Intelligence notes

◉Dashboard↗

Electronic Warfare Systems

16 min read

Electronic Warfare Systems

BLUF

Electronic Warfare (EW) — the use of the electromagnetic spectrum as both a weapon and a domain of contest — has emerged as a decisive variable in the Ukraine War, revealing that NATO and Russian EW capabilities, doctrines, and force structures diverge in ways that expose fundamental Western assumptions about peer-level conflict. Russia’s deep investment in EW, institutionalized within the Radio-Electronic Combat (REC) force structure, has produced systematic GPS jamming, drone jamming, and communications suppression that degraded Ukrainian precision-strike capability, forced tactical adaptation in drone operations, and demonstrated that the US military’s reliance on GPS-dependent precision munitions constitutes a structural vulnerability in peer-level conflict. The Ukraine War has not merely tested EW systems — it has redefined the weight of the electromagnetic spectrum as a domain of military contest and validated Russian doctrine that control of the spectrum is a prerequisite for operational freedom of action.

EW Taxonomy

Electronic Warfare is conventionally divided into three functional pillars that interact in peer conflict to create cumulative effects neither can achieve in isolation.

Electronic Attack (EA)

EA encompasses all offensive uses of the electromagnetic spectrum against adversary equipment or personnel:

  • Jamming: deliberate electromagnetic interference to deny, degrade, or disrupt adversary communications, radar, or navigation signals. Noise jamming saturates frequency bands; spot jamming targets specific frequencies; barrage jamming covers wide spectrum sections.
  • Spoofing / Signal injection: transmission of false signals designed to be accepted as authentic — most consequentially applied to GPS, where a spoofed signal causes the receiver to accept an incorrect position fix while showing no error indication.
  • Directed Energy (DE): high-power microwave (HPM) or laser systems that use the electromagnetic spectrum to damage or destroy electronics, sensors, or optronics. Increasingly relevant in counter-UAS.
  • High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP): nuclear detonation above the atmosphere generating a transient electromagnetic field that can disable unshielded electronics across continental-scale areas. A theoretical extreme of EA with strategic-deterrence implications.

Electronic Protection (EP)

EP encompasses defensive measures to preserve friendly use of the spectrum under adversary EA:

  • Frequency hopping: rapid pseudo-random switching of transmission frequencies faster than an adversary jammer can track, used in systems such as SINCGARS and modern Link-16.
  • Spread-spectrum / LPI/LPD: Low Probability of Intercept/Detection techniques that distribute signal energy across wide bandwidth, making interception and jamming geometrically more difficult.
  • Emissions control (EMCON): disciplined management of all electromagnetic emissions to reduce adversary detection and direction-finding opportunities.
  • Hardening: Faraday shielding, EMP hardening, and software-defined radio architectures designed to survive electromagnetic attack.

Electronic Warfare Support (ES)

ES encompasses passive collection that enables the other two pillars:

  • SIGINT / ELINT: systematic intercept and analysis of adversary signal emissions — communications (COMINT) and non-communications emitters (ELINT, covering radars, navigation aids, weapons guidance systems).
  • Radar intercept / RWR: real-time detection of radar emissions to trigger evasive action or EA response; the backbone of airborne self-protection suites.
  • Order of Battle (EOB) mapping: sustained collection builds electronic order of battle — the identification and geolocation of all adversary emitters — which is the intelligence substrate for all offensive EW targeting.

Interaction in peer conflict: EA without ES is ineffective — jamming requires knowing what frequencies, waveforms, and protocols the adversary uses. EP without ES is reactive — without intelligence on adversary collection methods, protection is incomplete. In peer conflict, the side with superior ES-to-EA-to-EP integration has a decisive systemic advantage over a side with individually superior platforms operating without coordination.

Russian EW Architecture

Russia’s EW posture is distinguished from Western equivalents by its organizational institutionalization. The Radio-Electronic Combat (REC) concept — radioelektronnaya bor’ba (РЭБ) — treats EW not as a support function subordinated to other arms but as a full operational domain with dedicated force structure, organic doctrine, and dedicated procurement lines. REC units are embedded at brigade, division, and army level, providing EW coverage from tactical (company) to operational (theater) scale.

