,.. .— . , . .,. . .. :-.. J., .. -.: :. :..’... .. . .-. ::, .-. .. {.. ,. .T. t.-.,.... . . . .

.- ~, r:.... , .,..,.... .. . . .,, .

.,. --. ’’.--, :., —-” . . . . .L . . . . . ..
,’. ,.

“LA-10213-MS - ....... . ., .’. “_....““.- ..... . ... .. .:..

. .... . .

‘r” ‘ ““. ~ ‘. “ “’:”’~ -””’ ‘“. ‘:””

*?-’~’”~-”,-JA~-”~:”” ~ .’- ”!:’ .:’ ‘“ ““” “’~’.:.’ “’”’ “. ‘“, ‘
,” .Los Alamos National Labo@ory IS op~fal~d-by.~e.~p~p~;!~ “oJ Q?lj(grjpia fey. the, Qn.lqd .Stalek..pepaf!ment ,of Energy under contract W-7405 -EN(+36,

!ilQ@wamos ,.‘<-<r:
~...f.
.e.,
,!.-.-,
.... ..:Fl,
~.:.>-z
J._4.
.-’..,;.,--
,.S,,.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
-,.-..Lo$_Alarnos
-..... --------
... New
“, -..>.,s Mexico 875.45
,. .-.:., . ..
 .: .
---
, .’.

,4

.,., .“,
;
.:.’
,. .:
..
~., . 1 ,“.
.! w +
.

,.. . ;.
. . . ..
. .

-, ..
...
..
.,.
.- .-
>.
... i-
..J<: , ,

.,w

,’--,..
.-

.,
..- ..1, . .

..-i”
, J. ,,. -!.,
-,>
. -..,...—— . .

:; ..
,.,-, .Y..

,. . . ...< -I.-;-E. . ,&

.
,..7-:
,,=..
. .,+- . .!

. . . ..
,~:,-. ..
!.-s. .
v?!.. .
...-s
,.-
*.. . . ..
.

,,#m * by TJ?i:?—ia.j
UIVICC tradc@jcJQ !n e p,
J.:
‘.,
~mhietn$fniId
%

.’.
.”.. -
 LA-10213-MS

Issued: March 1985

GNAT—An Infrared Homing

Antipersonnel Micromissile

Eugene H. Farnum

— —-—

!@wMarmos Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos,New Mexico 87545
 CONTENTS

ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. The Current State of Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. The New Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. OPERATION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A. The Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. Launch Options.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
c. Cost Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
D. TheNominalTarget. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

III. CURRENT DESIGN CRITERIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

IV. TARGET DETECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A. Detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B. Single Aperture Optical Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
c. Multiaperture Optical Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
D. Target Acquisition Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

v. GUIDANCE ANDFLIGHTCONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A. Piezoelectric Bimorphs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...28
B. Guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

VI. MISSILE AERODYNAMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

VII. PROPULSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

VIII. WARHEAD DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

IX. POWER SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 37

x. UNCERTAINTIES IN DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

x1. BELLS, WHISTLES, AND COST CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

XII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

iv
 FIGURES

Page

Fig. 1. The vicious circle leading to large missiles and high-value

targets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Fig. 2. Features of the GNAT--IR homing antipersonnel micromissile . . 6

Fig. 3. Number of rounds fired by infantry rifles per enemy casualty

inflicted for recent United States conflicts . . . . . . . . . 10

Fig. 4. Example of a commercial thermoelectrically cooled PbSe IR

detector from the 1983 Catalog of Optoelectronics Inc.,
Petaluma, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Fig. 5. Hgl_x Cd Te detector performance data at 77K. “Performance

of comme~cial photon detectors,’? from The Infrared Handbook,
William L. Wolfe and George J. Zissis, US Government
Printing Office, 1978, p. 11-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Fig. 6. PbSe detector performance data at 145 to 250K. Same source

asFig.5, p. 11-73 (Ref. 29) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Fig. 7. Maximum detector temperature for blip operation vs energy

gaps for photon detectors. Same source as Fig. 5, p. 11-95
(Ref. 30).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Fig. 8. D;;vs bandgap and background temperature for photon detectors.

Same source as Fig. 5, p. 11-97 (Ref. 31) . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Fig. 9. System resolution comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Fig. 10. Multiaperture system response to a target at a particular

location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Fig. 11. Matrix processing for multiaperture optical seekers . . . . . . 23

Fig. 12. A possible multiaperture configuration for GNAT . . . . . . . . 25

Fig. 13. A sandwiched pair of aluminized PVDF sheets, poled in

opposing directions, bends as voltage is applied . . . . . . . 29

v
 GNAT--AN INFRARED HOMING ANTIPERSONNEL MICROMISSILE

by

Eugene H. Farnum

ABSTRACT

New technological discoveries make possible the development

of a very small, terminally guided missile that could greatly
increase the lethality of hand-held antipersonnel battlefield
weapons. This missile could have a body diameter of only 20 mm
(0.8 in.), a length of 100 mm (4 in.), and a weight of 90 g
(-’3 Oz). It could be launched from a hand-held weapon similar
to a rifle with -100 m/s initial velocity or dropped from air-
craft to seek out and attack human targets on the battlefield.
The conceptual missile is powered by a small solid propellant
rocket capable of sustaining flight at 100 m/s for >1-km range.
The missile body and any fixed aerodynamic surfaces are made of
injection-molded plastic. An infrared seeker, made with multi-
apertures, cast, chalcogenide glass lenses, and thermoelec-
trically cooled thin film infrared (IR) detectors, has a human
target acquisition range of -50 m with a field of view of -35 m.
This allows a capture angle of f2° at 500 m. The flight control
and guidance system uses a miniaturized linear gyroscope and
silicon chip micromechanical devices. A very large scale
integrated (VLSI) circuit reads the IR sensors and supplies
flight correction signals to aerodynamic steering surfaces.
These steering surfaces are made of multilayer piezoelectric
polymer bimorphs that bend by an amount proportional to an
applied voltage. The warhead, which can weigh 1.5 OZ, is con-
ceptually a high-explosive/pellet type. Operating power is sup-
plied by a polyacetylene battery which is formed into a tube and
inserted as a liner for the missile case.

The missile is made of mass-produced modules that can be

easily assembled without mechanical moving parts or adjustment.
The modules include (1) the body with polyacetylene battery and
piezoelectric polymer steering fins; (2) the integral seeker,
guidance, and fuzing package; (3) the warhead; and (4) the
rocket-assist motor.

Even though the IR seeker would only have limited background

discrimination capability and would depend on a temperature dif-
ference between the target and background, it would be substan-
tially more effective at hitting a human target than an assault
rifle, requiring only approximate initial pointing. It would be
effective at night and in adverse weather against unprotected
troops. This missile could dramatically reduce the cost/kill for
battlefield troops. An airfield-dropped version need not have
a rocket assist and could carry a larger (2-oz) warhead.

The following new technologies make this missile possible:

● Piezoelectric polymer multilayer bimorphs have been demon-

strated and used as fans to cool electronic instruments.
The material is available and the theory of operation is
well understood. Development of an optimal adhesive and
improvements in fabrication techniques are required.

● The IR seeker and guidance package would need substantial

development effort, but the technology of multiaperture
optical seekers, IR transmitting glasses, thin film IR
detectors, silicon chip micromechanical accelerometers,
and custom VLSI circuits is presently state of the art.
Mechanical design of a miniaturized linear gyroscope must
be demonstrated.

“ Polyacetylene batteries represent an emerging technology

but are not a critical part of the missile design. Cur-
rently available batteries would suffice.

o The missile body, warhead, and solid fuel rocket are cur-
rent technology.

All these technologies are readily adaptable to automated mass

production, assembly, and certification.

The concept originated in the Advanced Weapons Technology

group at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Initial calculations
show that all elements of the system are compatible with the in-
tended mission and capable of being developed to adequate
performance.

A 6.1 study to more fully explore the details of the con-

cept, investigate potential materials, and identify problem areas
would be the next logical step. A study to determine the sensor
characteristics necessary for IR discrimination of soldiers on a
battlefield would allow a more accurate cost/kill number and aid
in preliminary design. However, this will be a low-cost, mass-
produced missile, and high levels of discrimination are not re-
quired to achieve a favorable cost/benefit ratio.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Current State of Affairs
Self-guided (fire-and-forget) weapons are gradually replacing aimed and
man-guided weapons in all aspects of modern warfare planning. This is primarily
because they have a greater kill probability than more conventional weapons and
offer a greater degree of protection (survivability) to the launch platform. In
addition, the launch platform can engage more targets because it is freed from
the need to follow the course of the weapon or observe the hit. The exception
to the use of self-guided weapons is the infantry soldier.
Unarmored infantry troops are still a major force on most modern
battlefields-- certainly in the recurring third world conflicts and somewhat less
so in the envisioned European conflict. Because of rapid automatic fire and
tracer ammunition, the current infantry weapon (the M-16 assault rifle) cannot
be called unguided at ranges up to 300 m, but it is certainly not self-guided.
In fact, the assault rifle is notoriously ineffective in terms of the numbers of
1
rounds fired or the cost per enemy soldier killed. Other weapons for attacking
unarmored infantry are designed to be released from smart weapons systems as
submunitions. However, unlike the homing submunitions used for defeating
armored vehicles, the antipersonnel submunitions are unguided bomblets or
grenades, which blindly attempt an area kill using blast or small fragments.
Clearly, a terminally guided, fire-and-forget, antipersonnel weapon could have
as profound an effect on the nature of infantry combat as air-to-air heat-
seeking missiles have had on aircraft combat.
The main reason that self-guided weapons, namely guided missiles, have
not been developed for antipersonnel missions is that guided missiles are too
large, too expensive, and insufficiently maneuverable for such a low-value,
elusive target. The application of missiles to attack small, low-value targets
requires small, low cost missiles. However, a guided missile has to have a
mechanical steering control, a propulsion unit, a gyroscope or stabilization
package, a target detection sensor, and a guidance computer. Mechanical steer-
ing typically uses hydraulics and is heavy. Stabilization usually employs
sensitive gyroscopes and is expensive. A heavy, expensive missile must attack a
valuable target, but valuable targets are encountered at long ranges and are
usually large. Thus , the propulsion unit must be large with sufficient fuel for
the needed range and the detection sensor must be large and sensitive enough to
acquire the target at that range. Then, the warhead must be sufficiently large

