NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The Air Force is moving away from a platform-centric view of electronic warfare to more of a system-of-systems approach as it revamps its EW arsenal.

The service has been a platform-centric organization historically — meaning it has relied on systems such as aircraft to perform both its mission and contribution to the joint force — but the modern electromagnetic spectrum environment and threat landscape are demanding a new paradigm.

“Most of our electronic warfare programs are platform centric, so there wasn’t a unifying focus on this area as a whole. My own experience suggested that this is a historically neglected area that can have oversized impact, but doesn’t compete well in our internal budget battles relative to other priorities,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said last week at AFA’s Air, Space and Cyber conference.

The Air Force — much like the rest of the U.S. military — has been on a multi-year journey to modernize its outlook on electronic warfare, with officials acknowledging the airborne electronic attack mission for years was driven primarily by the Navy. Similar to other services, at the end of the Cold War it divested in many of its advanced capabilities, such as the venerable EF-111A Raven. Now, the Air Force has set off on a journey to reinvigorate its EW approach and capabilities.

Those at the AFA conference were encouraged by the attention electronic warfare is now getting at top levels of the service after years of neglect.

“I am excited with the direction the Air Force is going,” David Gaedecke, senior executive advisor at Booz Allen Hamilton, said in an interview.

Gaedecke, a retired two-star general who prior to retiring most recently served as vice commander of 16th Air Force, led the service’s major study over six years ago, known as the Enterprise Capability Collaboration Team, that sought to dive deeper into electromagnetic spectrum issues and develop reforms. That study led to clear changes that the Air Force has implemented, such as new organizations and commands.

“We went from an ECCT at the direction of chief of staff of the Air Force … to yesterday, where I’m sitting in a suit in a room and I’m listening to the secretary of the Air Force and I knew how important the [operational imperatives] were and then for him to say, ‘Hey, there’s four other things that I need to focus on, and the two I’m going to mention today are mobility and EW,’” Gaedecke said. “I was like, that alone is progress. I mean, that’s significant progress that the secretary of the Air Force is on the stage acknowledging that, because we all know that. Everybody heard him say it. That matters.”

Kendall and other officials described how the service has added electronic warfare as a cross-cutting enabler for its seven operational imperatives, undergoing a study associated with that effort. As a result, the Air Force is trying to utilize a more holistic approach to EW that takes into account other tools and capabilities beyond just the aircraft it flies.

Officials said the new Integrated Capabilities Command — which will work on operational concepts, new requirements and modernization plans so commands can focus on warfighting – and Integrated Capabilities Office — which is focused on improving acquisition — will play a huge role in the future when it comes to disaggregating electronic warfare from platforms and getting to a place where the right capabilities are used for the right missions.

“Having that type of functionality and those people taking a look to how we counter any type of adversary data links, communication … part of the data links, obviously, cyber systems, intel, surveillance — all of those type of things to counter that effectively with offensive EA has to be a collaborative effort,” Brig. Gen. Leslie Hauck, director of the electromagnetic spectrum superiority directorate within the A2/6L, said in an interview at the AFA conference.

There are space and cyber capabilities that can be utilized to defeat what officials call “kill webs” from the adversary, enabling tools that involve communications systems and networks that contribute to finding a target, tasking a weapon and engaging that target kinetically or non-kinetically.

“The rule and prominence of electronic warfare in the war in Ukraine provided additional incentives. What the team discovered was incredibly important. We believe we can counter advanced adversary kill webs by integrating a combination of electronic warfare tools, operationalized cyber capability and other elements. I’m excited to see us making fast progress on this mission area for the Department of the Air Force,” Kendall said.

He later told reporters at the conference that electronic warfare also extends to space and vice versa, noting that officials identified “very promising” technologies through the cross-cutting operational enabler study over the last year. Although Kendall said he couldn’t provide much detail given the classified nature of the effort, he suggested the department is looking at integrating cyber and electronic warfare together for greater effect.

Some sources indicated the Air Force’s emerging cyber-enabled air superiority concept — the service’s attempt to build its own tactical cyber capabilities separate from U.S. Cyber Command and focused solely on Air Force missions — will play a role here.

“There are a number of things that I think offer a lot of potential for us that we’re trying to explore. I think writ large, you can expect more emphasis on electronic warfare going forward,” Kendall told reporters.

