All modern forces depend on unimpeded access to, and use of, the EM spectrum in conducting military operations. Therefore, there is a requirement to gain and maintain an advantage in the electromagnetic spectrum by countering adversary’s systems and protecting one’s own systems. Adversary can disrupt and degrade the navigation systems on precision guided munitions (PGMs) and cause missiles to go off course, as well as suppress a country’s air defense systems through jamming.
Thus the EM spectrum can no longer be viewed as an enabler, but rather as a primary warfighting domain, on par with land, sea, air and space operations. This is leading to race among all Militaries to introduce innovations in sensors and communications, countermeasures, and counter-countermeasures in an attempt to gain an advantage over their enemies.
Electronic warfare provide means to counter adversary’s systems while protecting one’s own systems through Electronic Attack (EA), Electronic Protection (EP) and Electronic Support (ES). EA is the electronic countermeasure which includes jamming and deception of enemy radars, electro-optic and communication systems. It also includes use of anti-radiation missiles (ARM), electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and directed energy weapons (DEW). Electronic protection (EP) is the ECCM including such measures as emission control (EMCON), communication security (COMSEC) and electromagnetic hardening. Electronic support (ES) includes all actions taken for the purpose of real-time threat reorganization in support of immediate decisions involving EA, EP, weapon avoidance, targeting or other tactical employment of forces e.g. Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) and Communication Intelligence (COMINT).
Russian Electronic Warfare Systems
Today, EW has become integral to Russia’s approach to warfare in the modern era, where it has gained extensive experience in Ukraine and Syria. In eastern Ukraine, Russia used unmanned aerial vehicles and ground systems to jam Ukrainian satellite, cellular, and radio communications. Furthermore, Russian EW units also worked intimately with drones and rocket artillery batteries in a highly coordinated fashion. While jamming Ukrainian communications, Russia’s own drones would triangulate the sources of electronic emissions to find targets. Once targets were located and confirmed, an overwhelming artillery barrage would be called in.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered that at least 70% of all Russian EW equipment modernized by 2020.According to Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov, that figure is now closer to 80 or 90 percent. In 2009, Russia also formed units entirely dedicated to EW operations. As assessed by Roger McDermott, the Russian EW forces are well-equipped, well-coordinated, and well-integrated with other combat arms like air defense and artillery. Russian EW is found throughout every arm and branch of service, making it nearly impossible to avoid. Moreover, all of Russia’s combat arms are well-honed from years of electronic combat experience.
During Recent ongoing Syrian conflict Russia has demonstrated many advanced weapons, one of which were advanced electronic warfare systems. “Among key advantages of domestic electronic warfare equipment compared to foreign analogues can be named its greater range, which is achieved thanks to the use of more powerful transmitters and more efficient antenna systems,” said Russian Electronic Warfare Forces commander Maj. Gen. Yury Lastochkin, as reported by TASS. Russia has deployed Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) and SIGINT aircraft, such as the Il-20, an offshoot of the United States’ P-3 Orion, and the newest Tu-214R, ELINT and SIGINT collection and targeting aircraft.
Russia has become so adept at employing EW that US forces must now reduce their electromagnetic footprint or risk enemies using this information to geolocate, jam, and then fire upon them. As told by Laurie Buckhour, a retired Army colonel, “All of a sudden your communications won’t work, or you can’t call for fire, or you can’t warn of incoming fires because your radars have been jammed and they can’t detect anything.”
The U.S. currently has too few EW assets, with many of them being old and outdated compared to Russia. While the Navy is doing slightly better than the other services, possessing aircraft such as the EA-18G Growler electronic attack plane, the Army and Air Force have largely allowed their EW expertise atrophy. This has created information warfare asymmetry with US military who must now fight their way through a degraded information environment, facing a diminished ability to synchronize and execute operations.
U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of U.S. European Command told the House Armed Services Committee: “They [Russians] have invested a lot in electronic warfare because they know we are a connected and precise force and they need to disconnect us to make us imprecise.” During his testimony, Breedlove admitted that the Pentagon had neglected electronic warfare during the past two decades—which has allowed the Kremlin to gain an advantage.