3
to defeat the target when the missile has done its job. Finally, since this
large missile is now also high value, more sophisticated guidance and control
are justified to assure high reliability and high kill probability. As you can
see in Fig. 1, a vicious circle develops which limits the minimum size of the
missile and the minimum value of the intended target. What is needed to break
this circle is a lightweight, compact steering technique; a low-cost stabili-
zation package; a simple, cheap detector; and a miniaturized computer.
B. The New Technologies
Newly developed and emerging technologies allow solutions to these prob-
lems and an infrared (IR) homing, antipersonnel missile with a mass of <100 g
is currently possible. It is my purpose, in this report, to propose a configur-
ation for such a missile and to show that, by using current technology, an
effective terminal-homing antipersonnel missile is feasible. The design of a
missile system is a complex tradeoff between the desired mission, the per-
formance of each subsystem relative to the whole, and the cost. I have made
no attempt in this study to optimize the design nor do I wish to restrict its
configuration to the one I have chosen. The choices I have made for the size
and weight of the missile, its aerodynamic characteristics, and the desired
performance of each subsystem are only loosely balanced with each other and with
the assumed mission and are not meant to be more than an example of what is
possible.

LAI16E6YR0 AHO MECHANICAL

& b,,,,,
LARGE MOTOR
LARGEGYRO
LON6 FL16tJTTIME LARGE Ill SYSTEM
LONG STABILIZATION
LON -RANGE Ill F:l’s,LE

d’
LONG RANGE d
LAR6E WARHEAD HIGH COST

Fig. 1. The vicious circle leading to large missiles.

 The missile, as shown in Fig. 2, would be steered by aerodynamic fins
made of piezoelectric polymer or polymer/piezoelectric ceramic multimorphs.
These devices are made by laminating layers of piezoelectric material so that
adjacent layers are poled in opposing directions normal to the film plane. A
voltage, applied to the stack, contracts the films on one side and expands those
on the other side causing a bending of the stack similar to a bimetallic reed
used in thermostat devices. The deflection can be much greater than the con-
traction or expansion of the individual sheets and, as will be shown below, the
2-7
available force is adequate for this application. Piezoelectric multimorphs
have been used as vibratory fans to cool electronic apparatus. The use of
piezoelectric multimorphs for steering fins eliminates all mechanical components
in the flight control and allows purely electronic guidance.
If straight-line flight is desired, the guidance and stabilization
package must stabilize the missile until a target is acquired--a time of ~10 s.
This can be accomplished by a miniaturized vibrating cylinder or vibrating rod
8-15
linear gyroscope. Vibrating cylinder gyroscopes have been thoroughly
studied and have been made in sizes only a few times larger than desired for our
16
application. Some innovation would be needed to achieve the desired low cost,
but smaller is generally cheaper and no technological impediments are apparent.
Alternatively, a linear gyroscope similar to that used by the common house fly
10
to control its altitude may be used. I will suggest below the use of a single
crystal SiC fiber with a magnetic sphere attached to one end to make a micro-
scopic linear gyroscope capable of short-term stabilization. The gyroscope can
be complemented if necessary by miniature linear accelerometers made from
17,18
single-crystal silicon wafers. Such devices use a new technology and are
called micromechanical silicon devices.
Infrared detection and target acquisition would utilize thin film PbSe,
PbS , or HgCdTe IR detectors mounted on thin film thermoelectric coolers if
needed. The most efficient optical system is probably the multiaperture “fly’s
eye” technology, which uses a small number of lenses each with a small n~ber of
detectors with overlapping fields of view (FOV); seven lenses with seven detec-
tors each have been used. Thin-film silicon detectors have already been made
with adequate defectivity, and research is progressing rapidly on HgCdTe. 19 IR-
20
transmitting lenses of germanium or chalcogenide glasses can be mass produced
by simple molding processes. Multiaperture systems of the same size as needed
for our application have already demonstrated sufficient resolution and have

5
 I
6
generated steering commands for a homing system called Multiaperture Optical
Thermal Homer (MOTH) .21 A major advantage of such a system is that the number
of detectors, and thus the required computing capacity for rapid image analysis,
is within the capacity of VLSI circuit technology under development by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Considerable computer capacity is needed for the image processing,
guidance and stabilization, and steering functions. In addition, several power
supplies and other miscellaneous electronics will be needed for control, fuzing,
and other desired functions. VLSI circuit technology can already put sufficient
computer power on a single chip that is <1 cm on a side. Commercial computer
chips areavailable with 256,000 random access memory in a few square
22
millimeters. The entire electronics package could be designed as a single
VLSI circuit chip using technology being developed in current DARPA programs.
The power supply must be capable of a few watts for -10 s and must have a long
shelf life. Currently available lithium batteries have adequate size and power
23
for this use. Polyacetylene batteries are an emerging technology which also
may prove useful.
The missile could be launched by airdrop or from a hand-held or machine-
mounted launcher. A small, solid fuel rocket motor (similar to those used by
model rocket hobbyists) would be used to maintain the desired velocity for the
useful range (assumed to be -1 km). It is also possible within the size and
weight limitations used in my example to increase initial rocket thrust suf-
ficiently to allow a recoilless launch.
The missile used in this example can carry a 1- to 2-OZ (30- to 60-g)
warhead. The envisioned warhead would be a cylinder of close-packed tungsten
spheres surrounding -10 g of high explosive. This warhead would weigh ‘1.5 oz
(46 g). Although more innovative concepts may be developed for the warhead,
this example has more propellant and about the same shot weight as a 12-gauge
shotgun shell. It will be more than sufficient for a contact kill and will
probably have a kill radius of a few feet.
In the discussion below, I will expand on these ideas to show that the
performance of each part of the system is adequate and then discuss the cur-
rently available technology. However, we must first develop an intended
mission, show that the missile could be cost effective, define the nominal
target, and develop design criteria.

7
II. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
A. The Mission
The purpose of the proposed missile is to attack unmounted infantry per-
sonnel. Usually these personnel will also be unarmored except for battle dress,
which may include lightweight body armor. The battlefield may be anywhere, but
the mission is intentionally limited to situations in which there is some
measurable difference between the target and the background. That is, where an
IR detector is used the target must be either hotter or colder than the back-
ground. The background threshold temperature will be determined by that temper-
ature which includes most of the signals received from “hot rocks” or false
targets. The number of false targets allowed above the background threshold
temperature affects the probability of hitting the intended target and will be
determined by the cost of the missile. If the missile can be made very cheaply,
it will be reasonable to attack every hot object on the battlefield knowing that
a fraction of these hot objects will be desired targets. Obviously, there will
be situations where human targets are indistinguishable from the background with
IR detection and the missile will not be useful. Such situations can be deter-
mined in advance and detailed in the User’s Manual.
B. Launch Options
The missile may be launched in different ways, depending on the desired
mission. It may be dropped by aircraft over enemy troops and follow a spiral
descent while searching for a target. It may be dropped similarly by a dis-
penser as a smart submunition. Using its own propulsion, it may be fired from a
hand-held weapon in the direction of a potential target or it may be fired in
salvo from a motor-driven platform. The trajectory between launch and target
acquisition may be a straight line of sight, a ballistic path, or some more com-
plicated path. The latter may be preprogrammed or programmed at time of fire to
attack targets hidden from view. Similarly, a range-set would be an easy
addition. With an uncooled detector, the missile may be prepositioned to
“watch” a jungle trail or urban street and launch itself at any detected Larget
within its acquisition range.
c.
— Cost Effectiveness
The foremost operational analysis questions are, “What is the cost per
kill vs the target value? What are the alternative weapons?” Alternative
weapons include bomblet submunitions, machine gun fire, and the M-16 assault
rifle. The cost per kill of these weapons is difficult to obtain, but in the

8
Vietnam conflict the cost of M-16 ammunition exceeded $5000 per casualty
1
inflicted. Figure 3 shows the number of rounds fired by infantry rifles vs
casualties inflicted for some TwenLieth Century conflicts. The M-16 ammunition
(5.56-mm NATO) weighs 12.5 g and has a volume of ‘4 cm3. If the missile were
-100 times more effective at hitting a target at 100 g and a volume of 30 cm3,
it would be about 10 times more effective for logistics support (weight and
volume) than the M-16. There is obviously a lot of room for improvement in this
area and the size and weight of the proposed missile are well within the range
of acceptable effectiveness. Nevertheless, we must constantly keep in mind the
delicate balance that determines cost effectiveness and the vicious circle of
missile size described in Fig. 1.
D. The Nominal Target
A typical human being at rest generates about 100 W of heat from meta-
bolic processes. This heat is rejected from the body by radiation and con-
vection from exposed surfaces, by transfer to the air in breathing and, if
necessary, by evaporative cooling (perspiration). Metabolic heat output in-
creases with increasing activity, and the body attempts to regulate its temper-
ature by raising skin temperature and perspiring. Since the body cannot raise
the skin temperature above 310 K (98.6°F), perspiration takes over in warm con-
ditions. In cold conditions skin temperature decreases as the body tries to
preserve heat. This decrease is limited since temperatures of less than 299 K
(79°F) become uncomfortable and require clothing to reduce the radiating area.
Let us try to make a typical (average, nominal, or guessed) case by assuming
that the body generates 100 W, that it rejects this heat over the entire 2 m2 of
body area, and that 60% of the cooling is by perspiration, convection, and
breathing. In this case the radiated heat is 21 W/m2. With an emissivity of
0.8, this corresponds to a temperature difference of 4 K at a radiating temper-
ature of 300 K. Thus , for a background of 304 K (88°F), the skin temperature
will be 308 K (95”F). Note that this is quite a conservative estimate and that
temperature differences between skin and background of more than 10 K are not
unusual. The ideal blackbody emission at 308 and 304 K in various spectral
regions is shown in Table 1.
 —
x’
— x/

x/
/
x

I I I I
Wwl WWII KOREA VIETNAM

CONFLICT
Fig. 3. Number of rounds fired by infantry rifles per
enemy casualty inflicted for recent United
States conflicts.

