Letters to the Editor

Review of 2026 RSI talks and lectures …

Sir,

The Royal Signals Institution’s 2026 talk and lecture series deserves credit for its seriousness of intent and for the consistency of its messaging. Yet if the purpose of professional education is not merely to inform but to unsettle, then it is worth asking whether the series challenges the Corps as forcefully as the operational environment now demands.

Across the programme, speakers repeatedly and persuasively describe the electromagnetic spectrum as contested manoeuvre space rather than benign technical background. This is no longer a novel observation, and perhaps that is precisely the point. The fact that this reframing still needs to be emphasised in 2026 should itself be a cause for concern. A decade into persistent competition, the Signals community appears still to be arguing for the centrality of EMSO and CEMA rather than assuming it as institutional instinct.

The lectures on Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations and modular CEMA are articulate, well-founded, and aligned with emerging operational lessons. The emphasis on speed of adaptation, resilience, and the high–low mix is difficult to dispute. However, the intellectual comfort of these arguments is itself a warning sign. The language of “adaptivity”, “modularity” and “open architectures” risks becoming a new orthodoxy—reassuringly familiar, widely endorsed, and insufficiently interrogated. The series explains what must change with clarity but is less convincing in addressing why Defence continues to struggle to change at the pace these lectures themselves demand.

Dr Jim Storr’s lecture on land command stands apart precisely because it refuses such comfort. His critique of bloated headquarters, over-engineered planning processes and digitally enabled bureaucracy exposes a deeper institutional malaise. If modern command systems are slower, more risk-averse and less decisive than their predecessors, then the problem is not technological lag but professional choice. For the Royal Signals community, this critique should be deeply uncomfortable. Our systems do not merely transmit information; they shape behaviour. If they entrench process over judgement and compliance over intent, then we are not supporting command—we are distorting it.

This tension runs throughout the series but is never fully confronted. Speakers rightly argue that technology is not the answer in itself, yet the burden of adaptation still appears to fall on future systems, architectures and acquisition models. Far less attention is paid to the harder questions of authority, trust, competence and accountability. Who is empowered to take risk in the electromagnetic domain? Who is allowed to experiment, to fail, and to discard cherished capabilities when they no longer work? Without addressing these issues explicitly, calls for speed and adaptability risk becoming slogans rather than drivers of change.

The series is also marked by a notable absence of friction. Recent conflicts are invoked frequently, but largely as sources of validation rather than challenge. There is little discussion of failure, trade-off, or unintended consequence. This is understandable in a lecture format, but it limits the programme’s disruptive potential. Professional military education that only reinforces existing trajectories risks producing consensus without competitiveness.

Finally, the predominance of senior and industry voices raises an awkward question. If adaptability is essential, why are the perspectives of those wrestling daily with degraded systems, constrained permissions and ambiguous authority largely absent? Until the experiences of junior commanders, signallers and planners feature more prominently in such forums, there remains a danger that conceptual elegance is mistaken for operational truth.

In fairness, the 2026 Lecture Series is far from an exercise in self-congratulation. It reflects an institution that understands the scale of the challenge before it. But understanding is no longer enough. The Corps does not suffer from a lack of insight; it suffers from a surplus of diagnosis and a deficit of decisive institutional response.

If the electromagnetic spectrum is truly a battlefield, then the question the series leaves hanging is an uncomfortable one: are we adapting fast enough to win, or simply fast enough to brief ourselves convincingly that we are trying?

Yours faithfully,

Jackson Hayden

Editor’s Response

Thank you for this deliberately provocative and intellectually challenging contribution. Letters of this nature are not only welcome but actively encouraged, and the Journal is pleased to publish commentary that questions, unsettles and tests the assumptions underpinning contemporary Defence practice.

The Royal Signals Institution’s talk and lecture series exists to stimulate precisely this kind of professional friction. It is not intended to deliver settled answers, consensus positions or institutional reassurance. Rather, it provides a forum in which ideas can be exposed to scrutiny, contested across communities, and developed through disagreement as much as alignment. The 2026 programme was consciously designed to provoke dialogue across Defence, industry and academia, recognising that progress rarely emerges from comfortable consensus.

Several readers may recognise that many of the themes raised - contested electromagnetic manoeuvre, adaptation at speed, friction within command systems - are not new. That observation, however, reinforces rather than diminishes their relevance. Defence is not a single thinking organism, and professional understanding does not advance uniformly. The continued re‑examination of these ideas reflects the RSI’s belief that professional instinct is shaped over time through repeated exposure, debate and challenge, not through the publication of definitive answers.

The Journal particularly welcomes the emphasis placed on discomfort. The inclusion of deliberately critical perspectives - such as Dr Jim Storr’s examination of command and headquarters behaviour - was no accident. The RSI and the Journal share the view that professional education must confront cultural, organisational and behavioural realities, not merely technological or doctrinal aspiration. Where systems, processes or habits undermine tempo, judgement or trust, these issues deserve open examination rather than polite avoidance.

The Editor also acknowledges the challenge posed regarding whose voices are heard. While senior leaders and industry contributors bring essential authority and perspective, the Journal would strongly welcome contributions from junior commanders, signallers, planners and staff officers grappling with the realities of degraded systems, constrained authorities and ambiguous risk. Their experience - particularly where adaptation has failed, stalled or carried unexpected cost - is vital to honest professional learning.

Accordingly, readers are encouraged not only to respond to this correspondence, but to use the Journal more assertively as a platform for argument. Articles and letters that challenge prevailing wisdom, question institutional pace, expose friction, or offer dissenting interpretations of recent operations are actively invited. The Journal is not merely a record of progress; it is a forum for examining whether progress is sufficient, sustainable, or even heading in the right direction.

If the 2026 Lecture Series has prompted debate, disagreement or unease beyond the lecture hall, then it has fulfilled its purpose. The Journal stands ready to host that debate and invites contributors to engage with it candidly, professionally and without undue deference.

Editor

Comment on RSI Programme

Sir,

I am writing to offer a considered reflection on the progress and impact of the Royal Signals Institution over the past two years. This period has been marked by both continuity and adaptation, as the Institution has navigated evolving operational, technological, and professional demands.

First, it is important to acknowledge the Institution’s sustained commitment to professional development. The expansion of technical learning opportunities, particularly in areas such as cyber, data, and modern communications systems, has been both timely and necessary. The emphasis on continuous learning reflects a clear understanding that the character of warfare - and the role of communications within it - is changing at pace. In this regard, the Institution has largely succeeded in aligning its educational offer with contemporary requirements.

Equally noteworthy has been the effort to strengthen engagement across the Corps community. Increased accessibility of events, broader digital outreach, and attempts to connect serving personnel with veterans and industry have contributed to a more cohesive professional network. These initiatives have helped reinforce identity and shared purpose, particularly among junior ranks who benefit most from visible and relevant institutional support.

That said, there remain areas where progress could be more pronounced. While the strategic direction appears sound, its translation into tangible outcomes at the unit level can be uneven. Some personnel still perceive a gap between institutional activity and their day-to-day professional experience. Bridging this gap - by ensuring that initiatives are consistently felt across all echelons - should be a priority.

Furthermore, as the Institution continues to engage with industry and external partners, there is an opportunity to sharpen its role as a conduit between defence requirements and technological innovation. Doing so will require not only sustained collaboration but also clearer articulation of how such partnerships directly benefit serving signallers.

In summary, the Royal Signals Institution has made credible and, in several respects, commendable progress over the last two years. Its efforts to modernise professional development and strengthen community engagement are particularly positive. However, the challenge ahead lies in ensuring consistency of impact and maintaining relevance at the individual level. With focused effort in these areas, the Institution is well-placed to build on its current trajectory.

Yours faithfully,

[Name Withheld]

Editor’s Response.

I am grateful for this thoughtful and balanced letter, which reflects both a clear appreciation of the Royal Signals Institution’s recent efforts and a constructive challenge to improve further. Such contributions are essential if the Institution is to remain relevant, responsive, and effective in serving the Corps.

The past two years have indeed been a period of deliberate evolution. As noted, we have prioritised professional development in domains such as cyber, data, and contemporary communications, recognising that the operational environment demands not only technical competence but intellectual agility. It is encouraging to see that these efforts are being recognised, but we also accept that provision alone is insufficient - its accessibility, coherence, and practical impact must be continuously assessed.

The observation regarding uneven experience at unit level is particularly pertinent. One of my immediate priorities will be to better understand where and why this disconnect persists. This will involve closer engagement with units, seeking direct feedback from across rank groups, and ensuring that our programmes are not only well-designed but effectively delivered and communicated. Greater emphasis will be placed on measuring outcomes rather than activity alone.

