I.
INTRODUCTION
F-16 Pulse Doppler Radar
(AN/APG-66) Performance
MELVIN B. RINGEL, Member, IEEE
DAVID H. MOONEY, Senior Member, IEEE
WILLIAM H. LONG, III
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
The AN/APG-66 is a digital, multimode, flre control radar that
is the primary sensor for the F-16 air combat fighter. The detection
and false alarm performance of this radar are described when it op-
erates in its medium PRF pulse Doppler downlook mode. Descrip-
tions are included of medium PRF clutter, the AN/APG-66 signal
processing, the flight tests used to obtain performance data, a com-
puter simulation of the radar, and the calibration of the simulation.
The detection performance presented is based on both flight tests
and the output of the flight test calibrated simulation. The false
alarm performance is based on flight tests and is accompanied by a
discussion of the sources of false alarms.
Manuscript received June 16, 1981; revised October 11, 1981.
Authors' address: Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Box 746, Balti-
more, MD 21230
0018-9251/83/0100-0147 $00.75 ©) 1982 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. AES-19, NO. I JANUARY 1983
The AN/APG-66 is the primary sensor for the F- 16
air combat fighter. It is in production and operational in
the U.S. Air Force and a number of NATO countries.
It is a multimode, air-to-air, and air-to-ground radar,
whose downlook mode has high peak power and trans-
mits eight different medium PRF waveforms per dwell. It
is computer controlled, uses coherent processing, and has
a unique single channel design that is described in Sec-
tion IB-3. This paper focuses on the detection and false
alarm performance of this radar in its medium PRF
downlook mode because its capabilities are most severely
tested by the ground clutter it encounters in that mode.
General information on airborne pulse Doppler radar,
multiple PRF ranging, and pulse Doppler clutter and
range performance can be found in Hovanessian [1],
Skillman and Mooney [2], Goetz and Albright [3], Moo-
ney and Skillman [4], and Ringel [5, 6].
Fig. 1 is a simplified functional block diagram of the
downlook mode. The first four blocks are the receiver
protector, the low noise amplifier, the receiver, and the
sampled data assembly or analog to digital converter.
Following these are the main beam clutter canceler, a 64
point fast Fourier transform (FFT), the detector, the con-
stant false alarm rate (CFAR) circuitry, and the ambigu-
ous range resolver.
The data discussed were obtained from an extensive
flight test program undertaken during the period from
June 1977 to October 1980 and from follow-up computer
simulation studies. The remainder of this introduction
gives a summary of the main features of the ground clut-
ter seen by the downlook mode, the signal processing
used, and the computer program that was used to obtain
the simulated detection performance results. The theory
of the computer program is described in [6], but its cali-
bration by means of flight data is contained in Section
IIA of this paper. Section II presents the detection perfor-
mance flight tests and results plus the simulation results.
Section III discusses the false alarm flight tests and re-
sults.
A. Ground Clutter in the AN/APG-66 Downlook
Mode
The most innovative aspects of the AN/APG-66 de-
sign are those concerned with its handling of ground clut-
ter from both the detection and false alarm points of
view. For that reason we briefly review the nature of that
clutter as seen by the radar. We refer the reader to [5] for
a more detailed discussion of the computation of pulse
Doppler clutter at any PRF and of the parameters on
which it depends.
1) Range Doppler Map of Ground Clutter
For reasonable interceptor speeds, the range-Doppler
space of a medium PRF radar has no region that is abso-
147
 RI =- LN=crSA- lte side, as illustrated in Fig. 3. It is somewhat broader than
the main beam as a result of the defocusing caused by the
curvature of the radome.
Clutter AGC Noise AGC
Rangele F Main
Beam
Beam
Reflection
Lobe N*
Detect CFAR Ranesle

Fig. 1. Downlook mode block diagram.

lutely clear of clutter. Fig. 2 is a sketch of the main fea-

tures of a "map" of a typical distribution of clutter in the Radome-
range-Doppler space of such a radar. Antenna
The horizontal axis is frequency, with the frequency
"6origin" at the frequency of main beam clutter (since Fig. 3. Radome reflection lobe geometry.
main beam clutter is heterodyned to dc by a clutter track-
ing loop). The vertical axis is range with the origin at
zero range. 3) Sections Through the Clutter Map
The notch containing the main beam clutter, which
covers the entire ambiguous range interval, is indicated Fig. 4 illustrates three sections through the map of
by the cross-hatched regions. Fig. 2 at the locations 1, 2, and 3.
Note the curve that starts in the main beam region at A target whose line-of-sight (LOS) ground speed re-
long range, asymptotically approaches the horizontal line mains fixed while the radar closes on it would appear in a
R = altitude, and then "wraps around" (because of the fixed filter at any given PRF and would therefore "fly
radar's Doppler ambiguity) and comes in from the right through" clutter similar to that illustrated in Fig. 4; it
side at R = altitude. This curve represents the ridge of therefore would suffer a loss in detectibility.
clutter received from the first range gate on the ground
that returns Doppler frequencies corresponding to the am-
biguous frequency of each filter. It includes the so-called
(C + N)IN
0
altitude-line clutter resulting from specular reflections
from the ground directly below the radar. 0
0 Alt RAMBIG
R -*

1 2 3
(c + N)I/N

Alt RAMBIG
Range R _

Alttud Altitude
(C + N)/N
FMB FMB + PRF
Frequency
Feuny
0 Alt R- RAMBIG
Fig. 2. Clutter in the range-Doppler space of medium PRF radar.
Fig. 4. Sections through the clutter map.