TABLE I

BLACKBODY RADIATION FOR A TARGET AND BACKGROUND

IN SEVERAL WAVELENGTH BANDS

Target Background
Emitted Flux Emitted Flux Net
Wavelength Range at 308 K at 304 K Emitted Flux
.
(pm) (W/m2) (W;m2) (W/mz)

All 510.0 484.0 26.0

8.5-12.5 132.0 124.0 8.0
8-9 34.3 32.0 2.3
9-1o 35.0 32.8 2.2
3.4-4.8 3.9 4.5 0.6
1.8-2.8 25 x 10-2 1.9 x 10
-2
6 X 10-3

10
 Atmospheric transmission bands at 8.5 to 12.5 (the 8- to 12-pm band) and
3.4 to 4.8 pm (the 3- to 5-pm band) are commonly used for IR detection to avoid
atmospheric absorption.
Thus we expect a person, in rejecting his 100 W of heat, to radiate a net
flux of 0.6 W/m2 in the 3- to 5-pm band and 8 W/m2 in the 8- to 12-pm band.
The background temperature of 304 K taken for this typical case will cor-
respond to the background threshold temperature discussed earlier. Possible
battlefields can have average temperatures between 253 and 315 K (-5 to +107”F)
and will make target detection moreor less easy respectively. Attempts to
24
model carefully controlled backgrounds have been relatively successful. For
example, a field of grass can be described by an effective blackbody temper-
ature, T different from the temperature of the air, Tair, which is given by
e’

Te = -14.3 + 1.6 T
air ‘

where temperatures are in degrees centigrade. This does not account for
reflected solar radiation, hot rocks, and metal surfaces. Reflected solar radi-
ation can be significant in the IR but the reflectance of the target and the
average background are both low and probably about the same (-10%). Hot rocks
and metal surfaces can obviously pose a discrimination problem for a nonimaging
IR system on a warm sunny day. I believe that the usefulness of this proposed
missile under such conditions must be determined experimentally with prototype
systems. In addition, these conditions, least favorable for good IR detection,
are also most favorable for alternative weapons, such as the M-16 rifle.

III. CURRENT DESIGN CRITERIA

To demonstrate that technology is adequate to make an effective missile,
some design parameters must be specified. I have selected the target character-
istics and background for a “typical” scenario. Performance characteristics
necessary to make the missile a cost-effective addition to the antipersonnel
arsenal must also be selected before even a preliminary design can be attempted.
I have taken the case of a missile fired from a hand-held weapon at a
target 500 m away. The shooter is assumed to be able to point his weapon within
f2° of the location of the target at missile arrival (a full-choke shotgun with
a range of 50 m, requires pointing f0.6°). A field of view (FOV) of k2° at
500 m is 32 m diam. If the missile cannot acquire the target at 500 m, the FOV

11
must still be 32 m diam at the acquisition distance. Thus , the optical FOV
depends on the acquisition distance, which in turn depends on the detector
sensitivity. However, it does no good to have the FOV cover an area larger than
the missile’s ability to turn and attack. The minimum turning radius of the
missile is determined by the maximum aerodynamic force that can be exerted by
the steering surfaces and on the air speed. The minimum turning radius also
depends on wing area, aerodynamic design, missile mass, and moment of inertia;
however, the steering force possible with piezoelectric bimorphs is limiting for
our case. Thus , the limitations of detector acquisition distance and
aerodynamic steering force are interdependent in the missile design, and both
determine the available FOV and airspeed.
The missile could cover more area and have a larger FOV with a slow speed
and large wings. However, in addition to the limitation on missile (and thus
wing) size imposed by our desire to minimize cost, the missile must be suf-
ficiently fast so that the target cannot detect the attack and evade it. A
person observing a missile coming toward him can either shield himself or remove
himself from the FOV. Typical eye-hand reaction time is 0.2 s, so it is con-
ceivable that a person could shield themselves in 0.5 s. They could not move
16 m out of the FOV in that short a time. Since the proposed 2-cm-diam missile
will become visible against a good background at a range of 30 to 50 m, an air-
25
speed of 100 m/s should be adequate for the missile to be effective.
This speed is also consistent with the wing area and turning radius
desired. A number of discussions have suggested that it may be desirable for a
soldier to be able to avoid the missile if he sees it coming soon enough. These
arguments are based on distractive and psychological advantages; further con-
sideration of this point will be left to strategists and the interested reader,
since there is no reason why the missile speed could not be reduced or increased
within limitations discussed below.
Finally, the warhead must be sufficient to kill the target. A 100-g
missile traveling at 100 m/s would probably kill a person without a warhead if
it hit a vulnerable spot. Since the soldier may be surrounded by other hot
objects, which may decoy the missile, such as his rifle or a pile of just-fired
cases, a kill radius of -1 m for the warhead is preferred.
The criteria adopted for the missile proposed herein are based on a sce-
nario which may not have much relevance to the mission envisioned by the reader.

12
It will be the task of the reader, skilled in the art of combat and with experi-
ence which shows him where such a missile is needed, to define criteria for his
desired mission.

Iv. TARGET DETECTION

A. Detectors
The limit to maximizing the target acquisition distance is the sensi-
tivity of and noise in the IR detector. Sensitivity is generally represented by
l/2w-l
a parameter called the defectivity or D::, expressed in units of cm Hz $
which depends on the detector material, the material purity, the care taken in
detector design, and the detector temperature. The defectivity also depends on
parameters of the electro-optical system, such as wavelength band, integration
time (or the inverse called flicker frequency), and background temperature.
Carefully designed detectors can have total noise limited by background vari-
ations. In the case of photon detectors (probably the best choice for this
application) , this type of detector is called a Background Limited Infrared
Photodetector (BLIP), and its defectivity, D-~BL1p, can be determined for a
specific wavelength, A integration time, t, bandwidth, AA, and background
peak’
temperature, Tb. It can be shown from first principles of detector physics that
the noise equivalent power on a detector array from an optical system is given
by

r
N-El?=# /’; —
2Nt ‘
(1)

where

f is the ratio of focal length to diameter of the lens system,

~ is the lens diameter,
Q is the solid angle of the FOV,
N is the number of detectors,
D>% is the defectivity of a single detector for the conditions of interest,
and
t is the integration time (sometimes called frame time).
The ratio of the power radiated by the target that falls on the lens to the
NEP is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the detection system. The distance
from the target for which SNR = 1 will be called the acquisition range, although
there is reason to believe that multiaperture systems can do somewhat better, as
will be discussed below.
26
Infrared detectors are commercially available for both the 3- to 5-pm
and the 8- to 12-pm bands. These are available in packages as small as 4.7-mm-
diam transistor cans, as shown in Fig. 4. They can be supplied with two-stage
thermoelectric coolers, capable of detector operations below 230 K with only a
few watts electrical cooling power. Examples of commercial detector performance
are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The 8- to 12-pm band will use Hg ~_xCdxTe detectors,
while the 3- to 5-pm band is best served by PbSe detectors. Detectivities of
10
the order of 10 cm Hz% W-l appear to be the present state of the art although
27
theoretical values are higher.
It will probably be necessary to cool the detectors to achieve the
desired defectivity, especially in the 8- to 12-pm band. Figure 7 shows the
maximum temperature for BLIP operation as a function of background photon flux.
For the 8- to 12-pm band, temperatures of -120 K are needed for BLIP operation.
10 -1
If BLIP operation is achieved, the defectivity can be >10 cm Hz% for a
300 K background temperature, as shown in Fig. 8. The defectivity also falls
off for long integration times because of an elusive l/f noise associated with
all detectors.
In summary, the following represents the current state-of-the-art in
photon detectors for the IR when observing a 300 K background.
3- to 5-pm band--detector temperature <250 K
frame frequency ~ 300 Hz
material - PbSe
10
defectivity D+’ = 10 cm Hz% W-l
11 $ w-l
theoretical limit D;’ ~ -2 x 10 cm Hz
8- to 12-pm band--detector temperature <150 K
frame frequency ~ 300 Hz
material - Hgl-xCdxTe
-1
defectivity D:’ =5xlogcmHz%W
10
theoretical limit D* = ‘3 x 10 cm Hz* W-l
Cooling may be achieved rather easily by thermoelectric coolers or by
micro-sized Joule-Thompson refrigerators, and if detectivities of
~olo
cm Hz* W-l are needed, some detector cooling will be required.

14
 I

OptoEledronic~inc. OTC-12-5
SERIESTWO STAGE
THERMOELECTRICALLY COOLED
LEAD SELENIDEDETECTORS

SPECIAL FEATURES
PEAK SENSITIVITYCOMPARABLE TO DEVICES
OPERATING AT 77 K
THERMOELECTRICALLY COOLED
PROVEN SOLIDSTATE STABILITY
HERMETICALLY SEALED
RUGGED, COMPACT
IMMEDIATE DELIVERY
LOW COST

BRIEF DESCRIPTION
OTC-12-5 series infrared sensors are OPTOELECTRONICS,
Inc. lead selenide (PbSa) detectors mounted on two stage
thermoelectric coolers end packaged in TO-5 cans. *
Designed for use in applications requiring detectors with
i
extremely high sensitivity in the lpm to 5#m spectral region,
these sensors offer en economical means for obtaining cooled
photorxmductive detector performance without the bulk end
inconvenience of liquid cooling. 1 “c”’” i-
OTC-12-5 detector packages are fully evacuated end hermet-
ically sealed, incoqmrating advanced packaging concepts
such es all fused end welded ccmstruction; in addition, the
PbSe detector elements in these sensors are fully passivated
with a protective overcoat. This paesivation technique, devel-
oped by OPTOELECTRONICS, Inc., eliminates instabilities
generally associated with PbSe datectors when they are sub-
jected to visible end/or ultraviolet radiation.
Particularly suitable for use in high volume, low cost sys-
t
MC u..
tems operating in the Ipm to Spm spectral region, OTC-12
series detectors provide peek sensitivity, comparable to liquid i_-
nitrogen cooled (77° K)PbSe, end performance end reliability
far exceeding that of any other previously available photo-
detector of comparable size and cost.
Verious standard beat sirrks (optional), including a TO-37
mounting base, are available for use with these detectors.
<*,._

Fig. 4. Example of a commercial thermoelectrically cooled PbSe IR

detector. Reprinted with permission from the 1983 Catalog
of Optoelectronics Inc. , Petaluma , California .

15
 W-X%T’
‘B
a
-d”
Rd.
m20toooo ohms a
~
T.lootosoouec
g
mv =Xfto130°
0
tkckw’ouM tefop’xtwc .200 K -. 109
q 10’v W-l
=
B 10 12 14 16
—
:46
yl~ = 2 Wadenxtb (urn)

(8) SPmrxl tc-qnntw of MCC1OX

D* (k,10 kliz).

.-

,~
681012141618 u
Ukvcleogth (# m) Frequftwy (Hz)

(b) ~cud qnXC of detector tc- (c)Ftcqucncyrcspon~

of detector D*
qxmxitity. CutVc A:x = 0.21: Curve (Ap,f
).
B:x= 0.20; Curve C:x = 0.17.

FrequeW (!IC) Detector Temcnture (K)

(d) Ftequency xcspoxm of detector noise. (e)Tcmpcnturc

of detector D*
(Ap, S Hz).

mu-
Spectral responme is determined by the xlloy composition.

Fig. 5. Hgl.x Cd ~Te detector performance data at 77 K.

“Performance of commercial photon detectors” from
Refs. 27 and 28.

1()
 Pbse
Td = 145 to 250 K
Ad = 25 X 104to 1 Cmz
Rd = 2 to 100 me@ima 243 K,
T . lotolooo “.CC OPtOelectronic-

~V = 2* sr
Bsckgrotud lmnprstum . ~ K
ml - 105 v w-’ s
+ak * 5 ‘8 101’
P

101’
.-
‘it
q
-w
z
10’0
E
:
== 109
SBRC cells - TypIca3
.
r 0p40 cell- Single Unit
“n
10° L t
10 102 10s 10’ 7
Frequency (Ifx) Wavelen@h (pm)

(a) Ftrquency tcsponse of detector D“ (b) Spcctzel response of detector D* (x,

(Ap.
f). 600, 1).

N!?il
II) An o~rating temperature may be eelected in tbc 145 to 250 K ranfw. Therrnoclectrtc
coolers can & used. Known manufacturer ● rc SBRC xd optoelectronics.
(2) This range amfor square configuratmna. The reahtance will vxry according to the //w
ratio.

Fig. 6. PbSe detector performance data at 145 to 250 K.

Same source as Fig. 5, p. 11-73 (Ref. 29).
 Cut-Off
Wavelength
(JJ
m)
30 24 18 14 10 8 654 3 2

I I I I I I I I I I
400 —

Soo —

200 —

1s0—

100—

60 —
10IS

60 —

50 – 1016

40 —
1014
30—
~012

~olo
20 —
108

10
t
111111111111111111 I I I I I I I 1 I
1u
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.15 O.io 0.30 0.40 0.60

Energy Gap (eV)

Fig. 7. Maximum detector temperature for BLIP Operation

vs energy gap for photon detectors. Same source
as Fig. 5, p. 11-95 (Ref. 30).

18
 Cut
-Off Wavele@h
(pm)

++++ wFFFFb-
BIckground Temperature (K)

101

10’

101

10’

101

10’

~
Energg Gap (eV)

Fig. 8. D’%vs bandgap and background temperature for

photon detectors. Same source as Fig. 5,
p. 11-97 (Ref. 31).

19
B. Single-Aperture Optical Systems
The conventional approach to seeker design requires that we divide the
overall FOV into resolution elements, or pixels, so that the far-field target
fills one pixel. A 20- by 20-cm target on a 33- X 33-m background thus requires
a focal plane array (FPA) of 165 x 165 elements (total 27,275). Arrays of this
size have been fabricated for research programs, but the percentage of faultY
detectors and nonuniformity in gain between detectors are still major problems.
Mechanically scanned systems can eliminate the nonuniformity problem with in-
creased system complexity, but are too large and expensive for this application.
Another drawback to these systems is the need for extensive signal process-
ing. To process 100 frames/s, 2.7 x 106 SaMpleS/S
Mustbe readad digitized
(assuming full FOV processing). The digitized data must then be processed to
adjust for variations in detector gain, subtract background, and locate target
centroids. This requires between 3N and N2 computer operations. Disregarding
the A/D conversion process, the total load before tracking algorithms are
applied is at least 107 floating point operations/s (FLOPS). The processor thus
requires instruction times of 100 ns and cycle times of <10 ns. Such processors
exist and may ultimately be available at low cost; however, the complexity of
the FPA system and its present high costs make its use for this application
beyond the state of the art. Fortunately, there is an alternate approach.
c. Multiaperture Optical Systems
A seeker system, based on the operating principles of the insect eye, has
been demonstrated by the University of Florida under contract to the Air
21
Force. Multiple l-mm-diam lenses and arrays were used in a nonimaging tech-
nique to provide resolution, signal-to-noise, and processing speed improvements
over much larger FPA systems. Pixels are much larger than the desired reso-
lution element but, as shown in Fig. 9, fewer pixels are needed for the same
resolution. Resolution is not constant over the FOV, but is much higher than
the pixel size would normally allow. Since the FOV of each lens overlaps that
of the other lenses, the detectors behind each lens have FOVS which overlap that
of other detectors. With this scheme, no gaps are created in the FOV by
a.
det-ector interspacing. KelloggJz has shown that if all resolved pixels are the
same size and have the same degree of overlap, resolution improves by the square
root of the number of apertures. The detected target signature, shown in
Fig. 10, is a vector whose elements are the individual detector responses for
the particular detected target.

20
 Focal Plane Array Multiaperture
Seven detectors, seven resolved Three detectors, seven resolved
pixels. Gaps in coverage. pixels. No gaps in coverage.

Fig. 9. System resolution comparison.

o
1
0
0
.6
.6
0
.8
0

Fig. 10. Multiaperture system response to

a target at a particular location.

The response vector is a list of the output voltage from each detector
for a particular visual scene.
Just as an insect cannot image and comprehend the world around it, the
multiaperture system cannot image the target and identify it. By prerecording

21
the detector response vector for each of a series of potential targets distri-
buted over the FOV, we build a catalog of response vectors for the target space.
This catalog already includes irregularities in the detectors, and eliminates
the need to provide compensation when the target is acquired. Two methods of
processing the catalog have been demonstrated. First, if the SNR of an actual
target is large enough, the position of the target in the FOV can be found by
comparing the target’s response vector with the catalog of stored vectors. With
interpolation, positional resolution of 0.5 mrad in a 60° FOV with only 49
33
detectors has been demonstrated. Target rotational orientation was also
easily discerned. Secondly, if the SNR is not sufficient, a more complicated
but more sensitive method may be used. The catalog of response vectors forms a
matrix, as shown in Fig. ha, consisting of N potential-target-position
vectors
34
from M detectors , which can be inverted using nonsquare semisparse techniques.
-1
The resultant inverse matrix, called A , is a list of coefficients for a least-
squares average of the detector responses for the potential target positions.
When the response vector of an unknown target location is multipled by the in-
verse matrix, the resultant vector consists of a probability distribution for
the target being at one of the prelearned potential target positions, as shown
in Fig. llb.
Target positions between, or even outside, the prelearned positions can
be found accurately by interpolation. Since the target response vector and the
A-l matrix are multiplied row by row, the rows may be processed in parallel for
increased speed if needed.
Using this technique with a 7-lens, 49-detector, 58° FOV system,
Schrock35 demonstrated target acquisition at SNR = 0.05 and tracking at
SNR = 0.2.
The potential-target-position teaching and matrix inversion process is
performed during seeker manufacture and stored in the VLSI circuit read-only
memory (RoM). A 49-detector, 20-prelearned-location system, operating at 300 Hz
requires only 6 x 105 FLOPS without any parallel processing. This may be com-
pared to the >107 FLOPS required by a focal plane array with equivalent homing
capability. This technique is also relatively insensitive to failures or damage
to individual components in either the optical, detector, or processor sub-
systems. In addition, the teaching process can provide multicolor operation,

22
 POTENTIAL TARGET POSITIONS

-1 2 3 4 *.*.*--N -
1 Dll 012 013 014 ““””” ~lN
●

02 D21
✎

● ✎

✎
031 ✎

. ● ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎
D41 ✎ ✎ ✎

. ✎
●

. ● ✎

. ✎ ✎

● ✎

. ● ✎

M ‘M 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DMN
.

