EW – Page 2 – Air Marshal's Perspective

November 2, 2025

768: ELECTRONIC WARFARE: THE INVISIBLE BATTLEFIELD SHAPING THE MODERN CONFLICT

Article published in the Nov 25 issue of

“The News Analytics Journal”

Electronic warfare (EW) encompasses all strategies and technologies used to exploit the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet light and X-rays. The spectrum is an integral part of various military operations and serves as the backbone for communication, navigation and targeting.

Contemporary combat isn’t just about deploying and using weapons; it is also about disrupting communications, radars, and navigation systems. EW works quietly in the background, manipulating the invisible waves that are essential to modern warfare. It represents the clash of invisible forces that can determine the outcome of conflicts.

EW tactics have evolved from niche techniques to core elements of military strategy. Their significance has increased alongside technological advancements and the growing availability of affordable tools, making engagement in spectrum warfare more feasible. EW has rapidly emerged as a crucial yet often underestimated element of contemporary warfare. This shift has led militaries to rethink their electronic strategies.

Electronic Warfare

Electronic warfare aims to deny the enemy the use of the Electronic spectrum, while ensuring that friendly forces can operate freely within it. EW includes proactive actions, such as jamming, deceiving, and electromagnetic attacks. It also includes protective measures, such as electronic shielding and countermeasures. EW can be carried out from the air, land, sea, or space, using both manned and unmanned systems. EW is built on three main pillars.

- Electronic Attack (EA – Electronic Attack) or Electronic Counter Measures (ECM – Electronic Counter Measures). Electronic attack techniques seek to disrupt, deceive, or destroy the enemy’s electronic systems. For instance, high-power microwave systems can render electronics inoperable from a distance, effectively disabling drones or missiles. Electronic Jamming is done by emitting radio frequency signals to saturate enemy receivers and hinder or prevent their ability to receive or transmit information. Spoofing is sending false signals to the enemy to confuse or deceive their electronic systems.

- Electronic Protection (EP – Electronic Protection) or Electronic Counter Measures (ECCM – Electronic Counter Measures). EP/ECCM is actions taken to protect personnel, facilities, equipment or weapon systems from any effect of own or enemy use of the electromagnetic spectrum. EP utilises techniques like encryption, frequency hopping, or anti-jamming technologies. Modern EP utilises adaptive algorithms that automatically adjust frequencies to minimise interference.

- Electronic Support (ES) or Electronic Support Measures (ESM). ESM is Actions taken to search for, intercept, identify and locate sources of intentional or unintentional electromagnetic energy. This pillar often feeds into broader intelligence operations, enabling predictive strikes. The primary technique is Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), a form of information gathering that involves intercepting signals.

Terrestrial and airborne EW. EW capabilities are traditionally categorised into two distinct categories: terrestrial and airborne. Each has its respective advantages and disadvantages, making it imperative for militaries to use both. Ground EW capabilities were traditionally used to intercept and jam enemy radio and radar signals. Terrestrial EW sensors and jammers have their limitations. Variance in the terrain in which they operate hinders their effects. Airborne EW is primarily employed to intercept, decrypt, and disrupt communications, radars, and other command and control (C2) systems over huge areas. However, these capabilities are limited by aircraft endurance. Modern-day military operations also rely on satellite-based EW capabilities, including for broad area surveillance and early-warning, communications, and C2.

Effects. On a tactical level, EW can degrade the enemy’s situational awareness by disrupting their communications. Deception techniques, such as inserting false data into sensors or communications systems, can mislead enemy forces. Attacks against airborne, ground-based, and space-based enemy sensors can blind air defences, delay decision cycles, creating windows for kinetic strikes. The integration of AI has made these operations quicker and more accurate, affecting the decision-making cycle.

EW in Recent Conflicts

Strategic Doctrines of Major Powers. EW doctrines adopted by global powers vary due to their differing goals and priorities. NATO focuses on integrated and interoperable EW systems due to its philosophy of collective security. Chinese doctrine advocates achieving information dominance by leveraging EW in a networked environment. Russia employs an EW strategy of strategic flexibility by integrating EW with hybrid warfare. These divergent methods used by the global powers highlight EW’s role as a force multiplier tailored to their respective geopolitical contexts.

