win for us. I mean, we went from good idea to a fielded product in about 24 months, which is unheard of in acquisition cycles. A lot of that’s because it was a mature baseline. We had a lot of tests and performance data, not only with Socom, but other services and units who had been buying this product over the last couple of years,” Strayer said. “Another good example of how [in] industry there’s now a very robust industry community who’s developing what I call off-the-shelf products that we view more as a catalog buy than a developmental program.”

Strayer said 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division received some of these systems — albeit on loan — during its rotation at the Joint Readiness Training Center this month, to test the system and provide feedback.

Overall, the Manpack system received enough funding in the fiscal 2024 appropriation to purchase enough for two brigades. Pending the fiscal 2025 appropriation, the service will have enough for another eight brigades, with the eventual goal of total Army fielding.

In addition to the Manpack, 2nd Brigade, 101st is also experimenting with the Tactical Electronic Warfare System-Infantry (TEWS-I) at JRTC, a quick-reaction capability built a few years ago by General Dynamics, serving as a smaller system designed for infantry vehicles. While there won’t be any future production on that system given it was a quick-reaction capability, Strayer said it has generated discussion on requirements for light and airborne forces for mobility.

“Because it’s more tightly integrated into a platform, you get some of the advantages of the tactical mobility and the power that comes with that. We’re really interested in getting the feedback and seeing where we go,” he said. “If there is a requirement for this lightweight mobile kit, then we have to look at the payoff as to whether you need some of the more higher-end capability that comes on TEWS-I or if it’s really a Manpack, which is maybe up-gunned and more fully integrated into a vehicle platform. I think those are two different approaches you could take to the problem.”

Strayer noted that other transforming-in-contact units have begun to experiment with other capabilities, although he declined to specifically identify those units. One includes pre-prototypes of a Spectrum Situational Awareness System (S2AS), a new start in fiscal 2025 envisioned to be a commercial off-the-shelf solution that will provide sensing and visualization of what units look like in the spectrum and allow commanders to be able to sense and report in real-time their command post signature, sources of electromagnetic interference — either from coalition partners or the enemy — and what threat emissions look like.

The program office also hopes to get emerging systems into the hands of the these units. Those include the Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool (EWPMT) Next, a command-and-control planning capability that allows service members to visualize potential effects within the invisible spectrum and chart courses of action to prevent their forces and systems from being jammed during operations. The “Next” effort involves shifting to the Tactical Assault Kit framework, where applications for situational awareness data and geospatial visualizations can be created for better joint and coalition integration.

The emerging systems also include representative products associated with a new electronic warfare architecture the Army is developing, once established.

The post Army office using ‘transforming in contact’ units to test new EW gear appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The Multi-Function Electronic Warfare Air Large (MFEW) system will serve as the Army’s only airborne electronic warfare — with limited cyber — capability organic to combat aviation brigades to support maneuver commanders on the ground. The Lockheed Martin-made technology is a pod-mounted capability on a MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone, though officials have noted it was designed to be platform agnostic — provided the platform had the right power requirements.

The program received an affirmative Milestone C decision in May 2021 and approval to conduct low-rate initial production.

Fiscal 2025 budget documents for the first time note the first unit equipped for the system will be fiscal 2026. The program schedule has shifted over the years in budget documentation. The fiscal 2024 budget proposal stated production and fielding would begin in third quarter 2026 and end in fourth quarter 2031. Fiscal 2023, 2022 and 2021 budget documents noted that period would start in third quarter 2021 and end in fourth quarter 2026.

“The schedule change to the program is due to the need for a Limited User Test prior to the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation in order to perform expanded testing again a rapidly evolving threat,” a spokesperson from program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, which manages the program, told DefenseScoop. The IOT&E will occur in fourth quarter 2025, according to budget documents.

The Army has been on a long path with the MFEW system. The Army zeroed out procurement funding for the system in the fiscal 2022 budget, essentially forcing the program office to prove out the technology through further demonstrations and development, with program officials noting the Army might not have seen the demonstrated capability.

In fact, now Army Futures Command has designated the platform a priority enabler for many of its cross-functional teams to include long-range precision fires, assured positioning, navigation and timing (APNT), future vertical lift and network, according to budget documents, which noted that it’s a key technology in support of Army 2030 priorities.