A
(~) ‘..

Matrix of responses from each detector

for each potential target position.

. ,, .,
‘1 M D, P4
. .
W21 W22 W23”: ””””” . 02 Pg
●

. ● ✎

W3, W32” ””””**

. .
✎

✎
Da P2
. ✎

W41” :”””:* ●

✎
04 P1
. . ✎ . ●
. . ✎ . .
. ✎ . .
. ✎ . .
● ✎ . .

‘Nil”””””””””””””””” “ WNM DM PN
. ,,

-1
TARGET TARGET
A RESPONSE LOCA770N
VECT~ M~ABILITY
VECTM

(b)

Inverse matrix times target response vector yields

target location probability vector.

Fig. 11. Matrix processing for multiaperture optical seekers.

23
automatic steering gain change and center weighting if desired. With storage
requirements of -1.6k bit, this system should easily fit on a single VLSI
22
circuit chip. Current technology permits 256k bits on a l-cm2 chip.
This argument is not meant to imply that multiaperture systems are with-
out disadvantage. Teaching a system too many locations rapidly increases the
in-flight processing requirements and tends to reduce resolution. Thus, TV-type
pictures are not practical. For similar reasons, a large density of targets in
the FOV may give overlapping response vectors which cannot be discriminated.
Overlapping FOV techniques were not discovered until 1979 and further studies on
the effects of overlap, detector spacing, lens spacing, and matrix inversion are
needed prior to packaging the design onto a single chip. However, Laboratory
systems have already demonstrated resolution, FOV and SNR capabilities which
exceed our basic requirements.
A possible configuration for the antipersonnel missile seeker system is
shown in Fig. 12. Six or seven 6.7-mm-diam lenses will fit within the 2 cm diam
allowed for this example. Each lens can have seven 2-mm-diam detectors. Indi-
vidual preamplifiers and A/D converters for each detector, and parallel process-
ing for the target location determination are used because space and cost are
not prohibitive.
D. Target Acquisition Range
We are now able to define a target acquisition system and determine
acquisition range. If the flux radiated by a target in the detectable wave-
length band is Pt (W/m2), then at a range R, the power from the target received
at the detector, Pal(W), will be given by

PtAtAl
(2)
‘d = ~nR2 ‘

where A t is the area of the radiating target and Al is the collecting area of
the lens. I have assumed that R2 >>A. For a SNR = 1, Pd equals the noise
equivalent power (NEP) at the detector is given by Eq. (1) (pg. 13). The solid
angle FOV (Q), in Eq. (1) is the area of the desired FOV (nr2), divided by the
range squared, or Q = ~r2/R2.

24
 ●Lm4e.r-m
8ido 8oction Front View

Fig. 12a. Lens subsystem.

w
Fig. 12b. Detector subsystem, seven detectors
for each lens (remaining space is
available for VLSI circuit).

Fig. 12c. Signal processing subsystem.

25
 Equations (1) and (2) yield an expression for the acquisition range where
SNR= 1.

PtAt@D*
2Nt
R= 9 (3)
4fr F n

where P = flux radiated by the target less the background flux in the wave-
t
length band of interest,
At = radiating area of the target,
$= effective collecting lens diameter,
D >’;
= detector defectivity for the wavelength band, background temperature,

detector temperature, and frame time used,

f= ratio of the focal length to diameter of the collecting lens,
r = radius of the desired FOV,
N= number of detector elements which share the collected background
power, and
t= integration or frame time (the inverse of flicker frequency).
The multiaperture optical system described above, has six 6.7-mm-diam
lenses, each with seven detectors. The total collecting power of the six lenses
is equal to a single lens with a diameter of 1.63 cm. However, the noise at
each detector comes from its individual lens. The six lenses act together to
make SNR <1 possible. For the purpose here, I will treat only one lens element
and still, conservatively, assume that SNR = 1; therefore, $ = 0.67 cm. The
number of detectors is seven (N = 7). The f number of the lens should be as
small as practical and, since lenses are available, f = 0.8 is a reasonable
value for this example. To stay conservative, I will take the target area to be
only the human facial area or =20 cm square (A = 400 cm2). As mentioned
10
previously, defectivity D* = 10 cm Hzl/2 W-l f!or the 3- to 5-pm band and
D:< = 5 x 109 cm HZ 1/2 w-’ for the 8- to 12-pm band. The radius of the FOV is
determined by the design criteria as 16 m, so r = 1.6 x 103 cm. The integration
time will be a compromise between the desired response time for the missile, the
maximum defectivity, and the maximum acquisition range. A flicker frequency of
300 Hz is needed for maximum D>* and this is more than adequate for missile
response. At a speed of 100 m/s, this is an update on target position three
times per meter of travel. Thus, t = 1/300 Hz = 3.3 x 10-3 S.

26
 The acquisition range, R, can now be calculated using Eq. (3) and the
parameters $ = 0.67 cm; N = 7; t = 3.3 3 x 10-3 S; f = 0.8; A= 400 cm2;
9 t
r a 1.6 X 103 cm. This is tabulated in Table II. Thus the acquisition distance
will be at least 38 m in the 3- to 5-pm band and 260 m in the 8- to 12-pm band.
A D’: of 1 x 109 is possible in the 8- to 12-pm band at higher detector tempera-
tures, which is advantageous, and still gives an acquisition distance of 51 m.
The higher detector temperature is a wise choice and, for the purposes of the
remaining missile design, I have assumed that the acquisition distance is 50 m.
Thus , either the 3- to 5-pm or the 8- to 12-pm band, or a combination of both
for two color detection can be used with a similar estimate for the acquisition
distance.
The 32-m-diam FOV at 50 m is an included angle of -36°. This FOV must be
imaged onto the seven detectors in a compact and simple way. I have used a lens
with f = 0.8 (N.A. = 0.65) in the above calculations because such lenses are
easily available and the design of a custom lens is too difficult to attempt for
this example. However, since high resolution is not needed and long wavelengths
are being used, simple cast or pressed lenses without polishing or optical
finishing can be used. Some antireflection coating and/or waveband filter
coating may be desirable.

TABLE II

TARGET ACQUISITION RANGE FOR STATE-OF-THE-ART DETECTORS

IR Pta
Band
_.@!!l- (cm HzT~2 W-l) (W/cm2) (c:)

~olo
3t05 6 X 10-5 3.8 x 103
-4 2.6 X 104
8 to 12 5 x 109 8x1O
-4
8 to 12 109 8x1(I 5.1 x 103

aSee Table I, p. 10.

27
v. GUIDANCE AND FLIGHT CONTROL
A. Piezoelectric BimorDhs
Piezoelectric bimorphs for aerodynamic steering control assure the low
cost, size, and complexity of this missile. Piezoelectric bimorphs are made by
laminating two or more sheets of piezoelectric film in which the polarities are
normal to the film plane and opposite to each other. An applied voltage will
contract one set of films and expand the other to produce a bending movement as
shown in Fig. 13. These devices were first proposed for fans to cool electronic
equipment3’4 and, although bimorphs are not yet in production (October 1983),
the metallized film is available and custom devices can be obtained
36
commercially.
The amount of force and deflection of a bimorph stack depends on the
number of layer pairs (N), the thickness of each film (t), the applied voltage
(V), the width (w), the length (1?) of the bimorph, the piezoelectric coupling
coefficient (d31), and the Young’s modules (Y). The maximum voltage is deter-
mined by the product of the dielectric strength (s) and the film thickness. The
maximum force at no displacement (Fmax) is given by

Sywd N2t2c

F = ~3j (4)
max

and the maximum displacement for no force (Dmax) is givenby

2
3&d31g
D = 4Nt . (5)
max

As can be seen from Eqs. (4) and (5), the parameters open to design (w, 1, N,
and t) are inversely related to force and displacement so that it is difficult
to maximize both. We wish to maximize the force with sufficient displacement to
apply that force aerodynamically. This compromise depends on the turning radius
and speed of the missile, the aerodynamic balance between wing and aileron, the
wing area, the attack angle, and the moment of inertia of the missile. These
will be considered in the next section. As an example, for PVDF (polyvinylidene
fluoride) bimorphs with physical properties listed in Table 111, a deflection uf
3° is possible with 1.3 x 104 dyn force (14-g mass equivalent).

28
 EPOXY BOND
ELECTRICAL
POLING DIRECTION
CONNECTION

+-

PIEZOELECTRIC BIMORPH METHOD OF OPERATION

Fig. 13. A sandwiched-pair of metallized PVDF sheets,

poled in opposing directions, bends as voltage
is applied.