Key Systems

Krasukha-4 (Красуха-4)

  • Role: S-band active radar jamming, targeting airborne radar platforms
  • Assessed effective range: up to 300 km against airborne emitters
  • Primary targets: AWACS-class (E-3 Sentry, A-50 Mainstay), JSTARS ground surveillance radar, and airborne SIGINT platforms
  • Platform: truck-mounted (two-vehicle system)
  • Operational status: confirmed deployed to Ukraine theater
  • [High confidence — multiple open-source sightings and Ukrainian MoD acknowledgments]

Murmansk-BN (Мурманск-БН)

  • Role: HF communications jamming, intercept, and direction-finding
  • Assessed range: up to 5,000 km against HF communications targets
  • Primary targets: over-the-horizon NATO military and diplomatic communications
  • Platform: truck-mounted mast system; very large physical footprint
  • Strategic significance: capable of suppressing NATO strategic communications across European theater from Russian territory; represents a strategic-level EW capability with no Western equivalent at scale
  • [High confidence — openly acknowledged in Russian defense publications; confirmed by US/NATO assessments]

Zhitel (Житель, R-330Zh)

  • Role: GPS/GLONASS/NAVSTAR signal jamming and communications suppression in VHF/UHF bands
  • Primary targets: GPS-guided munitions, satellite phone communications, SATCOM terminals
  • Directly implicated in degradation of Ukrainian HIMARS HIMARS precision munitions in 2022-2023
  • [High confidence]

Khibiny (Хибины, L-175V)

  • Role: airborne self-protection EW suite; jamming and missile approach warning
  • Platform: underwing pods on Su-34 Fullback, Su-35S Flanker-E
  • Capabilities: radar jamming, missile uplink disruption, active decoy support
  • Assessed to have complicated Ukrainian air-to-air engagements against escorted strike packages
  • [Medium-high confidence — performance claims partially from Russian state sources; cross-referenced with pilot reporting]

Rychag-AV (Рычаг-АВ)

  • Role: helicopter-borne EW platform for tactical jamming and suppression
  • Platform: Mi-8MTPR-1 helicopter
  • Capabilities: multi-band jamming targeting communications, radar, and navigation signals; crew-directed EW support for ground forces
  • Tactical role: organic EW support at brigade level for combined-arms operations
  • [High confidence]

Borisoglebsk-2 (Борисоглебск-2)

  • Role: communications suppression in VHF/UHF/HF bands
  • Primary targets: tactical communications — manpack radios, vehicle radios, cellular systems adapted for battlefield use
  • Documented in Ukraine as degrading Ukrainian battlefield communications in areas of dense Russian EW deployment
  • [High confidence]

Systemic assessment: Russia’s EW architecture reflects a deliberate doctrinal choice to invest in organic EW at all echelons — not merely as a strategic capability held at theater level. This depth of integration means REC operates as an enabling condition for combined-arms maneuver rather than an adjunct capability called upon situationally. [High confidence — assessment grounded in RUSI, IISS, and US Army TRADOC open-source analysis]

Ukraine War EW Operations

The Ukraine War has generated the most extensively documented peer-level EW contest since the Cold War. Several operational patterns are analytically significant:

Russian GPS Jamming of Precision Munitions

Russian Zhitel and Krasukha-class systems generated GPS jamming fields that forced documented degradation of HIMARS GMLRS precision munitions — reducing circular error probable (CEP) from the sub-5m design specification to reported tens of meters in some operational zones. US response included adjustments to GMLRS guidance packages to incorporate greater INS weighting and anti-jam GPS receiver upgrades — a concrete example of real-time operational adaptation to peer EW threat. [High confidence — US DoD officials acknowledged the adaptation in backgrounders; munition accuracy degradation confirmed by Ukrainian military statements]

Suppression of Ukrainian Communications

Russian EW assets systematically targeted Ukrainian VHF/UHF battlefield communications at the outset of the full-scale invasion. Ukrainian forces reported significant communications disruption in the Kyiv axis and eastern theaters in the first weeks. Ukraine partially compensated through Starlink terminals, but Starlink itself became a target — Russia disrupted Starlink connectivity in eastern Ukraine through a combination of jamming and, critically, a cyberattack on ViaSat’s KA-SAT satellite communications network on the morning of the invasion (24 February 2022), disabling tens of thousands of terminals across Ukraine and broader Europe in the first major confirmed space-domain EW/cyber hybrid operation of the war.