Nagorno-Karabakh War. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict highlighted the critical role of EW in modern warfare. Azerbaijan tried to overwhelm the Armenian defences with precision strikes using the Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones. Armenia countered them with the Russian Polye-21 EW systems. These systems disrupted the Azerbaijani drone signals and command and control (C2) for several days. However, drone swarms ultimately were able to saturate the defences. The conflict exposed the EW’s vulnerability to massed aerial attacks and highlighted the need for integrated EW counter-drone systems.

Syrian Civil War. Syria has been pronounced as the “most aggressive EW environment on Earth.” Russian forces jammed the U.S. and NATO communications, disrupting their operations. In 2020, Turkey’s Koral EW system neutralised Syrian air defences, blinding their radars and enabling drone incursions. Pro-government “electronic armies” employed cyber-EW hybrids to target opposition networks. The conflict highlighted EW’s dual-use in hybrid warfare.

Russia-Ukraine War. The Russia-Ukraine War represents EW’s maturation in peer-level conflict. Russia positioned extensive EW systems, including jammers and aerial decoys, to disrupt Ukrainian and NATO surveillance radars. Ukraine captured a few of these assets for allied analysis and development of appropriate countermeasures. Reportedly, Russian EW systems have caused significant Ukrainian drone losses, primarily through GPS scrambling and radio-control link jamming. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s targeting of Russian EW assets has been a priority to enable counteroffensives. Both sides have been adapting dynamically.

These wars demonstrate EW’s potential to break the asymmetry, where superior Electronic spectrum control increases the effectiveness of kinetic strikes. Future forces must prioritise resilient, AI-augmented EW systems to dominate this invisible battlefield.

Future Trajectory

Trends. Three trends have amplified EW’s importance. First, systems (military and civilian) are far more networked. Precision-guided munitions, networked sensors, and satellite-enabled navigation make modern systems efficient but also vulnerable. Second, the commercial space and telecom sectors have proliferated capabilities, including small satellites and broadband networks, creating numerous new targets and vectors for disruption. Third, inexpensive technologies (software-defined radios, low-cost drones, and portable jammers) lower the cost of mounting effective EW attacks, allowing smaller actors to impose outsized effects.

- AI and Automation. AI-driven EW systems can rapidly detect, analyse, and jam signals, reducing response times. Machine learning is also used to predict and counter enemy EW tactics. The AI integration is propelling the EW market growth amid geopolitical tensions.

- Miniaturisation. Smaller, less expensive EW systems, such as those on drones, enable even non-state actors to disrupt advanced militaries.
- Cyber-EW Convergence. EW increasingly overlaps with cyber warfare, targeting networked systems. For example, hacking into radar systems can complement traditional jamming.

- Space as a Battleground. Satellites, critical for communication and navigation, are vulnerable to EW attacks like signal jamming or spoofing. China and Russia have demonstrated anti-satellite EW capabilities.

- Resilience Needs. Militaries are investing in spectrum-agile systems, low-probability-of-intercept communications, and redundant networks to counter EW threats. Trends include dual-use technologies and cybersecurity enhancements.

Future Outlook. Military forces will face a myriad of challenges in the area of electronic warfare as the underlying technologies continue to advance quickly. Emerging challenges, such as spectrum congestion, the threat of cyber intrusions, and the development of countermeasures, will introduce new challenges. Advances in quantum, photonic, and space-based technologies will drive the growth of EW. Quantum computing will enable precise navigation without reliance on GPS, while implementations of post-quantum cryptography will secure communications against future threats. By 2030, we anticipate that quantum technology will disrupt EW with unbreakable encryption and more realistic battlefield simulations. We will see notable effects of AI, machine learning, offensive cyber capabilities, and directed energy weapons on the EW systems.

Conclusion

Emerging technologies are really shaping the development of EW strategies. The impact of electromagnetic denial or deception is expected to grow stronger as battlefield systems become increasingly automated and equipped with advanced sensors. Militaries need to enhance their resilience and adaptability in the realm of electronic warfare. Investing in AI, quantum technologies, and integrating across different domains—like combining EW with cyber and kinetic operations—will be key to success in the future. Training and doctrines will also need to evolve, making the invisible just as important as the visible. Moving forward, it will take technical solutions, creative operational ideas, and teamwork across military, industry, and civil sectors to stay effective and safe.

Recent conflicts have underscored the importance of investing in electronic warfare (EW) and spectrum management strategies, which are just as vital as traditional firepower in achieving battlefield success. As new technologies like quantum computing and AI become more common in warfare, embracing innovative EW techniques has become more important than ever, helping us stay ahead and be prepared.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

References:-

John R. Hoehn, Defence Primer: Electronic Warfare, Congressional Research Service, 2022.

