Transforming-in-contact, a top priority of the Army spearheaded by Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, aims to speed up how the service buys technologies and designs its forces by injecting emerging capabilities into units and letting them experiment with them during exercises and deployments. The first iteration, TiC 1.0, featured three light brigades. TiC 2.0 is focused on armored formations and divisions as a whole — to include enabling units such as artillery and air cavalry brigades as well as Multi-Domain Task Forces, some Army Special Operations units and National Guard units.

The prototypes that will be tested are part of the Terrestrial Layer System-Echelons Above Brigade (TLS-EAB) program. That capability was initially designed as an integrated EW and signals intelligence system primarily for divisions, corps and Multi-Domain Task Forces to sense across greater ranges. It was originally slated for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, but that plan has been altered. Following experimentation and lessons learned from Europe, the Army has decided to split up the SIGINT and electronic warfare functions, like it has for its smaller, brigade counterpart known as TLS-Brigade Combat Team.

The EAB technology, which is being built by Lockheed Martin, was less mature than the BCT variant at the time the decision to split the functions was made. Officials have said EAB will be the main component for defining and demonstrating an initial EW architecture and publishing the requests for information concerning the architecture that will eventually deliver it back to the BCT version for integration.

The Army will test two prototype configurations of the TLS-EAB in fiscal 2025 and 2026, according to a spokesperson from program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors. They will include one made by Lockheed and a variant developed as a pre-prototype that was tested at Project Convergence in March called the Transformation-in-Contact Mobile Node-Terrestrial (TMNT) system.

TMNT was developed by the Army Combat Capabilities Development Command and Project Manager Electronic Warfare and Cyber from IEW&S, as a proof of concept based on requirements from TLS-EAB. While not a fully realized system — demonstrating signals intelligence and electronic warfare capabilities as a modular, scalable platform — it provided the Army certain insights at Project Convergence to help refine the eventual solution. The spokesperson noted that further refinement will be needed in operational packaging to accommodate various unit types to include light and heavy.

During Project Convergence, the system provided intelligence, supported commanders’ priority information requirements and integrated with other sensors while demonstrating the performance, modularity and potential to fill intelligence gaps across all echelons, according to an Army news release.

The apparent success of TMNT at Project Convergence has accelerated the fielding of TLS-EAB systems to transforming-in-contact units.

“Lockheed Martin’s TLS-EAB prototype was developed as part of a modular, fully open architecture approach, which enables form-factor flexibility across multiple platforms as well as rapid integration of third party software and hardware,” a company spokesperson said. “It was specifically developed to support long-range, cross platform collaboration to provide optimized and integrated signals intelligence (SIGINT), support to electronic warfare (EW), and cyberspace support operations at the Corps, Multi-Domain Task Forces for Joint All Domain Operational (JADO) operations.”

The Army plans to keep iterating with transforming-in-contact units. Previously, the service sent other electronic warfare gear to units such as 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 — and the Tactical Electronic Warfare System-Infantry (TEWS-I), a quick-reaction capability built a few years ago by General Dynamics, serving as a smaller system designed for infantry vehicles.

TMNT is a prime example of the Army using transforming-in-contact to focus on near-term solutions to threats, the IEW&S spokesperson said, enabling units to rapidly test organizational changes while integrating emerging technology.

The service will be exploring how to best tailor configurations to meet specific mission needs, they added, with further refinement throughout FY26 to identify key capabilities for different combatant commands, echelons and threats.

The Army has outlined a theater– and echelon-based approach to capabilities such as electronic warfare. Officials have said the service won’t provide every unit across its million-man force the same gear, but rather tranche capabilities. This will allow the latest and greatest to get out to units when developed, but also enable the Army to tailor to specific needs in theater.

Each region, based on its geography and how adversaries in that area employ capabilities, requires somewhat unique systems. For example, the dense foliage in the Asia-Pacific affects the way signals are propagated differently than the mountainous terrain in Europe.

The Army’s Spectrum Situational Awareness System (S2AS) — which is intended to 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 signatures — will also be given to units to test out as a part of transforming-in-contact in the future.

