FLIGHT TEST

TECHNIQUES FOR ACTIVE

ELECTRONICALLY
SCANNED ARRAY RADAR
David Kern Associate Member
Major, USAF

ABSTRACT
Legacy flight test techniques (FTTs) for airborne radar are not
completely applicable to current technology, and new ideas are necessary
to effectively flight test emerging radar technologies. Historically, radar
systems were built with a mechanically scanned antenna/array (MSA) that
had to be physically moved through the field of regard (FOR).
Improvements in radiated power or digital signal processing multiplied
radar performance, but this singular antenna line of sight generally became
the predominant constraining factor on the radar. Consequently, airborne
radar FTTs developed that measured the radar directly or indirectly as a
function of the mechanically pointed antenna.
The performance of radar built with an Active Electronically
Scanned Array (AESA) will still be constrained by some of the same
factors as any legacy system. Transmitter power and antenna
gain/aperture as always directly affect system performance; but the
modular design of the AESA antenna array with the ability to exercise
some or all the elements, plus the issue of aperture foreshortening due to
a fixed array, brings a completely different set of considerations to the test.
Also essential to modern radar flight test is consideration for
systems integration. The days of isolated electronic components bolted
onto the aircraft and functioning independently are gone. The utility of the
radar under test is directly tied to its integration with the rest of the aircraft
as a system of systems. The test plan must examine compatibility and
interface with the rest of the avionics suite and not be satisfied with lack of
interference.

BACKGROUND
This paper is the outcome of the planning and thought processes
applied to two separate flight test programs. The programs were executed
consecutively at Edwards AFB to demonstrate AESA retrofit to the F-16
aircraft. Two systems were flown: the Northrop Grumman Scalable Agile
Beam Radar (SABR), shown in figure 1, and Raytheon Advanced Combat
Radar (RACR), shown in figure 2. Both were multimode AESA fire control
radar systems capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground operations. The
designs were closely related to other fighter radars produced by their
respective companies, and specifically designed to fit within the interface,
power, cooling, volume, and weight constraints of the F-16C/D aircraft.

Figure 1: Northrop Scalable Agile Beam Radar Installed in F-16

Figure 2: Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar Installed in F-16

Both flight test demonstrations were flown by the 416th Flight Test
Squadron at Edwards AFB, California. The SABR flights were

accomplished in November 2009, and RACR flights were accomplished

July/August of 2010.
Both flight test efforts shared common objectives of:
1. Demonstrate AESA air-to-air and air-to-ground performance.
2. Assess military utility of the AESA.
The FTTs introduced here are generically applicable to AESA
designs and not limited to fighter applications. Many were used to obtain
data during SABR and RACR flights, but the limited scope of those
demonstrations precluded a thorough evaluation of either system. Other
FTTs are described here that were not executed during these efforts but
are logical extensions of the test planning.
This paper excludes discussion on flight test of electronic warfare
(EW) capabilities of an AESA.
INTRODUCTION
How do you, the test pilot, test an AESA? Fly straight and level
down CORDS road, push the switch, watch the display, terminate
Could there be more, and are we missing out on important data? Is it
enough to dust off the old playbook and recycle the test cards on a new
system? Radar and systems testing in general have a trend of being the
Rodney Dangerfield of the flight test business. Certainly not as sexy as a
new aircrafts first flight, not as demanding as a compatibility flight profile
(CFP) or loads mission, and not as controversial as handling qualities yet
it is these systems that make aircraft effective for their missions.
The FTTs outlined in this document will focus only on airborne
maneuvers for flight test of AESA radar. The capacity of AESAs for near
simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground functions will present large
amounts of data to the cockpit and a potentially complex interface. Human
factors and pilot-vehicle interface challenges presented by growth of AESA
capabilities are an entirely separate topic that will not be addressed.
Flight test of AESA is more than just systems specification
verification there is data exclusively obtainable by flying the system
beyond the laboratory environment. Flight test of AESA radar should be
driven by three unique characteristics the fixed antenna, individual
control of transmit/receive (T/R) modules, and systems integration.