FPV Drone Vulnerability and Counter-Adaptation

First-Person View (FPV) drones operating on commercial 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz frequencies proved acutely vulnerable to jamming. Russian vehicle-mounted jammers created denial zones that rendered commercial-frequency FPV drones operationally unusable in contested areas. Ukrainian adaptation followed two tracks: (1) encrypted frequency-hopping software-defined radio (SDR) links that complicate reactive jamming; (2) fiber-optic guided FPV drones — spooling fiber-optic cable from drone to operator, eliminating the electromagnetic link entirely and making jamming physically impossible. Fiber-optic FPV represents the most consequential tactical counter-EW innovation of the conflict. [High confidence — multiple open-source documentation from Ukrainian manufacturers and battlefield footage]

Russian EW Limiting Western Weapon Efficacy

Beyond HIMARS, Russian EW has been implicated in degraded performance of Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missiles (GPS/INS hybrid guidance, partially susceptible to GPS jamming in terminal phase), JDAM-ER glide bombs (GPS-primary guidance with known jamming vulnerability), and Excalibur GPS-guided artillery shells (Excalibur employment in Ukraine was significantly limited by Russian jamming, with Ukraine halting large-scale use in 2023 per reporting). This pattern constitutes the clearest validation in peer conflict of the structural vulnerability of GPS-dependent precision munitions. [High confidence — Excalibur limitation confirmed by US officials; Storm Shadow/JDAM susceptibility is assessed, partially confirmed]

US/NATO EW Posture

Western EW posture reflects a post-Cold War investment gap relative to Russia. Following the Cold War, US/NATO EW capabilities atrophied as procurement prioritized stealth, precision strike, and network-centric systems over contested electromagnetic environment operations.

US Airborne EW Platforms

EA-18G Growler

  • Primary US airborne EW platform; operated by US Navy and Royal Australian Air Force
  • Capabilities: AN/ALQ-218 wideband receiver suite; AN/ALQ-99 jamming pods; AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles; full-spectrum ES/EA/EP integration
  • Assessment: most capable purpose-built airborne EW platform in Western inventory; however, relatively small fleet size (approximately 160 US Navy aircraft) limits theater saturation coverage in peer conflict
  • [High confidence]

EC-130H Compass Call

  • Platform: modified C-130 Hercules; US Air Force (550th Electronic Combat Squadron)
  • Role: communications jamming; disrupts adversary command, control, and communications networks
  • Limitations: large, slow, low-survivability platform in contested airspace; suited for permissive or semi-permissive environments rather than peer conflict
  • Fleet transition: being replaced by EC-37B Compass Call II on Gulfstream G550 — smaller, faster, more survivable
  • [High confidence]

AN/ALQ-99 (Legacy System)

  • Towed jamming pod; original equipment on EA-6B Prowler, retained on EA-18G
  • Entering replacement phase with Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) — NGJ-Mid Band (AN/ALQ-249) reached IOC in 2024
  • [High confidence]

Army EW Gap

The US Army’s EW capability atrophied most severely relative to peer threat. Counter-IED jamming systems (JCREW — Joint Counter Radio-Controlled IED Electronic Warfare) were the primary Army EW investment in the 2003-2020 period — a counter-insurgency priority that does not translate to peer-level spectrum contest. Current modernization efforts include:

  • Multi-Function Electronic Warfare (MFEW): air-launched (MFEW-AL, on Gray Eagle UAS) and ground-based (MFEW-Ground) variants; targeting adversary tactical communications and UAS datalinks
  • Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool (EWPMT): software integration layer for coordinating EW across echelons; addresses the command-and-control deficit that limited Army EW effectiveness
  • Assessment: US Army EW modernization is acknowledged by TRADOC as a catch-up effort relative to Russian REC capability; the Ukraine War has accelerated but not yet resolved the gap. [High confidence — based on Congressional testimony and Army EW modernization program documentation]

JASSM/JDAM-ER Vulnerability

Both the AGM-158 JASSM family and JDAM-ER (Extended Range) glide bombs use GPS-primary guidance with INS backup. GPS jamming can degrade terminal accuracy — particularly for JDAM-ER, which uses a commercial GPS receiver more susceptible to jamming than military-spec M-code receivers. US DoD’s transition to M-code GPS across precision munitions is the primary near-term mitigation. [Medium confidence — specific vulnerability margins are classified; structural exposure to GPS jamming is publicly acknowledged by DoD]

Drone/Counter-UAS EW

Counter-UAS EW has become the most rapidly evolving sub-domain of electronic warfare, driven by the proliferation of commercial and military drones at all scales.

