Warfare is being redefined. As the UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) outlines, rapid advances in technology and changing conflict dynamics are transforming both the threat and the way nations need to respond. A new Cyber and Electromagnetic (CyberEM) Command and a commitment of £1 billion to develop a ‘Digital Targeting Web’ to link UK armed forces’ weapon systems underlines this fundamental shift in defence strategy.
As shown in Ukraine, development speed and agility are vital. Innovation in electromagnetic warfare has created modular systems that can transform capabilities at a fraction of the time and cost of previous generations. New interface standards allow cross industry collaboration and the use of both commercial and defence components. Furthermore, this open, modular approach will be key to the essential development of future Electronic Attack, Support and Protection capabilities.
Warfare has changed and policy adapted, but, as Ben Skinner, EW Solutions Specialist for Plextek, asks, why hasn’t the defence industry also accepted the way that weapons and defence systems are developed in response must also change, urgently?
Next Generation Warfare
The 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) highlighted that the Armed Forces’ ability to fight is highly dependent on access to the electromagnetic spectrum. Essential military functions such as finding the enemy, sensing the environment and communications between friendly forces all rely on this. It is then highly contested in a process known as Electronic Warfare (EW).
EW has long been regarded as a key enabler in achieving control of the air, a fundamental component of containing adversaries and enabling effective counterattacks. Driven by the commercial communications sector, notably the hardware behind 5G and 6G cellular architecture, as well as the explosion of high-speed sophisticated data analytics (often branded as AI), achieving control and dominance of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is becoming ever more complex for the future of warfare.
Recent conflicts, most notably in Ukraine, have accelerated change. As the UK government confirmed during its recent announcement of the new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command: “When the Ukrainians achieved a stepchange in lethality early in the war, by being able to find the enemy, target them and attack quickly and at scale, it allowed them to stop the encircling Russian advance.”
Modular Solutions for Innovation
However, the SDR also points to serious capability gaps. Sluggish Ministry of Defence (MoD) procurement, workforce shortages in EW skills, and limited sovereign EW systems. One of the biggest issues is the continued reliance upon traditional EW development methods which are far too slow in the light of modern evolving threats.
Until recently, EW equipment was essentially bespoke, demanding both a long period of requirements definition and the custom development of highly specialised solutions designed to operate against a known set of threats. But this is no longer the case. The evolution of modular systems, encompassing both hardware and software, transforms the speed of innovation. Leveraging common architectures and interfaces minimises the need for custom or bespoke developments. It provides compelling economies at scale and, critically, transforms the pace of development, allowing counters to be rapidly developed to respond to and overmatch emerging threats.
The potential of modular systems has been clearly demonstrated in Ukraine, with the rapid development and deployment of commercially based new low SWaP-C (size, weight, power, and cost) EW systems. In addition to demonstrating the value of prioritising low SWaP-C technologies, the extreme threat inspired a different approach to development. New systems are not necessarily finished products: by delivering new solutions to the front line that have 80% of the desired capability but available at pace and at scale, Ukraine has proved the value of quantity over exquisite capability. In effect Ukraine has embodied the mantra “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good”.
This practical, pragmatic thinking aligns neatly with the modular approach. Proven technologies from commercial use cases – such as components targeted at 5G and automotive uses – can be quickly utilised. Developments can focus first on priority RF (radio frequency) bands but also quickly move onto other frequency bands as changes to the congested and contested EM environment emerge. Expertise in low SWaP RF, sensing and communications systems from non-traditional defence suppliers can also be leveraged to improve development bandwidth and offer novel approaches. Essentially, by harnessing both defence and commercial technology capabilities, and embracing a new attitude, modular EW systems can deliver innovative solutions at pace.
Modular EW systems are not only a solution for EA (Electronic Attack) but also an opportunity to develop capable ES (Electronic Surveillance) and EP (Electronic Protection) systems, all based around common hardware and standards. Modularity doesn’t have to be limited to individual systems but can extend across networked EW architectures. This enables advanced techniques such as multi-static and multi-domain operations, where networked EW effectors deployed across diverse platform types work collaboratively to conduct coordinated offensive cyber (OC) attacks.
Next Generation Industry
The Ministry of Defence recognises the need for innovation in its procurement and as the Chancellor announced in her spring statement at least 10% of the MoD’s equipment budget is to be spent on novel technologies each year, however there are risks to this approach. Adopting novel technology at pace, much like was done through the Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) methods for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, can lead to a fantastic capability, but without the required support behind it (training, maintenance, production depth) to enable it to be deployed and used to its full potential. The modular concept would appear to be an ideal approach to overcome this pitfall.
The EW industry is combining the speed of battlefield innovation with robust manufacturing quality and testing to transform EW capabilities. Critically, work is continuing at pace to standardise EW payload interfaces. The development of standardised connections and communication protocols between EW systems and the platforms that carry them, including any crewed and uncrewed vehicles, allows the payload to be quickly reconfigured to change behaviour and/ or performance envelope.
This standardisation is a fundamental step that will ensure cross market innovation by avoiding traditional vendor lock in. With interoperability between different suppliers’ submodules, every aspect of innovation, build, and test, is assured and accelerated. A standard EW payload interface ensures consistent capabilities. It improves safety through rapid testing and accelerates integration with platforms. It enables swift dissemination of techniques and, importantly, minimises training needs for front-line operators, elevating one of the biggest concerns with a rapid and agile procurement approach. It is, in effect, a fundamental requirement if the potential of EW is to be achieved and the challenges outlined in the SDR are to be addressed.
The potential is compelling but without a sea change in attitude across both industry and MoD, the essential benefits of standardisation will not be realised – at what cost?
Conclusion
The Defence Secretary’s announcement of new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command and £1 billion investment in pioneering battlefield systems is welcome. But, despite the UK innovation driven by lessons from Ukraine, and the clearly accepted requirement to harness drones and digital warfare, the actual pace of change is glacial.
Innovative companies are driving essential change. They are in the vanguard of EW standardisation and modular systems, accelerating and reducing the cost of innovation through access to proven commercial as well as defence components. But the essential value of these new solutions will not be realised unless military procurers, including the MoD, change their approach.
While defence procurement remains mired in outdated, inefficient processes that fail to reflect the demands of modern warfare, how will the UK maximise the value of the new investment or meet the goals laid out in the SDR? Indeed, how long will innovative SMEs with the expertise to realise the demands of modern warfare survive without an immediate change to a rapid procurement approach that proactively seeks to capture this innovation?