UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER
AD354894
CLASSIFICATION CHANGES

TO: unclassified

FROM: confidential

LIMITATION CHANGES
TO:
Approved for public release, distribution
unlimited

FROM:
Distribution authorized to U.S. Gov't.
agencies and their contractors;
Administrative/Operational Use; APR 1959.
Other requests shall be referred to US
Army Ordnance Corps, Redstone Arsenal, AL.

AUTHORITY
30 Apr 1971, DoDD 5200.10; CRD D/A ltr, 24
Aug 1981

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

 UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER
AD354894

CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
TO

confidential

FROM

secret

AUTHORITY

30 Apr 1962, DoDD 5200.10

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN DELIMITED

AND CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

UNDER DOD DIRECTIVE 5200,20 AND
NO RESTRICTIOhS ARE IMPOSED UPON

ITS USE AND DISCLOSURE,

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A

APPROVED FOF PUBLIC RELWSEJ

DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED,
 UNCLASSI FI ED

.ASSIFICATION CHANGED
TO: .UNCLASSIFIED
FROM CONFIDENTIAL
.!UTHORITY:

UNCLASSI FIED
DEF-ENSE DOCUMENTATION CENTER
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
CAMERON STATION. ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA

wom
NOTICE: Mhen goverment or other drawings, speci-
fications or other data are used for any purpose
other than in connection with a definitely related
government procurement operation, the U. S.
Government thereby incurs no responsibility, nor any
obligation whatsoever; and the fact that the Govern-
ment may have formlated, furnished, or in any way
supplied the said drawings, specificatic'in, or other
data is not to be regarded by implication or other-
vise as in any manner licensing the holder or &.L
other person or corporation, or conveying any rights
or permission to manufacture, use or sell any
patented invention that may in any way be related
thereto.

NOTICE:

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION

AFFECTING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE OF

THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEAN-

ING OF THE ESPIONAGE LAWS, TITLE 18,

U.S.C., SECTIONS 793 and 794. THE

TRANSMISSION OR THE REVELATION OF

ITS CONTENTS IN ANY MANNER TO AN

UNAUTHORIZED PERSON IS PROHIBITED

BY LAW.
 CHAFF COUNTERMEASURES
AND AIR DEFENSE RADAR DESIGN
By: John H. Bryan

Preparedi'r:
REDSTONE ARSENAL OF THE U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS
HUNTSfILLE, ALABAMA
EVANS SIGNAL LABORATORY OF THE U.S, ARMY SIGNAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES
FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY

, - -,-
--

S Stanford Research institute

:
Gono No._
SRI Copy No._ " • +

1825
SR;
 MI N 1 0 *RK

I ',/ prW59

* - hniea-kpart-6

CHAFF COUNTERMEASURES
IAND AIR DEFENSE RADAR DESIGN

/ 1. By: John H. Bryan,

S R IProieoA.E L235-TJ3o

Preparedfor:
REDSTONE ARSENAL OF THE U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS
HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA

I EVANS SIGNAL LABORATORY OF THE U.S. ARMY SIGNAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES

----ORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY
(J7Cnrat$[Ao
4 2ooORD-t 4 2 - 4 20o o6-OR D-jio
C

3 -Wim ~ . ,~ ~ nn~:DI ~~ con fc Weommendations -

'

Concerning the Development of Army Ordnance urface-to-Air Missile Systfemst~ A

I Approved:

H. P. BLANCHARD, MANAGER WEAPONS SYSTEMS LABORATORY

I1- - --
---
ID. R.SCHEUICH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH

cCopy No-16--- o]-50

This document containsinformation affecting thsenational dt-
fons. of thu. United Stateswtin tis. meaning of -he Espionage
Laws, Title 18. U. S. C., Sections713 and 714. Its transmission
oth revelation of Its contents in any manner to an on-
asuthorlzedpersonIs prohibited by law.

I SECRET OSS41
I SECRET
I
[ FOREWORD

I
This report was first published in
August 1958 as an internal memorandum. In
order to make this information more widely
available, it is now being published as a
technical report.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I i

,, !sECRE
2 ,SECRET
I
[ ABSTRACT

Chaff may be used in a variety of ways to protea*itacking

bombers from air defense radars. This re, coniders tht operational
problem of chaff as a threat to U. adars by first surveying the
technical characteristics o aff and of anti-chaff techniques and
then examining a ch erist ic tactical chaff defense problem in the
{ light of these chnical characteristics.

i
i
I
U
U
I
I
I
I
iiii

J ISECREt
ISECRET

[CONTENTS
I
I FOREWORD ............. ............................. ii

ABSTRACT ............ ............................. iii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........ ....................... vi

I INTRODUCTION...................... 1

II BASIC CHAFF CHARACTERISTICS ........ ................. 4

A. Comparison of Chaff and Noise Jamming ..... .......... 4
1. Similaritier to Noise Jamming ...... ............ 4
2. Differences i.om Noise Jamming ........... . 5.......
IB. Technical Characteristics of Chaff. .. ........... 6
1. Chaff Return Variations and Their Statistical
Description .......... ..................... 6
2. Correlation Time, Integration Time, and Chaff
Density Requirements .... ................ . I.11
3. Dispersion and Fall Rates .... .............. .. 13
4. Frequency Coverage ..... ................. .. 14

III ANTICIPATED DELIVERY SYSTEMS .... .................. 16

A. Conventional Mechanical Dispensers .. ........... .. 16
B. Forward-Launched Chaff ..... ................. .. 17
C. Chall Deainit~i Reqiip4.d .................. 18
D. Dispensing Time ....... ..................... .. 19
E. Bomber Chaff Load ....... .................... .. 21
F. Miscellaneous Comments ..... ................. .. 22

IV RADAR PROTECTION AGAINST CHAFF CLUTTER .. ........... .. 24

A. Anti-Chaff Techniques .......................... .4
1. Increased Resolution ........ ................ 25
2. Modified Receiver Response . ............ 25
3. Decorrelation of Chaff Returns ..... ........... 27
4. Velocity Discrimination .... ............... .. 27
5. Video Censoring ................... 37
B. Target Visibility and MTI ..... ............... .. 38

* iv

I SECRETf
* SECRET

I CONTENTS (Continued)

V SUBCHAFF VISIBILITY OF U.S. AIR DEFENSE RADARS. .. ........41

A. FPS-20 .. .. ........ ................... 41
B. FPS-28 .. .. ......................... 44

VI THE STATUS OF CHAFF THREAT EVALUATION .. ............. 54

I-A. Wind Effects .. .. ...................... 54
B. Significance of Time Delays on Defensive Operations . . . . 54
C. ECCM Compatibility .. .. ................... 55

D. Warhead Size .. .. ...................... 56

E. ECCM Objectives and Measures of Effectiveness .j .. 5

APPENDIX A CALCULATION OF REFERENCE GAIN OF RANGE-GATEDJ

FILTER MFI. .. ..................... 57

APPENDIX B NONCOHERENT MTI AND CLUTTER VARIATIONS .. .. ...... 64

REFERENCES .. .. ........................... 70

Iv

iGM
 SECRET

I ILLUSTRATIONS

F
rFig.
Fig. 1
2
Unit-Power Chaff Spectrum for Zero Mean Velocity ....
Unit-Power Chaff Spectrum for Non-Zero Mean Velocity . .
11
11

Fig. 3 Approximate Composition of RR-39/AL Broad-Band Foil

Chaff Package ....... ..................... .. 15
Fig. 4 Block Diagram of Characteristic Coherent MTI System . . 28

Frequency .. ..... 30
f Fig. 5 Two-Pulse MI Canceler Response vs.
Fig. 6 Two-Pulse MTI Response with Two Repetition Rates . . . . 30

Fig. 7 Example of MTI Response of Three-Pulse Cancellation

J with Feedback Control of Shape ... ............. .. 30

Fig. 8 Example of MTI Response of Three-Pulse Cancellation

with Velocity Compensation .... .................. 30

I Fig. 9 Block Diagram of One Type of Noncoherent MTI Circuitry 35

Fig. 10 FPS-20 Three-Pulse Cancellation MTI Response with
Feedback at Scan Rate of 5 RPM ... ................ 39
Fig. 11 Envelope of FPS-20 MTI Response to 600-Knot Aircraft
in Flight Path Shown ...... .................. .. 39

I Fig. 12 Overlapping Chaff Trails Produced by Missiles Fired at

10-Second Intervals ..... .................. .. 42

Fig. 13 Localized Gated-Filter MTI Response Shown with Spectrum

of Chaff with Non-Zero Mean Radial Velocity ...... .. 46
Fig. 14 Relative Chaff Attenuation by Idealized FPS-28 Coherent
Rangc-Gatcd Piltcr MrI as a Function of Wind Conditioub
(Scanning Effects Neglected) .... .............. .. 47
Fig. 15 Synthetic Wind-Speed Profiles--Wind Velocities Exceeded
50 Percent and 20 Percent of the Winter in the Windiest
Area of North America (Northeastern Part) ....... .. 49
Fig. 16 Approximate Spectrum of Double Chaff Trail Before and
After Altitude Dispersion .. ............ ... 50
Fig. 17 Tangential Course of Aircraft Past Radar for
Illustration of Blind Zone ....... ............... 52

[
• vi

SECRET
* SECRET
I
[CHAFF COUNTERMEASURES AND AIR DEFENSE RADAR DESIGN

Ii I INTRODUCTION

in the present era, the destructive potential of small numbers of

enemy bombers has changed concepts of air defense from "attrition" to
'total defense," and has made imperative the security of air defense

radars against radar countermeasures. The basic problem of radar pro-

tection is complicated by the variety of countermeasures available to an
enemy and the numerous possible modes of their employment. This report
is devoted primarily to an examination of chaff used alone as a threat
to the effectiveness of U.S. air defense radars.

Chaff can be used against both airborne and ground-based air

defense radars in three basic ways: corridors, isolated random 'drops,
and sudden bursts. The principal features of these methods of using
chaff are outlined below:

(1) Corridors. The primary objective of a chaff corridor

is to hide bombing aircraft from the search and
J tracking radars used by a defense system. To hide
the aircraft it must create and sustain for some time,
over a continuous region, (single trail, multiple
tr~i I nr are) q e1,ifte 1c"el that mFqkq the radav
freturns from the aircraft. To prevent identification
of the aircraft at the head of a trail, the chaff may
be at least partially sown by forward-launched
missiles, which may or may not also serve as decoys.
The effective clutter level for a chaff corridor will
depend on several factors: the density of the chaff,
the chaff echoing area per unit weight at the trans-
mitted frequency, the dimensions of the corridor, and
the sub-chaff visibility of the radar.
1 (2) Isolated Drops. Randomly or pseudo-randomly spaced
drops of chaff over an extensive area are designed to
introduce confusion by presenting many false targets
j from among which a search radar operator must dis-
tinguish the real target aircraft. In addition to

1[
* SECRET

Ithis effect, track-while-scan computers used with

automatic acquisition may be saturated with the
large reported number of apparent targets.
(3) Burst Chaff. The technique of suddenly ejecting
several bundles of chaff is used to prevent a
tracking radar from acquiring the aircraft in
its tracking cell and beginning a tracking en-
gagement, or to break the tracker's lock after
an engagement has begun. If this technique is
successful, the tracking radar begins tracking the
chaff cloud. Burst chaff is useful primarily
against automatic tracking systems such as air-
borne intercept radar, where the rate-aided-manual
mode of operation is not practical for avoiding
false targets. Its effectiveness depends on the
geometry of the situation, the relative speed and
range of the target, the dispersion rate of the
chaff, and the radar range servo response charac-
teristics. Forward-launched chaff rockets may be
used to extend the usefulness of the chaff bursts
against sophisticated trackers.

There are, at present, at least three compelling reasons for a

close look at the chaff vulnerabilities of U.S. air defense radars.

(1) Many of these radars now in operation were designed

with no consideration of the threat of chaff, and
have very little capability against it.
(2) Fundamental relationships limit the protection that
can be provided simultaneously in a radar design
against a combination of chaff and noise jamming.
(3) The Soviets are known to employ chaff in tactical
exercises and thus must be assumed to be fully
aware of i (,Ftpbi1ities and ready to use it if it
will help to protect their aircraft.

The over-all effect of the strategic threat of chaff is to require

an investigation of the chaff vulnerability of present and projected
radars and perhaps to call into question the conventional techniques
that are depended upon for reducing chaff interference. Fundamental
approaches to ECCM capability need to be examined in connection with
anticipated attack situations to appraise their mutual compatibility
and combined effeztveness in meeting the threat of ECM.

j The remainder of this report considers the problem of chaff as a

threat to U.S. radars, first by examining the basic properties of chaff

[ 2

I SECRET
 SECRET

Ias a collection of random scatterers with varying return (Sec. II).

Some of the operational aspects of the chaff problem are then emphasized

in a discussion of the means that may be used to deliver chaff

effectively against U.S. radars (Sec. III). In Sec. IV the means for

Iprotecting radars against saturation by chaff clutter are described

qualitatively, along with the moving-target -indication circuitry re-
I quired to obtain subchaff target visibility in a dense clutter region.
In Sec. V the subchaff visibility of two representative U.S. air de-
fense radars is examined quantitatively in view of the types of chaff

delivery anticipated in Sec. III, and some preliminary conclusions are

drawn. Finally, in Sec. VI a number of questions raised by an investi-
j gation of chaff are presented, with suggested information requirements
for further evaluation.

I S
t
I
I
I I3
I
!
I

I1 SECRET
 ISECRET
I
II BASIC CHAFF CHARACTERISTICS

IA. COMPARISON OF CHAFF AND NOISE JAMMING

[The fundamental operational and technical properties of chaff that

make it a threat to effective radar operation may be illustrated by

comparing it with noise jamming. The similarities and differences may
help to point out the problems of providing a defense against this form
of interference.

1 1. SIMILARITIES TO NOISE JAMMING

f" a. Operational

Chaff, like noise jamming, is used primarily for screening

I attacking aircraft by providing a clutter signal that is intended to
mask the radar return from the aircraft. Like jamming, it (1) requires

the use of auxiliary equipment with an attendant weight penalty; (2) can

originate either at the aircraft itself or at an auxiliary vehicle such

as a decoy; and (3) may be used by aircraft for mutual protection as

well as for self-protection.

b. Technical

Chaff, as well as jamming, may be used to cover relatively

narrow portions of the frequency spectrum or, less efficiently, to
provide clutter over large frequency bands. (U.S. chaff developments
have been directed toward providing wide-band coverage* for years;
narrow-band packaging may, however, permit considerable saving in the
weight penalty of chaff sowing.)