Commercial Drone Jamming

Commercial drones (DJI and equivalent platforms) operating on standard ISM-band frequencies (2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz, GPS L1/L2) are acutely vulnerable to off-the-shelf and military EW. The DJI Aeroscope identification protocol, originally a safety/identification system, was exploited by both sides in Ukraine to locate drone operators — prompting DJI to disable Aeroscope for Ukraine in 2022. Vehicle-mounted jammers capable of disrupting commercial-band UAS are now standard infantry equipment across both Russian and Ukrainian units at company level.

The Jammer-Drone Arms Race

The EW contest around FPV drones constitutes a high-tempo technological arms race compressed into months rather than years:

  1. Russian jammers deny 2.4/5.8 GHz bands → Ukrainian drones lose video/control link
  2. Ukraine shifts to frequency-hopping SDR links → Russian jammers must adapt
  3. Ukraine deploys fiber-optic FPV → jamming physically circumvented
  4. Russian forces target fiber-optic spool mechanisms and deploy visual-acquisition EW (disrupting optical guidance systems)

This cycle is unprecedented in speed — illustrating how commercial technology diffusion has collapsed the developmental timeline of EW adaptation from years to weeks. [High confidence — documented in detail by Ukrainian drone manufacturers, DeepState map analysis, and RUSI reporting]

Directed Energy Counter-UAS

High-Power Microwave (HPM) and laser systems represent the emerging EW frontier for counter-UAS. US systems include the Epirus Leonidas HPM effector (vehicle-mounted) and Raytheon’s High Energy Laser (HEL) platforms. The electromagnetic nature of HPM effects — disabling drone electronics at range without kinetic engagement — positions these as inherently EW capabilities with counter-UAS application. [Medium confidence — systems are developmental/early operational; performance claims are vendor-sourced pending independent validation]

GPS Spoofing

GPS spoofing is analytically distinct from jamming and represents a more sophisticated threat: rather than denying GPS signal, spoofing injects a false signal that the receiver accepts as genuine, generating a position error without triggering any alert to the operator.

Documented Incidents

  • RQ-170 capture, Iran (December 2011): Iran claimed to have used GPS spoofing to redirect and land a US RQ-170 Sentinel UAV. The US denied adversary EW as a cause, but independent analysis of the aircraft’s GPS-reliant autopilot made the spoofing explanation technically plausible. [Medium confidence — Iranian claim, US denial; technical plausibility assessed as high]
  • Baltic Sea navigation disruption (ongoing, 2022-present): Systematic GPS spoofing affecting commercial aviation and maritime navigation around Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg. Aircraft have reported false position fixes in multiple documented incidents, consistent with Russian EW testing of GPS spoofing at scale in a domain where real-world impact is observable. [High confidence — confirmed by aviation safety authorities and GPS monitoring NGOs including GPSJam.org]
  • Middle East commercial aviation (2023-present): Widespread GPS spoofing events affecting commercial aircraft across Iraq, Iran, and Eastern Mediterranean — affecting position, time, and in some cases triggering TCAS advisories based on false positions. Multiple airlines have issued operational advisories. [High confidence — OPSGROUP documentation; confirmed by aviation authorities]

Strategic Significance of Spoofing

Spoofing is harder to detect and counter than jamming: a jammed receiver shows signal loss; a spoofed receiver shows a confident but false fix. Military GPS receivers with M-code and anti-spoofing (A-S) encryption are significantly more resistant, but the proliferation of GPS-dependent commercial systems in military logistics, communications, and timing infrastructure creates broad attack surface even where weapons-grade receivers are protected.