2) Radome Reflection Lobe Clutter

The set of ellipses in Fig. 2 represents a "contour
map" of clutter that can arise from the reflection from
the radome of some of the energy contained in the main
beam to a region of the ground that has a different Dop-
pler and range from those of the ground being illuminated
by the main beam.
This "reflection lobe" is the result of the small frac-
tion of main beam energy that is reflected from the ra-
dome's sidewall at the point at which the rest of the main
beam energy passes through it. The lobe is, in general,
on the opposite side of the aircraft from the main beam
148 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. AES-19, NO. I JANUARY 1983
B. Signal Processing
The signal processing for the downlook mode consists
of a three-pulse time domain canceler followed by a 64
point weighted FFT. The bulk of the main beam clutter
return is rejected by the canceler and the residue is re-
jected by ignoring the Doppler filters around the main
beam. Only those filters not within 55 knots of the main
beam clutter frequency are allowed to pass to the detec-
tion circuits. Clutter dynamic range is controlled using an
attenuator in front of the low noise RF amplifier for auto-
matic gain control.
1) Doppler Filter Detections It can, in fact, have the same Doppler as a desired target,
and therefore it cannot be rejected on a Doppler basis.
In its downlook mode, the AN/APG-66 transmits a set Conventional front-end sensitivity time control (STC)
of eight PRFs during each antenna dwell time. This set of cannot be used to attenuate short-range discretes in such a
PRFs has two important properties: radar because long-range targets would then also be sup-
a) the return from any target whose LOS ground speed pressed. A two-receiver guard channel system could be
exceeds 55 knots is "visible" with at least three of used to reject them, but such a system can be quite ex-
the eight PRFs (that is, there are no blind speeds out- pensive. The AN/APG-66 uses a novel single-channel re-
side of the main beam clutter notch region); ceiver mechanization that is much less expensive than a
b) the detection of any target by any three of the eight guard channel system. It is based on a postdetection STC
PRFs determines the target's range unambiguously. that rejects sidelobe discretes.
In the single-channel processing illustrated in Fig. 5,
The use of such a PRF set represents an approach to the medium PRF range ambiguity is resolved by 3-of-8
medium PRF radar design that differs significantly from correlation (as described in [4]) only on those detections
the approach (using "major" and "minor" PRFs) de- which exceed an appropriate STC function for that true
scribed by Aronoff and Greenblatt [7], and the determina- range. All but the very strongest RCS sidelobe discretes
tion of such a set is not a simple matter. As we show in are weaker, at their true range, than desired main beam
Section IIB, the radar's detection performance depends targets at that range. Thus, by combining the STC and
very strongly on the choice of PRFs. range correlation, only those targets are displayed that
During each look, the output of each of the unblanked have an amplitude at the true range that is large enough
filters in every range gate is compared with a threshold to be a main beam target of interest. In this way, the
derived from the CFAR circuitry of the radar which sums great majority of the sidelobe discretes are rejected by the
the outputs of adjacent cells to estimate the mean clutter postprocessing STC.
level in the target cell.
Section III shows how the combination of the CFAR
and the single channel STC described below prevents Receiver Doppler eTrue True-Range
Oupt Filter Range Correlations
false alarms due to sidelobe/reflection lobe clutter. On the Output Bank Detected
Targets
Correato of Sufficient
Amplitude
other hand, as explained in Section IIB, the combined ef- and To Be Main
fect of clutter and the CFAR circuitry is to raise the CFAR Discretes, STC Beam Targets
Threshold Per-Look Threshold
threshold and reduce the detectability of a target whose Data
ambiguous range and Doppler coincide with the range Fig. 5. Single-channel processing with postdetection STC.
and Doppler of sidelobe/reflection lobe clutter. Section II
shows the detection performance achieved by the AN/
APG-66 in all kinds of radar/target geometries. C. Simulation Description
As is seen in the discussion of Section IIB, the detec-
2) 3-of-8 Correlation tion performance of the downlook mode depends, in a
very complicated way, on a large number of parameters
A "moving window" correlator simultaneously re- that determine the relationship between the target and
solves the range ambiguity of a target and reports a corre- sidelobe clutter. For this reason it would be prohibitively
lation in the resolved unambiguous range gate after a costly in both time and money to flight-test the radar un-
given look if and only if the target is detected in at least der all the conditions that might be of interest. In lieu of
three of the previous eight looks. such flight testing, a computer simulation has been devel-
The procedure used to resolve the range ambiguity, oped, calibrated against flight test results, and then used
based on the Chinese remainder theorem, is described in to examine performance under many conditions for which
[2] and [4]. The implications of this algorithm on the cal- no flight data are available. Section IIC presents the re-
culation of the probability of reporting a target are dis- sults of these studies, and Fig. 6 presents a simplified
cussed in [6]. flowchart of the program. Further details on the program
can be found in [6].
3) Single Channel Postprocessing STC
11. DETECTION PERFORMANCE
Any airborne medium PRF pulse Doppler radar must
minimize the probability of a false alarm resulting from The standard measures of the detection performance
the return from a large radar cross section (RCS) clutter of any radar against a target having a given cross section
"discrete" that is received through the antenna sidelobes. is the range at which either the per-scan or cumulative
Because the angle between such a discrete and the veloc- probability of detection has some specified value. In the
ity vector is different from the angle between the main dynamic target and clutter environment in which the AN/
beam and the velocity vector, it has a Doppler shift that APG-66 operates, however, the per-scan probability of
differs from that of the main beam clutter "notch" filter. detection is an oscillatory function of the range of the tar-