S* Wide-band chaff consists of a number of lengths of chaff dipoles with

or without rope, packaged together.

61S1R~
* SECRET

II 2. DIFFERENCES FROM NOISE JAMMING

[a. Operational

Unlike jamming, chaff creates a purely local effect which

depends on the location of the dispensed chaff. It does not create a
noise strobe, for example, on a PPI display, but instead presents an
I apparent discrete target or a continuous reflecting trail or area of
limited dimensions. It cannot be switched on instantaneously; there
is a time delay in the dispersion of the chaff dipoles before the mass
appears as a target; and (except for special types) it persists after
dispensing for a relatively long time (perhaps an hour) if dropped from
medium altitudes.

Chaff is unlike jamming, too, in that the supply of chaff

materials is continuously diminished as the chaff is dispensed; this
supply can be exhausted in a relatively short time or can be spread out
Iover a longer period, depending on the quantities available and the
dispensing rates.

1. Another difference, which may be operationally useful, is

that whereas noise jamming reveals the angular coordinates of the
jamming source, a chaff corridor may not reveal the angular coordinates
of the aircraft within it. Whereas jamming may be used to break lock
of a conically-scanned tracker, chaff may be required against a mono-
I pulse tracker. There is a similarity, however, between jamming that
creates a one-dimensional ambiguity in range and a thin chaff trail
which also creates a one-dimensional ambiguity in target position along
the trail.

Ib. Technical

Chaff return differs basically from a wide-band, noise-jamming

signal in its pulse-to-pulse coherence. Whereas wide-band noise samples
at a given range interval on successive range sweeps will be independent,
I chaff returns or clutter, in general, will not, since only a limited
motion of the clutter-producing dipoles can take place in the very short
[time between pulses. This relative coherence or correlation between
successive chaff returns suggests a possible basis for reducing them:

[5
I SECRET
I SECRET

Fcancellation of the common amplitude level of successive returns by a

combination of delay and subtraction (effectively a range-gated dif-

[ferentiating circuit). Depending on the correlation of target returns,

some advantage in target visibility might be gained by this means;

[nothing would be gained, of course, if the interfering signal were

wide-band noise instead of chaff.

fAnother basic characteristic of chaff returns is that the

clutter power level is proportio- al to the transmitted power level.

I Hence, an increase in radiated power, a measure that is helpful against

noise jamming, yields no improvement against chaff.

f. B. TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CHAFF

A more detailed description of the technical characteristics of

tchaff will be useful in providing an introduction to the technical
problems in radar protection against chaff clutter. The variations in

Ichaff returns and their statistical description are important in under-

standing the different functions of basic anti-clutter circuitry and

I particularly in evaluating the effectiveness of velocity discrimination
techniques. The relationship between chaff correlation time and radar

scan time leads to conclusions about chaff density requirements. Rates

of chaff dispersion and fall are important in some operational questions.
Finally, a numerical i.llustration of frequency coverage will show how

j the chaff space and weight allowancos in a bomber may be used to cover

either a wide or a narrow band of frequencies, and how the chaff may be
I Package", for conixlaii~iit umv
1. CHAFF RETURN VARIATIONS AND THEIR STATISTICAL DESCRIPTION

l When a package of chaff opens to release its contents, whether by

explosion of a self-contained charge or by the action of a mechanical

I dispensing system, the chaff dipoles immediately begin to disperse and

the rope spools (if any) unwind. Measurements indicate that several

seconds, on the average, are required for a package of chaff released

from an aircraft to'blooX, through dispersion of the dipoles, to its
full or rated echoing area. The amplitude of the radar return from a

1 chaff cloud is not at all constant, however, even after the chaff has
6

SlSECRET
 4

I SECRET

I bloomed, but fluctuates as a function of time between wide limits. The

variations in amplitude and rates of fluctuation can be described with
Jsome success by statistical parameters. A qualitative basis for this
statistical description is outlined below.

j Several types of variations are of interest in anti-clutter design.

These have similar statistical descriptions but affect target visibility
I in different ways and must be distinguished.

a. Variation with Aspect

IThis variation depends on the relative positions of the di-

poles with respect to the viewer. To illustrate this effect, let us
I consider that the chaff is illuminated and viewed by a radar that is not
scanning in azimuth. Let us also assume that the chaff cloud is no
larger than one radar resolution element and that the dipoles are not
moving. The return from this chaff cloud will depend upon the direction
of illumination, since the phase relationships between the returns from
individual dipoles vary with this direction. Equivalently, for a given
direction, the return will depend on the spatial distribution of the
dipoles. If the dipoles are distributed randomly in the small cloud,
the amplitude of the return may lie anywhere between a value close to
zero, corresponding to phase cancellation of the returns of the indi-
vidual dipoles by each other, and a large value corresponding to phase
reinforcement of these returns. If a large number of independent*i,**
observations are made of the cloud of dipoles, the amplitudes of the
returns will be found to follow', to a close approx±mation, the Rayleigh***

I *Independence of observations in this hypothetical situation could

be achieved by a large number of identical radars at the same range
but spaced angularly about the cloud. If the cloud is not too
close, observations can be made independent if these radars are lo-
cated tangentially a dista3,ce approximately d = nX/2¢ apart, where
X is the wavelength, ¢ is the beamwidth, and n i 1, 2, 3, ...
(Ref. 1, p. 983).
* References are listed at the end of the report.
j ** This is equivalent to a Gaussian distribution of the in-phase and
out-of-phase components of the return, as determined by coherent
phase reference at the receiver.
I 7
 iISECRET

m probability distribution, in which the probability of an amplitude A is

2
2A (-A \
p(A)dA = -L exp~y d

where A 2 is the variance of the amplitude A.

b. Range-to-Range Variation

If the cloud of stationary dipoles that we have considered is

extended in range so that it occupies several resolution cells, the re-

turn to our non-scanning radar will be extended in time, and its

envelope may fluctuate even if the cloud is uniformly dense (each

resolution cell containing the same number of dipoles). Samples of the
jchaff return measured at times separated by r, the pulse duration, will
be independent, since the contributing dipoles will all be different
(each dipole being illuminated for just T seconds). The signals re-
flected from dipoles contributing to successive samples will have
Idifferent phase relationships; these samples will, accordingly, have

amplitudes governed closely by the Rayleigh probability distribution,

and the envelope of the return will fluctuate between these amplitudes.*
4
This variation is, of course, independent of the R- variation in
amplitude of return with increasing range R of the chaff from the radar.

Significantly, however, not only the mean level but also the amplitude
4
4 of range-to-range fluctuations of chaff returns varies as R- . In this
jrespect the chaff returns are like ground clutter.

c. Variation Introduced by Azimuth Scanning

I Returning to the small cloud of dipoles, let us keep these

dipoles stationary but allow the radar to scan in azimuth. Successive
pulses illuminating the cloud will have different amplitudes,

I * Since the pulse of energy, as it moves along in range, is almost con-

tinuously illuminating new dipoles and ceasing to illuminate others,
there will be high-frequency f7.1ctuations in the return corresponding
to the propagation velocity of the pulse and the spacing between di-
poles in range. The pulse rise time and radar pass band will smooth
out these high-frequency fluctuations, however. It may be noted that
regardless of the radar bandwidth, successive samples of return will
not be independent unless they are separated in time by at least t.

1 - 8

j SECR4-
 I SECRET

i corresponding to the shape of the transmitting antenna beam, and the

return will be similarly modulated by the shape of the receiving antenna
j beam. In addition, as the cloud is scanned in azimuth, new dipoles are
illuminated and "old" ones pass out of the beam on successive pulses;

j the signal response from the cloud fluctuates correspondingly in both

amplitude and phase. Thus scanning of the radar introduce. pulse-to-
pulse variations in the return from the chaff cloud.

d. Variations with Transmitted Frequency

Next, let us stop the radar's azimuth scan, keeping the dipoles
fixed in position, but change the transmitted frequency slightly. The

I phases of the individual dipole returns both with respect to the radar
and with respect to each other will now be changed slightly. It is the
latter that determines the amplitude of the resultant return. If there

are n cycles of RF energy in each pulse to begin with, this number can
be increased to n + 1 by increasing the frequency by an amount equal to
the reciprocal of the pulse length. This is sufficient, if the dipoles
are well distributed throughout a resolution cell, to produce a change

in the phases of the dipoles with respect to each other sufficient to

make the amplitude of the resulting return substantially independent of
that obtained at the original frequency. Since the pulse length is
generally the reciprocal of the IF bandwidth, a change in transmitted
A frequency by this bandwidth on two successive looks at a given reso-

lution cell filled with chaff will generally result in a pair of

independent returns (Ref. 1, p. 981).

i e. Fluctuations Produced by Random Motion

Next, let us keep the radar stationary in azimuth and keep

the frequency fixed, but permit the dipoles to disperse in their normal

fashion, falling and being blown about by local winds. The distances
that the dipoles move between pulses will determine the differences in

phase of the contributions of the dipoles and the corresponding dif-

ferences in amplitude and phase of the returned pulses. For low wind
velocities, the resulting differences may be quite small but will depend

I4
I SECRET

on the repetition period and the transmitted wavelength of the radar.*

If the wind is uniform in speed and has a fixed radial velocity with

respect to the radar through the chaff-sown region, there will be a

periodic component of phase shift between pulses. Turbulence in the

I air will produce a variation in dipole velocities resulting in a re-

distribution of their respective phase contributions and variations in
the net inter-pulse phase shift about the periodic component. The
amplitude of the return will also fluctuate from pulse to pulse as the

contributions of the dipoles add in somewhat different phase relation-

Iships. Unless a great deal of reshuffling of the dipoles takes place
between pulses, however, the returns from these pulses, interpreted as

j samples of a continuous change of amplitude and phase, will not be

statistically independent; in other words, there is a dependence or
I correlation between successive returns from the same bunch of chaff.**

The normalized time-average autocorrelation function evaluated at the

pulse repetition interval will, in general, be neither zero nor one but

somewhere between. Measurements have indicated that the internal motion

of a chaff cloud produces a signal with a smoothly decreasing auto-

I. correlation function, approximately Gaussian in shape, its width in-

versely proportional to the rms wind velocity. The corresponding power
jspectral distribution of the fluctuating chaff return is also approxi-

mated by the Gaussian form and is given2 by

I/
Wim (f) X exp (X2f2

I where X is the RF wavelength, f is the clutter frequency, and V is the

standard deviation of the random dipole velocities about the mean

jPerhaps it should be emphasized that we are not considering a gross

displacement effect. The speed of chaff dipoles in the wind is not
great enough to move them from one range cell to the next between
pulses. (E.g., in a 100-knot wind, the chaff would move 5 cm between
pulses if the radar had a repetition rate of 1,000 pulses per second.)
** If the dipoles were completely randomly redistributed between pulses,
the feturns from a series of pulses would have randomly varying ampli-
tudes following the Rayleigh distribution.

[ 10
ii SEoE
|
ISECRET
Ivelocity of the chaff cloud. (The subscripu im stands for internal
motion.) The unit-power spectrum of amplitude fluctuations has the
form shown in Fig. 1 if the mean velocity is zero.

Wim~f)W Mf

I I0

I< I I
0 -&W-S-2Z
5 )Lfw 0 )Lfw

FIG. 1 FIG. 2
UNIT-POWER CHAFF SPECTRUM UNIT-POWER CHAFF SPECTRUM
FOR ZERO MEAN VELOCITY FOR NON-ZERO MEAN VELOCITY

IIf the chaff cloud has a steady drift component of radial

velocity with respect to the radar, the returned echoes will have a
Jdoppler shift in frequency. This may be measured in a pulsed radar
by means of a signal in the receiver whose phase is coherent with
I that of each transmitted pulse. Using this signal for coherent de-
tection of returns from chaff having a steady radial drift component
I Vw, the spectrum of the resulting video amplitude fluctuations is
shifted along the axis away from zero by a frequency fw = zVw/x as
shown in Fig. 2. This £igure way prubcbly be best LhivughL of as de-_
picting the superposition of fluctuation frequencies on the drift
doppler frequency. The power spectral distribution then becomes:

W(f) = exp L'(ffw)

2V IT L 8V 2 J
2. CORRELATION TIME, INTEGRATION TIME, AND CHAFF DENSITY
[ REQUIREM ES

In order to provide a clutter signal that actually masks the air-

j craft return, the chaff must occupy the same resolution cell as the
aircraft. To provide a continuous clutter source, with no visible

[ 1
 * SECRET
breaks in the trail or corridor, chaff must occupy each resolution.
element in the space through which the aircraft is to be screened.
This fact has led to a conventional rule-of-thumb which states the
chaff density requirement as one equivalent cross section per reso-
jlution cell. We shall next consider briefly how this requirement may
be modified, assuming for simplicity throughout the discussion that
the radar does not have advanced moving-target discrimination capa-
bility against chaff.

The chaff quantity requirement, as might be expected, depends on

the type of radar--i.e , whether search or track--and on the way in
which it integrates the pulse returns during its acquisition phase.
It depends, too, on the number of independent clutter samples provided
by the chaff during the scan or acquisition time.* This number will
be inversely proportional to the correlation time of the chaff, defined
as the time for which the (Gaussian-shaped) autocorrelation function of
the chaff has dropped effectively to zero. For a search radar, the
look time or scan time is the interval during which the antenna beam
scans the target. For a tracker, it may be the time during which an
aircraft flies through one resolution cell of the radar (e.g., through
the range gate or through the beam).

Hult has shown (Ref. 3, p.3) that if the look time or scan time of
a radar is greater than the correlation time of the chaff, the total
quantities of chaff required are not a sensitive function of the radar
resolution, but depend on the chaff decorrelation, which is a function
of the radar frequency. The net result is that for such radars
(primarily, it appears, high-frequency tracking radars), no great in-
crease in chaff density is required if the pulse length is simply
shortened.

For radars whose scan time is short compared with the chaff cor-
relation time, the chaff density requirement is determined by the

* The more chaff return samples integrated, the more "decorrelated,"

noiselike, or "non-targetlike" the chaff return.