Strategic Implications

EW as a domain, not a support function: The Ukraine War has empirically validated the Russian doctrinal proposition that control of the electromagnetic spectrum is a prerequisite for operational freedom of action — not a force multiplier for an otherwise capable force. Russian REC integration at all echelons enabled communications suppression, navigation denial, and ISR degradation that cumulatively constrained Ukrainian military effectiveness in ways no single kinetic system could have achieved.

The GPS-dependence structural vulnerability: Two decades of Western precision-strike development built on GPS created a systemic vulnerability to peer EW that is now a documented operational reality, not a theoretical risk. The adaptation cycle — GPS jamming forces INS-weighted guidance upgrades, anti-jam receivers, alternate navigation modes (terrain-referenced navigation, time-difference-of-arrival systems) — is now a recognized modernization priority across the US, UK, and major NATO militaries. The cost and timeline of correcting this structural exposure across existing precision munition inventories is significant.

Commercial technology compressing EW adaptation cycles: The jammer-drone arms race in Ukraine has demonstrated that commercial electronics diffusion has fundamentally altered EW development timelines. The traditional EW development cycle (collection, analysis, jamming system development, procurement, deployment — measured in years) is now being compressed to weeks at the tactical level by commercially available SDR hardware and open-source signal processing software. This has equalized certain EW capabilities between state and non-state actors in ways that large defense procurement programs cannot easily track.

NATO EW investment trajectory: The Ukraine War has forced a reassessment across NATO defense establishments. US Army EW modernization (MFEW, EWPMT), the NGJ program for the EA-18G, and renewed interest in directed energy counter-UAS reflect institutional acknowledgment that the EW capability gap with Russia is real and consequential. However, the investment cycle from acknowledgment to fielded capability is measured in years — the gap exists now.

Assessment: Electronic warfare dominance in the electromagnetic spectrum may be as decisive as kinetic firepower superiority in peer conflict. The Ukraine War has provided the clearest empirical evidence of this proposition in open-source documentation since Cold War Cold War proxy conflicts. It has also identified the corrective actions required — organizational, doctrinal, and material — that Western militaries are now actively pursuing. [High confidence — cross-corroborated by RUSI, IISS, US Army TRADOC, Congressional Research Service, and classified assessments referenced in open testimony]

Key Connections

  • HIMARS — primary target of Russian GPS jamming; GMLRS guidance degradation documented
  • Shahed-136 — Russian strike platform operating in EW-contested airspace; EW support for air defense suppression
  • Ukraine War — primary empirical laboratory for peer EW operations 2022-present
  • Russian Federation — principal state actor with mature REC doctrine and deployed EW architecture
  • Multi-Domain Operations — EW is the electromagnetic domain layer of MDO; US Army MDO doctrine directly shaped by Ukraine EW lessons
  • Signals Intelligence — EW Support (ES) and SIGINT are overlapping disciplines; EOB mapping is the intelligence substrate for all EW targeting
  • Drone Swarms — drone swarms intensify EW demands; spectrum saturation by large UAS formations creates EW targeting complexity
  • Commercial Satellite Imagery — EW targeting of ISR platforms; Krasukha-4 designed to suppress airborne ISR

Sources

  • RUSI: “Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine” (2022, 2023) — [High confidence]
  • US Army TRADOC: “The Art of Army Maneuver” and EW gap analysis (unclassified) — [High confidence]
  • Congressional Research Service: “Electronic Warfare: Background and Issues for Congress” (2023) — [High confidence]
  • IISS Military Balance (2024) — Russian REC order of battle — [High confidence]
  • International Institute for Strategic Studies: “Adapting to the EW Environment in Ukraine” (2024) — [High confidence]
  • OPSGROUP: GPS spoofing incident reporting, Middle East and Baltic — [High confidence]
  • GPSJam.org: Baltic Sea / Kaliningrad GPS jamming monitoring data — [High confidence]
  • C4ISRNET: US Army EW modernization program reporting (MFEW, EWPMT) — [Medium-high confidence]
  • War on the Rocks: “Electronic Warfare in Ukraine” — Mitchell Institute, Watling/Reynolds — [High confidence]
  • Breaking Defense: EC-37B Compass Call II program updates — [Medium-high confidence]
  • Ukrainian drone manufacturer open-source reporting (Skyeton, FPV Ukraine consortium) — [Medium confidence — operational, not peer-reviewed]

Graph View

Backlinks