Others noted that in order to affect adversary kill webs, the Air Force must shift to a system-of-systems approach vice a platform approach.

“When we look at collectively, the pacing threat China, it’s all about kill chains. It’s about enabling the blue kill chain, it’s about disrupting the red kill chain. And [in] the future fight you can’t just do that with a platform-centric view,” Joshua Niedzwiecki, vice president and general manager of electronic combat solutions at BAE Systems, said at the conference. “We’re excited that with the ICC and things like the Integrated Capability Office, there now becomes a mechanism for us to look at the problem differently and integrate capability across multiple platforms and multiple systems … Today everything is spec’d and designed in a platform-centric way, and so the requirements are defined for each platform. What that creates as a bit of a gap is the ability to leverage capability and to drive costs down across platforms.”

He noted his hope for the ICC is there’s a mechanism to push alignment across various platforms and capabilities.

It all comes down to reducing costs and getting the biggest return on investment for the Air Force.

“EW traditionally has been an area that has had a little bit of trouble competing with platforms and weapons and other things, but it’s incredibly important on the battlefield. As the war in Ukraine is showing, that’s becoming even more so,” Kendall told reporters.

Hauck explained that when the service engages with industry, requests are based on which part of the kill chain is most beneficial that will allow the military to win and to dominate across kinetic and non-kinetic warfighting realms, emphasizing it is a cross-cutting, collective effort.

“Back to the return on investment, so that then we can go to the Office of [the] Secretary of Defense and DOD writ large and show that we’ve got a good plan collectively to spend money in the right places, that’s really what it allows us to do,” he said of these new organizations the Air Force is creating that will seek to bring a more collaborative approach between industry, acquisition officials and operators.

Doing more with less

Currently, the Air Force has a limited number of dedicated electronic attack aircraft. The revamped Compass Call — now designated the EA-37B, outfitted to a Gulfstream G550 business jet as opposed to the EC-130H — was only just delivered to Davis Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, in August to begin pilot training. While extremely capable, this platform will become a high-demand, low-density asset given the limited number of aircraft and budget constraints.

Earlier this year, the previous commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. John Aquilino, told Congress the new Compass Call provides great capability and he needed more for that region than what the Air Force was funded for. He noted the only caveat to that would be if there was another mechanism to deliver the capability Compass Call provides, in which case Indo-Pacom could do with less EA-37Bs. But “we do need the capabilities that currently reside in that aircraft,” he said.

“The EA-37B represents one of the major Air Force EMSO modernization efforts, and it’s a great move, along with electronic warfare capabilities integrated with our 5th-gen-and-beyond aircraft systems. The real issue is that we need more EA-37Bs than the current budget allows,” retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, said in a September podcast. “If the nation is really serious about being able to execute the current national defense strategy, we’re going to need more.”

In that limited budget environment, the Air Force will have to figure out how to make other platforms capable in the spectrum, either with their internal self-protection capabilities that have electronic attack — albeit less powerful than dedicated jamming platforms — or possibly unmanned systems such as collaborative combat aircraft.

“The Air Force is still buying Compass Calls trying to figure out what that number is. Then what do you do otherwise? What do you do about putting that capability on something else that will reach out, reduce the threat range of an adversary, so that you can drive in closer to drop your ordnance, so you can support your weapons all the way to the target?” Chuck Angus, director of business development in naval power at Raytheon, said in an interview at the AFA conference.

He noted that if the Air Force has platforms with a lot of persistence such as a drone or even a bomber, they can be useful for enabling kinetic operations.

“If you had a platform that had a lot of persistence — think about a UAS, think about a bomber that can fly for hours and hours and hours — then you probably have a platform that is very useful in this space … You can not only fly it in the area, but when they drop their weapons, you support those weapons all the way to target,” Angus said. “Magazine depth is really important. This non-kinetic electronic attack will increase that magazine depth because you have to shoot less. Those weapons will get to the target better, be more successful and then you can move to another target.”

The Air Force is looking at how to marry these capabilities with overall cost in mind, in a constrained fiscal environment.

“We’re trying to collectively look at the system with the force design that the A5/7 team has been working on to figure out how we do this the most affordable, but then also achieving the objectives that we need, but not buying the exquisite platform necessarily that’s going to — as we’ve heard the secretary and others say and the chief — that’s going to last forever,” Hauck said.

