The electromagnetic spectrum has become one of the most contested domains in modern warfare. Peer adversaries are fielding distributed sensing architectures, adaptive jamming techniques, and deception tactics that blend cyber and electronic warfare effects to defeat U.S. and allied targeting. Staying ahead requires more than incremental upgrades. It requires a fundamental shift toward distributed, software-defined, AI-enabled systems that can sense, classify, and respond in seconds.

Lauren Barnes, President of Spectrum Superiority at L3Harris Technologies, sat down with Defense News to discuss how the company is approaching this shift. She covers the move toward scaled autonomy at the edge, the resilience demands of contested SATCOM and weapons data links, and the milestones behind programs like Viper Shield, DiSCO, and the Next Generation Jammer. Her answers offer a clear picture of where electronic warfare is headed and what it will take to maintain spectrum superiority over the next five years.

Q: Recent conflicts have put EW capabilities front and center. How have peer adversaries evolved in their sensing, jamming, and deception tactics and how is L3Harris adjusting its approach to stay ahead?

A: Peer adversaries have become far more agile in the electromagnetic spectrum. They’re fielding distributed sensing architectures that present increasingly complex long-range threats and using adaptive jamming techniques to counter U.S. and allied systems. The pace and sophistication of deception tactics are also rising – they’re blending cyber and EW effects to obscure their signatures and complicate our targeting.

At L3Harris, we’re responding by shifting from platform‑centric systems to distributed, connected and platform-agnostic EW solutions. This includes everything from software-defined electronic countermeasure systems to modular EW payloads on attritable platforms. Maritime decoys are a particularly important growth area driven by the proliferation of increasingly lethal and long-range threats.

Facing these evolving threats requires more AI‑enabled processing at the edge and architectures that are upgraded at the speed of software. Our investment in electromagnetic spectrum operations (EMSO), cognitive sensing and advanced digital signal processing lets us identify and counter new waveforms in real time, and to orchestrate non-kinetic effects at scale.

Q: Looking at AI-enabled threat detection, autonomous EW, counter-UAS - the threat picture is evolving fast. What are the one or two trends that most fundamentally change how you think about spectrum superiority over the next five years?

A: Simply put, we are enabling military personnel to understand their environment as it changes so they can rapidly adjust how they operate at the speed of need. Two trends stand out:

  • Scaled autonomy at the edge. We’re moving toward modular, open and distributed EW systems that sense, classify and respond in a coordinated fashion. That’s necessary in a dynamic battlespace with threat waveforms that can change in seconds.
  • AI‑enabled, multi‑domain spectrum maneuver. Spectrum superiority is no longer airborne‑centric. It relies on coordination across air, land, sea, cyber and space. AI helps fuse that picture and optimizes effects across domains at machine speed.

Both trends demand the ability to continuously update software, which is a central focus of our roadmap.

Q: What role do software-defined systems play in enabling faster upgrades to EW platforms?

A: They’re essential. Software-defined EW – whether for sensing, jamming or protecting – is how we continuously inject new threat libraries, AI models and mission applications. The combination drives affordability, resiliency and rapid evolution across the life cycle.

Q: As weapons and platforms become increasingly dependent on high-bandwidth data links, how does L3Harris approach maintaining resilient connectivity in a degraded, denied, or disrupted RF environment?

A: We engineer our data links with resilience as a first principle: adaptive waveforms, low‑probability-of-detection techniques and multi‑path routing. We also combine SATCOM, line-of-sight and beyond-line‑of‑sight modalities so platforms don’t rely on a single point of failure. We’re also integrating advanced interference cancelation and signal processing to preserve connectivity even under heavy jamming.

Q: How do you balance the competing demands of low probability of intercept/detection, high throughput, and long-range performance?

A: It’s an optimization problem, and our approach uses software-controlled adaptability. Instead of locking to one mode, our waveforms dynamically adapt based on mission priorities. We can stay covert when needed, push throughput when available and extend range when the tactical situation demands it.

Q: Link 16 has been the backbone of tactical data links for decades. As adversaries develop the ability to detect and exploit it, what does the next chapter look like — do you foresee an evolutionary upgrade or something more disruptive?