Pentagon refocusing on electronic warfare
Recently, the Pentagon seems to be refocusing on electronic warfare. The vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is mulling the possibility of designating the electromagnetic spectrum as a warfighting domain—like the air, sea or land. “Spectrum operations are so important that we ought to look at declaring the electromagnetic spectrum a domain.” “In equipping our forces, we plan to develop advanced electronic attack, advanced electronic warfare support, harden our kill-chains with electronic protection and invest in electromagnetic battle management to manage the numerous assets in the battlespace,” Pentagon spokesman Maj. Roger Cabiness told Defense Systems.
In Oct 2020, the Department of Defense announced the release of the DOD Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority Strategy. It recognized, “The Freedom of action in the electromagnetic spectrum, at the time, place, and parameters of our choosing, is a required precursor to the successful conduct of operations in all domains.” This 2020 Strategy builds upon the successes of and supersedes both the DoD’s 2013 EMS Strategy and 2017 EW Strategy.
“The Department is transitioning from the traditional consideration of EW as separable from spectrum management to a unified treatment of these activities as Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations (EMSO),” Secretary of Defense Mark Esper wrote in the foreword to the publication released in October 2020. “Consequently, this 2020 Department of Defense EMS Superiority Strategy builds on essential objectives from the 2013 DOD EMS Strategy and the 2017 DOD EW Strategy, and takes the Department another critical step forward in implementing the 2018 National Defense Strategy. This Strategy seeks to align EMS resources, capabilities, and activities across the DOD to support our core national security objectives while remaining mindful of the importance of U.S. economic prosperity. Additionally, this Strategy lays the foundation for a robust EMS enterprise, prepares EMS professionals to leverage new technologies, and focuses on strengthening alliances to achieve the Department’s vision of Freedom of Action in the Electromagnetic Spectrum.”
The EMS Superiority Strategy includes five goals: develop superior EMS capabilities; evolve to an agile integrated EMS infrastructure; pursue total force EMS readiness; secure enduring partnerships for EMS advantage; and establish effective EMS governance.
Jonathan Leitner, the radio frequency (RF) product marketing engineer for Menlo Microsystems Inc. in Irvine Calif., notes that “Battlespace dominance requires the upper hand in tactical and strategic troop and asset capabilities, and superiority with C6ISR — command, control, communications, computers, cyber-defense and combat systems and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. All of these are interconnected in a fabric that is reliant on the electromagnetic spectrum, particularly radio frequencies from HF to millimeter-wave. The U.S. will need to maintain a level of supremacy in the core RF technologies, from the component to the systems level. This will require that domestic companies stay far ahead of adversaries in core research in semiconductors, materials sciences, architectures, software tools, and manufacturing.”
Electromagnetic Warfare Capability
As the U.S. looks to the future, some capabilities it may need to invest in include “penetrating” jammers, such as fifth-generation stealthy aircraft, that can stay out of range of Russian EW equipment and surface-to-air missiles. With smaller radar cross sections that make them difficult to detect, fifth-generation jets such as the F-35 will be harder to target and can better slip into adversary airspace in order to conduct EW and strike operations.
US Military is developing advanced electronic warfare systems. Electromagnetic weapons can destroy, intercept or jam approaching enemy missiles, drones, rockets or aircraft at much lesser cost than firing an interceptor missile which can cost up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. This tactic would both force enemies to spend money on expensive weapons while decreasing the offensive and defensive weaponry costs to the U.S., therefore advancing a “cost-imposing” strategy, as Cabiness explained.
U.S. Army announced that it would be ensure every brigade combat team will have an EW platoon and a separate signals intelligence (SIGINT) network support team. This gels with the preface penned by Maj. Gen. Robert M. Dyes Jr. for the U.S. Army Concept for Cyberspace and Electronic Warfare Operations 2025-2040.
“Defeating future enemies that possess advanced capabilities calls for land forces operating as part of integrated joint teams that conduct simultaneous and sequential operations across multiple domains,” Dyes wrote in 2018. “In multi-domain battle, future Army forces will fight and win across all contested spaces to create windows of advantage across multiple domains that enable Joint Force freedom of action to seize, retain and exploit the initiative.
