Electronic warfare includes three major subdivisions: electronic attack (EA), electronic protection (EP), and electronic warfare support (ES).
“Force EW – a crucial factor in modern war, – said the expert in the field of anti-missile systems, the editor of the journal” Military-Industrial Courier “Michael Khodarenok. – Combat electronics capable of winning the war before its “official” beginning. Enough to include a system of electronic suppression systems, guidance, control, radar and communications of the enemy, and no combat unit would not touch with a place not be able to respond to the fire, and then will be destroyed in the first minute of the fight. “
Electronic attack (EA)
Electronic attack (EA) (previously known as Electronic Counter Measures (ECM)) involves the use of EM energy, directed energy, or anti-radiation weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability including human life. In the case of EM energy, this action is referred to as jamming and can be performed on communications systems (see Radio jamming) or radar systems (see Radar jamming and deception).
Electronic Protection (EP)
Electronic Protection (EP) (previously known as electronic protective measures (EPM) or electronic counter countermeasures (ECCM)) involves actions taken to protect personnel, facilities, and equipment from any effects of friendly or enemy use of the electromagnetic spectrum that degrade, neutralize, or destroy friendly combat capability. Jamming is not part of EP, it is an EA measure.
The use of flare rejection logic on an Infrared homing missile to counter an adversary’s use of flares is EP. While defensive EA actions and EP both protect personnel, facilities, capabilities, and equipment, EP protects from the effects of EA (friendly and/or adversary). Other examples of EP include spread spectrum technologies, use of Joint Restricted Frequency List (JRFL), emissions control (EMCON), and low observability or “stealth”.
An Electronic Warfare Self Protection (EWSP) is a suite of countermeasure systems fitted primarily to aircraft for the purpose of protecting the aircraft from weapons fire and can include among others: DIRCM (protects against IR missiles), Infrared countermeasures (protects against IR missiles), Chaff (protects against RADAR guided missiles), DRFM Decoys (Protects against Radar guided missiles), Flare (protects against IR missiles).
An Electronic Warfare Tactics Range (EWTR) is a practice range which provides for the training of aircrew in electronic warfare. There are two such ranges in Europe; one at RAF Spadeadam in the United Kingdom and the POLYGON range in Germany and France. EWTRs are equipped with ground-based equipment to simulate electronic warfare threats that aircrew might encounter on missions.
Antifragile EW is a step beyond standard EP, occurring when a communications link being jammed actually increases in capability as a result of a jamming attack, although this is only possible under certain circumstances such as reactive forms of jamming.
Electronic warfare support (ES)
Electronic Warfare Support (ES), is the subdivision of EW involving actions tasked by, or under direct control of, an operational commander to search for, intercept, identify, and locate or localize sources of intentional and unintentional radiated electromagnetic (EM) energy for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, targeting, planning, and conduct of future operations. These measures begin with systems designed and operators trained to make Electronic Intercepts (ELINT) and then classification and analysis broadly known as Signals intelligence from such detection to return information and perhaps actionable intelligence (e.g. a ship’s identification from unique characteristics of a specific radar) to the commander.
The overlapping discipline, signals intelligence (SIGINT) is the related process of analyzing and identifying the intercepted frequencies (e.g. as a mobile phone or radar). SIGINT is broken into three categories: ELINT, COMINT, and FISINT. the parameters of intercepted txn are-: communication equipment-: freq, bandwidth, modulation, polarisation etc. The distinction between intelligence and electronic warfare support (ES) is determined by who tasks or controls the collection assets, what they are tasked to provide, and for what purpose they are tasked. Electronic warfare support is achieved by assets tasked or controlled by an operational commander. The purpose of ES tasking is immediate threat recognition, targeting, planning and conduct of future operations, and other tactical actions such as threat avoidance and homing. However, the same assets and resources that are tasked with ES can simultaneously collect intelligence that meets other collection requirements.
Where these activities are under the control of an operational commander and being applied for the purpose of situational awareness, threat recognition, or EM targeting, they also serve the purpose of Electronic Warfare surveillance (ES).
Multifunctional EW system
In February 2015 the Russian army received their first set of the multifunctional electronic warfare system, known as Borisoglebsk 2. After some months of testing, it has been used in Ukraine. Svenska Dagbladet claimed its initial usage caused concern within NATO.
A Russian blog describes Borisoglebsk 2 as “The ‘Borisoglebsk-2’ when compared to its predecessors has better technical characteristics: wider frequency bandwidth for conducting radar collection and jamming, faster scanning times of the frequency spectrum, and higher precision when identifying the location and source of radar emissions, and increased capacity for suppression.” 
Borisoglebsk 2 is a Russian, MT-LB ground vehicle mounted, multi-functional electronic warfare (EW) weapon system. It was developed by Sozvezdie over a six-year period, beginning in 2004. Starting in February 2015, it has been manufactured and delivered by UIMC to the Russian armed forces. It is designed to disrupt communications and GPS systems. Borisoglebsk 2 achieved initial operating capability in 2010, but was not ordered and delivered to Russian military until February 2015. Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported that Borisoglebsk 2 was the core system for electronic warfare in the Russian Army, controlling four types of jamming units from a single point.
Experimentation and testing were conducted after the first deliveries to the Russian armed forces. The system was in active use by the summer of 2015, in eastern Ukraine. It has been claimed that the system has caused difficulties for NATO, supposedly defeating GPS and mobile telephony systems in parts of that country. The United States military commander in Europe, general Frederick Hodges stated to Defense News, that Russia is conducting electronic warfare in eastern Ukraine that even NATO would have difficulties to resist, but did not mention Borisoglebsk 2. US advisers sent to Ukraine have learned about Russian electronic warfare from the Ukrainian Army, though Ukraine never has had access to this new EW-technology. The American advisers are nevertheless impressed even with earlier Russian EW-technology in the hands of the Ukrainian Army.
Svenska Dagbladet claimed that the United States and NATO are worried that the F-35 fighter aircraft may not stand up against new Russian EW systems. Borisoglebsk 2 was given as an example of a new Russian system, but not directly compared to the F-35.
As of August 2015, ten sets of this system have been delivered to the Russian armed forces with another 14 sets follow. According to Rostec, Russia plans to deploy them along the Russian borders “from Kaliningrad to Blagoveshchensk“.
As of October 2015, these systems are also rumored to be active in Syria.
“The system’s combat characteristics are not just on a par with the best foreign analogues, they considerably surpass them in terms of a number of parameters. At present, our system is able to jam all modern radio communications,” he said.
Health Concerns (who cares about health in the Military? 😀 As if the industrial-military complex cared about human lifes…)
Even so, Dean Millett, the district ranger for the Pacific district of the Olympic National Forest, has issued a draft notice agreeing with the Navy’s unsubstantiated claim of “no significant impact” to people or animals. This decision has cleared the way for the exercises to proceed, even though previous military and other scientific documents show that electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) can cause cellular DNA damage, leading to cancer and infertility.
“We know the claims that you only have to worry about heating effects are false,” stated Dr. Martin Pall, a professor emeritus of biochemistry and medical sciences at Washington State University, to Truthout about the Navy’s claims that its EMF exercises are safe because they won’t emit thermal/heating effects. “All the assurances of safety are based on that assumption. So this whole thing is of great concern.”
my comment: It is NO NEWS that fighter plane pilots AND stewardess on airliners AND anti-aircraft(SAM)-radar operating personal will have to sign a contract that says:
if you become infertile or even cancer – it’s your problem.
You can not sue us.
I guess the same is with people operating a nuclear power plant.