TABLE III

PVDF MULTIMORPH

D = 2.1 X 10-9 cm/V Piezoelectric coupling coefficient

31
Y = 2.2 x ~01° dyn,cm2 Young’s modulus

& = 30 V/pm Dielectric strength

w =4cm Total width of steering fins

Q =2cm Length of steering fin

N = 20 Number of layer pairs

t =9pm Thickness of one layer

v = 360 V Applied voltage

D = 0.105 cm Maximum displacement at no force

max
e = 3° Maximum displacement angle at no force
max
F = 1.3 x 104 dyn Maximum force at no displacement (13.7 g)
max

29
 The above calculations are for bimorphs acting as cantilever beams.
Mounting the bimorph with
one end fixed and a pivot point or bearing at an
6
intermediate position can increase the total deflection. In addition, the
.
force [Eq. (4)] increases as N’ while the deflection decreases as I/N. This is
because the layers are all bonded together. If we could make a multilayer from
a number of individual single-pair bimorphs, the force would increase as N and
the deflection would be independent of N. This might be accomplished by lubri-
cating the pairs with a liquid which has low viscosity and high surface tension.
The low viscosity would permit slip between the layers during bending, but the
high surface tension would hold the layers together. Such a combination of 10
layers of t = 50 pm material could give a maximum force of 104 dyn (11 g) with a
maximum deflection of 11O. There is also a possibility that the effective
Young’s modules could be increased by addition of a heterogeneous phase, such as
fibers to the polymer.
B. Guidance
There are three proposed scenarios for the missile flight between launch
and target acquisition. If dropped from an aircraft or airborne platform, it
could follow a preprogrammed descent which optimizes its ability to search for a
target (such as a fairly slow maple-seed-type descent followed by a rocket-
driven attack on target acquisition). If fired from a ground-based launcher, it
could follow a ballistic trajectory with target acquisition turned on after a
preset part of the flight (such as lobbing the missile over a hill to unseen
targets) or it could be required to fly in a straight path along the line of aim
until a target is acquired (this could be uphill, downhill, or a level flight).
In the latter case, an active flight control must maintain the proper orienta-
tion of the missile to counteract gravity. In larger missiles, gyroscopes are
typically used for this purpose and, although some nongyroscopic techniques have
37
been proposed, such systems are still too large and expensive for our needs.
There are, fortunately, two new developments that offer solutions to this
problem. In 1851, Foucault observed that the plane of vibration of a vibrating
8
drill rod in a lathe chuck remained fixed as the chuck was slowly rotated.
This discovery has spawned a number of different types of “linear” gyroscopes
9-16
whose angular inertia is generated by a vibrating member. One of the
successful designs has employed a cylinder vibrating in a cylindrical/elliptical
16
mode normal to its axis. A gyroscope capable of O.O1°/s accuracy for rotation
rates of f 600/s has been made with an overall case size of 1.7 cm diam by

30
2.4 cm long. This gyroscope is -20 times more sensitive than needed for our
purpose (+2° roll for a 10-s flight time is considered sufficient) and is only a
few times too large to be acceptable. Another type of linear gyroscope, called
9
a Tuning Fork Gyro, based on Foucault’s idea, is similar in method of operation
to the halters found on the Diptera fly 10’11 (an order of flies containing the
housefly and horsefly). The halters are two hair-like projections on the fly’s
thorax which vibrate during flight and provide, via sensitive organs at the
base, a correction which enables the fly to maintain a straight course. If the
halters are removed, the fly cannot maintain a proper flight atitude and crashes
soon after takeoff. I believe that it is possible to duplicate halters in size
and sensitivity using silicon carbide, single-crystal fibers grown by the vapor-
38
liquid-solid (VLS) process. Very high stiffness (108 PSI), high strength
(106 PSI) fibers with spheres of magnetic iron alloy at one end have been grown
with aspect ratios exceeding 103 by this process. Typically fibers are 3 to
10 pm in diameter by a few millimeters long. Such fibers are capable of large
deflection at high frequency, thus providing large angular momentum, and may be
driven at resonance by piezoelectric coupling at the base and measured via
magnetic forces on the iron sphere. Such a gyroscope has not yet been built,
but should occupy only a few mm3 and would contain no moving parts other than
the vibrating fiber.
One other relevant new technology that may be useful to the guidance
17,18
system is that of micromechanical silicon devices. Millimeter-size
accelerometers have been made by photolithographic
techniques on single-crystal
17
silicon wafers and have shown a sensitivity of 2-mV output/~ of acceleration.
Deviations from a straight flight path of less than 4 m in 500-m range (=0.5°)
would require 50 pV sensitivity and 3 parts per thousand resolution in the
proposed missile. A single linear gyroscope controlling roll coupled with two
linear accelerometers could maintain a straight flight in any direction. The
gyroscope and accelerometers must be initialized to the desired direction just
prior to launch.
The linear gyroscope and accelerometers must provide stabilization for
straight line flight until a target is acquired by the IR detector. Then, the
IR system generates a steering signal which must be converted to about 300-V
bias and applied to the bimorph steering fins. These functions require a micro-
processor capable of digitizing the signal from 42 detectors, multiplying by the
inverted potential-target-position matrix stored in memory, and generating the
proper steering signal. The processor must also take input from the gyroscope
stabilizer during straight flight and give output to the firing circuit when the
target is reached. If optional range selection or flight path selection is
added, they must also be controlled by the processor. The functions must be
performed at a response rate of about 300 Hz.
These requirements are well within the capabilities of present integrated
circuitry. This country has large government and commerical R&D programs in
VLSI circuitry and in very high speed integrated circuitry design and fabri-
cation. These technologies are relevant to this missile in that it is highly
desirable to make the sensors and electronics package as small, cheap, and
simple as possible. One obvious way to do this is to put all the electronics on
a single chip, preferably even including the IR detectors with their thin-film
thermoelectric coolers. Current commercial technology has put 256 K of RAM on a
single chip less than 1 cm2 in area .22 This density exceeds what is needed for
this missile. In addition, current technology allows speeds of more than 106
FLOPS , which is easily capable of performing the necessary control calculations
at our preferred operating frequency of 300 Hz.

VI. MISSILE AERODYNAMICS

The aerodynamic design of a missile is a complex balance between a large
numb er of variables and cannot be attempted in a study of this scope. Most
large aerospace firms have computer codes for this purpose. I will only try to
show that the desired flight properties are physically possible and, in a crude
sense, fit into the proposed configuration. We have, in the preceding sections,
identified a number of desired performance parameters. I have proposed a
missile with a 2-cm-diam body that is 10 cm long; the wings and steering fins
extend 2 cm farther from the body on each side; and its weight is <100 g. The
desired performance parameters are that with a speed of -100 m/s it can acquire
a target at a range of 50 m, which is within 16 m of its line of flight. The
flight will be guided with piezoelectric bimorphs that have limited force and
deflection capability. I will need to estimate the moment of inertia (which
depends on the partition of mass along the length of the missile and should be
made as small as possible) and the aerodynamic balance of the wings, body> and
ailerons (which determines the percentage of total lift carried by the steering
fins) .

32
 To estimate moment of inertia I have assumed a 46-g warhead, a 20-g lens
and electronics package, a 12-g rocket motor, and a 10-g case and battery--for a
total missile mass of 88 g. With a reasonable distribution of these masses
along the length, the moment of inertia is 450 g cmz. This could probably be
made smaller by optimizing the design. I also assume for the present discussion
that the missile is designed so that the wing and the leading, nonmoving edge of
the steering fin assembly achieve aerodynamic balance. That is, any force
applied by the bimorph is used to rotate the missile about its center of mass
and change its aerodynamic attack angle.
Thus, the torque (L) exerted by the steering fin is given by

(6)

+
where ~ is the vector from the fin to the center of mass, F is the aerodynamic
m
force on the fin, I is the moment of inertia, and a is the angular acceleration
caused by the force ~.
4
Using the bimorph example given in Table III , where the force is 1.3 x 10
dyn, the displacement is 3°, r = 6 cm, and
m
+
~.—.
rX~ (6 cm)(l.3 X 104dy) = 173 rad,s2
I
450 g cmz

The angle of rotation 6 = ~ a t2; this is tabulated in Table IV.

TABLE IV

ATTACK ANGLE VS TIME FOR A STEERING FORCE OF 1.3 X 104 dyn

Time Change in
From Deflection Attack Angle
(s) (degrees)

10-3 5 x 10-3
3 x 10-3 4.5 x 10-2

10-2 0.5
2 x 10-2 2
5 x 10-2 12.4

33
 For a steering fin force of 1.3 x 104 dyn, a 12° attack angle is achieved
in 0.05 s. This is only 10% of the flight time for the missile over the 50 m
travel distance to the target.
We can now ask what attack angle is needed to cause the missile to
execute an 86-m-radius turn. With a missile mass of 88 g, the centripetal force
.
(mvz/R) for an 86-m radius turn at a velocity (v) of 100 m/s is 106 dyn. This
is nearly 12 times the acceleration of gravity. The aerodynamic force on a wing
39
is given by

F= * CL pv2s , (7)

when C is the aerodynamic constant for the wing (for a narrow wing, CL = 0.105
L
(l where (3 is the attack angle in degrees), p is the air density, and S the wing
area. Then for a narrow wing,

F = 0.525 X 10-2 pv2S(3 . (8)

