Medium PRF for the AN/APG-66 Radar
This paper discusses themedium pulse repetition frequency
(PRF) pulse doppler mode of the A N / A P C 6 6 , the multimode fire
control radar for the F16A/B aircraft. Thisradaris currently in
production and as of January 1984 over 1700 have been delivered.
Included is a discussion of the three PRF types: high, low,and
medium PRF, leading to the conclusion that for an airborne, look-
down application the medium PRF waveform is the best choice.
System tradeoffs between a high peak power and alow peak power
transmitter are discussed which show that when only a medium
PRF waveform is required, the high peak power transmitter yields
better performance. Some system design considerations concerning
the PRF selection and sidelobe clutter are also included. Finally, the
radar mechanization is presented. The A N / A P C 6 6 radar in general,
and its medium PRF mode in particular, have undergone extensive
operationalevaluation and the resultshave been excellent. The
radar has met or exceeded its performance design specifications
and the field reliability has been outstanding. For example, for the
year 1983 the MTBF was 102.9 h based on 64204 operating hours
from two operational air bases.
INTRODUCTION
The AN/APG-66, an airborne, multimode fire control
radar designed by the Westinghouse Defense and Electron-
ics Center in Baltimore, MD, is produced for the F-l6A/B
multirolefighterbuilt by General Dynamics, Fort Worth
Division, Fort Worth, TX under the auspices of the United
States Air Force. The radar uses a modular design approach
for reliability and maintainability considerations and is
unique in two regards. One, it is the first production fire
control radar to be built using a design-to-cost philosophy
and two, it is the first production radar designed to opti-
mizethemedium PRF waveform. The stagewasset for
development of the radar in 1971 when Westinghouse top
management sparked a high-priority effort to develop a line
of
fire
control radars that could be manufactured at
lower cost without sacrificing performance. Development
of the Westinghouse family of radars, designated WX, re-
sulted in the technologyenablingthe company tobid
successfully forthe radar aboard the Air Combat Fighter
which General Dynamics developed into the present
F-l6A/B. The first production radar system was delivered to
the Air Force in June 1978 and over 1700 radars have been
built as of January 1984. An unusual feature of the radar is
its multinational manufacture. Not only is the system being
Manuscript received April 25, 1984; revised June 2, 1984.
The authors are with Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defense
and Electronic Center, Baltimore, M D 21203, USA.
001 8-921
9/85/0200-030l$Ol
P R O C E E D I N G S O FTHE IEEE. VOL. 73. NO 2, FEBRUARY 1985
producedby Westinghouse but separateassembliesare
beingbuiltby companies in Belgium, The Netherlands,
Denmark, and Norway.
This paper focuses on themedium pulse repetition
frequency (PRF) downlook modeofthe AN/APG-66. A
briefdescriptionof all the radar modes is followed by a
discussion of some of the design considerations and trade-
offs leading to the present medium PRF design. Included is
a discussion of the PRF types: high, low, and medium PRF;
high versus low transmitter peak power tradeoffs, and some
PRF selection and sidelobe clutter considerations. Finally,
the radar mechanization is discussed with a brief descrip-
tion of each line replaceable unit (LRU).
DESCRIPTION
MODE
Briefly summarized, theten modes of operation now
programmed into the AN/APG-66 radar are as follows:
Air to Air
Downlook-A coherent, medium PRF, pulse-doppler
mode used for detecting low-flying airborne targets in the
presence of main beam clutter.
- Uplook-A coherent, low PRF mode used in the ab-
sence of clutter to detect airborne targets.
- Air Combat-An automatic target acquisition mode
which permits rapid "hands-off" target acquisition.
- Track-A submode, intowhich the radar is switched
from any of the above three search modes.
Air to Surface
Real Beam Map-A noncoherent, frequency-agile
mode for air-to-surface mapping; used to identifyand locate
ground targets and to update the inertial navigation system.
- Doppler Beam Sharpening-A groundmapping mode
which employs doppler processing to enhance the azimuth
resolution beyond that of the real beam.
Sea I-A noncoherent, frequency-agile mode used for
detecting ships in the presence of moderate sea clutter.
- Sea Il-A coherent, MTImode which permits detec-
tion of moving ships in the presence of strong sea clutter.
- Air-to-Ground Ranging-Obtains accuraterangedata
along theradar line of sight to a ground point via angle-error
sensing.
- Beacon-A mode that can interrogate X-band beacons
.00 61985 IEEE
301
and receive transponder replies, including coded replies.
Also permitsair-to-air applications such as tanker ren-
dezvous.
Downlook Mode
Downlook is a coherent, medium PRF pulse doppler
mode used for “looking down” into heavy clutter to detect
small, low-flying, airborne targets. Slow-movingground
targets (< 55 knots) are eliminated from the display as well
as large discrete targets appearing in the antenna sidelobes.
This mode detects at all targetaspectsexcept a small
angular region about the broadside or beam aspect. There
are eight PRFs per dwell so as to maintain at least three
PRFs visible at all required doppler frequencies and ranges.
Adaptive target thresholding maintains a “clean scope”
presentation even in the presence of large clutter returns.
Mainbeam clutter is substantially reduced with a three-
pulse time-domain canceler. The output is thendoppler
filtered using a 64-point Fast FourierTransform (FFT) al-