The post Army to provide ‘transforming-in-contact’ units electronic warfare prototypes for divisions appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Specifically, that effort is for the forthcoming Spectrum Situational Awareness System, or S2AS, 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. Army officials have said this is an important capability for operations in a complex future environment where forces will have to adeptly maneuver within the invisible electromagnetic spectrum.

That program is a new start in fiscal 2025, with the Army requesting $9.3 million in research-and-development funds for integration, testing, and technical and program management support.

However, with the continuing resolution and budget impasse on Capitol Hill, development is more challenging.

Thus, the Army is using ongoing efforts associated with its Terrestrial Layer System-Echelons Above Brigade (TLS-EAB) — initially designed as an integrated EW and signals intelligence platform primarily for divisions, corps and Multi-Domain Task Forces to sense across greater distances — to run risk reduction for S2AS.

“There’s been other efforts within EAB that allowed us to understand what software capabilities are out there to get after that type of spectrum situational awareness. We’ve made those investments and I think what you’ll see is upon the [middle tier of acquisition] initiation, once the CR is lifted and the program is running, that will move really quick,” Brig. Gen. Wayne “Ed” Barker, program executive officer for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, said in an interview at the Army’s Technical Exchange Meeting.

“I’m thinking inside of 12 to 18 months, we could probably be at a rapid fielding for that software from an S2AS standpoint,” he added. “We’ve taken the opportunity that if we’ve had implied and specified requirements within other programs, specifically EAB, that meet the need of S2AS, we’ve used that to burn down that risk so that once S2AS was initiated, we didn’t have to spend another year, year and a half, doing the analysis to get us to that point where we can make a rapid fielding decision.”

Last year, the Army decided to spilt up the signals intelligence and electronic warfare portions of its TLS family of systems, which also include the EAB’s smaller cousin, the Brigade Combat Team system. Barker said that ultimately was the right decision for the Army to make.

The service is on track to deliver signals intelligence prototypes for both TLS systems by next spring, while platform electronic warfare from a jamming perspective is still pre-decisional and the Army is still examining what that might look like, Barker said.

The Army is taking a hard look at its entire electronic enterprise and capabilities as it seeks to potentially take on sophisticated nation-state adversaries in large-scale combat operations.

“The nature of the fundamental of everything is going on within our portfolio from an EW standpoint, is rapidly changing. The challenge within the EW portfolio is the fact that the decades of [counterinsurgency] operations, we just did not necessarily have to be in that fight to the degree to which we think we’re going to be in it today,” Barker said at the Association of Old Crows annual symposium Thursday. “We kind of had to start clean because we didn’t really have the capabilities that were needed from an EW standpoint. We’re building that up on a daily basis and trying understand what that means across the not just the materiel side of the house, but how do you train EW?”

Elsewhere within the electronic protection and management space, the Army is still figuring out what its Modular Electromagnetic Spectrum System (MEMSS) program will look like. MEMMS stemmed out of a prior science-and-technology effort called Modular Electromagnetic Spectrum Deception Suite (MEDS) and will be a new start in fiscal 2026.

“How do we confuse the enemy? It’s really about creating those types of dilemmas that impact their decision space. How are we providing our commander freedom of maneuver to do the things that they need to do, to provide them the time to either move or make decisions?” Barker said, adding his office is working across the Army to help figure that out on the requirements and materiel side.

“We got to be very conscious within this space to make sure that what we’re doing is going to impact the adversary’s targeting cycle. But we also have to be conscious of what the range of options are that we want to present to the Army,” Barker said. “It can be anything from attritable sensors that emulate all the way up to the potentially the emulate a command post. But there’s costs associated with that, and so we’re trying to be very, very conscious of that.”

The post Army using existing programs to run risk reduction on new starts in light of continuing resolutions appeared first on DefenseScoop.

A series of events will help officials determine what the concept of employment for EW will be at the division level and what programs of record will look like.

