Displaced Phase Center Antenna Technique...for detection, tracking, reporting, and intercept...

• MUEHE AND LABITTDisplaced-Phase-Center Antenna Technique

VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 281

T -- antenna tech-nique, or DPCA, improves the performanceof moving-target-indicator (MTI) radars

mounted on moving platforms. By shifting the effec-tive radiation center of the antenna backward, theDPCA technique compensates for the forward mo-tion of the moving platform so that, over a few pulse-repetition intervals, the antenna is effectively station-ary in space. The lack of motion of the radiatingantenna causes a great narrowing of the spread of themain-beam ground-clutter Doppler spectrum, allow-ing detection of low-velocity targets that would oth-erwise be hidden within the spectrum.

In this article we are using the acronym MTI in ageneric sense, in reference to any technique that

Displaced-Phase-CenterAntenna TechniqueCharles Edward Muehe and Melvin Labitt

■ This article describes Lincoln Laboratory contributions to the development ofthe displaced-phase-center antenna (DPCA) technique, which was used toimprove the detection performance of airborne or space-borne MTI radars thatare subject to clutter. In the 1950s the DPCA technique was applied to airborneearly warning (AEW) radars for defense of North America against long-rangebombers carrying nuclear weapons. Lincoln Laboratory built the first UHFAEW radar, which became the prototype for both Air Force and Navyoperational radars. In the 1970s, experience during the Vietnam war showed thepossible usefulness of a wide-area surveillance radar to monitor moving groundvehicles. DPCA radar theory and the emergence of medium-scale digital signalprocessing showed the feasibility of such an airborne radar. Lincoln Laboratoryproceeded to design and test a Multiple-Antenna Surveillance Radar (MASR).The Air Force then built a developmental DPCA radar called Pave Mover, whichwas followed by the currently operational Joint Surveillance and Target AttackRadar System (Joint STARS). In the 1980s, space-based radar showed potentialfor a variety of applications, including early detection of aircraft raids againstNavy battle groups and the detection of moving ground targets such as mobilemissile launchers. The DPCA technique allowed the use of smaller, cheapersatellites at lower altitudes than the conventional high-altitude, pulse-Dopplerradar. Antennas were designed and their clutter-cancellation capabilitiesmeasured and compared with theory. A new technique for calibrating remotephased-array antennas, called the mutual-coupling technique, was discovered.

would indicate (show or make known) moving tar-gets that might otherwise not be observed because ofclutter. Before the invention of MTI, the radar opera-tor utilized another indicator, the plan position indi-cator (PPI), which displays the radar output in range-azimuth coordinates on a cathode-ray tube with along-persistence phosphor. The operator recognized amoving target by a series of bright spots, caused byindividual pulses, arranged in an arc spanning theantenna’s beamwidth. The long-persistence phosphortrace shows the target’s position on succeeding scans,indicating the speed and direction of the moving tar-get. Much of the activity observed on the PPI repre-sents reflections from the ground, rain, and birds,which the operator learns to ignore.


282 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000

Historically, two types of MTI were invented andused with stationary radars: delay-line MTI and fil-ter-bank MTI. The first type, invented near the endof World War II, utilizes an acoustic delay line with adelay equal to the interpulse period. In receive modethe reflected signals are stored in the delay line andsubtracted from the returns of the next transmittedpulse with the result displayed on the PPI. All air-borne MTI systems at that time were noncoherentclutter-referenced, responding only to the amplitudechanges that typically resulted from interactions be-tween the moving target and any nonmoving clutterin the same range gate. With clutter that was roughlythe same size as the target, the changing relative phasebetween the target and the clutter returns wouldcause an amplitude fluctuation that could be detectedby the noncoherent delay-line canceler. In the ab-sence of clutter, MTI sensitivity was substantially re-duced, particularly for targets flying tangentially withrespect to the radar. However, the returns from mov-ing clutter such as rain and birds often appeared onthe PPI. Delay-line MTI was used principally on lowpulse-repetition-frequency (PRF) radars and pro-vided unambiguous target range.

The second type of MTI radar utilizes a mediumor high PRF in which the true target range may lie inany one of several successive range intervals deter-mined by the interpulse delay time. In receive mode,pulse-to-pulse sampling of each range-resolution cellprovides signals to a bank of Doppler filters. In high-PRF radars, target signals from the same Doppler fil-ter on two or more different PRFs but from differentrange cells are used to remove the range ambiguity. Inmedium-PRF radars, target range and velocity areboth ambiguous and returns on several PRFs are typi-cally used to estimate their true values. This type ofMTI radar is frequently called a pulse-Doppler radar.

Before about 1970, when medium-scale digital in-tegrated circuits became available, both of these MTItechniques were implemented by using analog cir-cuits. By this time the beacon-reply function on theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Sur-veillance Radars, operating at a low PRF, had beenmodernized with digital circuitry and provided out-put for automatic target-track initiation and update.However, the digital delay-line MTI, although more

stable than the analog version, produced too manymissed detections and false alarms from moving clut-ter to allow automatic tracking. For the FAA, LincolnLaboratory designed a new class of low-PRF radarsnamed the moving-target detector (MTD) by usingthe digital-filter-bank approach and novel constant-false-alarm-rate (CFAR) techniques that fully sup-ported automatic target tracking. Since then mostnew surveillance radars, at all PRFs, utilize the filter-bank MTI.

Airborne-Early-Warning Radar (1952–1959)

Beginning in the 1950s a major concern for theUnited States was the defense of North Americaagainst long-range bombers carrying nuclear weap-ons. In 1952 a Summer Study Group [1] identifiedtwo problems with existing airborne surveillance ra-dars: (1) the radars were unable to detect targets inclutter, and (2) the manpower-intensive systems usedfor detection, tracking, reporting, and intercept con-trol could handle only a small number of targets. Lin-coln Laboratory then became involved in research inairborne early warning (AEW) techniques.

UHF versus S-Band

When Lincoln Laboratory became involved in theAEW program in 1952, it was apparent that existingS-band AN/APS-20 airborne radars installed in theNavy WV-2 Super Constellation aircraft receivedmassive amounts of sea clutter. It was known that ifthe radar operated at a lower frequency the clutter in-tensity could be reduced along with the width of theclutter spectrum. Consequently, a program headed byJerome Freedman was started at Lincoln Laboratoryto implement and compare the performance of air-borne radars at both UHF- and S-bands, and to solvethe clutter problem. An initial frequency of 425 MHzwas chosen because of the availability of the WesternElectric 7C22 triode oscillator. Later the QK-508UHF magnetron specially built by Raytheon for Lin-coln Laboratory was used. Tests soon showed amarked reduction in clutter at UHF [2].

