PEO IEW&S has moved quickly over the last two years to field dismounted electronic warfare and assured PNT capabilities that change how small units operate inside contested electromagnetic environments. The Army’s Terrestrial Layer System Brigade Combat Team manpack provides a tailorable, modular man‑portable EW and SIGINT capability for SIGINT Collection Teams and Electronic Warfare Teams, enabling RF surveying, direction finding, collection, and limited electronic attack and force protection effects at the squad and platoon level.
Paired with the TLS Manpack is a family of dismounted PNT efforts under PM PNT. The Dismounted Assured PNT System, DAPS, is designed to fuse multiple APNT sources, perform integrity checks, display a trusted PNT solution to dismounted leaders, and distribute that solution to client systems. DAPS is a program of record intended to allow soldiers to shoot, move, and communicate when GPS is degraded or denied.
How these pieces fit tactically. TLS Manpack gives small teams a way to sense, locate, and in some cases disrupt emitters while remaining mobile. DAPS provides the navigational baseline that keeps forces synchronized when adversaries jam or spoof GPS. Combining the two delivers a practical tactical loop: TLS detects and characterizes the EMS threat, DAPS maintains friendly PNT and timing, and unit leaders use both inputs to make comms, fires, and maneuver decisions with reduced reliance on unprotected GPS. This combination is explicitly what PEO IEW&S and its PMs aimed to produce when prioritizing manportable EW and APNT.
Design and acquisition lessons worth noting. TLS Manpack was prototyped and rapidly fielded using mid tier acquisition pathways and Other Transaction Authority agreements to shorten timelines. That approach favored mature commercial components and iterative soldier touchpoints over a long traditional acquisition cycle. The result was a relatively fast route from prototype to a program that began initial fielding. Those same acquisition choices shaped how TLS is modular and COTS friendly.
Practical constraints and tradeoffs. Any manpack EW suite must balance size, weight, and power against capability. TLS Manpack tradeoffs prioritize modularity and mission tailoring: users can focus on RF survey and direction finding at low weight or add heavier EA modules when mission and logistics permit. DAPS faces its own SWaP challenge; dismounted APNT requires robust antenna and sensor integration and an independent power source when GNSS is denied. Expect iterative hardware revisions as feedback from units identifies hot spots for optimization.
Tactics, techniques, and procedures to consider. 1) Start with EMS mapping as a baseline action. Before attempting EA or close-in jamming, map the spectrum to identify friendly emitters, critical local infrastructure, and hostile signatures. 2) Use DAPS as a primary timing and position source for fire control and comms alignment when GPS is contested. Integrate DAPS outputs into mission command and fire support systems to reduce latency from manual position checks. 3) Electromagnetic hygiene matters: plan comms windows, minimize unneeded emissions, and use TLS direction finding to attribute and isolate spurious sources before engaging. 4) Train against combined threats: SIGINT, EA, and spoofing can be employed in parallel by adversaries. Cross-train operators on both the TLS and DAPS workflows. These tactical points reflect how the manpack and dismounted PNT concepts are intended to be used by BCT level elements.
Integration and interoperability. Both TLS Manpack and DAPS were designed to operate within the broader TLS family and the army APNT architecture. That means common data formats, connectors for client systems, and an expectation of integration into higher echelon EMS planning and the Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool. Prioritize secure, authenticated interfaces so DAPS outputs and TLS-derived intelligence cannot be spoofed or manipulated when shared across the network.
Operational cautions and legal boundaries. Portable EW and jamming near civilian infrastructure can have unintended consequences. Units must coordinate with spectrum managers and legal advisors when planning EA missions in permissive areas. For units experimenting with manpack EW in training, replicate denied conditions using instrumented ranges and not live civilian networks. Rapid fielding is valuable, but operational discipline around deconfliction remains essential.
What to expect next operationally. Expect incremental enhancements: tighter SIGINT fusion within TLS, additional EA payload maturity where rules of engagement permit, and DAPS evolution through Gen II updates to broaden APNT inputs and reduce SWaP. The acquisition pattern used for TLS Manpack is likely to be applied to follow-on dismounted EW components where commercial maturity allows quick fielding and soldier feedback.
Recommendations for unit leaders and engineers. Leaders should codify EMS reconnaissance as a routine pre-mission step and plan for PNT contingencies by training with DAPS or equivalent APNT tools. Engineers should prioritize modular interfaces, authenticated PNT distribution, and low-latency EMS data exchange. For program managers, continue to lean on rapid prototyping and soldier touchpoints to keep capabilities aligned with tactical realities.
Bottom line. PEO IEW&S dismounted efforts combine manportable EW sensing and effects with assured PNT to give small units more autonomy inside contested EMS. The TLS Manpack and DAPS form a sensible, complementary pair: one sees and acts in the spectrum, the other keeps forces synchronized when GPS cannot be trusted. The challenge going forward is classic: refine SWaP, harden interfaces, scale training, and keep acquisition pathways fast enough to iterate on soldier feedback without sacrificing safety and legal compliance.