Those events included a tabletop exercise at Fort Eisenhower, Georgia, focused on how electronic warfare will be done at division and higher; an October Fires Symposium at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, examining how network, intelligence, cyber and EW will integrate into fires; a capabilities-based assessment for electromagnetic warfare conducted by the Cyber Capability Integration Directorate at the Cyber Center of Excellence in Augusta, Georgia, that will be completed over the next year; and a sensor-to-shooter event focused on challenges in the Indo-Pacific region and long-range precision fires at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

“We’re doing a deep dive on that now,” Col. Leslie Gorman, Army capability manager for electronic warfare, said in a recent interview regarding how the service is thinking about fighting electronic warfare at echelon and with what platforms. “I had a sit-down with some folks at the Pentagon yesterday. One of the things that came back was truly, what does that concept of employment look like at the division?”

She explained that the Cyber CDID event helped determine what exactly the forthcoming Terrestrial Layer System-Echelons Above Brigade (TLS-EAB) system will be.

TLS-EAB was initially designed as an integrated EW and signals intelligence system primarily for divisions, corps and Multi-Domain Task Forces to sense across greater ranges. Like its smaller, brigade counterpart, TLS-Brigade Combat Team, following experimentation and lessons from Europe, the Army has decided to split up the SIGINT and electronic warfare functions.

Given the EAB effort was less mature than the BCT variant at the time the decision to split the functions was made, officials have stated EAB will be the main component for defining and demonstrating an initial EW architecture and publishing the requests for information concerning the architecture, that will eventually deliver it back to the BCT version for integration.

“There’s been some interesting information that came out of that [tabletop event]. We also have another CONEMP we’re taking a look at from [the] C5ISR [Center] to help shape some discussions with the maneuvers at an upcoming tabletop exercise with them because I think that’s going to be very important,” Gorman said, using an acronym to refer to command, control, communications, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. “As we’re flushing out the requirements at echelon that we’re not only talking to fires, we’re also talking maneuvers. Because it’s ensuring that we’re incorporating our capabilities in a light infantry fight. Since we are an enabler, what does it look like to implement an EW sensor on a” robotic combat vehicle?

Officials are also looking at other capabilities that have been prototyped and used primarily at the brigade level to see if there’s applicability at division, namely, the Tactical Electronic Warfare System-Infantry Brigade Combat Team, or TEWS-I, which was initially a quick-reaction capability built by General Dynamics, providing a smaller system designed for infantry vehicles. It was a prototype activity to serve as a risk reduction and requirements pathfinder for the Army’s program of record, the Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team (TLS-BCT) and has been used by units within the XVIII Airborne Corps.

Gorman noted that the service is looking at experimentation efforts next year to not only gain improvements for TEWS-I, but how that capability could potentially be a division asset.

The Army is still essentially in the requirements phase when it comes to the electronic warfare portion of TLS-BCT again, trying to figure out what makes the most sense going forward.

Gorman noted it could evolve to include more robust communications systems, deception capabilities or situational awareness tools. Moreover, while the Army is currently fielding the TLS Manpack — the first official program in decades for a dismounted electronic attack capability that soldiers can use to conduct direction finding with limited jamming on-the-move as well — for mobility, the service is looking at possibly bringing that into a vehicle mount with an amplifier for extended range, something that was conceived of initially within the original TLS family.

Constant feedback from units is also helping to inform future generations of the Manpack capability, Gorman said.

As the Army is continuing to work on the platform and capability side of the issue, fleshing out how they’ll be employed, the other critical parallel effort is moving out on EW-enabling capabilities to be able to plan and manage within the spectrum.

“It’s also ensuring that we address it as a system-of-systems approach … It’s going to be important to be able to ensure that these capabilities that we’re fielding, we’re able to communicate and C2 those systems, be able to also incorporate where the systems are on the battlefield and incorporate that into not only our EW plan of action via [the Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool], but then also think leveraging [the Spectrum Situational Awareness System] for the spectrum management, the [electromagnetic emission control], the [electronic protection] capabilities, to be able to also bring that information into fires for a more comprehensive, holistic, synchronized, non-lethal effect support to fires planning capability,” Gorman said.

