Today, understanding our electromagnetic footprint during routine home station training is nearly impossible. We can build something at the tactical edge using commercial equipment, antennas, and a Raspberry Pi. Or we can wait until a Combat Training Center rotation, where more sophisticated collection systems provide glimpses into how visible we really are. Neither option gives commanders consistent ground truth when and where they need it most.

Consider a platoon conducting operations on an FM network. A unit transmits a LOGSTAT. A Fire Direction Center receives a voice fire mission. A digital fire mission crosses a tactical network. We frequently discuss the electromagnetic risk associated with these transmissions, but our conversations are theoretical.

How detectable was that transmission? From what direction could it be observed? How long would an adversary need to collect it? How accurately could they locate it?

Most commanders understand that every transmission creates risk, but few have access to tools that quantify that risk in a meaningful way during training.

The technology has not existed at the scale required to answer those questions at the tactical edge.

That may be changing. And if it does, it will represent more than an improvement in sensing technology. It will represent a fundamentally different way of understanding the electromagnetic environment.

Detection vs. Understanding

Current sensing architectures are exceptionally capable at detecting signals. We can measure power levels. We can estimate coverage areas. We can model propagation. But detection is not the challenge commanders actually face.

Commanders rarely need to know that a signal exists. They need to understand what that signal means. Who transmitted it? Where did it originate? How long was it visible? Who could observe it? What risk did it create?

The distinction matters because electromagnetic fields are inherently three-dimensional phenomena. They possess not only strength, but also direction, orientation, phase relationships, and polarization characteristics that describe how energy is propagating through space. Today’s sensors can often answer portions of those questions, but doing so typically requires multiple systems, calibrated arrays, extensive processing, and significant computational power; architectures that are difficult to deploy at the tactical edge.

Detecting a signal answers the question: What is there?

Understanding the geometry of a signal begins answering: Where is it going? How is it propagating? Who can observe it? How might an adversary exploit it?

Those are the questions commanders actually care about. And answering them has historically required complex sensing architectures that were never designed for routine training environments.

How We See the Spectrum Today

Everything we know about the electromagnetic environment is reconstructed through sensors. Radio waves pass through our bodies every second. GPS satellites transmit timing signals from space. Cellular networks, radars, drones, and military communications all occupy portions of the spectrum that remain completely invisible to us without instrumentation.

Traditional sensing is built on a straightforward principle. When an electromagnetic wave reaches an antenna, the oscillating electric field induces a voltage in the conductor. That voltage is then amplified, filtered, digitized, and processed into something humans can read; a waterfall display, a signal trace, a spectrum analyzer output. By the time an operator sees that information, they are looking at a reconstruction of reality generated through mathematics, electronics, and software.

This approach has worked exceptionally well for decades. But the architecture carries inherent limitations. Different frequencies require different antenna designs. Characterizing a signal’s direction, polarization, and propagation behavior requires multiple sensing elements working together. As the battlefield electromagnetic environment grows increasingly congested (thousands of emitters operating simultaneously across friendly, enemy, commercial, and electronic warfare systems) detecting signals is no longer the hard part. Understanding what they mean is.

Teaching Atoms to Become Sensors

Recent Army research suggests a fundamentally different approach to electromagnetic sensing.

For more than a century, engineers have relied on antennas (metal conductors) to convert electromagnetic energy into electrical signals. Quantum sensing begins from a different starting point. Rather than measuring how an electromagnetic field affects a metal antenna, researchers are measuring how that same field affects individual atoms.

The contrast is worth stating plainly: traditional sensors measure voltage induced in a conductor. Atomic sensors measure changes in quantum state. Instead of building the detector, researchers are using what nature already provided.

Army researchers are exploiting this by using lasers to excite rubidium atoms into extremely high-energy configurations known as Rydberg states. In these states, the outer electron occupies an orbit far from the nucleus, making it extraordinarily sensitive to external electromagnetic fields. Signals that might be difficult to observe using traditional techniques can produce measurable changes in the atomic state. Those changes are then read back out using the same lasers.

The atom itself becomes the sensor.

The work of Dr. David Meyer, Joshua Hill, Paul Kunz, Kevin Cox, and their collaborators at the Army Research Laboratory caught my attention because their recent paper Electrically Small Rydberg Sensor for Three-Dimensional Determination of Radio-Frequency k-Vectors demonstrates something that matters practically. Their sensor can determine not only the presence of a signal, but also its propagation direction and orientation in space. Not just that energy exists. How that energy is structured.

Reference: https://journals.aps.org/prapplied/abstract/10.1103/pthj-gy98

Beyond Detection

The significance here is not the physics. It is the implication.

If atomic sensors can characterize the geometry of a signal (its strength, direction, polarization, and propagation behavior) from a single, small sensing element, then the architecture required to answer a commander’s questions changes fundamentally. Instead of deploying multiple antennas, calibrating arrays, and processing thousands of data points to reconstruct what a signal is doing, a sensor might directly measure it.

Imagine a platoon leader who could, during home station training, understand not just that their radio transmission was detectable, but from which directions it was observable, how the signal propagated relative to terrain, and what the adversary collection geometry looked like. That is not theoretical risk discussion. That is ground truth.

This technology is not fielded. The research is at the laboratory stage, and the path from demonstrated physics to a ruggedized system a Soldier can carry is long. But the direction matters. For the first time, the underlying sensing approach may be capable of providing the kind of electromagnetic self-awareness that has never been available during routine training.

Subscribe now

Our batteries were conducting frequent displacements between Position Areas for Artillery (PAAs). Upon arrival, crews established communications, received fire missions, executed those missions, and then displaced again. In many cases, batteries remained in position for less than thirty minutes before moving to the next location. For many of our experienced NCOs, something felt incomplete. They understood how positions are supposed to be occupied: reconnaissance should occur, security should be established, camouflage should be improved, hide sites should be developed, survivability positions should be prepared, vehicles should be dispersed and concealed. Instead, we were often leaving before much of that could happen.

The question they kept asking was simple: “Shouldn’t we have more time to establish our positions?” It’s a fair question; and it may be one of the most important questions facing military leaders today. What happens when the battlefield no longer gives you enough time to execute doctrine as written?

The Purpose Behind the Process

To understand the problem, we first have to understand why doctrine exists in the first place. The procedures surrounding reconnaissance, security, occupation, camouflage, concealment, and survivability were not created arbitrarily. They were developed through decades of operational experience and lessons learned. Every step serves a purpose: reconnaissance reduces uncertainty, security prevents surprise, camouflage reduces detection, and survivability positions reduce vulnerability to enemy fires. The entire process is designed to increase combat effectiveness and keep Soldiers alive.

For generations, the logic was straightforward. A well-prepared position was generally more survivable than an unprepared one, and the longer a unit occupied a position, the more opportunities it had to improve it. Time was an ally. Today, that assumption deserves another look.

Three Clocks

As I listened to these discussions in the field, I realized our leaders were actually wrestling with three different clocks. The first is the doctrinal clock; the amount of time required to do things correctly: conduct reconnaissance, establish security, occupy the position, improve camouflage, prepare survivability positions, refine the layout. Every experienced NCO understands this clock. Years of training have taught them what right looks like.

The second is the detection clock; how long before the enemy finds you. This clock is increasingly influenced by drones, satellites, electronic surveillance, thermal sensors, radar systems, and pattern analysis. The third is the targeting clock; once detected, how long before effects arrive? Detection alone is not the problem. Detection combined with rapid targeting is. And that third clock appears to be shrinking. The challenge is that these three clocks are moving at very different speeds.

When the Clocks Stop Agreeing

Historically, these clocks generally worked together. A unit could occupy a position, spend hours improving it, and significantly increase its survivability, because the enemy required substantial time to detect, identify, target, and engage the position. The doctrinal clock moved faster than the enemy’s detection and targeting clocks, which allowed forces to invest heavily in preparation.

Today’s battlefield may be changing that equation entirely. What if a drone identifies your location within minutes? What if electronic emissions reveal your position shortly after arrival? What if targeting information can be passed almost immediately to a firing system? Suddenly, the amount of time available to improve a position begins to shrink. The doctrinal clock is still asking for hours. The detection clock may only be offering minutes.

This is where leaders need a different kind of decision framework, not just an awareness that the clocks are misaligned, but a way to act on it in real time. Rather than asking “have we done everything doctrine requires,” the better question may be “what has our signature looked like, and for how long?” If a battery has been stationary long enough to emit, to generate heat, to establish a pattern; the calculus may already have shifted toward displacement, regardless of how much preparation remains undone. The mission doesn’t change. But the trigger for leaving needs to be built into the plan from the moment the unit arrives, not treated as a last resort when things feel unsafe.

The Cost of Standing Still

Everything our instincts tell us says that a position should be improved; that is what professionals do, what good leaders enforce, what experienced NCOs teach. Yet modern conflict increasingly suggests that remaining in one location for extended periods may itself become a risk. The problem is not that camouflage, concealment, or survivability positions no longer matter. The problem is that they all require time, and time may be the resource that modern battlefields provide in the smallest quantities. A battery that spends four hours preparing an exceptional position may also provide the enemy four hours to discover it. A battery that occupies, fires, and displaces rapidly may never achieve the same level of physical protection, but it may avoid becoming a target altogether. This is an uncomfortable tradeoff because it challenges assumptions that have existed for generations.

Adapting Without Abandoning

The wrong conclusion is that doctrine is obsolete (it isn’t). The principles remain sound: reconnaissance still matters, security still matters, camouflage and concealment and survivability still matter. The challenge is not deciding whether these activities are important. The challenge is determining how much of each can realistically be accomplished before the detection clock expires. That is not a doctrinal problem. That is a leadership problem.

The battlefield has always rewarded adaptation. The leaders who succeed are rarely those who discard doctrine entirely. They are usually the ones who understand the intent behind doctrine well enough to adapt its application. Perhaps the future is not choosing between mobility and survivability, perhaps it is understanding how mobility contributes to survivability. The modern battlefield requires us to think differently about position occupation: not as a permanent location to improve indefinitely, but as a temporary position that must balance effectiveness, concealment, and displacement from the moment it is occupied. The objective remains the same; survive and accomplish the mission. The methods may be evolving.

Final Thoughts

As our battalion continues to train, this discussion will undoubtedly continue. And it should, because the best lessons often emerge when experienced leaders encounter conditions that challenge long-held assumptions. The question is not whether doctrine is right. The question is whether the battlefield still provides enough time to execute every aspect of doctrine before the enemy can detect and target us.

If modern sensing technologies continue to compress the time available to maneuver forces, future leaders may discover that survivability is no longer determined solely by how well a position is prepared. It may also be determined by understanding exactly when it is time to leave.

After watching multiple platoons operate across varying distances and terrain, I began to realize something important. The radio itself was rarely the problem. More often than not, communications success or failure had already been determined before the operator ever keyed the handset. We often teach Soldiers that communications begin with frequencies, fills, and radio checks. In reality, communications begin with terrain, positioning, antenna placement, and network design. The radio is simply the final link in a much larger system.

The Most Common Misconception

One of the most common assumptions in tactical communications is that range is determined primarily by transmitter power. If communications are weak, turn the power up; if they fail, add an amplifier; if they still fail, the radio must be broken. The logic seems reasonable, but it overlooks a more important reality. Radio power is often the smallest contributor to success.

During our evaluations, platoons could be only a few kilometers away and still struggle to communicate with the Battalion Tactical Operations Center, while other nodes farther away maintained reliable connectivity. If distance alone determined communication success, the closer station should always perform better. Yet communications rarely work that way, and understanding why is what separates a competent operator from an effective one.

The Terrain Is Part of the Network

Most Soldiers think of terrain as something that affects movement and survivability. The electromagnetic spectrum sees it differently. Every hill, ridgeline, depression, tree line, building, and vehicle position becomes part of the communications network whether we acknowledge it or not. A platoon occupying excellent cover and concealment may unknowingly place itself in a poor position for communications. A battalion TOC positioned for survivability may inadvertently create dead zones in certain directions. A launcher crew moving into a small depression for protection may discover that their communications range suddenly collapses. In many cases, communications problems are not radio problems, they are terrain problems. A ten-meter movement can sometimes accomplish more than a ten-fold increase in transmitter power.

Antenna Height Matters More Than Most People Realize

If there is one lesson I would teach every Soldier operating a radio, it is this: the most powerful part of the radio system is often the antenna. Electromagnetic energy travels remarkably well when it has a clear path between transmitting and receiving stations, and antenna height increases that opportunity. Every additional foot of elevation expands the radio’s ability to see over terrain and obstacles. This is why systems like the OE-254 remain so effective decades after their introduction; the antenna itself is not magical, the height is.

The challenge, of course, is mobility. A platoon that erects an OE-254 gains communications capability but sacrifices time. A platoon that remains highly mobile preserves survivability but may accept degraded communications. This is not a radio problem; it is a tactical decision, and it needs to be made deliberately rather than by default.

Mobility Versus Connectivity

Modern military operations constantly force leaders to balance competing priorities, and communications is rarely at the top of that list until it fails. A platoon that remains stationary on favorable terrain with elevated antennas can often communicate exceptionally well. A platoon that moves frequently, occupies concealed positions, and minimizes its signature may find communications significantly more challenging. Neither approach is inherently wrong, but leaders need to understand the tradeoffs they are making. Communications architecture should be considered during planning, not after communications begin to fail.

The Missing Step in Terrain Analysis

After reflecting on the communication challenges observed during these evaluations, I realized the issue may not have been radio power at all; it may have been terrain analysis. When platoon leaders and platoon sergeants select a PAA (Position Area for Artillery), they naturally focus on mission requirements: concealment, survivability, fields of fire, and routes in and out of position. These considerations are critical, but they often omit one essential question:

Can I communicate from here?

In many cases, communications are treated as something to be solved after occupying terrain. The platoon arrives, establishes security, positions vehicles, and only then discovers that the Battalion TOC is difficult to reach. By that point, the terrain has already made the decision.

Modern tools such as the line-of-sight analysis available through systems like Maven allow leaders to evaluate this before ever leaving the motor pool. A platoon can quickly assess whether a position has reliable electromagnetic access to higher headquarters, adjacent units, or potential retransmission locations. The key shift is simple but important:

Before selecting launcher hide sites or assault positions, leaders should first identify where communications are most likely to succeed, and then build the position around that reality.

This does not mean communications outweigh survivability, it means leaders understand the tradeoffs before committing to them.

The Electromagnetic Overlay

Military leaders routinely analyze terrain through the lenses of observation, cover and concealment, obstacles, and avenues of approach. Increasingly, they must also analyze terrain through an electromagnetic lens. A ridgeline does not just affect movement, it affects radio propagation. A valley does not just provide concealment, it may create a communications dead zone. A high point does not just offer observation, it may become the most important communications node in the entire position. Before occupying terrain, leaders should understand not only what they can see from it, but what that terrain allows them to see electronically. The electromagnetic spectrum interacts with terrain just as surely as Soldiers and vehicles do, and leaders who understand this gain another tool for making better tactical decisions.

The Radio Is the Last Step

By the time an operator reaches for the handset, many of the factors determining success have already been decided: where the vehicle was positioned, what terrain surrounds it, how high the antenna is, what other nodes are available in the network, and what tradeoffs were accepted in favor of mobility or survivability. Only after those questions are answered does transmitter power begin to matter. The radio is not the beginning of communications, it is the final component of a much larger system.

Looking Ahead

Our daily Digital Sustainment Training will focus on helping Soldiers and leaders better understand the electromagnetic spectrum and the systems they use every day. The objective is not simply to teach operators which buttons to push, it is to help them understand why communications succeed, why they fail, and what variables they can influence before they ever touch the radio. Because the best communicators are not the Soldiers who know how to operate a radio. They are the Soldiers who understand the environment in which that radio must operate.

Subscribe now

To answer that honestly, I had to go backward first. You cannot understand modern drone feeds without understanding how humanity moved from early television to real-time airborne ISR (because the physics are the same). Only the scale and speed have changed.

If you stop and think about it, a drone feed is remarkable. A camera mounted beneath an aircraft thousands of feet above the earth captures visual information, converts it into electromagnetic signals, transmits those signals through space, routes them across networks, reconstructs them through receivers, and displays them on screens hundreds or even thousands of miles away, often with only fractions of a second of delay.

For most of human history, vision was limited by physical line of sight. Information about distant events had to travel through messengers, written reports, or verbal descriptions. Even after radio demonstrated that invisible energy could carry sound across oceans, transmitting moving images remained an unsolved problem for decades.

The challenge was immense. To remotely transmit images, engineers had to artificially recreate human sight using machines, which meant solving several interconnected problems simultaneously: capturing light electronically, converting visual information into electrical signals, organizing those signals into structured image data, transmitting that data through the electromagnetic spectrum, synchronizing receivers with transmitters, and reconstructing moving images remotely in near real time.

Modern drone feeds, satellite imagery, and digital video communications all trace their origins back to humanity’s first attempts to solve exactly that chain of problems.

The Core Problem: Moving Vision Through Space

At its most fundamental level, every visual transmission system is attempting to solve a deceptively simple problem: how do you move sight itself from one location to another?

The difficulty begins with understanding that vision is not an object. It is a process. Visible light reflects off objects and travels as electromagnetic radiation. When these photons strike the retina of the human eye, specialized cells convert the incoming light into electrical impulses. The brain then processes those impulses into what we perceive as an image.

Cameras perform a remarkably similar function. Instead of biological cells, cameras use electronic sensors that respond to incoming photons, measure light intensity, and convert it into electrical signals. Modern digital cameras accomplish this using millions of tiny sensing elements called pixels, each acting like a microscopic light detector.

Unlike sound transmissions, video contains enormous amounts of information. A single moving image is actually a rapidly changing sequence of individual frames, each containing massive amounts of brightness, color, timing, and positional data. Even relatively low-resolution video requires huge amounts of bandwidth compared to voice communications.

To make remote vision possible, engineers had to develop an entire chain of electromagnetic translation: light enters a camera sensor; the sensor converts photons into electrical signals; those signals are organized into image information; the image data modulates an electromagnetic carrier wave; the signal propagates through space; a receiver captures the transmission; and the image is reconstructed on a remote display.

What appears to human observers as a live video feed is actually a continuous stream of electromagnetic conversions occurring at extraordinary speed. The image itself never physically travels. Only encoded electromagnetic information moves through space. That distinction became one of the defining technological breakthroughs of the modern world.

Early Television: Humanity’s First Remote Vision System

By the late 1800s and early 1900s, scientists had already proven that sound could travel through electromagnetic waves. Images were a different order of problem. Voice transmissions only required capturing changes in air pressure over time. Images required transmitting the brightness and position of thousands (eventually millions) of individual points simultaneously while constantly updating them fast enough to create the perception of motion.

Some of the first experimental systems used spinning mechanical disks (Nipkow disks) with tiny holes arranged in spiral patterns. As the disk rotated, it scanned portions of an image line by line. Light passing through the spinning system struck photoelectric sensors, which converted changes in brightness into electrical signals. At the receiving end, another synchronized spinning disk attempted to reconstruct the image using a light source that varied in intensity based on the incoming signal.

The results were blurry, unstable, and extremely low resolution. But the principle worked. Humanity had discovered that images could be broken apart into sequential electrical information, transmitted remotely, and reconstructed elsewhere.

Eventually, fully electronic systems replaced mechanical scanning. Cathode ray tube displays rapidly drew images using electron beams controlled by electromagnetic fields, introducing one of the most important concepts in visual transmission: raster scanning. Rather than transmitting an entire image at once, systems scanned images line by line from top to bottom at high speed. Each horizontal line contained brightness information representing a tiny slice of the image. When refreshed rapidly enough, the human brain fused these individual scans into continuous motion.

Early television engineers also had to solve synchronization. If the receiver scanned too quickly or too slowly compared to the transmitter, the picture would roll, distort, or collapse entirely. The solution was embedding timing signals directly into the transmission so receivers could stay locked to incoming data streams. Modern military systems still depend heavily on this same principle. Satellite communications, drone control links, GPS-guided weapons, and digital networks all rely on synchronization mechanisms that trace their conceptual roots back to early television engineering.

In many ways, television became humanity’s first operational remote vision network. It transformed light into electrical signals, converted those signals into electromagnetic transmissions, propagated them through space, and reconstructed moving imagery somewhere else in near real time.

Analog Video and the Electromagnetic Spectrum

Early television proved remote vision was possible, but also revealed a difficult reality: video transmission consumed enormous amounts of electromagnetic bandwidth. A human conversation can remain understandable even with distortion or static. Video is far less forgiving. Every frame contains constantly changing spatial information that must remain synchronized and coherent for the image to make sense.

Early television systems accomplished this using analog transmission methods. The brightness of the image directly influenced the electrical characteristics of the transmitted signal. As the camera scanned each line of the scene, the electrical voltage fluctuated continuously based on the brightness being observed at that exact moment. These constantly changing voltages then modulated high-frequency radio carriers that propagated through space.

The receiver reversed the process by demodulating incoming signals back into changing electrical voltages that controlled the intensity of electron beams inside cathode ray tube displays.

But analog systems came with a defining limitation: any interference within the electromagnetic environment immediately affected image quality. Noise, atmospheric disturbances, terrain reflections, and competing transmissions all distorted the signal during propagation. This is why older televisions displayed static, ghosting, or rolling images when signal quality degraded. The receiver was not guessing what the image should look like. It was directly reconstructing whatever electromagnetic distortions it received.

The gradual analog degradation became especially important in early military airborne video systems. Some of the first remotely piloted surveillance platforms transmitted analog video feeds over radio frequency links very similar in principle to commercial television broadcasts. Aircraft-mounted cameras converted visual scenes into analog electrical signals, modulated radio transmitters, and sent imagery to remote operators. The results were often unstable. Terrain masked transmissions. Atmospheric conditions distorted propagation. Limited bandwidth constrained image quality.

The Digital Revolution

Analog television proved that humanity could move vision through the electromagnetic spectrum, but analog systems were reaching their limits. Higher resolutions demanded more bandwidth. Color broadcasting increased signal complexity. Long-distance transmissions accumulated noise and distortion.

The solution required a fundamentally different approach. Instead of transmitting images as continuous electrical variations, visual information would need to become data. At the center of that revolution was the analog-to-digital converter (ADC).

Modern digital image sensors divide scenes into millions of tiny sensing locations called pixels. Each pixel measures incoming light intensity and converts it into an electrical charge. The analog-to-digital converter then measures those charges and assigns numerical values representing brightness and color. At that moment, the image stops being purely electromagnetic physics and becomes structured mathematical information.

Once images became digital information, engineers could manipulate visual data using mathematics rather than relying entirely on physical signal behavior. Systems could now compress images, correct errors, encrypt transmissions, duplicate signals perfectly, and route information through complex digital networks.

But raw video is massive. Even a modest modern video feed contains millions of pixels updated dozens of times every second. Without compression, transmitting raw video would consume impossible amounts of bandwidth. Engineers developed compression algorithms capable of reducing redundant information rather than transmitting every pixel in every frame independently, digital systems began identifying patterns and changes between frames. Static background information could be transmitted once and reused. Only portions of the image that changed significantly required continuous updates.

This introduced a critical difference between analog and digital systems. Analog degrades gradually. As signal quality worsens, the image slowly becomes noisier while still remaining partially visible. Digital systems fail catastrophically. As long as enough information arrives correctly, the receiver can perfectly reconstruct the image. But once signal quality falls below a certain threshold, the reconstruction collapses rapidly. Instead of becoming progressively snowy, digital feeds freeze, pixelate, fragment, or disappear entirely. This is the digital cliff.

That characteristic fundamentally changed the relationship between electromagnetic propagation and visual systems. In analog systems, electromagnetic degradation visibly affects the image itself. In digital systems, it affects the receiver’s ability to reconstruct the underlying data; the image viewers see is no longer tied to the physical waveform alone. It is tied to whether enough information survives transmission for mathematical reconstruction to succeed.

How Modern Drone Feeds Actually Work

An aircraft orbiting silently miles away can stream stabilized, high-definition imagery to operators sitting in tactical operations centers, command posts, vehicles, ships, or even continents away through satellite relay networks. Multiple users can view the same feed simultaneously while analysts zoom, track, annotate, record, and distribute information in real time.

But beneath the modern displays and advanced software interfaces, the underlying process is still built on the same chain humanity has been refining since the earliest television systems:

Capture light.
Convert it into electrical information.
Transmit it through the electromagnetic spectrum.
Reconstruct the image remotely.

The difference is that modern drone systems now perform this process with extraordinary speed, precision, and computational complexity.

Most modern military drones carry multiple imaging systems simultaneously. Electro-optical cameras capture visible light. Infrared sensors detect thermal radiation. Other systems may integrate low-light cameras, multispectral sensors, laser rangefinders, and synthetic aperture radar. All of these sensors are fundamentally collecting electromagnetic energy from the environment.

Inside the aircraft, analog-to-digital converters rapidly transform pixel measurements into numerical values representing brightness, color, heat, motion, and spatial relationships. At this stage, the drone has not yet transmitted video. It has generated enormous amounts of raw sensor data, and that distinction matters, because raw video is massive. If every bit of that raw data had to travel across tactical networks continuously, modern military communications architectures would quickly saturate.

This is why modern military systems increasingly emphasize processing at the tactical edge; directly on the drone, near the sensor, or within localized tactical networks, rather than relying on distant cloud infrastructure. Stabilization, object tracking, noise reduction, compression, target recognition, and sensor fusion can now occur directly onboard the aircraft. Rather than sending everything, systems prioritize only tactically relevant portions of the scene. This dramatically reduces bandwidth requirements while improving survivability inside contested electromagnetic environments.

Once processed, compressed, and prioritized, the data is encoded into digital packets and modulated onto radio frequency carrier waves. Depending on the mission architecture, transmissions may move through direct line-of-sight data links, airborne relays, satellite communications, terrestrial networks, or distributed mesh architectures connecting multiple platforms together.

The receiver reverses the entire chain by capturing faint electromagnetic signals, recovering digital packets, correcting transmission errors, decompressing imagery, and reconstructing the video stream frame by frame. Only then does the operator see what appears to be a live image. But the feed is not truly live in the way human eyesight experiences reality. The operator is viewing a rapidly reconstructed interpretation generated from electromagnetic measurements, computational processing, timing synchronization, and network transport occurring continuously in real time. Even milliseconds matter. In civilian systems, slight delays are unimportant. In combat environments, those delays can be operationally decisive.

Ukraine and Russia: Bandwidth War at the Tactical Edge

Nowhere has the tension between drone capability and electromagnetic constraint been tested more aggressively than in Ukraine. The conflict has become the most intensive drone warfare environment in history, and the bandwidth problem is not theoretical. It is a daily operational reality.

Both sides are flying hundreds of first-person view drones daily across active frontlines. Commercial FPV systems (quadcopters adapted from racing drone platforms) operate on consumer radio frequencies, primarily 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz. These bands were never designed for contested military use. They are crowded, well-understood, and extremely easy to jam. Ukrainian and Russian electronic warfare units have both learned to detect, suppress, and deny these frequencies systematically. The result is a constant electronic cat-and-mouse where operators switch frequencies mid-mission, use directional antennas to minimize signature, or pre-program waypoints so drones can continue toward targets autonomously after the datalink is disrupted.

Longer-range ISR platforms (i.e. Ukrainian Leleka-100s and Russian Orlan-10s) face a different set of constraints. These platforms need to transmit real-time video over distances measured in tens of kilometers, often through urban terrain and active jamming environments. Encrypted digital datalinks operating in the military UHF and L-band ranges offer more resilience than consumer frequencies, but they require more power, larger antennas, and more sophisticated ground stations. Every design choice involves tradeoffs between range, bandwidth, survivability, and the physical weight a small aircraft can carry.