For fiscal 2025 procurement funding, the Army requested $17.4 million for two low-rate initial production pods and two refurbished pods, which are significantly cheaper than a new production pod, the program office said. Moreover, the cost of each pod is decreasing with quantity increases and process efficiencies, according to the office.

For fiscal 2025 research-and-development funding for the program, the Army requested $16.3 million — after only projecting a $4.2 million fiscal 2025 request in fiscal 2024 budget documents — increasing investment to complete Gray Eagle integration and expanded developmental and operational testing, the program office said.

MFEW will be one of the first program-of-record electronic attack or jamming capabilities fielded to troops in decades. For the past several years, the service has relied on so-called quick reaction capabilities to address urgent commander needs in theater as it has sought to develop permanent, program-of-record fixes to deliver to units.

MFEW has been undergoing several test events, namely with the 10^th Mountain Division and a demonstration at China Lake, California.

“We’ve been in a number of exercises out there and really matured how EW feeds into the fires chain, with the 10th Mountain really is the diversity in the division, artillery that has really grabbed on to this concept of being able to do long-range targeting with MFEW,” Ken Strayer, project manager for electronic warfare and cyber at PEO IEW&S, told DefenseScoop last October. “Within our portfolio, it provides you the deepest look of any system we have that’s directly owned by a maneuver commander — and that’s been a valuable impact into the unit’s operations.”

The post Army projects first unit equipped with new airborne electronic attack platform in fiscal 2026 appeared first on DefenseScoop.

As the Army is undergoing a review of all of its electronic warfare tools, it is furiously developing a family of capabilities to deliver much needed jamming power to troops.

Since its divestment of systems after the Cold War, the Army had primarily relied upon EW and jamming tools to block signals of improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan and Iraq.

With adversaries becoming more adept within the spectrum, the Army needs more advanced technologies to be able to sense and jam. The service has been relying solely on quick-reaction tools delivered to units to address gaps in capability, and it’s still working on developing its first real program-of-record jammer.

The first program-of-record system in the family is known as the Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team. This system, being developed by Lockheed Martin, is the first integrated electronic warfare, signals intelligence and cyber platform. As initially conceived, it was to be designed for Stryker platforms, however, acquisition priorities shfited.

The system recently underwent an operational demonstration, which the program office differentiated from an operational test because it’s a prototyped system being developed under an other transaction agreement.

The Army learned a lot both operationally and technically about the system during a recent demonstration at Fort Huachuca, Ken Strayer, project manager for electronic warfare and cyber at Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, told DefenseScoop at the annual AUSA conference.

He noted the hardware performed as expected and is pretty stable, though there are a long list of software updates they are looking to perform. Those fixes involve mostly the architecture and user interface.

There’s a lot of operational lessons the Army is taking from the system demonstrations, especially considering it’s the first time the service has built an integrated electronic warfare and signals intelligence capability.

“The unit is learning how to function together with these two different skills because it feeds two different chains within the operational brigade operation on the battlefield. How do they relate to one another?” Strayer said. “Then just standard techniques and procedures out on the battlefield — they’re learning a lot.”

There continue to be ongoing discussions within the Army regarding how to align the platform or if there needs to be variants focused on signals intelligence or electronic warfare — given concerns of sending a top secret intelligence platform into the field that could be captured by the enemy.

“We’re learning through going through this operational demonstration what is the synergistic benefit of having an integrated system versus what you lose in terms of placement on the battlefield. There is also challenges because the current system operates as a SIGINT platform on a different security classification,” he said. “If you’re checking any discussions in the Army about division becoming the unit of action, they want to pull a lot of that high-end capability up to the division and out of the brigades. So, that all goes into the calculus about the final product, what classification it will be at and exactly where in the formation they end up getting fielded. [That’s] all in the discussion right now.”

Other challenges include integrating the system onto the platform itself. These platforms have significant size, weight and power constraints, and integrating new capabilities and technologies can be difficult.

“We believe we got a good integrated solution for the Stryker. There are other things we would like to put on that platform that there’s just not enough space right now,” Strayer said. “I had PM for Stryker … down at our operational demo, looking at his Stryker with our mission payload and he gave us some good ideas about how we can give greater power, how we can fix some of the [size, weight and power] challenges we had.”

The Army is also beginning design and integration for armored units on the Army Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV). Strayer said Lockheed is trying to work on configuring the TLS system for the AMPV given it is a different platform than a Stryker and things are in different places on the vehicle.