1 12
rISECRET

requirement to have a masking clutter-signal source in each resolution

element. This does not mean that the chaff return from each element
must at all times equal or exceed the aircraft return--such a requirement
could not be met by chaff, since its return may drop occasionally to an
[amplitude close to zero.* It appears that to create sufficient con-
fusion to radar operators to interfere seriously with detection, it is
necessary only to have a moderate clutter level with "highlights" ap-
pearing and disappearing continuously in the trail or corridor (due to
local reinforcing interference) which equal or exceed the aircraft re-
turn. To produce such a clutter signal along a trail or corridor, a
relatively small amount of chaff is required. In a freshly sown trail,
for example, if the aircraft cross section is a, it can be effectively
screened by chaff sown in quantities of cross section a/5 per resolution
cell. Even less is required if the chaff has dispersed for some time,
decreasing the correlation time and increasing the frequencies of
3
scintillation.

The amount of chaff required will, of course, increase if the radar

is equipped with a system for moving-target discrimination that gives
the radar some subchaff visibility. This will be discussed in Sec. V.

3. DISPERSION AND FALL RATES

A limited amount of information, apparently conflicting, is available

on dispersion rates of chaff. In particular, there appears to be no in-
formation on differences in dispersion rates when chaff is dispensed from

jvarious vehicles at high altitudes, or differences between rates for,

say, foil and fiber chaff dipoles. Some information of general interest
is available, however, from which some conclusions about dispersion ef-
fects may b-- inferred.

S* Whether this condition is actually observable on a radar display will

depend, of course, on whether the display exploits the full resolution
capability of the remainder of the radar, whether it limits at a rela-
tively small echo amplitude, and whether the chaff clutter level and
variations can be distinguished from receiver .noise.

1 13

I SECRET
 SECRET

Foil dipoles reldased from dispensers in the fuselage or wingpods

of an aircraft scatter on contact with the slipstream, dispersing in all
directions. According to some observations, immediately after dispensing
from high-altitude aircraft, the heavy chaff from a broad-band package
falls at rates up to 600 feet per minute while the lighter chaff tends to
rise slowly for a period of approximately five minutes and then remains
I stationary for another ten minutes before starting a steady rate of de-
scent. After a few minutes the rate of fall of both the top and the
ji bottom of the cloud begins to stabilize. The greatest response from the
chaff is slightly above the center point between the top and bottom. This
bright portion or core is reported to be greater than 4000 feet in depth
and to fall at a steady rate for approximately 90 minutes, after which
the chaff response begins to fade and become isolated. This core has a
I rate of fall of approximately 300 feet per minute in the 30,000- to
40,000-foot interval of altitude. 4 Chaff will disperse horizontally in
two ways: If there is a wind, it will have a general motion imparted by
the air mass, and it will also have a dispersion rate about the mean wind
Ivelocity which will depend on the gustiness of the wind and on wind shear
at the altitudes through which it falls. Measurements indicate that the
dispersion velocity of chaff has a standard deviation on the order of two
knots. This figure agrees with a report of Air Proving Ground Command
-that if dispensing aircraft are separated laterally by two or three
I miles, the individual streams will merge between 10 and 30 minutes after
the chaff is dispensed, the period depending on tne wind gradients and on
I the displacement of the corridor from the ground radar. For closer air-
craft spacings,the time required for merging would be expected to be
reduced approximately in proportion.

4. FREQUENCY COVERAGE

I The bandwidth of a single foil dipole is ibout 15 percent of center

frequency. Only seven lengths of dipole are required to cover the fre-
Iquency band from 2,500 to 1'.,000 Mc.with a return within a few decibels,
as shown in Fig. 3, which gives an approximate breakdown of the U.S.
standard foil chaff package RR-39/AL. The total weights of dipoles are
about the same at each of the seven frequencies. The 15-percent

1 14

SI M1.2T
SE
ISECRET
S ,
"--
-----
INDIVIDUAL
COMPOSITE
DIPOLE LENGTHS
COMPOSITE CALCULATED BY
900- STANDARD ROLLING MILLS*

o - /,.-, \ -
I '' "-o \ Z .,
II 0

I 30 FIG.
FIG.

APPROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF RR-39/AL BROAD-BAND FOI L CHAFF PACKAGE

j theoretical cross-section vs frequency of individual dipole lengths
and composite package neglecting harmonic responses

bandwidth of a single
F of
tunable band length
any radar usedof atdipole is or
present large enoughfor
planned to the
cover
nearthefuture

in this country. Thus, against specific radars, the packaging of chaff

can be made considerably more efficient than in the broad-band package

if a single length of dipole is used per package. The practicability of

j such narrow-band packages will depend on how much is known about the
frequencies of enemy radars, the information being supplied by intelli-
gence sources, electronic reconnaissance, or both.
Since the U.S. standard packages were developed, efforts have been made

to further reduce the bulk and weight of chaff by using narrower widths and
by using aluminized glass filament dipoles in place of the foil dipoles.
As the chaff is made narrower, the bandwidth of the individual dipoles
Idecreases somewhat, but this decrease can be compensated for by using a
slightly larger number of dipoles, cut, perhaps, to slightly different
lengths. Notable among U.S. chaff developments is the RR-66 package of
fiber chaff, which weighs about three ounces and covers with the same
Icross section the same band as the one-pound RR-39/AL package.

[ 15
 SECRET
F
IIII ANTICIPATED DELIVERY SYSTEMS

IThe way in which chaff is sown may have a strong influence on its
success in protecting bombers against air defense radars. Each method
I of sowing requires a delivery system with certain capabilities and some
limitations. These systems must be examined in order to estimate the
quality and quantity of protection that a bomber may obtain by means of
chaff. They also suggest the attack situations in which chaff may be
1 most helpful and thzse in whici its use is questionable.

A. CONVENTIONAL MECHANICAL DISPENSERS

I U.S. aircraft are currently equipped with mechanical chaff dis-

pensers whose dispensing rates are governed by an adjustable control
Imechanism (intervalometer). The dispensers are carried either in the
fuselage or in wing pods. Chaff from these dispensers blooms behind the
Iaircraft and forms either a continuous trail or a pseudo-random pattern
of false targets. The control may also be used to eject large bursts of
chaff periodically (every few seconds) to interfere with tracking radars.
An alternative system ejects chaff bursts on a signal from a warning
receiver that indicates that the aircraft is being illuminated by a
tracking radar.

Mechanical dispensers of this type are very useful for large-scale

operations where a large number of aircraft participate and where it is
desired to sow large areas or long corridors with chaff. In such a
Isituation some aircraft may be assigned the function of ECM aircraft,
carrying countermeasures equipment alone as payload, while other aircraft
carry bombs as well. Dispensers of this type are also useful for con-
cealing the number of aircraft engaged on a bombing mission and contained
within a corridor or -area. They appear to be useful, too, against air-
borne intercept radars in tactical engagements, to the extent that these
radars can be forced to break lock by burst-chaff methods.

L 16

[I SECRET
?,*
 SECRET

IMechanical dispensers appear to be least useful when a small number

of aircraft attack a target; that is, when chaff must be depended upon

for self-protection. The basic reason for this is simply that since the

chaff blooms some distance behind the aircraft, a high-resolution radar

I can resolve the lead chaff-dispensing aircraft from the chaff trail and

direct weapons against that aircraft. As other aircraft, following the

f lead aircraft in the chaff trail, emerge from it, they too can be re-

solved, even if they are dispensing chaff. In this situation, the lead
aircraft, at least, needs additional protection; jamming, for example,

might be used to obscure its position. If jamming is to be avoided (as,

for example, in anticipation of home-on-jamming seeker missiles) other

alternatives such as decoys and forward-launched chaff or combinations
of these, may be used.

B. FORWARD-LAUNCHED CHAFF

I It appears that current U.S. planning for bomber protection by

forward-launched chaff calls for two principal types of chaff-sowing

I vehicles: a short-range rocket or "deflection missile"* for range-gate
stealing and breaking lock of leading-edge tracking radars, and a longer-
range "screening" missile for chaff-sowing against search radars. These

could be used to create a single trail, or possibly multiple trails,

ahead of the aircraft. With some cooperation between bombers assigned

mI to the same target, a somewhat wider trail or a larger number of trails

might be established. These appear to be fundamental methods of forward-

launching chaff from which an enemy could choose for the protection of
bombing aircraft against U.S. defense radars.

I To estimate the possible effectiveness of these techniques, the

following parameters are important: the distance between the bomber and

I the forward edge of the chaff trail; the density of the trail; and the

length of time (or distance) over which the trail can be maintained.

* The word "deflection" here describes the path of the missile, which is
deflected out of the path of the dispensing aircraft by gravity while
flying ahead of the aircraft.
[17
 4

ISECRET
I These are all functions of the type of dispensing vehicle carried by
the bomber.

In choosing appropriate chaff-sowing vehicles, an enemy will be

guided by the following considerations: his estimate of the lethal
radius of surface-to-air and air-to-air missile warheads; his estimate
of the chaff densities in pounds per mile required to screen the air-
craft against the defense system radars; and the required total dis-
pensing time.*

I C. CHAFF DENSITIES REQUIRED

The required chaff densities will depend, in turn, on the radar

cross section of the bomber in the direction of the radars, the fre-
quency band to be covered, the efficiency of the chaff in radar cross
section per pound of chaff materials, and the subchaff visibility of
the radars. The last of these factors is discussed in greater detail
I in Sec. V of this report.

Some idea of order of magnitude may be obtained by assuming no

subchaff visibility. The radar cross section or echoing area of a
large bomber (B-52 size) over the frontal aspects is in the range 20 to
1 40 square meters at most frequencies above VHF (Ref. 3, p.8). Using the
figure (from Sec. II) for a rapid-scan search radar of a/5 per resolution
element, enough chaff must be provided to produce about 4 to 8 square
meters of echoing area per radar pulse length of penetration distance.
Fok a b et.;h iadtu- wih a -A pile this would be 4 to 8 squarc mctcrs

for each 500 feet travelled. The weight of this required quantity of
chaff is an important operational consideration.

One length of U.S. standard foil dipoles, 0.036 inch wide by

0.00045 inch thick, cut at S-band to yield 60 square meters of echoing
area, weighs about two ounces. To obtain 60 square meters of echoing

* Possibly the number cf anticipated interceptor engagements as well,

depending on the time period under consideration and the relative
threat of interceptors vs. missiles to the bomber.
[ 18

,1 SECRET
JI
 ! SECRET

area at X-band, about four ounces of dipoles are required..* Hence, for
each n.mi., against an S-band search radar of known frequency with a

I 1-4is pulse, the weight required would be about (6080/500) x 8 sq.m. x

((2 lb./16)/60 sq.m.] (2 lb./n.mi.) for 8 square meters of echoing area

I or one pound per n.mi. for 4 square meters using standard foil chaff.
If narrow foil chaff were used (0.008 inch wide), this weight requirement
jcould be cut by a factor of 4, with some sacrifice in bandwidth. By the
use of fiber chaff it might be cut by another factor of 2.

I For a conventional tracking radar at X-band (e.g., the Nike Tracker

with 1/4-4s pulse width), the quantity of chaff required, considering

I integration and correlation effects, has been estimated at about 70 a

per n.mi. (Ref. 3, p.7). For a bomber of B-52 echoing area, about

-- 40 square meters, this is 2800 square meters per n.mi. This quantity of
standard foil chaff would weigh about 2800/60 x 4/16 or 12 pounds per
n.mi. This again could be reduced by use of narrow foil or fiber chaff.

IIf estimates of the required chaff densities are increased in view

of anti-chaff techniques used by the radars to achieve subchaff visi-

bility, the fuel carried by a chaff-sowing missile may be appropriately

decreased so that the missile's increased chaff load will be properly

I distributed over its shorter flight path.

D. DISPENSING TIME

I The minimum time of flight for a chaff-sowing missile will be de-

termined, of course, by the requirement for the vehicle to dispense the

chaff a minimum distance ahead of the aircraft as determined by the SAM

or AAM warhead lethal radius. The maximum time of flight might be de-

I termined by the distance over which the protection of a chaff trail is

desired; for example, between line-of-sight (detection) range--or some-
what beyond-- and the range at which a bomb or ASM has been launched

against the ground defenses--or has destroyed them. The detection range

* Based on breakdown of RR-39 package. In general, the weight required

to achieve a given cross section at center frequency with chaff di-
poles of constant width and thickness tends to vary as f, the center
frequency.
[ 19

I SECRET
 I SECRET

I will be, of course, a function of altitude, as will the bomb release

line.
l As examples, consider
a high-altitude
attack (on the
order of

40,000 to 60,000 feet) and a low-altitude attack (200 to 1,000 feet).

The first might correspond strategically to a mass raid against CONUS;
the second might correspond to a sneak raid against SAC bases. Bombers
I at 50,000 feet would probably be detected at about 250-n.-mi. range.
Assuming that they would drop chaff continuously over such a range, the
J lead aircraft might well use forward-launched subsonic "screening
missile" chaff sowers of range capabilities of about 100 n.mi., if
three or four such missiles could carry enough chaff to degrade radar
performance considerably. This, of course, would depend on the radars
1 against which the chaff is to be used.

In a low-altitude attack, the use of screening missiles is probably

unnecessary as well as infeasible. The use of short-range chaff rockets
to disturb tracking and increase miss distances of low-altitude missiles
(with HE warheads) should possibly be considered, but ECM requirements
Iappear to be minimized in such an attack. It is not known that any
planning of low-altitude ECM tactics has been done for U.S. aircraft. A
considerable amount of planning has been done for high-altitude attacks,
Ahowever, and some of the results may be utilized here.

I Hult 5 has estimated that a short-range deflection rocket or missile

might be made to provide 1-1/2 n.mi. of chaff trail in 10 seconds with a
jterminal separation of at least 3,000 feet from the aircraft for a total
system weight (including launching facilities) of 30 pounds per missile.
The trail thus sown would have a density of 10 pounds per n.mi.; the
chaff payload would be about 50 percent. Similarly, a missile providing
3 n.mi. of chaff trail sown in 20 seconds and a terminal separation of
at least 2 n.mi. from the aircraft could be obtained for a total system
weight of about 60 pounds per missile. Another might give 6 n.mi. of
I trail in 40 seconds with 8-n.-mi. terminal separation for a weight
penalty of 120 pounds per missile.
t
[20
A SECRE
ISECRET
IThe screening missile could be either supersonic or high subsonic.
A supersonic missile could be activated by a warning receiver and attain
a separation from the bomber in a few seconds, but would have a shorter
range or lower fractional chaff payload than a subsonic missile. As an
Iexample of the latter, Hult suggests that the Quail might be adapted fdr

this use with 300+ pounds of chaff payload and 100+ n.-mi. range for a
Itotal system weight of about 1,500 pounds per missile. These longer-
range screening missiles introduce guidance and aircraft navigation
problems which may prove to be severe. The subsonic missile, which
would have to be programmed against ground defense radars, would probably
be of much less use against interceptor attack than short-range de-
flection chaff-sowing rockets.

jE. BOMBER CHAFF LOAD

The fraction of the payload of a bomber devoted to chaff systems is

Tdetermined by a number of considerations, including estimated ef-
fectiveness, method of employment (trail, corridor, burst, or random
drop), available volume and weight allowance, and type of defenses
anticipated.