EWPMT serves as 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 (S2AS) is a new start in fiscal 2025 and is 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 signatures, sources of electromagnetic interference — either from coalition partners or the enemy — and threat emissions.

Officials have described EWPMT as the glue that holds the electronic warfare architecture together, because if forces can’t see, understand and plan within the spectrum, jamming and sensing capabilities won’t be effective.

“We’re talking about this too, is like we have a lot of Manpacks coming out. We’re going to have to be able to ensure that those systems can be effectively C2’d and that missions can be planned at the optimal level at echelon, so that way everyone understands what’s going on their battlespace. I think that helps reduce potential adjacent unit RF interference or jamming,” Gorman said. “It’s also ensuring that our signatures that we’re emitting, that is also a part of our planning efforts and you have to do that with each and every EW emitter or an effector.”

The Army will begin embedding its requirements personnel with experimental units to create a direct feedback loop to inform the software developers for EWPMT in the program office. This will help the program office prioritize as the service is planning likely tranches of 12 improvements per quarter going forward in line with a holistic software modernization strategy for EWPMT Next.

The post Army examining best approach to fight electronic warfare at echelon 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.

Following operational demonstrations, the service determined that the concept for the Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team was not going to work the way it was intended or gain the efficiencies desired.

TLS-BCT was designed as the first integrated signals intelligence, cyber and electronic warfare platform, devised roughly six years ago. It has 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. As initially conceived, it was to be mounted on Strykers and then Army Multi-Purpose Vehicle variant prototypes.

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.

Now, the Army has decided to split the system up — along with the TLS-Echelons Above Brigade, designed primarily for divisions, corps and Multi-Domain Task Forces to sense across greater ranges than its brigade counterpart — into two separate systems.

“TLS-BCT, specifically, this program was birthed with the concept that you could have one system where you had EW and SIGINT soldiers on board the same platform, operating at the same time, supporting different battlefield operating systems,” Kenneth Strayer, project manager for electronic warfare and cyber at program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, said in an interview.

“Although SIGINT and EW are very similar — they use very similar hardware, software — they have different mission threads and they often need to be at different places on the battlefield. They have different requirements in terms of timeliness and data sharing,” he added. “The big ‘ah-ha’ as we went into the operational demonstration [was] that wasn’t going to work the way that we envisioned it and we weren’t going to get the efficiencies we wanted.”

This has now forced the Army to relook and reset its electronic warfare architecture as to not be tied to the signals intelligence production chain that requires a different hardware and software approach, Strayer said.

One of the key lessons being learned in conflicts like Ukraine is the need for speed. Classification is often a barrier to moving fast, forcing the Army in other portfolios to loosen the reins with concepts such as secure but unclassified-encrypted communications, which reduces overall network complexity and has had huge benefits in terms of interfacing with partner nations and eschewing the need for liaisons. That increases the pace of operations.

Moreover, as the Army shifts to the division as the unit of action instead of the brigade of the last 20 years during the global war on terror, higher classified networks such as signals intelligence will be pushed to higher echelons while smaller units such as brigade and below will need to be unburdened and empowered to share with coalition forces on faster timelines, such as near real-time.

“This really needs to be pushed down to the unclassified level, secret [and] below … so we can share with coalition partners and rapidly feed the fires targeting cycle without having to go up through national SIGINT chains,” Strayer said.

As a result, the program office is gearing up to release a request for information to industry to inquire on the availability of commercially or government-owned, preferably off-the-shelf electronic warfare hardware and software ecosystems or architectures that the Army could leverage to tailor for the unique requirements of each echelon to converge on a common hardware/software architecture that’s scalable across echelons.

“We don’t want to go trying to reinvent something. We think the commercial marketplace is really caught up based on the work that’s going on with other services and throughout industry. We’re excited to hear what industry has to offer in the coming months,” Strayer said. “That’s going to drive our acquisition strategy for EW moving forward.”

The new architecture it’s pursuing is supposed to allow for the rapid collection, dissemination and reprogramming of signals in the field at the speed of war. The service wants the ability to have a compute architecture of standard CPUs and GPUs that can be purchased to facilitate the ability to pull out classification and identification of signals in the environment, and plug in third-party capabilities such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to keep pace with threats by being able to identify and classify signals.