For lighter units, the Army has developed the TLS Manpack, a dismounted solution for lighter units that can conduct sensing and jamming away from the platform. The Army altered its procurement for TLS-BCT to account for the manpack version, which is meant for lighter units now and is cheaper than the Stryker variant.

The Army has simultaneously been pursing another possible route for light units with the Tactical Electronic Warfare System-Infantry (TEWS-I) prototype effort. Initially a quick-reaction capability, this system, built by General Dynamics, is a smaller version designed for infantry vehicles.

“A couple of years ago, the Army decided to defer the IBCT solution and replace it with a manpack to start with, and that’s the procurement we’re going to be pursuing in [fiscal] ’24. But I think there is definitely a demand vehicle for more mobility and agility,” Strayer said. “I think we’re going to learn a lot by this [quick-reaction capability], and that could definitely … cycle back into the program in later phases.”

Strayer said they’ve built six TEWS-I systems and are getting ready to roll them out to the XVIII Airborne Corps to see how they perform.

The next major event for TLS-BCT will take place in fiscal 2025 with an operational assessment. The Army plans to do multiple soldier touch points between now and then.

In terms of the first unit to receive the system, Strayer said that could happen after that assessment. Since this has been a prototyping effort, things have been a bit different than traditional acquisitions. The system will likely remain at static locations and the Army will bring units to it rather than the other way around.

“We’re probably going to leave the systems at the various test centers where they’re at, bring soldiers in periodically throughout the year to get multiple sets and reps on that system, so that for the operational assessment in ’25, that unit will be well-trained, well-familiar about how to operationally employ” it, he said. “I would expect coming immediately out of that operational assessment, the unit would either keep the equipment or go to some other unit immediately after that. Those prototypes will be ready to go to the field.”

The next capability in the family of systems is the TLS Echelons Above Brigade. This system, also built by Lockheed, is designed primarily for divisions, corps and Multi-Domain Task Forces to sense across greater ranges than its brigade counterpart.

The Army altered its approach to the system, opting to tailor it to theaters rather than building a one-size-fits-all capability.

“We did an initial design iteration on TLS-EAB, which for the 1st MDTF in the Pacific, the feedback we got was that it’s too big, too much capability given their operational environment. [It’s] probably an excellent solution for Europe,” Strayer said. “We’re doing another design iteration with that MDTF to come up with a more disaggregated approach in smaller, more mobile solution set for them for TLS-EAB.”

For aircraft, the Army has been working on the Multi-Function Electronic Warfare-Air Large (MFEW) for a number of years. The Lockheed-made system was designed to be pod-mounted to an MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone as the first brigade-organic airborne electronic attack asset that can also provide limited cyberattack capability.

In the fiscal 2022 budget request, the Army zeroed out procurement funds for the system, essentially forcing the program office to prove out the technology through further demonstrations and development.

“Maybe a couple of years ago, the procurement was zeroed out, because the Army hadn’t seen the demonstrated capability. But I think we’ve turned the corner on that and the funding levels are right where they need to be,” Strayer said.

He added that the Army is fully committed to the system now, however, quantities could be more limited than previously conceived at the outset of the program.

“The numbers we were looking at is something less than all the aviation brigades. We’ve been in this ‘prove it’ mode for a while so we’ve got to get this new capability out there,” he noted, saying it could be viewed as a high demand, low-density asset.

The 10^th Mountain Division has been doing a lot of testing with the system recently, including during a demonstration at China Lake.

“We’ve been in a number of exercises out there and really matured how EW feeds into the fires chain, with the 10th Mountain really is the diversity in the division, artillery that has really grabbed on to this concept of being able to do long-range targeting with MFEW,” Strayer said. “Within our portfolio, it provides you the deepest look of any system we have that’s directly owned by a maneuver commander — and that’s been a valuable impact into the unit’s operations.”

While the pod could be flown on any platform that can hold and power it, there still is no demand to put it on anything other than a Gray Eagle for operations. During demonstrations, it has flown on surrogate vehicles.

The Army has flown it on special Gray Eagles and expects to put it on conventional Gray Eagles for air worthiness certifications this year.

“We will get official certification and air worthiness this year, so we will be ready to roll out in ’25. There is going to be a couple more formal tests in ’25, and that will be on the conventional Gray Eagle fleet,” Strayer said.