THE AESAS FIXED ANTENNA

This is the fundamental nature of the AESA design that is different
from the MSA. Beam directional control is achieved by phase shifting
excitation across the array. (Stimson 474) The advantages of this design
are numerous, primary being near instantaneous beam steering. The
entire FOR is not illuminated simultaneously, since focused pulse
integration is still beneficial for long range target detection. However, there
is no physical gimbaled antenna (as seen in figure 3) with inertia to
overcome, or servos with limited rates that may be damaged by repeated
sudden reversals. The beam can be shifted from one side of the FOR to
the other and back many orders of magnitude faster than a MSA.

Figure 3: AN/APG-68 MSA Showing Gimbaled Antenna

Beam Steering The primary implications for flight test are how
the beam is steered through a search volume and how targets are
reported. Legacy techniques such as range while search (RWS) or track
while scan (TWS) were designed to efficiently use the MSA while working
within its limitations. The beam was methodically moved through the
search volume, then returned to the starting point and so repeated the
process. A complete iteration is called a frame. Targets were reported
that met signal thresholds, but the waveform was optimized for detection
and was generally moved on to the next segment of the search volume
before target ambiguities could be resolved to create the best quality track.
Tradeoffs such as the F-16s situation awareness mode (SAM) combined
this search process with interleaved samples of known targets for higher
fidelity track on a limited number of targets. The drawback is this inevitably
reduced the search volume or track quality under increasing demands.
Much of this degradation is attributable to delays in repositioning the
antenna.

AESA Waveforms Because AESA radars are not constrained by

antenna positioning delays, new approaches for air-to-air applications
should be expected. The RACR used a method called search while track
(SWT) coupled with a number of waveform schemes including
alert/confirm. Alert/confirm takes advantage of AESAs near instantaneous
beam steering to resample a suspected target located in a previous beam
position. This resample can improve signalto-noise ratio above the
detection floor by increasing pulse integration time, or else is used to
resolve range and Doppler ambiguities. As a track approaches an age-out
limit, it can be quickly refreshed due to near instantaneous beam steering
with minimum time cost to the current search frame. The main
consequence of SWT for the flight tester is that target detection generally
equates to a maintained track, so the traditional blip scan will require a
different approach.
FTT Application The primary FTT that must account for these
AESA characteristics is measuring the systems long range limit of
detection. Legacy radar blip scans called for test and target to set up nose
to nose outside maximum expected contact range. A one bar scan
centered on the target altitude was executed, and the radar display
observed during closure to note the range at which the target hits were
displayed with some measure of probability. Just because a hit was
displayed on one sweep was no guarantee that the next sweep would also
result in a hit. Both aircraft converged until every scan resulted in a hit,
then data analysis would determine the range at which a statistical
probability of detection occurred. Using an AESA with alert/confirm
techniques during a blip scan means that lack of a confirm would result in
no target displayed at all, but a successful confirm will likely establish a
track to be maintained by SWT. Either the AESA detects the target or it
doesnt and if it reports the target, it is already tracking the target and will
likely maintain the track as the range is reduced by closure.
The AESA should be tested for maximum contact range using two
variations on this legacy FTT, both designed to account for near
instantaneous beam steering. These tests should be set up with geometry
similar to the blip scan, the first with a one bar scan and the other using a
cued search. The one bar scan measures the radars maximum contact
range against a new target. The cued search test uses systems
integration to point the beam at an undetected target that may be outside
its current search volume. Because this cue bounds the AESAs search
volume, target detection ranges could be longer than the one bar scan. In
both cases target detection should equate to a track being displayed rather
than raw hits. Upon detection and display of the target, the test run should
be terminated since the target track is likely to be maintained as range
decreases. Other FTT will be used to assess track maintenance and