{Some idea of the chaff load that a bomber may carry on a conserva-
tive bombing mission in the future may be gathered from the following
comparative figures; It was reported by Lincoln Laboratory, (December
1955), (Ref. 6, p.63) that each B-47 bomber would normally carry 800
pounds of chaff in addition to 500 to 1,000 pounds of electronic jamming
I equipment. As much as 6,000 pounds of chaff could be carried with a
corresponding sacrifice in bomb load. The U.S. B/RB-66 series of
faircraft can carry up to 3,160 pounds of chaff by sacrificing bomb load,
but can carry 1,160 pounds of chaff and four dispensers without such a
sacrifice by means of a tail cone and two wing pods. Members of the
Applied Physics Laboratory.in an informal discussion, have indicated
that a possible threat could include, as payload for a Bison or Bear on
a round-trip intercontinental mission without refueling, 1,000 pounds of
chaff with 4,000 pounds of jamming equipment plus a 2,000-pound bomb
Ii load. Goble, chaff consultant, estimates a Soviet threat including

[ 21

[ SECRIE
 SECRET

500-1,000 "units" of chaff, 7 with weight of units unspecified but assumed

to be about one pound each. The B-52 Bomber Defense System (ALQ-27) will
be capable of dispensing 500 pounds of chaff.

As indicated in a preceding section, the U.S. Air Force is planning

a bomber capability for forward-launching of chaff. The North American
Weapon System llOA is reported to have provisions for 36 forward-fired
1* chaff rockets, each dispensing at least 5 individual chaff units ahead
of and below the flight path of the aircraft. The estimated rocket
I weight is 11.1 pounds. The ALQ-27 will have provision for about 40 such
chaff rockets, in addition to the 500 pounds of conventionally dispensed
chaff referred to above.

A small number of drone-sized vehicles can be carried. A B-52, for

example, which can carry 8 Quails at 1,000 pounds each by sacrificing
its bomb load, could probably carry 4 Quails adapted for use as screening
missiles, as described by Hult, while retaining half of its bomb load.
A Mach-2 bomber might carry 2 to 4 chaff-dispensing decoys capable of
I matching its speed, by sacrificing part or all of its bomb load.

F. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS

IIn the next few years the increasing capability of U.S. SAC forces
to respond quickly to an early-warning alert and to effect speedy retali-
I ation may well diminish the likelihood of a large-scale massed-formation
attack by Soviet bombers. In this event, an attack might take the form
S01 small numoers ox bomoers in isolated groups aLLacking siwulLaiuou~iy
(approximately) various targets (e.g., SAC bases) about the country,
from high or low altitudes. It might be expected, therefore, that a
trend might develop toward enemy bomber self-defense against rapid-
reaction-time defense systems, i.e., against SAM systems. (It seems

unlikely if a group of attacking aircraft were small, that any could be

assigned the role of ECM aircraft.) Such a trend would probably lead
I toward more reliance on forward-launched chaff than on chaff dispensed
from the bomber itself.

2
II 2
 SECRET

IIt should perhaps be emphasized that the weight allowances for ECM
estimated in Sec. III-C assume a round-trip bombing mission. There is
I no particular basis for such a conservative assumption in anticipating
a Soviet bomber attack on CONUS defenses. The payload increase and
I increased ECM capability allowable on a one-way mission might, in fact,
make such a mission attractive to the Soviets in circumstances where a
round-trip mission might not be. On a one-way mission the total payload,
including bombs, could be at least doubled. It could be expected that
the weight allowance for chaff as well as for Jamming could then be
increased by at least a factor of 2.

1
I
I
i
I
" I
I
I
I
!
I
 SECRET

[IV RADAR PROTECTION AGAINST CHAFF CLUTTER

[A. ANTI-CHAFF TECHNIQUES

The problem of modifying radars to meet the chaff threat received

Sconsiderable attention during World War II. For years afterward, however,
the radars built for U.S. air defenses were not designed to meet the
Iincreasing threat posed by development of more efficient chaff materials
and improved dispensing systems. Finally, as a result of a general
recognition of the effectiveness of electronic countermeasures, require-
ments for improved radar anti-chaff performance were formulated.

I In response to these requirements a variety of basic anti-chaff

I'techniques have been investigated experimentally, and some of these have
been implemented in radar modifications and new designs. From the rela-
tively crude moving-target indication circuitry of the M-33 and Nike Ajax
acquisition radars, designers have turned to such schemes as coherent MTI
j with multiple cancellation or range-gated, lumped-constant filters to
extend suppression of returns from ground clutter to low-velocity targets.
j It has been generally recognized, however, that improved anti-chaff per-
formance can be obtained only at the cost of increased complexity, new
i developments, or compromise in some other performance characteristics.

In the following pargraphs specific measures for obtaining radar

j anti-chaff performance are discussed in principle. They can be con-
5 veniently grouped into five categories:

(i) Increased resolution

(2) Modified receiver response

(3) Decorrelation of chaff returns

(4) Velocity discrimination

(5) Video censoring.

I These measures range from basic anti-clutter circuitry to techniques

designed specifically against chaff. Although the over-all purpose of

the techniques is the same--to reduce the cluttPr effects of chaff to an

1 24

I SECRET
ISECRET
Ieffect similar to that of receiver noise--a basic distinction should be
made between those whose primary aim is simply to avoid saturation by

I chaff returns and those that attempt to enhance target visibility.

1. INCREASED RESOLUTION

Increasing a radar's resolving power can reduce the clutter level

by reducing the quantity of chaff illuminated by the radar in a given

instant. The increase in resolution can be achieved in azimuth and

elevation by using narrower beams and in range by using shorter pulses.
Narrow beams, of course, require large antennas for low transmitter
frequencies. Two radars currently under development, FPS-7 and FPS-27,
have several beams stacked in elevation while maintaining narrow hori-
zontal beamwidths. In other radars the peak power limitation encountered
in shortening pulse widths while maintaining average power will be

avoided by using CHIRP and other matched filter techniques8 to shorten

the return pulse in the receiver rather than in the transmitter. These
techniques, although not primarily anti-chaff measures, have the general

effect of increasing the densities of chaff required to produce a given

clutter level in a non-limiting radar receiver.* As discussed in Sec. II,
integration effects must be considered in evaluating the resulting in-
crease in target detectability during acquisition.

Pulse-edge tracking, which is designed to reduce a tracking radar's

I vulnerability to burst chaff by discriminating against the leading or

trailing portion of a target echo, may be considered to be a way of

jincreasing a tracking radar's range resolution.

2. MODIFIED RECEIVER RESPONSE

For purposes of preventing saturation by large clutter returns, a

number of circuitry techniques may be used, singly or in combination;

I these are the use of a lin-log amplifier or Instantaneous Automatic Gain

* Since this report was written, the author has been informed of
in-
vestigations by Roger Manasse of Lincoln Laboratories and by
Westinghouse of methods of exploiting this clutter reduction effect
for target enhancement by using very large bandwidths and matched
pulses.
[25
IiSC E
ISECRET
IControl (IAGC) for extending the effective dynamic range of the receiver,
and such circuits as Fast Time Constant (FTC) for reducing the low-
frequency components that characterize extended clutter.

As discussed in Sec. II, since chaff echo is composed of the con-

tributions of a great number of relatively independent scatterers, the
amplitude of response from an extended chaff cloud at successive range
elements may fluctuate considerably, and is well described by a Rayleigh
probability distribution. If any signal whose amplitude fluctuates in
time in a manner determined by this distribution is applied to the input
of a receiver having a logarithmic response, the resulting rms fluctuation
about the mean at the receiver output is constant, independent of the rms
amplitude of the input fluctuations* (Ref. 9, pp.646-647). The objective
in using this type of receiver is to compress the rms fluctuations in the
clutter return to the amplitude of receiver noise at all ranges and thus
to present a uniform background for display of non-fluctuating targets.**
I limit to its effectiveness is set by trace-to-trace correlation of the
clutter returns and by the fluctuations of the target aircraft echo. It
provides no subclutter visibility.

The mean level of the clutter returns may be removed with a differ-
entiating fast-time-constant circuit. Used with either a non-limiting
linear or a logarithmic receiver, this will reduce the intensity of range-
I extended clutter on the display and enable large targets to be seen within
it. It is thus effective in helping to prevent reporting of false targets.
It provides, however, no subclutter visibility.

The logarithmic receiver is also useful for preserving the beats pro-
duced by the return from chaff and the target. These beats, which
would be lost in a limiting radar receiver, may be used to identify
targets.

Still another use of the logarithmic response is to increase a re-

ceiver's dynamic range in order to prevent the spread of clutter fre-
quencies, introduced by azimuth scanning, which would result from
limiting. This may be an important effect, for example, in a radar
such as FPS-28 using range-gated high-pass filtering to eliminate or
reduce clutter effects.
** An alternative technique for producing this effect is IAGC with
Detector Balanced Bias circuitry, as used against ground clutter.

I 26

IsecRE
 1 SECRET

Another means of eliminating targets that are extended in range is

video pulse width discrimination. One method of accomplishing this is
to use a separate one-pulse-width delay channel, requiring coincidence
between the leading edge of a signal in the delayed channel and the
j trailing edge of the undelayed signal, for target identification. This
measure will eliminate to a great extent large blocks of clutter, but
will provide no subclutter visibility.

3. DECORRELATION OF CHAFF RETURNS

IA basic distinction between receiver noise and chaff returns is

that ordinarily chaff returns are correlated from trace to trace for a
period of time determined either by chaff motion or by radar scanning,
whichever is shorter. If the chaff returns could be decorrelated from
trace to trace, they would be more nearly noiselike and could be dis-
criminated against by noise-suppression techniques. One means of decor-
relating returns is by pulse-to-pulse frequency change by an amount
greater than one radar IF bandwidth. (Ref. 1, p.980). Techniques for
the detection of signals in clutter backgrounds by this means are being
investigated at Lincoln Laboratories (Project CRAFT). Subclutter visi-
bility is not expected, but the technique has been demonstrated to
enhance visibility of strong target signals in a clutter background.

4. VELOCITY DISCRIMINATION
AI Techniques for velocity discrimination to reduce clutter depend on
correlation of chaff returns from pulse to pulse to permit their elimi-
naticn through cancellation or high-ps-; filtering A variety nf tpch-
niques are employed. These will be discussed individually below, under the
general headings: "doppler" phase-shift MTI, true doppler detection, and
absolute speed detection.
a. "Doppler" Phase-Shift MrI

A number of pulsed-radar MrI (moving-target indication) systems

detect target radial velocity in terms of a phase difference between suc-
cessive pulse returns. This phase difference occurs whenever the target
moves a non-integral nwnber of half-wavelengths in the radial direction
in the interval between pulses. A phase reference must, of course, be

1 27

I SECRET
I SECRET

I established in order to detect the change in the phase from pulse to

pulse. These phase differences are convertet, in a mixer or a phase
detector, to amplitude changes. The basic systems for pulsed radars,
coherent and noncoherent, are discussed below.

(1) Coherent MI. A coherent MTI radar generates

its own phase-reference signal at the receiver, usually at the
I IF, by sampling the transmitted signal. Delay-and-cancellation
circuitry or high-pass filtering is used to eliminate low-
Ivelocity target returns. This is illustrated in block diagram
form in Fig. 4.

Figure 5 shows the response of a conventional two-

pulse canceler, which subtracts the video target signals from
Itwo successive range sweeps. The abscissa unit, n, is the

I ANTENNA

T-R

IiI

ICOHERENT DETECTOR 1.F.

OSCILLATOR AMPLIFIER

~DELAY -AND-CANCEL

CIRCUITRY OR
HIGH PASS FILTERING

FIG. 4

BLOCK DIAGRAM OF CHARACTERISTIC

COHERENT MTI SYSTEM

[ 28

[I SECRET
 SECRET

I ratio of target doppler frequency to the radar repetition

rate. This is also equal to the ratio of its radial
velocity in knots to the quantity [(291fr)/f], where fr is
the repetition rate in pulses per second and f is the
radar transmitter frequency in megacycles per second.

Originally designed to eliminate ground clutter,

this technique can be extended to suppress returns from
low-velocity chaff. The upper-velocity limit is set by the
fact that to achieve good suppression at a relatively high
chaff velocity while maintaining visibility of faster moving
targets, the fraction of a half-wavelength (at RF) covered
by the moving chaff in the interval between pulas must be
made small, so that either very low frequencies (long wave-
length) or very high repetition rates (short inter-pulse
interval) must be used, or a combination of them. Very low
frequencies, of course, make it very difficult to achieve
angular resolution, whereas very high repetition rates limit
the unambiguous radar range. (The so-called pulse-doppler
Iradars are examples of the latter compromise.) Some sug-

gestions have been made for means of extending the un-

ambiguous range of search radars at high repetition rates, but
it is not known that a successful method has been found.

Another reason for using a combination of low trans-

mitter frequency and high repetition rate is to increase
I target visibility by decreasing the number of blind-speed bands
within the range of velocities of expected targets. These
bands are centered about the speeds corresponding to a target
radial movement of an integral number of half-wavelengths be-
V tween pulses (n = 1, 2, 3, ... in Fig. 5). The width of the
band is determined by the range of velocities suppressed, and
is equal to twice this range at each of the blind speeds above
zero. Thus, the greater the number of blind speeds, the
smaller the range of speeds in which a target is visible and
Ithe larger the fraction of time that the target is not

129

I SECRET
 I SECRET

1 41

0 1 2 TARGET DOPPLER FREQUENCY

I RADAR REPETITION RATE,(n)-,

FIG. 5 TWO-PULSE MTI CANCELER RESPONSE VS FREQUENCY

t2

i I
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 IO TARGET DOPPLER FREUENCY
RADAR REPETITION RATE

FIG. 6 TWO-PULSE MTI RESPONSE WITH TWO REPETITION RATES

I 2

0 1 2 TARGET DOPPLER FREQUENCY

RADAR REPETITION RATE

FIG. 7 EXAMPLE OF MTI RESPONSE OF tHRE_-PULSI- (;AN CELLATi ON

WITH FEEDBACK CONTROL OF SHAPE

I 0 1 2 TARGET DOPPLER FREQUENCY

RADAR REPETITION RATE

FIG. 8 EXAMPLE OF MTI RESPONSE OF THREE-PULSE CANCELLATION

WITH VELOCITY COMPENSATION

[ 30

I SECRET
 4

SECRET

visible (if the range of suppressed low velocities remains the

same). If the pulse repetition period can be changed on alternate
i pulses or alternate scans, it is possible to stagger the blind-
speed zones up to a given speed. The result is at least a partial
filling-in of these zones, as shown in Fig. 6. The blind-speed
effect can be minimized over any given range of velocities by
proper selection of the ratio of repetition rates.