Invention of TACCAR

The GE experiments described in the sidebar entitled“Invention of the DPCA Technique” showed that



noncoherent MTI works moderately well in the pres-ence of strong fixed clutter, but only sporadically inthe presence of weak clutter. Thus Lincoln Labora-tory researchers attempted to make signals passingthrough the MTI canceler coherent by locking a co-herent local oscillator (or COHO) to the phase of thereturn from a single range-gate sample of clutter. TheCOHO then ran at its own frequency until reset inphase by the clutter sample following the next trans-mission. This technique did not work well because ofthe finite width of the main-beam clutter spectrum.The COHO locked onto a spread of Doppler fre-

quencies and produced ugly radial streaks on the PPI.A solution for the streaking problem was found by

deriving the COHO phase from the average phase ofa large number of clutter range elements. This tech-nique, which became known as Time-Averaged Clut-ter-Coherent Airborne Radar (TACCAR), was con-ceived by one of the authors, Melvin Labitt [3].

Two kinds of TACCAR evolved: first the video ver-sion, then the intermediate-frequency (IF) version. Inboth versions the COHO was phase-locked to themagnetron output pulse as in a standard coherent-on-receive ground-based radar. A voltage-controlled crys-

of thedisplaced-phase-center antennatechnique, or DPCA, airborne ra-dars that utilized moving-targetindicator (MTI) suffered from thebutterfly effect, a phenomenonassociated with clutter leakagethat causes wing-shaped patternsto appear on a plan position indi-cator (PPI) display. The Dopplerfrequency of a reflected clutter re-turn varies as the cosine of theangle between the direction of theclutter return and the aircraft’s ve-locity vector. Pointing forward,the main-beam clutter spectralspread is quite narrow; pointingabeam it is quite wide. Thebroader clutter spectrum abeamcauses more clutter leakagethrough the delay-line MTI filter,which results in the wing-shapedpattern.

General Electric (GE) is gener-ally credited with inventing theDPCA technique to largely elimi-nate the butterfly effect [1]. In

1952 GE Electronics Laboratoryin Syracuse, New York, was work-ing to improve MTI on a ground-based mortar-locating radarthrough a study for the Army Sig-nal Corps called “Anti-ClutterTechniques.” The study notedthat by adding and subtracting theoutput of the azimuth differenceport to the output of the azimuthsum port of a monopulse antenna,two beams—a leading beam and atrailing beam—could be formed.At the proper separation angle andwith the antenna rotating, signalsfrom the trailing beam could bereceived at exactly the same point-ing angle as the previously re-ceived signals from the leadingbeam. Subtracting the two signalsshould largely cancel the clutter.GE engineer F.R. Dickey [2]noted the similarity of this prob-lem caused by rotation to the but-terfly effect caused by translationin airborne MTI. This observa-tion led him to propose using a

monopulse antenna for motioncompensation of the airborneMTI radar platform, a techniquelater named DPCA.

In 1954 the Air Force autho-rized GE to modify an AN/APS-27 X-band, monopulse airborneradar to include the DPCA tech-nique. This radar used noncoher-ent MTI that subtracted the nor-mal video signal from pulse topulse to form the MTI output.Test flights that took place in 1956successfully showed the reductionof clutter expected from the use ofthe DPCA technique.

References1. F.R. Dickey, Jr., M. Labitt, and F.M.

Staudaher, “Development of AirborneMoving Target Radar for Long RangeSurveillance,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp.Electron. Syst. 27 (6), 1991, pp. 959–972.

2. F.R. Dickey, Jr., and M.M. Santa, “Fi-nal Report on Anti-Clutter Tech-niques,” General Electric Co. ReportR65EMH37, 1 Mar. 1953. (Thenumber refers to a 1965 reprint.)

I N V E N T I O N O F T H E D P C A T E C H N I Q U E



tal oscillator was mixed with the COHO signal toprovide the proper Doppler offset to correct for theaircraft motion. The difference between the two ver-sions of TACCAR lay in how the error signal, neededto control the oscillator, was produced. In the videoversion of TACCAR the error signal was generated byusing the video outputs of two identical phase detec-tors, the first fed by the COHO and the second bythe COHO shifted by 90°. After passing through thesingle-delay-line MTI, the output of the first detectorwas multiplied by the output of the second. The mul-tiplier output, after passing through a gate that se-lected the desired range of video signals and a 0.1-Hzlow-pass filter, became the error signal used to controlthe crystal oscillator. In the IF TACCAR, a conceptinitiated by Melvin Herlin of Lincoln Laboratory, theIF passed directly through the delay-line MTI andwas then compared with the undelayed IF in a phasedetector. The phase-detector output passed throughthe range gate and low-pass filter to provide the errorsignal. The IF TACCAR performed better than thevideo TACCAR because it eliminated a blind-phasetarget-detection problem associated with the use of adelay-line canceler on one of the two possible phasesof the video target signal.

The accuracy of TACCAR depends on the numberof range gates sampled. The Doppler error or spectralspread increases inversely with the square root of thenumber of gates. Using sets of gates, each in a con-tiguous area having similar depression angles, allowsdepression-angle Doppler correction. However, de-pression-angle correction was not implemented in theoriginal system because the system worked wellenough without it.

Addition of the DPCA Technique

With the addition of TACCAR to the UHF airborneradar the subclutter-visibility measurements showedvalues of 18 to 20 dB when the antenna was pointingin the direction of the aircraft’s motion but only 12dB normal to the aircraft’s motion, and the PPI dis-played a significant butterfly effect. For these mea-surements, an antenna supplied by the Naval Re-search Laboratory consisted of fourteen dipoles alongthe focus of a parabolic cylinder. Feeds for each half ofthe dipoles (seven) were connected to a hybrid junc-tion to provide sum and difference received signals.To effectively displace the phase center of the antennafor best DPCA performance, a special RF modulatorwas built to add the correct value of the difference sig-nal to the sum signal as the antenna rotated. Since theantenna was not designed for the DPCA technique, itwas clear that this arrangement was an approximatesolution. Nevertheless, with the DPCA technique thesubclutter visibility normal to the ground track wasincreased dramatically to within a few dB of theground-track value.

Operational Results

In mid-1959 Lincoln Laboratory ended its AEW pro-gram because feasibility had been demonstrated andthe technology was ready for production by industry.At this point, Lincoln Laboratory had operated UHFTACCAR AN/APS-70 systems in planes, blimps, andships at sea. Figures 1, 2, and 3 show installations in aNavy WV-2 aircraft, in a Navy blimp, and with a 30-ft antenna in a WV-2E aircraft.

