FY2022 Electronic Warfare Funding Trends

FY2022 Electronic Warfare Funding Trends

INSIGHTi

FY2022 Electronic Warfare Funding Trends
Updated September 16, 2021
Many defense analysts consider electronic warfare (EW), which disrupts an adversary’s command and
control networks, a critical 21st-century combat capability. During a March 19, 2021, House Armed
Services Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies and Information Systems hearing, several EW
experts noted that China and Russia have developed sophisticated EW expertise. Such expertise raises
potential concerns that either country may chal enge the U.S. military’s ability to access the
electromagnetic spectrum. At the hearing, Representative Langevin remarked, “Future combat wil be less
about the capability of individual weapon systems and more about how a network of systems
communicate and work together through the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.”
EW has become a priority issue for both the executive branch and Congress. To facilitate congressional
oversight, this Insight analyzes changes in FY2019-FY2022 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
(RDT&E) and procurement funding requests, tracks the proportions of RDT&E investments by budget
activity, and examines funding trends within military departments.
In an effort to identify emerging EW technologies, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established the EW
Executive Committee (EW EXCOM) in 2015. More recently, the FY2017 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) (P.L. 114-328) required the EW EXCOM to develop an EW strategy. The
2017 EW strategy identified EW research and development programs in order to track their progress and
gain insight into the overal EW portfolio. For a discussion of this approach to following EW programs,
see the U.S. Military Electronic Warfare Program Funding: Background and Issues for Congress.

Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11705
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and

Committees of Congress

link to page 2
Congressional Research Service
2
EW Programs by Appropriation and Department
Figure 1. Electronic Warfare Funding, by Appropriation
Requested vs. Enacted

Source: CRS analysis of Air Force, Army, Navy, and Defense-wide FY2019-FY2022 budget justifications.
RDT&E versus procurement funding is the key delineation within the EW portfolio. As Figure 1 shows,
there was an overal decrease in funding requests in FY2022 compared with FY2019. In FY2022 DOD
requested $9.231 bil ion, whereas in FY2019 the request totaled $10.139 bil ion, representing a 9%
decrease. The future year defense plan also projected RDT&E program funding decreases in FY2022.
However, the future year defense plan anticipated an increase in procurement funding even as actual
procurement funding decreased.
Over the past few years, the percentage decrease in both EW RDT&E and procurement funding requests
has been approximately the same. However, Congress provided more funding in FY2019 for both
procurement and RDT&E than DOD had requested. In FY2020, Congress al ocated more funding to
RDT&E than the DOD request, while providing less than requested for procurement programs. In
FY2021, the reverse was true.

link to page 3 link to page 3
Congressional Research Service
3
Figure 2. Electronic Warfare Funding Requests, by Department
FY2020-FY2022

Source: CRS analysis of Air Force, Army, Navy, and Defense-wide FY2019-FY2022 budget justifications.
Note: Depicts both RDT&E and procurement funding.
Figure 2 depicts funding requests from FY2020 to FY2022 categorized as Army, Navy, Air Force
(including Space Force since FY2021), and Defense-Wide funding, which includes the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Joint Staff, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, and Special Operations
Command (SOCOM). The overal decrease in EW funding has not been evenly distributed across
departments. The Navy, which has requested significantly more funding than other departments, has 71
EW programs, while the Air Force and Army have 59 and 92 programs, respectively. A department’s
dollar request does not necessarily reflect the number of programs the department manages or the size of
each program.
Since FY2020, there has been a steady decrease in Navy EW funding requests. Figure 2 also shows a
decrease in the Air Force’s requested funding, while the Army and Defense-Wide funding request has
remained relatively stable. DARPA’s funding request grew from FY2020 to FY2022, suggesting a
renewed DOD interest in research.

link to page 4
Congressional Research Service
4
Figure 3. EW RDT&E Funding Requests, by Budget Activity

Source: CRS analysis of Air Force, Army, Navy, and Defense-wide FY2019-FY2022 budget justifications.
Figure 3 depicts four categories of RDT&E funding—divided by budget activity—from FY2019 to
FY2022: science and technology (S&T) (RDT&E budget activities 1, 2, and 3), system development
(budget activities 4 and 5), system modification (budget activity 7), and RDT&E Management Support
(budget activity 6). This RDT&E breakdown models the development cycle, from a technology’s initial
inception to its prototyping and manufacturing design implementation, and includes modernization and
management costs.
The DOD dollar request for system development decreased over these four fiscal years. This may indicate
some systems have matured and transitioned to procurement. Additional y, the R&D management costs
decreased from 6.5% of the FY2019 EW RDT&E budget request to 4.7% in FY2022. The decrease in
R&D management funding may suggest that DOD is more efficiently managing the EW test and
evaluation enterprise.
Since FY2019, the S&T funding request has increased from $1.627 bil ion in FY2019 to $1.675 bil ion in
FY2022, even as the overal EW RDT&E funding request has decreased. This trend suggests that more
resources have been al ocated for emerging technologies and research and development. Concurrently,
there has been an increase in system modification funding, which is used to modify current weapons
systems and keep them operational y relevant.
Potential Issues for Congress
 DOD has identified EW capabilities as a high priority, establishing the EW EXCOM. Do
RDT&E and procurement funding trends suggest a DOD effort to invest in new EW
technologies? To what extent are EW capabilities in the military dependent upon new
technologies? Are these trends aligned with congressional intent?
 Both DOD and Congress have identified a need for new EW technologies. In what ways
do changes in departmental funding requests indicate changes in policy priorities? For
example, does DOD’s real ocation of resources to developing new technologies while
reducing funding for established programs signify a change in the view of the operational
environment?

Congressional Research Service
5
 Funding of EW programs in the U.S. military has been roughly steady since FY2019.
What would increasing requests/enactments for modernization efforts mean for the future
of electronic warfare? What are the practical implications of directing additional funding
to systems currently in use?
Katherine Leahy coauthored this product during her internship with the Congressional Research Service.

Author Information

John R. Hoehn

Analyst in Military Capabilities and Programs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN11705 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED