High-level situation

As of early October 2025 the NATO Joint Warfare Centre is fielding exercises and training to integrate the newly acquired Maven Smart System NATO, commonly abbreviated MSS NATO, into JWC-directed exercises and vignettes. MSS NATO was formalized for Allied Command Operations earlier in 2025 and NATO organizations have been training to include it as an operational tool in upcoming large-scale command-post events.

What the program means for STEADFAST DUEL 2025

STEADFAST DUEL 2025 is being designed as a high-fidelity, multi-domain command-post exercise that will exercise NATO operational-level plans and test cross-domain synchronization at scale. NATO planners have described MSS NATO as an AI-enabled, data-fusion and command-and-control capability that will be exercised as part of JWC-directed scenarios; MSS was introduced to JWC staff via dedicated MSS training events in August and was previously exercised in limited form during earlier 2025 events.

Why EW and spectrum teams must pay attention

1) MSS changes the data flow, not the physics. MSS promises to fuse ISR and operational data faster and surface candidate courses of action. That amplification of ISR will increase demand for higher-volume sensor feeds and more real-time RF metadata. Expect exercise vignettes to include heavy sensor cross-cueing, automated track handovers, and rapid re-tasking of assets. Teams focused on electronic attack, support and protection must therefore plan for tighter coupling between RF effects and C2 timelines rather than treating EW as a separate lane.

2) Increased automation raises realism requirements for contested EM environments. If MSS and similar tools are exercised without credible EM contestation the exercise will validate brittle processes. To stress-test algorithms and human-machine interaction, EW injects must emulate realistic denial, deception and degradation of both data and comms. That means planners should insist on red-team EW vignettes that combine jamming, cyber-electromagnetic interference, and deceptive emitter signatures.

3) Data integrity becomes an EW surface. Adversary use of RF and cyber means to bias fused estimations is a direct EW problem. Signal-level spoofing, selective denial of sensor feeds, or latency injection will all produce misleading fused outputs. EW operators should work with exercise C2 sponsors to tag injected anomalies so that both MSS outputs and human operators can be observed for failure modes.

Tactical implications for drone and ISR operators

  • Expect MSS-enabled C2 to request higher-fidelity telemetry and passive RF bearings to improve fusion. That will increase the value and the risk profile of small drones that carry SIGINT/ESM payloads.

  • Prepare drone ops for contested comms: mesh fallback, store-and-forward telemetry, and authenticated low-rate beacons are likely exercise requirements. Validate ECCM techniques at the tactical level and make degraded-mode procedures part of flight briefs.

  • If MSS surfaces automated targeting candidates, ensure a clear human-in-the-loop gating process exists for any kinetic or electronic attack effects. The exercise is an ideal place to rehearse human override under degraded situational awareness.

Practical checklist for EW teams preparing vignettes and assessments

1) Work early with JWC exercise designers to build red-team EW scenarios that inject combined RF denial, deception, and spectrum congestion. These should be instrumented so analysts can correlate MSS outputs with injected signal events.

2) Provide labeled EW datasets to MSS trainers. If MSS is expected to ingest sensor metadata and learn patterns, curated training datasets that include contested-signal examples will accelerate meaningful evaluation and avoid overfitting to uncontested baseline traffic.

3) Validate secure, resilient links for comms that MSS will depend on. That includes spectrum management policies for exercise play, prioritized channels for command-authentication, and fallback waveforms when primary links are degraded.

4) Instrument human decision points. Log the timing and content of command decisions when MSS presents recommendations so the exercise LESSONS process can identify latency, trust, and cognitive workload issues.

5) Make LLM outputs auditable. MSS NATO includes model-driven assistance and generative capabilities. Ensure any natural-language or model-generated product is traceable back to raw inputs during after-action review so false inferences can be diagnosed.

Risks and mitigations specific to EW and spectrum

  • Risk: Over-reliance on fused outputs. Mitigation: enforce human confirmation rules for any action that relies on incomplete RF data.

  • Risk: Data poisoning via manipulated RF signatures or false sensor reports. Mitigation: build feed-level integrity checks, anomaly detection on metadata, and parallel independent sensor cross-checks.

  • Risk: Exercise realism erodes because MSS is not stressed under EM contest. Mitigation: mandate graded EM-contest tiers in scenarios and measure tool performance across tiers.

Conclusions and what to watch for during the exercise

STEADFAST DUEL 2025 will likely be an early operational testbed for MSS NATO within the JWC exercise framework. For EW and spectrum practitioners the exercise is an opportunity to shape how AI-enabled C2 ingests and responds to contested RF environments. Priorities for the next month are clear: force credible EW injects into vignettes, demand instrumentation and labeling for data used in training MSS, and rehearse human override and audit processes. These steps will move MSS evaluation from a lab curiosity to an operationally meaningful capability.