All the while, the Army wants to be able to purchase commercial sensors given the rich marketplace that exists in the private sector now, rather than spending money to develop its own, unique, fit-for-purpose sensors.  

As the service is conducting market research on this evolving electronic warfare architecture, it’s still pursing the signals intelligence system development, which is more mature than the electronic warfare portions.

Strayer said the Army was “pretty close” on the Stryker-based signals intelligence system configuration, formerly TLS-BCT, at the operational demonstration last year. Officials will look to continue refining that effort with a customer test this year and a follow-on demonstration next year before getting it into the field.

On TLS-EAB, the Army started bifurcating the electronic warfare and signals intelligence capabilities based on lessons learned from Europe, despite initially envisioning it as one system that does it all. That program initiated after the brigade version.

As a result, that effort is also going down two pathways: signals intelligence and electronic warfare.

Given the new approach with the electronic warfare architecture, the Army has asked the vendor to prioritize the signals intelligence portion of the system. The vendor is working on a hands-on physical integration of the desired signals intelligence architecture that could be a 20-foot container for the first prototype, allowing it to be mounted in different ways.

That prototype is scheduled to be delivered to the Army in early calendar 2025 but could slip to second quarter.

On the electronic warfare aspect, officials are using this system as the main component for defining and demonstrating the initial EW architecture, given the BCT portion of the program went so far with a demonstration and design on an integrated platform.

The EAB program will be publishing the requests for information concerning the architecture, that will eventually deliver it back to the BCT version for integration.

Once developed, the architecture will have the ability to tailor for the need at each echelon.

Next year will be a focal point for the effort, with demonstrations planned and the goal of selecting a common architecture by the end of 2025. It will then be instantiated in some physical prototypes in 2026 for both the EAB and hopefully BCT as well, according to Army plans.

The post Army pursuing new electronic warfare architecture appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team (TLS-BCT), being developed by Lockheed Martin, is the first integrated electronic warfare, signals intelligence and cyber platform. The program will be a key enabler of Army priorities — considering the service has been without a program-of-record jammer for decades — and support multi-domain operations.

As initially conceived, the technology was to be designed for Stryker platforms. However, acquisition priorities shifted.

Budget documents released last year projected the Army would spend $196.1 million to procure 26 systems in fiscal 2025. Now, the Army is requesting $95.4 million for 54 systems, according to newly released fiscal 2025 budget justification documents.

The Army attributes the change in funding and quantities to prioritizing the TLS Manpack version — a series of two systems dismounted soldiers can use for jamming, signal direction finding and signals intelligence. The Army awarded a $1.5 million contract to Mastodon Design LLC, a CACI subsidiary, last year.

“The change in procurement quantities is reflective of our plan to accelerate the procurement and fielding of the TLS BCT Manpack, which is scheduled to begin this year. The Justification materials include 52 manpacks in FY24 and 51 in FY25, an increase from last year to accelerate the delivery of this critical capability to the field,” a spokesperson from program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, which runs the program, said in a statement to DefenseScoop.

Budget documents also note that procurement funding will go to Stryker variant systems as well.

This is the second year in a row that funding was altered in favor of the manpack solution.

Officials requested $14.7 million for research, development, test and evaluation funding for TLS-BCT in fiscal 2025. Budget documents released last year did not provide any RDT&E funding projections for the effort beyond fiscal 2024. New budget documents note the increase is to complete Army Multi-Purpose Vehicle variant prototypes and execute operational testing.

“The additional RDT&E in FY25 fully funds the 5-year MTA Rapid Prototyping program and completes required testing,” the spokesperson said.

The new documents also project a $7.1 million RDT&E request for fiscal 2026 but no funds beyond that. The spokesperson said that money is for ongoing efforts to maintain the relevancy of the system and keep pace with changes in the threat environment, noting this is expected to be an enduring requirement.

Movin’ on up (echelons)

For TLS-Echelon Above Brigade, the TLS-BCT’s larger cousin, the Army asked for $1.4 million in procurement funding for fiscal 2025.