RINGEL ET AL: F-16 PULSE DOPPLER RADAR (AN/APG-66) PERFORMANCE 149


Fig. 6. Program flowchart.
get. This is the case even when the target and interceptor
travel in straight lines along a lead collision course
(which causes the target to remain at a fixed Doppler fre-
quency with respect to the Doppler of the main-beam
clutter). As a result, no one range at which the per-scan
probability of detection has a given value can give a
meaningful description of the radar's range performance,
since there can be shorter ranges at which the probability
of detection is lower and longer ranges at which it is
higher. If one is interested in per-scan probability of de-
tection as a measure of performance, one must look at the
whole per-scan curve associated with a given lead colli-
sion course and fixed target Doppler frequency.
A standard method of measuring an airborne radar's
detection performance in flight is by means of a set of
blip-scan runs. In such a test the radar aircraft and target
fly over a fixed ground track at predetermined aspect an-
gles, speeds, and altitudes. The aircraft are usually under
the control of a ground-based radar so their speeds, alti-
tudes, and relative positions can be closely monitored.
The radar antenna is set to a predetermined position in
elevation and the target flies through its elevation beam
or beams as the antenna scans in azimuth. Several passes
are made to obtain an adequate sampling of the statistics
involved in the detection process.
The number of detections observed and the number of
scans that occur in each small range interval (approxi-
mately 0.3 nmi in our case) along the flight path are re-
corded, and from them the per-scan probability of
detection for that interval is obtained by dividing the for-
mer by the latter. The end result is a curve giving the
measured per-scan probability of detection as a function
of range for a given set of flight conditions.
Section IIA presents such curves obtained during a set
of blip-scan flights that were made at Edwards Air Force
Base in Califomia. During these flights the F-16 flew at
5000 ft above ground level (AGL) at a ground speed of
474 knots. The target, a T-38 whose mean radar cross
section is estimated to be 1.3 m2, flew at 500 ft AGL
with a ground speed of 340 knots. The aircraft flew
150 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. AES-19, NO. 1 JANUARY 1983
"head on" starting at a range of approximately 30 nmi
with the center of the radar's elevation coverage de-
pressed 3 deg. The scan pattern consisted of two eleva-
tion bars, each having an azimuth coverage of + 30 deg.
In addition to the flight data, Section IIA contains
per-scan curves obtained from the computer program de-
scribed in Section IC for the same conditions. The agree-
ment between the computed curves and the flight test
curves is meant to inspire confidence in the predictions
obtained from the program that is presented in Section
IIC. Section IIB introduces the material in Section IIC
with a discussion of the effects of target/radar geometry
on range performance.
A. Measured Detection Performance and
Simulation Calibration
Figs. 7 and 8 show the per-scan probability of detec-
tion obtained on each of the two bars of the scan pattern
during the blip-scan flight tests as a function of range.
Also included in those figures are the corresponding
curves obtained from the computer simulation described
in Section IC. The procedure used by the program to ob-
tain the latter curves is described in [6]. It used the ± 30
deg azimuth scan and two elevation bars as in the flight
test. In addition it used a Swerling I target model with a
1.3 m2 mean cross section, an elevation scan center that
was depressed 3 deg, a constant gamma clutter model
with gamma = - 12 dB, and a measured antenna radia-
tion pattern that was recorded with the antenna inside the
radome.
We feel that the agreement between the simulation re-
sults and the flight data is remarkably good considering
the vagaries of clutter and of flight test data.
The standard method of summarizing a per-scan curve
is to replace it, not with a single range number corre-
sponding to a specified value of per-scan probability, but
with the range Rp at which the cumulative probability of
detection has some specified value, usually 0.85 (R85).
The notion of cumulative probability of detection is dis-
cussed in many of the standard references on radar, and
some of the fine points involved in its computation are
discussed in [6]. We will not repeat those discussions
here except to remind the reader that R85 is defined by
the statement that the probability of detecting the target at
least once in the interval from R85 to infinity is 0.85. Ex-
perimentally one finds R85 by repeatedly flying a target in
from long range and finding the range beyond which 85
percent of the "first detects" on the target occurred. It is
clear that this cumulative probability of detection mono-
tonically increases as R decreases and that it represents a
reasonable "summary" of the more erratic per-scan
curve.
The value of R85 obtained by the simulation by 'cu-
mulating" the data contained in Figs. 7 and 8 is R85 =
20.0. The corresponding number obtained by cumulating
the flight data is R85 = 20.2. The close agreement is not
surprising since the per scan curves agree so well.
 TARGET: RCS = 1.3 m2 F-16: Scarn ±300 2 Bar VELR, and, if the ambiguous Doppler of the target at a
Aspect = Nose-On EL Angle = - 1.90
VELT = 340 Knots VELI = 474 Knots given PRF coincides with the ambiguous Doppler of the
1n.f
nl
ALT = 500 ft ALT = 5 kit main beam clutter, the target will "fall in the notch" and
be detected at that PRF. Thus the "visibility" of the
I I I I I

not
Upper Bar
UpperBar Clutter
Constant -Y
Model:
c 0.8 y= -12dB target, that is, the number of PRFs for which the target's
0
a Noise Limited (Simulated) ambiguous Doppler does not coincide with the ambiguous
cj 0.6 Doppler region occupied by main beam clutter, depends
0
\ Simulated on VELR.
-
a 0.4
Measuredd More generally, the specific Doppler filter that a tar-
0
get appears in when it is illuminated by a particular PRF
0. 0.2 _- depends on VELR. If we assume lead collision geometry
between the interceptor and the target, both VELR and the
0 In
I

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
target azimuth remain constant as the interceptor closes
Range (nmi) on the target. This implies that both the target Doppler
Fig. 7. Per-scan probability of detection versus range (upper bar). and the Doppler of main beam clutter when the radar is
looking at the target remain constant as the interceptor
Target: RCS 1.3 m2
= F-16: Scan 30", 2 Bar closes on the target. Thus a trace of the trajectory of the
Aspect Nose-On EL Angle -4.1°
target through a range Doppler map such as the one in
= =

VELT
= 340 Knots = VELI 474 Knots
1.0
=ALT 500 ft = ALT 5 kft Fig. 2, for a given PRF, would be a vertical line. The
target would start out at the ambiguous range correspond-
c 0.8 ing to its initial range, travel down the line to R = 0,
.2

0
reappear at R = RAMBIG, and continue cycling in this
8 0.6 way until it had closed to its minimum range. Depending
0 on which filter it was detected in at the given PRF, it
=
X0
0.4 would repeatedly encounter sidelobe clutter similar to one
2 or the other of the sections illustrated in Fig. 4.
01

0-0.2 One way of showing the dependence of range perfor-

mance on VELR (see, for example, [7]) is to choose a
n
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 fixed value for the target velocity VELT and determine
Range (nmi) the detection range of the target for a number of different
Fig. 8. Per-scan probability of detection versus range (lower bar). target aspect angles TASP. The target's aspect angle is
varied, as in Fig. 9, from 0 to 180 deg in some conve-
The above values of R85 were for a 1.3 m2 target in nient steps. This causes VELR to vary from - VELT to
the presence of clutter with a gamma of - 12 dB. To ob- + VELT, and it in turn varies the visibility of the target to
tain detection ranges for other flight conditions and/or tar- give a "broad brush" sampling of the effects of the ra-
get sizes, the following procedure was used: Flight tests dar/target geometry on the range performance of the ra-
were made and the simulation "calibrated" with respect dar.
to the specific flight conditions. The calibrated simulation VELT (Target Velocity)
was then run with the appropriate changes in the condi-
Target Aspect
tions. For example, simulation runs made with the radar ,o \\ 4 TASP (Variable)
at 5000 ft, a 2 m2 target at 500 ft with a closing velocity
of 2000 ft/s, a 2 bar, + - 60 degree azimuth scan, and a VELR
clutter gamma of -8 dB yielded an R85 of 22 nmi. - S - \ I(LOS Velocity)
The predictions contained in Section IIC are con-
cerned with range performance as a function of the radar/
target geometry and the target velocity. To avoid being Line of Sight
swamped with data, these predictions are also expressed Radar Velocity (Fixed) 180 - TASP
- VELI
in terms of R85. They are introduced by a general discus-
sion of the variation of performance with geometry in Target Azimuth - TAZD
Section IIB. Lead Collision Course
VELI Sin (TAZD) = VELT Sin (TASP)
, -

(VELI and Absolute Value of VELT - Constant

Direction of VELT - Variable)
B. Range Performance as a Function of Radar/
Target Geometry Fig. 9. Fixed target speed-variable aspect geometry.