With wings 2 cm wide by 3 cm long and a body 2 cm wide by 10 cm long, which has
an aerodynamic lift efficiency of 30% of that of the wing, S = 18 cm2. The air
density at sea level is about 1.2 X 10-3 g/cm3, and v is 100 m/s. From Eq. (8)
6
and a force of 10 dyn, the required attack angle is about 9°. This attack
angle can be achieved, according to Table IV, in <0.05 s.
Provided that the missile can be designed with 99% neutral flight charac-
4
teristics, the force of 10 dyn exerted by the bimorph steering fins is suf-
ficient to cause a 12-g, 86-m-radius turn. For less neutral designs, the wing
loading must be reduced to allow the fins a greater share of the load. Since
both the centripetal force needed to make a fixed radius turn and the aero-
dynamic lift on a wing are proportional to VZ, reducing missile velocity will
reduce requirements for neutral flight characteristics. The minimum velocity
requirements are that (1) the target must not be allowed to see the missile
coming in time to effect an escape and (2) gravity must be counteracted.
It remains to be shown that the deflection available with a bimorph is
sufficient to generate
104 dyn aerodynamically. We can solve Eq. (8) for the
4
attack angle at a force of 10 dyn. With a 2-cm-wide by 2-cm-long bimorph on
each of two steering fins, S = 8 cm2, and at v = 100 m/s, (3= 0.2°. Since the
available bimorph force is 1.3 X 104 dyn at 0° and zero at 3° (Table III), the

34
force at 0.2° will be 1.2 x 104 dyn if the response is linear. Thus, the avail-
able deflection is sufficient to apply the needed force. However, as the
missile attack angle increases to the 9° needed to execute a 12-g, 86-m-radius
turn, the steering fins must correct their attack angle to continue to apply the
turning force. The amount and direction of the correction depend on the aero-
dynamic design of the missile, particularly on the relationship between the
center of mass and the center of pressure (what I have called neutrality). It
may turn out in the optimum design that more than 3° deflection is required and
other bimorph designs (such as the lubricated multipair bimorphs described
above) are desirable.

VII. PROPULSION
If the missile is airdropped as a terminally guided submunition (TGSM),
then propulsion is probably unnecessary. If it is launched from either a gun or
recoilless launcher, a Propulsion system is needed to accelerate the missile (if
recoilless) and to maintain the desired velocity for the useful range. I have
suggested that a rocket motor similar to those sold in hobby shops for $0.50
cents each would be adequate. At 100 m/s speed, 10 s of burn will allow a l-km
range. I will show in this section that the amount of fuel needed for this
application is reasonable.
The aerodynamic drag on a body is given by Eq. (7) if CL is replaced by
(the drag coefficient) and S is the the cross-sectional area. The drag
CD
39
coefficient for a wing is typically 15% of the lift. In straight-line flight
the lift will equal the weight of the missile (-105 dyn), so the wing drag will
be -1.5 X 104 dyn. The drag on the body can be estimated as flat plate drag,
for which CD = 1, and S is the missile cross-sectional area.
Then from Eq. (7)
-5
(where p = 1.2 X 10-3 g/cm3, v= 104 cm/s, and S = 3.14 cmz), F = 1.9 x 10 dyn
and the total missile drag can be estimated as 2 x 105 dyn.
The thrust from a rocket is given byF=v dm/dt, where Ve is the
e
5
exhaust velocity, typically 2 x 10 cm/s and dm/dt, the rate of burn of the
fue 1. If we require the thrust to equal the drag force, then dm/dt = 1 g/s and
10 g of rocket fuel is needed for a 10-s flight time. If we also wish to ac-
4
celerate the 100-g rocket to 10 cm/s (conservation of momentum will determine
the amount of rocket fuel needed), an additional 5 g of fuel will be required.
Thus , the total rocket fuel requirement is 10 to 15 g for a 100-g missile.

35
Hobby rockets use a cardboard case with a small ceramic nozzle. Such a case and
nozzle would weigh =2 g. I have, therefore, estimated the weight of the rocket
to be -12 g for the gun-launched version.
The recoil from a 100-g projectile launched at 100 m/s has a momentum of
106 g cm/s. By comparison, the 7.62-mm NATO rifle firing a 150-grain (lO-g)
bullet at 2700 ft/s (823 m/s) has a momentum of 8 x 105 g cm/s. In addition,
because the low-velocity rocket has a longer acceleration time, the recoil will
be “softer” than that of the 7.62 NATO.

VIII. WARHEAD DESIGN

The envisioned warhead for this missile is a rather unimaginative design
composed of a cylindrical shell of tungsten spheres embedded in plastic sur-
rounding a core of high explosive. It could be detonated with a small, elec-
trically driven detonator located along the cylinder axis or at one end. In
apportioning space in this 2-cm-diam missile, I have allocated 3 cm length and
12 g for the rocket motor, 3 cm length and 48 g for the warhead, and 4 cm length
and 30 g for the lenses, detectors, electronics guidance, and power supply. The
remaining mass is the case and wings. Thus, the warhead can occupy a 2-cm-diam
by 3-cm-long volume and have a mass of 48 g. A 2-cm-diam by 3-cm-long
cylindrical shell of 2-mm-diam tungsten spheres, arranged in rows, would contain
450 spheres with a total mass of 36.4 g. An epoxy filler for this shell would
add -2 g. Filling the 1.6-cm-diam by 3-cm-long void with explosive at a density
of 1.5 g/cm3 adds 9 g, for a total warhead mass of 47.4 g. A similar warhead
using lead spheres would be cheaper and could contain >750 spheres. The larger
number of pellets may more than offset the hardware and density advantage of
tungsten.
While I have assumed that the missile will actually hit the person under
attack, it is desirable that the warhead have a kill radius as large as possible
within size and weight limitations. This would allow for multiple kills of
closely spaced targets and assure a kill if the missile homes in on a rifle or
other nearby warm objects. A shotgun that can put 70% of a 1-OZ shot load into
a 30-in. (76-cm) circle at 40 yds (37 m) is considered effective at 40 yds.
Depending on shot size, this is -220 pellets/m2 (No. 4 shot). If we assume the
same pellet density is needed (about nine pellets in our 20- by 20-cm target),
then the range of the warhead is 0.4 m. While this is probably sufficient for

36
“arms-length” kills and would be lethal for the target struck, greater warhead
range would certainly be desirable. The use of lead pellets would help increase
this range.

IX. POWER SUPPLY

Although the depth of this design does not allow detailed electrical
power specifications, the requirements outlined in Table V estimate the power
needed.
The battery chosen to supply this 65 W-s energy at 5.8 W must have a long
shelf life, be light and compact, and have a high-energy density. Batteries
with sufficiently low internal resistance are not commonly available but several
technologies have potential for this application. Currently available lithium
sulfur-dioxidebatteries have energy storage densities of 1.9 x 103 W-s/ cm3 and
23
of 1.2 x 103 w-s/g. These batteries have an excellent shelf life and can be
made with sufficient short-term current capability; they are not rechargeable.
Miniature fuel cells have also been developed for high-power applications. The
65 W-s needed is equivalent to the chemical energy available in 15 mg of fuel.
The fuel cell would be activated as part of the prelaunch initiation (expected
to require 1 to 4 s). Polyacetylene batteries also promise high-current, high-
energy density storage, and are rechargeable, long-life devices. This emerging

TABLE V

ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL POWER REQUIREMENTS

Voltage Time Energy

Item (v) Current (s) Power (w-s)

Bimorphs f300 0.2 MA 10 60 mW 0.6

Detectors +100 pA 10 Negligible Negligible

Computer 6 0.1 A 10 600 mW 6

Thermoelectric
Cooler 2 2A 14 4W 56

Gyroscope 2 50 MA 12 100 mW 1.2

Detonator 2 0.5 A 1 lW 1

37
technology, while not yet available commercially, has been suggested as a
replacement for lead-acid automobile batteries. The polymer is readily moldable
and could be used as the missile case. Estimates of current capability and
internal resistance are, however, premature. The major portion of the power
requirement listed in Table V is the thermoelectric cooler. It is possible that
sufficient cooling could be supplied by the launcher power supply, so that in-
flight cooling would not be necessary. Similarly, if a cooled detector is not
needed, the power requirements are drastically reduced.

x. UNCERTAINTIES IN DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY

It will be apparent to the reader that there are a number of uncertainties
in the proposed design that must be studied more carefully before a prototype
missile can be fabricated. Probably the most important is the problem of the IR
detection of human targets under realistic conditions. Questions that must be
answered are: What is the effect of average background temperature and sunshine
on the background clutter problem? Can multiaperture optical systems dis-
criminate target temperature (color) and/or shape to help reject decoys and
false targets? What is the envelope of conditions for which the seeker will
work--and is this sufficient to make the idea worthwhile? These are not
questions that can be answered by the “gut feeling” of even the most experienced
IR detector specialist.
Other questions relate to operational parameters such as: What type of
fuzing would be best? Should there be a “minimum range” adjustment? How much
“last-minute” information should be entered by the launcher? What speed and
range are necessary?
Then there are the innumerable design optimization questions such as:
How much force and deflection can be obtained ffom a piezolectric steering fin
and what is the best balance between these? How many lenses and detectors are
needed? What is the optimum design for the minigyroscope and how much stability
can it deliver? How will the detectors and VLSI circuitry be put together? And
what should the aerodynamic package look like-- canards or ailerons, positive or
negative balance, and banked turns or cruciform wings?

38
 There are also all the questions concerned with launch options and attack
mode. Should the air-drop version be fast descent or a slow spiral? What use-
fulness is there in a slow-flying model airplane version? Should the flight be
ballistic, straight flight, or programmed? And, should the launch be
recoilless?
Finally, using this concept, what other homing sensors might be used?
Could a sonar homer be developed to sense moving objects or hard metal objects?

XI. BELLS, WHISTLES, AND COST CONTROL

In the previous section a number of questions were raised--probably more
than were answered. Such questions can fire the imagination and are fun to
consider. However, we must always keep in mind that cost effectiveness is the
most important design parameter for this missile. It must not become an end-
all, do-everything infantry weapon or it will be destroyed in the process. The
most simple workable design should remain the goal, and bells and whistles
should be staunchly avoided. Many weapons use several types of ammunition, and
it is not a large penalty to make a few different missiles for different needs.
It is beyond the scope of this study to estimate the cost for this
missile. Most parts will be made using new, state-of-the-art, and emerging
tec~ologies, production will require extensive development and design, and mass
production of millions of units will be desired. The factory making these mis-
siles will have to use state-of-the-art and robotic- and computer-aided manu-
facture. However, some of the parts are currently available. A few suggestions
for cost control follow.
. Rocket Motors-- these are available in any hobby shop. Current motors
burn too fast with too much thrust for our needs, but that can easily
be changed. Current retail price is -$0.50.
. Bimorphs--PVDF sheet film with electrodes is available and needs only a
reason for commercial production of layered bimorphs.
. The case and wings can be a one-piece injection molding of polystyrene

or polyactylene battery material.

. The gyroscope stabilizer must be miniaturized to fit in this missile,
which implies automated assembly. A linear gyroscope will not be com-
plex or involve sophisticated parts.

39
 ● Detectors on a wafer substrate can be applied using thin film tech-
nology. Present problems with IR detectors are avoided with multi-
aperture systems, since if 80% of the detectors work the chip is ac-
ceptable. Also, it does not matter whether the individual detector
gains match. Thermoelectric coolers can be ❑ade with the same thin
film technology. IR transmitting, chalcogenide glass lenses can be
molded or pressed and do not need any finishing at these wavelengths.
Some optical coating may be desirable. This technology is making
enormous progress and 5 years will see a large reduction in the dif-
ficulty of manufacture.
● Assembly of the components will be easy if the components are built as
individual packages which stack together in the case. Testing and pro-
gramming can be an automated , computer-controlled process.
It is always risky to make an analysis like this because it is much
easier to shoot down a new suggestion than it is to come up with a better one.
In addition, disbelievers will try to make the whole concept hinge on a single
exception to an estimated or preliminary number; in the end, an over-zealous
designer may try to make the whole idea into a “silver bullet” cum “white
elephant.” Nevertheless, the technology is there, the potential for cost
effectiveness is there, and the operational usefulness is there.

XII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to a large number of people whose contributions made the
various parts of this concept come together into a feasible system. Capt. Lee
Schrock of the US Air Force Academy introduced me to multiaperture optical
systems and essentially wrote Section IV.C. Andy Lieber, Harold Vaughn, and
John Phelan of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, and Ed Cort of this
Laboratory, very patiently explained the dynamics of missile flight and Provided
very helpful discussions of missile guidance and control. Herbert Flicker and
Suzanne Stotlar provided many ideas on IR detection technology. John Milewski
grew a special batch of silicon carbide fibers to prove that the sphere on the
end of the fiber could be a magnetic alloy.
Special thanks go to Harry Reynolds (NSP/AWT) for his encouragement and
support and for his initial suggestion (which led to this concept) that a small
antipersonnel missile would be useful. The members of the Advanced Weapons

40
Technology group have been a continual source of encouragement and inspiration.
My thanks also go to the many others throughout the Laboratory who helped in
innumerable ways.

REFERENCES

1. William G. McMillan, Science Associates, Inc. (November 1983) .

2. “Elastic properties of piezoelectric PVF2,” Minoru Toda, J. Appl. Phys.,

51, 4673 (1980).

3. “Electromotional Device Using PVF2 Multilayer Bimorph,” Minoru Toda, Trans.

IECE, Japan, q, 507 (1978).

4. “Design of Piezoelectric Polymer Motional Devices with Various Structures,”

Minoru Toda, Trans. IECE, Japan , ~, 513 (1978).

5. “The Deflection-Bandwidth Product of Poly(Vinylidene Fluoride) Benders and

Related Structures,” J. Kelley Lee and Michael A. Marcus, Ferroelectrics,
~, 93 (1981).

6. “Voltage-Induced Large Amplitude Bending Device-PVF2 Bimorph--Its Proper-

ties and Applications,” M. Toda, Ferroelectrics, ~, 127 (1981).

7. “High Field Dielectric Loss of PVF2 and the Electromechanical Conversion

Efficiency of a PVF2 Fan,” M. Toda, Ferroelectrics, ~, 919 (1979).

8. “Demonstration physique au Mouvement de Rotation de la Terre au Moyen du

Penduee,” J.B.L. Foucault, C R Acad Sci (Paris), ~, 135 (1851).

9. “A New Space Rate Sensing Instrument,” Joseph Lyman, Aeronaut. Eng. Rev.,
p. 24 (November 1953).

10. “A New Gyroscopic Instrument,” A. L. Percival, Nature, ~, 572 (1954).

11. “Gyros, Powerful Tools in Aerospace Technology,” Kurt Magnus Aeronautical

J. , p. 346 (August 1978).

12. “Gyroscopic Apparatus,” William D. Mullins et al., us pat. S,1OG,SL7

(October 15, 1963).

13. “Angular Direction Sensor,” Bo H. G. Ljung, et al., US pat. 3,913,405

(October 21, 1975).

14. “Vibrating Ring Gyro,” John C. Stiles, US Pat. 3,924,475 (December 9,

1975).

15. “Theory and Error Analysis of Vibrating Member Gyroscopes,” Bernard

Friedland and Maurice F. Hutton, IEEE Trans. on Auto. Control, AC-23, 545
(1978) .
16. “The Vibrating Cylinder Gyro, ” R. M. Langdon, The Marconi Rev. , p. 231
(Fourth Qtr., 1982).

17. “Silicon Micromechanical Devices,” James B. Angell, Stephen C. Terry, and

Phillip W. Barth, Sci. Am., p. 44 (April 1983).

18. “Microfabrication as a Scientific Tool,” R. E. Howard, P. F. Liao, W. J.

Skocpol, L. D. Jackel, and H. G. Craighead, Science, 221, p. 117, JUIY 8,
1983.

19. “Assessment of Mercury-Cadmium Telluride Materials Technology,” p. 127,

National Materials Advisory Board report 377 (1982).

20. See commercial vendor literature. For example, Coherent Components Group,
2301 Linbergh St., Auburn, CA 95603, or Spectron, Vinten Electro-Optics
Ltd. , Ashville Trading Estage, Nuffield Way, Abingdon, Oxon 0x141TD~
England.

21. “Research on Missile Seeker Head Energy Transfer Technology,” ROY A.

Walters, Lee W. Schrock, and Richard T. Schneider. Final report USAF con-
tract No. FO8635-8O-C-O1O8, Jim Long, AFATL/DLMI, Elgin AFB. Authors were
with Dept. of Nuclear Eng. Sci., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

22. “Dynamic Random Access Memory of 256K on a Single Chip,” recent advertise-
ment by the Western Electric Company.

23. “Eternacell@ Lithium Sulfur-Dioxide Batteries,” Power Conversion Inc.~ 495

Boulevard, Elmwood Park, NJ 07407.

24. Handbook of Military Infrared Technology , SPIE Vol. 219, p. 19, for 5°
downlook onto grass, midday condition.

25. While the resolution of the human eye is better than 2 cm at 50 m, it is

very difficult to detect a single spot even against a uniform background.
It is unlikely that even an alert person could detect the missile against a
battlefield background at a distance greater than 30 m.

26. See, for example the products offered by Optoelectronics, Inc., 1309
Dynamic St., Petaluma, CA 94952.

27. The Infrared Handbook, William L. Wolfe and George J. Zissis US Government
Printing Office, 1978, p. 11-74.

28. The Infrared Handbook, p. 11-85.

29. The Infrared Handbook, p. 11-73.

30. The Infrared Handbook, p. 22-95.

31. The Infrared Handbook, p. 11-97.

42
32. “Multiple Aperture and Single Aperture Optical Imaging System Comparisons
for Correct Detection Probability and Resolution,” S. C. Kellogg, R. L.
Phillips, and R. A. Walters, National Aerospace and Electronics Conference
(NAECON), May 17-19, 1983, Dayton, Ohio.

33. “Robotic Vision Using Spatial Optical Sampling,” R. A. Walters, IEEE South-
east Conference 1983, Orlando, Florida, April 11-13, 1983.

34. “A Method for Sparse Linear Least Squares Problems,” A. Bjork, Sparse
Matrix Computations, Academic Press, New York (1976).

35. “Imaging and Identification Techniques Associated with Distributed Aperture

Optics,” Lee W. Schrock, Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Florida, 1981.

36. PVF2 film is available from the Kynar Piezo Group, Pennwalt Corporation,
900 First Ave. King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406-0018.

37. A technique for missile stabilization using a rotating coil magnetometer to

measure the direction of the earth’s magnetic field was described to me by
Harold Vaughn of Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
July 14, 1983.

38. “Production and Characterization of Beta-Silicon Carbide and Alpha-Silicon

Nitride Whiskers for Ceramic Matrix Composites,” John V. Milewski, F. D.
Gac, and J. J. Petrovic, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-9650-MS
(February 1983).

39. Airplane Aerodynamics, David O. Dommasch, Sydney S. Sherby, and Thomas F.

Connolly, Pitman Publishing Co., New York, New York, Fourth cd., p. 108
(1967).

u.s. Government PRlNTlNGoFFlcE19&5-5713(lwm 43