“The Army will operate in and through cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum and will fully integrate cyberspace, EW, and electromagnetic spectrum operations as part of joint combined arms operations to meet future operational environment challenges,” Dyes continued. “These operations provide commanders the ability to conduct simultaneous, linked maneuver in and through multiple domains and to engage adversaries and populations where they live and operate. They also provide commanders a full range of physical and virtual, as well as kinetic and non-kinetic, capabilities tailored into combinations that enhance the combat power of maneuver elements conducting joint combined operations.”
US Army developing Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool, or EWPMT
Currently, the Army is developing an Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool, or EWPMT, to manage and control electronic warfare assets in support of unified land operations. According to Army News Service, through the EWPMT, the Army can now visually synergize its EW attack, targeting, and surveillance capabilities to enable the maneuverability of forces. The tool also improves spectrum management operations and assists with the intelligence-gathering process.
Operators can streamline the process between the EWPMT and fires support, in addition to being able to configure their system to generate automated responses to a variety of signals or alerts, officials said. Once a EWPMT system is triggered, the program will initiate its automated workflow, often distributing information throughout a tactical operations center. Depending on the engagement, operators can initiate a fire mission and provide tactical graphics for support.
“Operational units can now visualize the electromagnetic spectrum,” said Lt. Col. Jason Marshall, product manager for Electronic Warfare Integration. “EWPMT is the commander’s primary tool to integrate multi-domain operations into their military decision-making process,” he added.
While still under development — EWPMT increment one, capability drop three — is leveraging user feedback to allow EWPMT to support the electronic warfare officer’s techniques, tactics, and procedures, Marshall said. A pool of electronic warfare Soldiers and electromagnetic spectrum managers, or 25Es, from across the Army are involved in the program.Instead of waiting for EW to become an official part of the targeting process, program officials are trying to get ahead of the curve to fulfill a future requirement, said Capt. Daniel J. Nicolosi, EWPMT assistant product manager.
Currently, EW operators “have nothing,” added Chief Warrant Officer 2 Will Flanagan, senior electronic warfare targeting officer, who is assigned to the operations group at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. As an operator, Flanagan is highly involved in the EWPMT’s ongoing developmental process. “With the EWPMT in front of me, I can show the commander where we’re at, and what we can do,” he said. “This will give us that spot on the TOC floor. This is the first tool to allow us to do our jobs.”
Future iterations of the EWPMT program, officials said, will focus on pacing the threat’s capabilities within a disconnected, intermittent, and latent environment. In turn, the program will help refine the Army’s ability to conduct cyberspace electromagnetic activities in support of multi-domain operations and enable the Army to fight and win on a complex battlefield.
US Air Force planning cognitive artificial intelligence (AI) F-15 aircraft electronic warfare (EW)
The U.S. Air Force is looking to add new “cognitive” capabilities that leverage artificial intelligence, or AI, and machine learning, into electronic warfare systems. The Air Force Life Cycle Manager Center (AFLCMC) at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio issued the contracting notice relating to adding cognitive electronic warfare capabilities onto F-15 variants on March 11, 2021. The F-15 Program Office is interested in “cognitive (artificial intelligence/machine learning) EW [electronic warfare] capabilities … that can be fielded in the next two years and incrementally improved upon and integrated into EW systems currently in development for the F-15,” according to that announcement.
The main goal is to be able to increasingly automate and otherwise speed up critical processes, from analyzing electronic intelligence to developing new electronic warfare measures and countermeasures, potentially in real-time and across large swathes of networked platforms. True cognitive EW systems, should be able to enter into an environment not knowing anything about adversarial systems, understand them and even devise countermeasures rapidly.
Niedzwiecki, of BAE, said that in decades past when forces would deploy to a theater and observe a type of jamming signal, frequency, wavelength or bandwidth, troops would collect evidence and take it to a laboratory for analysis and countermeasure development. Months later, a countermeasure or antidote would be programmed in the system and used in theater. The advances in software and reprogrammable radios make this previous paradigm infeasible, he said, leading to a new shift in leveraging machine learning.
Though the service has not identified any particular electronic warfare suites it is looking to improve in this way, the forthcoming Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System, or EPAWSS, for its existing F-15E Strike Eagles and new F-15EXs would appear to be the most likely candidate. EPAWSS is an all-digital self-protection system intended to replace the existing AN/ALQ-135 Tactical Electronic Warfare System (TEWS) found on the F-15E. While its exact capabilities are highly sensitive, we know that the new suite can detect, categorize, and geolocate various kinds of electromagnetic emissions, including those from hostile radars. It can then prioritize which ones present the biggest threats and then employ its jammers and other countermeasures against them.