The detection performance of a medium PRF radar in
clutter depends on the LOS velocity VELR of the target.
This is because the Doppler of the target relative to the
Doppler of main beam clutter is directly proportional to
RINGEL ET AL: F-16 PULSE DOPPLER RADAR (ANIAPG-66) PERFC)RMANCE
Fig. 9 also shows, however, that the combination of
the lead collision assumption with the fixed value of
VELT and the varying value of TASP implies that the tar-
get's azimuth angle must change when the aspect angle
151
changes. If we ignore the fact that the position of the var-
ious lumps of sidelobe clutter in range-Doppler space de-
pends on the azimuth of the main beam, this change in
azimuth causes no confusion. But if we wish to examine
the detailed effects of the sidelobe/reflection lobe gain
pattern, the change in azimuth with aspect angle can hide
some significant effects. This is because the position of
the reflection lobe in space, relative to the position of the
main beam, depends on the azimuth of the main beam
(see Figs. 3 and 15). Furthermore, the Doppler of the
main beam clearly depends on its azimuth and so the po-
sition of the sidelobe/reflection lobe clutter in range-Dop-
pler space depends on the azimuth of the main beam.
Thus if VELT remains fixed while both TASP and TAZD
are varied, the clutter environment of the range doppler
space of each PRF changes at the same time as the posi-
tion of the target trajectory in the range doppler space of
each PRF changes. Therefore there is no assurance that
this way of varying VELR will show the entire range of
effects that the sidelobe clutter can have on range perfor-
mance. The target and the worst part of the sidelobe clut-
ter may, for example, "do a dance" in which neither
ever encounters the other or in which they are always
bumping into each other.
To evaluate performance as a function of VELR with
the kind of detail that does give assurance of showing the
effects of sidelobe clutter, we therefore adopt the possibly
less intuitive but more systematic procedure illustrated in
Fig. 10. The clutter environment in the range Doppler
space of each PRF is "fixed" by choosing, first of all,
some fixed azimuth angle for the target. The trajectory of
the target in the range-Doppler space of each PRF is then
moved from filter to filter by varying VELR directly,
starting at some minimum value and ending at some max-
imum value. The minimum value is chosen as the most
negative (opening geometry) value of VELR that the tar-
get can have and still have the interceptor close on it. The
maximum value of VELR is chosen as the largest value
that is consistent with the target's maximum true ground
speed VELT.
Target Aspect TASP
Target Velocity (Variable) VELT
\ \
Radar Velocity (Fixed)-
VELI Target
(Variable) VELR
Target Azimuth (Fixed) Line of Sight (Fixed)
TAZD
Lead Collision Course
VELI ,
Sin (TAZD) = VELT Sin (TASP)
-
(VELI and TAZD - Constant, VELR - Variable)
VELR = VELT Cos (TASP)-
Fig. 10. Fixed target azimuth-variable line of sight velocity geometry.
C. Simulation Results
To relate the simulation results as closely as possible
to the flight test results, all of the target, flight, radar,
152 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. AES-19, NO. I JANUARY 1983
and clutter parameters used are the same as those used to
obtain the results in Section IIA. Only those parameters
affecting the radar/target geometry have been varied. The
performance obtained in this way is not to be confused
with the example of 2 m2 target performance mentioned
in Section IIA.
Fig. 11 and Table I (which includes the flight test R85
discussed in Section IIA) present the values of R85 com-
puted by the program described in Section IC as a func-
tion of VELR for a target at azimuth angles of 0, 30, and
50 deg. The column labeled VIS gives the number of
PRFs with which the target was visible for that value of
VELR. This visibility is independent of target azimuth.
Included with each value of R85 are VELT, the target's
true ground speed; VCL, the closing speed between target
and interceptor; and TASP, the target's aspect angle.
It is clear from the values presented that, for the PRF
set used by the AN/APG-66, R85 behaves quite reason-
ably as VELR changes. This can also be seen from the
mean and standard deviation (sigma) given at the bottom
of each R85 column.
It is interesting to note that the differences in the side-
lobe clutter at each azimuth can cause targets with the
same visibility to have significantly different detectability.
This is the case for the example at VELR = 300, where
the 30 deg azimuth target is detected at 17.4 nmi, while
the 0 deg and 50 deg targets are detected at 20.0 and
20.2 nmi, respectively.
It is also noteworthy that, although it is generally the
case that detection range increases with visibility, there
are cases for which a target has greater (main beam clut-
ter) visibility but a lower detection range than one having
a smaller visibility. An example of this phenomenon is
the pair of targets at AZ = 50, VELR = 650 (R85 -
18.0) and AZ = 50, VELR = 450 (R85 = 20.6). The
fact that the target at AZ 50 and VELR = 600 is de-
tected at 21.6 nmi shows that the decrease to 18.0 at
VELR = 650 is not simply the result of the faster closing
rate of the latter target.
LOS Velocity
-400 -.200 0 200 400 600
(Opening) (Closing)
Target Radial Velocity (Knots)
Fig. 11. Range performance as a function of azimuth and VELR.
 TABLE I
Range Performance (in nautical miles) as a Function of Azimuth (in
degrees) and VELR (in knots)