gorithm.Only those filters not within 55 knots of the
mainbeam clutter are allowed to pass to the range correla-
tors. A cell-averaging CFAR is employed to computethe
detection thresholds and provide immunity to false alarms
arising from area sidelobe clutter. Sidelobe discretes pass
throughthe CFAR but are rejected by a range correlator
where an amplitude test is performed prior to allowing a
final range correlation to occur. Targets passing the correla-
tion criteria are sent to the radar computer for angle and
range centroiding before being displayed.
DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS
The AN/APG-66 is the first production fire-control radar
to usean optimized medium PRF waveform. By this it is
meant that the PRF selection, high peak transmitted power,
and short pulsewidth together were designed to maximize
target detection range performance in the presence of heavy
ground clutter while at the same time maintaining a low
false alarm rate. The following paragraphsdiscussseveral
design tradeoffs and considerations pertaining to the
AN/APG-66 medium PRF mode. Included is a discussion of
the waveform selection (PRF type), high versus low trans-
mitter peak power, PRF selection, and some sidelobe clutter
considerations.
Waveform Selection
One of the basic decisions which must bemade in a
waveform selection is the PRF of the radar. Generally, radar
systems are classified into one of three PRF types: low, high,
and medium PRF. A low PRF system is defined as one in
which the ranges of interest, targets, or clutter, are unam-
biguous while the velocities of interest are ambiguous. A
high PRF system hasan unambiguous doppler interval but
ambiguous ranges. A medium PRF system is ambiguous in
both range and doppler regions of interest. Here, unam-
biguous range means that the range to the target or clutter
can be determined by simple timediscrimination on a
single PRF as opposed to a multiple PRF correlation process.
Similarly, unambiguous doppler refers to velocity de-
termination via simple frequency discrimination. Fig. l il-
lustrates these three PRF types in range and doppler space.
It is immediately obvious that there are PRF types which
302
do not fit into any of these very general classifications. For
example, some air-to-ground radar modes use PRFs which
are unambiguous in both range and doppler but these will
be ignored for the present discussions.
The paragraphs which follow delineate some of the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of each PRF type as applied to
an airborne, lookdown radar. The reader is referred to [I] for
further discussion of the PRF types.
Low PRF: The principal advantage of a low,PRFsystem
is theability to sort clutterfrom targets on the basis of
range. For example, a rain clutter cell several miles in extent
wouldnot interfere with targets notdirectly in the cell
whereas in a medium or high PRF system this same rain cell
could clutter the entire unambiguous range interval.
A second feature of a low PRF system is that no range
correlation process is required (since the range is unam-
biguous by definition) which, in turn, means no spurious
target problems. In an ambiguous ranging system, multiple
targets can confuse the range correlator and generate spuri-
ous targets, called ghosts.Since the ranges reported are
unambiguous no ghosts are generated in a low PRF system.
A third advantage of a low PRF mechanization is that an
attenuationfunction can be applied to the receiver as a
function of rangeor time, commonly called a sensitivity
timecontrol (STC), which cansuppress the near-range
sidelobe clutter while not affecting the longer ranges. In an
ambiguous range mechanization this STC function cannot
be used as it would attenuate long range targets of interest
as well as the near range clutter. The result is that a low PRF
systemcan be more tolerant ofpoor antenna sidelobes
since they can be suppressed by the STC.
O n the negative side, a low PRF system inherently suffers
from the lack ofdopplervisibility as illustrated in Fig. 2,
which shows the baseband spectrum of a low PRF system.
Here, the frequency ofthe mainbeam clutter along the
radar’s line of sight has been hetrodyned to zero frequency
for ease of mechanization so that the observed dopplers
from targets (or sidelobe clutter) are with respect to dc. In
other words, the dopplers observed are as if the airborne
radar were fixed inspace at zero velocity.
In an airborne search radar application the criterion which
determines the doppler rejection notch shown in Fig. 2 is
primarily that for slow-moving groundtarget rejection rather
than mainbeam clutter rejection, since slow-moving target
rejection requires a wider notch. Thereason is that in an
airborne downlook search application the verylarge num-
bers of ground moving targets visible to the radar confuse
the radar operator and hinder the recognition of low-flying,
airborne targets.
A typical rejection notch width is k55 knots with respect
to thegroundwhich requires adopplernotch widthof
+I870 Hz with respect to the center of mainbeam clutter
frequency(for an X-band system). With this wide notch,
the mainbeam clutterrejection is adequatemost of the
time; an exception perhaps is when the radar is flying
supersonic at wide platform look angles.
Assuming then that a doppler notch width of +I870 Hz
is desired, 3740 Hz of the doppler spectrum between PRF
lines would be blind to targets of interest. Since typical low
PRFs range from IO00 to 4ooo Hz, depending on the maxi-
mum range of interest desired, essentially no usable dop-
pler spectrum i s left. Again, a system operating at X-band is
assumed.
PROCEEDINGS O F THE IEEE. VOL. 73, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1985
 RANGE DOPPLER