Delay-and-cancel circuitry is one form of filter for

the amplitude variations of the pulse-train output of the radar
detector. If the complexity of range-gated operation is per-
missible, however, somewhat more flexibility in the MTI charac-
teristic response to low-velocity targets can be achieved by means
of simple, lumped-constant filters. The coherent detector output
j signal (bipolar video,) from the range gate for a single stationary
target during a single scan is a series of pulses at the repetition
rate, each pulse having a width limited either by the transmitted
pulse length (for a point target) or the gate width (for a con-
tinuously-extended target). These gated output pulses have a
frequency spectrum with components at multiples of the prf. A
range cell which, instead, contains a moving target will have, in
addition to these components, frequency pairs separated fron. the
prf harmonics by the doppler frequency of motion. A boxcar cir-
cuit can be used to discriminate against the harmonics of the prf
while maintaining the signal-to-noise ratio, and a high-pass cir-
cuit can be used to suppress low-velocity target returns.

The over-all filter characteristic can be made close to

rectangular. For this system, byalternating repetition periods
between successive pulses, a response curve with good blind-speed
suppression can be obtained.

As an alternative to the simple high-pass filtering

indicated for the range-gated radar, or in addition to it, the
range-gated detector output may be distributed to a single narrow-
band filter or to a filter bank. Pulsing the radar produces the
periodic blind-speed pattern of response, so that the filters need

31

SECRET
[ SECRET

1only be distributed between zero and half the prf. Alternatively,

a single narrow-band filter can be used with frequency tracking to
keep the doppler frequency in the band, with a high-pass filter for
suppression of low-velocity targets. A corresponding filter system
for a CW radar must extend over the full range of anticipated
doppler frequencies, chaff rejection being determined by the charac-
jteristic of the high-pass filter for a given chaff velocity spread.
The possible objection to the large number of filters needed even
for the wide-band, range-gated MTI (at least one filter per range
interval) is somewhat mitigated by the elimination in a data
processing system of range-quantizing equipment, and the possibility
of Constant False-Alarm Rate (CFAR) operation.6 A response curve
approaching that for the range-gated filter MTI can be obtained by
using multiple cancellation in delay line systems, with feedback
loops around the cancellation circuitry. Such a response curve is
shown in Fig. 7. In practice, the feedback may be adjusted to vary
the response to low clutter frequepcies. An example of this is in
circuitry developed for the FPS-20 radar.
(2) velocity-Compensated MT1. As discussed in an earlier
section, the radial movements of chaff can be divided into two com-
ponents: its uniform velocity (produced by the mean wind drift of
the dipoles) and its internal motion or turbulence (produced by
3 horizontal and vertical wind gradients). The uniform radial ve-
locity component, which may be on the order of 100 knots at high
altitudes, may prevent the suppression of the chaff returns in
ordinary coherent MTI radar, but can be effectively removed by
adjusting the reference phase of each pulse in a coherent receiver
to compensate for it. (The same basic scheme is the standard
method used to cancel the velocity component of a moving radar
platform.)

If the direction of the wind is uniform across the chaff-

sown area, its mean velocity can be compensated by varying the phase
adjustment sinusoidally at a frequency equal to the scan angular
frequency as the radar scans in azimuth. The velocity response of

/ 32
|.
.1 I SECRET
s c-
 SECRET

Isuch a system, with n defined as in Fig. 1, is shown in Fig. 8 for

a canceler using three-pulse cancellation. This method of combining
1pulses, which may be realized by placing two single-cancellation

circuits in series, is generally referred to as double cancellation.

The compensation indicated in Fig. 8 minimizes response to a target

characterized by n = 1/8.

I If the direction or amplitude of the wind is not constant

over the chaff-sown area, a method of compensation called clutter-

locked MTI can be used. The clutter-locked system locks a coherent

oscillator in the receiver to the phase of the most recent clutter

in successive intervals of a range sweep. This oscillator signal

serves as a phase reference for moving targets until a block of

clutter at a more distant range (and possibly a different radial

I velocity) changes its phase. The phase differences arising from
differential radial motion between pulses of these blocks of chaff
are automatically rejected by the phase-locking mechanism. Thus,
at all ranges a reference signal is available (having a phase de-
termined by local clutter), and the radar response to successive
blocks of clutter at different radial velocities is minimized.

I The basic limitation to velocity compensation as an anti-

chaff device is that turbulent internal motion of the chaff may
produce rapid fluctuations in the chaff return that exceed the
band of fluctuation frequencies that can be suppressed, particularly

if this band is narrow. From another point of view, the fluctu-

ations in amplitude and phase resulting from reshuffling of the

dipoles, which are more or less independent of the mean drift of

phase, will produce clutter signals that simple phase adjustment
of the coherent oscillator cannot compensate. The fact that these
fluctuations in successive range cells are independent prevents the

clutter-locked type of compensation.

1 For a given coherent MTI radar, however, velocity compen-

sation can increase chaff return attenuation considerably if the
air is not turbulent, and is certainly a worthwhile adjunct for a

I 1
coherent-I! radar. Although ground clutter will not be as

33
 SECRET

effectively suppressed if the mean velocity component is large,

it is doubtful that this will interfere with detection of targets

at near-maximum radar range. For a stacked-beam radar, in par-

ticular, the ground clutter problem in the velocity-compensated

MI operation appears to be a minor one.

(3) Noncoherent MTI. Like velocity-compensated coherent

j MTI, noncoherent MTI is a useful adjunct to ordinary coherent MTI
in a ground-based radar for detecting aircraft in uniformly-moving
chaff clouds. In contrast to coherent techniques, the noncoherent

MTI system uses the chaff (or ground) returns themselves as the
reference signal instead of using a signal generated at the re-

ceiver. Thus, it can be considerably simpler than, for example,

velocity compensation. It has the disadvantage, however, that a
clutter signal is necessary to detect non-fluctuating targets, so

that, as in the Nike Hercules acquisition radar, returns from a

non-fluctuating target in the clear will be cancelled in the can-
cellation circuitry and will not be displayed. Like velocity-
compensated coherent MTI, it cannot eliminate chaff to the extent
that its internal motion decorrelates the return over intervals
corresponding to a pulse repetition period. This situation can
occur when a search radar illuminates chaff that is either in
highly turbulent air or is distributed through a range of altitudes
where vertical wind shear produces a large spread of dipole radial

velocities.

There appear to be several schemes for achieving non-

coherent MTI operation. One of these, used in the FPS-20 anti-
chaff receiver, delays the amplitude-limited IF signal by one pulse

length and then compares this signal with the undelayed signal in
a phase detector, followed by conventional cancellation. A simpli-

fied block diagram of this type of system is given in Fig. 9.

Another, using quadratic detection of the linearly amplified signal

from a combination of target and chaff, depends on the interpulse

decorrelation in the combined signal, introduced by relative motion

between the two, to change the target signal amplitude on successive

34

A SECRET
* SECRET

I7ANTENNA
[ L.O. MIXER

LIMITING

IF. AMPLIFIER

I TIME
0DELAY

I PHASE
DETECTOR

I I TIME
DELAY
T

T= PULSE DURATION "-CANCELLER

T= Pr

.3 MTI VIDEO

FIG. 9
j SIMF'LIIHE BLOUCK DIAGRAM OP UNE fTYPE
OF NONCOHERENT MTI CIRCUITRY

I pulses, providing an output from the canceler. Logarithmic ampli-

fication, which, as discussed, compresses the amplitude fluctuations
of uniformly dense chaff at different ranges to some constant level,
also preserves beats between the chaff and target returns. These
Io beats can be separated from the chaff returns by cancellation cir-
cuitry if the chaff returns are sufficiently well correlated. Range-
gated filtering could be used alternatively to recover the signal-
times-clutter components.

Ii 35

SECRET
 SECRET

IIn recently designed search radars, coherent and non-

coherent MTI video may both be displayed on the same PPI scope,
either by operator adjustment of noncoherent MTI range and azimuth
sectors or by automatic switching provided by a simultaneously
scanned storage tube that has recorded video from a previous scan
period. The Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules acquisition radar is
equipped only with noncoherent MrI, however. For this radar, when
using MTI, the visibility of any target, moving or stationary--
unless it is in a chaff cloud or ground-clutter region--depends on
pulse-to-pulse fluctuations in the amplitude of the return.

Noncoherent MTI has been proposed for use with tracking

radars as well as with search radars to facilitate tracking of
targets through corridors and bursts, as well as acquiring of
targets in chaff corridors. To accomplish this, the signal return
from cross-product terms of chaff and aircraft must be used
(instead of being eliminated by the pass band of the tracking cir--
cuit). This signal could be used either to detect the presence of
burst chaff, thereupon switching the range servo into automatic
coast, or to supply an error signal (to be switched in auto-
matically) for tracking through continuously cluttered areas.

b. CW Radar

Pulse radar MTI systems do not, in general, make use of the

doppler frequency shift of returns from moving targets as a basis for
vplonitv discrimination. inr' the change of phase over ore short pulse
length is very small and extremely difficult to measure. The CW radar
can detect these doppler frequencies quite easily with its extended
measurement time. Also, by using frequency modulation and waveform
analysis, it can achieve range resolution of multiple targets comparable
to that of a pulse radar of the same IF bandwidth. Doppler frequency
velocity discrimination is free of the problems of blind speed, and can
achieve very good suppression of low-velocity targets such as chaff
without affecting its response to high-speed targets.* Because of this

* CW radar does have the disadvantage that distant targets may have to
compete with nearby clutter for recognition. If the clutter source is
at the same range as the target, however, this will not be important.

36

SECRET
* |SECRET

I and corresponding advantages in discriminating against ground clutter,

CW radars for both acquisition and tracking have been incorporated Into
j the low-altitude Hawk missile system.

c. Absolute Velocity Discrimination

(1) Area MTI. In contrast to the systems described

above, which discriminate on the basis of radial velocity, area MTI

is used for "absolute velocity" discrimination. Storing video

signals from one radar scan to the next, either on magnetic tape or

in a storage tube, it makes a scan-by-scan comparison to detect

moving targets, displaying the difference between the present scan

and a preceding stored scan. Provision is made for control of the
time difference between the scans to be compared, i.e., for the

storage time or aging of a scan before using it for comparison.

Area MTI, of course, has no blind-speed limitations, but is re-
stricted-in application by state-of-the-art limitations in dynamic
range and resolution of present storage systems. With increased
resolution it could be used to eliminate random chaff drops, but
regardless of dynamic range it would have no subclutter visibility
against targets screened by a chaff corridor.

I (2) Velocity Memory. To combat the effects of burst

chaff, some tracking radars today adjust the range servo response
to limit changes in normal radar tracking to those expected in

normal aircraft maneuvering. A tracking radar of normal servo

bandwyidth, fer example, may be switched to narrnw band or "coast"
by the appearance of forward-sown chaff in a gate ahead of the

tracking gate containing the aircraft. This class of techniques is

referred to as velocity memory. Its effectiveness against forward-
sown chaff could be increased by using it in combination with

noncoherent MTI.

5. VIDEO CENSORING

I All of the anti-chaff techniques discussed above that provide no

subclutter visibility for search radars may be considered to be auto-

matic video-censoring techniques whose chief advantage is that they

I 37

J SECRET
' aSECRET
Iprevent the display of clutter which might confuse an operator or over-

load a track-while-scan computer. A method of allowing an operator to

U accomplish the same function is employed iu the SAGE system and is called

mapping. The operator maps out the clutter area on a PPI display with a

I semi-opaque paint, reducing the output of a photocell and preventing

read-out of the clutter signal to the computer input drum. Of course,
any targets in these areas are also rejected.

B. TARGET VISIBILITY AND MTI

In Sec. IV-A a number of techniques have been discussed that may be

used to help protect a radar from saturation in a chaff countermeasures
environment. As important as chaff-suppression techniques may be, how-
ever, target visibility remains the chief objective of radar design. In
view of the modest chaff density requirements discussed in Sec. II, high
clutter levels can be expected to interfere with detection of the target.

It appears, then, that high priority might well be given to techniques

that provide subchaff visibility, i.e., which actually suppress the chaff
returns relative to the target returns. It may be seen from the pre-
ceding section that only one class of techniques promises to provide

significant subchaff visibility for pulsed radars: moving-target indi-

cation circuitry.

The amount of subchaff visibility to be expected from U.S. air

I defense radars equipped with MTI circuitry and operational implications

will be discussed in Sec. V. Before examining these, however, it may be
I instructive to consider some of the inherent liabilities of Mr1 inde-
pendent of chaff or clutter return.

I One of these, already referred to, is the blind-speed problem. This

is illustrated in Fig. 10, which shows the MTI response curve for the
FPS-20 radar as a function of target radial velocity. This is translated
into an illustrative operational situation in Fig. 11, which shows the
radar response envelope as a function of time for an aircraft flying

140 n.mi. at 600 knots past the radar as indicated, a trajectory that
might commonly be found in an area surveillance system. The lower hori-

I zontal scrle in each of the plots shows the radial velocity of the target

1 38

SECRET
 r SECRET

I U)
U)

II 0
TARGET
t0
oo
RADIAL
150

VELOCITY, KNOTS
200 250

FIG. 10
FPS-20 THREE-PULSE CANCELLATION MTI RESPONSE

I WITH FEEDBACK AT SCAN RATE OF 5 RPM

I
AIRCRAFT
SHAPED CASCADED MTI CANCELLATION FLIGHT PATHOF REPRESENTED
PORTION
i 1.2 RADAR SCAN RATE 5 RPM
O
600 KT

cc 0.6
"J 06 -- 200 n
-J-04

II 02

.0 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 t2 13 14 15
A I I TIME,I MNUTES
I I i I I I

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

RADIAL VELOCITY, KNOTS
w,1.2 O-E CYCLE
Nt
ef 0IO
-_-I / 1 - -e
MW0.8/

ON0 55 60 6.5 70
S.
75 '/ 8.0
TIME, MINUTES
85 9.0
i' 95 100 105
I I I l I l I I I I

31 300 286 irkl 256 240 222 205 17T 169

RADIAL VELOCITY, KNOTS 4- 14Mql4-14-124

EFRFIG. 11

ENVELOPE OF FPS-20 MTI RESPONSE TO 600-KNOT AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT PATH SHOWN

t 39

-[ SE 71E
I SECRET

I aircraft corresponding to the time from entry into the 200-n.-mi. circle.