Azimuth = 0° Azimuth = 300 Azimuth = 50°

VELR VIS VELT VCL TASP RF VELT VCL TASP R85 VELT VCL TASP R85
- 450 4 450 24 180 26.9 #
- 400 3 400 74 24.2 465 10 149 27.1 ---- ----
- 350 4 350 124 24.3 423 60 146 25.8 # ---- ----
- 300 4 300 174 23.9 382 110 142 25.2 471 130
5 29.9
- 250 5 250 224 24.3 344 160 137 25.3 441 125
55 27.0
- 200 7 200 274 24.9 310 210 130 24.1 415 119
105 24.8
- 150 8 150* 324 24.8* 280 260 122 22.8393 155
112 25.6
- 100 8 100* 374 23.3* 257 310 113 24.9377 205
105 25.9
- 50 0 50' 424 Bo. 242' 360 102 m 367' 98
255 B
0 0 0' 474 0 B 2371o 410 90 O 363> 305
90 w
50 0 50' 524 ' 2420o 460 78 P 367' 355
82 I
100 8 100* 574 23.4* 257 510 67 23.5 377 405
75 24.2
150 8 150* 624 23.2* 280 560 58 23.4 393 455 68 23.9
200 7 200 674 22.4 310 610 50 22.0 415 505 61 22.4
250 5 250 724 20.9 344 660 43 20.0 441 555 55 21.0
300 4 300 774 20.0 382 710 38 17.4 471 605 50 20.2
340 5 340 * 814 20.00 - - - _-----------------------------
-------------------------

350 4 350 824 18.8 423 760 34 19.4 504 655 46 19.9
400 3 400 874 18.4 465 810 31 17.1 540 705 42 17.2
450 4 450 924 19.8 508 860 28 20.3 578 755 39 20.6
500 5 500 974 20.2 553 910 25 20.2 618 805 36 20.3
550 6 550 1024 20.9 599 960 23 20.4 659 855 33 20.9
600 7 600 1074 21.0 645 1010 22 21.1 701 * 905 31 21.6 *
650 5 650 1124 20.3 692* 1060 20 18.0* 745 * 955 29 18.0 *
Mean 22.0 22.2 22.9
Sigma 2.4 2.8 3.2

* This target speed is unrealistically low.

# The target opens on the interceptor at this speed.
' The target is in the notch at this speed.
* This target speed is unrealistically high for an altitude of 500 feet.
* This is the flight test case.

Another noteworthy feature of the data is that all of
the "opening geometry" targets (negative VELR) have
significantly greater detection ranges than the "closing
geometry" targets (positive VELR). This is mainly be-
cause the closing rate of the former targets is much
smaller than that of the latter targets, so there are more
opportunities to "cumulate" the per-scan probability of
detection no matter how small it is, as long as it is
greater than zero.
We note, finally, that the table shows those few par-
ticular combinations of target velocity and aspect angle at
which the radar is altogether blind to the target as a result
of the target's low Doppler relative to the Doppler of the
main beam clutter.
111. FALSE ALARM PERFORMANCE
In the literature on radar, the term "false alarm" is
usually applied to the effect of the crossing of a threshold
by noise as discussed in Marcum [8]. In the AN/APG-66
downlook mode, however, false alarms resulting from
this phenomenon are virtually nonexistent because of the
adaptive CFAR, and the 3-of-8 target reporting algorithm
it uses to prevent false alarms from other more significant
sources. For this reason the computed noise false alarm
rate predicts very little about the false alarm performance
of the AN/APG-66 downlook mode. On the other hand,
the environment in which the AN/APG-66 operates is so
complex and unpredictable that it is impossible to com-
pute a meaningful predicted false alarm rate that takes
into account the environment. In fact, even the experi-
mental determination of the false alarm rate from flight
data to be described in this section was exceedingly diffi-
cult. This was because, to begin with, it required a great
deal of "detective work" to identify the source of each
target report and thereby decide whether or not it was a
false alarm.
This detective work involved the comparison of var-
ious parameter values associated with each report with the
values expected from known phenomena. The parameter
values were in turn derived from the data provided by the
AN/APG-66 instrumentation. This data included azimuth,
unambiguous range, signal amplitude, ambiguous range,
and Doppler for each PRF (look), and INS-derived air-
craft coordinates and directions, all of which were useful
in deducing the sources of target reports.