TARGET
TARGET
-4
-
TRUE RANGE TRUE VELOCITY

0
RANGE(TIME1
II

L-;2J
I

TRANSMIT PULSE
TARGET

0123456--
RANGE GATE NUMBER
I "
I
I

u
01234--
MEDIUM PRF

RANGE
n

GATE
12345---n

NUMBER
!

1
I
I
-- 23

HIGH PRF

RANGE GATE NUMBER DOPPLER BINS

IPP - INTERPULSE PERIOD

RANGEGATES. FREWENCY BINS

ILLULLU

Fig. 1. PRF types in range-dopplerspace.

REJECTION W L E R REJECTON
NOTCH PASSBAND NOTCH MAINBUM CLUTTER
I- , 4
I /
FREO = p m4 I

I
0

Fig. 2. Low PRF spectrum.

PRF

FREWENCY - I
ZIFUF -
-m,

Fig. 3.
o *

High PRF spectrum.

A
FREWENCY-
pR -2v,
A
PRF

In summary then, while a low PRF system provides accu-
rate and ghost free range information, the visible doppler
spectrum available after clutter and/or groundmoving
target rejection is generally too limited for airborne, look-
down applications.
High PRF: In ahigh PRF waveform targets whose dop-
plers appear clear of the sidelobe clutter can be detected in
essentially a noise-limited environment as opposed to being
clutter-limited, even at low altitudes. This is illustrated in
Fig. 3 which shows the high PRF spectrum after downcon-
version from RF but before clutter tracking for clarity.
The sidelobe clutter spreads out +2V,/X around the PRF
lines where V, is the radar aircraft ground speed and X, the
RF wavelength. The mainbeam clutter frequency shown
changes according to the radar's look angle with respect to
thevelocity vector and is usually hetrodyned to zero
frequency for ease of mechanization. A closing target is also
shown where the total doppler shift is the targets line-of-
sight doppler plus the mainbeam clutter doppler along the
line of sight. Thus whenever the targets doppler along the
line of sight is greater than the maximum sidelobe clutter
doppler, the target is clear ofthe sidelobe clutter and
enjoys noise-limited detection performance.
This condition occurs as a function of the ratio of the
target's velocity to the radar's velocity and the antenna look
angle, as shown in Fig. 4. For look angles directly along the
radar's velocity vector any target whose line-of-sight com-
ponent of velocity is toward the radar is clear of sidelobe
clutter. At a 90" look angle, the target's velocity component
along the line of sight has to begreater than the radar's
ground speed to become clear of sidelobe clutter.
The sidelobe clear/clutter region canalsobeexpressed
in terms of the aspect angle with respect to the target, as
shown in Fig. 5 . Here, a lead collision geometry is assumed
in which the radar and target aircraft fly straight-line paths
toward an intercept point; the look angle of the radar and +