quality. Analysis of internal radar data prior to track range may lead to
refinement of alert criteria to improve detection range and optimize
effectiveness of the confirm waveform.
Antenna Foreshortening The second implication of the AESAs
fixed antenna is a phenomenon called antenna foreshortening. Antenna
foreshortening describes the reduced antenna area apparent at increasing
angles away from the arrays broadside. Because the beam is positioned
by a phase shift gradient rather than physical movement of the antenna,
radar performance will degrade at larger off broadside angles. Increasing
the off broadside angle spreads the main lobe width while reducing
antenna aperture and gain. The change to antenna aperture may be
quantified as the cosine of the off broadside angle. Although these effects
can be mathematically modeled, flight testers must quantify performance
not just directly in front of the radar antenna but also at off boresight
angles.
Antenna foreshortening impacts both air-to-ground and air-to-air
applications, but not equally. Two tasks impacted by foreshortening are
spot synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mapping and off boresight air-to-air
detection and tracking.
Air-to-air performance, even off boresight, will be characterized by
the radar range equation (equation 1). Steering the AESA beam to
increasing off broadside angles will reduce antenna gain (G) and effective
antenna aperture (Ae). The other variables are unaffected by beam
steering angle.

Pr =

Pt GA e t int
4 2 R 4

( )

(1)

Pt = transmitted power
= target radar cross section
tint = pulse integration time
R = range to target
Two FTTs for measuring air-to-air system performance off
broadside could be used. The first, depicted in figure 4, is the simplest to
set up, with a nonmaneuvering target aircraft and the test aircraft in trail.
After the target is tracked, the test aircraft turns away to set the off
broadside angle. By holding both aircrafts headings constant, the off
broadside angle remains stable (depending on the aircrafts relative
velocities) and the range will build. It is expected that at increased range,
the target track will eventually be lost.

The advantage of this FTT is that resampling at this loss of track

range is very efficient. The test aircraft can maneuver to recenter the
target in the AESA FOR to reacquire track in the region of optimum
antenna performance. With target track reestablished, the test aircraft can
again turn away to reset at the off broadside test angle. This process can
efficiently characterize the AESAs long range off broadside performance.
The disadvantages of this FTT are that target Doppler signal is
minimal and closure rate is negative. It is likely that the AESA waveforms
for these conditions will be different from those used for high closure rate
initial detection, and this target geometry may or may not be important for
the customer. Since the target aspect angle will vary during the test, some
data normalization will be required to account for changes in target radar
cross section (RCS). Alternatively, the target RCS could be augmented to
enable comparisons to max detection range on the nose.

Figure 4: Off Broadside Radar Performance

After target is tracked, turn away and allow range to build.
The second FTT, shown in figure 5, addresses the disadvantages
of the first FTT, but setup is more dynamic and not as efficient for
resampling. The target aircraft maintains pure pursuit of the test aircraft,
while the test maintains a constant off broadside angle for the AESA. Both
aircraft must continually update headings to set a fixed off broadside test
angle. Setup of this FTT will require an indication to each aircraft of the
others position when outside of sensor contact range. This could be
accomplished via datalink or third party radar controllers.

Figure 5: Off Broadside Radar Performance

Testing for max detection range with constant off broadside angle.
Antenna foreshortening is also a primary constraint upon SAR
map performance by an AESA. For spot SAR maps or any other task, the
AESA is most efficient at broadside with minimal beam steering. However,
spot SAR performance will be best when the angle to the target is near

perpendicular to the flight path, and the target is imaged with an increased
look down graze angle. SABR and RACR, like most fighter AESAs, were
mounted in the nose of the aircraft pointed forward. This sets up a
problem of competing and opposing optimal conditions. The antenna is
optimized directly off the nose, but spot SAR prefers increased angles
looking low and out the side.
The key metric defining azimuth resolution in the SAR system is
the synthetic aperture length. This is analogous to the aperture diameter
(D) in an optical system. Using the familiar Rayleigh equation, resolution
() is proportional to wavelength () over aperture (D) (equation 2).