Editor’s note: This story is part two of a two-part series. Click here to read part one here.

The post Army taking operational and technical lessons from demonstrations of EW capabilities appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The contract is for Phase 2 of the Terrestrial Layer System-Echelons Above Brigade, a capability that will be designed for higher echelons — primarily division and corps — that will need to monitor and sense the battlefield across greater distances than lower, more tactically focused echelons. It will be used by the Army’s Multi-Domain Task Force.

The technology comes as advanced adversaries are forcing the Army to operate at greater distances, and therefore, the service needs to be able to sense farther and at higher echelons.

The other transaction authority agreement totals $36.7 million for a 21-month period of performance, the Army announced Tuesday.

Lockheed Martin, in a release, said that in the coming months, it will build a prototype system at its Syracuse, New York facility.

The Army last year awarded Lockheed and General Dynamics an initial contract to develop designs for the system during an 11-month competition period.

The Army had recently altered its approach to TLS-EAB, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all model might not be suitable. For example, a platform in Europe might not be the right tool for the operating environment in Asia.

According to Army budget documents, the service plans to spend $859,000 for procurement in fiscal 2024 for TLS-EAB, which will be a new-start program. It also plans to spend $66.4 million on research-and-development in 2024, which will go toward integration, demonstration, experimentation, prototyping and vendor testing, among other activities. Total R&D funding funding for the effort over the next five years is projected to be $175.8 million.

The Army is using a middle tier acquisition approach for the program “to rapidly deliver an integrated ground intelligence, electronic warfare and cyber capability on multiple platform types to align with maneuver forces,” the budget documents state.

The first unit issued is slated for the third quarter of 2025, with production and fielding expected in 2026 through 2030.

The TLS-EAB award is a big win for Lockheed as that rounds out a series of capabilities the company is providing the Army in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Previously, Lockheed has been awarded contracts for TLS-Brigade Combat Team — the first brigade-organic integrated signals intelligence, electronic warfare and cyber platform — and the Multi-Function Electronic Warfare system, an airborne pod that’s designed as the first brigade-organic airborne electronic attack asset that will also provide limited cyberattack capability.

The Army recently put out a request for proposals for a dismounted capability associated with TLS-BCT.

Additionally, the Army is still bidding out for the next phase of its Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool, for which Raytheon has been doing development work. The system is described as the glue holding all EW capabilities on the battlefield together, serving as a command-and-control planning capability that allows forces to visualize the potential effects of these types of weapons and chart courses of action to prevent their forces and systems from being jammed during operations.

“The U.S. Army’s Family of Systems concept is a proven model for developing and delivering converged cyber and electronic warfare technologies into the hands of the warfighter quickly, cost efficiently, with lower risk, and at the speed of relevance,” Deon Viergutz, vice president of Spectrum Convergence at Lockheed Martin, said in a release. “Moving into this next phase, we are going to continue to embrace Soldier Touch Points to drive the design while leveraging a proven DevSecOps pipeline and an open architecture that will enable a highly interoperable, configurable 21st Century Security solution that can be easily tailored for specific mission requirements.” 

The Army has been pursuing a yearslong effort to rebuild its electronic warfare arsenal and architecture for the battlefield. After divesting much of its capability following the Cold War, modern threats have forced the service to develop new, more sophisticated systems.

The military writ large has been vocal about the pitfalls of so-called vendor lock, or relying on a singly company to provide a large majority, if not all the capabilities of a particular system. The Army has worked to institute open systems such as the C5ISR/EW Modular Open Suite of Standards.

Correction: An earlier version misstated the contracting phase awarded.

The post Lockheed Martin wins contract for Army’s long-range electronic warfare program appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Army budget documents note that the service requested a total of $67 million for electronic warfare procurement in fiscal 2024, which is more than triple the $21 million enacted for fiscal 2023.

While these types of jumps in funding are often anticipated in future years defense program requests, many significant Army electronic warfare programs didn’t include any procurement funding for fiscal 2024 in the fiscal 2023 budget released last year.

Part of the jump is due to the fact that this year appears to be a culmination of years of prototyping and research and development of systems the Army was pursuing as it seeks to rebuild its entire EW arsenal.

At the end of the Cold War, the Army divested much of its electronic warfare inventory. Modern conflicts, particularly Russia’s incursions in Ukraine over the last decade, have pushed the Army to rebuild its arsenal, which includes offensive jamming capability, defensive capability and tools to sense and manage the electromagnetic spectrum.