RINGEL ET AL: F-16 PULSE DOPPLER RADAR (AN/APG-66) PERFORMANCE 153

 Once the target report sources were identified, each
report was put into one of eight categories. These catego-
ries were chosen on the basis of both a general knowl-
edge of the nature of the AN/APG-66 and the information
gathered during and preceding the flight tests. Only after
these categories were defined was it possible to decide
which target reports should be regarded as legitimate and
which should be regarded as false alarms.
For the above reasons, Section IIIA defines the cate-
gories and their identifying characteristics and then ex-
plains, in terms of these categories, which target reports
were counted as false alarms in the results presented in
Section IIIB. In addition to giving the numerical false
alarm results, Section IIIB describes those flight tests that
were made for the special purpose of gathering false
alarm data to add to the data gathered in the blip-scan
flights described in the introduction to Section II. Finally,
Section IIIC pins down the ideas and results presented in
Sections IIIA and B by giving examples, from the flight
data, of target reports belonging to some of the more in-
teresting categories described in Section IIIA. It also de-
scribes some of the detective work used to identify the
sources of those reports.
A. AN/APG-66 Downlook Mode Target Report
Categories
The eight categories into which the flight test target
reports were classified were
receiver noise
real airborne targets
ground moving targets
sidelobe clutter discretes
system instabilities
"skinless" sidebands
ghosts
unknowns.
The receiver noise category was chosen for the sake
of completeness even though it was expected to remain
empty for the reasons given above. The criterion used to
decide that a report belonged in this category was that the
three or more range-correlating per-look detections gener-
ating the report must lack any correlation in Doppler. (A
set of three or more noise detections that would correlate
in range would be extremely unlikely to also correlate in
Doppler.)
The real airborne target and ground moving target cat-
egories were obvious categories to include. Such reports
could be identified by an (eyeball) correlated track which
had "reasonable" scan-to-scan correlation in range,
crossrange, and velocity/Doppler. Such tracks were ob-
tained by plotting detections on a ground coordinate grid,
with radar maneuvering and motion removed, to see true
target motion. Ground moving targets could be distin-
guished from airbome targets on the basis of their loca-
tion along known highways and their lower scan-to-scan
derived velocities.
154 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. AES-19, NO. 1 JANUARY 1983
The sidelobe clutter discrete category was chosen on
the basis of previous experience with target reports result-
ing from this source. Reports belonging to this category
were more difficult to identify than those belonging to the
first three categories because the angular position of the
discrete could only be estimated. This estimate was based
on the assumption that the principal pattern sidelobe was
the "radome reflection lobe" discussed in Section IA-2.
This assumption was justified by the fact that its use in
the procedure described below led to the identification of
such discretes on the ground for most of the target reports
that were suspected of being due to clutter discretes. (See
the examples in Section IIIC.)
The procedure used to locate the discrete on the
ground was as follows: The angular position of the reflec-
tion lobe was known from measurements of the radome
on an antenna range, and this location could be compared
to data from in-flight detections. A suspect report's
"Doppler angle" from the velocity vector could be com-
puted from the observed Doppler of the detection and the
known radar ground speed. This Doppler angle would
have to be consistent with the position of the reflection
lobe as estimated from the knowledge of the position of
the main beam. Other criteria used to identify sidelobe
clutter discretes were
I) there would have to be a known large clutter discrete
at the corresponding location on the ground
2) the return would have to have only a single spectral
line (i.e., no sidebands)
3) the amplitude would have to be "reasonable" for the
observed range and radome lobe amplitude.
The category "system instabilities" was included be-
cause detections due to system instabilities were known to
occur in other MTI or pulse Doppler radars. Target re-
ports in this category are caused by frequency or timing
instabilities that spread the spectrum of main beam clut-
ter. They are identified by the presence of discrete or
continuous sidebands on either side of the main beam
clutter notch and would occur in the AN/APG-66 (if at
all) only in those range cells containing the strongest
main beam clutter.
The category called "skinless sidebands" was created
to account for a peculiar phenomenon consisting of the
detection of a large number of unusually weak (for the
observed range) spectral lines, with no visible "skin
line." These targets did not appear to move significantly
from scan to scan.
The "ghosts" category was created for those reports
that are the result of cross correlations between two or
more different real targets. These reports occur at a range
that differs from the ranges of the true targets and are
identified by their lack of look-to-look Doppler correla-
tion as well as the presence of true targets at ranges that
could produce the observed ghost.
Finally, the "unknown" category was used for those
relatively rare detections for which there was insufficient
data from scan to scan to allow identification.
 The reports that were counted as false alarms in the gets was plotted on a map from radar data and found to
results presented in Section IIIB were those contained in coincide with a large hangar and a large gantry structure.
the categories labeled receiver noise, sidelobe clutter dis- Perpendicular to coastline cliffs-These tests were
cretes, system instabilities, ghosts, and unknowns. This is flown at Big Sur, Calif., to evaluate the effects of large,
because such reports either were the result of no target at specular returns in the antenna main beam, which would
all, or else they give erroneous directional or range infor- aggravate any system stability problems.
mation (i.e., with a discrete). On the other hand, reports The false alarm results obtained from the flights de-
of real airborne targets, ground moving targets, and skin- scribed are shown in Table II, along with the recorded
less sidebands are considered valid reports because they data intervals and number of false alarms. The data show
give the correct range and directional information of a that the measured false alarm rate, averaged over all
real target. In the case of ground moving targets and tests, was 1.2 per minute. Further operational experience
skinless sidebands, as is seen in Section IIIC, the radar has confirmed these formal test results.
simply reports the detection of real target Doppler com-
ponents that are present in the return signal. TABLE II
False Alarm Testing Results
Number Data False
B. Flight Test False Alarm Results Test of False Interval Alarms
Alarms (Minutes) per Minute
BlipScan Runs - Edwards AFB, Cal. 165 143.9 1.15
In addition to the blip-scan runs described in the in- Panamint Valley, Cal. 7 6.0 1.17
troduction to Section II, during which false alarm data Norway Conditions - Prince Rupert, B.C. 3 11.48 0.26
were also gathered, a number of flights were made specifi- Islands - Prince Rupert, B.C. 6 9.0 0.67
Urban Area - Hill AFB, Utah 11 5.67 1.9
cally for the purpose of measuring false alarm perfor- Large Discretes - Edwards AFB, Cal. 42 17.4 Z.4
mance. These tests were designed to measure the false Coastline Cliff - Big Sur, Cal. 0 1.4 0
alarm performance under extreme conditions and are Total 234 194.85 1.2
listed below.
Flying through a valley-Three runs were made in
which the radar flew through the Panamint Valley in Cal- C. Examples of Target Reports in Each Category
ifornia at an altitude of 5000 ft. These tests were made to
observe the false alarm performance under more severe The following discussion contains some examples, ex-
clutter conditions than those found at Edwards Air Force tracted from the flight data, that contributed to the results
Base. presented in Section IIIB.
Simulated Norway conditions-Twelve minutes of
data were recorded over Prince Rupert, British Columbia, 1) Ground Moving Targets
at altitudes between 6000 and 12000 ft. The slopes, vege-
tation, temperatures, and fjords at Prince Rupert are simi- The largest of the target report categories, other than
lar to those in Norway. that of airborne targets, was the ground moving target
Islands in the sea-Another test run at Prince Rupert category. Fig. 12 illustrates a set of data of the apparent
was designed to evaluate the effects on the radar's false target "velocity" for ground movers based on their ob-
alarm performance of the abrupt land/water transitions served Doppler. These high velocities were surprising,
that occur over an area consisting of water dotted by since the radar uses a clutter notch of + 55 knots (63 mi/
small islands. h). Very few ground moving targets had been expected to
Urban area-These runs were made at Hill Air Force exceed this speed, especially in this age of 55 mi/h speed
Base near Salt Lake City, Utah, to evaluate the effects of
the very severe clutter environment of an urban area con-
taining large RCS buildings, for example, on performance
at low to medium altitudes. In addition, there were a
large number of real targets because of the close proxim-
ity of three airports. The data were obtained dunng the ap-
15 K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
proach and departure phases of flights at Hill Air Force Number of 10 - MBC
Occurrences
Base so that both low and medium altitude data could be -Notch-.
gathered.
Large clutter discretes-These tests were designed to 5
evaluate the radar's performance against large clutter dis-
cretes that appear in the antenna/radome sidelobes. The
radar cross section of these discretes was measured by a 0 i I I
ib i2b i. I
If
B.iI01mI~~iIi.
I r
30 40 50 eo 70 80 9o 100 1 10
clutter-mapping technique. Two structures were observed Apparent Target Velocity (Knots)
with RCS in excess of 106 m2. The location of these tar- Fig. 12. Example of histogram of low speed target velocities.