Dedicated electronic attack platforms such as the Compass Call are very good at what they do, he added, but the Air Force has to have the collective enterprise doing electronic warfare and some level of electronic attack. They must understand what the right number of platforms to purchase are and where to invest for the best bang for the buck.

“If you’re talking about a platform that’s putting a pod on, it could be important, depending on what that platform does and depending on the cost,” Hauck said. “We couldn’t just isolate ourselves and figure out a single electronic warfare solution that connected against one part of the adversary’s kill web. It has to be something that knows what the B-21 might be able to bring, that knows whatever other platform, [Next-Generation Air Dominance], CCA, you name it, might be able to bring to the fight and where they’re going to be in the flight.”

Similarly, Gaedecke explained that reading the tea leaves from what senior leaders have said, the approach is integrating different capabilities across the breadth of platforms and systems.

“How do you take these existing capabilities and integrate them across portfolio? How do you have the requirements that are integrated to solve multiple problems, versus one-off solutions for all of these different things?” he said. “When I was in uniform and I did the ECCT, I think a lot of people thought that I was going to help them solve the EF-111 replacement … [but] that’s tougher in the budget environment for the department to be able to do that. If you can’t do that with a solution, how do you do it? Even when you listen to the secretary talk about NGAD and the family of systems, again, I think through the family of systems and the capabilities you integrate versus the dedicated platform.”

All that tied to a robust battle management of the electromagnetic spectrum will be paramount to ensure forces aren’t jamming themselves, and the right platforms in the right areas are being utilized.  

“You need electromagnetic battle management capability to orchestrate which platforms are going to provide which electronic fires, similar to an air battle manager,” Niedzwiecki said. “Every platform fights the threat environment as a one-versus-many fight. Every platform has to be able to close the kill chain itself and it has to be able to address all possible threats that it will face to deny red [forces]. As we look forward with things like counter-C5ISRT, it really drives the need to build collaborative, coordinated effects across the battle space.”

DefenseScoop reporter Mikayla Easley contributed to this story.

Part two of this series will focus on how the Air Force is maturing and exercising its reprogramming enterprise.

The post Air Force looking to disaggregate electronic warfare capabilities from platforms appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The technical demonstration, slated to be conducted early next year, will be overseen by the Joint Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office (JCO), according to a new sources-sought notice.

The event is being planned as concerns grow about the threats posed by enemy drones and electronic warfare arsenals. While the U.S. military has its own EW weapons and other tools to defeat adversaries’ uncrewed aerial platforms, it also recognizes that American defensive systems could also be jammed.

“The JCO is interested to understand industry’s C-sUAS capabilities that can operate in a contested electromagnetic environment,” per the RFI.

The next event in the office’s series of demos, dubbed Demonstration 6, will include systems that fall under two different capability sets: those that can detect, track, identify and defeat Group 3 drones within 2-kilometer slant range from the platform, and those that can help dismounted forces do battle against Group 1 and Group 2 UAS.

For the former, the JCO “is specifically interested in small arms munitions at or below 40mm and kinetic interceptor effectors,” the document notes. For the latter, tools could include “handheld weapons, personal weapon affixable systems such as enhanced optics and warfighter wearable systems.”

Officials want to put these technologies through their paces in an environment where there’s interference or “adversary effects” across the electromagnetic spectrum — such as active jamming — within the frequency ranges of 30-20,000 megahertz.

“The sensor systems must effectively operate while being actively interfered with or targeted by adversary jamming systems or experiencing other electromagnetic interference. The sensor systems must then accurately cue effector systems that are impacted by the contested electromagnetic environment. Finally, the effector systems then must effectively defeat, deny, or degrade threat UAS within this contested environment,” the RFI states.

Some of the suggested methods to enable system resiliency and operational success include incorporating low probability of detect (LPD), low probability of intercept (LPI), adaptive beamforming, frequency hop, and other means to maneuver across the EMS.

“The C-sUAS platforms must have the ability to understand they are being impacted within the EMS and autonomously maneuver elsewhere within the EMS or enact other resiliency measures to enable functionality, continued operation, and successful mission performance,” according to the document.

Responses to the RFI, which will inform planning for the event, are due Aug. 6.

The JCO and the Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office in recent years have been holding a series of industry technical demos focused on finding potential solutions to some of the most pressing drone threats. The notice about Demonstration 6 was released just a few weeks after the completion of Demonstration 5, which took place last month at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona.