LONG A N D H A R R I C E R : M E D I U M PRF FOR THE AN/APC-66 RADAR 303

 VT . RADIAL COMPONENT OF TARGET VELOCITY TOWARDS THE RADAR
” R . RADAR AlRCRAFl GROUND SPEED
ANTENNA LOOK ANGLE ($tDEG
Fig. 4. Sidelobeclutter/clear regions versus look angle
the aspect angle of the target A are constant for a given set
of radar and target speeds V, and V,, respectively.
The center of the “pie diagram” is the target and the
angle with respect to the target along the circumference is
the aspect angle. The aspect angle and look angles vary as
VRsinq = V,sin A as defined by a lead collision course.
The target aspect angle A is zero for a head-on, closing
condition and 180’ for tail chase.Theaspect angle corre-
sponding to the sidelobe clear/clutter boundary is a func-
tion of the relative radar/target velocity ratio and is shown
in Fig. 5 for four cases. Case 1 is where the radar and target
speeds are equal, and the targetcanbeseenclear of
sidelobe clutter in a head-on aspect out to 60’ either side
of the target’s velocity vector. Similarly, case 4 shows the
condition where the target’s speed is 0.4 times the radar’s
speed in whichcase the target can be seen clearof sidelobe
clutter over aregionofk78.5’ relative to the target’s
velocity vector. Again, these conditions are for an assumed
lead collision course. As evident, the aspect angle of the
target clear of sidelobe clutter is always forward ofthe
beam aspect.
Another feature of a high PRF waveform is that slow-
VR .RADAR AIRCRAW VELOCITY VECTOR
VT .TARGET VELOCITY VECTOR
LEAD COLLISION COURSE
Fig. 5. Sidelobe clutter/clear regions versus target aspect angle.
304
moving targets can be eliminated since such a wide doppler
spectrum i s available for targetprocessing. For example,
with a 150-kHz PRF, targets slower than, say, 80 knots with
respect to the ground can be easily rejected whereas with a
low PRF waveform this would be virtually impossible.
An additional advantage of a high PRF waveform is that
when target velocity information is all that is required, i.e.,
no target range, a 20- to 25-percent improvement in detec-
tion range can be realized for a given average power, over a
system requiring ranging. This is due to the ambiguous
range information inherent in a high PRF waveform which
typically requires either linear or sinusoidal frequency mod-
ulation of the RF carrier during the radar’s dwell time on
target to resolve the range. In any case, the requirement to
resolve range is costly in terms of range performance. For
the AN/APG-66 downlook mode under discussion,target
range information is required so that a velocity-only search
mode is not a viable option.
Perhaps the biggest single limitation of a high PRF wave-
form is its limited ability to detect targets which appear in
the sidelobe clutter region, especially at low radar altitudes.
As discussed earlier and shown in Figs. 4 and 5 the clutter-
free detection region is in the forward aspect of the target,
whereas in the rearaspects, the target is competing with
large sidelobe clutter returns at low altitudes.
In a low PRF waveform, the nearrange sidelobe clutter
can be suppressed with an STC attenuation function and
there is no range folding; whereas in a high PRF system the
sidelobe clutter all folds into a small ambiguous range
intervaldue to the manyrange ambiguities. For example,
with a PRF of 150 kHz the unambiguous range is only a half
mile and since sidelobe clutter can be well above thermal
noise out to a range of 10 nmi or so, 19 ambiguities of
clutter will be folded into the PRF interval. Hence at low
altitudes, sidelobe clutter severlydegrades the radar’s de-
tection performance.
In summary, a high PRF waveform provides ghost-free
target doppler, the capability to reject slow-moving targets,
CASE I “T R’/
8:
0.4
P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E IEEE. VOL. 7 3 , NO. 2 , FEBRUARY 1985