US Navy continuous upgrades for shipboard electronic warfare system
Last year, Northrop Grumman was awarded a $267m contract by the US Navy to develop and manufacture the next-generation SEWIP Block 3 system. SEWIP Block 3 will provide Electronic Attack (EA) capability improvements required for the AN/SLQ-32(V) system to keep pace with the threat. The SEWIP Block 3 solution features active and passive arrays, and electronic warfare and communications functions with continuous 360° coverage. Designed to easily interact with the combat management system, the system’s multi-mission technology provides unprecedented situational awareness to detect, track and engage threats in high-clutter environments.
In contrast to traditional systems designed to operate in a narrow range of frequencies against known threats, “SEWIP Block 3 brings active electronic attack across a wider frequency range…with digital processing that will facilitate new ‘intelligent’ EW processing that will enable the system to react to signals it has never seen before,” said retired Navy commander Bryan Clark, now with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “SEWIP Block 3’s AESA array enables it to be a passive sensor, communication array, or a radar,” he added. “It could also confuse or obscure aircraft and ship radars” as part of the Navy’s new “electromagnetic maneuver warfare” concept.
Traditionally, ships try to shoot down incoming missiles with their own interceptor missiles at the longest possible range, Clark says, but long-range interceptors are expensive and bulky, and ships can’t carry enough — nor can the Navy afford enough — to fend off a Chinese or Russian-style mass salvo. That puts a premium on “non-kinetic” systems that can keep shooting as long as they have electrical power, like the Navy’s prototype laser or the SEWIP Block 3 jammer.
BAE Systems to develop next-generation full spectrum electronic warfare technology
The US Office of Naval Research (ONR) has awarded $11m contract to BAE Systems for developing next-generation electronic warfare (EW) technology that will quickly detect, locate, and identify emitters of radio frequency signals over all threat bands and from all directions. Known as the Full-Spectrum Staring Receiver (FSSR), this technology will enable near-instantaneous full-scale battlespace situational awareness, emitter identification and tracking, threat warning and countermeasure & weapon cueing. Conventional situational awareness systems are not able to deliver the high level of coverage and responsiveness that FSSR will provide.
The ONR programme aims to develop and display a range of next-generation EW systems that prevent adversaries from tapping into the electromagnetic spectrum while ensuring unrestrictive usage to the nation’s allies.
BAE Systems Gets US Army Contract for Advanced Radar Jamming Technology
BAE Systems was awarded research and development funding through the U.S. Army to create an advanced radar jamming technology. The technology aims to improve air survivability and mission effectiveness for U.S. Army rotary-wing aircraft and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) by detecting and defeating complex and unknown threats in electronic combat.
As part of the contract, BAE Systems FAST Labs research and development team will design technology to integrate adaptive radio frequency jamming and sensing capabilities into one system. Whereas today’s electronic countermeasure systems are too bulky and heavy for most rotary-wing and UAS platforms, BAE Systems technology will combine multiple, software-programmable antennas into a digital phased array that will enable simultaneous functions, exceeding existing capabilities while reducing the size, weight, and power (SWaP) of current systems. The technology will enable these platforms to safely fly closer to threats and within contested areas while remaining protected.
“With the continuously evolving threat landscape, it’s critical to provide the next-generation of digital phased array technology to better defend our armed forces in electronic warfare,” said Chris Rappa, product line director for Radio Frequency, Electronic Warfare, and Advanced Electronics at BAE Systems FAST Labs. “Our technology will give the Army’s rotary-wing aircraft and UAS a new, low SWaP system to securely and drastically increase their range of movements in future missions.”
EA-18G Growlers, Billed as the only operational tactical jamming fighter in the world, is a specialised version of the F/A18-F Super Hornet, and since achieving initial operational capability in September 2009, it has been equipped with the AN/ALQ-99 airborne EW system.
U.S. Navy had commissioned a $279.4-million contract to enhance the jamming features of the EA-18G Growler airframe to maintain air superiority in the modern battle space when adversaries employ latest radar technologies to counter stealth, advanced surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems and other anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems.