The lower plot is an expanded illustration of about two of the cycles

centered at about 8 minutes, showing the amplitude of the scan as the
height of a vertical black line at the time the scan would occur. For
j example, around 8 minutes about three scans will be entirely lost due to
masking by receiver noise. Following this, one scan will be about three-
fourths the usual non-MTI amplitude, followed by six full-amplitude re-
turns, and then decreasing returns again. If the target were barely
detectable at the peak of the response curve (because, for example, it
is a small target at long range or because a little jamming is added to
the receiver noise), then four or five consecutive scans would be lost
I in the period around 8 minutes and at other times when the radial velocity
of the target is in a blind-speed band. With the target aircraft not
detectable for between half a minute and a minute, it may be difficult to
maintain track on it.

I The effects of jamming on an Mrl-equipped radar do not appear to be

well defined, but there are indications that they may be particularly
severe. MTI receivers usually have larger IF bandwidth for a given
pulse length than do non-MTI receivers, 1 0 tending to increase noise
jamming vulnerability somewhat. A number of observations of radars
equipped with MTI under jamming conditions reveal that the MTI region may
be completely saturated when the target is barely screened in the non-Mrl
I region. Field tests have also shown that the Nike acquisition radar
repetition rate may become very unstable under jamming, since jamming
i signals entering tne Mtl channel may trigger pulses at rtaidui iLt-Valm.
More tests are needed of jamming susceptibility of radars when using
I MTl.

I
I
I
1 40

I |I SEORET
I SECRET
!
fV SUBCHAFF VISIBILITY OF U.S. AIR DEFENSE RADARS

j In Sec. II-B the question of subchaff visibility arose in considering

the chaff densities required to screen an aircraft from defense radars.
I From the radar point of view, of course, the question is how much subehaff
visibility is required to permit target detection and tracking. It is
apparent that a kind of seesaw juggling of parameters is possible here
without any resolution of these questions, as long as both designs remain
flexible. When the radars are designed, however, it is possible to pre-

Idict their subchaff visibility to some extent by analysis. When they have
been built, it should be pospible to confirm or correct such predictions
j in field tests.

In this section two radars are discussed to illustrate the capa-

bilities of two kinds of radars: one that is not designed basically

against chaff, the FPS-20, and one that is, the FPS-28.

I A. FPS-20

It may appear to be a harsh judgement against FPS-20 that it is not

designed against chaff--in addition to provision for coherent MrI, it has

a noncoherent MTI receiver that is also called an anti-chaff receiver*--

I but its combination of frequency (L-band) and repetition rate (360PPS)

make even moderate security against windblown chaff difficult with MTI
j without encountering prohibitive blind-speed problems.

To illustrate the predicament of such a design, consider two situ-

I ations that can defeat it: chaff in shearing winds or turbulent air, and
moving chaff in the same region as ground clutter. Both of these will
j give an unwanted return that will clutter the radar display. The co-

herent MTI response of the FPS-20 radar in its best clutter-suppression

* Actually, the original FPS-20 design did not have the anti-chaff
receiver; it is a "fix.4

[SECRET
 I SECRET

Ii mode at a 5-rpm scan rate is shown in Fig. 10. The noncoherent MTI
response about the mean chaff radial velocity is the same except that it
[has even symmetry about this velocity. It may be seen that after chaff
has achieved a velocity dispersion of a few tens of knots, a signifi-
cantly large return may be expected from it.*

One apparently important operational question occurs at this point.

If If
the chaff is
sown in some operationally feasible fashion, how much
time is required for the chaff to achieve the velocity dispersion re-
quired to produce a significant clutter level against such a radar?

The deflection missile mentioned in Sec. III-B suggests itself as

a very suitable means of achieving this dispersion quickly. If the
3-n.-mi. missile suggested by Hult is taken as an example, and if such
missiles are fired every ten seconds so as to provide a 50-percent
overlap, the chaff trails will be somewhat as shown in Fig. 12.

IDIRECTION OF

A FIG. 12
OVERLAPPING CHAFF TRAILS PRODUCED BY
MISSILES FIRED AT 10-SECOND INTERVALS

I
The frequency power spectrum of amplitude fluctuations in the chaff
return before limiting is expected to have a standard deviation equal
t2Ov/ , where av is the standard deviation about the mean wind ve-
locity and X the wavelength. The spectrum of the amplitude variations
in the output of the phase detector is expected to be nearly the same
since the same mechanism that produces the amplitude fluctuations in
the return also produces the phase fluctuations. The canceler may be
thought of as a high-pass filter for pulse-to-pulse variations. As
the velocity dispersion increases, the spectrum widens, and the "filter"
passes an increasing fraction of the clutter power spectrum. When the
standard deviation of wind velocity about the mean is about 20 knots,
the chaff return will be about one-third of what it would be if the
jchaff were a point target moving at optimum speed (and optimum phase).

c42
 SECRET

In such a distribution pattern, there is at least a 3,000-foot

altitude difference in chaff in the same range resolution element of an
j observing radar. Neglecting further falling, there is a maximum altitude
dispersion of about 9,000 feet. According to one source (Ref. 6, p.65),
the average wind shear found in the 30,000- to 40,000-foot altitude range
is 6 to 12 knots per 1,000 feet of altitude.* In 3,000 feet of altitude
one might expect to encounter 15 to 30 knots of velocity difference; over
9,000 feet one might expect 50 knots, at least.

This chaff trail requires only seconds to establish. The bomber

penalty is one missile costing a system weight of 60 pounds for each one
and one-half miles of penetration distance. For a weight penalty of
I 4,000 pounds, about one-eighth of the payload of a Bison bomber on a one-
way intercontinental mission, a trail of this kind could be extended over
I100 miles. The increase in caaff echoing area (no more than a factor of
2 or 3) required by the null in the noncoherent MTI response could almost
certainly be made up by using more efficient chaff materials than those
assumed by Hult.

I A similar situation exists when the mean radial velocity of a chaff

cloud in a region of ground clutter exceeds a few knots. The noncoherent
I MTI cannot cancel the combined return.** This is certainly not a cir-
cumstance to be counted on by an enemy, but could prove an important
1 source of interference in radar operation. It is probably fair to say

that wherever ground clutter is a problem without MTI, chaff will be a

problem with noncoherent MTI for this radar.

-1 It may be readily conceded that the FPS-20 anti-chaff receiver may

be helpful in a number of situations. Against chaff sown by a screening
missile, for example, it may prevent the radar from being blinded by
clutter for several minutes, while the chaff is falling freely and
Iacquiring a velocity dispersion. Enough time might be gained to permit

This is the average wind shear about the usual peak wind velocity
found at these altitudes.
* This is discussed in some detail in Appendix B.

[ 43

I SE LE
 SECRET

engagement of the bomber even though it would almost certainly be hidden

to the coherent MTI receiver. The question of how critical the time
[advantage might be has not been investigated.

[- B. FPS-28
According to information currently available, the experimental model
of FPS-28 is to be equipped with three types of MrI designed against
chaff:
(1) Coherent range-gated filter
~(2) Coherent delay-line MTI

(3) Noncoherent delay-line MrI.

The delay-line MTI can be used with a repetition rate of 1,000 pps.*
A government-furnished delay-line canceler is to be used. The charac-
teristics of this canceler are not known.** It may have a response curve

similar to that of the FPS-20 radar, with the frequency scale expanded so
that the first blind speed is at about 500 knots. The width of the
blind-speed band at this speed will depend on the design of the canceler,
J but will be proportional to twice the width of chaff spectrum rejected.
If it is adjusted in the noncoherent mode, for example, to suppress
clutter from wind-dispersed chaff that has a standard deviation in radial
velocity of 40 knots, a blind-speed band 100 knots wide, or wider, might

be expected. If a sufficiently wide blind-speed band were admissible,

A this mode of operation could, in principle, resist saturation by chaff
clutter almost indefinitely. Not enough is known at present to evaluate
I its possible subchaff visibility as designed.

The problem of a wide blind-speed band around 5Q0 knots is largely

eliminated in the range-gated filter MTI by the use of two repetition

• The radar can also use a repetition rate of 333 pps to extend its un-
ambiguous range, but this does not appear to be attractive for anti-
Ii chaff use.
•* The FPS-20 canceler has double (or three-pulse) cancellation with
feedback for control of the scanning clutter response. The exact
shape of the FPS-28 canceler may not depend on scanning effects,
which are not expected to be severe for FPS-28, but rather it may be
designed against a wide chaff spectrum.
44

I S ,ECRE,
T .,
I ~ SECRET

I rates, 1,200 pps and 800 pps, used on alternate scans.* The high-pass
filter used for clutter suppression has a cut-off frequency of 200 cps,

f corresponding to a radial velocity of about 100 knots. Such a filter

can suppress returns from point targets moving at any lower speed.

j Chaff does not present a point target, however, but one composed of a
random assortment of unresolved scatterersi these may give rise to high-

frequency fluctuation components in the radar video output that cannot

be suppressed by the filter. In order to do this, as discussed previ-

ously, the dipoles must achieve a large velocity dispersion.

An idea of the capability of the FPS-28 radar to suppress clutter

from windblown chaff while maintaining target visibility can be obtained

by formal analysis of the response of an idealized system with the pa-

rameters of the FPS-28 range-gated-filter MTI to spectral variations in

Ithe chaff return and to an idealized (non-fluctuating) target aircraft

return.

IPresently available data give the following parameters for the

radar:

Operating frequency 510 to 690 Mc

Repetition rates 1,200 and 800 Mc on altainate scans

J Rotation rate 6 rpm

Azimuth beam width 1.30

The range-gated-filter MTI uses a coherent phase reference. The

receiver characteristic is linear.

I Unfortunately, no measurements are known to have been made of the

statistical characteristics of returns from the various types of chaff

I (foil and fiber dipoles, and "rope") at high altitudes. Measurements of

these characteristics would help considerably to provide a measure of

I performance of modern radars. Until such data are available, it appears

* This effectively cuts in half the data rate on targets with radial

velocities between 300 and 900 knots; i.e., the result is a 20-second
data rate on most aircraft of interest, but the radar is not blind to
any target velocity above 100 knots on a pair of consecutive scans.

II 45

SECRE
I SECRET

Ito be reasonable to assume an extension of the standard Gaussian form

referred to in Sec. II for the frequency distribution of power in the

chaff clutter. The bell-shaped spectrum curve is centered at the

doppler frequency corresponding to the mean radial wind velocity. (This

Ifrequency also corresponds to the mean pulse-to-pulse phase shift.)

Calculation of chaff suppression has been made on the basis of a

J perfectly rectangular filter characteristic. The errors introduced by

this assumption are optimistic and will not be significant when the

j clutter rejection begins to decline, i.e., when the chaff radial velocity

has a fairly large mean value or a large standard deviation, or both.

These are the conditions of most concern. The idealized gated-filter
response function H(f), illustrated in Fig. 13 for one prf, has the
periodicity that characterizes a pulsed-radar MTI, the passbands being

I
4
FIG° 13
] IDEALIZED GATED-FILTER MTI RESPONSE SHOWN WITH SPECTRUM OF
1 CHAFF WITH NON-ZERO MEAN RADIAL VELOCITY

symmetrical about odd multiples of half the repetition frequency. The

~lower cut-off frequency, fe, for FIG72.
this132filter is indicated. F is the

pulse repetition frequency, and B the width of the filter passband.

I The clutter spectrum, Wc(f), as introduced in Sec. II, is given* by

We -exp (-,g

It is assumed that the power spectrum of the incoming clutter is not

changed by the phase detector.

[ 46

I SECRET

.+ +,. . . .j :
 SECRET

[where a is the frequency corresponding to rms wind velocity. It is

indicated in dotted lines in the figure.

I The analysis of the relative chaff attenuation by this system

follows the method of R. C. Emerson 2 and yields a figure for "reference

jgain,"G. This figure is a measure of relative chaff suppression (or

relative target enhancement) averaged over all possible target radial

velocities. It is discussed in greater detail in Appendix A. The

results of the analysis are given in Fig. 14. Both mean and rms wind
velocities are plotted. Scanning effects, discussed in Appendix A, are

neglected in the figure. The dotted lines indicate the effect of

truncating the clutter spectrum at ±2o as suggested by Emerson.*

50 - ___INDICATES EFFECT OF TRUNCATION ASSUMED

GAUSSIAN CLUTTER SPECTRUM AT ±20"

z
0
STANDARD DEVIATION
40-30 24 IS OF DIPOLE VELOCITIES
z =
- I-- , I0KNOTS

43

z20

F- 49

75 KNOTS

0 20 40 so 80 100
MEAN RADIAL DIPOLE VELOCITY, V, KNOTS

FIG. 14
RELATIVE CHAFF AMENUATION BY IDEALIZED FPS-28 COHERENT
RANGE-GATED FI.TER MTI AS A FUNCTION OF WIND CONDITIONS
(SCANNING EFFECTS NEGLECTED)

I
* The curve is plotted from an expression derived in Appendix A.

1 47

-[I
[ SECRE
 SECRET

The response of the (coherent) range-gated-filter MTI will depend

very much on the mean wind velocity, as well as on the velocity dis-
fpersion of the chaff, unless velocity compensation is employed.* As
illustrated in Fig. 12, at high mean velocities, the attenuation is a

less sensitive function of velocity dispersion. The subchaff visi-

bilities at these mean velocities may, however, be critically important
in radar operation. The significance of mean wind velocity dependence

is that another rather unpredictable variable is introduced,** one that

requires additional operational interpretation of the results of the
analysis. Two such interpretations will be suggested below. For an
idea of mean wind velocities to be anticipated in the U.S., Fig. 15***
may be consulted. This figure, which is self-explanatory, describes con-

ditions in the jet stream belt in the area near the industrial heartland
of the U.S.

Chaff sown by a screening missile from an altitude of 40,000 feet

might be expected to fall in the manner described in Sec. II. (The
effect on the rates of dispersion and fall of the difference between the
turbulence created by an aircraft and that created by a screening missile

is not known.) From the description a model of vertical dispersion of

the dipoles as a function of time can be constructed as follows: From a

* No mention is made in available sources of velocity compensation for

FPS-28; it appears, however, to be highly desirable.