The bandwidth math is unforgiving. A standard-definition video feed at 30 frames per second requires roughly 3–5 Mbps of throughput after compression. High-definition feeds push that figure to 10–25 Mbps. Across a contested 30-kilometer link, sustaining even standard-definition video against active jamming requires link budgets that most tactical systems struggle to maintain. Both sides have adapted by reducing video resolution, increasing compression aggressively, and in some cases transmitting only key frames rather than continuous video; effectively trading image quality for link survivability.

Satellite communications have allowed Ukraine to extend ISR reach significantly. Starlink terminals deployed at ground stations and command posts have enabled persistent connectivity where terrestrial links would fail. But satellite links introduce latency (typically 20 to 40 milliseconds for low-earth-orbit systems) and are themselves subject to jamming and spoofing at the terminal level. Russia has invested heavily in electronic warfare systems designed to suppress satellite terminal uplinks, particularly in forward areas. The electromagnetic battle is vertical as well as horizontal.

Both sides have also adapted tactically by moving computation closer to the sensor. Rather than streaming raw video back to distant command posts for analysis, units increasingly process imagery locally at the platoon level or even on the aircraft itself and transmit only relevant information forward. Target coordinates, vehicle classifications, and movement vectors require far less bandwidth than continuous video. This shift toward data products rather than raw feeds is not driven by preference. It is driven by the reality that raw feeds cannot reliably survive the electromagnetic environment.

The operational lesson is not subtle: in a contested electromagnetic environment, bandwidth is a finite and fragile resource. The side that can extract the most tactically useful information from the least electromagnetic exposure will maintain ISR advantage longer. Ukraine and Russia are both learning that lesson in real time, at significant cost.

The Future: When Machines Begin Interpreting the Spectrum

Modern ISR platforms can now stabilize imagery automatically, identify motion, track objects across frames, recognize terrain features, and flag anomalies within enormous volumes of collected data. AI-assisted systems are beginning to distinguish vehicles from civilians, identify changes in terrain over time, and prioritize information for human analysts. The reason this evolution matters becomes obvious when considering scale: drone swarms, satellites, ground sensors, radar systems, electronic warfare platforms, and airborne ISR assets collectively generate staggering amounts of electromagnetic data continuously. Human analysts alone cannot observe everything in real time.

The bottleneck is no longer collection. The bottleneck is understanding.

A drone operating near the tactical edge may eventually identify threats, classify targets, correlate sensor information, and recommend actions locally without requiring continuous human guidance or centralized cloud connectivity. The faster systems can process information locally, the less dependent they become on vulnerable long-range communication pathways. The less information that must travel across the spectrum, the more resilient the overall network becomes against jamming, interception, and disruption.

Visual systems are also expanding beyond traditional human eyesight. Infrared sensors detect heat invisible to the human eye. Synthetic aperture radar constructs images using reflected radio waves rather than visible light. Hyperspectral systems analyze materials based on unique electromagnetic signatures across multiple frequency bands. Passive sensing systems identify emissions without transmitting at all. Modern military systems are no longer simply replicating human vision remotely. They are creating entirely new forms of electromagnetic perception.

But despite all the technological sophistication, the underlying principle remains exactly what humanity first discovered during the early days of television: light can be converted into electrical information, electrical information can move through the electromagnetic spectrum, and that information can reconstruct perception somewhere else. The systems have become faster, smaller, and smarter. The core challenge is the same one humanity has been solving for over a century.

In future conflicts, electromagnetic superiority will increasingly depend not only on who can collect information, but on who can interpret it fastest while moving the smallest possible amount of data through contested networks. The side that best understands how to sense, process, protect, and manipulate perception across the electromagnetic spectrum may ultimately determine how wars are fought.

The question a reader asked “how does video actually move through the electromagnetic spectrum” turns out to be one of the most consequential questions in modern warfare. The physics have not changed since the first flickering television transmission. What has changed is the cost of getting the answer wrong.

Subscribe now

Article Referenced: https://breakingdefense.com/2026/05/first-of-its-kind-electromagnetic-spectrum-exercise-tests-senior-leaders-in-arctic-conditions/

Extreme cold, atmospheric instability, ionospheric turbulence, solar activity, ice crystals, temperature inversions, and shifting plasma densities all influence how electromagnetic energy propagates through the environment. Signals bend differently. Timing degrades. Radar behaves unpredictably. Communications fluctuate. Even the electronics themselves begin physically changing under thermal stress.

The result is that the Arctic does not simply challenge military operations physically, it reshapes the invisible electromagnetic environment modern military systems depend upon. Recent exercises focused on Arctic electromagnetic operations matter because the challenge is not merely surviving the cold; it is understanding how the environment alters sensing, navigation, communications, synchronization, and electronic warfare.

The Arctic is not just difficult terrain. It is a fundamentally different electromagnetic reality.

The Atmosphere Is Part of the Circuit

Most people imagine electromagnetic energy moving through empty space untouched by the world around it: a radio transmits, a receiver listens, the signal arrives. But that mental model is incomplete.

Electromagnetic energy does not move through a perfect vacuum once it reaches Earth. It moves through an active physical environment that constantly changes how the signal behaves. Temperature, humidity, pressure, ionization, precipitation, atmospheric density, and solar activity all influence how electromagnetic energy propagates. The atmosphere itself becomes part of the circuit.

That reality matters because military operations depend on electromagnetic energy behaving predictably. Radios, radar systems, GPS satellites, electronic warfare platforms, drones, data links, missile warning systems, and wireless networks all assume that signals can travel reliably from one point to another. But the environment is constantly reshaping those signals along the way.

At its most fundamental level, electromagnetic propagation is governed by the relationship between frequency, wavelength, and the speed of light: c = fλ. Frequency itself may remain constant, but how that wavelength interacts with the surrounding environment changes continuously. As electromagnetic energy moves through the atmosphere, refraction bends signals as atmospheric density changes with altitude and temperature; scattering spreads energy in multiple directions as particles, turbulence, and irregularities disrupt the wavefront; absorption converts portions of electromagnetic energy into heat through moisture, gases, and precipitation; multipath interference occurs when signals reflect off terrain, water, ice, or structures and arrive at slightly different times; and attenuation weakens signals over distance and through environmental resistance. None of these are software problems. They are physics problems.

This becomes especially important in extreme environments like the Arctic, where temperature gradients, ice crystals, ionospheric instability, and solar activity can dramatically alter propagation conditions. In those environments, the atmosphere stops behaving like a transparent medium and starts behaving like a dynamic electromagnetic terrain feature. Signals may travel farther than expected through atmospheric ducting. Radar beams may bend unpredictably. GPS timing may degrade as ionospheric disturbances distort satellite transmissions. Communications links that function perfectly in temperate climates may become unreliable in polar conditions. The electromagnetic spectrum is not a fixed backdrop behind modern technology. It is a living environment constantly shaped by physics.

Temperature Inversions and Atmospheric Ducting

Under normal conditions, air temperature decreases with altitude. Warm air rises, cold air settles lower to the ground, and that predictable temperature gradient is what most communication systems, radar models, and propagation assumptions are designed around. But in extreme environments, the atmosphere often behaves differently.

Sometimes a layer of warmer air forms above a colder, denser surface layer; a phenomenon known as a temperature inversion. Instead of temperature decreasing with altitude, it temporarily increases, and that single change dramatically alters how electromagnetic energy moves through the atmosphere. The reason lies in the refractive index of air. As temperature, pressure, and density change, the atmosphere bends electromagnetic waves differently. Under inversion conditions, radio waves and radar energy can begin curving back toward the Earth instead of continuing outward into space. In certain conditions, the signal becomes trapped between atmospheric layers and the surface, forming what is known as an atmospheric duct. Rather than dispersing normally, electromagnetic energy begins traveling inside the duct almost like light moving through a fiber optic cable. The atmosphere itself becomes a waveguide.

This can produce effects that appear almost unnatural to operators expecting standard line-of-sight behavior. Signals may suddenly travel hundreds or even thousands of kilometers farther than expected. Radar systems may detect targets well beyond their anticipated range. Maritime vessels can appear on radar unexpectedly. Communications links may become unusually strong in one location while disappearing entirely in another. Then, just as quickly, the environment can change again.

Because ducting depends on precise atmospheric conditions, slight shifts in temperature, humidity, wind, or pressure can cause propagation paths to collapse or redirect entirely. Systems that worked moments earlier may suddenly fail. Sensors may experience clutter, false returns, fading, or dead zones. This becomes especially important in Arctic operations because the environment naturally supports persistent inversion layers. Sea ice, snow-covered terrain, long periods of darkness, stable high-pressure systems, and extremely cold surface temperatures all contribute to strong vertical temperature gradients. In polar regions, the atmosphere frequently becomes highly stratified, creating ideal conditions for ducting.

The result is an electromagnetic environment that behaves differently from the assumptions built into many traditional operational models. Radar coverage becomes less predictable. Electronic warfare effects may propagate farther than intended. Detection ranges fluctuate unexpectedly. Command-and-control networks become harder to stabilize. Signals intelligence systems encounter unusual propagation paths and reflections. In conventional thinking, terrain dominates maneuver. In electromagnetic operations, the atmosphere can become terrain itself. And in the Arctic, that terrain is constantly changing.

The Arctic Ionosphere Is Chaotic, Active, and Unpredictable

High above the Earth, beyond the weather systems of the lower atmosphere, lies another layer that quietly shapes the modern electromagnetic battlespace: the ionosphere. Stretching from roughly 60 kilometers to more than 1,000 kilometers above the Earth’s surface, the ionosphere is a region where solar radiation strips electrons away from atoms and molecules, creating a constantly shifting layer of electrically charged plasma.

This region plays a major role in how electromagnetic energy propagates across the planet. High-frequency radio signals can reflect off the ionosphere and travel beyond the horizon. Satellite communications must pass through it. GPS timing signals travel directly through it on their way to receivers on Earth. Radar systems interact with it. Long-range sensing systems depend on understanding it. And near the poles, the ionosphere becomes extraordinarily unstable.

The reason begins with Earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic field lines converge near the Arctic and Antarctic, creating pathways that allow charged solar particles to plunge deeper into the upper atmosphere. As streams of energetic particles from the Sun collide with the ionosphere, they inject energy directly into the plasma environment. The visible result is the aurora (northern lights).

As solar energy enters the polar ionosphere, plasma density begins fluctuating rapidly. Irregular structures form and drift through the atmosphere. Electron concentrations rise and collapse. Turbulence develops across multiple scales, from meters to hundreds of kilometers. The ionosphere becomes a moving target. Unlike terrain, which changes slowly, ionospheric conditions can evolve in seconds or minutes. A communication path that exists one moment may disappear the next. GPS accuracy may suddenly degrade. Radar performance may shift unexpectedly. Satellite links may fade or drop entirely. In many cases, the systems themselves are functioning perfectly. The environment around them is not.

This creates major challenges for electromagnetic operations in Arctic regions. High-frequency radio communications often become inconsistent because ionospheric reflection conditions continuously change. Satellite communications can experience phase distortion and signal fading as radio waves pass through turbulent plasma regions. GPS receivers may encounter scintillation effects that introduce timing errors, positional drift, or complete signal loss.

That matters because modern military systems are fundamentally dependent on precise timing and synchronization; for example navigation systems, precision-guided weapons, networked fires, sensor fusion, data links, and command-and-control architectures all depend on electromagnetic timing signals arriving exactly when expected. Even tiny disruptions can ripple across an entire operational system. The Arctic compounds these challenges because the polar ionosphere experiences stronger interactions with solar activity than lower latitudes. During periods of elevated solar activity, electromagnetic conditions can deteriorate rapidly across enormous geographic areas.

In effect, the Arctic ionosphere behaves less like stable infrastructure and more like a constantly evolving weather system made of plasma and electromagnetic energy. And unlike storms on the ground, these disturbances are often invisible to the operators depending on the systems being affected. That creates one of the central realities of Arctic electromagnetic operations: the environment itself becomes an active participant in the fight; not because it is hostile in the traditional sense, but because the physics governing electromagnetic propagation are continuously changing faster than many systems are designed to adapt.

GPS Signals Become Fragile in Polar Regions

Most people think of GPS as a navigation system. In reality, it is a timing system that happens to provide navigation. Every GPS receiver works by measuring the arrival time of electromagnetic signals transmitted from satellites orbiting roughly 20,200 kilometers above the Earth. By comparing timing differences between multiple satellites, the receiver calculates its position in space. That process depends on one critical assumption: the signals must arrive exactly when expected.

Even tiny timing errors matter. Because electromagnetic energy travels at the speed of light, a timing error of just one nanosecond can translate into position errors measured in feet. Larger disruptions quickly expand into tens, hundreds, or even thousands of meters of uncertainty. And GPS signals are extraordinarily weak by the time they reach Earth; often weaker than background thermal noise. Receivers recover the signal through advanced correlation techniques, signal integration, and precise synchronization. In practical terms, GPS works because the receiver is exceptionally good at detecting faint patterns buried inside noise. That makes the system incredibly sensitive to environmental disturbances.

Before reaching a receiver, GPS signals must travel through the ionosphere; the same unstable plasma environment already being reshaped by solar activity, geomagnetic storms, auroral processes, and polar magnetic field interactions. As the signal passes through irregular plasma regions, the signal path bends due to changes in electron density, portions of the wave scatter unpredictably, signal phase shifts occur, and small-scale plasma turbulence creates rapid fluctuations in signal amplitude and timing, a phenomenon known as scintillation. The receiver begins struggling to maintain synchronization. Under severe conditions, it may temporarily lose lock on one or more satellites entirely.

Near the Arctic, the ionosphere is far more dynamic and unstable than at lower latitudes. Auroral activity injects energy directly into the plasma environment. Geomagnetic storms intensify density irregularities. Long polar nights alter upper-atmospheric circulation patterns. The entire propagation environment becomes more turbulent and less predictable. Position estimates drift, timing precision deteriorates, navigation solutions become unstable, data links lose synchronization, and precision systems accumulate error.

And because modern military systems are deeply interconnected, these effects rarely remain isolated. Precision-guided weapons rely on accurate timing and positioning. Networked fires depend on synchronized clocks. Aircraft navigation systems require stable satellite solutions. ISR platforms align sensor data using precise timing references. Communication networks depend on coordinated timing across distributed nodes. When GPS performance degrades, entire operational architectures begin experiencing friction. Importantly, many of these disruptions do not look dramatic, there is often no obvious system failure, no explosion, no visible attack. Instead, the system simply becomes slightly less precise, then less stable, then less trustworthy. In highly synchronized operations, even small timing instability can create cascading effects across a force. This is what makes Arctic electromagnetic operations uniquely difficult.

Extreme Cold Changes the Hardware Itself

The electromagnetic environment is not the only thing altered by Arctic conditions. The hardware generating, receiving, processing, and amplifying electromagnetic energy changes as well. This is an important distinction because electromagnetic systems are often discussed as if they operate independently from their physical construction. In reality, every radio, radar, satellite terminal, antenna, amplifier, oscillator, cable, and receiver is still a physical object governed by thermodynamics, material science, and electrical engineering. Extreme cold changes those systems at nearly every level.

Some of the effects are obvious. Batteries lose efficiency as chemical reactions slow in low temperatures. Lubricants thicken. Mechanical components become brittle. Ice accumulates on antennas and radar domes. Connectors contract. Cabling stiffens. Condensation forms during thermal cycling and later freezes. But many of the most important effects occur invisibly inside the electronics themselves.

Oscillators begin drifting. This matters because oscillators provide the timing reference for nearly every electromagnetic system. Radios depend on them to generate stable carrier frequencies. Receivers depend on them for synchronization. Radar systems rely on precise timing relationships. Digital networks use them to coordinate data transmission and processing. Even small temperature-induced instability can ripple throughout an entire system. As components cool, their electrical properties shift slightly; materials contract microscopically, resonant frequencies move, crystal oscillators experience frequency drift, amplifier behavior changes, and filters no longer respond exactly as designed. Timing relationships begin accumulating small errors.

Individually, these deviations may appear insignificant. Collectively, they can alter how a system behaves electromagnetically. A transmitter may radiate slightly outside its intended frequency. A receiver may lose sensitivity. Noise floors may rise. Phase stability may degrade. Signal quality may fluctuate. Synchronization margins may narrow. In harsh Arctic conditions, systems are often operating closer to their physical limits than designers originally anticipated.

This becomes especially important in modern digitally networked systems where precision matters enormously. Digital communications depend on timing accuracy. Beamforming systems depend on phase alignment. Electronic warfare systems depend on precise signal characterization. Radar systems depend on coherent timing relationships. Software-defined radios depend on stable frequency references. When environmental stress begins affecting timing and stability, the electromagnetic behavior of the system itself starts changing.

In some cases, this can even alter the electromagnetic “fingerprint” of a device. No transmitter is perfectly identical to another; tiny manufacturing variations already create subtle differences in emitted signals through small imperfections in oscillators, nonlinearities in amplifiers, timing variations, harmonic distortion, and phase noise. Extreme cold can amplify or modify those characteristics. An emitter operating in Arctic conditions may drift differently than the same system operating in temperate environments. From a signals intelligence perspective, the environment itself can influence how identifiable an emitter becomes. The Arctic therefore creates a dual electromagnetic challenge: the atmosphere changes how signals propagate, while the cold changes the systems generating the signals in the first place.

The Spectrum Becomes Congested, Contested, and Unpredictable

Modern military operations are built on the assumption that electromagnetic connectivity exists; not just communications, but connectivity itself. Aircraft navigate using satellite timing. Radars search electronically across vast distances. Drones rely on data links and remote control signals. Precision-guided weapons depend on synchronized positioning. Command-and-control systems distribute information across wireless networks. Sensors feed targeting data into digital architectures. Electronic warfare systems search for, classify, and disrupt signals continuously. Even systems that appear independent are often connected through hidden electromagnetic dependencies. The electromagnetic spectrum is no longer merely supporting military operations. It is enabling them.

That dependence creates a major vulnerability in extreme environments like the Arctic because the electromagnetic environment itself becomes unstable at the exact moment military systems become more dependent on it. Signals already weakened by distance begin interacting with unstable atmospheric layers. Ionospheric turbulence distorts timing and synchronization. Cold weather alters the performance of the systems generating the signals. Propagation paths fluctuate unpredictably. Radar coverage changes dynamically. GPS timing becomes less reliable. At the same time, military forces continue adding more electromagnetic activity into the environment; more sensors, more radios, more satellites, more datalinks, more autonomous systems, more emitters competing for spectrum access simultaneously. The result is not simply congestion. It is electromagnetic complexity.

Every transmission becomes part of an increasingly dense and dynamic environment where systems are simultaneously transmitting, receiving, sensing, synchronizing, locating, classifying, interfering, and adapting; all while the atmosphere itself continues changing the behavior of the signals moving through it. In stable environments, many of these systems can compensate for minor disruptions automatically. In Arctic conditions, the environment may change faster than the adaptation cycle itself.

A communications path that worked minutes ago may suddenly fail due to shifting ionospheric conditions. A radar contact may appear beyond expected range because of atmospheric ducting. GPS timing may drift enough to disrupt synchronization across a network. Electronic warfare effects may propagate farther than predicted. Autonomous systems may encounter intermittent control links. The operational picture becomes less stable. And critically, these failures rarely occur in isolation. Modern military systems are deeply interconnected: a timing error affects synchronization, synchronization affects targeting, targeting affects fires, fires affect maneuver, maneuver affects survivability. The spectrum quietly links everything together.

This is one of the reasons military organizations are increasingly treating the electromagnetic spectrum as maneuver space rather than merely technical infrastructure. Unlike physical terrain, electromagnetic terrain changes continuously; the atmosphere shifts, the ionosphere fluctuates, solar activity intensifies, signals interfere, hardware drifts, networks adapt, and adversaries jam, spoof, detect, and classify. The environment never truly stabilizes. In the Arctic, this becomes especially important because operators are often forced to make decisions in conditions where the electromagnetic picture itself may be incomplete, delayed, distorted, or temporarily misleading. This changes the nature of command. Leaders are no longer simply maneuvering forces across geography. They are maneuvering through physics.

Why the Arctic Matters Strategically

For most of modern history, the Arctic was viewed primarily as a geographic obstacle; remote, frozen, difficult to access, and operationally punishing. But as technology advanced, the Arctic became something else: a strategic electromagnetic corridor. The shortest routes between major global powers pass across the polar regions. Long-range aviation routes cross the Arctic. Missile trajectories travel over the poles. Polar-orbiting satellites repeatedly pass through Arctic space. Early warning radars monitor northern approaches. Submarines maneuver beneath polar ice. Communications systems stretch across enormous distances where infrastructure remains sparse and environmental conditions remain extreme. The Arctic is no longer peripheral. It is becoming central to how modern military powers sense, communicate, deter, and project force globally.

That reality is driving increased military focus on Arctic electromagnetic operations. Russia has invested heavily in Arctic infrastructure, radar systems, air defense networks, electronic warfare capabilities, and northern military basing. China increasingly describes itself as a “near-Arctic state” while expanding interest in polar shipping routes, communications architecture, and scientific access. NATO forces are conducting larger exercises in northern environments while attempting to better understand how operations change in extreme electromagnetic conditions. The strategic competition is not only about territory. It is about access to information and the ability to operate reliably inside one of the harshest electromagnetic environments on Earth.

Modern military power depends heavily on the ability to maintain awareness, synchronization, and connectivity across distributed systems. The force that can best sense, communicate, navigate, synchronize, and adapt inside degraded electromagnetic conditions gains enormous operational advantage. And the Arctic naturally degrades all of those things. Distance weakens signals, ionospheric instability distorts propagation, extreme cold stresses electronics, sparse infrastructure limits redundancy, atmospheric conditions fluctuate rapidly, and solar activity disrupts timing and communications. The environment itself becomes a persistent source of uncertainty.

This is why recent Arctic-focused electromagnetic exercises are so important. They are forcing military leaders to confront an uncomfortable reality: many systems designed for stable electromagnetic conditions may behave very differently in the Arctic. A force can possess advanced satellites, powerful radars, precision weapons, sophisticated networks, and cutting-edge electronic warfare systems and still struggle if it cannot understand how the environment is reshaping the electromagnetic conditions those systems depend upon. The future electromagnetic fight may not belong solely to the side with the most technology. It may belong to the side that best understands the physics governing the environment where that technology operates.

Subscribe now

With so many signals constantly moving through the air, it feels like the adversary would be trying to find a needle in a haystack.

I imagined someone sitting behind a computer, maybe using a satellite, just listening in on a radio conversation. But the deeper I got into it, the more I realized it is far more complex than that.

A signal is structured energy, shaped through changes in amplitude, frequency, and phase. Once I understood that, the question changed from “how do they collect?” to something more fundamental:

What are they actually collecting? The answer is not just the message.

The moment a radio emits energy into the electromagnetic spectrum, it begins exposing layers of observable structure. Some of that structure may contain recoverable content. Much of it does not. Yet even without understanding the message itself, an adversary can often extract enormous amounts of intelligence from the physical behavior of the signal.

This is one of the most important realities in electromagnetic operations:

A transmission can reveal intelligence long before encryption is broken.

Detecting the Existence of a Signal

Before a signal can be understood, it first has to be detected.

That sounds simple, but the electromagnetic environment is crowded and chaotic. The atmosphere is already filled with electromagnetic energy from civilian communications, radar systems, satellites, navigation systems, electrical infrastructure, atmospheric effects, and countless other emitters operating simultaneously across the spectrum.

Inside that environment, a adversary is constantly searching for structure.

The first challenge is not decoding information. It is determining whether a meaningful transmission exists at all.

Collection systems scan portions of the spectrum looking for energy that differs from the surrounding background. Sometimes that structure appears as a narrow spike at a specific frequency. Other times it may appear as short bursts, repeating pulses, frequency hopping behavior, or unusually organized waveform patterns.

At this stage, the adversary may know almost nothing about the signal itself.

But they already know something important: Something is transmitting. That alone can be operationally valuable.

A sudden increase in transmissions may indicate maneuver, targeting activity, command coordination, air defense activation, or preparation for operations. Even encrypted or highly sophisticated systems still create detectable electromagnetic activity when they transmit.

The existence of the signal becomes intelligence before the contents are ever understood.

Characterizing the Waveform

Once a signal is detected, the next step is understanding what kind of signal it is. This process is not about language or meaning. It is about physics.

At its core, a radio signal is a time-varying waveform. Everything an adversary can learn at this stage comes from analyzing how that waveform behaves over time and frequency.

At its core, the waveform follows the form:

Amplitude A(t), frequency f(t), and phase phi(t) are all allowed to change over time. Those changes are not random; they are deliberately structured. And that structure is what collection systems analyze.

Instead of asking “what does the message say,” a adversary intelligence network asks: How is this waveform behaving?

If the frequency remains constant over time, the signal may be a simple continuous transmission. If it jumps rapidly between frequencies, it may be using frequency hopping, which immediately suggests a more sophisticated or protected system. If the signal appears only in short bursts, that may indicate packet-based communication or attempts to reduce detectability.

Bandwidth emerges directly from how quickly the waveform changes. A signal that changes rapidly in time must occupy more space in frequency. This is not a design choice as much as a physical constraint; faster transitions require more spectrum. From this alone, an observer can estimate how much information the system is attempting to transmit and how aggressively it is using the spectrum.

Even without decoding the signal, patterns begin to appear.

A radar system may produce highly regular pulses with precise timing intervals. A communication network may show irregular bursts of activity tied to data transmission. A satellite link may appear stable and continuous, while a mobile system may show variations caused by movement, obstruction, or changing geometry.

What matters is that the waveform is never just a signal, it is a behavioral fingerprint.

Subtle variations in amplitude may indicate power control or range adjustments. Small instabilities in frequency may reflect oscillator quality. Phase behavior may reveal the type of modulation being used. Timing patterns may expose how the system organizes and transmits data.

By analyzing how the waveform evolves in time and frequency, collection systems can begin identifying what type of system is transmitting, how it is operating, how complex it is, and whether it matches known or previously observed emitters.

At this stage, the content of the transmission may still be completely unknown. But the waveform itself is already telling a story.

Metadata Often Matters More Than Content

This is where many people misunderstand what an adversary is collecting. Recovering the actual message content is only one layer of collection, and often not the most important one.

In many cases, metadata is more operationally valuable than the message itself.

Metadata is not what was said. It is everything about how the transmission occurred.

Even when encryption fully protects the content, a signal still carries observable characteristics tied to behavior. Every transmission happens at a specific time, lasts for a measurable duration, occupies a particular portion of the spectrum, and follows patterns that repeat or evolve. Over time, those patterns begin to describe the system that generated them.

A single transmission might not reveal much. But repeated transmissions start to form a picture.

If a specific emitter appears at consistent intervals, it may indicate scheduled reporting or synchronization. If transmissions cluster at certain times of day, that may reflect operational cycles or shift changes. If activity increases sharply in a geographic area, it may suggest movement, coordination, or preparation for an event.

Frequency usage adds another layer. Systems that remain on fixed frequencies behave differently than those that hop or adapt dynamically. A network that shifts frequencies in a coordinated way suggests planning and synchronization, while irregular changes may indicate mobility or environmental constraints. Over time, these patterns can expose how a system is designed to operate and how disciplined its users are.