Both the Air Force and Navy utilized the UHF

FIGURE 1. The WV-2 aircraft, an original carrier of the UHFAN/APS-70. A 17 × 4-ft antenna is mounted below the air-craft inside the black radome.

FIGURE 2. Navy blimp installation of the AN/APS-70 radar.The radome appears at the bottom of the blimp.



Lincoln Laboratory radar as an AEW prototype. TheAir Force AN/APS-95 was mounted in Lockheed’sRC-121D Super Constellation aircraft, shown in Fig-ure 4. These aircraft flew for many years along the eastand west coasts of the United States.

In 1957, the Navy awarded a contract to Grum-man Aircraft Engineering Corporation to developwhat became the E-2A carrier-based AEW aircraft[1]. The Light Military Electronics Department ofGE received a subcontract to develop the detectionsystem and integrate the total electronic payload ofthe aircraft. That payload also included a limited ca-pability to control an air battle from within the AEWaircraft, which merited the addition of the letter C tobecome AEW&C. Litton received a contract to de-velop the required computers, software, and consoles,all to be shoehorned into the fairly small fuselage ofthe carrier-based aircraft.

The first version was the UHF AN/APS-96 radar,which used a stable coherent master-oscillator/power-amplifier system and had IF TACCAR. The DPCAtechnique was not initially considered necessary forover-the-sea operation. The radar’s amplifier trans-mitter (based on an RCA tetrode) allowed use of lin-

FIGURE 4. AN/APS-95 radar installed in a modifiedLockheed Super Constellation aircraft.

FIGURE 5. The E-2C Hawkeye aircraft shown returning to itscarrier from a mission. With its displaced-phase-center an-tenna (DPCA) overland radar, the aircraft can track morethan 2000 targets at once and monitor three million cubicmiles of airspace.

FIGURE 3. The AN/APS-70 radar mounted aboard the WV-2E aircraft. The antenna, measuring 30 feet in diameter, wasthe biggest airborne antenna of its day. From left to right areHenry Rempt of Lockheed, Jerome Freedman of LincolnLaboratory, and Lt. Cmdr. R.L. Warner, U.S. Navy.

ear-FM pulse compression, yielding short compressedreceived pulses. The corresponding sharper rangeresolution reduced the amount of sea clutter in whichtarget echoes were imbedded. Furthermore, an esti-mate of a target’s height (essential for the AEW&Cfunction) could be made by using an algorithm basedon the time difference between receipt of two or threeseparate echoes caused by multipath propagation overthe reflecting sea surface. A subsequent version of thisradar utilized a double-delay-line MTI canceler withthe DPCA technique and other improvements togreatly improve subclutter visibility and allow over-land operation. The production version was dubbedthe AN/APS-120. Over the years this radar has beenupgraded to include a digital fast-Fourier-transform(FFT) coherent integration, electronic counter-coun-termeasures (ECCM), and improved post-detectionprocessing. Figure 5 shows the current version of theAN/APS-145 aboard the E-2C Hawkeye aircraft.



An interesting comparison can be made betweenthe Navy AN/APS-145 surveillance radar and the AirForce AN/APY-2 radar, part of the AWACS (AirborneWarning and Control System). The Navy radar is alow-PRF UHF (0.7-m wavelength) radar, while theAir Force radar uses a high-PRF S-band (0.1-m wave-length) radar with an elevation-angle scanning an-tenna. The high-PRF Air Force radar produces noDoppler or target-velocity ambiguities but has rangeambiguities at intervals of about 6 km so that mul-tiple PRFs must be used to find the true target range.The Navy radar using low PRF has no range ambigu-ities out to its maximum search range; its longerwavelength results in target velocity ambiguities onlyabout every 140 m/sec (280 knots), which are easilyresolved by putting the detected targets in track. Be-cause of the vertical scanning and the multiple PRFs,the Air Force radar requires much more radar powerthan the Navy radar. The AWACS aircraft carries thecomplete command-and-control center aboard. TheNavy Hawkeye aircraft carries a crew of five and canperform limited command-and-control functions.The aircraft generally works in proximity to an air-craft carrier that performs most command-and-con-trol functions. The much smaller Navy aircraft canland on a carrier deck and be stowed below deck. TheAir Force radar does not employ the DPCA tech-nique but relies on extremely low antenna sidelobesto eliminate clutter reflections that produce Dopplerfrequencies outside the main-beam clutter Dopplerspectrum. The main beam is very narrow so that themain-beam ground-clutter spectrum represents a ve-locity spread only about 20 m/sec (40 knots) wide.

Airborne Ground-Surveillance Radar(1970–1979)

Tactical reaction to battlefield situations requires con-tinuous surveillance of the area of interest over an ex-tended period with data on individual movingground vehicles that are rapid and accurate enough toestablish tracks. In 1970 no branch of the militarypossessed an airborne ground-surveillance radar thatprovided continuous coverage of moving groundvehicles.

Synthetic-aperture radar was available only forfixed-target detection. Detection of moving vehicles

required the comparison of two synthetic-aperturemaps of the same area, a process called change detec-tion. This process provided only intermittent looks atan area, and too much time passed between looks topermit immediate tactical reaction against the mov-ing targets. The Army had an airborne-MTI side-looking radar with a very narrow beamwidth, butfixed antenna, that produced a strip map of movingtargets. Again, this radar did not provide enoughtimely information for tactical reaction against themoving targets.

The genesis of the Multiple-Antenna SurveillanceRadar (MASR) program was a memo written byWalter E. Morrow, Jr., dated 8 May 1970. The memorecalled a recent series of interesting lunar and plan-etary radar measurements made at the Haystack radarfacility in which interferometric techniques were usedto remove ambiguities in range-Doppler maps of theplanet Venus and were also used to permit height ortopographic measurements of the lunar surface. Theinterferometer utilized a large auxiliary antenna somedistance from the main Haystack antenna. Interfer-ence fringes were formed across the surface of Venusso that a null occurred at the source point for ambigu-ous reflections that cause errors in the range-Dopplermap. Morrow proposed that interferometric tech-niques could permit the detection of slowly movingground vehicles by airborne MTI radars without theuse of very large airborne antennas.

Charles Edward Muehe replied with a memo dated14 May 1970 that includes an analysis of the perfor-mance of an interferometer comprising two smallside-looking antennas mounted on the side of an air-craft. For a moving target approaching the aircraft,competing ground clutter arrives from an azimuthforward of the target angle. Maintaining a null thatoccurs at the angle of the competing clutter requiresthe proper phase adjustment between the two side-looking antennas. It was shown that this phase adjust-ment could be accomplished by putting a time delayin the forward-antenna line equal to the time it takesfor the aircraft to traverse the distance equal to thespacing of the two antennas. This time delay is pre-cisely the one used in the DPCA technique.