RINGEL ET AL: F-16 PULSE DOPPLER RADAR (AN/APG-66) PERFORMANCE 155

limits. After considerable "Sherlock Holmes" effort, 4 3
Doppler (kHz)
-2 -1 0 Time:
which is summarized in the following paragraphs, the 0 - 1 69
2
source of these "speed demon reports" was found to be
1 59 23:12:10.96
4 3

harmonics of legitimate targets rather than very high 6 3 27 Number Next to Data
- 3 21 Point = Amplitude in Quanta
speed ground moving targets or flaws in the radar. 10
8

The AN/APG-66 Doppler filter bank covers Doppler 12 2 45

frequencies well below 55 knots even though the radar 14 34 )14

16 10 26

does not report targets in that region. The instrumentation 18 3 62

20
can, however, observe target spectra in that region (under
- 2 (12
E 22
conditions in which the main beam clutter present is suf- z 24
z
5 - 147

ficiently weak, or narrow in Doppler). By examining _.X

0
26

28 - 9223 23:12:23.2
such spectra it was found that the ground movers had a -j
30 4 211

strong skin line below 55 knots which, of course, was not 32 1377
5

34 4 29

detected because of the blanking operation of the main 36 4 30 23:13:04.9

38 11 152
beam clutter notch, whereas its weak harmonic above 55 40 _ 277 23:13:22.9
knots was detected. This clearly was a harmonic since it 42 33 513

383
always occurred at twice the skin Doppler, but only for 44 20

46 20 --- -- 2-7---0------- -2-- 23:13:44.0

opening geometry (i.e., negative Doppler). 48 7 225

50 10 645
Fig. 13 illustrates a typical target spectral history over 52 552 11000 +

9
one dwell time. Each point represents a visible signal at
53 23:13:53.3
54

that filter on that look, with the numbers representing Fig. 14. Dopper versus time. "tracking a truck,' tail aspect.
amplitude in quanta. The skin line is clearly visible
within the notch (along with a small inconsequential im- 2) Sidelobe Clutter Discretes
age of it due to I-Q receiver imbalance). The "2F" har-
monic is clearly visible and detectable outside of the The only false alarms resulting from detections
Doppler region of the notch even thoulgh it is much through the sidelobes that were observed were those that
weaker than the skin return. occurred when the reflection lobe illuminated discretes
whose RCS were in excess of 106 m2. Very few such dis-
cretes have been observed anywhere, so they constitute
Doppler (kHz) only a minor problem. Therefore, the single-channel side-
8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 lobe rejection technique handles all but the very strongest
MB Notch-el
-2 - I (-3dB) I discretes, even in the presence of a radome reflection
0
123 lumber Next to
Data Point
lob
lObe.
1100+ Amplitude
Fig. 15 is a plot of the Doppler angle of suspected
2 I

n4 81 0+
radome reflection lobe detections as a function of the azi-
E Harmonic I
71 muth of the main lobe at the time of the detection. It can
Z6
251 400+ be seen that all of the detections plotted fall in the region
08 I 84
11 300+ bounded by the azimuths of the 40 dB limits of the re-
10
I 100+ - flection lobe as a function of the azimuth of the main
12 I Image I
Skin 69 of lobe.
14 Skin Fig. 16 shows the apparent velocity of a set of reflec-
I
tion lobe discretes. Note that the Doppler is well above
Fig. 13. Example of target history witht2F harmonic. the ground moving target region.

Fig. 14, illustrating a harmonic beiing tracked over a 3) System Instabilities

period of about 2 min while the skin re-turn is rejected,
shows that this is not a transient phenoFmenon. This target
was visually identified as a large truck. The harmonic
was about 22 dB below the skin line; nio such component
has ever been observed in the return frI om an aircraft. The
harmonic is almost certainly due to the top of the tires,
which are moving at exactly twice the skin speed. The
opening aspect geometry requirement is apparently be-
cause the rear tires of a truck are often clearly visible
while the front tires of trucks and cars are almost always
shielded by fenders. Therefore, the apr)arent high veloci-
ties of Fig. 14 correspond to true veloc rities of half those
values.
Many earlier airbome pulse Doppler radars suffered
from instability problems in a severe clutter environment.
Although false alarms due to instabilities have been ob-
served with known out-of-spec AN/APG-66 units, none
have been identified in the test flights which used normal
in-spec units, or in later operational flights.
4) Skinless Sidebands
False alarms due to "skinless sidebands" were found
to be a phenomenon that was related to, but different
from, the detection of the tops of the rear tires of a truck

156 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. AES-19, NO. I JANUARY 1983
 (Left)
60 50

Main Beam
N

40

Elevation = -6.5'
\ "%.

30 20
..-.-

I
I-

16.
.-

201
10I
%

I-
I~
I
-

I-
II 50

Fig. 15. Doppler angle of detections versus radome lobe location.

Number of
Occurrences
10
VG - 300 Knots
l
(Right)

1
50
40

10

20 1
30

70

80
(Left)
RadLme
Reflection
70Lobe
Azimuth
60 (deg)

iII
10
I

I
I I
20 30 40 50 60
AA.in
main Q2..m
(deg)

L..
* *":
A,i-..*
tsamU Azlimun
I I

(Right)

Reflection
Lobe Peak

-40 dB
Limits
l
-l

5
6 -
7
8
9
n 10
E

° 12
13
14
15
16
17

IV. SUMMARY
6

-
-5

5'7
\ 1
I

0 9
-4

16 17 11 X18 12x1
z 11 - x7 X9
4 8 /11

Number Next to
~ ~ ~ we- w
Doppler Relative to MBC (kHz)

75i8

xi2
-3

X13110
121 510
-2
No Instrumentation
in This Region
x10

Data Point = Amplitude in Quanta

I 1 1
xi7

s 13

X1o
-1

2
0

xii
xli
8

Fig. 17. Example of target history with only sidebands.