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr, When Facing Electronic Warfare in Ukraine, Small Drones Quantity Is a Quality, Breaking Defence, 2023.

Russia’s jamming of US-supplied rocket systems complicates the war effort in Ukraine, Alex Marquardt, Natasha Bertrand, and Zachary Cohen, Ukraine, CNN, May 6, 2023.

Bennett, A. The Role of Electronic Warfare in Modern Military Operations, Military Review, 2021.

Drew, K. Adapting to the Invisible Battlefield: The Evolution of Electronic Warfare, Journal of Military Strategy, 2020.

Friedman, N, The Chessboard of Electronic warfare: Strategies and Capabilities. U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2022.

Burgener, M, Electronic Warfare in the Age of Drones: Nagorno-Karabakh in Retrospect. The International Journal of Drone Policy, 2021.

Gottfried, G. The Electronic Battlefield of the Syrian Civil War: A new wave of War? Middle East Journal of International Affairs, 2020.

Hollis, A., The Resurgence of Electronic Warfare in the Modern Conflict. Military Review, (2021).

Johnson, L, The Development of Electronic Warfare Strategy in modern conflicts. Armed Forces & Society, 2023.

Shari, S, Turning the Tide: The Role of Electronic Warfare in the Russia-Ukraine War. Eurasian Security Studies, 2023.

May 3, 2025

666:GPS INTERFERENCE INCIDENT INVOLVING IAF AIRCRAFT OVER MYANMAR

My article was published in Issue 4 (May 25) of the SP Aviation journal.

On March 28, 2025, a devastating 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck Myanmar, claiming over 3,649 lives and injuring more than 5,000 people. In response, India launched Operation Brahma, a humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) mission, to deliver critical supplies, medical teams, and rescue personnel to the affected regions. The IAF deployed six military transport aircraft, including C-130J Super Hercules and C-17 Globemaster, to ferry 625 metric tons of aid to cities such as Yangon, Nay Pyi Taw, and Mandalay.

The Incident

The first reported incident of GPS spoofing occurred on March 29, when a C-130J aircraft, carrying 15 tons of relief material from Hindon Airbase to Yangon, experienced navigation anomalies in Myanmar’s airspace. Subsequent flights reported similar issues, with sources indicating that most of the six aircraft involved in the operation encountered GPS spoofing on multiple sorties. After the initial incident, IAF pilots were briefed to anticipate such challenges, enabling them to prepare for and mitigate the risks on subsequent flights.

The IAF later clarified that a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) issued by Mandalay International Airport highlighted the possibility of degraded GPS availability. The NOTAM warned of potential navigation issues in Myanmar’s airspace, and IAF crews were trained to operate under such conditions. Despite the disruptions, all missions were completed successfully, with no reported accidents or deviations from the planned routes. This underscores the professionalism and preparedness of the IAF pilots, providing reassurance about their capabilities in challenging situations.

GPS Spoofing

GPS spoofing is a form of electronic warfare where false signals are broadcast to deceive a receiver, causing it to calculate an incorrect position. Unlike GPS jamming, which blocks signals entirely, spoofing manipulates data to mislead navigation systems, potentially directing an aircraft off course. The technique exploits the weak signal strength of GPS satellites, which can be overpowered by stronger, fraudulent signals generated from ground-based or airborne platforms. GPS spoofing is increasingly common in conflict zones, where state and non-state actors deploy electronic warfare to disrupt adversaries.

Modern military aircraft, however, are equipped with additional navigation systems, such as INS, which uses gyroscopes and accelerometers to track position independently of external signals. The IAF’s prompt switch to INS ensured safe navigation, but the incident highlighted the vulnerability of GPS-dependent systems in contested environments.

Attributability

Myanmar’s complex political landscape provides critical context for the incident. Since the military coup in 2021, the country has been embroiled in civil conflict, with the junta facing resistance from ethnic insurgent groups and pro-democracy forces. The region is also a geopolitical flashpoint, with major powers like China, India, and the United States vying for influence. China, in particular, has made significant strategic inroads in Myanmar, including infrastructure and military cooperation investments.