A small study group researched previous develop-ments to design such a radar and predict its perfor-



mance. The group developed a detailed mathematicalanalysis of multiple-antenna airborne radar systems[4]. The clutter-covariance matrix was used to repre-sent the clutter-cancellation degradation caused by avariety of radar imperfections. The most difficult de-sign task was providing an antenna system withnearly identical antenna patterns when transmittingand receiving alternately from two phase centers.

The resulting design configuration is depicted inFigure 6. An array-type antenna electronically scan-ning in azimuth is mounted along the side of an air-craft. First a length of the forward portion of the arrayis utilized to transmit a pulse and to receive the signalsreflected from the clutter and any targets. After theaircraft has moved forward a distance equal to an in-tegral multiple of the element spacings (three in Fig-ure 6) the set of switches is thrown so as to utilize anequal-length rearward portion of the array. The nextpulse is transmitted and the signals received. Withthis arrangement the two pulses are transmitted fromthe same point in space so that there is no relative mo-tion of the antenna between pulses. Theory showsthat using the aircraft’s inertial-navigation system al-lows the proper timing between pulses to be deter-mined accurately even when the aircraft is in yaw dueto cross winds. For accurate target location in azi-muth the power-distribution and phase-steering net-

work in Figure 6 includes independent sum and dif-ference channels on receive.

With the encouragement and counsel of HerbertG. Weiss of Lincoln Laboratory and John Entzmingerof Rome Air Development Center, the MASR con-cept was presented to the Air Force and hardware de-velopment was funded in 1973. Melvin L. Stonemanaged the project. Gerasimos N. Tsandoulas de-signed and tested the most critical element, theMASR antenna.

System Description

A clutter cancellation in excess of 40 dB was requiredfor successful detection of targets moving on the sur-face of the Earth. To achieve this objective [5, 6], tol-erances on the MASR L-band antenna componentswere set at 0.7° root mean squared (rms) in phase,0.11 dB rms in amplitude, and 0.02 rms in magni-tude of the reflection coefficients. The achieved toler-ances and their reliable measurement were unprec-edented in phased-array work and as such representedstate of the art. Confirmation of antenna-beam iden-tity between the two phase centers was obtainedthrough actual detailed pattern (amplitude andphase) measurements in an antenna range.

Figure 7 shows the antenna in its operational envi-ronment. It is mounted on the side of a DeHavillandTwin Otter aircraft, which has a high wing structurethat permits unimpeded scanning of the beam (±45°)in the horizontal plane and minimizes interaction ef-fects that could compromise main-beam-patternsimilarity between phase centers.

FIGURE 7. MASR antenna mounted on the side of aDeHavilland Twin Otter aircraft. The antenna measures 15 ft× 2.5 ft × 5 in and weighs 370 lb.

FIGURE 6. Configuration of the Multiple-Antenna Surveil-lance Radar (MASR). This design produce nearly identicalantenna patterns when transmitting and receiving alter-nately from two phase centers.

Transmitter Receiver

Power distribution and beam steering

Velocity of aircraft



The antenna consists of 252 rectangular-wave-guide radiating elements arranged in 42 vertical col-umns. Six radiating elements fit in one vertical col-umn. Only about 76% of the total antenna apertureis excited by the transmitter at any one time. The re-mainder either participates in the phase-center-switching operation (two columns) or consists of ter-minated columns (four on either side) that stabilizethe mutual-coupling environment at the array edges.Phase-center selection takes place in a high-isolation(>60 dB) two-pole diode-switch matrix and occursahead of the phase shifter, which is thus forced tocontribute its errors identically to each radiatedbeam. A system of adjustable-only-once phase trim-mers removed most of the residual antenna phase er-ror after assembly.

The transmitted waveform is linear FM [7]. A sur-face-acoustic-wave (SAW) reflective-array compressoris used to affect the pulse expansion and compression.The combination of a large time-bandwidth productof 1500 and long 150-µsec pulses rendered the use oflithium niobate (conventionally used in SAW appli-cations) inappropriate because of the extreme lengthof crystal required. An alternative technology was de-veloped by using bismuth germanium oxide as a sub-strate material [8]. Two waveforms were provided, anarrow-bandwidth waveform for wide-area surveil-lance with 60-m range resolution and a wide-band-width waveform for accurate monopulse trackingover a smaller area with 15-m range resolution.

After analog pulse compression the received signalsare digitized and processed in a parallel micro-programmed processor (PMP) [9]. The received sig-nals from the leading and trailing antenna phase cen-ters are grouped in pulse pairs. The differences from32 pulse-pair subtractions are first weighted and thenoperated upon by an FFT algorithm to yield 32 Dop-pler channels, with a velocity resolution of about 0.4m/sec. The result from each range gate is thenthresholded and for each detection a report is gener-ated and transmitted to the data processor on theground. The version of the PMP employed had twoprocessing elements, each capable of 25 million in-structions per second with an instruction cycle of 75nsec and of executing a 32-point FFT in 130 µsec. Itcould keep up in real time with the processing of 512

range gates, covering about 30 km in the wide-areasurveillance mode.

The airborne portion of the MASR was accompa-nied by a ground-processing center that provided awide variety of data-processing and radar-controlfunctions. Control of aircraft orbit, radar mode, andantenna-scan pattern were exercised by using auto-matic algorithms or operator intervention. Amongthe operator specified tasks were (1) recording datareceived over the down link; (2) display of target re-ports on a map derived from a digital data base show-ing the major highways, aircraft position, and radarbeam footprint; (3) shading of areas of the map thatare invisible to the radar because of terrain masking;(4) monopulse azimuth estimation; (5) display of theoutput of real-time multiple-target tracking; (6) de-tection and display of a convoy of vehicles; (7) iner-tial-navigation system position updating; and (8) ra-dar diagnostics and calibration.

Performance Evaluation

The MASR was subjected to extensive airborne test-ing. The radar was evaluated for its clutter cancella-tion, its detection of targets in clutter, its ability to

FIGURE 8. DPCA cancellation ratios. The crosses are mea-sured ratios of input-to-output interference (clutter plusnoise) as a function of input clutter-to-noise power ratio.The measured interference ratios indicate a clutter-improve-ment factor (CIF) of about 46 dB.

60

50

40

Can

cella

tion

ratio

(dB

)

Clutter-to-noise power ratio (dB)

30

20

10

20

30

40

50

CIF = 60 dB

0100 20 30 40 50 60



track moving targets and report them in an earth-ref-erenced coordinate system, and its ability to detectconvoys of moving vehicles.