** Wind effectE in the 10TI cluttcr supprcssion produce a characteristic

statistical uncertainty; it is difficult to make very general state-
ments because of geographical wind variations, and because of local
variations in the mean wind velocity. A mean wind velocity that is
uniform over a given area surrounding the radar has a radial com-
ponent that varies in azimuth from zero to maximum. An uncompen-
sated coherent-MTI radar may thus be blind in one azimuth sector
and not in another. The screening value of clutter will depend on
Ithe direction of the wind and direction of the attacking bombers.
If velocity compensation is used, variations in mean velocity over
the chaff-sown region could create problems. The possibility of a
I combination of wind-chaff relationships unfortunate for the defense
is a matter of some concerns
*** Taken from SADR Study, Raytheon Manufacturing Co., date unknown,
SECRET, p. 221. This document is a proposal for a Six-Hundred Mega-
cycle Air Defense Radar in which fundamental FPS-28 radar parameters
are established.
48

SE[W
 SECRET

70 -

60 -

W 50 - 50% 20%
LL-

I U,~40

U)

30

! ,o- /
I S20 -

10

I I I I I I
00 20 40 60 80 too 120 140

WIND SPEED -KNOTS

FIG. 15
SYNTHETIC WIND-SPEED PROFILES-WIND VELOCITIES EXCEEDED
.50 PERCENT AND 20 PERCENT OF THE WINTER IN THE WINDIEST
AREA OF NORTH AMERICA (NORTHEASTERN PART)

I very small vertical spread immediately after dispensing, the chaff cloud
increases its vertical dimension at the rate of about 600 feet per
1 minute (the rate of fall of the fastest falling chaff) for about seven
minutes, after which the cloud, about 4,000 feet in height, settles
down uniformly at a rate of 300 feet per minute. The dipoles in the
cloud may be distributed approximately normally in altitude within the
4,000-foot core. According to the wind shear figures quoted previously,
Ia shearing gradient of about 25 to 50 knots can be expected across this
core. If this gradient is constant in altitude, a standard deviation in
Idipole velocities of about 6 to 12 knots would result. The mean velocity,
as may be seen for conditions represented in Fig. 14, might be expected

I to be around 60 to 80 knots or greater in the 30,000- to 40,000-foot

1 49

I SECRLEI
*SECRET

altitude range.6 Under these conditions, the FPS-28 could be expected

to have 10 db or more of subchaff visibility--sufficient, perhaps, to

reduce the clutter level to receiver noise level while displaying the
target aircraft* (assumed non-fluctuating). At low velocity deviations,
jhowever,the radar response is sensitive to changes in mean wind ve-

locity. It should be pointed out that wind shear gradients as great as

160 knots in 2,000 feet of altitude are known to occur. If such shear
should result in a standard deviation of around 50 knots in dipole radial

Ivelocity, with the high mean velocity that such winds would have, the
radar would have almost no subchaff visibility. This effect would not be

expected to last very long, not more than a few minutes, unless fresh

chaff were sown into the shearing winds.

Because of its design features, the FPS-28 would be expected to fare

better against the deflection-missile chaff trail than the FP-20 radar.
We may represent the spectrum of the double trail of Fig. 12 somewhat as
shown in Fig. 16, where f, corresponds to the mean radial velocity of the
upper trail and f2 to that of the lower trail. The width of each is pro-
j portional to the standard deviation of velocities among the dipoles. If

the mean velocities are spaced by 30 knots and are both below 100 knots,
I
,I

"f2 -f, f, f2
0A-Z39-231

I FIG. 16
APPROXIMATE SPECTRUM OF DOUBLE CHAFF TRAIL
i BEFORE AND AFTER ALTITUDE DISPERSION

* st PPI displays have only a 1O-db dynamic range so that a signal

10 db greater than clutter residue will appear at full intensity on
the display.

S50
SECRET
 .

rSECRET
Ithe higher one will produce considerably greater clutter residue
(clutter after filtering) than the lower as long as the individual
Ispectra are fairly narrow. As dispersion of dipole velocities takes
place, however, the two spectra will tend to merge, as indicated by the
dotted lines, with a resultant spectrum that assumes an approximately
normal shape. Thus Fig. 14, which assumes a normal or Gaussian spectrum,
may again be used directly to estimate subchaff visibility. (A time of
the order of several minutes might be required for this dispersion.)
Using the same sowing pattern as indicated against FPS-20, and taking
as the mean wind radial velocities 40 and 70 knots for the two trails,
the radar even without velocity compensation can be expected to have
good subchaff visibility initially, unless the chaff is immediately dis-
persed in velocity by turbulent air. if the chaff falls at the rates
Ialready described, however, after a few minutes the spread in dipole
velocities will have widened the spectrum appreciably. The standard
deviation may be on the order of 20 or 25 knots, or more. If the mean
radial velocity were 75 knots, the radar would have only a few db of
relative chaff attenuation. It will be observed that in Fig. 15 the
lower trail has been assumed to have the larger mean radial velocity.
This is characteristic of altitudes above 35,000 feet. If the well-
Idispersed chaff cloud should encounter a high-mean-velocity wind at
lower altitudes, the clutter residue (after filtering) would increase,
t and the subchaff visibility could approach zero.

It is not known at present whether the problem of sensitivity to

jmean wind velocities is to be met in this MTI mode by velocity compen-
sation, by overlapping coverage of adjacent radars, or by a combination
of both measures. It can be deduced from Fig. 14 that velocity compen-
sation could greatly increase the effectiveness of the MPI (unless ground
clutter were severe) in attenuating the chaff, which would then have to
acquire a very high velocity dispersion in order to clutter the display
sufficiently to hide the target. (For example, with the effective mean
Swind velocity reduced to zero by velocity compensation, a deviation of
50 knots would only reduce G to about 15 db.) Of course, under some cir-
j cumstances, the chaff might eventually achieve the required dispersion.

S51

[ SECRET
 SECRET

FThe effects on target visibility of the blind-speed band from 0 to

100 knots may be of interest. The unambiguous radar range is about
1 100 n.mi. for a repetition rate of 800 pps.* If an airplane traveling
at 1,000 fps flies the tangential course indicated in Fig. 17, so that
Ii its nearest approach to the radar is 70 n.mi., it will not be visible to
the radar for some 24 n.mi. of its travel, occupying a time of about
1 140 seconds or about 14 scans of the radar. This suggests that nut all
blind-speed problems can be solved by using multiple repetition rates.
I The operational seriousness of this problem has not been considered.

1~~ 100 ,

mi. mi

-,- - -COURSE OF AIRCRAFT

FIG. 17
TANGENTIAL COURSE OF AIRCRAFT PAST RADAR
FOR ILLUSTRATION OF BLIND ZONE

IThe general conclusion that emerges from these considerations is

that what is purchased by the inclusion of uncompensated coherent range-
j gated MTI in the radar is a statistical probability (unevaluated as yet)
of a delay of some time before the chaff screen becomes effective. It
appears that this time delay could be increased significantly under most
conditions by the inclusion of velocity compensation.

The figures used in the foregoing discussion are thought to be

conservative, as are the assumptions of a nonfluctuating target and a

* It is not known that the FPS-28 is planned to display its full range
capability on the scans when it uses an 800-pps repetition rate. This
might, however, be desirable in view of the radar's limited range in
this mode. The example, in any case, is illustrative.

S! 52

SECRET
I SECRET

I rectangular cut-off filter. Possibly more extensive and thorough

examination of a greater variety of anticipated attacks might be
warranted. It is felt that the greatest deficiency in the examination
of this radar's chaff suppression capability is omission of a detailed
j' investigation of the noncoherent delay-line MfI. No evaluation of the
radar would be complete without examining the capabilities of this mode.
A decisive analysis would have to use better data on the statistical
parameters of return from windblown, high-altitude chaff than are
presently available.

I
!
I
!
I
I
I
|
I
I
I

1i. 53

,SE.R-
 I SECRET
I
VI THE STATUS OF CHAFF THREAT EVALUATION

I The foregoing investigation of chaff as a possible threat to

U.S. air defense radars has led, perhaps inevitably, to more questions
than answers. These questions will be summarized briefly in this

section.

I A. WIND EFFECTS

Already mentioned is the lack of information on the statistical

jcharacteristics of chaff sown at high altitudes under various wind
conditions and the variations in these characteristics. In the liter-
ature a reference has been noted to "wind shear measuring circuitry"

to be employed on U.S. radars, but no details of this circuitry were

given, and no reference to its use has ever been found. Presumably
this could be a form of "correlation detector" giving outputs pro-

portional to the difference between consecutive pulses, every other

pulse, every third pulse, etc., but how such a device could aid in

achieving subchaff visibility is not at all clear.

I Other kinds of aerodynamic effects present uncertainties. For

Aexample: Are there any mechanical design considerations that limit
the efficiency of chaff dipoles when they must withstand the impacts
of launching from a supersonic screening missile without crumpling or

birdsnesting? Or can high efficiency of chaff materials be realized

in such operations?

It is considered desirable, in order to refine somewhat the gross

predictions of this report, to extend the analytical work to include

nonlinear receiver effects. This work may have already been accomplished
elsewhere, but is unknown to the author.

B. SIGNIFICANCE OF TIME DELAYS ON DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS

The time delays between sowing and full effectiveness of chaff

I against MrI radars may turn out to be operationally important. Perhaps

1 54
 X

SECRET

I their effects cannot be profitably investigated further, however, until

better experimental data are available.

I A time-delay question similar in basic nature to that for ETI but

opposite in effect is encountered with CRAFT techniques, where a delay
j on the order of minutes is required for sufficient chaff dispersion to
permit decorrelation of returns by means of pulse-to-pulse frequency
jchange.
Another time delay of interest is the reacquisition time of the
j tracking radars of various systems after they have been pulled off
target by, say, deflection-sown chaff. Long delays could decrease chaff
Irequirements against these radars on the part of the bombers.

Effects of chaff on specific U.S. SAM system radars have not been
Imentioned specifically in this report, nor have effects on constel-
lations of such systems. Some thinking along these lines has been done
in this country. Hult (Ref. 5, p. 3), for example, has pointed out that
if the number of trails sown by a group of aircraft exceeds the number
of tracking radars that can be used to search them, chaff may be useful
if sown only against search radars; otherwise, it would have to be sown
against the trackers as well.

N C. ECCM COMPATIBILITY

Perhaps, in view of the tendency to think in terms of anti-chaff

fixes, the basic differences in jamming and chaff MTI radar CCM should
e mphaized. The radar frequenicy must be high, for example, to force
wide-band barrage jamming, but must be low to permit effective chaff
suppression by MTI. The radar IF bandwidth should be narrow against
jamming, but must be wide to permit high-resolution discrimination
against chaff. Pulse-to-pulse frequency jumping against jamming cannot
be used with MTI. Basic incompatibilities of this kind have led to the
investigation of the compromise offered by the CRAFT technique and to
some consideration of such complex equipments as bistatic noise radars
at high frequencies.

I. ... w I ],I . ..:..

 SECRET

ID. WARHEAD SIZE

No discussion has been given in the preceding sections of the effects
of defensive missile warhead size on the effectiveness of a chaff trail or
corridor against a defense system. It may certainly be possible to
pattern-blast the cloud even though no aircraft are visible within it.
If high-explosive warheads are used, such a method would not be expected
Ito offer a high-kill probability. Nuclear warheads, however, if available,
might be quite effective if used in this fashion. It may even be possible
j and useful to melt holes in the clouds by large-yield thermonuclear
weapons, but this is sheer speculation.

E. ECCM OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS

One of the fundamental questions arising from an investigation of

this kind is that of ECCM objectives. It appears that, depending on
one's ECM philosophy, a number of measures of effectiveness may be
thought to be important. For example: If the primary objective of
radar ECCM is held to be prevention of data saturation, then subchaff
visibility may, perhaps, be sacrificed quite freely. There is a
similar question at the strategic level: Is the sLrategic function of
radar protection primarily economic or military? That is, are we trying,
for example, to force the Soviets to more costly equipment and methods
-(that will still have a tactical advantage over our radars), or are we
3 thinking primarily in terms of radar protection against present-day
Soviet capabilities? This question appears to reflect the choice
emphasized in this report between anti-chaff fixes and anti-chaff

design. It appears, in general, that whereas anti-chaff design as

embodied in the FPS-28 radar could make the tactical usefulness of
chaff very questionable, fixes to present U.S. radars will not provide
a degree of security against present Soviet chaff capabilities that
could be considered a basic deterrent to their use against U.S. defenses.

SERE
I SECRET

I APPENDIX A
CALCULATION OF RIEFERENCE GAIN OF RANGE-GATED FILTER PWI

I5
SERE
 SECRET
[
[APPENDIX A

jCALCULATION OF REFERENCE GAIN OF RANGE-GATED FILTER MTI

I The significance of the reference gain of the system may be seen
from the derivation below, taken from Emerson (Ref. 11, p.11). The
I uncancelled power residue at the output terminals of the filter unit
depends on the input signal and clutter power levels, and on their
j respective power spectra. If a moving-target signal is present, this
residue will be denoted R (C, S, v) where C is the clutter power present
at the input terminals of the filter, S is the input power for the
target signal, and v is the target velocity. In the absence of a moving-
target signal, the residue will be denoted R (C, 0, -- ). The incremental
Iincrease in output power residue that can be credited to the presence of
a moving target is
aIovn trRti (C,5, v) - R (C,0 -- ),

and it will be called the output signal power. Since the output clutter
power is R (C, 0, -- ), the output-signal to clutter-power ratio, desig-
nated X0 , is given by the ratio

S R (C, S, v) -R (C, 0,--)

- ° -R (C, 0,--)

The input-signal to clutter-power ratio, designated Xi, is simply S/C.

In terms of these quantities, the gain, G(v), is defined by

,V = X0 C R (C, S, v) - R (C, O,--)

G~vj =Xi - S" R(C,0,--)

This quantity can in general be expressed in factored form as a

I product, i.e.,

G(v) E(v)

58

SI e
 ISECRET
mI where G is independent of target velocity and E(v) is independent of
clutter characteristics. G is numerically equal to the average of G(v)
[ over all target velocities, v, and so can be construed as the "expected"
gain in the probabilistic sense that a target whose velocity is unknown
I is equally likely to be moving at all velocities. It is desirable, of
course, for G to be as large as possible. The form of the output power
residue, in general, is the sum of a number of terms arising from a
number, say N, of pulses:

I P-1 N-
P Zajak p(tj - tk)
j=O k=O

where P is input power, the summation with weighting functions aj and ak

representing the MTI circuit's combining of successive pulses; and

p (tj - tk) accounts for the decorrelation of the return over an interval
of length tj - tk, the time between the jth and the kt h pulses. It is
I assumed in this analysis that target returns are perfectly correlated,

V so that ps(tj - tk) = I.