“There was a recognition that given Russia, China threat, the Army’s got to rebuild its EW capability,” Doug Bush, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, told reporters at the annual McAleese and Associates Defense Programs Conference, told reporters March 15. “I know, it’s one of the undersecretary’s priorities. We definitely see the need. We got rid of a lot of that, now we got to get it back.”

Undersecretary Gabe Camarillo has previously said electronic warfare keeps him up at night and that he has been concerned about the Army’s EW and electronic protection capabilities for the last decade or so.

Army officials have described an overall architecture for which major electronic warfare systems will plug into. Capabilities will be part of a layered approach providing complementary effects that build off each other.  

Budget documents show the biggest spend is for counterintelligence/security countermeasures at $22.8 million for fiscal 2024. This goes towards counterintelligence requirements and funding address requirements for the exploitation of signals intelligence as well as to the European Deterrence Initiative. The Army plans to spend $2 billion over the next five years on the program.

 The Army is requesting $21.3 million for the Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool (EWPMT), which is the glue holding all EW capabilities on the battlefield together. The tool serves as a command-and-control planning capability that allows forces to visualize the potential effects of these types of weapons and chart courses of action to prevent their forces and systems from being jammed during operations.

That funding request will go towards fielding, budget documents state.

The fiscal 2023 budget didn’t include a procurement funding line for 2024 as the program was undergoing a change in acquisition strategy.

In terms of research and development funding, the Army is requesting $2.2 million in fiscal 2024 for EWPMT under a new start titled Navigation Warfare Situational Awareness (NAVWAR-SA), which is described as a systems approach to detecting, geolocating and determining the impact area of Global Positioning System (GPS) in a contested environment. Officials have previously alluded to the notion that EWMPT’s next phase would focus on so-called Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) issues.  

Separately, it is also planning to spend $5 million in research and development that will go toward integration with other platforms such as the Terrestrial Layer System, Multi-Function Electronic Warfare (MFEW) and other sensors.

There was also no funding request for research and development for EWPMT in last year’s budget documents forecasted for fiscal 2024.

Additionally, the Army is requesting $15.9 million for the MFEW Air Large pod. This airborne pod is designed as the first brigade-organic airborne electronic attack asset and providing limited cyberattack capability has been somewhat maligned over the past couple of years.

The fiscal 2022 budget saw a cut in what previous budget plans had forecasted would be $12 million in procurement. The Army added back $3 million for MFEW in its fiscal 2023 budget request. However, in the future years defense program last year, documents didn’t provide any procurement funding.

Officials had explained to reporters that MFEW had to “prove it” following the loss of procurement funds, but ultimately, through testing, realized an incredible return on investment.

While originally planned to be mounted on an MQ-1C Gray Eagle, the Army is now taking a broader approach in that the pod could be mounted on any airborne platform that has sufficient space and power for it. Moreover, in addition to its electronic attack mission, it will play a bigger role in the Army’s deep sensing mission, officials have said.

Top officials such as Camarillo have said they are impressed with the program.

In fiscal 2024, it plans to spend $15.9 million on two low-rate initial production systems. The budget also is projecting that in fiscal 2025, it will procure an additional four pods for $23.3 million, but no additional pods are projected to be procured across the future years defense program.

In budget documents from fiscal 2023, the Army didn’t include any procurement funding for fiscal 2024.

The Army is requesting $5.5 million in research and development for MFEW in fiscal 2024. There also was no funding planned for fiscal 2024 in last year’s budget documents.

The last two items included in the $67 million procurement request include a $6.6 million spend for Air Vigilance, which is a software-intensive Automated Information System (AIS) with specialized hardware that collect intelligence data on emerging threat aerial systems, according to budget documents, and CI Modernization at $400,000.

The Army stated that the Terrestrial Layer System is not included within the electronic warfare spend category of $67 million. Rather, it falls within the tactical intelligence category.

The TLS includes a brigade system, which will be an integrated electronic warfare, signals intelligence and cyber platform mounted on Strykers, and a system for echelons above the brigade involving similar capabilities but mostly for deep sensing for larger echelons.

The Army adjusted funding for TLS-BCT this year. Budget documents released last year projected the Army requesting $201.1 million in fiscal 2024 for procurement for TLS-BCT, however, that has shifted to prioritize infantry units and dismounted systems, which are cheaper than the Strykers.  