(2)

In an airborne SAR system, aperture is created by coherent

addition of many broadside radar returns collected along the flight vector of
the aircraft. The SAR system need not be looking exactly on the beam,
but the synthetic aperture length (L) will be reduced by the sine of the
Doppler cone angle (dc) as illustrated in equation 3. The Doppler cone
angle is measured as the angle off the flight vector.

cKa R t
2Lsin( dc )

(Carrara et al. 33)

(3)

a = Azimuth resolution
c = Center wavelength
Ka = Mainlobe broadening factor
Rt = Range to target
If dc is perpendicular to the flight path, the path length required to
achieve a given synthetic aperture length will be minimized. This is
valuable to reduce position measurement errors during the image
collection.
This demonstrates the essential conflict between a fire control
radar and a SAR imaging system. SAR achieves azimuth resolution
comparable to the range resolution of a compressed chirp waveform. This
azimuth resolution will degrade when pointed in the direction of the flight
vector.
FTT Application Spot SAR performance should be characterized
at increasing Doppler cone angles, with statistically significant sample
sizes to quantify system resolution and target location error (TLE).
Whereas substantial performance differences would not have been

expected from a legacy MSA over a range of dc, the quality of the AESA
performance should be carefully examined.
Dynamic Beam Stabilization Besides electronic beam steering
and antenna foreshortening, the third implication for flight test is that beam
steering must compensate for ownship maneuvering by quickly
recalculating phase shifts for every T/R module. This computationally
intense method diverges from the simple feedback loops used to point the
balanced gimbal mounts used by legacy MSAs. The AESA beam steering
computer load increases under dynamic flight conditions, and may present
a performance constraint on the system. (Stimson 479)
Additionally, aeroelastic structural effects may result in an inertial
reference error between the aircraft navigation system and the mounting
location of the AESA. Airframe flex and structural harmonic vibration could
transfer directly to the antenna unattenuated by a gimbal mount. The
significance of this effect will vary depending on the physical configuration
of the AESA under test. A build up approach to measure target tracking
performance under increasingly demanding conditions suggests a flight
test methodology different from that applied to a MSA. Now the flight test
is not just concerned with track accuracy during target maneuvers. This
dynamic beam steering effect could result in track accuracy errors or even
loss of track during ownship dynamic maneuvering.
FTT Application The beam steering problem may be considered
in terms of frequency content applied to the pitch, roll, and to a lesser
extent, yaw axes. A first order application is achieved by maneuvering the
test aircraft while maintaining target track. The target is tracked in order to
identify conditions of degraded track accuracy in comparison to target
position truth data. The target should be kept at sufficient range to
minimize scintillation from changing aspect and present a consistent target
return. Care should also be exercised to avoid excessive maneuver
angles to reduce antenna foreshortening effects.
An efficient maneuver in terms of fuel usage and ease of setup is
to horizontally offset the target and apply increasing roll rates. As the
aircraft rolls, the x axis angle to the target will rotate apparent to the AESA
into the y axis. On fighter aircraft especially, relatively high line of sight
rate changes could be developed to challenge the radar beam steering.
This FTT would not reveal any longitudinal structural effects, so
maneuvers with increasing levels of g, depicted in figure 6, should also be
planned. It is fully expected that many operational maneuvers will require
maintaining a long range track or tracks while under high g loadings.

Figure 6: Test aircraft performs dynamic maneuvers to test beam

stabilization
More complex methods for inducing higher frequency content
inputs may be required depending on the aircraft platform characteristics.
Small aircraft may have a sufficiently rigid frame and minimal structural
dynamics even during aggressive maneuvering, so that the preceding
FTTs provide all the data required to assure mission performance.
However, specific flight conditions could be of unique interest to justify
testing AESA beam stabilization performance. For example, limit cycle
oscillation (LCO) is a well documented phenomenon on the F-16 under
certain combinations of heavy external stores, high subsonic mach
numbers, and low to moderate g loadings. These lateral accelerations are
of fairly low frequency, but their relatively common occurrence could make
the flight condition a worthwhile investigation especially regarding spot
SAR mapping.
A final item related to the fixed antenna configuration that should
be flight tested is measurement of the aircraft RCS with the antenna
installed in the production configuration.
INDIVIDUAL CONTROL OF T/R MODULES
This is the key distinction between an AESA and the less
advanced electronically scanned array (ESA) or phased array radar. An
ESA electronically steers the beam using only phase shift, with all
elements driven by a common T/R. In contrast, the AESAs individual
control of discrete T/R modules in frequency, phase, and amplitude
provides improved performance. This discrete control is primarily useful
for beam focus in the far field, but also brings an additional flight test
consideration in the area of thermal management. The AESA does not
have to use all elements to transmit at all times, or for all tasks.
The AESA installation in an aircraft could be a retrofit or an integral
part of a new design. A retrofit must be compatible with the legacy cooling
system. New tactical aircraft designs are often concerned with minimizing
their radar cross section, which generally results in thermal management
challenges due to avionics ventilation requirements. In either case,
thermal management is a key challenge for an AESA. Individually
controlled T/R modules give the ability to vary transmitter power usage not
just by duty factor but by varying the percentage of modules enabled. This