Duration and structure also matter. Short, burst transmissions may indicate attempts to reduce detectability or conserve power. Longer, continuous transmissions may suggest stable links such as command nodes or infrastructure. Packetized traffic often appears as irregular bursts, while streaming data creates more consistent patterns. These differences help distinguish not just what kind of system is present, but how it is being used.

Relationships between transmitters can emerge as well. If one system consistently transmits shortly after another, a command relationship may exist. If multiple emitters activate and deactivate together, they may be part of the same network. Over time, these interactions begin to reveal network structure without ever accessing the content itself.

This leads to one of the central realities of collecting on the electromagnetic spectrum:

Encryption protects meaning. It does not eliminate behavior.

An adversary may not know what was said, but they may still identify command relationships, operational tempo, movement patterns, readiness changes, or emerging activity simply by observing how signals behave over time.

In some cases, the absence of activity becomes just as meaningful as its presence. A network going silent may indicate movement, emissions control, system degradation, or preparation for an operation. A sudden, brief burst of activity in an otherwise quiet environment may immediately draw attention.

Over time, the electromagnetic spectrum becomes less about individual transmissions and more about accumulated behavior.

And that behavior, even without content, can be enough to generate intelligence.

Every Radio Has a Fingerprint

No transmitter is perfectly identical.

Even systems built from the same design and manufacturing process carry tiny physical imperfections that subtly influence the signals they produce. At a glance, two radios may appear identical. They may operate on the same frequency, use the same modulation, and transmit the same encrypted data. But at the level of physics, their signals are never exactly the same.

That difference comes from the hardware.

Inside every transmitter, components introduce small variations into the waveform. Oscillators do not generate perfectly stable frequencies; they drift slightly over time and respond to temperature, voltage, and aging. Amplifiers are not perfectly linear; as they push power into a signal, they introduce small distortions that reshape the waveform in subtle ways. Filters do not have perfectly sharp boundaries; they slightly alter the edges of the signal’s spectrum. Timing circuits introduce microscopic variations in when transitions occur.

Individually, these imperfections seem insignificant. But together, they leave a consistent imprint on the signal.

From a physics perspective, what a receiver observes is not just an ideal waveform like:

but something closer to:

Where small deviations in frequency (Δf), time-varying amplitude A(t), phase fluctuations ϕ(t), and nonlinear distortion all combine to create a slightly “imperfect” version of the intended signal.

Those imperfections are not random. They tend to be stable over time for a given device. That stability is what makes RF fingerprinting possible.

Modern adversary systems can analyze these subtle characteristics like frequency offsets, phase noise, spectral regrowth, transient behavior during signal startup, and even how quickly a transmitter turns on and off, and use them to distinguish one emitter from another.

Two radios transmitting the same waveform may still produce measurably different signals because their internal components are not physically identical.

In that sense, every transmission carries two layers of information:

• the intentional structure used to communicate

• the unintentional structure created by the hardware itself

RF fingerprinting focuses on the second layer. It is less about what the signal is saying and more about what the signal is.

In many ways, it resembles identifying a person by handwriting or voice patterns. The content may change, but the underlying physical characteristics remain consistent enough to recognize.

Over time, this becomes increasingly powerful.

An emitter observed repeatedly across different frequencies, locations, or operational periods can begin to form a recognizable identity. Even if the signal is encrypted, even if the operator changes procedures, and even if the system attempts to hide its behavior, those underlying physical traits can persist.

What emerges is not just a signal, but a signature.

And in a dense electromagnetic environment, that signature can be enough to track, correlate, and understand systems without ever reading the message they carry.

Locating the Source of the Transmission

Once a signal can be detected consistently, it can often be located.

This becomes possible because electromagnetic waves arrive at different receivers with measurable differences in timing, strength, phase, and direction.

A directional antenna may determine where signal energy appears strongest. Multiple receivers positioned at different locations may compare arrival times or phase differences to estimate where the transmission originated. Large antenna arrays can perform these calculations with remarkable precision.

The exact mathematics and engineering become extremely complex, but the core principle remains simple:

Every transmission carries physical information about where it came from.

The longer or more frequently a system transmits, the more opportunities collection systems have to refine those estimates.

This is one of the fundamental tensions in electromagnetic operations. Communication creates capability, but transmission also creates visibility.

Recovering the Information Itself

Only after all of these earlier layers does an adversary finally approach what most people imagine first: recovering the actual contents of the transmission.

At this stage, collection systems attempt to reconstruct the original waveform structure well enough to demodulate and decode the information embedded inside it. This mirrors many of the same processes discussed in earlier articles on radio receivers:

• filtering

• amplification

• frequency conversion

• analog-to-digital conversion

• signal processing

• demodulation

If successful, the receiver may recover voice traffic, telemetry, imagery, network data, radar returns, or other transmitted information.

Encryption then becomes the next barrier.

Modern encryption systems can make recovering the actual meaning of the transmission extraordinarily difficult or computationally impractical without the correct keys. But this is another area where public understanding is often incomplete.

Encryption does not make a signal invisible. It does not prevent detection, characterization, geolocation, or metadata collection. It primarily protects the meaning of the content itself.

Encryption raises the cost of understanding the message. Everything before it has already been collected.

Conclusion

Most Soldiers are trained to protect the message through loading all of our systems with encryption. That instinct is not wrong, but it is incomplete.

By the time an adversary is trying to understand what was said, they have already collected something. They know a transmission occurred. They know where it came from. They know how the network behaves, when it goes active, and what the pattern of life looks like before and after significant events. In many cases, that information is enough.

The message is one layer. The transmission is the whole structure.

Detection does not require decryption. Geolocation does not require content. Metadata does not require meaning. And RF fingerprinting does not require the operator to make a single mistake. The physics of transmission do the work before any human error enters the equation.

Encryption raises the cost of understanding the message. It does not silence the signal.

Every time a radio keys up, it announces presence, behavior, and relationships into an environment that is actively being observed. The discipline required is not just communications security. It is an understanding that the act of transmitting is itself a decision with intelligence consequences.

The question is never just what you are saying.

It is what the signal already said before you spoke.

Subscribe now

An incoming electromagnetic wave reached an antenna. Tiny voltages appeared across metal conductors. The signal was filtered, amplified, mixed into new frequencies, converted from analog to digital, processed mathematically, demodulated, and eventually understood as information.

The receiver’s entire job was to recover structure from weak electromagnetic energy arriving from space. But that raises an equally important question:

How was that structure created in the first place?

Because a transmitter does not “send information.”

A radio transmitter takes stored electrical energy, organizes it with extraordinary precision, and launches that organized energy into space as an electromagnetic wave.

What we call a signal is really structured energy. And that structure is built step by step.

The Receiver Pulls Structure Out of Noise

The receive side of a radio system is fundamentally reactive.

Signals arrive distorted by distance, terrain, atmosphere, reflections, interference, and noise. By the time electromagnetic energy reaches the receiver, the original transmission has often been weakened, scattered, delayed, and partially corrupted by the environment itself. The receiver’s job is to recover enough structure from that chaos to reconstruct the original information.

The transmitter faces the opposite problem. Its job is to create that structure in the first place.

Every stage inside a transmitter exists to solve a specific engineering challenge. First, the radio must create stable electrical energy and precise timing. It then has to embed information into the waveform in ways that can survive propagation through the environment. The signal must be converted from mathematics into physical electrical motion, amplified without destroying its structure, transferred efficiently into an antenna, and finally launched into space as a propagating electromagnetic wave.

The final result is not “sound” traveling invisibly through the air.

It is a carefully engineered disturbance in the electromagnetic field, shaped with enough precision that another radio, potentially miles away, can detect the structure embedded within it and reconstruct the original information.

Step 1: Create Electrical Energy

Every transmission begins with stored electrical energy.

Before a radio can create timing, encode information, or radiate electromagnetic fields into space, it first needs a source of usable energy. That energy may come from a battery, generator, wall outlet, vehicle alternator, aircraft power bus, solar array, or capacitor bank. The source changes, but the physics does not.

At the beginning of the process, the transmitter has no signal. There is only electrical potential waiting to be controlled.

Electrical potential matters because electricity is fundamentally about imbalance. A battery works because chemistry separates charge. A generator works because motion inside magnetic fields pushes electrons through conductors. A wall outlet works because massive power infrastructure continuously maintains voltage differences across transmission systems.

In every case, the radio begins with the same raw ingredient: The ability to move electrons.

But raw electrical energy by itself is chaotic from the perspective of communications engineering. A battery connected directly to an antenna does not create a usable radio transmission. Steady current alone does not radiate efficiently because radio communication depends on changing electromagnetic fields.

The transmitter’s first real challenge is transforming stored energy into precisely controlled electrical motion.

Inside the transmitter, power regulation circuitry begins conditioning the incoming energy almost immediately. Voltages are stepped up, stepped down, filtered, stabilized, and isolated into different internal power rails. Sensitive timing circuits may require extremely clean low-noise power supplies, while power amplifiers may require high-current stages capable of delivering large bursts of energy rapidly.

Even before a signal exists, the transmitter is already solving multiple engineering problems: maintaining voltage stability, suppressing electrical noise, preventing unwanted oscillations, managing heat, protecting components from transient spikes, and ensuring timing circuits remain precise.

This stage rarely gets attention because it does not feel like “radio.” But without stable energy, every later stage begins to fail.

In many ways, the quality of a transmitter begins with the quality of the energy feeding it.

This is especially visible in high-power or military systems where transmitters often require carefully engineered power architectures capable of handling massive instantaneous loads while maintaining extremely stable signal characteristics.

Everything that follows in the radio (timing, modulation, amplification, radiation) depends entirely on the transmitter’s ability to take raw electrical potential and progressively organize the motion of electrons with extraordinary precision.

Step 2: Create Timing

Before a radio can carry a single bit of information, it has to solve a more fundamental problem: it needs a heartbeat.

Deep inside the transmitter, an oscillator is doing something worth pausing on. It is forcing electrons to reverse direction; not once, not a few times, but millions or billions of times per second, continuously, with extraordinary precision. At 2.4 GHz, the frequency used by Wi-Fi, that reversal happens 2,400,000,000 times every second. Inside a circuit you could cover with your thumbnail.

That oscillation is the carrier wave. And everything the radio will later do (encoding information, surviving distance, being recovered by a receiver miles away) depends entirely on how stable and precise that oscillation is.

The physics of that wave can be captured in a single equation:

But rather than unpacking it term by term (the associated image does this), it’s more useful to think of it as a description of three things the transmitter can control: how strong the wave is, how fast it oscillates, and where in its cycle it starts. Those three properties (amplitude, frequency, and phase) are the only physical handles the radio has. Everything that follows is built from manipulating them.

Amplitude, or the A in the equation, is the most intuitive. It describes how large the oscillation becomes or how hard the electrons are being pushed. Bigger amplitude means more energy in the wave, which matters later when the signal has to survive propagation across distance.

Frequency, or the f in the equation, determines where the signal lives in the electromagnetic spectrum. This is not just a technical detail, it is one of the most consequential engineering decisions in a radio system. Different frequencies interact with the physical world in fundamentally different ways. Lower frequencies bend around terrain and penetrate buildings; higher frequencies carry more data but lose energy faster and travel in straighter lines. Choosing a frequency means choosing a set of physical tradeoffs that no amount of signal processing can fully overcome.

Phase, or the ϕ in the equation, is the one most people haven’t thought about, and the one that turns out to matter most in modern communications. Phase describes where in its cycle the wave begins relative to a reference. Two signals can have identical amplitude and frequency and still be offset from each other in time, one reaching its peak slightly earlier than the other. That offset is phase.

At first, this sounds like a minor technical detail. It isn’t. Phase is how modern radios encode enormous amounts of information into a single waveform. It is how phased-array antennas steer beams without moving parts. It is how multiple signals can be combined or canceled in space with surgical precision. The entire architecture of modern wireless communication (from 5G networks to military datalinks) is built on the ability to control phase at nanosecond scales.

At this point, the transmitter has created something real: a stable, precisely controlled electromagnetic rhythm. But it contains no information yet. It is a foundation. The next problem is how to build something on top of it.

Step 3: Encode Information Digitally

Here is the central contradiction the transmitter has to resolve.

The information it carries (voice, video, targeting data, sensor feeds) exists digitally. Ones and zeros. Discrete values. But the electromagnetic wave it must use to carry that information is fundamentally analog. It doesn’t jump between states; it flows continuously through space, governed by Maxwell’s equations, indifferent to the binary logic running inside the processors a few centimeters away.

A radio cannot transmit ones and zeros. It can only transmit physics.

So the transmitter’s job in this stage is to find a way to embed discrete digital meaning into continuous analog behavior, to make the wave “carry” information not by changing what it fundamentally is, but by changing it in ways a receiver can later interpret.

This is modulation. And the key insight is that the transmitter has exactly three physical properties it can manipulate: amplitude, frequency, and phase. Early radio systems used just one at a time. AM radio encoded information by varying amplitude. FM encoded it by varying frequency. Both worked, but both were inefficient, they were leaving most of the wave’s information-carrying capacity unused.

Modern systems don’t leave anything unused.

Instead of changing one property, modern radios manipulate amplitude and phase simultaneously, encoding multiple bits into each transmitted symbol. A symbol is not a single one or zero, it is a specific combination of amplitude and phase that the receiver has agreed in advance to interpret as a particular sequence of bits. Where an older system might send one bit per symbol, a modern system might send six, eight, or ten.

This is where the geometry comes in. If you plot the possible states of the waveform (each unique combination of amplitude and phase) they form a pattern of points in mathematical space called a constellation. The transmitter moves between these points as it encodes successive groups of bits. The receiver’s job is to determine which point each received symbol was closest to, and reconstruct the original bits from that.

The practical consequence is that the wave becomes more efficient and more fragile at the same time. Packing more bits into each symbol means the points in the constellation are closer together. A small distortion in amplitude or phase (a tiny push from noise or interference) can move a received symbol close enough to the wrong point that the receiver guesses incorrectly. One wrong guess can corrupt multiple bits at once.

This is why modern radios are not simple electrical devices. They are real-time physics engines, continuously fighting to preserve the structure of a signal against an environment that is constantly trying to destroy it. Error correction, timing recovery, adaptive equalization, synchronization; all of it exists to hold that constellation stable across the chaos of propagation.

At the end of this stage, the transmitter has done something remarkable. It has taken human meaning, a voice, a command, a data stream, and encoded it as geometry: specific positions in mathematical space that a wave will carry through the physical world.

The next problem is turning that geometry into electricity.

Step 4: Convert Mathematics Into Physics

Computers think digitally. Electromagnetic physics does not.

Inside modern radios, processors generate enormous streams of binary values representing what the waveform should look like mathematically. Long before a signal reaches an antenna, software may have already determined the exact phase of the waveform, how its amplitude should change over time, when symbols should transition, and how timing should align.

At this stage, however, the signal still does not physically exist as a radio wave.

The information exists primarily as numerical instructions moving through processors and digital circuitry. But antennas cannot transmit binary numbers directly. Electromagnetic fields are inherently continuous physical phenomena. Real electrons do not move in perfect digital jumps; they move through continuously changing voltages and currents governed by the laws of electromagnetism.

This creates one of the most important transitions inside the transmitter.

The radio must convert a mathematical description of a waveform into real physical electrical motion.

This is the role of the Digital-to-Analog Converter, or DAC.

The DAC acts as the bridge between computation and physics. It takes streams of digital numerical values and transforms them into continuously varying electrical voltages that later stages of the transmitter can manipulate, amplify, and radiate into space.

Conceptually, the processor mathematically describes the waveform, while the DAC physically draws it in electricity.

At first, the DAC’s output is not perfectly smooth. Because digital systems operate discretely, the converter initially produces tiny voltage steps corresponding to incoming numerical values. But when those steps are updated at extremely high speeds and passed through filtering circuitry, they blend together into smooth continuous waveforms that closely approximate the intended signal.

In many modern radios, this process occurs millions or even billions of times per second.

At this moment, something fundamental changes inside the transmitter. The signal stops existing purely as mathematics and begins existing as real physical electrical behavior.

That distinction matters because electromagnetic waves themselves are fundamentally analog, even in highly digital communication systems.

A Wi-Fi router, satellite terminal, drone datalink, or cellular tower may internally process massive amounts of binary information, but the energy ultimately leaving the antenna still propagates through space as continuously changing electric and magnetic fields.

The radio is not transmitting “digital energy.”

It is transmitting precisely engineered analog electromagnetic behavior that receivers later interpret digitally.

Step 5: Shift the Signal Into the Desired Frequency

The newly created analog waveform is often not yet at the final frequency the radio intends to transmit.

Many radios first generate signals at lower frequencies or intermediate frequencies where processing is easier, more stable, and more precise. Once the waveform has been constructed and modulated, the transmitter shifts it upward into its final operating band through a process called mixing or frequency conversion.

This is the transmit-side counterpart to the frequency conversion process discussed in the receiver article, where incoming signals were shifted down from high-frequency electromagnetic energy into lower, more manageable frequencies for processing. In both cases, the core idea is the same: the radio is not changing the information itself, only relocating where that information lives in the frequency spectrum so it can be processed or transmitted more effectively.

Inside a mixer, signals interact mathematically, producing new frequency components that are combinations of the original inputs. Engineers then use carefully designed filters to isolate the desired component while removing unwanted byproducts of that interaction.

At this stage, the transmitter now has the correct information, the correct waveform structure, and the correct position in frequency space.

But the signal is still weak.

Step 6: Increase Power

The early version of the signal is fragile.

If transmitted immediately, it would dissipate rapidly and fail to survive propagation losses across distance. Before transmission, the radio must inject enough energy into the waveform for it to remain detectable after spreading through space.

This is the job of the power amplifier.

The amplifier does not create a new signal. Instead, it uses additional electrical energy from the power source to increase the strength of the existing waveform while preserving the precise structure carrying the information.

The transmitter is not amplifying “voice” or “data” separately from the energy carrying it. It is amplifying the entire electromagnetic structure itself.

Power, however, introduces new engineering challenges:

• excessive amplification creates distortion

• nonlinear behavior spreads energy into unintended frequencies

• heat becomes a major limitation

• spectral purity becomes harder to maintain

At high power levels, transmission becomes as much a thermal and electromagnetic engineering problem as a communications problem.

Step 7: Drive the Antenna

This is the point where most people imagine the radio “sending” a signal into space.

But nothing is actually launched at this stage in the way intuition suggests.

The transmitter does not inject radio waves directly into the environment. It injects alternating electrical current into an antenna structure.

Inside the antenna, electrical energy is forcing charges to accelerate back and forth in a tightly controlled pattern. Electrons do not flow smoothly outward like water through a pipe. Instead, they oscillate in place, reversing direction in response to the alternating voltage applied by the transmitter.

That oscillation is the critical mechanism.

Any time charges accelerate, they disturb the surrounding electromagnetic field. When that acceleration is continuous and structured (like in a radio signal) it produces a radiating electromagnetic wave that detaches from the antenna and propagates outward through space.

The antenna’s real job, then, is not “transmitting information,” but shaping how charge accelerates in space and time.

That is why antenna geometry matters so much.

Different physical structures produce different current distributions, which in turn produce different radiation patterns and efficiencies. A dipole antenna produces a fundamentally different field shape than a patch antenna or a helical structure, even if the input signal is identical.

Likewise, large directional antennas such as dishes or phased arrays do not “amplify” the signal in the simple sense. They control the phase and timing of currents across multiple elements so that electromagnetic energy is constructively reinforced in some directions and canceled in others. In effect, they sculpt the direction in which energy leaves the system.

This is why antennas are often misunderstood. They are not passive radiators and they are not simple conduits. They are controlled electromagnetic boundary systems that convert guided electrical motion into free-space radiation.

At this stage, the signal is no longer confined to wires or circuitry.

The structured electrical motion inside the antenna has become a propagating electromagnetic field extending outward into space.

Step 8: Create Electromagnetic Fields

The moment charges accelerate, they disturb the electromagnetic field surrounding them.

That disturbance becomes the signal.

A changing electric field creates a magnetic field. A changing magnetic field creates an electric field. Together, those fields continuously regenerate one another as they propagate outward through space.

At this point, the energy no longer exists only as electrical motion confined to wires and circuits.

The signal becomes a self-propagating electromagnetic wave. The signal stops belonging to the antenna and starts belonging to space itself.

Step 9: Launch Structured Energy Into Space

Once the electromagnetic wave detaches from the antenna, it no longer belongs to the transmitter. It becomes a propagating disturbance in the electromagnetic field, traveling outward through space at the speed of light.

From that moment onward, the signal is no longer controlled in a direct sense. It immediately begins interacting with the physical environment it passes through, and those interactions continuously reshape it. Terrain can block or diffract it, buildings and surfaces can reflect it, and atmospheric conditions can bend or scatter it. In some frequency ranges, moisture in the air or precipitation can absorb portions of the energy. At the same time, other transmitters operating nearby introduce competing electromagnetic structures that can interfere with or distort the original waveform.

As a result, the signal is never simply “delivered” in a clean line from transmitter to receiver. It is constantly being reshaped by everything it encounters along the way.

At the same time, the energy in the wave spreads outward over an ever-increasing volume of space. This spreading reduces energy density with distance, which is why signals weaken as they propagate. The original structured waveform becomes more difficult to detect not because the information is lost immediately, but because the same amount of energy is distributed across a larger and larger area.

This is why communication systems must be carefully engineered around the realities of propagation. Power levels must be sufficient to survive distance and loss, antenna designs must shape how energy is launched into space, frequency selection determines how the wave interacts with the environment, receiver sensitivity determines how small a signal can still be detected, and signal processing helps recover structure that has been partially degraded along the way.

Every successful transmission is ultimately a negotiation between engineered structure and physical reality.

If enough of that structure survives the journey, another antenna can intercept the electromagnetic fields, force electrons into motion, and begin the entire process in reverse. The receiver then attempts to reconstruct the original information embedded in the waveform the transmitter created and launched into space.

Conclusion

A transmitter is ultimately a machine for imposing human intent onto electromagnetic energy.

Every radio call, drone control link, radar pulse, satellite transmission, wireless network, and GPS signal begins the same way:

Electrical energy is organized with precise timing, encoded with information, converted into physical waveforms, amplified, and used to accelerate electrical charges until space itself carries the result.

What we call a “radio signal” is really controlled electromagnetic structure moving invisibly around us every second of every day.

Subscribe now

There is a tendency to compress what radios do into a single step: a signal is transmitted, a signal is received, and information appears. That compression hides everything that matters. If you don’t understand the chain, the electromagnetic spectrum feels abstract. If you do, it starts to look like something you can actually use; and more importantly, something you can disrupt, exploit, or protect.

What follows is a breakdown of how a received signal is turned into something meaningful, with the practical implications of each stage made explicit. Capturing an electromagnetic signal is the easy part. At its most basic level, two wires in the air will do it. The real work begins after the signal is received.

It Starts With Energy, Not Information

By the time a signal reaches you, it isn’t a voice or data. It’s an electromagnetic wave.

A time-varying electric field passes over your antenna and forces electrons to move. That movement creates a voltage. If you want to describe that precisely, you end up here:

That equation is doing something simple: It says the antenna is collecting the electric field across its length and turning it into a measurable signal.

At this point, nothing has been interpreted. You don’t have meaning. You just have energy that has crossed into your system.

Step One: Decide What Matters

The environment around you is saturated with signals. Every radio station, every piece of electronic equipment, every atmospheric disturbance is contributing energy to the spectrum. If you try to process all of them, you fail immediately.

So the first real decision in the system is filtering. You restrict the receiver to a narrow slice of the spectrum, let’s say one frequency band. Everything else is rejected.

But that doesn’t happen by “choosing a frequency” in the abstract. It happens physically.

Inside the receiver are components (filters) built from inductors, capacitors, and resonant structures that only respond to a specific range of frequencies. Everything else is either heavily attenuated or blocked entirely.

A useful way to think about it is resonance. Just like an antenna is most efficient when its size matches the wavelength of a signal, the circuits inside the receiver are tuned to “ring” at a particular frequency. When the incoming signal matches that frequency, energy transfers efficiently. When it doesn’t, the circuit barely responds.

The receiver is physically built to respond to one part of the spectrum and ignore the rest.

Without this step, strong signals outside your band (whether friendly, enemy, or just environmental) overwhelm your receiver before you ever had a chance to interpret anything. And once that happens, no amount of processing later in the chain can recover what was lost.

This is also where the tactical picture starts: filtering is not just signal processing. It is a form of selectivity. A receiver that cannot filter well is a receiver that can be overloaded, deceived, or denied.

Step Two: Make the Signal Usable

What comes out of the antenna into the filter is extremely small. By the time a signal has spread across distance, the energy it carries is minimal, often measured in microvolts at the receiver. At that level, it’s competing directly with noise that exists everywhere: thermal noise in components, background electromagnetic energy, even noise generated inside the receiver itself.

So you amplify, but carefully. The component responsible for this is the low-noise amplifier (LNA), and its placement matters. It sits as close to the antenna as possible for a reason: every component after the antenna adds noise. If you wait too long to amplify, you’re not just boosting the signal, you’re boosting noise that has already started to overwhelm it.

There’s a useful way to think about what’s happening here. Imagine the signal as a faint pattern buried in static. Amplification doesn’t “clean” the pattern. It makes everything bigger, the pattern and the static. So the question becomes was the pattern strong enough before amplification to still be recognizable after everything is scaled up?

That’s what engineers measure as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

If that ratio is too low at this stage, no amount of filtering or processing later will recover the original message. The information is effectively lost.

There’s another constraint as well: too much gain too early can overload the system. If a strong signal (whether intentional or not) enters the receiver and gets amplified excessively, it can push components into nonlinear behavior. When that happens, signals begin to distort, mix, and create artifacts that weren’t present in the original environment.

Now you’re not just dealing with noise you’re dealing with false information generated by your own system.

So this step is a balance:

• Too little gain → the signal disappears into noise

• Too much gain → the system distorts the signal

The goal is controlled amplification’ enough to make the signal usable, without destroying the structure that carries information. This step is where the system decides whether the signal will survive at all. Everything downstream depends on getting it right.

Step Three: Move the Problem to a Solvable Space

Most real signals exist at frequencies that are difficult to process directly.

Not because the information is complicated, but because the physics and electronics at those frequencies are unforgiving. High-frequency signals are harder to sample, harder to filter precisely, and harder to analyze with stability. Everything becomes faster, more sensitive, and more expensive to handle correctly.

So instead of working at those frequencies, the system shifts them.

This is done through a process called mixing, where the incoming signal is combined with a locally generated signal from inside the receiver.

That local signal is produced by a stable oscillator, something designed to generate a precise frequency reference. When you combine two oscillating signals, you create new signals at shifted frequencies: specifically, the sum and the difference of the two input frequencies. The system keeps the difference, which places the signal into a lower, more manageable range.

Mathematically, this comes from a simple identity:

What this means in practice is:

When you multiply two oscillating signals together, you create new signals at shifted frequencies.

The important point is not the math itself, it’s what it accomplishes.

After mixing:

• A high-frequency signal becomes a lower-frequency version of itself

• The structure of the information remains intact

• Only its “position” in the spectrum changes

This new frequency range is called intermediate frequency (IF) or sometimes baseband, depending on how far it’s shifted.

And that distinction matters because now the signal is in a space where:

• Filters can be sharper and more stable

• Amplifiers can operate more efficiently

• Digital systems can sample and process it reliably

And this leads to the key idea:

You are not changing the message. You are changing where it lives so you can work on it.

