Purpose and framing Multi-domain electronic warfare exercises are designed to validate the integrated use of electromagnetic spectrum effects across land, air, maritime, space, and cyber domains in support of joint objectives. Exercises should test not only individual EW systems but also the processes that enable Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations, command and control for EMS effects, and rapid deconfliction between kinetic and non-kinetic actions.

High-level objectives 1) Demonstrate EMS access and maneuver at scale under a contested environment. 2) Validate cross-domain sensing to cue fires and defensive measures. 3) Exercise command relationships and JEMSO planning processes. 4) Measure mission effects, collateral risk, and escalation control when EMS effects are applied. These objectives map to the DoD emphasis on achieving electromagnetic spectrum superiority and the Army’s multi-domain operations construct.

Representative background events to emulate Recent modernization experiments show the types of integration you should expect to test. Project Convergence experiments demonstrated small form factor EW and ISR payloads on unmanned aircraft conducting geolocation and active effects in GPS-contested environments. Northern Edge and similar large joint exercises have focused on digital C2 and JADC2-style data sharing to coordinate fires and EW across components. Use these real-world cases as templates for threat injects and integration objectives.

Scope and players

  • Blue force: mixed joint units providing sensors, shooters, EW support, cyber defense teams, and a JEMSO cell to manage EMS priorities. - Red force: dedicated EW threat cell capable of continuous wave jamming, pulsed radar interference, GNSS spoofing/denial emulation, and RF SIGINT for targeting. - White cell: range safety, spectrum managers, and legal advisors. - Observers: doctrine authors, acquisition reps, and partner-nation liaisons where appropriate.

Exercise scenario (example) Phase 0: Peacetime competition. Blue practices covert comms in congested spectrum and practices EMS sharing with a host-nation model. Phase 1: Crisis onset. Red executes local EW harassment and GNSS disruption against a high-value logistics node. Phase 2: Escalation. Blue executes coordinated denial of Red C2 using directed EW effects while protecting civilian infrastructure and deconflicting aviation. Phase 3: Resolution. Post-effect assessment and forensic SIGINT to validate target set elimination and residual risk.

Planning checklist (technical and procedural) 1) Define the electromagnetic operational environment (EMOE) baseline. Capture local commercial and military emitters, guard bands, and any spectrum-use agreements. 2) Allocate an exercise EMS management cell (JEMSO cell) with authority to prioritize emitters and accept or reject effect requests. 3) Catalog permitted and prohibited effects. Distinguish between training-mode simulated effects and live emitters. 4) Create hardware-in-the-loop and software simulation capability for high-risk effects (GNSS spoofing, safety-critical jamming) to avoid unintended civilian impact. 5) Designate a single point of contact for airspace and maritime deconfliction and tie that into the JEMSO cell. 6) Build a rigorous pre-execution spectrum notice and public safety plan.

Range engineering and safety

  • Use shielded test ranges and directional antennas; minimize side lobes and use power control. - Require coordinated Notices to Air Missions and Notices to Mariners for any live emissions that could impact navigation systems. - Prioritize simulated effects or attenuated, short-duration live effects when civilian GPS or safety-of-life services may be affected. - Ensure spectrum managers and legal counsel sign off on weapons-like EW events prior to execution.

Red cell construction (threat realism) To produce meaningful results, your adversary cell should have a small set of repeatable capabilities: RF reconnaissance and geolocation, narrowband and wideband jamming, pulse/radar-like interference, and GNSS denial/spoofing emulators. Emulate decision cycles for the red cell so Blue must practice attribution, mitigation, and escalation control. When possible, use commercial off-the-shelf RF test equipment and software defined radios to recreate diverse emitter signatures.

Blue cell capabilities to validate

  • Distributed sensing and fusion across domains: airborne SIGINT, signals from sea platforms, space-based ISR feeds, and ground ELINT sensors. - Rapid targeting loops that convert geolocation and RF intelligence into prosecution options for EW and fires. - Defensive EMS measures: adaptive waveforms, nulling, antenna steering, frequency hopping, and secure timing alternatives to GNSS. - C2 interfaces that show who holds EMS priority and how deconfliction is enforced.

Measurement and metrics Design scoring around mission outcomes and spectrum effects rather than raw emitter kill rates. Suggested metrics: time-to-cue (seconds), geolocation accuracy (meters), probability of effective denial against target systems, collateral interference incidents, and command compliance with JEMSO prioritization. Capture forensic logs for all RF actions with timestamps synchronized to a common clock so post-mortem attribution and lessons are unambiguous.

Data collection and instrumentation Instrument the EMOE with wideband receivers, direction-finding stations, and distributed recorders. Correlate RF logs with platform telemetry and C2 messages. Build an audit trail for every authorized effect including operator, effect parameters, and approval chain. This supports both scoring and any required legal reviews.

Training, legal, and policy constraints JEMSO and EMSS guidance emphasize coordinated, joint planning and a spectrum governance structure. Exercises must align with applicable DoD EMS strategy and joint publications that describe spectrum operations across the competition continuum. In practice that means you must document governance, escalation thresholds, and civilian risk mitigation measures before live effects are authorized.

Simulations, emulation, and validation before live play Start with digital twins and RF-in-the-loop wargaming. Use hardware emulators to validate effect timing and coupling before any live transmissions. For GNSS denial and spoofing, prefer emulated environments or shielded facilities that remove external receivers from the public GNSS signal. These practices reduce safety risk and preserve exercise fidelity.

Post-exercise playbacks and red-team analysis Conduct a structured AAR that includes red-team brief, blue-team defense rationale, and white-cell adjudication of any safety or escalation events. Use recorded RF logs to replay scenarios and verify whether geolocation and characterization were accurate. Create a prioritized remediation list covering doctrine, TTPs, and system-level fixes.

Practical tips from recent experiments Small SWaP EW payloads on UAS and mesh-networked ISR nodes enable tactical cross-cueing in GPS-contested environments. Exercises that integrate these small airborne EW nodes with higher echelon C2 demonstrate rapid sensor-to-shooter chains of action. Exercises should therefore include small UAS EW payloads and mesh radios as distinct participants when possible.

Common failure modes and how to avoid them

  • Stovepiped approvals that delay effects. Solve with a pre-authorized JEMSO playbook. - Inadequate fidelity in threat emulation. Invest in a compact set of repeatable threat signatures. - Poor instrumentation. If you cannot measure the EMOE you cannot score it. - Safety blind spots around GNSS and air navigation. Default to simulation or shielded testing in those cases.

Closing recommendations Multi-domain EW exercises matter because modern battlefields are decided as much by who controls the spectrum as by who controls terrain. Design exercises to stress integration, governance, and escalation control. Use recent experiments and doctrine as guiding references, instrument everything, and prioritize safety. The end result should be a set of validated TTPs, clear governance for JEMSO, and measured improvement in the speed and accuracy of EW-supported decisions.