creates an opportunity to throttle AESA performance depending on flight

conditions and current thermal measurements.
FTT Application If the AESA design supports transmitting with
partial enabling of the antenna face, thermal management should be flight
tested. Although thermal performance can be modeled, testing at various
flight conditions provides much more meaningful data. If the design is
disabling T/R modules other than at the periphery, consideration should be
given to grating lobes (Stimson 481).
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION
An AESA flight test is most of all a systems engineering challenge.
Modern avionics are highly integrated, so the days of blip scans to test an
independent dish and scope are long gone. Symbiotic relationships must
be considered between the AESA and every other system contributing to
the aircrafts mission. The AESA may take a transfer alignment from the
aircraft navigation system, and may also contribute ground speed from the
sidelobes Doppler to the navigation systems Kalman filter. What is the
effect of invalid or erroneous data to either system? Furthermore, the
AESA must likely cohabitate on a common aircraft data bus that, if
corrupted, could domino critical systems into degraded states. Networked
systems that work without error on the ground can be overwhelmed when
tasked with an airborne mission environment.
Flight test of AESA integration goes beyond verification that
performance specifications were met under simplified conditions. The
AESA must integrate with the rest of the aircrafts systems to contribute to
the overall mission. The purpose of the AESA under test is not to radiate,
receive, and process the AESA is there to enable the user to perform
mission tasks. It is not enough that the AESA successfully detect and
track targets, create SAR maps, or perform any other internal function if
this information is not shared correctly with other onboard or offboard
systems.
FTT Application Unfortunately, there is no canned systems
integration FTT universally applicable across platforms. When conducting
an AESA flight test, integrated system evaluation (ISE) test points are
critical to address the AESA contribution to the find-fix-target-trackengage-assess (FFTTEA) process. Airborne systems can never be fully
tested in the laboratory, and the products of these system of systems
relationships are even more dependent upon flight test data. In the case of
an F-16 flight test demonstration, three example systems relationships
were considered. The first was the ability of the F-16s air combat mode
(ACM) to steer the radar beam visually using the helmet-mounted cuing

system (HMCS). The second was the display accuracy of the line of sight
to radar tracked targets in the head-up display (HUD) or HMCS, permitting
visual acquisition. The final systems relationship was the handoff of spot
SAR derived coordinates to the F-16 stores management system (SMS)
allowing weapons delivery.
In the midst of analyzing data bus words and interface control
documents, traditional flying qualities and handling qualities (FQ/HQ)
should not be forgotten. Key considerations include any changes made to
the outer mold lines of the aircraft to accommodate the AESA or a change
to the center of gravity. If these have changed from legacy configuration,
regression testing against flying qualities and handling qualities is
warranted.
CONCLUSION
New technologies demand new flight test techniques. AESA
radars are defined by unique characteristics that are very different from
legacy radars; including a fixed antenna, discrete control of
transmit/receive modules, and extensive systems integration. Reuse of
test cards can result in lost data opportunities and even
mischaracterization of the system.
The planning process for F-16 AESA flight test demonstrations
resulted in FTTs different from legacy radar test. These techniques are
applicable to AESA flight test on other platforms, and the extension of their
concepts may result in more efficient and effective data collection.
WORKS CITED
Carrara, Walter et al. Spotlight Synthetic Aperture Radar: Signal
Processing Algorithms. Norwood, MA: Artech House Remote Sensing
Library, 1995. Print.
Stimson, George W. Introduction to Airborne Radar, 2nd Ed. Hong
Kong: SciTech Publishing Inc., 1998. Print.