A new start last year, the program is designed primarily for divisions, corps and Multi-Domain Task Forces to sense across greater ranges than its brigade counterpart. Lockheed Martin is also the lead contractor for that effort.

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

There was no procurement ask in last year’s budget documents, and funds this year will go toward pre-production planning and support for future contracting activities.

For R&D, the Army previously projected it would spend $42.8 million on the capability in fiscal 2025, but it requested $116.3 million in its latest budget proposal. Total cost to complete the program, according to last year’s documents, was $175.8 million — but this year’s documents project a $296.5 million price tag.

“The additional RDTE has been requested in FY25-FY26 to fully fund the 5-year Middle Tier Rapid Prototyping program. We are in year 2 of the 5-year prototyping effort, transitioning from concept design into the prototype build phase,” the Army spokesperson said. “Lessons learned from observation of ongoing operations have informed requirements. The program is maximizing the flexibilities that come with Middle Tier acquisition to update prototype designs to address the refined requirements for Multidomain operations.”

Budget documents note the first unit issued for the EAB system is slated for the third quarter of fiscal 2026.

The post Army alters funding again for integrated cyber, EW, SIGINT system to speed up delivery of ‘critical’ manpack version appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Electromagnetic spectrum operations have gained significant prominence in recent years, after decades of neglect from the U.S. military and conflicts that did not place a premium on agility within this invisible space.

In such a dynamic realm in which concepts and technologies can rapidly change — as evidenced in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine — how can the Army ensure that it stays relevant and not have to keep developing new tools?

The answer is modularity, a baseline level of commonality and tailoring for region and echelon.

Officials explained that there ‘s no one-size-fits-all solution, and systems must adhere to an open systems architecture.

“If we don’t do that openness from the sensor standpoint and the software standpoint, then that’s where we’ll lose that battle,” Brig. Gen. Wayne “Ed” Barker, program executive officer for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, told DefenseScoop in an interview at the Army’s Technical Exchange Meeting Dec. 12 in Savannah, Georgia.

The Army has been pursuing open systems requirements under something it calls Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (C5ISR)/Electronic Warfare Modular Open Suite of Standards (CMOSS). CMOSS allows for capabilities to be inserted, updated and swapped on hardware platforms — harnessing the modern abilities of software.

Tailoring for theater and echelon

The Army currently does not have a program-of-record jammer fielded. However, the service has been developing such a capability for several years and it’s expected to be fielded soon.

Additionally, the department has started thinking about other needs in the spectrum for forces to be successful against adept adversaries such as spectrum analyzers, spectrum management tools and deception capabilities to disguise forces within the spectrum.

Given the uniqueness of units and theaters, the Army can’t provide everyone the same gear like it did in previous years. For example, the Pacific region is rife with thick jungle foliage and vast distances, while Europe is more mountainous — all of which pose unique spectrum challenges. Light infantry, airborne and vehicle-based formations such as Stryker or armored units, also have different needs.

According to Barker, some level of commonality will provide a baseline to build capability, but then the PEO must be flexible enough to tailor on top of that “foundational capabilities. And then there may be specific new theater needs to get at ranges — PACOM versus EUCOM as an example,” he said, referring to U.S. forces in the Pacific and Europe.

The Terrestrial Layer System-Echelons Above Brigade (TLS-EAB) system — a signals intelligence, cyber and electronic warfare capability designed primarily for divisions, corps and Multi-Domain Task Forces to sense across greater distances — is a case in point.

The Army came to the determination that this solution would likely have to be tailored based on theater and thus, not provide a single solution to users.

“A lot of the conversation has been what are the commonality, what’s the commonality that could be generic enough, applicable to all — and then starting to look at the specific requirements that may be applicable to specific” areas of responsibility, Barker said of the EAB capability, which is still in early development with the Army and vendor Lockheed Martin.

It also gets to the notion that TLS is a family of systems, with a manpack version for soldiers to carry jammers while dismounted and the smaller Brigade Combat Team version that will be mounted on Strykers and eventually Army Multi-Purpose Vehicles — each for a specific unit or region.