The goal of the upgrade is to present a platform for airborne electronic attacks (AEAs) that could adapt to the latest in EW requirements, which include suppression of enemy air defenses, stand-off/escort jamming, non-traditional electronic attack, self-protect/time-critical strike support, and continuous capability enhancement.
Enter the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ), a new, more capable EW system that combines agile, high-power beam-jamming techniques and state-of-the-art solid-state electronics to give wider threat coverage, greater precision and enhanced mission flexibility. According to the US Naval Air Systems Command, it “will provide enhanced airborne electronic attack capabilities to disrupt and degrade enemy air defence and ground communication systems.”
The contract called for standoff jamming technology that brings next-generation jamming assets to the U.S. Navy— Such features rely on the ability to locate, record, replay, and jam hostile communications while tracking across an extremely broad frequency range. Maintaining the ability to communicate with allied forces while operating jamming electronics is another critical requirement.
The NGJ programme aims to jam three radar and communications frequency ranges used by adversaries by developing three jammers: NGJ Mid Band, NGJ Low Band and, eventually, NGJ High Band.
Raytheon has implemented a highly efficient AESA-based (actively electronically steered array) jamming system with high power and wideband gallium-nitride (GaN) technology. “Due to the nature of it being an AESA, you can form many beams or a super beam with a lot of energy. It is agile, so you can dart from one system to another system on the ground almost instantaneously,” says Andy Lowery, the NGJ chief engineer for Raytheon.
The array modules include electronics that use GaN high-power amplifiers (HPAs). Those amplifiers drive the power signals through the circulators and apertures to the array elements. The AESAs can therefore form high-energy RF beams with advanced signal capability that can be steered by a highly advanced and rapidly reprogrammable computer.
The NGJ is built with open architecture technology using Raytheon’s airborne radio frequency systems, jamming techniques, combat-proven antenna array technology, and sophisticated, solid-state electronics. Proprietary and closed system designs limit rapid, innovative technology insertion and hamper the ability to match or out-pace emerging threat developments. The Next-Generation Jammer (NGJ), for aircrafts and unmanned aerial vehicles, has an open architecture.
The NGJ reportedly goes beyond traditional jamming too, adding signals intelligence and a communications hub capability to the more usual EW and radar tasks for the AESA array. There have also been some reports that the system has the potential ability to launch a cyber-attack, involving inserting rogue data packets into enemy systems in a so-called “network invasion.” Such an attack is rumoured to have played a part in the 2007 Israeli ‘Operation Orchard’ raid on a nuclear plant near the eastern Syrian city of Dir A-Zur, in which BAE’s ‘Suter’ airborne network attack system was said to have shut down Syria’s Russian-made air defences.
The US Navy alluded to its interest in the idea in its 2015 ‘A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower’, adding ‘all-domain access’ to the traditional four functions of the fleet, and according anti-access/area denial threats almost the same priority as nuclear deterrence. It would hardly come as a big surprise, then, if the reports of the new system’s additional cyber offensive capability were ultimately to turn out to be true.
US Navy and Boeing demonstrate new targeting technologies for EA-18G
The US Navy and Boeing have successfully demonstrated new targeting technologies for EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, in a bid to enhance the aircraft’s situational awareness capabilities. The Growler aircraft is a derivative of the two-seat F/A-18 Hornet and is used to conduct electronic attack (EA) and suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD).
Using the new high-bandwidth data link, an advanced targeting processor, an open architecture and a tablet integrated with the mission system, data was integrated from multiple Growlers operating with an E-2 Hawkeye aircraft. This technology enabled EA-18G to detect targets over longer distances and quickly share information. US Navy F/A-18 and EA-18Gprogramme manager captain David Kindley said: “This enhanced targeting capability provides our aircrews with a significant advantage, especially in an increasingly dense threat environment where longer-range targeting is critical to the fight.”
Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18G programmes vice-president Dan Gillian added: “The complexity of global threat environments continues to evolve. “This long-range targeting technology is essential as we advance electronic attack capabilities for the conflicts of today and tomorrow.”
Electronic warfare capabilities increasingly are being added to unmanned platforms, whether they are in the sky, on the ground, and even underwater. “Unmanned EW platforms can take humans out of direct conflict, which saves lives, but will limit the ability to discern nuances that only well-trained personnel can detect,” says Menlo Micro’s Leitner. “This is why EW platforms will still be required for command, control, and communications. Unmanned systems will grow more important as a complementary platform but not as a replacement to piloted ones.”
