Spectrum Needs Panels are the practical working sessions where policy, operations, and engineering meet to translate high level spectrum priorities into actionable band studies, test plans, and allocation recommendations. They are convened by spectrum managers and policy bodies, most commonly the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, relevant federal agencies such as the Department of Defense, and by stakeholder forums hosted by think tanks and industry groups. These panels do the heavy lifting of defining use cases, risk tolerances, measurement requirements, and the operational constraints that feed into repurposing, sharing, or protecting a band.
Why panels matter right now is simple. Over the last two years the United States adopted a National Spectrum Strategy and launched a pipeline of band studies to meet rising demand for mid band and higher frequency capacity. Those studies and the policies they enable are not purely academic. They set the technical rules and coordination frameworks that will determine whether military and civil systems continue to operate effectively in contested electromagnetic environments or must be relocated, rehosted, or technologically altered. The stakes include tactical capability, industrial leadership, and the practical costs of moving or redesigning sensors and communications.
A concrete example of panel outcomes is the joint NTIA and DoD study work on the lower 37 GHz range. That effort resulted in recommendations for a coequal sharing framework in portions of 37 GHz and an explicit proposal to reserve a lower segment as a DoD priority proving ground to mature sharing techniques and operational procedures. The report highlights the balance panels are trying to strike: open new capacity for commercial innovation while protecting passive and critical government uses nearby in the spectrum. For EW professionals the lesson is direct. Where panels recommend shared access, operational doctrines and electronic countercountermeasures must be part of the technical baseline, not an afterthought.
Congress and the Services are already pushing panels to go beyond theory toward operational testing. Recent committee directions and appropriations language call for rigorous, real world testing of dynamic spectrum sharing concepts and for DoD to produce implementation roadmaps for spectrum modernization. That congressional pressure is changing how panels operate. They are being asked for testable hypotheses, measurable success criteria, and timelines for operational test and evaluation instead of indefinite modeling exercises. For EW architects this is a major change because it creates early windows to influence test design and to insist that jamming, sensing, and coexistence scenarios be included in mission-level evaluations.
Operational and technical implications for electronic warfare.
- Mid band pressure. Many of the bands under review are mid band or upper mid band. That is also where many tactical communications, radar, and datalink functions operate. Panels will decide how sharing or repacking affects pulse waveforms, spectral occupancy, time on target, and installation siting. Expect tradeoffs to be framed as throughput versus mission assurance. No single technology solves that tradeoff. (Conceptual observation, panel evidence cited above.)
- Sensing and protection. Panels are explicitly factoring the need to protect passive satellite sensors and environmental monitoring adjacent to candidate bands. That pushes the requirement set for prospective commercial operations and drives guard bands and coordination procedures. For EW, protection rules determine how close aggressive emitters can be pushed to friendly radars or to sensors that feed geospatial intelligence.
- Dynamic spectrum sharing and assurance. Where panels recommend dynamic or automated sharing, the operational question becomes assurance. How do you ensure that a commercial user hands back spectrum in a contested environment when a DoD emitter needs priority? How do you prevent adversary exploitation of shared-control mechanisms? Panels are increasingly demanding real world tests to validate those behaviors.
How to show up prepared if you are an EW operator, engineer, or vendor taking part in a Spectrum Needs Panel. 1) Bring measured operational profiles, not marketing slides. Provide empirical RF occupancy, waveform characteristics, duty cycles, and worst case power spectral density numbers. Define your mission in time, frequency, and geographical geometry. If you cannot quantify the tail events that break your mission, panels will assume your system is movable or replaceable. (Practical guidance based on how panels adjudicate tradeoffs.) 2) Supply interference case studies. Use recorded or simulated mutual interference scenarios that include degraded operational modes, false positives in sensors, and recovery paths. Panels will use these to draft coordination and mitigation requirements. 3) Define testable success criteria. Insist that any sharing framework be validated with measurable criteria such as probability of detection under defined interference levels, bit error rate targets at given SINR, or minimum radar range under specified in-band interferer conditions. Panels are under pressure to produce operationally meaningful pass fail metrics. 4) Propose phased plans. Recommend a proving ground approach with incremental capability insertion. For example, a limited geographic or temporary proof of concept can be used to validate real time coexistence algorithms before wider roll out. The DoD and NTIA discussions around 37 GHz show panels prefer phased, data driven rollouts. 5) Address security and abuse scenarios. When automation or spectrum access systems are involved, model adversary misuse of the coordination system itself. Panels are now explicitly concerned about assurance and abuse of shared-control mechanisms. Include threat models and recovery strategies.
What panels will not do well unless participants push for it.
- They will not accept vague mitigation language. Vague promises about future technology will be treated as insufficient. Panels need measured, testable mitigations. Be prepared to show prototypes or lab-to-field plans. (Practical observation.)
- They will not default to the status quo. Panels are chartered to find spectrum for growth while preserving mission needs. That will often require operational compromise. If your position is zero risk tolerance, articulate the programmatic cost of the alternative so policy makers can weigh tradeoffs. (Practical observation.)
Recommendations for EW community actions outside of individual panels.
- Invest in real world experimentation. Model-based estimates are useful but panels and Congress are pushing for field validation. Partner early with academic testbeds, industry neutral-host sites, or federal proving grounds to generate hard data.
- Standardize a minimal set of metrics for mission assurance in contested spectrum. Create reproducible tests for EW performance under coexistence conditions so panels can compare apples to apples.
- Advocate for EW representation in test design. When dynamic sharing or automated spectrum management systems are evaluated, ensure EW threat injection and jamming resilience are built into the scenario set.
- Build shared repositories of anonymized interference incidents and measurement campaigns that panels can access. Evidence wins policy arguments. (Tactical recommendation.)
Final note. Spectrum Needs Panels are where policy becomes technical reality. For the EW community they are tactical engagements. Show up with data, testable claims, and red team thinking. Panels will increasingly demand operational proof, measurable assurance, and phased validation. If you want your radars, datalinks, or counter-UAS systems to remain effective in shared or repurposed bands you need to treat panel participation like mission planning. Come prepared, insist on operational metrics, and push for test plans that include the full spectrum of electromagnetic warfare conditions. The decisions made in those rooms will determine whether the electronic battlespace of the next decade favors the defender or the adversary.