The headline is simple. The Army is pushing jamming and tactical electronic attack down to formations and soldiers faster than many anticipated, and the work it is doing now will shape what arrives in 2026. The push is not just about buying boxes that radiate noise. It is about embedding software defined, frequency agile effects into brigade and below formations so commanders can maneuver inside a contested electromagnetic spectrum.

What the service is buying and why

The Army’s fiscal priorities for 2026 include explicit investments in counter-UAS and EW, and program offices have been given authorities to field mature, commercial-influenced systems rapidly. That funding posture is driving two parallel tracks. The first track is rapid delivery of low SWaP manportable and vehicle-mounted EW kits that provide electronic support and localized electronic attack at brigade and below. The second track is larger echelon systems that provide longer range sensing, coordinated effects, and integration into higher echelon command and control. The service has signaled it will use mid tier acquisition and other rapid pathways when technology maturity permits.

TLS Manpack is the prototype that matters

The Terrestrial Layer System Brigade Combat Team Manpack is now the clearest example of what the Army expects from a soldier-portable jammer and EW kit. TLS Manpack was prototyped, competed, and moved into fielding via MTA and rapid contracting. The Army awarded production and fielding work and continued procurement into 2025, reflecting a decision to put a capable, software-modifiable jammer and SIGINT toolkit into soldier hands rather than wait for a bespoke, multi-year development program. That pattern is an operational choice: get effects into the fight, iterate with soldier feedback, then harden requirements and scale.

Technical baseline and expected capabilities

Expectations for 2026-era Army jammers are practical and interoperable. The key technical attributes are:

  • Software defined radios and modular RF front ends to cover wide bands of interest for both communications and GNSS denial.
  • Low SWaP packaging so dismounted teams can carry the kit and commanders can place EW where maneuver needs it.
  • Tight integration with SIGINT, direction finding and geolocation to enable rapid kill chain linkage from detection to effect.
  • Open interfaces to permit mission software updates and to integrate with TLS-BCT, TLS-EAB, and other brigade or division networks.

Tactical implications and trade offs

Putting jammers at the brigade and soldier level creates immediate tactical advantages but forces hard tradeoffs:

  • Deconfliction. Local jamming helps protect maneuver but can interfere with friendly radios, datalinks, and allied common services. Commanders will need better spectrum management tools and rules of engagement that account for friendly dependence on GPS and wideband waveforms.
  • Attribution and escalation. Active electronic attack near urban areas or RNW (regional networks and waterways) risks political and legal escalations when civilian networks are affected. Training on selective, directional effects and scenario-based ROE will be essential.
  • Logistics and sustainment. Low SWaP radios still require power, spares, calibration and software maintenance. Rapid fielding without sustainment planning increases lifecycle risk.
  • Electromagnetic signature management. Emitting to deny an adversary also makes you visible. Units must adopt emission control discipline and use geolocation to shape where and when to radiate.

What industry and integrators should focus on

If you are building to the Army’s near term timeline, prioritize:

  • Modular RF front ends that can be updated in software to follow shifting threat bands.
  • Directional jamming antennas and beamforming to reduce collateral effects and increase efficiency.
  • Tight SIGINT to EW handoff: automatic emitter ID, geolocation, and pre-scripted effects that minimize operator workload.
  • Interfaces to tactical C2 and spectrum management tools so brigade planners can visualize and deconflict emissions before they occur.

Bottom line

By 2026 the Army expects to have a more distributed electronic attack capability in the field. The TLS Manpack program is the template: rapid prototyping, soldier touch points, and iterative fielding rather than long waterfall development. That model reduces calendar risk but raises integration and sustainment risks that commanders and industry must accept and mitigate. If you are supplying or experimenting with EW at the tactical edge, design for modularity, software updates, and disciplined emission control. The contest in the spectrum will be fought at close range and success will come to those who can combine accurate sensing with precise, low collateral jamming.