A: We see both. Link 16 remains indispensable for current operations, and enhancements like cryptography extend its relevance. For example, we’re looking to expand Link 16 to U.S. Army and allied aircraft platforms in response to customer needs.

Yet as adversaries improve their detection and exploitation abilities, the future requires complementary capabilities that are more adaptive, scalable and software-defined to accelerate capability to the field. We’re working on evolutionary upgrades that keep Link 16 resilient, while also investing in tactical networks that offer higher capacity and intelligent routing.

Q: Precision strike is increasingly network-dependent. What are the key challenges L3Harris is solving for weapons data links in contested airspace?

A: Precision weapons need reliable connectivity despite high-end jamming, clutter and rapid maneuver. We’re focused on cost-effective waveforms that adapt on the fly and reduce the size, weight and power needed. What’s important here is secure, low-latency links across the weapon, platform and network.

The goal is equipping weapons to receive real‑time updates and transmit terminal guidance information, even against a peer threat.

Q: As the military shifts toward hybrid SATCOM architectures that blend commercial, military, LEO, MEO, and GEO capabilities, where does L3Harris see the biggest opportunities and challenges in ensuring resilient, jam-resistant connectivity for contested environments?

A: Hybrid SATCOM – mixing commercial, military, GEO, MEO and LEO – creates resiliency through multiple pathways. The opportunity lies in the ability for a terminal to dynamically pick the best path without user intervention. The challenge is orchestrating all of that in a contested environment, where each layer of the architecture faces different jamming and cyber threats.

Our strength is in terminal innovation, adaptive modems and protected waveform development that bring all those layers together to assure connectivity from anywhere in the world. We have made significant investments in demonstrations and production capacity to ensure these Hybrid SATCOM solutions are ready now for the warfighter.

Q: Viper Shield is now heading into full-rate production. What design decisions made it possible to evolve Viper Shield this quickly and where does it go from here? Also, the DiSCO ecosystem just had a landmark autonomous EW demo with Shield AI. What can you share about what DiSCO is and what’s next?

A: Viper Shield is in flight test with production hardware and meeting milestones to deliver advanced EW to the global F-16 fleet. Eight nations have selected the system with more expected to follow. Three decisions stand out:

  • A digital architecture from day one. This allows rapid software upgrades and easier integration with other mission systems.
  • A modular hardware design architected for growth. We can insert new features to meet evolving threats without redesigning the entire system.
  • A focus on execution. Our work to accelerate development and production has put Viper Shield years ahead of any competitor.

DiSCO is our electromagnetic battle management (EMBM) software solution and data-sharing architecture. It delivers situational awareness of the spectrum, decision support, rapid reprogramming of distributed sensors and C2 orchestration of effects at scale.

DiSCO paired with Shield AI’s Hivemind autonomy software and our DECEPTOR modular EW payload demonstrates how autonomous threat detection and response can dramatically reduce operator burden to meet mission objectives. Next, we’re scaling across platforms and mission sets, including multi‑platform coordination and tighter integration with airborne and ground-based sensors.

Q: What makes your work on the Next Generation Jammer novel?

A: The U.S. Navy’s EA-18G fleet currently relies on an obsolete jamming system that is increasingly challenged by adversary radar capabilities and plagued by persistent sustainment issues. Responding to the Navy’s urgent need, L3Harris developed the Next Generation Jammer – Low Band tactical jamming pod. This is a revolutionary solution that delivers the capability and power necessary to engage enemy air defenses at greater standoff ranges.

A major element is high Equivalent, Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) and tailored waveforms to increase the number of simultaneous targets that aircrews can attack.

Q: You’ve said that “electronic warfare is uniquely suited for autonomy, where speed and scale in the RF spectrum are decisive.” How close are we to a future where autonomous systems are making EW decisions faster than any human operator could and what’s the command-and-control framework that makes that acceptable to warfighters and policymakers?

A: We already are seeing autonomous behaviors – like real‑time signal classification and threat response – that exceed human reaction times. The path forward is ensuring those behaviors are aligned with commander intent and orchestrated at scale as more autonomous platforms with EW payloads are deployed.

The command‑and‑control framework will rely on human‑defined rules of engagement and AI models that are testable, traceable and certifiable. Autonomy doesn’t replace the operator – it helps them by handling the sub‑second tasks humans simply can’t do.