Step Four: Convert Physics Into Data

Up to this point, everything has been analog. Voltages. Currents. Continuous signals evolving smoothly in time.

Even after filtering, amplification, and frequency shifting, the signal is still fundamentally physical. It exists as a real voltage that is continuously changing every instant.

Then you cross a boundary.

A circuit called an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) takes snapshots of the signal at extremely precise time intervals. At each instant, it measures the voltage and assigns it a number.

So instead of a continuous waveform, you now have discrete points in time representing the signals magnitude:

t0 → 0.12  
t1 → 0.85  
t2 → -0.43  
t3 → -0.91  
...

What’s important here is what didn’t change. The signal didn’t become digital. The physics didn’t stop being continuous. What changed is that you are no longer observing it continuously, you are approximating it with a dense sequence of measurements.

This introduces two critical constraints:

First, sampling rate.

If you don’t sample fast enough, you miss structure in the signal. High-frequency detail gets misrepresented as lower-frequency artifacts. This is not a loss of processing power, it is a loss of information.

Second, resolution.

Each sample is not infinitely precise. It is stored with a finite number of bits. That means every measurement has rounding error built into it.

So even at this stage, the system is still making tradeoffs: How often do we measure it? and how precisely do we record each measurement?

This is where a key principle emerges:

Digital systems do not remove physics. They approximate it with controlled error.

The goal is not to perfectly capture the waveform, that is impossible.

The goal is to capture enough structure that the underlying pattern can still be recovered. Once this conversion happens, the signal is no longer something that exists as a smooth physical curve.

It becomes a sequence of numbers. And that matters because now it can be:

• stored

• filtered mathematically

• transformed algorithmically

• and ultimately, interpreted

Everything after this point is no longer constrained by circuit physics in the same way.

It is constrained by computation. And that is the real boundary you just crossed:

The moment a signal becomes data, you are no longer working with energy directly; you are working with a representation of that energy.

Step Five: Refine the Signal

Even after analog filtering and conversion into digital samples, the signal is not clean.

What you have now is not a perfect representation of the waveform, it is a noisy, discretized approximation of it. Every sample carries small errors from quantization, timing jitter, thermal noise that already existed in the system, and residual interference that passed through earlier stages.

So the system continues filtering, but now in the digital domain.

At this stage, filtering is no longer about “letting the right frequency through.” That already happened in the analog front end. Now the goal is much more precise:

Improve the structure of the signal so the underlying pattern becomes mathematically extractable.

This typically happens in three overlapping ways.

First, noise reduction.

Even after amplification and analog filtering, random variation still exists in the sampled data. Digital filters (mathematical operations applied to the sequence of numbers) help suppress this randomness. These filters don’t remove noise perfectly; instead, they reduce components that do not match the expected structure of the signal.

A simple way to think about it is:

• Real signal → consistent structure over time

• Noise → rapid, uncorrelated variation

Filtering strengthens the first while weakening the second.

Second, band refinement.

The earlier analog filters were relatively broad; they had to be, because hardware is imperfect. In digital processing, you can now apply much sharper filters that isolate extremely narrow portions of the spectrum.

This matters because most modulation schemes only occupy a very specific bandwidth. Everything outside that band is irrelevant or harmful to interpretation.

So the system effectively says:

“We already picked the neighborhood. Now we’re choosing the exact room.”

Third, signal conditioning for extraction.

This is the most subtle part.

At this stage, the system is not just cleaning the signal, it is reshaping it so that the next operation (demodulation) becomes stable and reliable.

That might include:

• Normalizing amplitude ranges

• Aligning timing references

• Correcting small frequency offsets introduced by hardware mismatch

• Removing slow drifts that would distort measurement of the underlying structure

None of these steps change the information itself. They improve how clearly the information appears in the data.

The key idea here is this:

Digital filtering is not about improving the signal, it is about improving the conditions under which the signal can be interpreted.

And this is where the system transitions from preservation to extraction.

Up to this point, every step has been about one thing: keeping the signal alive through noise, distance, and conversion. Now the goal shifts.

Now the system prepares to answer a different question entirely:

“What was actually encoded here?”

Step Six: Identify What Was Changed

The transmitter did not send raw energy. It took a carrier wave (a predictable, structured oscillation) and intentionally modified one of its properties over time to encode information.

That means the receiver is not trying to interpret energy directly. It is trying to answer a much more specific question:

What exactly was varied in this signal to represent information?

That question defines demodulation.

Demodulation only works because the receiver assumes a model of how the signal was constructed. The receiver is applying the inverse of that model to recover what was encoded.

If the transmitter used amplitude modulation (AM), then the assumption is the carrier frequency is known and the information is in the amplitude envelope (how the signal’s magnitude changes over time). The receiver ignores the fast oscillation and tracks the slower variation riding on top of it.

If the transmitter used frequency modulation (FM), the amplitude is mostly irrelevant. The information is in how quickly the signal oscillates, how the instantaneous frequency changes. Instead of tracking height, the system tracks timing: how quickly peaks arrive and how the phase evolves over time.

If the transmitter uses phase-based or digital encoding, the problem becomes more discrete. Information does not exist in smooth variation. It exists in transitions and phase shifts. The receiver looks for state changes: did the signal cross a threshold, did the phase jump in a specific pattern, did a symbol boundary occur.

Across all of these cases, the logic is the same:

The receiver does not decode the signal by inspecting its appearance. It decodes it by applying the inverse of how it was constructed.

Once the system successfully identifies what was modified, something important happens. The signal stops being energy with structure and becomes structure with meaning.

Step Seven: Reconstruct Meaning

Once the system extracts the pattern, the rest of the chain becomes less about physics and more about interpretation. At this point, the receiver is no longer trying to determine what changed in the signal. That problem has already been solved through demodulation.

Now the task is simpler, convert the recovered structure into a form humans or machines can use.

If the recovered signal represents audio, the system takes the extracted waveform (essentially a low-frequency voltage that mirrors the original sound pressure variations) and sends it to a speaker.

The speaker performs a reversal of the microphone process: electrical variations drive a coil, the coil moves a diaphragm, the diaphragm moves air and the moving air becomes sound again.

A voice that was converted into electrical structure, transmitted through space as electromagnetic energy, and mathematically reconstructed inside a receiver finally returns to pressure waves your ears can interpret.

If the recovered signal represents digital data, the process becomes more discrete. The receiver identifies symbols, converts them into bits, groups those bits into packets or instructions, checks for transmission errors, and passes the recovered information upward into software systems.

A waveform becomes binary. Binary becomes data structures. Data structures become messages, images, commands, or network traffic. The electromagnetic signal has effectively disappeared from view. What remains is usable information.

Radar systems take a different path entirely. In radar, the receiver is listening for reflections of its own transmitted signal. The recovered information is not audio or communications, it is timing, frequency shift, and intensity.

From those measurements, the system reconstructs range, velocity, direction, and sometimes classification. What appears on a radar display is not a picture in the conventional sense. It is a mathematical reconstruction derived from reflected electromagnetic energy.

At no point did the antenna “understand” anything. It collected energy. The receiver preserved structure. The processing chain extracted patterns. Only at the very end did those patterns become meaningful.

Why This Matters

If you understand this chain, you stop thinking about radios as black boxes that either work or don’t. You start seeing where signals can be detected, disrupted, deceived, and where they can be protected.

Every step in this chain is a vulnerability as much as it is a capability:

• Filtering can be defeated by jamming outside the filter band or by flooding the band entirely

• Amplification can be overloaded deliberately, pushing the receiver into the nonlinear behavior that generates false signals

• Frequency conversion depends on a precise local oscillator; disrupt that reference and you corrupt the receiver’s ability to shift the problem correctly

• The ADC has finite dynamic range; a sufficiently strong interferer can saturate it and blind the receiver to everything else

• Demodulation depends on knowing the modulation scheme; a receiver trying to demodulate the wrong way extracts noise instead of meaning

Every system operating in the electromagnetic spectrum is solving this exact sequence of problems. Some solve it better than others because of design choices made at each stage. Understanding those choices is how you assess capability, identify limitations, and find the seams when you have conversations with defense industry base.

Closing the Loop

What started as an abstract idea is actually a sequence of physical and mathematical decisions:

• Energy enters through the antenna

• The system isolates and preserves it through filtering and amplification (Step 1&2)

• The signal is shifted to a workable frequency range (Step 3)

• Physics is converted into data through digitization (Step 4)

• Math is applied to refine and condition the signal (Step 5)

• The system extracts the pattern that was encoded (Step 6)

• Structure becomes meaning (Step 7)

And at the center of it all is a simple idea that changes how you see every system operations in the electromagnetic spectrum:

Information is not carried by the signal itself. It is carried by what was changed.

That is the foundation of modern communications, radar, and sensing systems. It is also where every advantage and every vulnerability in spectrum operations begins.

Subscribe now

What I’ve come to realize is that we do have the physics to build those systems. We’ve understood it for decades.

The challenge has never been the theory. It has been controlling energy; how it spreads, how it concentrates, and how it interacts with matter.

High-energy lasers (HEL) and high-powered microwaves (HPM) are not futuristic breakthroughs. They are the result of taking the same electromagnetic principles that govern every transmission and pushing them to their limits.

To understand how they work, you need geometry, calculus, and a clear understanding of how energy moves through space. This article builds that foundation, traces the history of directed energy, and shows how both technologies operate from the same core physics.

Part I - The Physics Foundation

Energy in Motion: The Intensity Equation

At its core, the electromagnetic spectrum is about energy in motion. Every system, whether it’s a radio, a laser, or a microwave emitter, is pushing energy outward from a source.

The most important concept is intensity: how concentrated that energy is at a point.

Where:

• I = intensity (watts per square meter)

• P = power (watts)

• A = area (square meters)

This single equation determines whether energy is negligible or destructive. The power can be identical in two systems; what separates a flashlight from a weapon is how tightly that power is confined to an area.

If energy spreads uniformly outward in all directions, it expands across a sphere:

Where:

• r = distance from the source

Combining these two relationships yields the inverse square law:

The inverse square law illustrates as distance doubles, intensity drops by a factor of four. Energy doesn't disappear; it spreads.

Why Signals Weaken: A Calculus Perspective

The inverse square law tells you what happens. Calculus tells you how quickly it happens and when it matters. The rate of change of intensity with distance is:

Where:

• dI/dr = rate of change of intensity

• P = system power

• r = distance

The negative sign confirms that intensity always decreases with distance. More importantly, the r³ in the denominator means this drop is steep at short range and levels off at long range. Moving from 100 meters to 200 meters destroys far more effectiveness than moving from 700 to 800 meters.

This has a direct tactical implication: directed energy systems have a hard effective range; not because of some arbitrary specification, but because physics sets a floor below which intensity cannot sustain damage.

Close to the source, intensity drops rapidly. Farther away, the rate of change slows.

A Tactical Example: The Engagement Envelope

A squad employs a vehicle-mounted laser against a drone:

• At 200 meters → sufficient intensity to damage

• At 400 meters → reduced effectiveness

• At 800 meters → no meaningful effect

Nothing about the system changed except distance. Range is not a specification, it is a function of physics.

Part II: A History of Directed Energy

A Idea Predates the Technology

The concept of weaponizing concentrated energy is ancient. During the Siege of Syracuse (c. 214–212 BC), legend credits Archimedes with using polished bronze mirrors to focus sunlight onto Roman ships. Whether myth or not, the concept was physically sound: concentrate energy onto a point, and it becomes destructive.

That idea never disappeared. What it lacked for centuries was the engineering to execute it.

The 20th Century: Theory Runs Ahead of Technology

In 1935, the British Air Ministry asked physicist Robert Watson-Watt whether a “death ray” was feasible. His conclusion was no; the power requirements were prohibitive. But the underlying investigation led directly to radar, one of the most consequential electromagnetic technologies in modern warfare.

During World War II, Germany explored high-frequency and X-ray systems intended to disrupt aircraft engines. None proved operationally viable. The pattern was consistent: the theoretical framework existed, but the ability to generate and control sufficient energy did not.

1960: The Laser Changes Everything

The invention of the laser in 1960 was a turning point. For the first time, electromagnetic energy could be tightly controlled, coherently amplified, and directionally maintained over meaningful distances.

The Cold War accelerated development. Both the United States and Soviet Union pursued high-energy laser programs for missile defense. The Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) demonstrated that the physics worked; targets could be damaged at range. But these systems required massive infrastructure, hazardous chemical fuels, and teams of specialists. They proved the concept and failed the field test.

By the 1980s, the Strategic Defense Initiative (”Star Wars”) envisioned space-based laser platforms capable of intercepting nuclear warheads. The physics was credible. The engineering was not yet ready.

2000s–Present: From Programs to Platforms

Through the 1990s and early 2000s, major programs confirmed operational feasibility but remained impractical. The Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) intercepted rockets and artillery rounds. The Airborne Laser (ABL), mounted on a modified Boeing 747, destroyed a ballistic missile in flight.

Both systems were enormous, expensive, and logistically unsustainable. They answered the question “can directed energy destroy targets?” The answer was yes. The harder question “can we field it at scale?” remained open.

The shift came with solid-state and fiber laser technology. Modern systems replace chemical reactions with electrical power. They are smaller, modular, and scalable. Today, systems like DE M-SHORAD, HEL TVD ( HEL Tactical Vehicle Demonstrator), and Iron Beam are moving directed energy into operational units. On the microwave side, THOR is being developed specifically to defeat drone swarms by disabling electronics across a wide area simultaneously.

Part III: How HEL and HPM Work

High-Energy Lasers: Control, Amplification, Direction

A laser is not simply a powerful light source. It solves three distinct engineering problems that ordinary light cannot.

1. Control: Making Energy Coherent

Conventional light is chaotic. Photons are emitted in all directions, at slightly different energies, and out of phase with one another. That is why a light bulb spreads energy everywhere and damages nothing.

The physics of lasers begins with stimulated emission, a principle Albert Einstein described in 1917. Under the right conditions, an incoming photon triggers an excited atom to release a second photon that is identical, same frequency, same direction, same phase. This is coherence.

To force this behavior at scale, lasers use an optical cavity: two mirrors placed at either end of a gain medium. Photons bounce between the mirrors, stimulating more emissions with each pass. Only photons aligned with the cavity axis survive to make repeated passes. What emerges is tightly ordered energy; not just light, but controlled light.

2. Amplification: Building to Sufficient Power

Stimulated emission creates a chain reaction: one photon becomes two, two become four, four become eight. But every real system has losses; absorption, scattering, leakage through imperfect mirrors. Amplification only produces a useful beam when the rate of gain exceeds the rate of loss.

This is fundamentally a calculus problem. Energy is being added and removed simultaneously. When net change over time turns positive, the system crosses the lasing threshold and sustains a beam. Below that threshold, losses win and nothing useful is produced.

3. Direction: Keeping the Beam Tight

Amplified, coherent energy is still useless if it spreads. This brings us back to the intensity equation. If area increases, intensity drops. A laser addresses this through beam divergence:

Where:

• θ = beam divergence angle

• λ = wavelength

• D = aperture size

Shorter wavelengths and larger apertures produce tighter beams. That keeps the illuminated area small at distance, which keeps intensity high enough to cause damage.

Tactical Example (Squad-Level Laser Use)

A platoon employs a laser system against a drone at 300 meters:

• The beam remains narrow → small A (Area)

• Small A (Area) → high I (Intensity)

• High I (Intensity) → heat accumulation → material failure

A laser does not explode a target. It applies sustained energy with precision until the target’s materials fail. If the beam diverges (whether from poor optics, atmospheric turbulence, or vibration) area increases, intensity drops, and the system becomes ineffective at a fraction of its rated range.

High-Power Microwaves: Energy Inside the System

Where a laser concentrates energy onto a surface, a high-power microwave (HPM) system delivers energy into a system. The mechanism of defeat is different, but the governing physics is the same:

Microwaves at sufficient intensity couple into electronic systems through antennas, wiring, seams, and apertures; any path that allows electromagnetic energy to enter. Once inside, they induce currents and voltages that electronics are not designed to handle. Components latch, reset, or burn out.

The target doesn’t melt. It fails. This distinction matters tactically. A laser is a precise, single-target engagement tool. An HPM system can affect multiple targets across a wide area in a single pulse, making it particularly relevant against drone swarms where individual engagement is impractical.

Part IV: Why It Took This Long

Engineering Constraints, Not Physics

If the physics has worked for decades, why is directed energy only now reaching the tactical edge? Because the limiting factor was never the theory. It was the engineering required to make that theory survive contact with the battlefield.

Power Generation

Generating tens or hundreds of kilowatts at the vehicle or squad level strains any platform. Chemical lasers solved the power problem with energetic fuels. Modern fiber lasers solve it with electricity; but that electricity still has to come from somewhere reliable enough to be tactically useful.

Thermal Management

No system converts power to energy with perfect efficiency. The inefficiency becomes heat inside the system. Without effective cooling, optical elements warp, gain media degrade, and power output collapses. Thermal management is often the practical ceiling on how long a system can sustain fire.

Beam Control and Atmospheric Effects

Maintaining beam quality over distance requires precision optics and active correction systems. Atmospheric turbulence, dust, humidity, and smoke scatter and absorb energy enroute to the target. These effects are variable and unpredictable. At extended ranges, they can reduce effective intensity faster than the inverse square law alone would predict.

The Enabling Shift: From Chemical to Solid-State

The transition from chemical to fiber laser technology changed the feasibility calculus. Fiber lasers trade raw peak power for reliability, electrical operation, and modularity. Multiple beams can be combined into a single aperture, each individually too weak to engage a target, but together crossing the damage threshold. That approach, beam combining, is what made compact directed energy weapons viable.

The real breakthrough was not discovering new physics. It was changing how we generate and control energy, trading chemical brute force for electrical precision.

The Battlefield as Energy

Once you understand the equations, the electromagnetic spectrum stops being abstract.

Every system on the battlefield is generating energy. Every system is exposed to it. High-energy lasers and high-power microwaves are not anomalies or science fiction; they are the logical outcome of controlling power, area, and distance with enough precision to matter.

The history of directed energy is a story of physics waiting for engineering to catch up. That gap has largely closed. The systems are real, they are fielding, and they operate by the same rules that govern every other electromagnetic phenomenon; rules that can be understood, quantified, and applied.

The future fight will not just be defined by movement and firepower. It will be defined by who can generate, control, and apply energy more effectively than their opponent.

Understanding the physics is not optional. It is the foundation for understanding what these systems can and cannot do, and for making sound decisions about when and how to employ them.

Subscribe now

Recently, I’ve been trying to break this down for people who have never thought about radio signals, lasers, or microwaves. This article is for that platoon leader who wants to explain it to their Soldiers without getting buried too much in math.

So I started at the simplest possible place:

Walk into a dark room and flip a light switch.

The room doesn’t slowly fill with light.
It doesn’t expand outward from the bulb.
It doesn’t “travel” across the space in any way you can perceive.

It’s just… on. Instantly.

That instinct (that light is immediate) is actually correct. Not approximately correct. It is physically correct. And that’s the key to understanding the electromagnetic spectrum.

The Truth About “Instant”

When you flip that switch, light is moving at a very real, measurable speed:

The equation is saying that:

• c = the speed of light (this is a constant in physics)

• 3×10^8 = 300,000,000

• m/s = meters per second

That’s 300,000,000 meters per second.

In a typical room, let’s say about 5 meters across, light crosses that distance in roughly: 0.000000017 seconds (seventeen nanoseconds).

Your brain cannot perceive that. You can’t train yourself to perceive it. There is no human experience that operates on that timescale.

So your mind does something logical: it treats it as instantaneous.

What This Means for Your Radio

That same physics applies to every radio, every laser, every high powered microwave, and every transmission on the battlefield. When you key your handset, your signal is moving at the speed of light, just like flipping that light switch.

It doesn’t slowly work its way across the terrain.
It doesn’t “build” over time.

It’s just… there.

I think this was the hardest thing for me to grasp about the electromagnetic spectrum.

Every time you key your radio, that signal is instantaneously radiating outward in all directions from an omnidirectional antenna. If you want to visualize it in a TOC, imagine every transmission blasting energy in all directions off your antenna.

That was the moment it started to click for me; the spectrum behaves very differently than I initially thought.

At the scale we operate, there is no meaningful delay between transmitting and that signal existing across the environment.

So the question isn’t “How long does it take to get there?”

The real question is: “Who can detect it?”

Where Power Comes Into Play

This is where the conversation shifts. If the signal is effectively everywhere instantly, then what actually limits it?

Power.

Not in terms of whether the signal physically reaches a location. In free space, it does. The limitation is whether it is still strong enough to be measured once it gets there.

As a signal radiates outward, its energy is spread over an increasingly large spherical surface area. The same total energy is being distributed across more and more space. That spreading effect is governed by a simple relationship:

This is the inverse-square law, and it describes how rapidly energy density falls as distance increases.

To make it concrete, assume a unit transmits at a fixed power. At 1 meter from the antenna, you can think of the received signal as having full relative strength, lets call it 100 units for reference.

Now move to 2 meters. The signal has not “weakened” in the sense of losing energy at the source. Instead, it has spread over a sphere with four times the surface area. The receiver now only intercepts one quarter of the original energy density. So the receiver does not receive 100 units, it now receives 25 units.

At 10 meters, that same energy is spread over a surface area 100 times larger than at 1 meter. The receiver now receives 1 unit.

Nothing about the transmission changed. Power output is constant. What changed is distribution.

This is the key operational intuition: the signal is not fading like a battery draining, it is being diluted across space.

A useful way to visualize it is to imagine spraying paint from a fixed point in the center of a balloon that is continuously expanding. The paint quantity does not change, but the further the balloon expands, the thinner the coverage becomes at any single point on the surface. Eventually, the layer becomes so thin that it is indistinguishable from the background.

Electromagnetic propagation behaves the same way in free space. The energy spreads across an expanding spherical surface area, and that geometry drives the loss.

This is why distance is not just a factor, it is an amplifier of weakness. Doubling range does not halve the signal; it quarters it. Increasing range by a factor of ten reduces signal strength by a factor of one hundred.

In operational terms, this is where detectability enters the fight. A signal does not need to disappear to be ineffective. It only needs to fall below the receiver’s sensitivity threshold and the surrounding noise floor; thermal noise, interference, and other emissions in the environment.

At that point, the transmission still exists in physics. But it no longer exists in practice.

That is the real constraint on emissions in the field: not whether you can transmit, but how far you can do so before you become indistinguishable from everything else in the spectrum.

Where Direction Changes the Game

Now the conversation shifts from how power spreads to how antennas shape that spread.

Up to this point, we’ve treated transmissions as if they radiate uniformly in all directions. That is the baseline case: an omnidirectional antenna. In that model, energy leaves the source and expands outward as a sphere. The same total power is simply distributed across an ever-growing surface area, which is why signal strength drops with distance.

A directional antenna does not change the fundamental physics.

It does not change how fast the signal travels.
It does not change the inverse-square relationship.

What it changes is how that same power is distributed in space.

Instead of spreading energy equally in all directions, it concentrates more of it into a specific sector of space. In that direction, you are not creating more total power, you are increasing power density.

That concentration is described by antenna gain, G, which represents how much energy is being focused.

Mathematically, you can think of it as:

The inverse-square loss is still there. Distance still matters. But now it is being scaled by how tightly the energy is focused.

What That Means in Practice

The key operational implication is not that the signal “travels farther.” It is that, in a given direction, it starts with a higher energy density.

So as distance increases:

• The signal still decays with 1/r^2

• But it begins from a higher effective level in the intended direction

• Which means it remains above detection thresholds for longer along that path

In practical terms, two systems transmitting the same total power can behave very differently at range:

• An omnidirectional antenna spreads energy in all directions, causing rapid dilution everywhere

• A directional antenna concentrates that same energy into a narrower beam, reducing dilution in that direction

At distance, that difference determines whether a receiver sees nothing, or still sees something usable.

Not because the signal violated physics.
But because it was distributed differently by design.

A Better Way to Think About It

Stop thinking about communication as something moving from point A to point B.

Start thinking about it as energy appearing in space.

Every transmission is a localized rise in electromagnetic energy density. It does not arrive later, it is present as soon as it exists, limited only by distance and sensitivity.

That is why the analogy that works best is not movement, but illumination.

The Bottom Line

The electromagnetic spectrum is not difficult because it is abstract.

It is difficult because it breaks human intuition about time and distance.

We expect delay, travel, and gradual arrival. Physics does not operate that way here.

Once you remove the idea that signals “move like objects,” the rest becomes consistent:

They spread. They dilute. They are shaped. And they are detected based on strength at a distance.

And that is the operational reality that matters.

Subscribe now

Then I started paying attention.

At 0215, a Tactical Operations Center (TOC) was operating exactly as it had been trained. Reports were moving efficiently from subordinate HQs. Radios were active. Digital systems were synchronized. The staff was building a clear and accurate picture of the fight. Processes were disciplined, rehearsed, and effective. By every traditional measure, the unit was performing well.

At 0221, the adversary detected the TOC’s emissions.

By 0224, the TOC was geolocated.

By 0228, UAS and indirect fires were inbound.

Nothing about the unit’s processes were doctrinally incorrect. But they were visible. Not visually. Not thermally. Electromagnetically.

They did not lose because they failed to communicate. They lost because they communicated too well, for too long, and in a way that made them predictable.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum Is Not a Warfighting Function

In most professional military education, the electromagnetic spectrum shows up in multiple locations, whether it’s the S2 (Intel), S6 (Signal), or a completely separate annex owned by 17Bs (Cyber Electromagnetic Warfare Officer).

It gets briefed during the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). It’s acknowledged as a constraint or an enabler. But it is rarely treated as something that fundamentally shapes how a unit fights.

The spectrum is not a separate consideration; it is a condition of the battlefield. It is as real as terrain, as limiting as time, and as consequential as the enemy.

Every transmission creates a signature. Every signature creates the potential for detection. And in a modern fight, detection is often synonymous with targeting.

This changes the calculus of command and control.

The question is no longer, “Can I communicate?”
The question is, “Can I communicate without being found?”

Time on Air Equals Probability of Detection

At the tactical level, the principle is brutally simple: the longer you transmit, the more likely you are to be detected, geolocated, and targeted. This is not an abstract electronic warfare concept. It is a survivability problem.

Units that rely on continuous communication (long updates, constant digital traffic, persistent emissions) are creating a pattern that an adversary can exploit. Even if individual transmissions are low power or encrypted, the aggregate behavior becomes visible.

You are not just emitting information. You are emitting location.

This is where most formations are unprepared. They have been trained to value clarity, completeness, and constant connectivity. Those instincts, while well-intentioned, can be lethal in a contested electromagnetic environment.

A five-minute Situation Report (SITREP) is not just inefficient. It is exposure.

The Real Gap in Professional Military Education (PME)

From Advanced Individual Training (AIT) & Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC) through Basic Leaders Course (BLC), Advanced Leader Course (ALC), Master Leader Course (MLC), the Captains Career Course, and CGSC (Command and General Staff College), the electromagnetic spectrum is present, but it is not integrated.

At AIT and BOLC, Soldiers and Lieutenants learn how to operate radios. They learn frequencies, call signs, and reporting procedures. They become technically proficient operators. What they are not taught is that every transmission is a decision with consequences, that emitting creates a signature that can be detected, classified, and targeted.

At BLC, ALC, MLC, and CCC, NCOs and officers begin to plan and synchronize communications. They build PACE (Primary, Alternate, Contingency, Emergency) plans, allocate systems, and manage information flow across formations. But emissions are still treated as an enabler to be layered onto the plan after it is built, rather than a constraint that shapes how the plan must be designed from the start.