All this tailorability and adaptability needed to stay ahead of adversaries in this dynamic environment requires the Army to work across communities to ensure systems and concepts work together.

“As we iterate with the materiel, everything that we learned on the materiel side needs to be fed back to the” Army capability managers, Baker said, referencing the personnel that generate requirements. “We have to move together [across the Army].”

Moreover, the capability managers and various PEOs have to be in lockstep, especially from a platform perspective. If a platform is designed without enough power or space for electronic warfare systems from the beginning, it will involve much more work later in the prototyping phase that will cost significantly more money in retrofitting and redesigning after the fact.

Much of these changes are making their way into contracting language, codifying their importance.

The post Commonality, adaptability will be key for Army to stay ahead of electronic warfare threats 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 National Defense Strategy, published in 2022, names China as the Department of Defense’s pacing challenge with Russia as an acute threat. Those two theaters pose distinct challenges for the electronic warfare community in the target sets and the physical attributes, which can affect how signals travel.

“The Army is undertaking this pretty large assessment of the EW portfolio focused on lessons learned” in the European area of responsibility, as well as what would be needed in Indo-Pacific Command, Brig. Gen. Wayne “Ed” Barker, program executive officer for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, told DefenseScoop in an interview at the TechNet Augusta conference. “There gets to be a lot of focus on the distances related to the PACOM [area of responsibility] … We’ll probably be getting some guidance over the next probably 30 to 60 days on the overall EW portfolio.”

After Russia initially invaded Ukraine in 2014, one of the big lessons the Army took away from that was the importance of electronic warfare and electromagnetic spectrum operations. Ukrainian forces were geolocated based on how much they were emitting in the spectrum and then fired upon, forcing the U.S. Army to pursue a complete overall in how it built and maneuvered its command posts.

It also demonstrated that the Army needed to reinvest in its electronic warfare and electronic attack arsenal that it divested after the Cold War.

Despite that wake-up call, the Army still does not have a program of record jammer in the field and officials continue to point to the current conflict in Ukraine to show how important electronic warfare is.

“The European [theater] definitely has driven a lot of this and it’s just shined a light as an Army, as an institution, we’ve let that capacity atrophy to some degree,” Barker said.

Others noted that requirements had been written for the European theater and now there is a wake-up call for the rest of the world.

“The requirements that were written, that are going to the [program manager] that they’re prototyping now precede the [current] Ukraine conflict. How do we catch up lessons learned with something that’s already in programmatics?” Col. Gary Brock, director and Army capabilities manager for electronic warfare, told DefenseScoop at TechNet Augusta. “As we think forward, in the EW portfolio, as we look at what’s happening in Russia, the [Nagorno-Karabakh] region, those two conflicts, it’s really been a wake-up call. What is the EW threat, not only just from an ability to generate energy, but what’s targetable? And that would be us. It’s really caused an Army internal moment to take a breath. OK, how do we rethink our fight?”

The Army has been forced to look at what theater capabilities are going to be needed – and to some degree, tailoring them as opposed to one kit for the entire force – and what echelon forces need what.

“What we’re looking for when I say family of systems is: echelon-based, theater-specific,” Brock said.

For Indopacom, Brock said capabilities will need to be capable of performing at longer ranges.

For example, the Army has altered its approach to its higher echelon, long-range sensing system, the Terrestrial Layer System-Echelons Above Brigade. It was 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.

“We can see that effort being tailored to different AORs based on the ranges and signals of interest that they would have to go after,” Barker said. “We see coming out of the different evaluations and modeling and try to understand what can be done from the ground, at what distance, because we will have to make a decision on what that looks like. What does it look like to get to the ranges that are being asked and what does that look like from a footprint standpoint, because we got to be very conscious.”

The platform has to “flex,” Francis Orzech, chief engineer for electronic warfare and cyber at PEO IEW&S, told DefenseScoop.

“That’s got to remain at the forefront because it can go to different places, different theaters, different targets, different geographies,” he said.