The post The Army has big plans for electronic warfare procurement in fiscal 2024 appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The Army divested much of its EW tools after the Cold War and currently lacks any program-of-record jamming capability to confuse or defeat adversaries in this increasingly essential facet of warfare.

Lockheed has been awarded contracts for two key upcoming programs of record, which will be undergoing important tests in 2023 that will lead to fielding decisions.

The first is the Multi-Function Electronic Warfare Air Large system, which is a jamming pod initially designed to be mounted on an MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone. However, the Army is shifting its requirement to make the pod system-agnostic.

The second capability in the works is the Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team, an integrated cyber, EW and signals intelligence system that will be mounted to a Stryker vehicle.

“Next year is a big year for us and the Army and really getting these capabilities across the goal line,” Max Pelifian, director for strategy and business development at Lockheed Martin, said in an interview on Monday. “Looking forward to really getting production kit out into the field and into the Army’s hands.”

Pelifian said there are a number of upcoming milestones for MFEW including development tests in February and soldier touchpoints in April. They will help inform the production decision to fulfill the need for 55 MFEW pods.

For TLS-BCT — which Lockheed was awarded the last phase of its Other Transaction agreement for the system in July — there will be an operational assessment in September of the first unit issued. That event will inform the Army’s decision to proceed to production of the Stryker variants, Pelifian said.

Additionally, the Army has been looking at a dismounted option to accompany the TLS-BCT capability. Pelifian noted that Lockheed is very focused on the vehicle-mounted configuration at the moment. However, in concert with the Army, the company is looking at understanding the best of breed for the dismounted capability, which he said will likely be an off-the-shelf tool.

Additionally, Lockheed — along with General Dynamics Mission Systems — was awarded a contract to develop a prototype and conceptual design for a third key electronic warfare system for the Army, the TLS-Echelons Above Brigade. This system is meant to provide larger echelons with deep sensing abilities across much longer distances.

Pelifian explained that Lockheed has heavily invested in open standards that the Army has articulated, namely the Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR)/Modular Open Suite of Standards (CMOSS) and sensor open systems architecture approach (SOSA).

These standards essentially allow systems to be much more modular, allowing software updates to be rapidly inserted into capabilities on-the-fly by inserting cards. This is much different than the hardware-centric paradigm in which capability could not be updated in the field as the threat evolved.

“We have invested significantly in developing an open architecture capability for primarily the Army in developing converged cyber, EW and SIGINT, but that really conform to the CMOSS standard,” Pelifian said. “With that standard, we’ve been able to make sure that the system that we’ve architected can rapidly develop and deploy new techniques. As threats change, we’re able to quickly and easily insert new capability to counter and defeat some of the techniques that our adversaries can develop over time.”

The post 2023 to be pivotal year for new Army electronic warfare systems appeared first on DefenseScoop.

“I’m really impressed with the MFEW program that the Army has,” Gabe Camarillo, undersecretary of the Army, told reporters Tuesday at Aberdeen Proving Ground regarding the Multi-Function Electronic Warfare-Air Large program. “I got to see one of the prototypes out in the field today from [Program Executive Office Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors] and came away really impressed,” he said.

MFEW is a pod capable of serving as the first brigade-organic airborne electronic attack asset and providing limited cyberattack capability. The fiscal 2022 budget saw a cut in what previous budget plans had forecasted would be $12 million in procurement. The Army added back $3 million for MFEW in its fiscal 2023 budget request.

Camarillo was at Aberdeen Proving Ground to witness progress on a variety of network and electronic warfare capabilities the Army is building.

Officials from IEW&S explained to reporters that MFEW had to “prove it” following the loss of procurement funds, but ultimately, through testing, realized incredible return on investment.

“We needed to be able to produce the data, have confidence in the data [and] we got to that point where the milestone decision was covered in the data that we had,” Col. Ed Barker, the deputy program executive officer, said.

The testing allowed the program office to go back to Army officials and articulate what it can do, which in turn, led to the procurement of six pods, William Utroska, deputy project manager for PEO IEW&S, told reporters.

Given the system is now going to be platform agnostic, officials described a wide range of capabilities and uses across the Army depending on the mission set, making it extremely versatile. Provided a platform has an Ethernet port and power, the pod can fly on it, officials said.