At CGSC field grade officers discuss the spectrum in terms of capabilities, protection, and effects. It is incorporated into operational frameworks and briefed during planning. But even here, it often remains conceptual rather than something that fundamentally drives how formations are organized, dispersed, and employed.

Across every level, the pattern is the same: we treat the electromagnetic spectrum as an input to the plan, not a condition that defines it.

I see this every day in my own formation. Soldiers know how to use their equipment. NCOs know how to manage it. Officers know how to plan with it. But very few are trained to think about what their emissions are doing to them in the fight.

We are teaching a model of warfare that assumes communication is free.

Stop Adding Electronic Warfare (EW) Classes, Start Changing Behavior

The solution is not more instruction. It is better integration.

You do not need a new block on the electromagnetic spectrum. You need to change how every existing block is taught. At the most basic level, this means introducing constraints that force students to confront the cost of emitting.

At AIT and BOLC, the focus should be behavioral.

Every transmission in training should be evaluated not just for accuracy, but for duration and necessity. Cadre should enforce strict limits: short transmissions, enforced brevity, and consequences for excessive time on air. If a student talks too long, they should be “detected.” If they repeat transmissions unnecessarily, they should be “targeted.” The lesson is simple: say less, say it clearly, and then stop transmitting.

At BLC, ALC, and MLC, that behavior must become discipline.

NCOs should be required to train their formations to operate under constraint. This means rehearsing under jamming, enforcing emission control (EMCON), and building training plans where communication is degraded or denied. The standard is no longer just communication, it is disciplined communication under pressure.

At the Captains Career Course, integration should become procedural.

During planning, electromagnetic exposure must be treated like any other constraint. When developing courses of action, students should have to answer questions like: How long can this unit transmit before it must displace? What is the emission control posture during each phase of the operation? Where are the points of highest signature risk?

If those questions are not addressed, the plan is incomplete.

At CGSCthe focus should be conceptual and operational.

Field grade officers should be forced to design operations that assume the network is contested, degraded, or actively working against them. This means shorter command post dwell times, greater dispersion, and a reliance on mission command rather than continuous oversight.

It also means accepting that more communication is not always better communication.

Train the Consequences

If you want this to matter, you have to make it real. The only way to do that is to enforce consequences in training.

This starts with how units conduct digital sustainment and command post operations. Set hard limits on transmission time. After a certain threshold, simulate detection. After repeated emissions, simulate geolocation. If a section or platoon continues to transmit, treat it as targeted and remove it from the fight.

Command posts should not be allowed to sit static and transmit indefinitely. Once a signature threshold is reached, they displace. If they don’t, they are destroyed. No warnings, no resets.

Introduce friction deliberately. Degrade communications. Disrupt networks. Force leaders to operate with incomplete information. Then require them to continue the mission.

This is not something you brief. It is something you enforce. Soldiers and leaders will not change how they operate because they were told the spectrum matters. They will change when they see what happens when they ignore it.

The Future SITREP

All of this converges on a simple but profound shift: communication must become faster, shorter, and more precise.

The future battlefield will reward leaders who can compress information without losing meaning.

A good SITREP will not be the one that includes everything. It will be the one that communicates intent in seconds and then goes silent.

This requires discipline. This requires training. It requires shared understanding. And it requires trust.

Leaders who demand constant updates are increasing their unit’s exposure. Leaders who empower subordinates with intent and accept less frequent, more concise communication are increasing survivability.

A Command Philosophy Problem

This is not just about the electromagnetic spectrum. It is about how we think about command. For decades, technology has pushed us toward greater connectivity. More data. More visibility. More control.

But in a contested electromagnetic environment, those advantages can become liabilities. If your formation requires continuous communication to function, it is fragile.

If your formation can operate with minimal communication because intent is clear, roles are understood, and subordinates are trusted it is resilient. Mission command is not just a leadership philosophy in this environment. It is a survivability requirement.

Key Takeaways for Leaders

The spectrum is terrain. Every emission is a position report to the enemy. Plan and fight accordingly.

Duration drives detection. A longer transmission is not more thorough, it is more targetable. Train your formations to transmit briefly, then go silent.

Encryption is not concealment. An adversary does not need to read your transmissions to geolocate your headquarters. The signal itself reveals your position.

Mission command is a survivability tool. Formations that require continuous communication to function are fragile. Clear intent, trusted subordinates, and disciplined silence are force multipliers in a contested electromagnetic environment.

The standard must change in training. We cannot grade on content and ignore duration. Enforce emission limits now, in every exercise, at every level; or accept the consequences in combat.

If You Transmit, You Are Targetable

The electromagnetic spectrum is not an abstract domain. It is a battlefield where every emission has consequences. Right now, we are training leaders to operate as if those consequences are minimal.

Until we integrate the spectrum into how we teach, plan, and execute, until it is considered at the same time as maneuver, not after; we will continue to produce formations that are tactically sound but electromagnetically exposed.

Because if you transmit, you are targetable.

And if you are targetable, you are killable.

Subscribe now

Lines going in every direction, systems constantly transmitting, and signals crossing over each other in ways that seem impossible to untangle. The natural conclusion is that the electromagnetic spectrum must be “full” or “congested.” The more systems you add, the more energy fills that space, and the harder it becomes for any single receiver to separate the signal it cares about from everything else around it.

This is where the superhighway analogy becomes useful. The electromagnetic spectrum is not just a collection of separate systems, it is a shared roadway where all of those signals are moving at once. Each transmission is a vehicle entering the highway, and while there may be many lanes, they are not isolated. As traffic increases, vehicles begin to interfere with each other’s movement. Eventually, it’s not the size of the highway that matters, it’s whether anything can still move efficiently.

Different Lanes for Different Systems

Each portion of the electromagnetic spectrum functions like a lane defined by frequency, and different systems are designed to operate in specific parts of that highway. A handheld radio carrying voice traffic behaves very differently from a drone streaming live video, and both are fundamentally different from a radar system pushing out bursts of energy to detect targets.

Drones are like fast motorcycles carrying large, high-definition video streams; they need wide, smooth lanes to maintain speed and keep the feed reliable. Radios are standard passenger cars: slower and less demanding, but still needing a clear lane to avoid collisions. Radars act like heavy trucks, sending large bursts of energy that take up significant space and can disrupt surrounding traffic if not coordinated. Other systems like satellite links and specialized sensors are buses or specialty vehicles, each with unique roles and requirements on the road.

This analogy helps explain why systems behave differently. The next question is how much traffic each lane can actually carry.

Quantifying Traffic Flow Across the Spectrum

Each “lane” in the spectrum has physical limits that determine how much information it can carry. Frequency drives wavelength, and wavelength determines bandwidth, propagation, and ultimately data rate.

• ELF / VLF (3 Hz – 30 kHz)
  Typical Data Rate: 10 – 300 bps
  Extremely low data rates due to enormous wavelengths and very limited bandwidth. Primarily used for one-way communication to submerged submarines. Supports only short, preformatted text signals—no voice or imagery.

• HF (3 – 30 MHz)
  Typical Data Rate: 1 – 10 kbps
  Enables long-range, beyond-line-of-sight communication via skywave propagation. Bandwidth is constrained and noise levels are high, limiting throughput. Can support compressed voice, basic digital messaging, and very slow data transfer.

• VHF / UHF (30 MHz – 3 GHz)
  Typical Data Rate: 10 kbps – ~10 Mbps
  Primarily line-of-sight. Shorter wavelengths allow wider bandwidth and higher data rates. Supports tactical voice (e.g., SINCGARS), mobile networks, and data links like Link 16. Upper ranges allow moderate data exchange but are still constrained for persistent high-quality video.

• SHF (3 – 30 GHz)
  Typical Data Rate: 10 Mbps – 1+ Gbps
  High bandwidth enables modern high-throughput systems. Used for satellite communications, radar, and drone video links. Supports HD and 4K video, high-capacity data transfer, and network backbones. More susceptible to atmospheric degradation such as rain fade.

• EHF (30 – 300 GHz)
  Typical Data Rate: 1 Gbps – 10+ Gbps (practical terrestrial use)
  Extremely high data rates enabled by very wide bandwidth. However, propagation losses are severe due to atmospheric absorption and weather effects, limiting range. Best suited for short-range, high-capacity links and specialized sensing systems.

Individually, each system works well within its lane. The challenge is that these lanes are not isolated. They exist in the same physical environment, and as more systems come online, their interactions begin to matter.

Every Transmitter Raises the Noise Floor

Every transmitter on the battlefield is like a car on a crowded highway: it moves its own traffic forward, but it also stirs up turbulence for everyone else. Each system adds to the ambient “noise,” and that noise directly eats away at the clarity of every other signal.

In engineering terms, the clarity of a received signal is measured by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which compares the power of the signal you want to hear (P_signal) to the total power of everything else interfering (P_noise,total​). A high SNR means your signal is clear and easy to detect; a low SNR means your signal is getting drowned out. Think of it as the difference between speaking in a quiet room and trying to have a conversation in a crowded bar. As the environment gets louder, the ability to communicate quickly and accurately disappears. On the battlefield, every additional emitter makes the room louder. We can express this as:

Here’s what each term means:

• P_signal: the received power of your intended transmission, i.e., the “message” your receiver is trying to pick up.

• P_thermal: natural background noise caused by thermal motion of electrons in the environment and in your receiver circuitry. This is always present, even if no other transmitters are active.

• ∑i=1NPi: the combined interference from N other active transmitters in the area. Each transmitter adds energy to the band you’re listening to, which raises the noise floor.

Not all transmitters are created equal. Each system (radios, drones, radar, or satellites) has distinct characteristics: output power, operating frequency, bandwidth, and how often it transmits (duty cycle). These factors determine how much interference that system actually contributes to your receiver, not just how powerful it is in isolation.

We can refine the total noise expression to account for these differences:

Each term in the summation represents the effective interference contribution of a single emitter as seen by your receiver:

• Pi​: the transmitter’s raw power. This is its maximum potential to interfere.

• Bi​: the bandwidth overlap factor; the fraction of that signal that actually falls inside your receiver’s frequency band. If a system transmits outside your band, it doesn’t meaningfully contribute to your noise.

• Di​: the duty cycle; the fraction of time the transmitter is active. A radar that pulses briefly contributes far less average interference than a continuously transmitting video stream, even if its peak power is high.

What this equation is really doing is filtering every emitter through three questions:

1. How strong is it? (Pi​)

2. Is it in my lane? (Bi​)

3. How often is it actually transmitting? (Di​)

Only when all three align does a system significantly raise your noise floor.

Signal Separation Inside the TOC

At any given moment inside a Tactical Operations Center (TOC), there may be a dozen or more systems operating simultaneously: SINCGARS radios, an HF link, drone video feeds, a radar, satellite communications, and digital systems like JBC-P. All of them are transmitting energy into the same physical space.

Yet under normal conditions, they do not interfere with each other in a meaningful way. The reason is that each receiver is not listening to everything. It is selectively tuned to ignore most of the environment. Each system separates signals using three primary filters:

Frequency (the primary filter)
Every receiver is tuned to a specific frequency band. A SINCGARS radio operating in the VHF range is not meaningfully affected by a drone transmitting in the 2.4 GHz band or a satellite link in SHF. Even though all of that energy exists in the environment, it falls outside the receiver’s “lane” and is largely rejected.

Time (when signals occur)
Not all systems transmit continuously. Radars pulse. Some networks transmit in bursts. Even frequency-hopping radios rapidly change frequencies over time. This means that signals are often separated not just by where they exist in frequency, but when they exist at all.

Waveform and processing (how signals are structured)
Modern systems use modulation, coding, and filtering to further isolate signals. Two systems can occupy similar frequency space but remain separable because their waveforms are different and receivers are designed to recognize only their intended signal.

Under these conditions, the TOC is not a chaotic environment. It is a managed system of separation. Each receiver sees only a small slice of the electromagnetic environment:

• The SINCGARS radio “sees” its assigned VHF channel and ignores everything else

• The HF system “sees” a narrow long-range band and filters out local traffic

• The drone ground station “sees” a wide SHF channel carrying video

• The radar processes its own reflected pulses and rejects unrelated signals

Everything else is treated as background noise.

This is why 10–15 systems can operate side by side without immediate failure. They are not truly sharing the same space, they are operating in carefully separated slices of it.

Where Separation Begins to Break Down

The problem begins when those separation mechanisms start to overlap.

As more systems are added, three things happen:

• Frequency overlap increases: more systems begin operating in the same or adjacent bands

• Time overlap increases: more systems transmit continuously instead of intermittently

• Energy increases: more total power is injected into the environment

At that point, receivers can no longer fully reject “everything else.”

Signals that were previously outside the lane begin to leak in. Nearby transmitters overpower filters. Wideband systems (like drone video) spill energy across portions of the spectrum that other systems depend on.

From the receiver’s perspective, the environment changes in a very specific way:

It is no longer seeing one signal plus a little noise.
It is seeing one signal buried inside many competing signals.

That is the transition from separation to congestion. And once enough overlap occurs, the earlier SNR model takes over. The noise floor rises, margins shrink, and performance begins to degrade, first gradually, then all at once.

Concrete Example: One Drone vs. a Swarm

The breakdown becomes easier to see when you isolate a single type of system. Consider one small drone transmitting live video feed back to its operator. Its radio might output 1 W of power, operate in the 2.4 GHz band, use 20 MHz of bandwidth, and stream continuously (duty cycle ≈ 1). In isolation, this is manageable.

If your receiver is operating in the same band, the drone contributes a small amount of additional energy to your environment. In terms of the earlier model, it raises the noise floor by P_drone ⋅B_overlap⋅D_drone.

The effect is noticeable but limited. You may see slightly reduced range or a small drop in data rate, but the system continues to function. Now let’s scale to a swarm of drones.

Now imagine a swarm of 50 drones, all streaming simultaneously in the same band. Each additional drone adds its own contribution to the noise floor, so the combined effect multiplies quickly.

That sum is the total effective interference arriving at your receiver, not the theoretical peak power of all 50 transmitters, but the accumulated noise weighted by how much of each signal actually lands in you band and how long it stays there.

At this point, the environment is no longer defined by a single interferer. It becomes a dense, overlapping cloud of energy. But the key point is this:

Not all 50 drones affect you equally.

Distance, terrain, and antenna orientation reduce most of those signals to negligible levels. What matters is the subset of drones that are close enough, aligned in frequency, and transmitting at the same time.

If even a handful, let’s say 8 to 10 drones, meet those conditions, their combined effect is enough to significantly raise the noise floor at your receiver.

From the operator’s perspective, the transition looks like this:

• With one drone: minor degradation

• With several drones: reduced range, slower data, intermittent issues

• With enough overlapping drones: signals begin to disappear into the noise

At that point, your receiver is no longer filtering out “other traffic.” It is overwhelmed by it.

As this happens across a formation, systems begin to react. Radios retransmit lost packets. Data links slow down to maintain integrity. Some systems increase power to compensate. Each of those responses adds more energy into the environment, raising the noise floor even further. This is the tipping point.

The system can appear stable until it reaches this threshold, and then performance drops rapidly. What begins as a manageable environment becomes a self-reinforcing cycle of interference.

By the time congestion is noticeable to operators, the underlying conditions that caused it are already in place.

Bandwidth Does Not Solve Congestion

The drone swarm highlights something that is easy to misunderstand about bandwidth.

Bandwidth is the width of a lane, the amount of frequency space available to carry information. Wider lanes can carry more data. This is why systems gravitate toward higher frequencies: more bandwidth means faster video, more users, higher throughput. At HF, you have a narrow country road; limited capacity, but long range. At SHF and EHF, you have a multi-lane expressway capable of carrying massive amounts of data. But this creates a trap.

Those wide, high-capacity lanes attract every data-hungry system on the battlefield: drones, tactical networks, radar, and satellite links. As more systems move into the same space, the environment becomes increasingly crowded, and the effective capacity begins to degrade.

This relationship is formalized by the Shannon-Hartley theorem:

where C is channel capacity in bits per second, B is bandwidth in Hz, and SNR is the signal-to-noise ratio. The equation says something that is easy to overlook: bandwidth and SNR are not independent. Wider bandwidth attracts more interference, which lowers SNR, which reduces C. You can keep adding lanes to the highway, but if you also keep adding vehicles, the traffic eventually moves slower than it did on the narrow road.

This is the ceiling the swarm hits. It is not a bandwidth problem. It is a compounding SNR problem that bandwidth cannot solve; and in some cases, makes worse.

What This Means for Leaders

Spectrum congestion is not primarily a technology problem. It is a discipline problem.

At the individual level, every unnecessary transmission is a cost paid by every other system in the area. A radio left in continuous transmit mode, a drone streaming full-resolution video when a lower bitrate would suffice, a radar cycling at maximum duty cycle during a pause in operations; each of these raises the noise floor for everyone else. The Soldier who transmits without purpose is not just wasting their own bandwidth. They are degrading the communications of every element in their formation.

At the formation level, this means spectrum must be treated as a shared resource with real carrying limits, not an invisible utility that is simply available. Units that plan their electromagnetic footprint (who transmits, when, at what power, in which band) operate with a measurable advantage over units that do not. The formation with fewer, more disciplined transmissions maintains higher SNR across the network. Their links stay up longer. Their data arrives faster. Their picture stays current when others go dark.

The unit that wins the spectrum fight is not the one with the most radios. It is the one that understands the environment they are operating in and transmits accordingly.

The Bottom Line

A Company Commander does not need to calculate SNR or solve the Shannon-Hartley equation before issuing orders. That is not the point.

The point is this: every system that transmits in your area of operations adds energy to an environment that everyone else is trying to communicate through. Every unnecessary transmission, whether it’s the radio left keyed, the drone streaming at full resolution when it doesn’t need to, the sensor cycling when the threat isn’t present. raises the noise floor for your entire formation. Your radio operators don’t feel it as an equation. They feel it as a dropped call, a degraded feed, a report that didn’t get through.

Spectrum management at the company level is not a technical exercise. It is a planning discipline. Before the mission, the question isn’t just what systems are we bringing, it’s what is our electromagnetic footprint, and is it the minimum required to accomplish the task. The formation that answers that question operates with cleaner links, more reliable communications, and a network that holds together under pressure. In practice, that means defining which systems are on, when they transmit, at what power level, and why. It means turning off systems that are not actively contributing to the mission. It means choosing lower video resolution when high definition is not required. It means understanding that every unnecessary watt is a tax levied on every other receiver in the formation.

The electromagnetic spectrum is not just a highway. It is a crowded, dynamic battlespace where every signal competes for clarity. Communication does not fail because bandwidth disappears. It fails because signals can no longer be separated from noise.

On a congested battlefield, the unit that transmits the most is not the one that wins. It is the one that transmits with purpose, precision, and restraint.

Subscribe now

The answer isn’t just inertia or slow modernization. Army radios evolved in response to pressure inside the electromagnetic spectrum. This isn’t just a story of better equipment. It’s a story about a force being pushed into a physical environment governed by math and physics, whether it understood it or not. The problem is we’ve modernized the equipment faster than we’ve modernized how we think.

The 1980s: The First Real Fight in the Spectrum

The first real shift came in the 1980s, and it wasn’t driven by innovation alone, it was driven by threat. Soviet electronic warfare exposed a vulnerability that had existed for years. Vietnam-era radios like the AN/PRC-77 operated on single, fixed frequencies.

With the AN/PRC-77, operators did not “load” radios in the way we think of today with SINCGARS. There was no internal COMSEC, no hopsets, and no time synchronization. The radio was fundamentally a single-channel, analog FM system operating in the VHF band. Operators manually set the frequency using dials, ensured everyone in the net was on the same frequency, and relied on strict radio procedures to maintain discipline.

That made them predictable. Predictability made them easy to intercept and easy to jam. At the Company and Platoon level, that meant a formation could lose its ability to communicate simply because the enemy understood the environment better than it did.

SINCGARS was the Army’s answer to that problem. Radios like the AN/PRC-119 replaced older systems and introduced frequency hopping, supported by vehicular variants that extended the same capability across mounted formations. Communications still looked the same: voice traffic passed across nets, call signs were used, and procedures remained intact. But underneath, something fundamental had changed. Radios were no longer tied to a single frequency. They were moving across thousands of frequencies in the VHF band, constantly shifting in time:

At a practical level, this just means the radio’s frequency is no longer fixed. f₀ represents a baseline or starting point, while Δf⋅h(t) represents the rapid jumps to different frequencies over time. That hopping pattern isn’t random; it’s controlled, synchronized, and shared between radios on the net.

Frequency was no longer static. It had become a function of time. That single shift made interception and jamming significantly more difficult, especially when paired with encryption systems like VINSON and later integrated COMSEC. For the first time, small-unit communications had a degree of survivability inside a contested spectrum.

It also introduced something new at the Company and Platoon level: the requirement to load and manage cryptographic material. Communication was no longer just about being on the right frequency, it now depended on time synchronization, shared keys, and properly configured radios.

The 1990s–2000s: The Network Vision and Its Limits

After SINCGARS, the Army tried to take a much larger step forward. The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) was an attempt to unify communications across the force with software-defined radios that could adapt through waveforms instead of hardware limitations. At the Company and Platoon level, this vision included systems like the AN/PRC-154 Rifleman Radio and the AN/PRC-155 manpack. The goal was to move beyond voice and create a networked battlefield where data, position information, and eventually video could flow seamlessly between units.

This required a fundamentally different relationship with the spectrum. Radios were no longer just transmitting signals; they were participating in networks. Waveforms like the Soldier Radio Waveform and Wideband Networking Waveform defined how those networks behaved, determining how frequencies were used, how bandwidth was allocated, and how information moved. The radio had effectively become software.

That shift introduced a level of complexity the military wasn’t ready for.

Unlike SINCGARS, which could be reduced to a set of repeatable procedures, JTRS systems depended on a combination of processing power, waveform design, network topology, and spectrum availability. Performance was no longer just a function of whether a radio could transmit, it depended on how many nodes were in the network, how much data they were pushing, how they were positioned in terrain, and how efficiently the waveform managed the spectrum. In practice, this created friction at every level.

Networks were often slow or unreliable, not because the radios were broken, but because the underlying assumptions didn’t hold. Bandwidth was limited, but demand for data kept increasing. Waveforms were expected to self-form and self-heal, but in complex terrain or dense formations, they struggled to maintain stability. Latency increased as traffic grew, and systems that worked in controlled environments often degraded quickly under real operational conditions.

At the same time, the hardware itself lagged behind the vision. Early software-defined radios did not have the processing power or battery life to fully support the waveforms they were designed to run. Size, weight, and power constraints at the Company and Platoon level made it difficult to field systems that could deliver on the promise of a fully networked force.

All of this drove cost and complexity. JTRS became a program that was trying to solve too many problems at once: replace every radio, operate across every band, support every waveform, and connect every echelon. The technical ambition outpaced what was achievable at the time. By 2005, the program’s Cluster 1 variant (the vehicle-mounted radio intended to serve as the backbone of the networked force) was years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. The Army restructured the program, eventually cancelling key spiral development efforts and narrowing the requirements. It was a public and expensive admission that the vision had run ahead of what the technology, the acquisition system, and the force itself could actually support.

JTRS didn’t fail because the idea was wrong. It failed because it tried to leap too far ahead of both the technology and the user’s understanding.

What it revealed was that radios were no longer just tools for communication. They were systems operating within, and competing inside, the electromagnetic spectrum. And success in that environment depended not just on the equipment, but on how well the force understood the physics and constraints that governed it.

There was one step, however, that bridged the JTRS era and the networked 2010s that often goes unacknowledged: Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below, or FBCB2. While JTRS was still struggling through development, FBCB2 was fielding something that most tactical leaders had never seen before; data on a screen. Blue icons. Red icons. Unit positions updating in near real-time. It wasn’t fast, and it wasn’t networked in the way the Army had envisioned, but it was the first time a Company or Platoon leader could look at a display and see where their formation was without picking up a radio. For many Soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, FBCB2 was the moment the idea of a networked battlefield stopped being a concept and became something they actually used. It planted the expectation that would drive everything that followed.

The 2010s: Networks Arrive, Understanding Lags

By the 2010s, tactical networking had finally reached the units on the ground, and radios were no longer isolated devices, they became nodes in self-forming, self-healing networks. Self-forming meant that when units powered up their radios, the network automatically established connections between nodes without manual configuration. Platoon and Company radios could “discover” each other and create a mesh, while self-healing allowed the network to reroute traffic in real-time if a node went offline or moved out of range. The network adapted dynamically to changing formations, terrain, and conditions, allowing voice, text, and sensor data to flow across the unit even when individual nodes were lost or disrupted.

This capability fundamentally changed how Companies and Batteries operated. Units were now sharing the spectrum, competing for bandwidth, and moving far more data than ever before. The technology gave leaders unprecedented connectivity at the tactical edge, but it also introduced complexity: multiple nodes contending for the same frequencies, temporary outages cascading through the network, and the volume of traffic often pushing the system to its limits. The limitations can be captured by the Shannon-Hartley equation:

Where:

• C is the channel capacity, or the maximum data rate (bits per second) that the channel can reliably carry.

• B is the bandwidth of the channel in hertz (Hz), which is basically how much of the electromagnetic spectrum you have to work with. Wider bandwidth allows more data to flow.

• SNR is the signal-to-noise ratio, a measure of how strong your signal is compared to background noise. Strong signals and low noise allow more information to be transmitted.

• The log₂ factor converts the ratio into bits because every doubling of distinguishable signal levels effectively adds 1 bit of capacity.

Channel capacity is constrained by bandwidth and signal quality. That equation explains why networks slowed down, why data failed to move, and why systems that appeared functional still underperformed.

In practical terms, even a perfectly configured, self-healing network is limited by physics: bandwidth is like the pipe diameter, SNR is water pressure, and C is the actual flow of information. Networks slowed down, messages queued or failed to transmit, and systems that appeared functional still underperformed. The constraint was no longer just whether a signal could propagate, it was whether the spectrum could support the volume of activity being pushed through it.

The 2020s: The Spectrum as Contested Terrain

By the 2020s, the architecture the Army had been reaching toward for thirty years had finally taken shape. The Integrated Tactical Network (ITN) gave units at the Company and Platoon level something previous generations never had: the ability to move fluidly across waveforms and frequency bands without stopping to reconfigure equipment. A leader could operate on line-of-sight voice one moment, shift to a satellite link as terrain changed, and fall back to high-frequency communications when both failed. The spectrum was no longer a fixed lane the unit traveled in. It had become a layered environment the unit could maneuver through.

Built on top of ITN, the Next Generation Command and Control (NGC2) framework took that connectivity and pushed it further. Where SINCGARS had given small units survivability in a contested spectrum, and JTRS had chased the dream of a networked force, NGC2 began to close the loop between what units could sense and what leaders could act on. Soldier locations, vehicle positions, sensor feeds, and reports from across the formation all flowed into a common picture. A Platoon Leader could see where every element of the formation was without waiting for a radio call. A Company Commander could track the fight in near real-time instead of reconstructing it afterward. The radio had become the entry point to a system that was trying to think faster than the enemy.

But the same capability that made the force more aware also made it more visible. Every transmission, every data packet, every position update broadcast energy into the spectrum. The chain that moved information from radio to network to decision-maker also created a chain of detectable signatures the enemy could exploit. ITN and NGC2 gave leaders unprecedented awareness of the battlespace, but they also extended the formation’s electromagnetic footprint in ways that earlier generations of radio operators never had to consider. Connectivity and exposure had become two sides of the same coin.