and a clutter free target detectionregion at sometarget
aspects. However, thelimited all-target aspect detection
capability, especially at low altitudes, precludes the use of a
high PRF waveform for the AN/APG-66 downlook mode.
Medium PRF: In the previous discussion it was shown
that both the low and high PRF waveforms offer attractive
advantages for an airborne downlook mode but also both
havesevere limitations: the low PRF waveform cannot re-
ject slow-moving targets and the high PRF waveform can-
notperforminthe tail aspect region of the target. The
following paragraphsdiscuss the medium PRF waveform
which combines some of the attributes of both high and
low PRF such as slow-moving target rejection, all aspect
target coverage, sidelobe clutter free regions, and accurate
range information.
In a medium PRF waveform, the doppler extent of side-
lobe clutter is generally ambiguous and the targets of inter-
est are generally ambiguous in range and thus compete
with the near range sidelobe clutter. This would seem to be
the worst of all worlds in that no velocity or range regions
exist clear of sidelobe clutter. However, in actual practice
and with careful design, clear regions can be established in
range-doppler space.
Fig. qa) shows an amplitude versusrange profileof
sidelobe clutter for the case of an average sidelobe level 35
dB below the main lobe, a IO-kHz PRF, and a 6000-ft radar
altitude. The sidelobe clutter starts at the range of the radar
above the ground (the altitude line) and tapers off until at a
range of 5 nmiit falls below the thermal noise level. A
IO-kHz PRF has an unambiguous range of 8 nmi, hence the
sidelobe clutter region repeats in the unambiguous range
interval as shown. For the example cited, there is a 3-nmi
range interval between 5 and 8 mi which is free of sidelobe
clutter and which alsorepeats in the unambiguous range
interval. With a multiple PRF per dwell waveform, the
sidelobe clutter-free intervals smear around in range(ex-
cept for the first one) and provide a clutter free detection
capability. This is illustrated in Fig. qb).
The foregoing discussion is oversimplified, in that nor-
PRFl = lOKH2
RANGE -
I PRF3
A A
Fig. 6. Amplitude versus range of sidelobe clutter.
RANGE -
LONG AND HARRICER: MEDIUM
PRF FOR THE AN/APC& RADAR
mallythe antenna sidelobe level is not a constant over
spzce; hence, the sidelobe clutter does not gradually taper
off from the altitude line but instead is a function of not
only range but doppler frequency. A detailed discussion of
medium PRF clutter is beyond the scope of this paper and
the reader is referred to [3] and [4]. Suffice it tosay here that
sidelobe clutter clear regions can be found in range-dop-
pler space and that the extent of theseclear regions is a
function of theantenna sidelobe levels, among other things.
In the discussion of a high PRF waveform it was shown
that at some target aspectangles forward ofthe beam
aspect the target is clear of sidelobe clutter in the frequency
domain. However, in a medium PRF waveform the target is
always potentially competing with sidelobe clutter, at all
aspect angles, due to the sidelobe clutter being ambiguous
in doppler. The fact that there are regions in range clear of
sidelobe clutter, as discussed in the previous paragraph, and
thatthesidelobeclutter varies with doppler frequency
mitigates the above situation somewhat. Reasonably good
“all-aspect” performance can be achieved even at low
altitudes.
For example, Fig. 7 shows the 85-percent cumulative
probability of detection on a small airborne target versus
the target aspect angle for the conditions shown. Again, the
aspect angle is the angle between the line of sight to the
radar and the target’s velocity vector. The loss ofperfor-
mance at the beamaspect of the target is due to the
mainbeam clutter rejection notch since a broadside target
has no radial component of velocity toward the radar and