“That’s why this is multifunction. Depending on the mission, this can be — if you want something more precise, there are other platforms, but this is multifunction, gives you a range, deep sensing,” Utroska said.

The pod is designed to do electronic attack — jamming, electronic support and sensing — as well as limited cyberattack through radio frequency-delivered effects. The latter also allows the pod to perform military information support operations by delivering information or messaging via radio frequency.

Despite initially being designed to fly on unmanned systems, which against sophisticated adversaries can be vulnerable, officials said the pod itself makes the platforms it is mounted on more survivable in that it can find targets and attack them, which in turn, protects the aircraft.

Officials said it will be tested with the High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES) program — a jet that is part of the Army’s overall plan to modernize aerial intelligence systems. In this role, it would primarily be an electronic or communications intelligence (ELINT) asset used for deep sensing. There could be some limited electronic attack, but officials have said that would be more challenging at those higher altitudes.

“Electronic attack, I would say no. I think we’re still in the learning phase and still understanding what type of capability would be effective at that altitude, especially HADES at 40-45,000 feet is a challenge for electronic attack,” Mark Kitz, program executive officer for IEW&S, told FedScoop in an interview at the TechNet Augusta conference last week. “But for detection and ELINT capability, absolutely.”

Officials noted that at those high altitudes, some adjustments might need to be made to the pod given it is meant to fly between 15,000 and 25,000 feet but can go as high as 42,000 feet before needing to do extra cooling.

“We got to figure out where’s the sweet spot,” Barker said.

There has been interest from the Army’s future vertical lift cross-functional team for the pod as well.

“We’re working with the future vertical lift CFT because they have EW requirements and they know we’ve already done a lot of the work upfront,” Utroska said. “We just have to determine what form factor and what [size, weight and power] is required … For other platforms, we can provide a smaller form factor if there’s a requirement.”

The Army is betting MFEW underpins several service priorities.

“The other takeaway here too is between the long-range precision fires, those interdependencies, future vertical lift, across the Army’s priorities — this is one of those enabling functions, enabling capabilities that’s going to allow the Army to address a wide range of our top priorities between long-range precision fires, future vertical lift,” Barker said.

Officials also said the Air Force is interested in the pod, or at least the underlying capability. The service expressed interest in mounting it on A-10s and is working with the Army to buy down risk on requirements development for a new payload system based on open architectures.

The open architecture nature of the pod is its secret sauce, officials said.

“I will say that one of the things that’s great about it is the adoption of modular open system architectures. I think that’s one area where I think the Army is heading in the right direction,” Camarillo said. “Giving us the ability to not just look at sensor payloads and EW payloads, but how they fit in certain components, how we can plug and play over time, to give us an opportunity to do that tech insertion and to stay ahead of what the threat might be and also have the latest generation capabilities. I walked away today very impressed from that perspective.”

The post After zeroing out procurement, Army now finding aerial jammer to be critical enabler for multi-domain operations appeared first on DefenseScoop.

At the end of the Cold War, the Army divested much of its EW inventory. During the counterinsurgency fights of the last 20 years, the Army used blunt jamming tools to thwart improvised explosive devices, which, in turn, inadvertently jammed friendly systems.

The service still does not have a program of record for jamming equipment, relying on so-called quick reaction capabilities to address urgent commander needs.

“The glaring question for electronic warfare in the Army [is] how do we modernize a force that has no current EW programs [of] record? Because we don’t. There is no programs [of] record currently in the U.S. Army,” Jeffrey Gagnon, deputy Army capabilities manager for electronic warfare within the Cyber Capabilities Development Integration Directorate of the Cyber Center of Excellence, said during a presentation at the TechNet Augusta conference last week.

Other officials noted that while the service is trying to modernize capabilities, it is simultaneously developing force structure, doctrine and training — which compounds the challenge.

Now, as the service is looking to outfit its soldiers with new systems, it’s looking at what the battlefields of the coming decades might look like to anticipate what equipment and tools will be needed.

“What does the [high level concept] look like on the Battlefield of 2030 and 2040? That’s really the answers we’re trying to think through within our shop,” Col. Gary Brock, director, Army Capability Manager Electronic Warfare, said during a presentation at TechNet Augusta.