The cancellation ratio is defined as the ratio ofclutter to noise at the canceler input to that at thecanceler output. Figure 8 shows the measured cancel-lation ratio plotted as crosses. Experimental values ofthe cancellation ratio in each of 80 range cells werecomputed by averaging the input and residue outputinterference powers over 64 pulse pairs. The separatecurves in Figure 8 indicate the expected results forvarious clutter-to-noise power ratios. From the figurethe clutter-improvement factor (CIF) is approxi-mately 46 dB. The experimenters complained thatthey couldn’t find strong enough clutter to extend be-yond the experimental points shown.

Figure 9 depicts the detection of an isolated mov-ing target by means of clutter cancellation obtainedby using the DPCA technique with the MASR. TheDoppler-filtered returns from a single phase centerare compared with the Doppler-filtered returns afterclutter cancellation of the signals from two phase cen-ters. Figure 9 has been used by many authors to illus-trate DPCA clutter cancellation.

Target tracking offers a number of significant ad-vantages in the processing of MTI radar data. It yieldstarget position and velocity estimates that can be usedto predict target position during intervals of missingdetections. Improved knowledge of target dynamics isalso obtainable, and velocity sorting and convoy de-tection can be performed. Convoy-detection experi-ments were staged on local highways by comminglingtest vehicles traveling at prescribed speeds and separa-tions with the normal traffic flow. When the rangesand velocities of all of the vehicle tracks in a small areawere plotted as functions of time, a seven-vehicle con-voy could clearly be discerned by the grouping of thecurves of the convoy vehicles. A convoy-detection al-gorithm using vehicle number, separation, andground speed as selection parameters was quite suc-cessful in discriminating between the convoy and thenormal highway traffic.

The Adaptive DPCA Technique

During the MASR development J. Russell Johnson,in an internal memo of 5 March 1976, suggested achange in the order of processing signals, performingthe FFT prior to subtraction of the signals from the

FIGURE 9. Range/Doppler display demonstrating clutter-cancellation property of the MASR DPCA system. Shown on the leftis actual output of the signal processor using data from one phase center only; large ground-clutter returns are all that is de-tected. On the right is the result obtained by subtracting the processed outputs of two phase centers; clutter returns are can-celed and the moving-target return, formerly embedded in clutter, is clearly visible.

63

0–3

–613.0

28.028.3

28.628.9

29.229.5

29.2

26.8

27.4

28.0

28.6

0

–10

–20

–30

–40

–50

–10

–20

–30

–40

–50

6.50

Angle relative to boresight (deg)630–3–6

Angle relative to boresight (deg)

Rel

ativ

e po

wer

(dB

)

Range

(km

)

Range

(km

)

0

Rel

ativ

e po

wer

(dB

)

Doppler filteredradar returns—one phase center

Moving target after cluttercancellation—two phase centers

Moving target

Velocity relative to boresight (kts)

–6.5–13.0

13.06.5

0Velocity relative to boresight (kts)

–6.5–13.0



two phase centers. A synthetic-aperture antenna ismounted on the side of a moving platform and re-ceives data from a single phase center. Performing anFFT on the data sampled from a single range gate di-vides the real antenna’s beam into as many syntheticbeams as the order of the FFT. By using adaptivelychosen weights, the stationary ground-clutter signalsfrom each range gate may be minimized by coher-ently subtracting the output of the synthetic beamsreceived on two phase centers. A postscript toJohnson’s memo states that this combination of syn-thetic-aperture radar (SAR) and DPCA techniquewas apparently first suggested for use on VHF foliagepenetration radars by Carlyle J. Sletten of Air ForceCambridge Research Laboratory in a June 1969memo. This combination was named arrested syn-thetic-aperture radar (ASAR).

The ASAR approach provides as many parametersto adaptively adjust the effective real antenna beamshape as the order of the FFT and would significantlyreduce the required construction accuracy of theMASR antenna. ASAR requires considerably moredigital processing than used in the MASR but wouldbe feasible with present-day digital processing. Thistechnique was not implemented in MASR, althoughit was exercised off-line with data collected fromMASR and found to operate as predicted by theory.

We next discuss solutions suitable to overcomeboth types of ambiguous clutter returns—Dopplerand range. Doppler-ambiguous clutter returns occurif the PRF is lower than the Doppler width of themain beam’s clutter spectrum. The Doppler spread ofa beam is given by ∆fd = (2V sinθ ∆θ)/λ, where V is theplatform velocity, θ is the beam pointing angle withrespect to the platform velocity vector, ∆θ is the azi-muth beamwidth, and λ is the radar wavelength. Asthe real antenna of active length a is steered awayfrom direct broadside, its beamwidth is given byθb = Kλ/(a sin θ), where K (typically about 3) is theratio of the transmit/receive beamwidth between theantenna’s first nulls to its nominal beamwidth atbroadside, λ/a. For any beam position not too farfrom broadside, θb can be equated with ∆θ to ap-proximate the Doppler spread as (2KV )/a. Note thatthe main-beam Doppler spread is independent ofboth the wavelength λ and the pointing angle θ of the

real antenna beam. The ratio (2KV )/a is the lowestPRF that can be employed while avoiding mainlobeDoppler foldover into the set of clutter filters. Thesesidelobes of the product of the transmit and receiveantenna patterns must be designed low enough toavoid deterioration of the DPCA performance by am-biguous sidelobe clutter.

Range-ambiguous clutter is from multiple-time-around clutter returns from the second-to-last andearlier transmitted pulses. MASR was not subject toeither Doppler- or range-ambiguous clutter becauseof the relatively low altitude and speed of its airborneplatform. The MASR’s PRF could be chosen higherthan that required to eliminate Doppler-ambiguousclutter but low enough so that second-time-aroundclutter returns were negligible. The MASR employeda switched-beam DPCA technique in which bothtransmit and received beams alternated between twoantennas. Thus while the rear antenna was operative(i.e., it transmitted pulses and received the short-range clutter returns) the second-time-around clutterreturn from the previous pulse had been produced bytransmission from the forward antenna but was re-ceived on the rear antenna. This cross-product returnwould cause significant adaptive-DPCA error forhigher-flying and faster-moving platforms. A solutionwas found wherein the transmit beam always uses thewhole array, and simultaneous received beams are em-ployed with phase centers equally spaced on eitherside of the antenna’s center. This is called simulta-neous-beam DPCA.

FIGURE 10. Air Force Joint Surveillance and Target AttackRadar System (Joint STARS) aircraft. Note the DPCA an-tenna mounted forward under the fuselage. Image courtesyof Northrop Grumman Corporation.