Emerson derives an expression for G(v) for the type of system here
examined by considering the input to the filter to be an infinite train
I of pulses. The expression given above takes the form

" Z~=Z= f(tJ )f(tk)Pc(tf-tk)

S00 I J=O
Z_ Z
00
k=O
f(tj)f(tk)Pc(tj-tk)-

-C F F f(tj)f(tk)Pc(tj-tk)

SG )J=O k=O

IC S 00 00o
f(tJ)f(tk)Pc(tj - tk )
C E F,
IJ=O k=O

| 59

SECR-0.
 SECRET

I where f(t) is the impulse time response function of the filter, and tj
represents the times of arrival of the pulses in the gated channel; the

normalized autocorrelation of the return from the target is ps (tj - tk).

Since

00

Ps Wx =f10 eW 5 (f)df

I and

Pc (x) = f ei W Wc(f)df

H(f)Ws(f)df
I O( = f
G(v) LO

I ODH(f)Wc(f)df

where H(f) = D eiwtj f(tj) is the gated-filter response function

i in Fig. 13.

If the target echoes are perfectly stable, then

Ws(f) 1/2[6(f+fd)+b(f-fd)] where 6(x - y) is the unit impulse function

at x = y, and fd is the doppler frequency ( 2Vr/X) due to target radial

motion. Since H(f) is symmetrical about f 0, the system gain reduces to

G(v) = C H(fd)
df
If fo00 H(f )wc(f)

The reference gain, G, is given by the average of G(v) over v.

Letting H denote the average of H(fd) over fd, then

1 60

SECRET
*SECRET

ffH(f)c(f)df

I and the velocity enhancement factor is just E(v) =[H(fd)/Rl

The calculation of G(v) for the FPS-28 radar will assume a single

repetition rate, 1,000 pps. (The repetition rate so assumed has a

negligible effect on the figures calculated.) If, as shown in Fig. 13,

H(f) has amplitude A in its passband, H = AB/F

For the FPS-28 radar, it may be assumed that the range of target

radial velocities of greatest interest is 0-900 knots. Accepting the

lower data rate over most of this band, and including the blind-speed
band from 0 to 100 knots, we might obtain a modified or weighted average

I for H, replacing B/F by the ratio of passband of interest to whole band

of interest.

It is assumed that the only significant contributions to the clutter

residue come from the passbands of H(f) in the intervals 200 to 800 cps

3 and the corresponding negative fPequencies, -200 to -800 cps. Then

3 G - -[(F-B)/2] AB/F (F+B)/2

A f 2
e-(f-fd) /2a
2
]df + Ae e[
-
(f- fd)2 /2a2 I ]df
I -((F+3)1/2 ](F-B)/2

Letting g --(-Id)io
13/F
( F + B- 2 f d ) / 2
)/20
S
L__ [(gd)/2]d 1- e-~ 2 /2d

e- [(g2)/2]g 1 [(g)/2]dg

-00 -OD

1 -(F-B+2fd)/2a1
J2/2d e- 1 -[(F+8+2fd)/20"]
f e- [(g2 )/2]d

+ -' e-[(g2)/2]dg -

I -OD -()

* i61

SECRET
 SECRET

or

B/F
I[(F+B-2fd)/2a] - *(F-B-2fd)/2a] + *[-(F-B+2fd)/2a] - 4[-(F+B+2fd)/2a]

17 where

x
0 (x) fe(t2)/2]dt

_03

For the FPS-28 characteristics given, B = 600 cps, and T = 0.001

I second. Replacing B/F as suggested earlier by the ratio 900 knots/

1000 knots, we get

1- G = 4I(800-fd)/a)]-
0.9
P[(200-fd)/aI - *[(250+i)/al +
_ _ _ _ _
[(8OO+fd)/a]
_ _ _

I
This function is plotted for various values cf fd and a, or rather for

the mean wind velocity V = [(Xfd)/2] and rms wind velocityM = /2

1in Fig. 14.

V It has been suggested by Emerson that the Gaussian shape for the
clutter spectrum would be more realistic if it were truncated at ±2a,
thereby removing the effects of implied very high fluctuation frequencies
jwhich might not be found in the physical situation* or would be below the

level of receiver noise. The effects of this truncation of the spectrum

are also indicated in Fig. 14.

Azimuth scanning effects have been neglected in the preceding dis-

Ji cussion. A comparison may readily be made, however, between the fre-

quencies arising in the output because of scanning and those arising

j from winds.

* An argument might be advanced that frequencies up to and including the

prf might be expected in clutter fluctuation; no higher frequencies,
of course, could be measured.

62
 a SECRET
For an assumed Gaussian-shaped antenna pattern, the rms pulse-to-
pulse phase fluctuation incurred in scanning past a distributed target
Isuch as a chaff trail is given in Vol. I of the MIT Radiation Laboratory
Series (Ref. 9, p. 646) as 1.66/n -F radians, where n is the number of
pulses per beamwidth. At a rotation rate of 6 rpm, beamwidth of
1.3 degrees in azimuth, and repetition rate of 1,000 pps, n will be
given by 1,000 pulses/sec x 10 sec/3600 x 1.30 : 36 pulses/beamwidth.
Then rms pulse-to-pulse phase shift is

1.66 x 57.3 0/rad

I 36 Y-2
= 1.90

IA phase shift of 1.9 degrees at 600 Mc (X = 0.5 meter) corresponds

to a distance of 1.9/360 x 0.5 = 0.0024 meter = 0.0000014 n.mi. Hence,
1 1.90/0.001 sec. corresponds to 0.0014 n.mi./sec. = 5.1 knots.

Scanning then introduces a spread in the spectrum of the chaff

return which is equivalent to that produced by internal motion of the
chaff of rms velocity -M, about 5 knots. Thus, it does not appear to
i represent a serious limit to the radar's MTI capability.

I
I
I

[
L

[ SECRET
* SECRET

APEDII

NONCOHERENT mri AND CLTJTTEA VARIATIONS

I6
SERE
 SECRET

j APPENDIX B

I NONCOHERENT MTI AND CLUTTER VARIATIONS

fIn the simple situation of an assumed uniform clutter source and

an assumed moving point target, it is convenient to regard the clutter
j signal as providing a reference signal comparable to the coherent phase
reference signal in a coherent MTI. When, however, the situation is
more complicated, e.g., because of clutter variations in range or
fluctuations in time, or because the clutter source has a number of
r different radial velocity components, this simple analogy does not
Iappear applicable, and we must resort to a more fundamental analysis.

The clutter signal from any re~olution cell of the radar can be
conveniently represented vectorially, the length of the vector repre-
senting its amplitude, and the angle with a given axis representing its
RF phase as measured, for example, at the radar receiver. Composed of
many individual reflections from bodies within the resolution cell, the
Iresultant vector represents the net signal that the radar "sees." It
is shown below for one resolution cell containing five individual

reflections. (A cloud of high-frequency chaff dipoles would, of course,

be expected to contain more than five dipoles per resolution cell.)

j
| F----
RESULTANT R
I/

5 ~ .--
6 -

SeC
sFeN
I SECRET

A moving target in this resolution cell returning a signal of

amplitude S could be represented, if the clutter signal were entirely
stable, by a rotating vector from R, as shown below: (Ref. 9, p. 651)

i /" -* ,----

The new resultant is R+S at phase angle 01. As long as the

resultant clutter signal, R, does not change in amplitude and phase,
its contribution can be canceled from pulse to pulse, with the vari-
ation in the amplitude of R+S giving a signal output from the canceler.

Suppose, now, that the clutter is composed of two independent

signals, R 1 and R2 , having a relative radial velocity resulting in a
I uniform pulse-to-pulse phase shift between them. Let us assume for
convenience that each of these signals is of constant amplitude, and
j that there is no aircraft-type moving target present. We can assume
that one of the clutter signals has unvarying phase, or simply use it
I as a reference phase.* Then, depending on the relative signal ampli-
tudes, R, and R2 , as shown, the resultant amplitude may exhibit large
periodic fluctuations.

I
I
[
* The phase of this signal on its arrival at the receiver may be assigned
* a value zero for each pulse, and the phase of simultaneously arriving
signals referred to or measured from it. (In noncoherent MI no phase
reference signal is generated within the receiver.)
Ii
L.66

SECRET
 SECRET

-- // ,R, I,R / / R/ \'

/ \ \
R2R

S\/ /

IIn a high-frequency, low-repetition-rate radar, even a low relative

velocity between R, and R 2 can produce large pulse-to-pulse angular

Irotations in R2 relative to R 1 . At the L-band frequency of FPS-20, for

example, and at its pulse repetition rate, a 20-knot relative velocity

Iwill produce about a 90-degree rotation between pulses.

The FPS-20 radar, however, uses a more complicated system than

I amplitude detection for obtaining its noncoherent video input to the

canceler. By delaying part of the return by one pulse length and phase-

comparing it with its undelayed counterpart, it obtains an output that

is a function of the phase difference between the returns in successive
resolution cells. When this detection output is subtracted from that

from the preceding pulse return, it gives a canceled output that is a

Afunction of the pulse-to-pulse variation in the phase difference betwoen

Ireturns from consecutive resolution cells.

The simple vector diagrams above cannot represent this situation

4 well. To represent it, consider the situation illustrated below:

BLOCK I 1 2 ,l I --- w- V
I I I I

BLOCK U 4 5 I

Blocks I and II are separate blocks of clutter at different alti-

tudes with a differential radial velocity V. Each is three resolution

elements long; Groups 1 and 4 are in resolution cell A; 2 and 5 are in

B, the next; and 3 and 6 are in C, the last. Cell A will have an

1 67

A[ cRET
 I SECRET

instantaneous resultant R consisting of the vector sum of the two

components from 1 and 4. B and C will be similarly composed. On each
I pulse the phase differences, €j between RA and RB, and 42 between RB
and RC, will yield the phase detector output.

R R

I /I RB

Our immediate concern is the effect on the phase detector output of

the relative velocity V between clutter blocks. Neglecting, then, the
phase and amplitude variations which may occur within Blocks I and II
jbetween pulses, we can consider that R 1 , R2 , and R3 rotate through an
angle 6 which for a V of 20 knots we shall take to be 90 degrees clock-
wise. R 4 , Re, and R e will retain their phase positions on the diagram.

a, R +'1 ,

AR / 1I "
R /
N,.
I /

From these rough vector diagrams we can draw some general conclusions.
It will be noted that whereas 0, has undergone a change of about

68
 SECRET

I25
, degrees during the repetition period, 02 has changed by about 45
degrees.* The difference between thpse nu'bers can be seen from the
vector diagrams to be attributaLe to ;r, ter variation in range (not
in time) of the clutter amplitude uetween B and C than in that between
A and B. Such range-to-range fluctuations are a characteristic feature
of chaff return, as discussed in Sec. II.

I If
all the amplitudas of the individual returns above, (R1 , R 2 , R,
etc.) were equal, then the first-order effects described above would
produce a cancelable output. The dependence of phase angle on ampli-
tudes of unequal components, however, makes it very likely that for a
radar with short wavelength and high repetition rate, uncancelable
phase shifts would occur as a result cf mean velocity differences
alone, producing strong clutter on the display. Dispersion effects in
the two blocks would also, of course, contribute to this clutter.

I
I
I
I

I.
* The radar response depends, of course, on the ability to cancel the
phase detector responses to signals having these phase differences;
25 degrees corresponds to the shift resulting from a mean wind
velocity of 5 knots; 45 degrees to a shift resulting from a mean wind
velocity of 10 knots. A target characterized by a 45-degree pulse-
to-pulse phase shift gets about one-third of maximum response. Con-
sid ably larger phase shifts could, of course, readily occur in
high-speed winds.

L 69

s.at[
 I SECRETIk

i REFERENCES

1. J. S. Marshall and Walter Hitschfield, "Interpretation of the

Fluctuating Echo from Randomly Distributed Scatterers," Part I,
Canadian Journal of Physics (September 1953).

I 2. R. C. Emerson, "Some Pulsed Doppler MTI and AMrI Techniques,"

R-274, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. (1 March 1954)
SECRET.

3,John L. Hult, "Comments on Requirements for Certain Chaff Appli-

cations," S-48, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.
(22 January 1957) SECRET

4. "Final Report on B-47 Attrition Tests," Project APG/SAE/116-A-1,

Headquarters, Air Proving Ground Command, Elgin Air Force Base,
Florida (December 1954) SECRET.

5. John L. Hult, "Comments on Chaff Requirement for Quail," (Title

Confidential), S-52: RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.
(19 April 1957) SECRET.

6. "RCM and Radar Design," Technical Report 108, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratory, Division 4 (December
1955 ) SECRET.

7. Communication from Dr. A. T. Goble, consultant on chaff; Union

College, Schenectady, N.Y.

8. Communications and Electronics Digest, Headquarters Air Defense

.3 Command, Colorado Springs, Colorado, p. 26, p. 46 (April 1958),
SECRET.

j 9. Louis N. Ridenour, editor, Radar System Engineering, MIT Rad Lab

Series, Vol. I, (McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N.Y., 1947).

10. S. M, Van Voorhis, editor, Microwave Receivers, MIT Rad Lab Series,
Vol. 23, p. 581, (McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N.Y., 1948).

I
!

[| 70

I ECE
 STAN FORD

I RES EARC H MENLO PAl CALIFORNIA

I NSTITUTE

I
I REGIONAL OFFICES AND LABI jAI ORIES

-
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LABOR.0 RIES
820 Mission Street
South Pasadena, California

SOUTHWEST OFFICE
3424 North Central Avenu.
Phoenix, Arizona

PACIFIC NORTHWEST OFFICE

421 S. W. 6th Avenue
Portland, Oregon

WASHINGTON OFFICE
711 14th Street N. W.
Washington, D. C.

EUROPEAN OFFICE
A Pelikanstrasse 37
I lZurich, Switzerland

HAWAII OFFICE
195 South King Street
ivii.kuiU, T. H.

j NEW YORK OFFICE

60 East 42nd Street
New York 17, New York

IiU

[ ,te --
mi1.5A