“Adversary sUAS represent a rapidly proliferating, low cost, high-reward, and potentially damaging and lethal capability against U.S. personnel, critical assets, and interests. Examples of this growing threat are seen in Ukraine, Israel, and by our own forces at deployed locations overseas,” Defense Department officials wrote in a fact sheet about that event.

Eight companies — Clear Align, Trakka USA Defense, Ideas, Commitment, Results (ICR), ELTA North America, Teledyne FLIR, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Advanced Technology Systems Corporation (ATSC) and Anduril Industries — brought a total of nine systems to Yuma to see how they fared against swarms of up to 50 small unmanned aerial systems, including a mix of fixed-wing and rotary-wing Group 1 UAS as well as “slow and fast” Group 3 fixed-wing drones, to include jet-powered platforms.

Industry’s counter-drone technologies included a variety of sensors and weapons, such as multi-mission radars, electro-optical/infrared cameras, radio frequency scanners, RF jammers, guided rockets, “kinetic interceptor drones” and small arms munitions, according to the fact sheet.

During a call with reporters this week, officials declined to disclose the results of the demo in terms of how well specific systems performed.

“It was a very successful demonstration informing U.S. and our allies about what capabilities exist out there,” said Col. Michael Parent, chief of the JCO’s acquisition and resources division. “The challenge of the profiles really meant that no one characteristic no one capability, whether kinetic or non-kinetic, in itself could really defeat this kind of a profile. So what we saw was that you really do need a full system-of-systems approach, a layered approach.”

He noted that the drone swarms that the systems were up against last month created a “very challenging” threat profile.

Demonstration 6 – which is expected to take place in or around March 2025 — will pose additional challenges for industry, with an increased focus on operating against EMS threats to their systems. The Pentagon has not yet selected the vendors for next year’s event.

Brandi Vincent contributed reporting for this story.

The post Pentagon to test whether counter-drone systems can operate effectively under electronic attack 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.

In September, the Army awarded a $1.5 million contract to Mastodon Design LLC, a CACI subsidiary, for the Terrestrial Layer System Brigade Combat Team Manpack, the first dismounted electronic attack capability that soldiers can use to conduct jamming on the move.

TLS-BCT is the first brigade-organic integrated cyber, signals intelligence and EW system that as initially conceived, was to be based on Stryker platforms and later armored vehicles. TLS Manpack is meant for infantry units.

The award encompasses three systems: two Beast+ and a Kraken. The Beast+ systems are small backpack-based capabilities that weigh around 20 pounds. They can be broken up further into a handheld capability for direction finding targeting, depending on the need, or with the electronic attack capability added on. Kraken is the more “brick and mortar” variant that can be put in a vehicle and taken out and inserted into a backpack if needed, Todd Probert, CACI president of national security and innovative solutions, told DefenseScoop at the annual AUSA conference. It has more analytic capability with more range and around four times as many signals as Beast+.

These systems are already programs of record with U.S. Special Operations Command and have been used in the field previously. This means the Army won’t have to start from scratch to build something new and do a series of soldier tests.

Probert said the fact that it’s a program of record already with SOCOM “100 percent” expedites the timeline to field.

“The hardest thing to do is to go certify a piece of hardware. The hardest thing you got to go through all sorts of soldier touch points. It’s not just the functionality of the technology, but then it’s equally the functionality of how does it work with gloved hands and how does it fit, or how heavy it is or what do you do from a battery management standpoint,” he said. There are about 1,200 sets of these already in use, he noted.

“All those things were taken care of in the SOCOM program of record … What the Army likes, it’s a [technology readiness level] 9 system, it’s fielded, so the SOCOM folks would have taken it into the field, like real-world kind of stuff, proving it out. When you field the new system, the authority to operate the [developmental test/operational test] cycles, we’ve really moved through all of that. And largely now we’re just upgrading software.”

The Army had said from the start it wanted a commercial-off-the-shelf solution for the TLS Manpack.

“We sought out a COTS solution. We knew there were options out there. We looked at multiple solutions,” Ken Strayer, project manager for electronic warfare and cyber within Program Executive Office Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, told DefenseScoop at the conference.

Since the end of the Cold War, the Army divested of much of its electronic warfare systems. It has been on nearly a decade-long journey to reinvest in new capabilities as well as new concepts given the importance of the spectrum. However, it has yet to deliver a program-of-record capability, relying solely on quick-reaction technology to address gaps primarily in Europe.