William J. Ince and J.R. Johnson compared theperformance of a long-range airborne surveillance ra-dar utilizing switched-beam DPCA, simultaneous-beam DPCA, and single-beam (monostatic) anten-nas. With the DPCA technique it was found that theminimum-detectable-velocity (MDV) target has one-tenth to one-fifth of the MDV of the radar using amonostatic antenna. The study also showed that theangular error caused by using the DPCA techniqueand Doppler measurements to estimate a target’sangle is about two-thirds the error of a monostaticmonopulse antenna of the same size.

Operational Results

As a result of the successful development and testingof the MASR, the Air Force commenced the develop-ment of an operational prototype under contracts toGrumman Aircraft and Norden Systems (currentlyNorthrop Grumman). First an advanced develop-ment model called Pave Mover was built and tested.This model was followed by the development of theJoint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System(Joint STARS) [11].

Joint STARS features a 24-ft long, 2-ft high DPCAmounted on the forward under-fuselage of an AirForce E-8A (a modified Boeing 707-320), as shownin Figure 10. Initially two E-8As were built as devel-opment Joint STARS; the first successful flight tookplace in December 1988. Joint STARS utilizes thehigher X-band frequencies rather than the MASR L-band. This higher frequency band allows imaging ofstationary targets by using conventional SAR. It alsoresults in detection of lower-velocity targets and bet-ter target location for a given size array, at the expenseof some degradation in the detection of moving tar-gets in heavy rain.

On 17 December 1990 General NormanSchwarzkopf requested Joint STARS support for thePersian Gulf Operations. On 12 January 1991 thetwo developmental test aircraft arrived in theater andflew their first sortie on 14 January 1991. They con-tinued operations under combat conditions as theU.S. forces and their allies drove Iraqi forces out ofKuwait. Figure 11 shows the retreating forces in whatthen Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney called the“mother of all retreats.” The two Joint STARS test air-

craft flew 49 sorties, logging 535 flight hours beforereturning to their operational testing in Europe.

In December 1995, Joint STARS was again calledinto action in support of NATO peacekeeping forcesin Bosnia. The Air Force accepted the first productionJoint STARS (E-8C) on 22 March 1996.

The Joint STARS E-8C airborne radar was usedeffectively during Operation Allied Force in the de-ployment of aircraft and ground-based action againstYugosolavian forces operating in Kosovo. The movingand synthetic-aperture modes were used to augmentthe E-3 AWACS command-and-control aircraft,which had difficulty in detecting rotary-wing targets.The Joint STARS aircraft has become a standardsource of information on ground-moving vehicles forall U.S. forces.

Space-Based Radar (1982–1989)

In 1982 space-based radar (SBR) was under consider-ation for a variety of roles, including the early detec-tion of aircraft raids against Navy battle groups andthe detection of ground moving targets such as mo-

FIGURE 11. Retreat of Iraqi forces from Kuwait during thePersian Gulf War of 1991 as shown on a Joint STARS work-station. Each plus represents a vehicle or group of vehiclesretreating north along several different roadways. Imagecourtesy of Northrop Grumman Corporation [10].



bile missile launchers. The originally proposed pulse-Doppler SBRs required large narrow-beam antennasto provide acceptably low Doppler spreads across themain beam. These systems needed to be in high-alti-tude orbits in order to maximize the coverage of indi-vidual radars so that fewer would be needed to pro-vide the required total system coverage. As a result ofthe long radar ranges (e.g., 6000 nautical miles), theseconcepts employed powerful transmitters and verylarge electronically steerable antennas. LincolnLaboratory’s background in the successful demonstra-tion of MASR led the Laboratory to consider the ap-plication of the DPCA technique to SBR.

Vincent Vitto directed a study group to researchSBR. The group developed the concept of using aconstellation of low-altitude satellites [12] in circularorbits at about 600 nautical miles altitude (approxi-mately the lower limit of the Van Allen belt, in whichheavy shielding is required to protect sensitive solidstate electronics). These radars would have maximumradar ranges of 2000 miles to the earth’s horizon. Theconstellation of twelve to fourteen radar satelliteswould be deployed to cover a large fraction of theearth at any one time and require radiation-resistant

transmitters and antennas. Low-altitude satelliteswould be visible from a smaller area of the earth thanhigh-altitude satellites and thus less vulnerable toground-based jammers. In addition, ECCM tech-niques such as antenna nulling could be employed tosuppress both interference and jamming.

The upper left corner of Figure 12 shows the con-figuration most often analyzed—a phased-array an-tenna radar with monopole radiators rigidly mountedon a back plane and oriented so that the monopolespoint toward the earth’s center. Each monopolewould be connected to a transmit/receive (T/R) mod-ule. The modules would be fed by a transmitting dis-tribution network and two or more receiving distri-bution networks. Each T/R module would containseparate digitally controlled phase shifters and attenu-ators for each distribution network, allowing excita-tion and weighting of any desired portion of the an-tenna. Figure 12 shows the antenna pattern of a singlemonopole near the center of a 121-element mono-pole array in which the peak gain is in the desiredsearch region and a null exists in the direction of theearth’s center, the direction of greatest ground-clutterreturn.

FIGURE 12. Measured radiation pattern at 1.3 GHz for two polar scanning angles φ of a single monopole embed-ded in a 121-element monopole array. The desired scan sector for the whole array (30° to 60° from the vertical) isindicated.

0

Rel

ativ

e am

plitu

de (d

B)

Angle from direction of earth’s center (deg)

10y

z

x

20

30

40

0–180 36 72 108–144 –108 –72 –36

Scan sector Scan sector

Vertical polarization

= 0°= 45°

144 180

θ

φφ

θ

φ



Theoretical Analysis

Comparing the proposed SBR to MASR reveals sev-eral important differences necessitating the use ofsomewhat different techniques. These techniques, asdescribed below, have been carefully analyzed. In theMASR, the low aircraft speed permitted the utiliza-tion of a low-PRF waveform with sequential DPCAaction in which a full T/R cycle was completed, thenthe phase center was displaced and the cycle repeated.The PRF is low enough so that second-time-aroundclutter from the first transmission is very low anddoes not interfere with the second-phase-center clut-ter. A SBR utilizing the DPCA technique, because ofits high speed with respect to its ground track, mustuse a higher PRF to avoid too great a displacement ofthe phase center along the antenna, thus narrowingthe radiating portion of the antenna and causinglower antenna gain and a broader antenna beam-width. For reasonable-length SBR antennas, a me-dium or high PRF should be used. With high PRF,because of the long range of the radar, clutter returnsare simultaneously received from many range-resolu-tion cells and the total clutter load increases signifi-cantly. To overcome multiple-time-around interfer-ence, the SBR transmits all pulses from the wholeantenna and simultaneously receives from two orthree phase centers equally spaced around the centerof the antenna. The received signals from two phasecenters should be almost identical, with the first sig-nal delayed so as to align the two effective T/R phasecenters. Because of the uniform transmission pattern,the multiple-time-around clutter samples are almostidentical. Further problems introduced by the higherPRF include range eclipsing and target-range ambi-guities. They can be solved by using multiple PRFs.