Jeff Bateman, line manager of field-programmable gate array (FPGA) products at Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions in Santa Clarita, Calif., says that using unmanned vehicles for EW will enable the swarming of large numbers of drones. “For example, increased sensor bandwidth could be accommodated by upgrading the RF and data converter boards, while upgrading to newer DSP or GPGPU boards satisfies increased processing requirements,” Bateman says. DSP stands for digital signal processing, while GPGPU stands for general-purpose graphics processing unit.
Network Centric EW
The current platform-centric EW systems are limited in their ability to generate essential EW effects required to counter emerging threat system developments and employ advanced EW concepts. The adversaries are fielding increasingly sophisticated networked and agile systems, RF sensing and communications systems, including short-range tactical communications, long-range command and control (C2) communications networks, networked defensive systems, and RF seekers. This is partly due to rising commercial investments in RF materials, components, and subsystems thereby reducing the cost to deploy high power, agile systems.
DARPA is focusing on the development of next generation EW systems, to counter these advanced networked and agile systems using technologies such as distributed systems, coherent systems, disposable systems, providing asymmetric capabilities, and close-in remote sensing coupled with advanced jamming and spoofing.
The vision for distributed EW is a network-enabled, coordinated and spatially distributed EW system-of-systems to counter emerging asymmetric threat capabilities by providing time-critical situational awareness (SA) of adversary dispositions and activity, denial of the enemy’s SA of friendly force dispositions and activity, and camouflage and deception to dilute enemy engagement capacity.
Distributed EW will provide the following objective capabilities: wide area, real-time location determination of adversary emitters; automated recognition of threat emitter operating modes; adaptive electronic attack response to threat emitters; wide area camouflaging to deny target detection or cause misclassification of targets; wide-area deception through synchronized decoy control; denial or corruption of enemy sensing capabilities by synthetic generation of high-density clutter environments; seamless operability and graceful degradation of network- enabled functions in dense EM environments; and simplified scalability and ability to upgrade through modular and open systems architecture design.
Some of the emerging and future Technology areas in Electronic Warfare include: broad-band multifunctional jamming system, full spectrum electronic warfare, AESA-based (actively electronically steered array) jamming system with high power and wideband gallium-nitride (GaN) technology; Adaptive and responsive jamming; Cognitive EW, Network Centric EW, Precision electronic attack; Counter-space capabilities (kinetic and non-kinetic); Metamaterials for electromagnetic and auditory cloaking; autonomous decoys; and Quantum encryption techniques (which can sense if the communications link is being intercepted)
Electronic warfare platforms also are following military and aerospace industry trends in embracing open-systems standards. “Open standards make it easier to build highly integrated, scalable EW systems that can keep up with changing application requirements,” says Curtiss-Wright’s Bateman. “For example, increased sensor bandwidth could be accommodated by upgrading the RF and data converter board(s), while upgrading to newer DSP or GPGPU boards satisfies increased processing requirements.
“The use of open standards eases integration between different pieces of the EW system technology chain,” Bateman continues. “So, you can have a tuner outputting data in a standardized form, such as VITA 49 (VITA Radio Transport) to an FPGA-based device or SBC. The receiving device can then ingest that data in a standardized way then process that data. So, integration of components from different parts of Curtiss-Wright or even different companies is eased by that standardization.”
Bateman says that Sensor Open Systems Architecture (SOSA) standards help build upon existing VITA VPX standards. “SOSA also eases the integration of different types of processing in an EW system, so that you can leverage a wide variety of processing types, for example, FPGA, SBC or GPU processing,” says Bateman. “Different types of hardware can be easily and more readily applied in the same physical environment thanks to standardized and defined pin-outs, etc. That means, too, that you can more easily change the system configuration in the future if needed, if, for example, a new higher-performance FPGA or DSP becomes available. Upgrades are simplified because of standardization.
“EW by its very nature is a protean challenge that is continually evolving as adversaries develop new techniques and technologies. To keep up with these ever-changing requirements you need a smooth path for upgradeability, which is why open standards are so attractive,” concludes Bateman.
References and Resources also include: