Electronic Warfare in Ukraine 2026: Russia vs Ukraine EW Capabilities Compared

1. Electronic Warfare Fundamentals

Electronic warfare (EW) is the use of the electromagnetic spectrum (radio waves, radar, infrared, microwave) to attack enemy capabilities, protect friendly capabilities, or gather intelligence. Military EW divides into three disciplines:

• Electronic Attack (EA): Using EM energy to degrade, neutralize, or destroy adversary capabilities — jamming communications, blinding radar, disrupting GPS-guided weapons
• Electronic Protection (EP): Actions to protect friendly forces from enemy EA — frequency hopping, spread spectrum, ECCM receiver hardening, emission control (EMCON)
• Electronic Warfare Support (ES): Passive collection of EM emissions for intelligence, threat warning, and targeting — SIGINT (signals intelligence), ELINT (electronic intelligence), direction finding

The Ukraine war has demonstrated that EW — long considered a niche specialty — is now central to all aspects of modern large-scale conventional conflict. Every artillery system, every drone, every communications link, and every navigation system is affected by the electromagnetic warfare contest.

2. Russia's Major EW Systems

3. Operational Effects of Russian EW

• Communications disruption: Russian EW has forced Ukrainian forces to use shorter message bursts, frequency-hopping radios, encrypted links, and Starlink for military command communications after HF/VHF radio became unreliable in EW-dense sectors
• GPS denial: As analyzed separately, GMLRS and GPS-guided munitions experience degraded accuracy in heavily jammed sectors; this has reduced the effectiveness advantage of Western-supplied precision weapons
• Drone disruption: Russian front-line EW specifically targeting drone frequencies (433 MHz, 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz) has interfered with Ukrainian FPV operations in specific sectors; drone units must plan around EW bubble locations
• SHORAD radar degradation: Krasukha-4 class systems in radar suppression mode have complicated operation of some Ukrainian radar-guided air defense systems; GCI radars that guide fighters are also affected
• Psychological effect: Beyond technical effects, pervasive EW creates operational uncertainty — units don't always know whether their communications and navigation are compromised, leading to more conservative operations and higher command overhead

4. Ukraine's Electronic Warfare Capabilities

• Bukovel-AD (KB Prylad): Ukraine's domestically-developed counter-drone EW system; detects and suppresses drone control signals; effective against Russian reconnaissance drones (Orlan-10, ZALA range); used to protect sensitive installations and air defense assets
• Anklav-N: Electronic intelligence and control-frequency identification system — maps enemy drone RF emissions to track launch points and identify vulnerable frequencies; Ukrainian-developed
• Nota / NOTA complex: Signal intelligence systems for communications interception and direction finding; Ukrainian units have demonstrated ability to direction-find Russian communications and use the information for artillery targeting — a well-documented SIGINT success
• Improvised and commercial: Ukrainian volunteer developers and SBU electronic units have developed numerous improvised EW systems including drone jammers based on commercial software-defined radio (SDR) and repurposed cellular equipment
• Relative capability: Ukraine's dedicated large-scale EW systems are substantially fewer and less capable than Russia's purpose-built EW complex; Russia has approximately 10:1 advantage in dedicated military EW platforms by quantity; Ukraine compensates with agility, innovation, and Western support

5. NATO EW Support to Ukraine

• US EW: The US has provided specific EW capability packages to Ukraine; specific systems are not publicly confirmed by DoD for operational security reasons; reports indicate counter-drone EW systems and communications security equipment have been delivered; the US also makes SIGINT intelligence collected by various national intelligence assets available to Ukraine through intelligence sharing
• UK EW: UK has provided "advanced electronic warfare capabilities" per GCHQ/MOD statements; specific systems undisclosed; UK has extensive EW heritage (RAF Nimrod R1 successor capabilities) and is one of Ukraine's closest partners in EW support
• Germany: Provided KPMG EW sets and Patriot-integrated systems with electronic protection features; Germany has significant EW industrial expertise through Rheinmetall and Diehl
• NATO EWCC: NATO's EW Coordination Cell coordinates allied EW activities; Ukraine benefits from NATO EW doctrine training and exercises in the form of training provided to Ukrainian personnel in partner countries
• SIGINT sharing: US, UK, Germany, Poland, France have shared valuable SIGINT with Ukraine throughout the war — this intelligence has enabled Ukrainian strikes on Russian EW systems themselves

6. EW in Drone Warfare: The FPV Battle

• The most intense and fast-evolving EW battle in Ukraine is the contest over FPV drone frequencies; this tactical EW war is fought at the individual drone operator level, the company/battalion level (portable jamming units), and the brigade/division level (vehicle-mounted systems)
• Russian front-line jamming assets target 433 MHz, 900 MHz (Crossfire/ELRS drone control protocols), 2.4 GHz (standard RC), and 5.8 GHz (FPV video downlink) — covering the spectrum used by most commercial-derived FPV systems
• Ukrainian counter-measures:
  • Frequency hopping (FHSS): Control signals rapidly switch frequencies (up to 500 hops/second) making sustained jamming much harder; ExpressLRS and similar protocols include FHSS
  • Spread spectrum: Signal is spread across a wider frequency band at lower power density; jammers must cover wider frequency range at higher power to be effective
  • Bi-directional encrypted links: Prevent spoofing (false command injection) even when signal is detected; without encryption key, jammer cannot inject false commands
  • Higher power transmitters: Ukraine has deployed more powerful ground stations to out-broadcast Russian interference at shorter ranges
• Dynamic response cycle: Russian jammers adapt to capture new frequencies; Ukrainian operators shift to alternatives; manufacturers release firmware updates addressing new jamming patterns; the cycle runs 2–4 weeks on particularly active axes

7. Fiber-Optic FPV: The EW-Immune Response

• A conceptually elegant solution to RF jamming: replace the wireless control link with a physical fiber-optic cable, making the drone's control link literally un-jammable electromagnetically
• Operational concept: A spool of fiber-optic cable (up to 15 km in advanced versions) unspools from the drone as it flies; the FPV video and control signals travel through the fiber; no RF emissions from the control link; jammers cannot affect what they cannot detect
• Ukraine has demonstrated fiber-optic FPV drones operationally; Russia has seen them and is developing its own versions; they have been confirmed used by both sides and by Hezbollah (separately)
• Limitations: The drone is physically tethered to its launch point (cannot exceed cable length); the cable creates drag that reduces range and agility compared to wireless FPV; cable can snag on terrain; recovery is not possible (single-use); cost per drone higher than wireless equivalent
• Strategic significance: Fiber-optic FPV makes anti-drone RF jamming fundamentally ineffective for that platform class; this forces Russia to rely on physical anti-drone methods (nets, guns, kamikaze counter-drones) rather than electronic means; represents a significant tactical shift

8. Spoofing vs Jamming: Operational Distinction

• Jamming affects everyone within range of the jamming signal regardless of whether they are the intended target; jamming a Russian reconnaissance drone also jams friendly communications in the same spectrum; EW systems must carefully deconflict
• Spoofing is targeted — the spoofer must know the characteristics of the signal to be spoofed; more directed but more technically demanding; can be specifically targeted at adversary GPS-guided weapons or navigation systems without affecting friendly systems on different frequencies
• GPS spoofing observations in Ukraine: Commercial aviation has reported GPS position errors of hundreds of kilometers over eastern Europe; aircraft have appeared on ADS-B tracking as overflying restricted airspace (like Baghdad) while actually being over Eastern Europe — a telltale signature of GPS spoofing affecting aviation GPS receivers
• Drone spoofing: Russian military reportedly uses spoofing against Ukrainian reconnaissance rotary drones to trigger return-to-home behavior (spoofing the "home" coordinates to a false location); the drone then flies to the spoofed home point, landing in Russian-controlled territory or a predicted recovery zone
• Anti-spoofing hardening: Military M-Code GPS and Galileo's PRS signal have cryptographic authentication that prevents signal spoofing (the receiver can verify the signal comes from an authentic satellite); commercial GPS does not have this protection

9. EW Vehicle Losses and Attrition

• Russian EW vehicles have been among the most valuable confirmed target kills in Ukraine; Oryx open-source tracking has confirmed losses of numerous Russian EW systems since 2022:
  • Multiple Krasukha-4 complexes destroyed (Oryx-confirmed: 3+ as of 2025)
  • R-330Zh Zhitel systems destroyed (Oryx-confirmed: 5+)
  • Borisoglebsk-2 systems destroyed (Oryx-confirmed: 6+)
  • Leer-3 / Orlan-10 supporting platforms destroyed
  • Numerous Shipovnik-AERO and Pole-21 class systems lost
• High-value targeting: Because Russian EW systems significantly degrade Ukrainian precision capabilities, Ukraine prioritizes them for high-value targeting; HIMARS and Storm Shadow have been used against confirmed EW system locations identified through SIGINT
• Russian response: Russia has increased operational security around EW vehicles — limiting their stay-on-air time (reducing emissions to limit direction-finding), dispersing them from the front line, and using decoy operations
• Net EW balance: Despite losses, Russia maintains substantial EW capability along the front line; the losses have not eliminated Russia's EW advantage but have constrained Russian willingness to keep systems powered on for extended periods due to targeting risk

10. SIGINT/ELINT Intelligence Collection

• Ukraine's direction-finding (DF) success: Ukrainian intelligence has successfully direction-found Russian military radio communications and used the resulting targeting data for artillery strikes; several high-profile kills (including the strike attributed to eliminating Lt. Gen. Yakov Rezantsev in March 2022) were reportedly enabled by SIGINT/DF
• Russian ELINT: Russian Leer-3 (Orlan-10 based) system collects GSM cellular intelligence — IMSI catchers that identify cellular devices, intercept calls/SMS, and can broadcast SMS messages (used for Ukrainian soldier surrender messaging); also enables direction-finding on cellular emissions from Ukrainian personnel
• SIGINT discipline: Both sides have learned to practice EMCON (emission control) — reducing unnecessary radio transmissions, using wired communications when possible, and limiting revealing emissions; loose radio security has cost both sides lives through DF targeting
• Ukrainian SIGINT achievements: GUR (Ukraine's military intelligence) has maintained SIGINT collection on Russian military communications throughout the war; products feed the common operating picture and have enabled interdiction of command nodes, logistics, and EW assets

11. EW Evolution 2026–2028

• AI-driven EW: Cognitive EW systems that use AI to automatically identify, characterize, and respond to new signals are entering development; these systems can compress the react-and-counter cycle from weeks to hours or less; both Russia and NATO are developing AI-EW integration
• Full-spectrum EW integration: Future systems will simultaneously manage jamming, SIGINT collection, and electronic deception from integrated platforms rather than separate specialized vehicles; reducing logistic complexity and improving coordination
• Drone EW platforms: Small UAS carrying EW payloads (rather than ground vehicles) are increasingly practical; drones can position EW systems closer to targets and with more flexibility than vehicle-mounted systems; Ukraine's development of small drone-mounted jammers is a leading indicator
• Counter-fiber-optic: Russia must develop entirely new counter-FPV approaches (physical interdiction, area effects weapons, kamikaze counter-drones) since RF jamming cannot address fiber-optic controlled FPVs; this is an active operational challenge through 2026–2028
• EW and AI weapons: As autonomous AI-guided weapons proliferate, EW will target the sensors and communications of those weapons rather than just their navigation; anti-AI EW (adversarial inputs, sensor blinding, decision loop disruption) is an emerging field

FAQ