Other differences between SBR and MASR haveto do with the method of refining the azimuth accu-racy of targets and the order of processing the receivedsignals. MASR employed a sum and a difference pat-tern to obtain a monopulse estimate of the target’sazimuth. The proposed SBR has a third receivingphase center at the middle of the antenna. Simulta-neous DPCA operation between two sets of adjacentphase centers allows an accurate estimation of thetarget’s azimuth from the resulting phase difference in

a manner similar to an interferometer. Use of theASAR technique described earlier can compensate forthe increased phase and amplitude errors expected ina full phased array.

Robert W. Miller developed formulas for estimat-ing the error mechanisms that degrade the DPCAperformance of a typical SBR. These formulas in-clude phase-center offset caused by antenna-attitudeerrors and timing errors, antenna deformation bybowing and twisting, frequency-response mismatchbetween receiver channels, T/R-module amplitudeand phase errors, sidelobe clutter, analog-to-digitalconversion, and internal clutter motion.

Antenna Investigations

The principal considerations in the SBR antenna de-sign were the element radiating patterns for verticaland horizontal polarizations, the effect of mutualcoupling on DPCA performance, and the method ofcalibration of the element-transmit/receive-distribu-tion network combination.

Several forms of radiating elements were examined[13, 14] for their radiation patterns when embeddedin a small array. Figure 12 shows that for vertical po-larization, the simple vertical monopole produces aradiation pattern covering the desirable look angleswith a null toward the earth’s center. For horizontalpolarization a loop-fed slotted cylinder produces asimilar pattern. A loop-and-monopole dual-polarizedelement showed good horizontally polarized perfor-mance; however, vertically polarized performance wasnot optimized.

Most of the significant mutual-coupling effectswere measured in a large array of simple monopoles.A finite-array analysis was used to compute the cen-ter-element gain pattern and input impedance as afunction of the array size and element position [15].Measurements of the element gain pattern and themutual coupling for a 121-element passively termi-nated monopole square lattice array were shown to bein good agreement with theory.

Ground-based phased arrays are typically cali-brated by using either a far-field or a near-field testsource. However, for airborne or space-based applica-tions, external test sources may be impractical or dif-ficult to implement because of the great distance to



the far field (typically one to 10 km). A new mutual-coupling technique (MCT) for calibration, applicableto a phased array such as the DPCA SBR, having dualbeam formers that can be used to select T/R elementpairs, has been developed and demonstrated [16].This calibration method enforces invariance of themutual coupling through all adjacent-element chan-nels to provide uniform illumination. For a desiredarray illumination, errors due to array-weight quanti-zation are then measured by a second application ofMCT. Array radiation patterns can be calculated fromthe measured array, the known array-element posi-tions, and a known embedded element pattern.

An experimental investigation of array mutualcoupling produced good agreement with conven-tional far-field calibration and pattern measurementsof a 96-element corporate-fed phased-array antenna,shown in Figure 13. Two-dimensional radiation pat-terns using MCT were achieved and demonstrated.

In another interesting investigation the effect ofmutual coupling between array radiating elements onDPCA performance was theoretically determined[17]. The method of moments was used in a numeri-cal simulation to model SBR arrays. Upper-boundDPCA clutter-cancellation capability, in terms of pat-

tern match, was presented. Other issues that were in-vestigated include the influence of main-beam scanangle, array illumination, phase-center displacement,array size, array lattice, number of passively termi-nated element guard bands, and radiating-elementtype on two-phase-center DPCA clutter cancellation.Dipole and monopole arrays having square and hex-agonal lattices were analyzed. It was shown quantita-tively that variation in the above parameters substan-tially influences the DPCA clutter cancellation. As anexample of the results, Figure 14 shows the theoreticaland measured cancellation performance of the 96-ele-ment monopole test array, which has two guard bandssurrounding the 96 active elements. Cancellation isshown as a function of phase-center displacementwith scanning angle off the direction toward theearth’s center as a parameter. The measured cancella-tion is about 10 dB less than the theoretical. In thiscase, the measured cancellation performance is largelydetermined by other effects (e.g., phase and ampli-tude errors) rather than mutual-coupling effects.Many of these potential error sources can be reducedby using clutter-adaptive cancelers, especially in apost-Doppler adaptive-DPCA mechanization.

The Space Radar Technology program at LincolnLaboratory was conducted for about ten years. In ad-dition to the investigations described above, otheranalyses and experiments were conducted in order toreduce the technical risk associated with such an am-bitious radar system [18]. A major difficulty antici-pated for such a system would be to suppress multiplehigh-power ground-based sidelobe jammers whilealso maintaining the high level of clutter suppressionrequired. This suppression requires that the two- orthree-phase-center DPCA processing be augmentedto include the simultaneous suppression of jamming,using four to ten sidelobe cancellation channels foreach phase center. This was to be accomplished by us-ing a special form of space-time adaptive processing.The resulting requirements on signal processing andchannel accuracy were particularly challenging [19,20]. Through a sequence of experiments and analyses,the technology necessary for simultaneous suppres-sion of better than 40 dB for clutter and 50 dB forjamming was established.

At the end of the 1980s, with the cessation of the

FIGURE 13. Photograph of hexagonal-spaced 96-elementtest array inside the radome of the far-field antenna mea-surement range. The array has a total of 192 elements, butthe outer two rows around its circumference are terminatedwith matched loads to reduce boundary effects on the an-tenna patterns.



Cold War, the perceived need for an SBR system forair defense or ground surveillance declined and theSpace Radar Program at Lincoln Laboratory was con-cluded. Many of the technical advances have beencarried over into other radar programs. Lincoln Labo-ratory continues to participate in SBR studies that areundertaken from time to time, and as of this writingthe Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA), the Air Force, and the National Recon-naissance Office (NRO) have initiated a major na-tional development program in ground surveillancewith space-based radar. Lincoln Laboratory is partici-pating in this initiative under the sponsorship ofDARPA. The program, called Discoverer II, will fea-ture MTI radar including variations on the DPCAtechniques.

R E F E R E N C E S1. L.D. Smullin and J. Freedman, “Airborne Early Warning

Radar,” Append. H, Final Report of Summer Study Group1952, vol. 2, Lincoln Laboratory (10 Feb. 1953), pp. H-1–H-9.