“When I say programs, these are large requirements, not necessarily tied to a platform, not necessarily tied to a payload, but tied to a requirement for a capability. What do we bring the commanders to the fight? And we’re going to be very commander centric. When we look at the battlefield to 2030, we’re going to division-as-unit action, which is a fundamental shift from the last 21 years where we have fought as brigades,” he added.

Capabilities will be developed to be operated at echelon, modular to adapt to different threats and areas of operation, and able to work in concert between ground and air platforms at various altitudes.

“How do we think through what is that EW arsenal or set the theater by echelon, by capability?” Brock said. “As we think through a lot of these capabilities, we have to remain almost payload agnostic. How do we leave that flexible enough where we can innovate and strive as we move down the road [to] 2030, 2040 and beyond?”

The Army’s requirements developers are working on answering three key questions for commanders as they think about new capabilities. One, can a unit see itself in the electromagnetic spectrum and manage that signature? Two, can a unit see the adversary in the electromagnetic spectrum at much longer distances than in the recent past?

What this echelon approach means is the service is now going to have to contend with joint requirements — especially when it comes to these higher echelons such as division, corps and theater Army — while units further down the chain might rely on technology designed to address Army-specific requirements.

The Army is grappling with the confluence of Army-specific versus joint requirements.

“We think about the EW of the future, we’re thinking about joint Army requirements. Good news is there’s no joint requirements. Bad news is there’s no joint requirements,” Brock said.

The issue of echeloning these effects ties directly into the third question: how does the Army generate those effects?

“Those effects are going to come at echelon. What a corps commander looks for effects and the corps deep fight is different than divisions looking and their deep fight,” Brock said. “The theater Army, much different as well. The theater Army might leverage joint requirements, the corps and division may level Army requirements. How do those mutually support? How do we get into the shaping of the terrain, the battlespace so that we can do our joint mission?”

These types of capabilities fall into three main buckets:

• Ground-launched effects, which could be effects launched from an unmanned system or a portable tube.
• Air-launched effects, which the Army is still developing and experimenting with the concept for, but involves dropping effects from a manned or unmanned airborne asset that is either recoverable or expendable.
• Multi-Function Electronic Warfare-Air Large, a pod capable of serving as the first brigade-organic airborne electronic attack asset and providing limited cyberattack capabilities, which until recently was slated to be outfitted to an MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone. But the Army is now updating that requirement to potentially other aircraft. In fact, Brock referenced the pod as a capability in and of itself, alluding to the fact it could be outfitted to a number of systems depending on the need.

Layering these capabilities and platforms requires an architecture approach. For example, while one of the key capabilities for multi-function EW is electronic intelligence, U.S. forces will have to deconflict this capability with those being developed to operate at higher altitudes and across the services.

“When an [RC-135 Rivet Joint] or a Compass Call or something like that’s flying, we need to be able to tip and cue to get geolocation accuracy and other things,” Mark Kitz, program executive officer for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, told FedScoop in an interview at TechNet Augusta. “When you look at electronic warfare as attack and sensing, there are different layers of electronic warfare in that. Are you trying to deliver [an] effect; are [you] trying to sense the environment; and then who are you delivering that information to, is kind of the architecture that we’re focused on investing in and understanding how that sensor data will get to the end user in an effective way.”

Kitz said the Army has been experimenting with this architecture at Project Convergence the last two years.

“If I’m sensing something in commercial [systems], if I’m sensing something from a joint service, how do I get that information in a meaningful way to either a warfighter or to a shooter and then make an assessment very quickly on what that sensor is sensing?” he said, noting Project Convergence 22 will include several prototypes such as the High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES) — a jet that is part of the Army’s overall plan to modernize aerial intelligence systems.

Key to this architecture and the ability to tip and cue capabilities will be the Army’s Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node (TITAN) program, Kitz said.

TITAN is considered a critical modernization component for the Army’s multi-domain operations concept because it will integrate various types of data from numerous platforms to help commanders make sense of an increasingly dynamic and complex battlefield.

“I think our answer is we’ve got to deliver a TITAN capability that ingests all that sensor data and delivers that effect in a meaningful way,” Kitz said. “We see that as our core foundational capability. There will certainly [be] the other investments, but for the Army, sensor to shooter, sensor to customer, not just sensor to shooter, but sensor to end user — that’ll be our TITAN program.”

The post Army looking at ‘payload agnostic’ EW capabilities as it modernizes its architecture appeared first on DefenseScoop.