thus is at the same frequency as the mainbeam clutter after
clutter tracking. The wiggles in the performance curve are
caused primarilyby the sidelobe clutter variations with
range and doppler and also by the PRF visibility to be
discussed later. Thus even at the low altitude shown, 5000
ft, all aspects of the target are detectable (except for the
beam aspect of course).
As discussed in an w e r section, slow-moving targets
have to be reject&n order for the radar to be operation-
ally usable; otherwise, the slow movers hinder the radar
305
 RANGE. nml
fig. 7. Rangeperformance versus target aspectangle.
operator's abilityto detect airborne targets.The speeds
which get rejected, that is, the rejection notch width,weighs
heavily in the PRF selection, a subject discussed in a later
section. For the moment suffice it tosay that a medium PRF
waveform has sufficientdopplervisibilityfor adequate
ground moving target rejection.
HIGHPEAK POWER VERSUS
Low PEAK POWER
The following paragraphsdiscusssome of the tradeoffs
between a high peak power and a low peak power trans-
mitter. For a medium PRF only waveform high peak power
is clearly the best choice as will be shown.
The choicebetween a high peak poweror low peak
power transmitter i s most often determined by the wave-
forms required in the radar. If both high PRF and medium
or low PRF modes are required, thena low peak power
transmitter is mandated since the high peak power trans-
mitter cannot operate at therequired duty cycles.'For
example, a high PRF mode typically operates with a trans-
mitter duty cycle2 of between 0.3 and 0.5 such that a high
peak power transmitter would have to operate at excessive
average power outputs. O n the other hand, a medium PRF
waveform operates typically with a duty cycle between 0.01
and 0.03 so that either a high peak power transmitter or a
low peak power transmitter with pulse compression could
be used. TheAPG-66radardoes not employ a high PRF
mode so that either type of transmitter could be used.
In a practical radar design the average transmitted power
is determined by the range performance requiredofthe
radar since the other factors which enter into the range
performance are usually predetermined. For example, the
antenna aperture is usually the largest which fits into the
available space, the noise figure is the lowest which can be
'A recently developed transmitter can selectively operate in both
highand low peak power modes, however; only a single power
level is assumed for the present discussion.
2The transmitter dutycycle is defined as the PRF times the
transmitted pulsewidth.
306
reliably produced, and the signal processing is limited by
hardware and/or processing time constraints. Thus the re-
quired range performance dictates the average power nec-
essary.
Giventhe average power required, either a low peak
power,longpulsewidth or a high peak power, short
pulsewidth can beused. In either case, a short processed
pulsewidth is required in a medium PRF waveform to un-
ambiguously resolve range and also for target range resolu-
tion requirements, so that pulse compression is required
when long transmitted pulsewidths are employed.
Both pulse compression and long transmitted pulse-
widths have deleterious effects on radar performance in a
medium PRF waveform and these are discussed below.
The most common means of pulse compression in today's
medium PRF radars is phase coding, either binary or
quadraphase. The binary codes are the easiest to implement
but suffer from being doppler sensitive and the difficulty in
achieving the required low time sidelobes.
The doppler sensitivity problem is very severe for even
modest length codes; the problem being that the individual
bits of the received code are shifted in phase by the target
doppler so that in the extreme the phase at the end of the
code is shifted by 180". At this doppler, often referred to as
