Valiant Shield has grown into one of the handful of exercises where the U.S. joint force practices integrated, long‑range, multi‑domain operations. For EW practitioners and engineers the 2024 iteration should be treated as a rehearsal for operationalizing joint electromagnetic spectrum operations at scale. Expect the exercise to drive tests of electromagnetic battle management, cross‑domain sensor fusion, distributed electronic attack and protection concepts, and operational coordination with allied partners in a congested Pacific spectrum environment.

Why EW will be front and center

Two linked trends make EW a central focus for VS24. First, the services and combatant commands are actively fielding capability layers intended to make spectrum decision making faster and more joint. DISA and operational partners have been maturing Electromagnetic Battle Management toolsets designed to create a common data layer and a shared EMS picture across services and commands. Those systems moved from concept to initial field releases and prototyping in late 2023 and early 2024, which makes an operational exercise like Valiant Shield a logical venue to stress them under realistic conditions.

Second, the joint force is formalizing organizational constructs and processes to coordinate EMS activities across CCMDs and the Joint Force. U.S. Strategic Command and other stakeholders have been pushing Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations concepts and establishment of joint EMS cells and authorities for some time. Exercises are now the place to validate how those cells will influence targeting, deconfliction, and maneuver at operational tempo.

Key EW focus areas to watch

1) Electromagnetic Battle Management and decision support

What it is: software and data architectures that ingest sensor feeds, model RF environments, run COA comparisons and support coordinated EMS planning across components.

What to watch for: how EMBM tools handle real world data latency, interoperability with service planning tools, and whether planners can push coordinated COAs to lower echelons without manual rework. If DISA and industry prototypes are in play, expect emphasis on scaling the common operating picture and on mission timelines for planning versus execution.

Tactical implication: any EMBM capability only helps if it reduces sensor to shooter timelines and gives operators an auditable COA selection path. Look for measures of benefit such as reduced plan generation time and faster reprogramming of EW emitters.

2) JEMSO integration and command relationships

What it is: joint electromagnetic spectrum operations processes and the cells that coordinate them. Exercises will stress how JEMSO centers interface with component commanders and service EW cells.

What to watch for: evidence that plans from a theater JEMSOC can be synchronized with component fires and space/cyber effects, and whether command relationships and authorities are clear enough to execute rapid non‑kinetic actions without creating unsafe fratricide risks.

Tactical implication: organizational friction is frequently the true limiter on EW effectiveness. VS24 should reveal where stovepipes remain and where procedures must be hardened for wartime tempo.

3) Distributed EW and sensor fusion at the edge

What it is: networked sensors and shooters that share RF order of battle data and permit rapid reprogramming of jammers and receivers.

What to watch for: demonstrations of edge-to-edge data sharing, distributed reprogramming of EW payloads, and the robustness of those links under contested or degraded communications. Prototypes that move beyond point solutions toward a federated spectrum picture will be notable. Recent programs emphasize common data layers and cloud or edge processing to make that possible.

Tactical implication: distributed EW reduces single points of failure but creates a new dependence on data integrity and timely connectivity. Look for whether the exercise uses realistic comms denial scenarios to test degraded‑mode operations.

4) Unmanned platforms and EW payloads

What it is: using UAS, USVs and other autonomous platforms as low‑cost, expendable EW sensors and effectors.

What to watch for: how planners employ unmanned systems to extend detection ranges, provide local jamming or decoy roles, and feed data into the joint EMS picture. Integration challenges such as bandwidth, latency, and spectrum deconfliction will be the primary limits on utility.

Tactical implication: the ability to task unmanned EW assets quickly and safely could change tactical calculus, especially for distributed maritime and littoral operations. The exercise should highlight procedures for tasking, handover and recovery in a contested EMS.

5) Electronic protection and resilient comms

What it is: measures and techniques to preserve friendly C2, navigation and ISR in the face of jamming and spoofing.

What to watch for: testing of anti‑jamming waveforms, resilient navigation alternatives and tactics to maintain force command and control in high interference environments. Exercises are where encryption, waveform agility and alternate PNT strategies get proven under operational stress.

Tactical implication: EW is two sided. Offensive success is constrained by how well forces can protect critical links. VS24 should produce practical lessons about tradeoffs between aggressive EA and the need to preserve organic networks.

Operational frictions and things the exercise will not solve

Valiant Shield will expose capability gaps but will not, by itself, settle them. Common problems to expect include the need for: rigorous spectrum management authorities in multinational contexts; hardened and interoperable edge processing that survives comms loss; and doctrine that reconciles JEMSO tempo with conventional fires tempo. All of these are organizational and systems engineering problems that require follow‑on investment and iterative testing.

Practical takeaways for engineers and planners

  • Design for degraded modes. Expect limited bandwidth and intermittent connectivity. EMBM and edge systems must gracefully degrade to local autonomy.

  • Prioritize data fidelity. A shared spectrum picture is only useful when data provenance and time stamps are correct. Locking down common data layers and schemas pays operational dividends.

  • Exercise the human workflows. No piece of software fixes unclear authorities or unpracticed handoffs between cells and components. Training the people is as important as fielding the tools.

  • Expect allied complexity. Multinational operations expand the RF environment and regulatory complications. Plan for frequency coordination and restricted effects lanes well ahead of exercise start.

Closing

Valiant Shield 2024 will be an important proving ground for the joint force’s push to treat the electromagnetic spectrum as operational terrain rather than a support function. Watch for how EMBM prototypes, JEMSO constructs and distributed EW experiments interact under stress. The hard payoffs will not be single technology demos but observable reductions in planning timelines, clearer authorities for spectrum control and replicated tactics for resilient communications when the RF environment turns hostile.