In addition to evolving threats, advances in machine learning algorithms, processing, and network technology will affect the types, combinations, and missions of approaches to airborne electronic attack (AEA). In terms of mission, there are now mainly different professional approaches and system services for communication and radar AEA missions, which will increasingly be satisfied with multiple uses. Given that traditional hijacking radar and communication systems typically operate at different frequency scales, it means that different AEA systems and their means of carrying them are also different. With the emergence of AESA technology based on GaN, more functional software control systems can implement these two missions on a wider bandwidth. Some radar jamming systems have the ability to enter the communication frequency scale, and vice versa. In NGJ and the Navy’s SEWIP Block 3, it can be seen that the common AEA system is suitable for communication and radar. The capability requirements of AEA are integrated into messy, scalable, and affordable end-to-end EMSO systems, while the future of intelligent EMSO is about networks, high revenue, EA, cyberspace, scalable general-purpose back-end, and multifunctional arrays. Hybrid models may be effective, but they require networking to collaborate, along with distributed processing and communication. In addition, multi-purpose systems are also facing challenges. The “Little Elves” program aims to prove that the swarming network unmanned approach can perform various missions within IADS, including AEA. (DARPA) On the other hand, reducing the human mission load is one of the most obvious advantages of applying cognitive electronic warfare and machine learning to AEA missions. Although it is expected that these systems will use fully autonomous equipment and mission groups, there are other options that may require an operator in a ‘human in loop’ condition. In this case, although the operator does not actually drive the resolution process in the loop, they can observe what is happening and acknowledge a method suggested by the machine, perhaps in some cases manually overriding it. The third option is an online environment for operators, which not only uses the information you collect and process from EMS, but also uses all the information, including all other sensors on the way, to collect information to assist in optimizing the overall mission. Radar and communication systems will no longer be the only hijacking systems that can help cope with messy IADS or A2/AD environments. Other potential surveillance, targeting, and automatic and forced weapon technologies also need to be considered and addressed, such as forced radars, satellite systems, infrared and optical sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, and portable air defense systems that use commercial transmitters (television and radio signals) for signal operations.
