The U.S. Army is moving from stove-piped point systems toward an architecture-first approach for battlefield electromagnetic maneuver. The prototype effort centers on two complementary strands. One strand is the Terrestrial Layer System family, which provides distributed sensing, SIGINT, and electronic attack across echelons above brigade. The other is the modernization of the Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool into a services-oriented, battle management framework for spectrum effects. Together these form the nucleus of a prototype EW architecture intended to give commanders an orchestrated Recognized Electromagnetic Picture and a means to plan, task, and deconflict nonkinetic effects.

The TLS concept is explicitly a system of systems. The Army used an Other Transaction Authority prototype pathway to advance TLS Echelons Above Brigade from design to a build and demonstration phase with industry partners. The TLS-EAB design objective is to place extended range sensing and offensive EW at division and corps levels while digitally interfacing with lower echelons for synchronized CEMA operations. This is not a single monolithic box. The design follows modular open system principles so that payloads, RF front ends, and software modules can be swapped, upgraded, or replaced without redesigning the whole platform.

On the command and control side, EWPMT is being modernized into a cloud native, microservice-friendly framework often referred to in program discussions as EWPMT-X. The intent is to move spectrum planning, modeling, and battle management into a software architecture that can run alongside existing mission command tools and tactical visualization frameworks. That pivot includes evaluating integration with common mapping and situational awareness frameworks to enable rapid developer cadence and cross-service reuse. In short, the goal is to let EW planners create and execute complex electromagnetic schemes in near real time while sharing deconflicted plans with maneuver commanders.

Why prototype this way

Fielding EW as a coordinated combat function presents three recurring operational problems: sensing fidelity and timeliness, effects coordination and fratricide risk, and sustainment for software-defined radios and payloads. A prototype architecture addresses all three. Modular hardware plus open APIs lets developers iterate on sensing and jamming modules without requalifying the entire vehicle. A centralized but federated planning layer reduces the chance that independent units execute conflicting emissions control or electronic attack plans. And a software-first approach enables DevSecOps pipelines to push algorithm and model updates to deployed nodes far faster than hardware refresh cycles.

From a tactics perspective this architecture encourages two practices. First, persistent layered sensing. Long range sensors at the operational level detect and cue tactical nodes. Second, centralized planning with distributed execution. The higher echelons will perform high fidelity correlation and attribution while smaller tactical nodes execute localized effects with rules of engagement and safety constraints. That division of labor reduces latency in decision loops while keeping execution close to the action.

Integration challenges and realities

Open architecture is a design goal. It is not a magic bullet. True interoperability requires common data models, time synchronization, and resilient transport mechanisms across contested networks. Tactical networks remain bandwidth constrained and intermittently connected. An architecture that assumes near continuous, high throughput connectivity will fail at the tactical edge. Any prototype must therefore demonstrate graceful degradation modes: local autonomy for execution, transactional updates to the common picture when links return, and tight prioritization of telemetry versus payload data.

Power, cooling, and electromagnetic compatibility are persistent ground truths. High power jamming and wideband sensing place heavy demands on vehicle electrical systems and thermal management. The prototype pathway explicitly evaluated form factors and vehicle choices so the Army can trade off mobility, endurance, and capability. That is why the TLS conversation includes multiple vehicle families and scalable payloads rather than a one size fits all solution.

Software and DevSecOps

The prototype approach embraces iterative software development. EWPMT-X and TLS software stacks are being treated as systems that will receive continuous updates. That requires designing for traceability, observability, and replaceability from the outset. It also forces the program to confront security and provenance issues: who can push algorithm changes, how are models certified, and how is operator intent preserved while allowing autonomy to handle transient link outages. The early program guidance shows an emphasis on soldier touch points during design reviews so end user workflow and human machine interface constraints drive system behavior.

Tactical implications for maneuver units

Units that receive prototype TLS elements will gain enhanced long range cueing and a more persistent electromagnetic picture. That capability shortens the sensor to shooter timeline in two ways. First, TLS sensing can provide actionable bearings and signal characterizations that permit faster targeting of emitters. Second, an EW planning layer that shares its outputs with fires systems and ISR nodes allows coordinated nonkinetic and kinetic options to be presented to commanders. The net effect is a higher tempo of operations in the EMS domain, but it also raises command risk if human intent is not clearly codified into execution policies.

Operational security and legal boundaries

Prototyping EW at scale has implications beyond pure capability. Rules for collection, targeting, and cyber effects must be explicit. The prototype architecture must support audit trails, mission justification metadata, and controls that prevent unintentional impacts to civilian infrastructure and coalition systems. These governance attributes are as important as RF performance when it comes to scaling fielded systems.

What to watch next in prototype evaluation

When assessing a prototype architecture look for three measurable outcomes. One, the system s ability to maintain a coherent Recognized Electromagnetic Picture under realistic network conditions. Two, the latency between detection cueing at operational nodes and local tactical execution. Three, the ease with which third party sensors and effectors can be integrated using published APIs and standard data formats. Demonstrations that validate these outcomes are what turn designs into deployable capabilities.

Practical takeaways for engineers and hobbyists

If you are an RF engineer or a hobbyist interested in EW research remember the legal and safety lines. Do not emulate jamming or interception experiments on live bands without proper authorization. Focus on simulation, recorded waveforms, and isolated lab-bench testing. Architect your prototypes around modular signal processing chains and clear interfaces. Build logging and playback into your designs so operator decisions are reproducible and auditable.

Conclusion

The Army s prototype EW architecture is not a single product. It is an operational concept made real through modular hardware, services-oriented software, and soldier-driven design. The TLS family and the evolution of EWPMT into a modern planning and battle management layer are complementary efforts that aim to shift electromagnetic maneuver from ad hoc afterthought to a fully integrated combat function. The prototype phase will reveal whether the design choices on openness, software cadence, and platform tradeoffs translate into reliable, tactically useful capabilities in contested environments.