Some reports speculated that the spoofing may have been linked to Chinese-enabled systems, given Beijing’s advanced electronic warfare capabilities and presence in the region. The proximity of the interference to the Coco Islands, where China is suspected of developing surveillance and electronic warfare facilities, fueled these suspicions. However, attributing responsibility is difficult due to a lack of definitive evidence.

Other potential actors include non-state militant groups or regional adversaries seeking to cause disruption as a geopolitical signal. Myanmar’s airspace, described as a conflict zone, is particularly susceptible to such interference, with GPS spoofing reported as a common tactic in similar environments globally. Investigating spoofing in foreign airspace is nearly impossible due to limited access and jurisdictional constraints. Myanmar’s junta’s lack of transparency, restricted internet access, and communication controls further complicate any efforts to investigate the incident.

IAF Response and Mitigation

The IAF’s response to the GPS spoofing incidents was swift and effective. The pilots’ training in handling navigation anomalies allowed them to transition seamlessly to INS, ensuring the safe completion of all missions. The pre-emptive NOTAM from Mandalay International Airport also played a crucial role, enabling crews to anticipate and prepare for degraded GPS availability. This response highlights the IAF’s operational resilience in such challenges.

On April 14, the IAF clarified that its crews were well-equipped to operate in environments with compromised GPS signals. The statement avoided directly referencing spoofing, focusing instead on the successful execution of Operation Brahma and the robustness of IAF protocols. This measured response likely aimed to avoid escalating tensions in an already volatile region while highlighting India’s operational resilience.

The incident has sparked discussions within India’s defence establishment about enhancing countermeasures and navigation redundancies. Recommendations include installing real-time interference detection systems, conducting regular audits of navigation vulnerabilities, and advocating for international standards to counter GPS spoofing. The urgent need for global cooperation against electronic warfare is also underscored.

Broader Global Implications

The Myanmar incident is part of a global surge in GPS interference, with similar cases reported near the India-Pakistan border, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Spoofing has affected civilian and military aircraft globally, with notable cases like the 2024 Azerbaijan Airlines crash linked to GPS disruption and widespread interference in the Baltic and Black Sea regions.

For military operations, GPS spoofing poses risks beyond navigation errors, including compromised mission security and potential airspace violations. The Myanmar incident underscores the need for robust countermeasures, such as encrypted navigation systems and alternative positioning technologies like Galileo or India’s NavIC. This highlights the importance of preparedness in electronic warfare and the need for robust countermeasures.

Civilian aviation also faces growing risks, as commercial aircraft rely heavily on GPS for navigation, raising concerns about passenger safety. To enhance resilience, the aviation industry is exploring solutions like multi-constellation receivers, which integrate signals from multiple satellite systems, and ground-based navigation aids.

Geopolitically, the incident highlights the challenges of operating in contested regions. It underscores the need for diplomatic efforts to establish international norms against electronic warfare, though enforcement remains difficult in conflict zones.

Lessons Learned and Mitigation Measures

The Myanmar GPS spoofing incident offers several lessons for India and the global aviation community. First, it emphasises the importance of pilot training and redundant navigation systems, which proved critical in averting disaster. Second, it highlights the need for real-time intelligence sharing among allies to map and counter interference trends. Groups like OPSGROUP, which tracks aviation risks, could play a pivotal role in this effort.

Technologically, the incident underscores the urgency of developing spoofing-resistant navigation systems. Advances in quantum positioning, which relies on atomic clocks, and machine learning-based anomaly detection could reduce dependence on vulnerable GPS signals. India’s investment in NavIC, a regional navigation system, offers a potential alternative, though its coverage remains limited compared to GPS.

There is also a case for a global ban on GPS spoofing, similar to existing prohibitions on laser attacks against aircraft. While such measures face resistance from states with advanced electronic warfare programs, they could set a precedent for protecting peaceful humanitarian missions. Regional cooperation, particularly within ASEAN, could also address the region’s airspace vulnerabilities, though political instability poses challenges.

Conclusion

The GPS spoofing of IAF aircraft during Operation Brahma was a stark reminder of modern aviation’s evolving threats. While the IAF’s preparedness ensured the mission’s success, the incident exposed the fragility of GPS-dependent systems in conflict zones. As electronic warfare becomes more sophisticated, nations must invest in resilient technologies, robust training, and international collaboration to safeguard military and civilian operations. The incident reinforces India’s role as a responsible regional power capable of overcoming adversity to deliver aid. Still, it also signals the need for vigilance in an increasingly contested digital landscape.