Strayer noted that there was no business case to go away from some of those quick-reaction capabilities, namely Versatile Radio Observation and Direction (VROD) and VROD Modular Adaptive Transmission system (VMAX) — the former surveys the field from an electromagnetic perspective, and the latter provides a limited electronic attack capability. But now, there’s a mature solution.

“With TLS-BCT we now have mature commercial products that have exceeded what we could do from the government perspective. And more importantly, as we’re leveraging the whole rest of the community and the detectors and the capabilities that they invest in, that product line will be able to sync back into the Army,” he said.  

As the Army has realized that large, vehicle-based systems likely will be too bulky to operate in the Pacific, which consists of many small island chains and dense vegetation, it developed a smaller, man-packable solution for infantry units that can also be tied to a vehicle if need be.

Probert said the system is very adaptable, which is what the Army asked for, and can be upgraded with software tweaks. He added it’s the lowest size, weight and power system he’s ever seen for a capability like this.

It can be tailored for the mission if soldiers are just doing a signal detection mission or need to conduct jamming. It doesn’t have to be a monolithic, hardware based, all-in-one backpack capability. Soldiers can jump with it out of airplanes as well.

“When the Army came and said, ‘Hey, we want something that looks like this,’ there were other frequencies or other waveforms that we needed to basically build into it to allow us to go after that. Because it’s adaptable, because it’s got a software-defined radio, which is pretty simple to go and make that happen,” he said.

The system ties into existing frequency and signal libraries to make it easier for soldiers to identify a signal they detect and affect it.

There will be an operational demonstration in November to validate the system before the Army goes into production, Strayer said.

Probert noted that they have to make a few modifications for signals the Army in particular has asked for, separate from the SOCOM system. “We’re being told around numbers 30 to 50 systems,” he said. “It’s a five-year program with IDIQ kind of constructs, so we are hopeful that the Army orders a whole bunch more of them going into the out years. But they’ve got 25 brigade combat teams that are looking to get out.”

The post Army’s dismounted jammer leveraging existing program of record for faster fielding appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Dubbed the Terrestrial Layer System Brigade Combat Team Manpack, the platform is the first dismounted electronic attack capability soldiers can use to conduct jamming on the move.

To date, such systems were quick-reaction capabilities in response to urgent operational needs. The capability is essential, as the only other electronic warfare systems in development are either airborne or are mounted on large platforms such as Stryker vehicles. Dismounted capabilities will be needed to allow soldiers to be more mobile and agile, especially in theaters such as the Pacific with dense terrain and many islands.

TLS-BCT is the first brigade-organic integrated cyber, signals intelligence and EW system.

The other transaction authority agreement comes after six months of competitive white papers, and it will include a nine-month period of performance for a phase 1 prototype build and demonstration.

The manpack solution will provide brigade commanders a tactical advantage with improved intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting, the Army said. It will be a tailorable, modular solution capable of collecting processing, exploiting, reporting and creating effects for signals intelligence teams and electronic warfare teams.

“The TLS BCT Manpack compliments the TLS BCT and TLS Echelons Above Brigade (TLS EAB) family of systems with a shared and open systems approach that creates the flexibility and efficiencies needed against a highly adaptive threat,” Kenneth Strayer, project manager for electronic warfare and cyber at program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, said in a statement.

The goal is to transition TLS-BCT Manpack from prototyping to production in fiscal 2024.

Officials previously told DefenseScoop that the TLS-BCT Manpack would likely be a commercial off-the-shelf capability that currently exists, with follow-on procurement and fielding decisions expected in 2024.

The post Army awards contract for dismounted electronic jammer appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The weapon, dubbed Scaled EA, provides smaller ships an electronic attack capability to protect them from threats. It is based on Lockheed’s work with other platforms such as the Advanced Off-Board Electronic Warfare (AOEW) system and the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP).

While the Navy has long maintained a vision to scale down the technology for smaller ships that might not have the space or power to support other systems such as SEWIP, a key impetus to test something like Scaled EA was a shift in how the Navy and other military services are planning to fight in the future under Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) and other operational constructs.