The detection and false alarm performance of the

downlook mode of the AN/APG-66 has been presented
and explained in terms of the nature of medium PRF clut-
ter and the signal processing of that mode. We have in-
cluded a description of the sources of some false alarms
and pointed out that at least two categories of "false
alarms" should be regarded as unexpected categories of
targets that can be detected with this radar: stationary jet
aircraft with their engines running and moving trucks.
I--,

I
%

X
Apparent
/

Skin Line
1

9 x42

~~~~42
42

\,-$~~~i14
x
1

5 Operational performance has reinforced the conclusions of

Notch--PY.'j
_oMBC
the flight tests.
of ti
Ie
I I I

0 50 1W0 150 200 250 300

Apparent Velocity (Knots)
Fig. 16. Apparent velocity of radome clutter discretes ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Gary Walker of Gen-
described in Section IIIC- 1. Scan-to-scan correlations eral Dynamics, who provided the range performance
showed these targets did not move relative to the ground flight data used in this paper and valuable assistance in
even though large numbers of weak spectral lines were developing the simulation model.
observed, as shown in the Doppler history example of
Fig. 17. (The apparent FM is not target related, but rather
due to the radar's clutter tracking.) The ground truth plots REFERENCES
showed that in every case these detections were located at [11 Hovanessian, S.A. (1982)
airports, well away from all hangars and buildings. In the Medium PRF radar performance analysis.
case of the Edwards AFB data, the spot was pinpointed IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 18, no. 3 (May
and an on-site observer found it to be the aircraft engine 1982), pp. 286-296.
warmup and test ramp. It was concluded that the returns [21 Skillman, W.A., and Mooney, D.H. (1961)
Multiple-high-PRF ranging.
being detected were jet engine sidebands from a motion- In IRE 5th Nat. Conv. Military Electronics (1961), pp. 37-
less aircraft whose skin return would therefore be at the 40. (reprinted in D.K. Barton (Ed.), Radars, vol. 7: CW and
very center of the main beam clutter notch where it could Doppler Radar. Dedham, Mass.: Artech House, 1979).
not be detected (even with our instrumentation). [3] Goetz, L.P., and Albright, J.D. (1961)
Airborne pulse Doppler radar.
IRE Trans. Mil. Electron. MIL-5, 2 (Apr. 1961), 116-26
5) Ghosts (reprinted in D.K. Barton (Ed.), Radars, vol. 7: CW and
Doppler Radar. Dedham, Mass.: Artech House, 1979).
[4] Mooney, D.H., and Skillman, W.A. (1970)
There were very few "ghost" target detections. The Pulse-Doppler radar.
single-channel STC postprocessing was found to be ex- In M.I. Skolnik (Ed.), Radar Handbook. New York: Mc-
tremely effective in preventing false alarms of this type. Graw-Hill, 1970, Ch. 19.

RINGEL ET AL: F-16 PULSE DOPPLER RADAR (AN/APG-66) PERFORMANCE 157

[5] Ringel, M.B. (1977)
An advanced computer calculation of ground clutter in an
airborne pulse Doppler radar.
In IEEE NAECON Rec. (Dayton, Ohio, 1977), pp. 921-928
(reprinted in D.K. Barton (Ed.), Radars, vol. 7: CW and
Doppler Radar. Dedham, Mass.: Artech House, 1979).
[6] Ringel, M.B. (1981)
Detection range analysis of an airborne medium PRF radar.
In IEEE NAECON Rec. (Dayton, Ohio, 1981), pp. 358-362.
[7] Aronoff, E., and Greenblatt, N.M. (1979)
Medium PRF radar design and performance.
In D.K. Barton (Ed.), Radars, vol. 7: CW and Doppler Ra-
dar. Dedham, Mass.: Artech House, 1979.
[8] Marcum, J.R. (1960)
A statistical theory of target detection by pulsed radar.
IRE Trans. Inform. Theory IT-6 (Apr. 1960), 59-267.

Melvin B. Ringel (M'68) was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., on June 14, 1937. He re-
ceived the B.S. degree in mathematics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, in 1958 and the M.S. degree in mathematics from Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, Baltimore, Md., in 1960. He also did doctoral studies in algebraic geometry at
Johns Hopkins.
From 1962 to 1968 he worked at the Carlyle Barton Laboratory (formerly the Ra-
diation Laboratory) of Johns Hopkins University. His work there included the analysis
of the vulnerability of synthetic aperture radar to ECM. He was, during the same pe-
nriod, a Lecturer in Mathematics at Johns Hopkins, Towson State College, and the Uni-
E 111_ versity of Baltimore. Since 1968 he has worked on the design and analysis of a
* - i _ number of radar systems at the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Baltimore where
he is currently a Fellow Engineer. His work includes simulation studies of the resolu-
tion and accuracy of the E-3A radar, signal analysis studies, the design of constant
false alarm rate (CFAR) algorithms, the analysis of the clutter limited detection range
performance of the F-16 radar, and the analysis of the multipath problem for ground
based tracking radars. He holds one patent and is the author of several papers on air-
borne radar.
Mr. Ringel is a member of the Mathematical Association of America. He is also a
Go player and road runner and finished the 1978 New York Marathon only two hours
and a few minutes behind Bill Rodgers.

'4..

David H. Mooney (SM) was born in Columbia, S.C., on January 25, 1927. He re-
_ ceived the B.S.E.E. from the University of South Carolina, Columbia, in 1948 and the
"k, M.S.E.E. from the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1951.
Since 1948 he has been on the technical staff of the Westinghouse Electric Corpo-
ration, with a primary field of interest in advanced airborne radar. His activities have
|_' included hardware development, systems synthesis, computer simulation, performance
analysis, and flight data analysis. He holds a number of patents in the radar field, and
is a coauthor of chapter 19 of Skolnik's Radar Handbook.
Mr. Mooney is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Tau Beta Pi, and is a registered
Professional Engineer in the State of Maryland.

_ Ws.4i! W. Long was born in Lexington, Va., on July 2, 1940. He received the B.S.E.E.
degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, in 1963 under the Cooperative
Engineering Program with the Virginia Electric and Power Company.
Since 1966 he has been with the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in the system's
definition and analysis area and has been involved in a number of airborne and balloon
borne radar programs. His most recent experience is with the F-16 fire control radar
system.
158 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. AES-19, NO. I JANUARY 1983