The Army is now transitioning to fighting with higher echelons as it must take on the possibility of larger distances in potential conflict with greater firepower in more sophisticated adversaries than non-state insurgent groups.

“When you come back to the division and the corps, now you’re starting to nuance between an INDOPAOM fight and a EUCOM fight,” Brock said, regarding how the Army is thinking of fighting at echelon and what capabilities must exist where. “Those families of systems and requirements are going to be very unique with different physics challenges within those families of systems. A division set or a corps set in INDOPACOM does have some nuances that industry partners we would like to integrate, that would already be possibly inherent in something that’s provided for EUCOM because that land-based fight is pretty native to the Army.”

When it comes to why the Army has yet to deliver systems to the force to date, officials explained that it is much more complicated than simply delivering a technology.

“It’s a bigger tail than just materiel accelerating materiel. It is broader than the acquisition materiel side, it’s the entire [Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities and Policy]. If we’re not advancing together, we’re really kind of fits and starts and we’re kind of not meshing totally,” Orzech said. “It’s that DOTMLPF-P that could really speed things up.”

With new capabilities and concepts, the Army must get the doctrine together, force structure to operate it and train the new personnel, among other things, before introducing it to the field as an official program.

Additionally, the lack of adequate test facilities to actually turn the jammers on hampers the timeline. Turning on jammers requires coordination with other federal agencies so as to not interfere with commercial systems such as airplanes, which limits training and testing.

“There are not many test ranges that will allow you to do the things we need to test … there’s a lot of limitations with that. There’s also a requirement to be able to train that at home station, so what does that look like,” Barker said. “You have to be able to do that. What’s good enough? Is it simulation, because you’re not going to be able to take this thing out and fire it up and have the [Federal Aviation Administration] calling.”

Three tiers of Army EW capabilities

The Army is thinking of three tiers of electronic warfare capabilities: high altitude, aerial and terrestrial.

Broadly, the high altitude will be focused on navigation warfare. The aerial layer will focus on disrupting, degrading, denying or amplifying effects. And the terrestrial layer will focus on disrupting enemy decision cycles within the edge of the battle.

Despite a raft of capabilities in development that will be fielded in the coming years spanning these tiers, the concept for how they interact and are operated is “very cerebral” currently, Brock said.

“When we think about the EW portfolio, we have to live natively in the maneuver, fires and effects,” he said.

In fact, in the fall, the Army will be experimenting with how it employs electronic warfare capabilities in combat during the Maneuver and Fires Integrated Experiment, or MFIX, exercise at Fort Sill.

Electronic warfare came from the fires community and Brock explained it is still thought of as a fires capability.

“I see EW being a very integrated portion of the next generation of fires,” he said. “Our first formation, I don’t see those being able to divorce themselves or isolate themselves from the EW fighters and the capabilities.”

At MFIX, the Army is taking some electronic warfare capabilities into a live operational experiment to analyze the shortfalls and the levels of integration.

Brock also pointed to the notion of what he termed disaggregating electronic attack from the platforms. One of the problems with creating electronic attack capabilities based on platforms that soldiers will be driving is once they are turned on to perform their designed effect, they effectively become a target as well given their electronic emission.

The goal is then to take that jamming capability and push it out to smaller, attractable systems that can be lost at no risk to soldiers or missions.

Moreover, Brock explained that in order to generate the desired effect, these systems and capabilities must be airborne to deliver their signals. This is where the Army is going with what it calls launched effects.

“Gaining altitude through a tethered UAS doesn’t really get us away from the platform. It just gives us a higher signature in the physical space,” he said. “Getting into launched effects or unmanned UASs or RSVs, which the infantry school is currently developing, give us those opportunities to partner and pair the EA on multi-platforms and gives as the multi-role and we want those small, we want them attributable so that they’re just can go away.

These would be systems – such as ALTIUS-600 or Coyote – that are launched from a ground platform and on the fly.

Brock said there is an approved Army requirement for them and they are working on an updated requirement focused on the distances required in Indopacom and what payloads can accomplish that.

The post As Army rebuilds electronic warfare arsenal, it looks to tailor for regions and echelons 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.