Signal propagation is governed by fundamental physics. The inverse-square law describes how signal power decays with distance:

Here:

• Pr​ is the received signal power, the strength of the signal as it arrives at the receiver.

• r is the distance between transmitter and receiver.

• The proportional symbol (∝) means that received power decreases inversely with the square of the distance; if you double the distance, the signal is reduced to one-quarter of its original strength.

In practical terms, this means that energy spreads as it travels and never truly disappears. Every transmission creates a detectable signature. If you can communicate, you can be found; if you can be found, you can be targeted.

The question for military leaders is no longer whether a unit can establish communications. It is what those communications cost; in risk, exposure, and tactical options. ITN and NGC2 provide unmatched flexibility and insight, but the physics of energy and the presence of sophisticated adversaries make survivable communications a careful balance of capability and discipline. That is also why SINCGARS and the OE-254 are still in the inventory. They are not holdovers from a slower Army. They are the proven, maintainable backbone that every unit falls back on when the network degrades; and in a contested spectrum, degradation is not a failure condition, it is an expected one. The sophisticated systems layer on top; the simple ones keep the formation talking when the layers collapse.

Conclusion: From Using Radios to Maneuvering in the Spectrum

Across four decades, the progression is clear. The Army moved from operating on fixed frequencies, to hopping across them, to expanding into multiple bands, to building networks within them, and finally to fighting inside them. Each step added capability, but also complexity, and each step pushed more responsibility down to the tactical level.

That progression also answers the question this paper started with. SINCGARS is still in the inventory because the Army never fully replaced the mission it performs. The OE-254 antenna is still at every Company and Platoon because no successor has matched its combination of simplicity, range, and durability under field conditions. They are not evidence of a military that failed to modernize. They are evidence of a force that learned, sometimes painfully, that survivability in the spectrum depends on depth. ITN and NGC2 are the edge of the capability; SINCGARS and the OE-254 are the floor. In a degraded or contested environment, it is that floor that keeps the formation alive and talking.

Soldiers today must be highly proficient with their equipment. The baseline is they need to load radios, establish nets, and execute PACE plans with confidence. But they do not yet intuitively understand how frequency shapes propagation, how bandwidth constrains performance, or how emissions create risk. That gap is the difference between using radios and maneuvering in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Until Company and Platoon leaders can see those relationships as clearly as they see terrain, they are not truly operating in the spectrum. They are simply passing traffic through it.

Maneuver leaders learn to see terrain. They understand how ridgelines restrict movement, how valleys canalize forces, and how roads enable speed. The electromagnetic spectrum requires the same kind of intuition. Frequency determines how energy moves. Bandwidth determines how much can move. Time determines how predictable that movement is.

Subscribe now

The natural instinct when something goes wrong with a radio, JBCP, AFATDS, or any other MTOE equipment is to start pressing buttons or assume the device itself has failed. But radios are not single devices. They are systems built on layers of physics and engineering.

A useful way to think about troubleshooting communications is to move through those layers from the top down:

Network
Propagation
Antenna
Radio Electronics
Electron Physics

Each layer represents a different stage in how electromagnetic energy travels from one operator to another. Understanding the physics behind these layers makes troubleshooting faster, more systematic, and far more intuitive.

Layer 1: The Network

The highest layer of radio communication is the network itself; how information is organized, synchronized, and shared across multiple radios.

At this layer the radios may be functioning perfectly from a hardware perspective, but the system still fails because the participants are not speaking the same mathematical language.

For two radios to communicate, several parameters must match:

• Frequency

• Encryption

• Time synchronization

• Modulation method

If any one of these parameters differs, the receiver cannot properly interpret the signal, even if the signal physically arrives at the antenna.

This layer of communication is governed by information theory, first developed by Claude Shannon in the late 1940s.

Shannon showed that the maximum rate at which information can be transmitted through a noisy channel is limited by what is now called the Shannon–Hartley theorem:

Where:

C = channel capacity (bits per second)
B = bandwidth of the channel
S/N = signal-to-noise ratio

This equation places a hard mathematical limit on how much information can move through a radio channel.

Several important insights come from this relationship.

First, bandwidth determines how much space exists to carry information. Radios operating on different frequencies or bandwidths are literally transmitting information into different channels. If two radios are not tuned to the same frequency band, the receiver will never even observe the signal.

Second, signal-to-noise ratio determines whether information can be extracted from the signal. Even when a signal arrives at the receiver, background noise may overwhelm it. In that case the receiver cannot reliably decode the bits being transmitted.

This is why radios must also agree on modulation methods.

Modulation is the mathematical process that converts digital information into variations of a carrier wave. Common modulation techniques include:

• Frequency Shift Keying (FSK)

• Phase Shift Keying (PSK)

• Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM)

Each method encodes bits differently by manipulating frequency, phase, or amplitude. If the receiver expects one scheme but the transmitter uses another, the signal becomes unintelligible.

In other words, the signal is present but the decoder is solving the wrong equation.

Time synchronization introduces another important constraint. How many times is a radio not working because the time was wrong?

Many modern tactical radios use frequency hopping or time-slotted transmission to resist interference and jamming. These systems depend on precise time alignment between radios. If clocks drift out of synchronization, the radios begin hopping to different frequencies at different moments and quickly lose contact.

Operationally, these mathematical realities explain why most communication failures occur at the network layer.

The radio itself may be transmitting perfectly. Electromagnetic waves may be reaching the receiver. But if the radios disagree about frequency, timing, encryption, or modulation, the receiver cannot reconstruct the information.

That is why the first step in troubleshooting communications should always be confirming that both stations are actually operating on the same network configuration.

Before investigating antennas, terrain, or hardware failures, ensure the radios are solving the same communication problem.

If you are curious about Shannon’s information theory, here is a good short video on it:

Layer 2: Propagation Through the Environment

Once the radio transmits, electromagnetic energy must physically travel through the environment before it can be received.

This process is governed by the laws of Electromagnetism, first unified by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860s. Maxwell’s equations describe how changing electric fields generate magnetic fields and vice versa, allowing energy to propagate through space as electromagnetic waves.

In simplified form, electromagnetic waves propagate through space at the speed of light: c = 3 ×10⁸ m/s.

Because radio waves are oscillating electromagnetic fields, their wavelength is determined by their frequency:

Where:

• Wavelength (λ) is the physical length of one cycle of the electromagnetic wave

• The speed of light (c) is approximately 300,000,000 meters per second

• Frequency (f) is the number of oscillations per second

This relationship explains why lower frequency radios have longer wavelengths and higher frequency radios have shorter wavelengths.

Energy Spreading and Distance

As electromagnetic waves travel outward from an antenna, the energy spreads in all directions. Imagine the transmitted signal expanding as a growing sphere centered on the antenna.

The surface area of a sphere grows with: A = 4πd²

Where d is the distance from the transmitter.

Because the same amount of transmitted energy must spread across a larger and larger area, the power density decreases rapidly with distance. This phenomenon is described by the inverse-square law.

For radio systems, this loss is captured by the free-space path loss equation:

FSPL = (4πd / λ)²

Where:

d = distance between antennas
λ = wavelength of the signal

The key here is path loss increases with both distance and frequency. That means higher-frequency signals weaken faster as they travel through space.

Real Environments Are Not Empty

The free-space equation assumes nothing exists between the transmitter and receiver. In reality, signals move through terrain, buildings, vegetation, and atmospheric conditions. These obstacles introduce several physical effects.

Reflection: Electromagnetic waves bounce off conductive surfaces such as buildings, vehicles, and the ground. Multiple reflections can cause signals to arrive at the receiver along different paths.

Diffraction: Waves bend around edges such as hills, ridges, and buildings. Diffraction allows signals to reach receivers even when a direct line of sight is partially blocked.

Scattering: Irregular surfaces like trees, foliage, and rough terrain scatter energy in multiple directions. This weakens the signal that continues toward the receiver.

Absorption: Materials like vegetation, soil, and walls absorb electromagnetic energy and convert it into heat, reducing signal strength.

Together these effects produce what engineers call multipath propagation, where multiple delayed versions of the same signal arrive at the receiver.

Why Terrain Matters

Because most tactical radios operate in the VHF and UHF bands, they rely heavily on line-of-sight propagation.

A useful approximation for radio horizon distance is:

Where:

h₁​ = height of the transmitting antenna (meters)
h₂​ = height of the receiving antenna (meters)

This equation explains a fundamental field observation: A small increase in antenna height can dramatically increase communication range.

Raising an antenna from a vehicle roof, climbing a hill, or simply repositioning a soldier to higher ground can extend the radio horizon significantly.

Practical Troubleshooting at the Propagation Layer

When communications fail, operators often assume something is broken. In many cases, the physics of propagation is the real cause.

Common propagation problems include:

• Terrain blocking line-of-sight signals

• Urban structures creating multipath interference

• Vegetation absorbing energy

• Distance exceeding the radio horizon

Because propagation is governed by geometry and physics, the solution is often simple. Move higher, Move closer, or move somewhere with a clearer line of sight. Understanding how electromagnetic waves interact with the environment turns what appears to be a mysterious communication failure into a predictable physical problem.

Layer 3: The Antenna

The antenna is the point where electrical energy inside the radio becomes an electromagnetic wave traveling through space.

Inside the radio, the transmitter generates an alternating electrical current. When that current reaches the antenna, electrons in the conductor begin oscillating back and forth at the radio frequency.

According to Maxwell’s Equations, accelerating electric charges create changing electric and magnetic fields. These changing fields detach from the antenna and propagate outward as Electromagnetic Radiation.

In other words, antennas work because oscillating electrons create oscillating electromagnetic fields that carry energy away from the conductor.

Wavelength and Resonance

For antennas to radiate energy efficiently, their physical size must relate to the wavelength of the transmitted signal.

Wavelength is determined by a simple relationship: wavelength equals the speed of light divided by the frequency. As stated before this is written as: wavelength = speed of light ÷ frequency.

Because of this relationship, lower frequencies produce longer wavelengths, and higher frequencies produce shorter wavelengths.

Since antennas must interact with the wavelength of the signal, lower frequency radios generally require longer antennas.

Most practical antennas are designed as fractions of the wavelength. The two most common designs are:

• Half-wave antennas, which are half the wavelength long.

• Quarter-wave antennas, which are one quarter of the wavelength long.

These specific lengths are important because antennas behave like resonant electrical systems.

At resonance, the electrical current in the antenna forms standing waves that align with the oscillation of the transmitted signal. When this alignment occurs, electrical energy transfers efficiently from the radio into electromagnetic waves traveling through space.

When the antenna length does not match the wavelength properly, this resonance is disrupted and radiation efficiency drops. A simple example helps illustrate this.

A radio transmitting at 30 MHz produces a signal with a wavelength of roughly 10 meters. A quarter-wave antenna for that signal would therefore be about 2.5 meters long.

This is why many military VHF whip antennas are several meters long, they are designed to match the wavelength of the signals they transmit.

Power Transfer and Impedance Matching

Another critical concept at the antenna layer is impedance matching.

Electrical systems transfer power most efficiently when the impedance of the transmitter, transmission line, and antenna all match. Most radios and coaxial cables are designed around a standard impedance of 50 ohms.

When the antenna is properly tuned, power flows smoothly from the transmitter into the antenna and radiates outward into space.

If the antenna length is incorrect or damaged, the impedance no longer matches the radio system. When this happens, part of the transmitted energy reflects back toward the transmitter instead of radiating outward.

Engineers measure this effect using something called the Standing Wave Ratio, or SWR.

An ideal antenna system has an SWR close to 1:1, meaning nearly all the transmitted power leaves the antenna.

A poorly tuned antenna might have an SWR of 3:1 or higher, meaning a significant portion of the transmitter’s power is reflected instead of transmitted.

In practical terms, the radio may appear to be transmitting normally, but much of the energy never leaves the antenna system. The transmitter is producing power but the antenna is failing to launch that energy into the environment.

Polarization and Orientation

Antennas also have polarization, which describes the orientation of the electric field in the transmitted wave.

Most tactical whip antennas produce vertical polarization. For maximum signal strength, the transmitting and receiving antennas should share the same orientation.

If one antenna is vertical and the other horizontal, the received signal strength can drop dramatically.

This is why simple field adjustments (such as keeping whip antennas vertical) can noticeably improve communications.

Practical Troubleshooting at the Antenna Layer

Because antennas sit outside the radio, they are exposed to damage and misconfiguration during operations.

Common antenna problems include:

• Loose antenna connections

• Incorrect antenna type for the frequency

• Damaged or bent antennas

• Broken or damaged feed lines

• Improper antenna orientation

When these problems occur, the radio may appear to function normally while transmitting very little energy into the environment. Understanding the physics of resonance and impedance makes the problem clearer:

The transmitter may be generating energy, but the antenna is failing to couple that energy into electromagnetic waves. Fixing the antenna restores that coupling and allows the signal to radiate efficiently again.

Layer 4: Radio Electronics (and the Battery)

Inside the radio, circuits generate and amplify the signal before it reaches the antenna.

These circuits are described by classical electrical engineering using relationships like Ohm’s Law (V = IR) and electrical power (P = VI) where: P = power, V = voltage, and I = current.

For radio transmission, power matters. The strength of the transmitted signal depends directly on how much electrical power the transmitter can deliver to the antenna.

This is where a very practical field issue emerges: battery power.

Batteries store energy chemically and convert it into electrical power for the radio. As batteries drain, voltage drops and the transmitter cannot deliver full power.

Receiving signals requires relatively little energy, but transmitting requires much more. This creates a common battlefield symptom:

A radio with a weak battery can hear the network but cannot transmit effectively.

Cold environments make the problem worse because battery chemistry slows down, reducing available energy.

At the tactical level, battery management becomes an operational concern. Sections and companies operating dismounted must constantly track battery life, rotate batteries, and plan resupply to maintain communications.

Sometimes the fastest troubleshooting step is also the simplest: Swap the battery.

Layer 5: Electron Physics

At the deepest layer, radios depend on semiconductor electronics built from materials like silicon.

These materials operate according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics and Solid State Physics. Inside these materials, electrons occupy specific energy bands that determine how easily they can move through the material.

This behavior is what separates conductors, semiconductors, and insulators.

Modern radios rely on semiconductor devices called transistors, which control the flow of electrons through these materials. By carefully controlling that flow, transistors can amplify signals, switch currents on and off, and process information. Millions or even billions of these tiny components are built into the integrated circuits inside a radio.

Under normal conditions, these devices operate reliably for years. But they are still physical components.

Hard impacts, water intrusion, electrical surges, or manufacturing defects can damage the microscopic structures that control electron flow. When this happens, the circuits inside the radio can no longer generate, amplify, or process the signal correctly.

Fortunately, failures at this layer are relatively rare during field operations.

By the time troubleshooting reaches this point, the operator has already confirmed that the network configuration is correct, the signal should propagate through the environment, the antenna system is functioning, and the radio has adequate power.

If all of those layers check out and the radio still does not work, the simplest explanation is often the correct one: the radio itself is broken.

At that point the solution is not more troubleshooting, it is replacing the equipment and sending the damaged radio for maintenance.

Start High, Work Down

The layered structure of radio communications mirrors the layered structure of physics itself.

Information flows through a network.
Signals propagate through the environment.
Antennas convert electricity into waves.
Electronics generate and amplify those signals.
Electrons inside materials make the electronics possible.

When communications fail, moving through these layers systematically provides a clear troubleshooting path.

And in most cases, the problem appears long before reaching the deepest physics.

The network was wrong.
The terrain blocked the signal.
The antenna was loose.
Or the battery ran out.

Understanding how these layers connect from electrons to networks turns troubleshooting from guesswork into a disciplined process.

In a battlefield increasingly defined by the electromagnetic spectrum, that understanding is not just technical knowledge.

It is operational advantage.

Subscribe now

I wish I had something intelligent to add to that conversation, but honestly I couldn’t explain why antennas are different sizes, and I had no idea whether that NCO was actually right about the OE-254.

So I spent some time this week digging into the question.

What I discovered was the most important part of any radio system is usually the antenna.

You can have the most advanced radio in the world, but if the antenna is poorly designed, incorrectly sized, or badly placed, the system will perform terribly. On the other hand, a simple radio connected to a well-built antenna can communicate much farther than most Soldiers expect.

The good news is that understanding antennas does not require an engineering degree. In fact, nearly everything a Soldier needs to know can be understood with one simple physics concept.

Electrons moving in a wire create electromagnetic waves.

This principle was first mathematically described by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell. When electrical current oscillates back and forth in a conductor, it creates changing electric and magnetic fields. Those fields detach from the wire and propagate outward through space as electromagnetic radiation.

That radiation is what we call a radio signal.

An antenna is simply a conductor designed to efficiently convert electrical energy from a radio into electromagnetic energy in the environment.

The Rule That Explains Almost Every Military Antenna

Radio signals travel at the speed of light, roughly 300,000,000 meters per second. Because of that, the wavelength of a radio signal can be calculated with a simple equation:

Wavelength (meters) = 300 ÷ Frequency (MHz)

Most antennas are built to be either:

• Half-wave antennas
• Quarter-wave antennas

That means the antenna length is either half or one-quarter of the signal’s wavelength.

Once you understand this relationship, almost every antenna in military communications makes sense.

Take the OE-254 antenna system as an example. The OE-254 is commonly used for FM communications in the same VHF band as radios like SINCGARS, which operate between roughly 30 and 88 MHz.

If we calculate the wavelength at the low end of that range:

300 ÷ 30 MHz = 10 meters.

A quarter-wave antenna would therefore be about:

10 ÷ 4 = 2.5 meters long.

That length should start to sound familiar. It’s roughly the length of the whip antennas mounted on many tactical vehicles and close to the size of the radiating elements used in systems like the OE-254.

But if the antenna element only needs to be a few meters long, why is the OE-254 system over ten meters tall?

The answer is that the mast height and the antenna length are solving two different problems.

The antenna elements themselves are sized according to wavelength so they can efficiently radiate energy. But the tall mast lifts the antenna higher above the ground, which dramatically improves how far VHF radio signals can travel.

Unlike HF signals that can bounce off the atmosphere, VHF signals mostly travel in straight lines. Terrain, trees, and buildings can block them easily. By raising the antenna higher, the OE-254 increases the radio horizon and allows signals to travel farther across the battlefield.

In other words:

The antenna length is determined by physics, but the antenna height is determined by terrain.

Once you understand that difference, the design of systems like the OE-254 suddenly makes a lot more sense.

But that still raises an important question.

Why do antennas work best at half-wave or quarter-wave lengths in the first place?

Why Half-Wave Antennas Work

At first glance, the rule that antennas should be half a wavelength long feels arbitrary. But it comes directly from how waves behave in a conductor.

When a radio transmits, it pushes electrons in the antenna back and forth. If the radio is transmitting at 10 MHz, those electrons reverse direction 10 million times every second.

This back-and-forth motion sends an electrical wave down the wire.

But the wire is not infinitely long. When the wave reaches the end of the antenna, part of that energy reflects back along the conductor. When the outgoing wave and the reflected wave interact, they create a pattern called a standing wave.

A standing wave is a stable vibration pattern that forms when waves moving in opposite directions reinforce each other. Anyone who has seen a vibrating guitar string has seen this effect. The ends of the string stay mostly fixed while the middle moves the most.

The same thing happens in an antenna.

As the electrical wave moves up and down the wire, reflections from the ends create a repeating pattern along the conductor. In some locations the electrical current becomes very strong, while in others the voltage becomes strongest.

If the antenna length is chosen correctly, the reflections line up perfectly with the signal being transmitted.

When that happens, the wave reinforces itself instead of cancelling itself, and the antenna enters a condition called resonance.

For a straight wire antenna, this natural resonance occurs when the antenna is half the wavelength of the transmitted signal.

At that length:

• electrical current is strongest at the center of the antenna
• voltage is strongest at the ends

This standing-wave pattern allows energy from the radio to build efficiently along the conductor and then radiate outward into space as electromagnetic waves.

If the antenna were much shorter than the wavelength, the electrons would not have enough distance to build a strong oscillation. Very little energy would radiate.

If the antenna were much longer, different parts of the wire would begin cancelling each other out.

But when the antenna length matches half the wavelength, the motion of the electrons and the reflections in the wire line up perfectly. The antenna and the signal frequency are resonant with each other.

That resonance is what allows a simple piece of wire to efficiently launch radio waves into the electromagnetic spectrum.

If you still don’t get it think of it like pushing a swing.

If you push the swing at exactly the right rhythm, the motion grows larger and larger.
If you push at the wrong rhythm, your pushes cancel out the motion.

The antenna is the swing and the radio frequency is the rhythm of the push.

When the antenna length matches the wavelength, every oscillation adds energy instead of cancelling it.

Why Quarter-Wave Antennas Work

If half-wave antennas are ideal, why do so many military radios use quarter-wave antennas?

The answer is practicality.

A quarter-wave antenna behaves like half of a dipole antenna, with the missing half replaced by a conductive surface called a ground plane.

For example, when a whip antenna is mounted on a military vehicle, the metal body of the vehicle acts like the other half of the antenna. The electromagnetic fields reflect off the vehicle surface and complete the antenna system electrically.

That allows the antenna to be half the physical size while still radiating efficiently.

This is why vehicle-mounted antennas are usually quarter-wave whips. They are compact, durable, and the vehicle itself completes the antenna.

Why Satellite Antennas Are Small

Now consider satellite communication systems used by platforms like Joint Battle Command-Platform.

These systems operate at much higher frequencies, typically in the GHz range.

At 1 GHz:

300 ÷ 1000 = 0.3 meters.

A quarter-wave antenna would only need to be about:

7.5 centimeters long.

That is why satellite communication antennas are small domes instead of long whip antennas.

Higher frequency signals require smaller antennas.

Why HF Radios Use Long Wires

On the opposite end of the spectrum are high frequency radios like the AN/PRC-160.

These systems operate between roughly 3–30 MHz.

If a unit wants to transmit at 5 MHz:

300 ÷ 5 = 60 meters.

A quarter-wave antenna would therefore be 15 meters long.

That is why HF antennas often look like long wires stretched between trees or poles instead of compact tactical antennas.

But the advantage of these large antennas is range.

HF signals can reflect off the ionosphere and travel hundreds or even thousands of kilometers.

The Tradeoffs Across the Spectrum

Every part of the electromagnetic spectrum comes with tradeoffs.

Lower frequency radios:

• Require large antennas
• Travel long distances
• Can reflect off the atmosphere

Higher frequency radios:

• Use smaller antennas
• Carry more data
• Usually require line-of-sight

These tradeoffs explain why military formations rely on multiple communication systems simultaneously.

None of these systems are “better.” They are simply optimized for different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The Simplest Antenna You Can Build

The most basic antenna anyone can construct is called a dipole antenna.

A dipole is simply two pieces of wire connected to a radio feed line.

Each wire is one-quarter of a wavelength long, extending in opposite directions.

For example, if a unit wanted to build a dipole antenna for 10 MHz communications:

First calculate the wavelength.

300 ÷ 10 = 30 meters.

A half-wave dipole would therefore be 15 meters long.

Each side of the antenna would be:

7.5 meters of wire.

With nothing more than wire, a connector, and two elevated anchor points, a Soldier can build a fully functional antenna capable of communicating across enormous distances.

In many cases, a well-built field antenna will outperform the standard antennas issued with radios.

The Pattern Hidden Inside Every Antenna

At the end of the day, every antenna is just a conductor interacting with a standing electromagnetic wave.

Current is strongest in the center of the antenna.
Voltage is strongest at the ends.

This pattern is what allows energy to efficiently radiate outward into the electromagnetic spectrum.

Once you understand that relationship, antennas stop looking like random pieces of metal. They become physical structures designed to match the wavelength of energy moving through them.

Subscribe now

I don’t disagree with any of that.

My concern is simpler, and it lives one layer below the press release: when industry responds to a broad, unconstrained appeal, they respond with what they can build and sell; not with what a company/battery actually needs.

The Gravity of Echelon

Here is what a broad RFI does to the solution space. Industry reads four capability areas (attack, support, protect, common services) and begins mapping their existing portfolio. What gets surfaced first? The high-margin, high-complexity systems. The platforms that require trained operators. The software-defined radios that need a 60-day fielding pipeline and a contractor on site. The AI-enabled spectrum management tools designed to give a corps G6 situational awareness across a contested battlespace.

None of that is wrong. Some of it is genuinely needed.

But there is a gravity to echelon. Capability tends to float upward. The systems that generate the most revenue, require the most infrastructure, and carry the most impressive spec sheets almost always end up at echelons above brigade. The brigade gets a program of record eventually. The battalion gets a subset. The company/battery gets a radio and a prayer.

The section and the squad? They get told the battalion has “organic EW capability” now.

What the Tactical Edge Actually Looks Like

Let me be concrete, because concrete is the only honest currency in this conversation.

A company/battery commander has, at most, a handful of people with any meaningful EMS awareness. Their S6 Soldier may or may not have had rigorous spectrum training. The platoon leaders almost certainly have not. They know that GPS can be jammed. They have seen drones. They know that their SINCGARS nets get stepped on in congested environments. But they cannot tell you why, and they cannot fix it.

Ask them: what frequency is your battalion command net? They know. Ask them: what is the approximate wavelength of that signal, and how does that constrain your antenna options? Most cannot answer. Ask them: if an adversary is jamming your signal, what are your indicators, and what is your immediate action? Now you are getting into terrain that most company-level leaders have never been given the tools to navigate.

This is not a failure of the individual leaders. It is a failure of the system to equip them with the conceptual foundations that would make EMS intuitive rather than mysterious.

The Industry Incentive Problem

When the Army issues a broad RFI without explicit echelon constraints, industry optimizes for the buyer with the most money and the longest contract. That is not corruption, that is rational behavior. A system that gives a theater-level commander machine-speed spectrum situational awareness is fundable at a scale that a section-level EMS tool is not.

The result is predictable. The CoN identifies “modular, scalable, adaptable” as key characteristics. Industry will respond with modular, scalable, adaptable systems. Those systems will scale from brigade to division to corps. They will be adaptable across echelons on paper. In practice, the cognitive and logistical overhead required to operate them will concentrate them exactly where overhead is tolerable: at the headquarters.

The section leader will not see them. The company will not see them. The battalion might get a touchscreen that shows someone else’s picture.

What a Tactical-Edge Focus Would Require

If the Army wanted industry to actually solve the problem at section, company, and battalion, the RFI would look different. It would include explicit constraints:

• Weight and power: What can a Soldier carry on a 72-hour mission? If the solution requires more than 5 lbs of additional hardware and a vehicle-mounted power source, it is not a dismounted solution. It may be useful, but be honest about what echelon it serves.

• Operator training burden: A solution that requires a 40-hour course to operate is not company-level. It becomes a centralized asset managed by the S6 shop. That is fine, but it is not the gap being described.

• Spectrum literacy, not just spectrum tools: The hardest problem at company and battalion is not the absence of a jamming system. It is that leaders cannot read what is happening in the EMS around them. A tool without the cognitive foundation to interpret its output is an expensive display nobody understands.

• Sustainment in a contested environment: What happens when the software needs an update and there is no comms back to a server? What happens when the contractor support element cannot reach the forward line? Physics works the same with or without internet access. The solution has to as well.

The Ukraine Lesson, Correctly Applied

The article cites Ukraine as evidence that EW adaptation is now measured in days and hours, not weeks. That is accurate. But the lesson being drawn that AI and machine speed are the answer requires scrutiny at echelon.