2. J. Freedman, M.M. Kessler, V.L. Lynn, D.A. McKee, andW.W. Ward, “Comparative Performance of 10-cm and 70-cmRadar over the Sea,” Technical Report 56, Lincoln Laboratory(25 Aug. 1954), DTIC #AD-42667.

3. F.R. Dickey, Jr., M. Labitt, and F.M. Staudaher, “Developmentof Airborne Moving Target Radar for Long Range Surveil-lance,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 27 (6), 1991, pp.959–972.

4. E.M. Hofstetter, C.J. Weinstein, and C.E. Muehe, “A Theoryof Multiple Antenna AMTI Radar” Technical Note 1971-21,Lincoln Laboratory (8 Apr. 1971), DTIC #AD-724076.

5. G.N. Tsandoulas, “Unidimensionally Scanned Phased Ar-rays,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 28 (1), 1980, pp. 86–99.

6. G.N. Tsandoulas, “Tolerance Control in an Array Antenna,”Microw. J. 20 (10), 1977, pp. 24–29, 35.

7. M.L. Stone and W.J. Ince, “Air-to-Ground MTI Radar Usinga Displaced Phase Center, Phased Array,” IEEE Int. RadarConf., Arlington, Va., 26–30 Apr. 1980, pp. 225–230.

8. V.S. Dolat and R.C. Williamson, “BGO Reflective ArrayCompressor (RAC) with 125 µsec of Dispersion,” IEEE Ultra-sonics Symp. Proc., Los Angeles, 22–24 Sept. 1975, pp. 390–394.

9. C.E. Muehe, P.G. McHugh, W.H. Drury, and B.G. Laird,“The Parallel Microprogrammed Processor (PMP),” Proc.Radar ’77 Conf., London, 25–28 Oct. 1977, pp. 97–100.

10. B.A. Smith, “Pentagon Weighs Key Reconnaissance IssuesHighlighted by Gulf War,” Aviat. Week Space Technol. 22,Apr. 1991, pp. 78–79.

11. C.A. Fowler, “The Standoff Observation of Enemy GroundForces from Project Peek to Joint STARS: A Prolusion,” IEEEAerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 12 (6), 1997, pp. 3–17.

12. E.J. Kelly and G.N. Tsandoulas, “A Displaced Phase CenterAntenna Concept for Space Based Radar Applications,” IEEEEascon Electronics and Aerospace Conf., Washington, 19–21 Sept.1983, pp. 141–148.

13. A.J. Fenn, “Arrays of Horizontally Polarized Loop-Fed SlottedCylinder Antennas,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 33(4), 1985, pp. 375–382.

14. A.J. Fenn, “Element Gain Pattern Prediction for Finite Arraysof V-Dipole Antennas over Ground Plane,” IEEE Trans.Antennas Propag. 36 (11), 1988, pp. 1629–1633.

15. A.J. Fenn, “Theoretical and Experimental Study of MonopolePhased Array Antennas,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 33(10), 1985, pp. 1118–1126.

16. H.M. Aumann, A.J. Fenn, and F.G. Willwerth, “Phased ArrayAntenna Calibration and Pattern Prediction Using MutualCoupling Measurements,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 37(7), 1989, pp. 844–850.

17. A.J. Fenn and E.J. Kelly, “Theoretical Effects of Array MutualCoupling on Clutter Cancellation in Displaced Phase CenterAntennas,” Technical Report 1065, Lincoln Laboratory (5 Sept.2000).

18. G.N. Tsandoulas, “Space-Based Radar,” Science 237 (4812),1987, pp. 257–262.

19. C.M. Rader, “Wafer-Scale Integration of a Large Systolic Arrayfor Adaptive Nulling,” Linc. Lab. J. 4 (1), 1991, pp. 3–30.

20. S.C. Pohlig, “Hybrid Adaptive Feedback Nulling in thePresence of Channel Mismatch,” Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speechand Signal Processing 3, New York, 11–14 Apr. 1988, pp. 1588–1591.

FIGURE 14. Theoretical and measured cancellation of adual-phase-center 96-element array as a function of thephase-center displacement, with the polar scanning angle θs

as a parameter. The curves are derived from theory and thedots from measurements for a 40° scanning angle.

70

Can

cella

tion

(dB

) 60

50

40

Measured at 40°

40°

55°

Theory

30

10 2 3 4 5 6

s = 30°θ

Phase-center displacement (columns)



received a B.S. degree inelectrical engineering fromSeattle University in 1950 andan S.M. degree from MIT in1952. After teaching at SeattleUniversity for four years hejoined the Microwave Compo-nents group at Lincoln Labo-ratory. Of the microwavesystems he helped develop themost notable were used on theLaboratory’s Haystack plan-etary radar in the fourth test ofEinstein’s general theory ofrelativity and on ALCOR atthe Kwajalein missile testrange, which is capable ofimaging reentry vehicles andsatellites. In 1967 he becameassociate leader, and in 1968leader, of a group that de-signed, built, and tested com-plete prototype radar systems.The first was a radar used inVietnam to detect peoplewalking under dense foliage.Starting in 1972 Ed’s groupdeveloped digital signal anddata processors capable ofcompletely automatic detec-tion, tracking, and displayingof moving targets in heavyclutter. This accomplishmentled to a netted radar systemdemonstrated by the ArmyArtillery at Fort Sill, Okla-homa, an airborne radar todetect slowly moving groundvehicles (the progenitor of theJoint STARS radar), and theprototype of a widely em-ployed FAA Airport Surveil-lance Radar (ASR-9). Forseven years Ed served asradar editor of the IEEE Aero-space and Electronic SystemsTransactions.Charles Edward Muehe

is a staff member in the AirTraffic Systems group, wherehe is now involved with thedesign, specifications, andfollow-up of fielded radarsystems such as the ASR-9 andASDE-3. Before that he wasinvolved in the design andanalysis of foliage-penetrationradar to detect personnel inheavily wooded areas. In 1964he worked on the on-site dataanalysis of reentering missilesat Kwajalein as well as diagnos-ing and repairing the 24-intelescope servo-system used totrack missiles. In 1952 hejoined Lincoln Laboratory,where he first worked onairborne early warning (AEW)systems and invented theTime-Average Clutter Coher-ent Airborne Radar(TACCAR) system that al-lowed the cancellation ofclutter in airborne radars. Forthis work he received thePioneer Award from the IEEEin 1991. He graduated fromMIT in 1951 with an S.B.degree in physics.Melvin Labitt

Displaced Phase Center Antenna Technique...for detection, tracking, reporting, and intercept...

Documents

Transcript of Displaced Phase Center Antenna Technique...for detection, tracking, reporting, and intercept...