In parallel, we will look to strengthen the visibility and relevance of the Institution among junior signallers. This cohort represents both the present capability and future leadership of the Corps, and it is essential that they see the Institution as directly beneficial to their professional development. Expanding mentorship opportunities and ensuring that learning pathways are clearly structured and accessible will form part of this effort.

The point on external engagement is also well made. Our relationships with industry and partners must deliver tangible value. To that end, we will work to better articulate the outcomes of these collaborations and ensure that they translate into practical advantage - whether through access to emerging technologies, informed training content, or career development opportunities.

Ultimately, the Institution must remain a living organisation: one that listens, adapts, and delivers. Letters such as this play a vital role in that process, and I would encourage continued dialogue from across the Corps community.

Director, Royal Signals Institution

Journal of the Royal Corps of Signals

Sir,

I read with considerable interest the Winter 2025 edition of the Journal of the Royal Corps of Signals, and I wish to offer a short reflection on its quality, direction, and relevance within the wider Defence community.

This edition stands out as a confident and intellectually serious contribution to professional Defence discourse. It demonstrates that the Royal Corps of Signals is not merely responding to the challenges of digital transformation, data, cyber and artificial intelligence, but is actively contributing to how Defence thinks about and delivers these capabilities. The combination of senior military leadership, operational practitioners, industry partners, civil servants and academics gives the Journal real authority and credibility.

A particular strength of this edition is its intellectual honesty. Articles such as those examining Project ASGARD do not shy away from addressing the realities of accelerated delivery, including workforce strain, sustainability, and the absence of full Defence Lines of Development wraps. The willingness to discuss “the good, the bad and the ugly” enhances trust in the Journal as a serious forum, especially for industry readers who value transparency over advocacy.

The Journal also succeeds in grounding technical discussion firmly in operational effect. Contributions on data logistics, deployable fibre infrastructure, the PSTN transition, and the role of COTS and MOTS solutions offer rare insight into what is working today, not merely what might be desirable tomorrow. This practitioner-led perspective is a distinguishing feature and one that elevates the publication well beyond an internal house journal.

Equally important is the Journal’s attention to people and professional culture. The coverage of apprenticeships, awards, technical career pathways and representation serves as a reminder that digital advantage is ultimately human advantage. The inclusion of historical reflection and commemoration further reinforces a sense of institutional maturity and continuity.

If there is a single area for refinement, it would be accessibility. Some of the technical articles are necessarily dense and may challenge senior readers from outside specialist communities. Short executive summaries or clearly signposted “so what?” conclusions would help ensure that key insights are readily absorbed by policymakers, senior leaders and industry executives alike.

Overall, the Winter 2025 edition presents the Royal Corps of Signals as a thoughtful, self-aware and professionally confident organisation. The Journal succeeds in fostering genuine professional dialogue across Defence and industry, and it deserves to be read well beyond the Corps itself.

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Johnson

Editor’s Response.

Thank you for your thoughtful and considered letter regarding the Winter 2025 edition of the Journal of the Royal Corps of Signals. We are grateful for the time taken to engage so deeply with the content and for your generous assessment of the Journal’s role within the wider Defence and industry landscape.

The Journal exists to foster professional dialogue, challenge assumptions, and provide an honest forum for the exchange of ideas between serving personnel, veterans, industry partners, and the broader Defence community. We are therefore particularly encouraged by your recognition of the Journal’s intellectual honesty, practitioner-led insight, and willingness to address both successes and shortcomings in delivery and reform.

Your observations regarding accessibility are also well taken. As the scope and technical depth of our subject matter continue to expand, we recognise the importance of ensuring that key messages and implications are readily accessible to senior leaders, policymakers, and industry professionals who may not sit within specific technical specialisms. The suggestion to strengthen signposting and highlight practical takeaways is noted and will inform future editorial development.

The Royal Corps of Signals operates at the intersection of people, technology, and operational effect. The Journal will continue to reflect this balance - celebrating professional achievement and heritage while contributing candidly to contemporary debate on data, digital transformation, and the evolving nature of warfare.

We thank you again for your engagement and encouragement, and we welcome continued contributions that sustain the quality of professional dialogue our Corps, and Defence more broadly, requires.

Editor