In Ukraine, the adaptation cycle is fast because both sides have units operating close to the hardware, with direct feedback loops between operators and developers. Ukrainian soldiers are not waiting for a requirements document. They are taping antennas to drones and testing them tomorrow.

That kind of adaptation does not require more sophisticated AI. It requires leaders who understand the physics well enough to improvise. A soldier who understands that his drone’s 5.8 GHz video link has a 3 cm wavelength, that obstacles and rain attenuate it, and that moving to a different frequency band changes his antenna geometry; that soldier can adapt. Without that foundation, the most sophisticated AI spectrum management tool becomes a black box that he cannot trust and does not understand.

Machine speed is irrelevant if the human in the loop cannot interpret the output.

What I Want to See in the Responses

I am not opposed to this RFI. The broad appeal makes sense as a starting point. My concern is the filtering mechanism on the back end.

When the responses come in by March 13, evaluators should ask one question and require a straight answer: what echelon can actually field this, train on it, sustain it, and employ it without a dedicated specialist? Not theoretically. Operationally.

If the answer is brigade and above, that is a legitimate capability. Classify it accordingly, fund it accordingly, and do not count it as solving the section-level problem.

The section-level problem is still unsolved. And it will remain unsolved as long as broad appeals generate EAB solutions that get relabeled as tactical.

The spectrum is terrain. Every soldier operates in it. All of them should understand it. That is the standard. We are not close to it. And a broad industry appeal, without explicit echelon discipline, will not close the gap.

Read the Breaking Defense article that prompted this piece here.

“Why do we still plan for HF? Isn’t SATCOM reliable enough? Can’t we just rely on Upper Tactical Internet?”

Behind those questions sits a deeper misunderstanding, one that exists at every echelon of military formations. Many leaders treat a PACE plan (Primary, Alternate, Contingency, Emergency) as administrative overhead. A doctrinal checkbox. Something you brief because the checklist says to.

PACE is not about redundancy. It is a deliberate response to physics, geometry, and architectural dependency. It exists because electromagnetic energy behaves fundamentally differently across the spectrum and because no communications system survives every environment, every terrain profile, or every threat condition. Understanding why requires understanding what radios are actually doing when they transmit.

The Spectrum Dictates Capability and Vulnerability

All military communications ride the electromagnetic spectrum. Frequency determines how signals propagate, how much information they carry, and how they fail.

Higher frequencies offer larger bandwidth, higher data throughput, and greater precision. They are the fast lanes of the spectrum. But physics imposes steep costs: higher frequencies suffer greater free-space path loss, depend heavily on line-of-sight geometry, and are highly sensitive to obstruction and interference. The faster the lane, the more it demands a clear road.

Lower frequencies trade speed for reach. Longer wavelengths diffract around terrain, reflect off surfaces, and travel farther with less infrastructure. The road is slower, but it bends with the landscape.

PACE planning is, at its core, a strategy for distributing risk across different regions of that spectrum and different propagation mechanisms. Each layer of a PACE plan lives in a different part of the electromagnetic environment and fails in different ways.

Primary: Upper Tactical Internet (UTI)

Upper Tactical Internet is typically selected as the Primary layer because it maximizes information flow across the formation. It enables mission command systems, common operational picture synchronization, large data transfers, and the networked integration of fires and sustainment. This is the architecture that delivers speed, visibility, and digital coordination at scale. Much of that capability, however, is enabled by SATCOM.

And this is where leaders often confuse reliability with invulnerability.

SATCOM links are extraordinarily reliable under normal conditions. They are engineered with generous link margins, robust error correction, adaptive modulation schemes, and high-gain antennas. In daily operations, SATCOM feels rock solid; stable, predictable, and dependable.

But reliability is not the same as resilience in a contested environment.

Why SATCOM is Architecturally Fragile

SATCOM introduces dependencies that terrestrial radios simply do not. A typical link must travel from a terminal to a satellite in geosynchronous orbit (roughly 36,000 kilometers above the Earth) and then back down to a ground station before reaching the network. That geometry imposes a significant physics penalty. Free Space Path Loss increases with distance, and a GEO round trip approaches 72,000 kilometers. Even with amplification, antenna gain, and advanced signal processing, the link is fundamentally fighting enormous attenuation.

These physics realities translate directly into operational constraints. SATCOM requires precise antenna pointing, a clear line-of-sight to space, and sufficient link margin to overcome interference. At higher frequency bands, performance becomes increasingly sensitive to atmospheric effects such as rain fade. All of this exists alongside a critical dependency on orbital infrastructure.

SATCOM is not fragile because it breaks easily. It is fragile because it concentrates extraordinary capability into a small number of essential dependencies. If access to space is denied, degraded, jammed, spoofed, or simply obstructed, Upper Tactical Internet performance can degrade rapidly.

High capability inevitably brings high dependency alongside distinct failure modes.

Alternate: Frequency Modulation (FM)

Frequency Modulation radios typically operate in the VHF band (roughly 30–88 MHz), a portion of the spectrum characterized by relatively low frequencies and correspondingly long wavelengths. At these frequencies, wavelengths measure several meters in length, and that physical property dramatically influences how the signal propagates through the environment.

Longer wavelengths interact with terrain differently than the short wavelengths used by higher-frequency systems. Rather than behaving like narrow beams that require clean line-of-sight paths, VHF signals tend to diffract, bending around terrain features, ridgelines, and urban structures. They also experience significantly less free space path loss compared to GHz-range systems over comparable distances. The result is a form of propagation that is inherently more tolerant of imperfect geometry, partial obstruction, and battlefield clutter.

FM systems also benefit from architectural simplicity. A typical VHF radio link requires no satellites, minimal network infrastructure, and relatively straightforward antenna configurations. This reduces dependency on external assets and eliminates several failure points that can affect more complex communication systems.

These strengths, however, come with clear limitations. VHF FM channels occupy relatively narrow bandwidths, which constrains data throughput. The systems excel at voice communications and low-rate data but cannot approach the capacity of SATCOM-enabled networks or high-frequency digital links. Information richness is sacrificed for stability.

FM is selected as the Alternate layer in a PACE plan precisely because of this trade-off. It does not compete with Upper Tactical Internet in bandwidth or speed, but it often survives conditions that degrade high-frequency systems. When line-of-sight links are masked, networks are disrupted, or SATCOM access becomes unreliable, FM frequently continues to function.

Different spectrum leads to different propagation physics, which in turn produces different survivability characteristics.

Contingency: High Frequency (HF)

High Frequency communications operate in the 3–30 MHz range, and signals in this portion of the spectrum behave in ways that are fundamentally different from both SATCOM and line-of-sight terrestrial systems. Unlike VHF links, which primarily depend on direct geometric paths between antennas, HF signals can use skywave propagation.

Instead of traveling strictly from transmitter to receiver along a line-of-sight path, an HF signal can be refracted by the ionosphere, a region of charged particles in the upper atmosphere created by solar radiation. Under the right conditions, energy transmitted upward returns to Earth far beyond the horizon:

Signal → Ionosphere → Refraction/Reflection → Receiver

This mechanism allows HF to achieve ranges measured in hundreds or even thousands of kilometers without satellites, relays, or terrestrial infrastructure. Mountains, curvature of the Earth, and destroyed retransmission nodes become far less relevant when the propagation medium is the atmosphere itself.

That independence is the defining strength of HF. It functions when:

• Satellites are denied or degraded
• Line-of-sight links are blocked by terrain
• Relay chains are disrupted
• Network infrastructure collapses

However, these advantages come with meaningful constraints. HF channels occupy narrow bandwidths, which limits data rates. Latency can be high. Most importantly, ionospheric propagation is inherently variable. Signal quality fluctuates with:

• Time of day
• Solar activity
• Frequency selection
• Atmospheric conditions

HF is therefore less predictable than FM and far less capable in throughput than UTI. It trades performance and stability for reach and independence.

This is precisely why HF sits in the Contingency layer of a PACE plan. It is not designed to replace high-bandwidth networks or provide seamless digital synchronization. It exists to survive scenarios that defeat both SATCOM-enabled systems and terrestrial line-of-sight radios.

When geometry fails and infrastructure disappears, ionospheric physics still remains.

Emergency: Joint Battle Command - Platform (JBC-P) or Mounted Mission Command Software (MMCS)

Emergency communication systems are built around a blunt, often uncomfortable assumption: real-time dominance may no longer be achievable. The network may be degraded, links may be intermittent, bandwidth may be constrained, and connectivity may appear only in brief, unpredictable windows. Under those conditions, the design priority shifts away from speed and toward persistence.

JBC-P, for example, typically rides the SATCOM layer as a default assumption. While SATCOM can be contested or degraded, JBC-P’s short, text-based messages are extremely efficient, allowing critical information to get through even when larger, higher-bandwidth systems like Upper TI or FM are struggling. Its resilience comes not from speed or throughput, but from the ability to deliver essential data under degraded, intermittent, or contested conditions.

The objective becomes message survivability rather than instantaneous exchange. Systems emphasize store-and-forward behavior, ensuring information is retained, retransmitted, and eventually delivered even when end-to-end connectivity does not exist at a single moment in time. Reliability is measured not in latency, but in whether critical data ultimately reaches its destination.

Emergency communications are not fast.

They are designed to be extremely difficult to kill completely.

Why the Military Distributes PACE Across These Systems

Notice the pattern:

UTI / SATCOM → High bandwidth → High dependency
FM → Moderate bandwidth → Lower dependency
HF → Low bandwidth → Minimal dependency
JBC-P → Minimal bandwidth, designed for degraded conditions

Each layer hedges against a different category of failure. UTI collapses under orbital denial or network disruption. FM survives those failures but struggles with severe terrain masking. HF survives terrain masking but is vulnerable to atmospheric variability and offers little throughput. JBC-P survives most of the above by demanding almost nothing from the network.

This is failure-mode diversification. Not redundancy. Redundancy means having multiple copies of the same thing. PACE means having fundamentally different things that fail for fundamentally different reasons.

The threat conditions that destroy one layer are often irrelevant to another. A jammer optimized against SATCOM frequencies has a completely different effect profile than terrain that blocks FM. Ionospheric propagation that makes HF unreliable has no effect on a JBC-P message waiting in a queue.

No single system dominates across all environments. The goal of PACE is to ensure that when high-bandwidth dominance collapses (as it will in a peer or near-peer conflict) lower-frequency persistence preserves the ability to command and control the force.

A Survivability Conversation

Leaders at every echelon are asking the right questions when they ask how their formation is communicating. Section to Platoon. Platoon to Battery. Battery to Battalion. Battalion to higher. These are not procedural conversations. They are survivability conversations.

A PACE plan that exists only on a briefing slide is not a PACE plan. It is a false sense of security. The test is not whether you can recite the four layers, it is whether every element of your formation has trained on each one and can transition between them under stress, with degraded equipment, in conditions they did not expect.

The adversary understands this. In any serious conflict, the high-bandwidth layer will be the first target. The question is not whether UTI will be contested. The question is how quickly your formation can fall to FM, and then to HF, and still maintain command and control.

That answer lives not in doctrine, but in rehearsal.

Technology evolves. Physics does not.

PACE planning is operational respect for that fact.

Here’s the problem: there’s no ATP for this. Your EW platoon (if you even have one) is undermanned. Your signal NCOs understand networks but not necessarily RF warfare. And your soldiers think “spectrum” is either something on cable TV or way above their paygrade.

This guide is designed to fix that. In 30 days, using only the equipment in your TOE and some creative training management, you can build a company/battery that understands the electromagnetic environment, recognizes threats, and employs basic spectrum tactics.

What this plan is NOT:

• A substitute for formal EW training

• Technical RF engineering coursework

• Classified TTPs (everything here is unclass/releasable)

• Dependent on specialized EW equipment you don’t have

What this plan IS:

• A progressive crawl-walk-run training progression

• Built around equipment you already have (ASIP, SINCGARS, cell phones, etc.)

• Designed to fit within normal company/battery training time

• Focused on practical tactical applications

• Exportable to platoon leaders for their own training

The Training Philosophy: “See It, Shape It, Fight It”

This 30-day plan is built on three phases:

1. Week 1-2: SEE IT - Build awareness of the electromagnetic environment

2. Week 3: SHAPE IT - Learn to control and manipulate friendly spectrum use

3. Week 4: FIGHT IT - Apply offensive and defensive spectrum tactics

Each phase builds on the last. Don’t skip ahead.

Pre-Training Preparation (Before Day 1)

What You Need:

• Radios: ASIP, SINCGARS, or whatever tactical radios are in your TOE

• Smartphones: Soldiers’ personal phones (they are on them all the time anyways)

• Tools/Apps (Free/Low-Cost):

  • Wi-Fi analyzer app (Android: “WiFi Analyzer” by farproc or Apple: “Fing-Network Scanner)

  • RF signal detector app (Android: “Cell Tower Locator” or Apple: RF Signal Detector)

  • Spectrum analyzer if your S-6 has one (nice to have, not required)

• Training Area: Any location where you can conduct radio training (motor pool, range, training area)

• Time Commitment: 2-3 hours per week, plus integration into normal training events

Coordination Requirements:

• S-6/SIGO: Brief them on your plan, request any available spectrum tools

• S-3: Integrate spectrum training into the training calendar

• Battalion: Ensure you’re not violating any local spectrum management policies

• Safety: Remind soldiers about RF safety (no transmitting near faces, established safe distances)

Leader Preparation:

Before you start training soldiers, you and your platoon leaders need a baseline. Spend 2-3 hours together covering:

• Basic RF concepts (frequency, wavelength, power, modulation)

• How your tactical radios actually work

• Current threat EW capabilities (Russian R-330Zh, Chinese CS/NRJ5, etc.)

• Friendly spectrum management procedures (Communications-Electronics Operating Instructions (CEOI), Signal Operating Instructions (SOI), etc.)

Recommended Pre-Read: ATP 3-12.3 Electromagnetic Warfare Techniques, Appendix A (Highly recommend, if you spend some time reading and understanding this it will give you the base understanding that you need)

PHASE 1: SEE IT (Days 1-14)

Goal: Build Electromagnetic Awareness

Your soldiers walk around in an ocean of RF energy every day and don’t even know it. This phase makes the invisible visible.

Week 1: Understanding Our Own Emissions

Day 1 - “What is Spectrum?” (Classroom, 90 min)

Training Objectives:

• Define electromagnetic spectrum

• Identify military uses of spectrum (comms, radar, EW, GPS)

• Understand frequency vs wavelength

Execution:

1. Introduction (15 min): Start with something tangible

   • “Every time you key up on the radio, you’re transmitting energy through the air. That energy can be detected, jammed, or exploited.”

   • Show visual spectrum chart (UV to radio)

   • Explain why we care: adversaries can kill you through your emissions

2. Interactive Demo (30 min):

   • Have soldiers download Wi-Fi analyzer app on their phones

   • Walk around the company/battery area scanning for Wi-Fi networks

   • Show how signal strength changes with distance and obstacles

   • Discuss: “What does this tell us about detectability?”

3. Radio Basics (30 min):

   • Explain frequency bands used by military (VHF, UHF, SHF)

   • Show how ASIP/SINCGARS hop across frequencies

   • Demonstrate squelch and signal strength meters on radios

4. Threat Discussion (15 min):

   • Brief basic threat DF (direction-finding) capabilities

   • Show example from Ukraine: Russian artillery targeting Ukrainian radio emissions

   • Make it personal: “Your radio can get you killed if you don’t use it right”

Assessment: Quick quiz - Can each soldier identify 3 military uses of spectrum?

Commander’s Notes:

• Keep it simple. Don’t get lost in technical details yet.

• Use analogies: “Frequency is like the lane you’re driving in on a highway”

• Make it relevant to their jobs

Day 3 - “Our Signature” (Practical Exercise, 2 hours)

Training Objectives:

• Identify electromagnetic emissions from company/battery equipment

• Understand transmission discipline

• Recognize emission patterns

Execution:

1. Setup (15 min):

   • Establish three stations 200m apart

   • Station 1: SINCGARS radio transmitting

   • Station 2: Cell phone talking

   • Station 3: Laptop running

2. Detection Walk (45 min):

   • Rotate squads through stations with RF detector apps (Android is better then iOS)

   • Record signal strengths at 10m, 50m, 100m, 200m

   • Note detection ranges for each device

   • Discussion: What surprised you? What was detectable farther than expected?

3. Emission Control (EMCON) Demo (45 min):

   • Scenario: “Enemy DF team is in the area”

   • Practice going from full comms to reduced signature and see how hard it is to detect:

     • Level 1: Normal ops

     • Level 2: Listening silence (receive only)

     • Level 3: Complete shutdown

   • Time how long it takes to transition between levels

   • Build muscle memory

4. AAR (15 min):

   • What did we learn about our own detectability?

   • How would you reduce signature in a tactical scenario?

   • When might we need EMCON in combat?

Assessment: Can each squad leader order and enforce EMCON levels?

Day 5 - “Reading the Environment” (Field Exercise, 3 hours)

Training Objectives:

• Use organic equipment to map the local electromagnetic environment

• Identify friendly and unknown transmitters

• Build situational awareness

Execution:

1. Mission Brief (15 min):

   • “Your platoon is conducting reconnaissance. Map all detectable RF emissions in this training area.”

   • Issue sectors to each squad

   • Provide simple reporting format: Location, Frequency Band, Signal Strength, Duration

2. Field Scan (2 hours):

   • Squads move through sectors with:

     • ASIP set to scan mode (allows a single, operator-carried ASIP to monitor multiple channels, nets, or frequencies simultaneously. It automatically cycles through pre-programmed channels, enabling users to hear critical traffic across different nets)

     • Personal phones with Wi-Fi/cell scanner apps

     • Notebooks to log findings

   • Report findings back to company/battery TOC every 30 min

3. Analysis & Debrief (45 min):

   • Consolidate reports on a map

   • Identify patterns: Where are cell towers? What frequencies are most crowded?

   • Discuss tactical implications:

     • Where could we set up without interference?

     • Where would enemy likely position jammers?

     • What natural terrain masks RF?

Assessment: Can each squad produce a basic RF map of their sector?

Commander’s Notes:

• This is reconnaissance, but for spectrum instead of enemy positions

• Emphasize the intelligence value of knowing the RF environment

Week 2: Understanding Threats & Interference

Day 8 - “Jamming Fundamentals” (Classroom + Demo, 2 hours)

Training Objectives:

• Define jamming and its types

• Recognize jamming when it happens

• Understand friendly countermeasures

Execution:

1. Classroom (45 min):

   • Define jamming: deliberate transmission of RF to disrupt comms

   • Types of jamming:

     • Barrage: Blast noise across entire band

     • Spot: Target specific frequency

     • Sweep: Move through frequencies

   • Threat systems: Russian R-330Zh, Chinese DZ-08

2. Live Demo (1 hour):

   • Setup: Two SINCGARS radios in communication

   • Introduce simulated “jamming”:

     • Have third radio transmit continuously on same frequency

     • Use high-power walkie-talkie near SINCGARS

     • Create interference with nearby vehicle electronics

   • Have soldiers try to maintain comms under each condition

   • Experiment with countermeasures:

     • Change frequency

     • Increase power

     • Move to better terrain

     • Use directional antennas

3. Discussion (15 min):

   • What worked? What didn’t?

   • How would you know if jamming was deliberate vs accidental interference?

   • What’s your SOP if radios go down?

Assessment: Can soldiers identify 3 types of jamming and 3 countermeasures?

Start around 8:45, it will help you visualize how jamming works:

Day 10 - “Direction Finding & Spoofing” (Classroom, 90 min)

Training Objectives:

• Understand how adversaries locate our transmissions

• Recognize GPS spoofing

• Learn basic counter-DF techniques

Execution:

1. Direction Finding (DF) Overview (30 min):

   • Explain triangulation: multiple sensors fix your location by signal

   • Show threat DF systems (examples from Syria, Ukraine)

   • Discuss detection timelines: How long before enemy locates you?

   • Rule of thumb: 3 transmissions = fixed location

2. Counter-DF Tactics (30 min):

   • Time: Keep transmissions under 30 seconds

   • Terrain: Use reverse slope, buildings for masking

   • Distance: Remote antenna placement

   • Deception: False transmissions, decoys

   • Movement: Shoot and scoot for retrans sites

3. GPS Spoofing Threat (30 min):

   • Explain how GPS can be jammed or spoofed

   • Show examples: Russian GPS spoofing in Ukraine, Black Sea

   • Recognition: Sudden position jumps, time errors, inconsistent satellite locks

   • Countermeasures: Dead reckoning, terrain association, backup navigation

Assessment: Can each leader brief a 2-minute hip-pocket class on counter-DF?

Day 12 - “PACE Planning for Comms” (Practical Exercise, 2 hours)

Training Objectives:

• Build PACE (Primary, Alternate, Contingency, Emergency) plans for degraded comms

• Practice transitioning between comm methods

• Develop platoon-level SOPs

Execution:

1. Planning (30 min):

   • Each platoon builds PACE plan:

     • Primary: ASIP/SINCGARS

     • Alternate: Different freq/net

     • Contingency: Visual signals, runners

     • Emergency: Pyro, predetermined actions

   • Write it down, brief it up

2. Field Test (1 hour):

   • Conduct movement-to-contact with progressive comms degradation:

     • Phase 1: All radios work (Primary)

     • Phase 2: Company/Battery net jammed, use platoon internal (Alternate)

     • Phase 3: All radios down (Contingency/Emergency)

   • Force platoons to execute using each method

3. AAR (30 min):

   • What worked smoothly? What broke?

   • How long did transitions take?

   • What needs to be in the platoon SOP?

Assessment: Does each platoon have a written, rehearsed PACE plan? Just because your Battalion or Brigade has a PACE plan does not mean that is your PACE plan, use what works at your level.

Day 14 - Phase 1 Assessment (Graded Exercise, 3 hours)

Scenario: Platoon-level reconnaissance patrol in a spectrum-contested environment

Tasks:

1. Map electromagnetic environment in assigned sector (30 min)

2. Maintain comms under simulated jamming (20 min)

3. Transition through PACE plan when Primary/Alternate fail (20 min)

4. Recommend EMCON level based on tactical situation (10 min)

5. Identify optimal positions for retrans sites (10 min)

Standards:

• 80% of soldiers can describe spectrum threats

• 100% of leaders can enforce EMCON

• 100% of platoons have viable PACE plans

• Each squad produces basic RF map

Commander’s AAR Focus:

• Are soldiers thinking about spectrum as part of tactical planning?

• Do they understand the threat is real, not academic?

• What gaps exist for Phase 2?

PHASE 2: SHAPE IT (Days 15-21)

Goal: Control the Electromagnetic Environment

Now that soldiers understand the spectrum, teach them to actively manage it.

Week 3: Spectrum Management & Deception

Day 15 - “Frequency Management 101” (Classroom, 90 min)

Training Objectives:

• Understand Communications-Electronics Operating Instructions/ Signal Operating Instructions (CEOI/SOI) construction

• Learn how to deconflict friendly frequencies

• Practice building a company/battery frequency plan

Execution:

1. CEOI/SOI Basics (30 min):

   • Explain purpose: deconflict frequencies, maintain COMSEC

   • Walk through sample CEOI:

     • Command nets

     • Admin/logistics nets

     • MEDEVAC/CASEVAC freqs

     • Fire support nets

   • Discuss why we can’t just “pick any frequency”

2. Interference Problem (30 min):

   • Case study: Your fires net interferes with the CAB or the local aviation organization

   • Walk through deconfliction process

   • Practice using frequency separation rules (keep 25 KHz apart for VHF)

   • Show how terrain affects frequency reuse

3. Build a Company/Battery CEOI (30 min):

   • Break into platoons

   • Each platoon designs frequency plan for a company/battery-level operation

   • Must deconflict with adjacent units (provide their freqs)

   • Brief out solutions, identify conflicts

Assessment: Can each platoon leader build a basic frequency plan?

Day 17 - “Retrans & Range Extension” (Field Exercise, 3 hours)

Training Objectives:

• Employ retransmission stations to extend range

• Understand terrain effects on RF propagation

• Practice emplacement and security of retrans sites

Execution:

1. Classroom Prep (30 min):

   • How retrans works: relay station amplifies and rebroadcasts (Can ask your S6/SIGO to help)

   • Placement considerations:

     • High ground with clear LOS

     • 360° coverage vs directional

     • Defended or undefended?

   • Threat: retrans sites are lucrative targets

2. Field Employment (2 hours):

   • Mission: Establish company/battery comms across 5km of broken terrain

   • Each platoon establishes one retrans site

   • Test range, adjust positions

   • Practice rapid displacement when “under fire”

3. AAR (30 min):

   • What locations worked best?

   • How fast can you emplace/displace?

   • What’s the security requirement?

Assessment: Can platoons maintain comms across denied terrain using retrans? Do you need to rely on your HHQ’s for retrans?

Day 19 - “Electromagnetic Deception” (Practical Exercise, 2 hours)

Training Objectives:

• Employ deceptive emissions to mislead enemy

• Understand when/how to use decoys

• Practice deception planning

Execution:

**NOTE: I have tried this several times with different organizations and it is very hard to do without actual DF equipment. If you want to go down a rabbit hole on building your own DF equipment, this is the guy you should watch:

1. Introduction (15 min):

   • Explain electromagnetic deception: manipulate enemy DF/SIGINT

   • Historical examples: WWII radio deception before D-Day

   • Modern application: make enemy think you’re somewhere you’re not

2. Decoy Techniques (45 min):

   • False Transmissions: Pre-recorded messages, dummy traffic

   • Decoy Emitters: Unmanned radios transmitting from false positions

   • Pattern Disruption: Change normal emission patterns to confuse enemy analysis

   • Practice each technique in field

3. Scenario Exercise (1 hour):

   • Red team with DF equipment tries to locate Blue platoon

   • Blue uses decoys and false transmissions

   • Rotate roles

   • Debrief effectiveness

Assessment: Can platoons employ at least 2 deception techniques effectively?

Day 21 - Phase 2 Assessment (Graded Exercise, 3 hours)

Scenario: Company attack requiring spectrum management

Tasks:

1. Build and submit CEOI for operation (30 min)

2. Establish retrans network to maintain C2 (45 min)

3. Employ EMCON when entering enemy engagement area (15 min)

4. Use deception to mask actual assault position (30 min)

5. Transition PACE when retrans site is “destroyed” (20 min)

Standards:

• CEOI has zero frequency conflicts

• Retrans network provides 100% coverage

• EMCON enforced in <2 minutes

• Deception causes Red DF to target wrong location

PHASE 3: FIGHT IT (Days 22-30)

Goal: Apply Spectrum Skills in Realistic Tactical Scenarios

Final phase puts everything together without requiring specialized EW equipment you don’t have.

Week 4: Tactical Integration

Day 22 - “Enemy EW: What It Looks Like When They Hit You” (Classroom + Exercise, 3 hours)

Training Objectives:

• Recognize indicators of enemy EW activity

• Understand threat capabilities (what enemies CAN do)

• Practice response drills without needing actual jammers

Execution:

1. Threat Brief (45 min):

   • Russian EW systems (R-330Zh, Pole-21, Zhitel): What they can jam, at what ranges

   • Chinese capabilities (DZ-08, 910A): GPS spoofing, broadband jamming

   • Ukrainian lessons: What worked/didn’t work against Russian EW

   • Key point: You won’t have warning. You’ll just lose comms.

2. Recognition Training (45 min):

   • Jamming indicators:

     • Sudden squelch break with noise

     • Can receive but can’t transmit

     • Intermittent connectivity that comes and goes

   • DF indicators:

     • Enemy knows your position without visual contact

     • Fires on retrans sites or CP locations

     • Pattern: enemy reacts to your transmissions

   • GPS spoofing indicators:

     • Position jumps suddenly

     • Multiple systems show different locations

     • Time/date errors on equipment

3. Response Drills (90 min):

   • Scenario-based: “Your radios suddenly stop working. What do you do?”

   • Practice immediate action drills:

     1. Announce “Lost comms” to adjacent units (while you still can)

     2. Execute PACE plan immediately

     3. Report via alternate means when restored

     4. Continue mission

   • Rotate through multiple scenarios with different failures

   • Time each response, build muscle memory

Assessment: Can each squad recognize EW and execute response in <3 minutes?

Commander’s Notes:

• You don’t need jammers to train this, just simulate the effects

• Have OPFOR call “ENDEX” on radio nets to simulate jamming

• Focus on recognition and response, not the technical “how it works”

Day 24 - “Operating Through Degraded Comms” (Field Exercise, 4 hours)

Training Objectives:

• Maintain mission effectiveness with limited/no comms

• Use terrain and pre-planned actions to reduce comms dependency

• Build confidence operating in comms-denied environment

Execution:

1. Planning (1 hour):

   • Mission: Platoon-level movement to contact

   • Constraint: Assume comms will fail at some point

   • Planning focus:

     • What decisions can be pre-delegated?

     • What actions on contact are SOP?

     • Where are decision points that REQUIRE comms?

     • What visual signals can we use?

2. Rehearsal (1 hour):

   • Walk through entire mission

   • Identify every time you’d normally use radio

   • Develop workaround for each: hand signals, runners, rally points, etc.

   • Practice until it’s smooth

3. Execution (1.5 hours):

   • Conduct actual movement

   • OCs progressively shut down comms:

     • Phase 1: Company net only (platoons still talk internally)

     • Phase 2: All radio nets down

     • Phase 3: Radios back up

   • Platoons must continue mission throughout

4. AAR (30 min):

   • What broke when comms went down?

   • What worked better than expected?

   • What should be in our SOP for comms-denied operations?

Assessment: Did platoons accomplish mission despite comms loss?

Lessons to Capture:

• Pre-planned actions reduce comms dependency

• Visual signals work but require clear LOS

• Runners are slow but reliable

• Some tasks genuinely require comms, identify them

Day 26 - “Spectrum Considerations in the Attack” (Tactical Exercise, 4 hours)

Training Objectives:

• Integrate spectrum planning into offensive operations

• Balance stealth (EMCON) with C2 requirements

• Understand when to accept risk of detection vs maintain comms

Execution:

1. Mission Brief (30 min):

   • Company deliberate attack on prepared enemy position

   • Intelligence: Enemy has DF capability, can target emitters with artillery

   • Constraints: You need comms for fires and CASEVAC, but emissions = targeting

2. Planning (1.5 hours):

   • Each platoon leader plans their portion

   • Must address:

     • EMCON level during movement to LD

     • How to call for fires without compromising position

     • Retrans placement (if any)… is it worth the risk?

     • What if retrans gets hit?

     • CASEVAC comms plan

   • Brief plan to commander

3. Execution (1.5 hours):

   • Conduct movement and assault

   • OCs assess:

     • Did units maintain EMCON when appropriate?

     • Did they break EMCON when necessary (fires, CASEVAC)?

     • Were retrans sites sited tactically?

     • How did they adapt when things changed?

4. AAR (30 min):

   • Risk vs reward: When was EMCON worth it? When not?

   • Did anyone get “killed” by poor spectrum discipline?

   • What would you do differently?

Assessment: Did leaders make intelligent risk decisions about emissions?

Key Teaching Point: There’s no perfect answer. Sometimes you need comms more than stealth. Sometimes stealth matters more. Leaders must assess and decide; there’s risk either way.

Day 28 - “Reporting Enemy EW Activity” (Practical Exercise, 3 hours)

Training Objectives:

• Know what information to report about enemy EW

• Practice using standard reporting formats

• Understand why timely reporting matters

Execution:

1. Classroom (30 min):

   • Why reporting matters: Your contact helps the entire brigade

   • What to report:

     • WHAT: Type of effect (jamming, DF, spoofing)

     • WHEN: Time of incident (DTG)

     • WHERE: Your location when it occurred

     • DURATION: How long it lasted

     • IMPACT: What did it affect? (Lost comms for X minutes, etc.)

   • Format: Use standard SALUTE or spot report format

   • Chain: Report to S-6 and S-2 (intel)

2. Scenario Training (1.5 hours):

   • Platoons conduct operations

   • OCs inject EW events: “Your radios just stopped working” or “GPS shows you 2km from actual position”

   • Platoons must:

     1. Recognize the event

     2. Respond appropriately (PACE, etc.)

     3. Document and report properly

   • Rotate through multiple scenarios

3. Analysis (1 hour):

   • Consolidate all reports at company level

   • Show how pattern analysis reveals:

     • Enemy EW locations (where do events cluster?)

     • Enemy capabilities (what can they do?)

     • Enemy TTPs (when/how do they employ EW?)

   • This is intelligence, your reports feed the bigger picture

Assessment: Are reports accurate, timely, and useful?

Commander’s Emphasis:

• Reporting isn’t admin, it’s intelligence collection

• Your report might save another unit from the same problem

• 5 minutes of good reporting > 5 hours of speculation

Day 30 - Final Assessment & Validation (Force-on-Force, Full Day)

Scenario: Company defensive operation with simulated enemy EW

Setup:

• Use OPFOR from another company or outside unit

• OCs simulate enemy EW effects by calling them (no actual jammers needed)

• Focus on Blue force’s RESPONSE, not Red’s technical capability

Blue Force (Your Company) Tasks:

• Defend sector and maintain C2

• Recognize when enemy EW is affecting operations

• Execute immediate action drills

• Report EW incidents properly

• Continue mission despite degraded comms

Red Force Tasks (Simulated by OCs):

• At prescribed times, OCs announce effects:

  • “Your company net is jammed” (radios go silent for 10 min)

  • “Enemy has fixed your retrans location” (retrans takes indirect fire)

  • “GPS is spoofed, your displays show you 3km northeast”

• Red maneuver force conducts normal OPFOR attack

Assessment Criteria:

1. Recognition: Did Blue identify EW effects quickly? Did they report?

2. Response: Did Blue execute PACE plan without prompting?

3. Adaptation: Did Blue continue mission despite comms loss?

4. Reporting: Were EW incidents properly documented and reported?

5. Mission Success: Did Blue still accomplish defensive mission?

Standards for “GO”:

• <5 min recognition of EW effects

• PACE executed within 3 minutes of Primary failure

• All EW incidents reported using proper format

• Mission accomplished despite comms degradation

• No catastrophic failures (e.g., CASEVAC delayed due to poor planning)

AAR (2 hours):

• Full company AAR with focus on:

  • What changed in 30 days? Compare to Day 1

  • What spectrum skills are now resident? Be specific

  • What gaps remain? Honest assessment

  • How will we sustain this? Integration into future training

  • What would we do differently in combat? Real-world application

Commander’s Final Assessment:

• Are leaders thinking about spectrum in planning?

• Do soldiers have the confidence to operate in comms-denied environment?

• Is spectrum now part of the company’s tactical DNA?

Closing Thought for Day 30:

You don’t need expensive equipment to train spectrum awareness. You need:

1. Disciplined thinking about electromagnetic signature

2. Rehearsed procedures for when comms fail

3. Leaders who understand the threat is real

The equipment might come later. The mindset starts now.

Post-Training: Sustaining the Capability

You’ve built a spectrum-aware company. Now sustain it.

Monthly Refresher Training:

• Week 1: Review spectrum fundamentals (1 hour)

• Week 2: PACE plan rehearsal (2 hours)

• Week 3: Spectrum terrain walk (2 hours)

• Week 4: Integration with live-fire or FTX

Integrate into All Training:

• Every field problem includes spectrum considerations

• Every OPORD includes EW paragraph

• Every AAR addresses spectrum performance

Leader Development:

• Read through and understand ATP 3-12.3, especially Appendix A

• Maintain library of EW TTPs and lessons learned

Equipment Investment:

• Request spectrum analyzers through battalion

• Acquire inexpensive SDRs for training ($50-300 each)

• Build decoy emitters from old radios

Commander’s Final Notes

This 30-day plan is aggressive but achievable. Here’s what success looks like:

Before Training:

• Soldiers think spectrum is someone else’s job

• Platoon leaders don’t consider EW in planning

• Company has no EMCON SOP

• Radios are “black boxes” that either work or don’t

After Training:

• Soldiers instinctively think about electromagnetic signature

• Leaders integrate spectrum into every OPORD

• Company can operate in spectrum-denied environment

• Radios are understood tools that can be employed tactically

The electromagnetic spectrum is a maneuver space just like terrain. Your soldiers don’t need to be RF engineers, they need to be tactically competent in this domain. This plan gets them there.

Now go train your company. The next fight will be won or lost in the spectrum before the first shot is fired.

Appendix A: Training Resources

Free/Low-Cost Apps:

• WiFi Analyzer (Android/iOS) - visualize Wi-Fi spectrum

• RF Signal Tracker (Android/iOS) - cell tower location/strength

• SDR Touch (Android) - if you have RTL-SDR hardware

Recommended Reading:

• ATP 3-12.3 Electromagnetic Warfare Techniques

• ATP 6-02.70 TECHNIQUES FOR SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS

Online Resources:

• Army Cyber Institute publications on spectrum

• NDIA EW Division resources

• Ukraine conflict EW lessons (RUSI, ISW reports)

Equipment Wish List (if budget allows):

• HackRF One ($300) - entry-level SDR for training

• TinySA spectrum analyzer ($100) - visualize RF environment

• Directional antennas for ASIP - extend range, reduce signature

Appendix B: Sample Training Scenarios

Scenario 1: “Lost Comms Recovery Drill”

• Duration: 30 minutes

• Setup: During any training event, company/battery net goes silent

• Task: Platoons execute PACE plan without prompting

• Standard: All platoons transition to Alternate within 5 minutes

Scenario 2: “Retrans Under Fire”

• Duration: 1 hour

• Setup: Establish retrans site, then receive “contact” report

• Task: Maintain comms while displacing retrans under fire

• Standard: <3 min comms down time during displacement

Scenario 3: “DF Hunt”

• Duration: 2 hours

• Setup: Red transmits from hidden location

• Task: Blue uses DF techniques to locate Red emitter

• Standard: Fix Red location within 500m in <30 minutes

Subscribe now

At a common-sense level, the logic feels sound. RF is energy. Energy can cause heating. More energy should mean more heat. From there, it is not a big leap to imagine generators overheating, electronics frying, or vehicles being disabled outright. Soldiers and leaders are not wrong to ask the question.

Where that intuition starts to break down is when you move from analogy to math.

In the first two parts of this series, the electromagnetic spectrum was treated primarily as an information domain. Jamming denies information by overwhelming a receiver with noise. Spoofing corrupts information by inserting a believable false signal. In both cases, the receiver still exists and still functions; it is simply denied clarity or fed falsehoods.

This article shifts the lens. Here, the spectrum is treated as what it physically is: energy propagating through space and interacting with real systems governed by electromagnetics and thermodynamics. The purpose is not to dismiss physical effects, but to explain quantitatively why they are far more constrained than intuition suggests, especially at the squad level.

How RF Energy Actually Reaches Physical Systems

The first reality check is simple: transmitted power is not received power.

In free space, received power decreases rapidly with distance and depends heavily on antenna characteristics and wavelength. A simplified relationship looks like:

P_r — Received power
The amount of RF energy that actually arrives at the receiver’s antenna. This is the upper bound on everything that follows. If Pr​ is small, no downstream mechanism (informational or physical) can compensate for it.

∝ — “Proportional to”
This symbol means that one quantity changes in direct relation to another, without specifying an exact constant. In this context, it indicates that received power increases or decreases as transmitted power, antenna gains, wavelength, or range change, but the equation is focused on relationships, not precise values. Using proportionality emphasizes how physics sets limits and tradeoffs, rather than predicting exact performance.

P_t — Transmitted power
The RF power launched by the emitter. This is where people instinctively focus, but it is only one factor. Man-portable systems are tightly constrained here by battery capacity and thermal limits.

G_t — Transmit antenna gain
A measure of how effectively the antenna concentrates energy in a given direction. Small, portable antennas have limited gain, which means energy spreads rather than being tightly focused.

G_r​ — Receive antenna gain
A measure of how well the receiver’s antenna captures incoming energy. Military systems deliberately balance gain against survivability and field of view, which limits how much energy they can collect from any single direction.

λ — Wavelength of the signal
Set by frequency, wavelength determines antenna size and how energy propagates through space. Shorter wavelengths allow smaller antennas but suffer different coupling and loss behaviors; wavelength is not a free variable.

R — Range between transmitter and receiver
The most punishing term in the equation. Received power falls with the square of distance, meaning small increases in range produce large reductions in energy at the receiver.

4π — Geometric spreading factor
Represents how energy radiates outward into three-dimensional space. Unless energy is tightly focused, it spreads rapidly and thinly, which is the fundamental reason distance dominates RF interactions.

Distance dominates this relationship. Doubling range does not halve received power; it reduces it by a factor of four. Antenna size and efficiency matter. None of these variables are particularly friendly to small, man-portable systems.

But even this equation overstates the effect, because received power is not the same thing as absorbed power.

Coupling Efficiency Is the Second Gate

Only a fraction of received RF energy actually couples into sensitive components. Most of it is reflected, filtered, limited, or shunted away by design. We can represent this with a simple efficiency term:

P_abs — Absorbed power
The portion of received RF power that actually enters the system and is dissipated internally. This is the only power that can produce physical effects such as heating. Most received energy never reaches this stage.

η — Coupling efficiency
A dimensionless factor representing how effectively received RF energy couples into vulnerable components. It captures losses due to impedance mismatch, filtering, shielding, polarization mismatch, and protective circuitry. For modern military systems, η is intentionally much less than one.

This means that even if a signal reaches a receiver, only a small portion of its energy is available to do anything physical.

From Absorbed Power to Heat

Heating is not caused by power alone, but by energy accumulated over time. The total absorbed energy is:

That energy produces a temperature rise governed by:

This is a deliberately optimistic, lumped approximation; real systems have multiple heat paths and active cooling. If heat is removed as fast as it is absorbed, temperature never rises meaningfully. Vehicles, generators, and radios are explicitly designed so this balance holds under extreme electromagnetic environments.

This is where most “RF damage” ideas quietly die.

Why Handheld Emitters Hit a Hard Wall

Assume a generous handheld case.

Let transmitted power be: P_t​ = 10W

Let range be only: R = 300m

Let wavelength be: λ ≈ 0.3m

Using the free-space relationship:

That is tens of nanowatts at the receiver. Now apply coupling efficiency. Assume a pessimistic case for the defender with η = 0.01:

Even if the squad dwells for a full minute:

For reference, raising the temperature of one gram of material by one degree Celsius requires about one joule. We are eight orders of magnitude below that (10^-8), which is closer to static electricity than sustained heating.

This is the wall. Handheld systems never get close.

So What Would It Actually Take?

This is where the myth finally collapses.

To meaningfully change the received‑energy equation, you must attack the most punishing terms: range and geometry. That means antenna aperture.

Antenna gain is fundamentally tied to physical size:

At tactical wavelengths, achieving even 40 dB of gain (a 10,000× increase) requires on the order of: 70–100 square meters of antenna area

That is roughly a rigid, precisely shaped, precisely aimed 45–55 foot wide antenna
Not a rucksack.
Not a vehicle add‑on.
A structure or dedicated platform.

Now add power.

To even begin stressing systems thermally, assume:

P_t = 100kW & t = 10 minutes

E = 100,000 × 600 = 60MJ

That is industrial energy. Far beyond man‑portable batteries. Far beyond what a tactical vehicle battery can deliver. At that point, you are talking about fuel‑burning generators, cooling systems, and infrastructure.

This is a platform‑scale physics problem.

If a Soldier or junior leader asks:

“Can EW blow up a generator or vehicle?”

The correct mental image is:

• a 50‑foot antenna
• industrial‑scale power, not batteries
• sustained dwell
• fixed geometry
• and a poorly protected target

If it does not look like that, the math never gets close.

The Real Takeaway

At the squad level, the electromagnetic spectrum is overwhelmingly focused on communications. EW at this scale is about denying, shaping, or corrupting information, not physically destroying equipment. Distance, antenna size, wavelength, and coupling efficiency impose hard limits on how much energy can ever reach a target. Even optimistic assumptions about power and dwell time leave absorbed energy orders of magnitude too small to cause meaningful heating or damage.

This is not a weakness of electronic warfare; it is a consequence of physics. The spectrum does not reward brute force. It rewards precision, persistence, and understanding. Small emitters can confuse receivers, break links, and force bad decisions, but they cannot deliver artillery‑like effects.

The practical lesson is simple: if it doesn’t involve billboard‑sized antennas and industrial‑scale power, it isn’t blowing anything up. Once you see the math, expectations reset. EW stops looking like artillery and starts being used for what it does best, controlling information and shaping the fight before and after a round is fired.

Eventually, I resorted to playing Celine Dion over a radio that was already loaded with COMSEC and calling it “spoofing.”

It worked well enough for training, but it always felt unsatisfying.

The more I have learned about spoofing since then, the more I understand why I could not replicate it in any realistic way. The limitation was not creativity, and it was not a lack of will. It was physics.

In the first article of this series, we examined noise jamming: the most accessible form of squad-level electromagnetic warfare and the one most frequently observed on today’s battlefield. Noise jamming works by brute force. It overwhelms receivers by pushing interference above a fixed threshold, and its limits are set primarily by geometry, line-of-sight, and time on station.

Mathematically, noise jamming is a power problem. Effectiveness is achieved by accumulating enough interfering energy across space, frequency, and time until a receiver’s signal-to-noise ratio falls below its minimum usable threshold.

Spoofing is different.

Spoofing does not attempt to raise the noise floor. Instead, it attempts to replace reality. The goal is not to deny the receiver information, but to provide it with a false version that the receiver accepts as legitimate.

This distinction matters because it changes the math.

Noise jamming is a threshold problem. Spoofing is a competition between two signals. The limiting factor is no longer absolute power, but relative dominance inside the receiver.

As with jamming, the limits of spoofing are not doctrinal or technological. They are mathematical and physical.

How Receiver Physics Makes Spoofing Fragile

At its simplest, spoofing can be described in one sentence:

The false signal must arrive stronger than the real one and look like something the radio is willing to accept.

Power matters, but power alone is not enough.

For an analog FM radio, capture only occurs if the stronger signal falls inside a narrow set of expectations imposed by the radio’s hardware. The receiver does not evaluate signals abstractly. It applies filters, limiters, and demodulators that physically reject signals that look “wrong.”

A useful way to think about spoofing is this:

The spoofed signal must arrive slightly stronger than the legitimate signal while staying inside the radio’s comfort zone.

That comfort zone is defined by four tightly coupled requirements: frequency, modulation, timing, and behavior.

1. Frequency alignment

The radio applies a band‑pass filter centered on the tuned channel, roughly 12.5 kHz wide for narrowband FM.

A spoofed signal that is even a few kilohertz off center is pushed toward the edge of this filter, where it is naturally attenuated before demodulation.

Noise jamming benefits from filling the entire band. Spoofing does not. Spoofing only works if the energy is concentrated near the center frequency.

This is the first asymmetry: jamming spreads power; spoofing concentrates precision.

2. Modulation conformity

In analog FM, information is carried by how far the carrier frequency deviates as someone speaks.

The radio expects that deviation to stay within a known range. If the deviation is too small, speech collapses into noise. If it is too large, the radio’s limiter and discriminator distort or reject the signal.

Adding more power does not fix this. The modulation has to be right.

This is why spoofing is about matching the radio’s internal response, not overwhelming it.

3. Timing and capture behavior

Analog FM radios automatically adjust their gain over very short time windows, typically milliseconds.

If a spoofed signal becomes dominant during that brief window, the radio normalizes around it. Once that happens, the legitimate signal must exceed the spoof by several decibels to force the radio to switch.

This makes timing critical.

A spoof that arrives at the right moment can capture the receiver with only a small power advantage. A spoof that arrives a moment late may fail completely.

Noise jamming does not care about timing. Spoofing lives or dies by it.

4. Behavioral expectations

Even simple analog radios expect certain patterns.

They expect squelch tones before audio. They expect push‑to‑talk cadence. They expect speech‑like envelopes rather than continuous tones or abrupt discontinuities.

A spoof that violates these expectations may be physically present and technically strong, yet still be ignored or quickly dropped by the receiver.

This is why a carefully crafted low‑power spoof can defeat a higher‑power transmitter: the radio is not asking which signal is strongest. It is asking which signal makes sense.

Why This Matters

All four of these conditions must be satisfied at the same time.

If any one of them fails (frequency drift, modulation error, mistimed arrival, or behavioral mismatch) the spoof collapses immediately.

Noise jamming degrades smoothly as power falls off. Spoofing fails abruptly when it leaves the receiver’s acceptance bounds.

That difference, more than raw power, is why spoofing is fragile at the front line while jamming remains effective.

Worked Example: Why Squad‑Level Spoofing Is Fragile at 3 km

Assume the same baseline conditions as the noise‑jamming case.

Frequency: 50 MHz (VHF, narrowband FM)
Receiver bandwidth: 12.5 kHz
Squad UAS transmit power: 1 W (30 dBm)
Enemy transmitter power: 5 W (37 dBm)
Distance UAS → enemy receiver: 3 km
Distance enemy transmitter → receiver: 1 km

Antenna gains, polarization, and terrain are held constant.

Our friendly squad launches a small UAS and attempts to spoof an enemy radio rather than jam it.

Step 1: The Simple Power Math (What Jamming Cares About)

Using free‑space path loss:

FSPL(dB) ≈ 32.44 + 20log₁₀(f_MHz) + 20log₁₀(d_km)

Legitimate signal at 1 km:

FSPL ≈ 32.44 + 34 + 0 ≈ 66 dB
Pᵣ,legit ≈ 37 − 66 ≈ −29 dBm

Spoofed signal at 3 km:

FSPL ≈ 32.44 + 34 + 9.5 ≈ 76 dB
Pᵣ,spoof ≈ 30 − 76 ≈ −46 dBm

The spoof signal arrives 17 dB weaker than the legitimate signal.

If this were noise jamming, the conclusion would be final: a 1‑watt UAS cannot deny a radio at 3 km.

Step 2: Why Spoofing Still Might Work

Before spoofing can occur, the signal must be observed. This does not require access to encrypted content or classified intelligence. Frequency, bandwidth, modulation type, timing, and repetition are all externally visible properties of a transmission. At the squad level, these can be learned through passive listening, pattern recognition, and brief on‑station observation.

Spoofing does not need to overpower the legitimate transmitter everywhere.

It only needs to be accepted first.

If the channel is idle when the spoof arrives, the receiver sees:

Spoofed signal: −46 dBm
Noise floor: ~−120 dBm

That is a very strong signal by receiver standards.

The radio opens squelch, Automatic Gain Control (AGC) settles, and the demodulator locks.

At that moment, the enemy receiver has committed to a waveform it recognizes as legitimate.

Step 3: Where the Physics Gets Unforgiving

Once an analog FM receiver has locked onto a signal, it does not switch easily. Breaking capture typically requires the competing signal to exceed the captured signal by roughly 6–12 dB at the receiver input.

In our geometry, the legitimate transmitter is already stronger by about 17 dB due to distance alone. When that transmitter keys up, it is therefore likely to recapture the receiver.

But the situation is actually worse for the spoof.

That 17 dB margin assumes a perfect spoofed waveform arriving at the receiver with no additional losses. Real spoofing never meets that assumption.

Every small imperfection reduces how much of the spoofed energy actually makes it through the receiver’s front end and into the demodulator. The transmitter may still be radiating −46 dBm worth of signal at the receiver antenna, but the radio does not get to use all of it.

Common penalties include:

• A 1–2 kHz frequency offset pushes part of the spoofed energy toward the edge of the receiver’s 12.5 kHz filter, where it is attenuated
• Small fades or UAS motion briefly reduce received power by several decibels
• Slight mistiming causes the spoof to miss the most favorable AGC capture window

Each of these effects acts like a loss inside the receiver. The signal is present, but less of it is usable.

If those imperfections cost even 6 dB (a very modest penalty) the receiver no longer “sees” the spoof at −46 dBm. It effectively sees it at closer to −52 dBm.

The legitimate signal, meanwhile, is unchanged at roughly −29 dBm.

The result is no longer a 17 dB disadvantage. It is closer to 23 dB.

At that point, capture does not weaken gradually. It breaks immediately. The receiver abandons the spoof and snaps back to the legitimate transmitter.

This is the critical distinction.

Spoofing does not fail because the spoof disappears. It fails because the receiver stops accepting it.

Step 4: Why This Is a Problem at the Front Line

At the front line, all of those errors are common.

Radios key unpredictably.
Geometry changes second‑to‑second.
UAS motion induces small but constant variation.

Spoofing only works while all bounds are satisfied at once.

Jamming does not care.

If the same UAS transmits noise instead, even a short burst that raises the noise floor by 10 dB can deny communication during a critical moment.

It does not matter if the jammer drifts in frequency or fades briefly. The effect averages out.

The Takeaway

Spoofing at 3 km is possible only inside a narrow set of physical bounds:

Correct frequency
Correct modulation
Correct timing
Uninterrupted presence

Those bounds leave little margin.

Noise jamming requires only one thing:

Enough energy, for long enough, to cross a threshold.

That difference of narrow acceptance versus smooth degradation is why spoofing struggles at the front line while jamming remains effective, even when the math says it is inefficient.

Calculus, Physics, and the Fragility of Spoofing

Noise jamming is a calculus problem. Its effectiveness comes from accumulating energy across distance, bandwidth, and time. Every improvement, whether it’s higher altitude, better antenna gain, longer dwell, or more transmit power feeds a continuous trade space. Success is predictable: enough energy anywhere that matters will eventually flip the receiver’s threshold, degrading performance smoothly. Imperfections are tolerated; more power or longer bursts always help, even if the gains are inefficient.

Spoofing is entirely different. It is dominated by physics. A spoofed signal must not only arrive slightly stronger than the legitimate one, but also fall inside the receiver’s narrow acceptance bounds: filter skirts, AGC time constants, discriminator response, and modulation expectations. Inside these boundaries, even a weak signal can capture the receiver. Outside them, no amount of power matters. Spoofing is not an optimization problem, it is a boundary-condition problem.

At three kilometers, a squad‑level sUAS does not need to dominate the electromagnetic environment. It only needs to briefly out‑rank a single transmitter at a single receiver and behave exactly like the signal that receiver already trusts. But that advantage is brittle. Any error in frequency, timing, modulation, or persistence collapses the illusion instantly. There is no graceful degradation. There is only acceptance or rejection.

This fragility is not academic. It is exactly what I experienced in training years ago, when my battalion commander wanted us to practice spoofing so we could recognize and react to it. Lacking the ability to meet all of the physical constraints at once, I resorted to playing Celine Dion over a radio already loaded with COMSEC. It worked as a stand‑in for training, but only because it ignored the real physics.

This is why spoofing is not a stronger form of jamming. Jamming attacks thresholds and tolerates imperfection; spoofing attacks trust and demands precision. One fails gradually, the other catastrophically. That distinction explains why, despite its elegance, spoofing remains fragile while noise jamming, inefficient and inelegant though it may be, continues to reliably work.

Subscribe now