“A lot of this has been driven by the way we fight these days versus, before we’d see them in groups, [carrier strike groups], but now, when you get into joint all-domain, every ship is part of a larger conglomerate [and they] tend to be more spread out,” Joseph Ottaviano, director of maritime and air cyber/electronic warfare at Lockheed, said in an interview. “You’ve got to have something that gives you the capability to participate in that joint all-domain, but also give you a capability to provide effects that help your own ship in the fight. That’s the premise of what Scaled EA is. It’s certainly not intended to replace the bigger [SEWIP] Block 3, but not every ship can support the full-up system.”

Lockheed took the system out to the Rim of Pacific 2022 exercise last summer summer to “validate the concept of having a scaled EA system on ships that can’t support the larger system,” Ottaviano said, adding the results were mostly positive.

“I can’t go into details on the type of threats or some of the things we engaged. But the system met all its goals, it provided significant capability that would make the oiler an effective part of a joint all-domain exercise, but also give the oiler self-protection via a quick install EA system,” he said.

Additionally, Ottaviano said the Scaled EA provides a more rapid solution to outfit on ships, explaining the idea was for it to be installed during a pier availability and not wait for a modification that lasts a year or longer.

“You want to be able to do this in 60-90 days, while the ship is pier side and not have to get construction involved. And that’s how it was designed,” he said. “We had allocated a week — within three days the system was installed on the oiler, which we weren’t originally supposed to go on, we’re supposed to go on a different ship. That goes to the flexibility and maturity [of] the system. We ended up finishing in two-and-a-half days on the install.”

He later clarified that the install for this particular exercise was a special case, noting that the operational goal is for it to be installed within 60 days.

The Scaled EA capability also doesn’t require additional personnel on the ship to operate it, he said, relying only on the sailors already assigned to the vessel.

While the system was developed on Lockheed’s dime, Ottaviano said it leveraged capabilities the Navy has already invested in, given this vision of scaling down was part of the Navy’s plan.

There will be another set of range demonstrations for the system in the spring to mature the capability and demonstrate that it can be delivered “without requiring a ship to go to dry dock,” Ottaviano said.

There is also slated to be a competition for this type of capability in the future, for which the Navy will award a vendor to provide a solution. Other companies have demonstrated similar technology related to their delivery of SEWIP.

Ottaviano said there is interest from other Defense Department components for the Scaled EA system, but he declined to identify them.

“We’ve seen interest from other services. I’m not going to name them, but at least two other services have looked at this capability and have expressed some interest, whether it be in a non-naval environment,” he said. “Again, it was designed so that it can support multiple things and … multiple approaches to the fight. We’ve had others come in and talk to us about the capability once they’ve heard about it.”

The post Lockheed Martin details plans for new electronic attack system designed for smaller Navy vessels appeared first on DefenseScoop.

“We’re getting out in the field and we’re finding that it does things that we … didn’t anticipate, which is good,” Joseph Ottaviano, director of maritime and air cyber/electronic warfare at Lockheed, said, referring to the Advanced Off-Board Electronic Warfare (AOEW) system.

AOEW is a pod mounted to MH-60 Sierra and Romeo helicopters and meant to address ships’ line-of-sight limitations in the electromagnetic spectrum while also providing electronic attack capabilities against potential threats such as missiles.

“As we’re finding, common with some of the things we do in the maritime and airborne cyber/EW, is if you can perform [electronic attack], you can perform other things up to and including cyber. [It] starts becoming a converged system very quickly,” he told FedScoop on the sidelines of the Sea-Air-Space conference at National Harbor, Maryland.

He continued: “We’re finding a lot of those capabilities that we didn’t necessarily anticipate or design directly into them are available to the customer. It’s a pretty powerful situation for us.”

In addition to the regular test and evaluation assessments that Pentagon programs must undergo, Ottaviano said AOEW has participated in some Navy exercises, though he declined to say which ones or the extent to which the system was used. He offered that they were operationally realistic scenarios.

Ottaviano described the system as part of the Navy’s “layered defense,” with organic defense both on and away from a ship.

“If you can do EA, and you architect the system right, you can also present cyber effects as well. We’re seeing some of that,” he said.

These converged capabilities are similar to those Lockheed is providing for the Army for some of its programs, he noted. While declining to offer any specifics or examples, one such system is the Multi-Function Air Large system, an electronic attack pod mounted to an MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that while MFEW is an example of what Lockheed is providing to the Army, Ottaviano did not cite it specifically.

The post Navy airborne electronic attack system also capable of delivering cyber effects appeared first on DefenseScoop.