the criticalvelocity, large time sidelobes and a reduced-
amplitude mainlobe result. For a 13-bit code with I-ps bits,
at X-band, the critical velocity is 1215 knots. One means to
help overcome this deficiency is to offset the code in
doppler so that atsay plus 600 knots no doppler degrada-
tion occurs. The problem, however, is that this only works if
the expected doppler returns are within narrow bounds. If
both negative and positive dopplers (i.e., opening and clos-
ing targets) are to be handled, as is usually the case, the
doppler offset exacerbates theproblem at the opposite
doppler sense.
The time sidelobe requirements on the compressed pulse
are typically 30 dBor so, and can be achieved with
processing losses usually under 1 dB; however, they de-
grade whenthe received pulse becomes eclipsed. This
occurs when multiple targets are close together in range or
when a short range target becomes eclipsed by the transmit
P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H EIEEE, VOL. 73.NO, 2, FEBRUARY 1985
pulse. The increased sidelobe levelscan become a source
of false alarms and can mask adjacent targets.
Polyphase codes mitigate both thedoppler sensitivity
losses and the higher sidelobe levels somewhat but are
moredifficultto implement. Pulse compression using
quadruphase codes is finding increased use in radar systems
because they can be mechanized with lower matched filter
losses than with binary codes and the binary codes doppler
sensitivity can be mitigated somewhat. The disadvantage of
these codes is the increased mechanization complexity.
Chirp canalso be used for pulse compression but re-
quires rather high compression ratios, 30 or so, to be practi-
cal. At thehigher compression ratios, the pulse spectrum
becomes approximately rectangular and low-loss matched
filters can be constructed. Either linear or nonlinear FM can
be used, the linear FM being doppler insensitive but requir-
ing more weighting with its subsequent losses to achieve
therequired sidelobes. Nonlinear FM canachieve better
sidelobes with lower losses than linear FM but becomes
doppler sensitive.
Two additional problems arise in a medium PRF wave-
form when a long transmitted pulsewidth is used. First, the
long pulsewidth eclipses short range targets and often re-
quires the additional complexityof an interleaved short-
pulse mode. Second, and more serious, the long pulsewidth
causes blind range regions in the unambiguous range inter-
val, as illustrated in Fig. 8. The problem is analogous to the
RANGE FlMD + that for PRF 1, a target in range gate 4 appears in range gate
Fig. 8.
RANGE -
Medium PRF blind ranges.
doppler visibility problem in the frequency domain, to be
discussed in the next section, in that the long blanked
intervals in range reduce the PRF visibility.
In summary then, while pulse compression can be used
to achieve the required short received pulsewidth,the
problems with doppler sensitivity, losses, time sidelobes,
blind ranges, and complexity make this a less than ideal
choice.
PRF SELECTION
One of the most difficult and tedious design problems in
medium PRF design is the PRF selection. Not only are there
a number of system constraints on the PRFs but the "best
LONG A N D HARRICER: MEDIUM PRF FOR THE AN/APC-66 RADAR
set" becomes a function of operational conditions such as
radar altitude, clutter levels, and speeds.
Extensiveanalysis effort during the early phases ofthe
APG-66 design effort showed that with multiple PRFs per
dwell, the use of an "M of N" detectioncriterion was
superior to the "Major-Minor approach sometimesused.
Notonly is the target dopplervisibility better but the
system performance in sidelobe clutter is much improved.
Some of the other considerations pertinent to PRF selection
are the numberof PRFs per dwell,therejectionnotch
width, ghosting, and dopplervisibility. These will be dis-
cussed in the paragraphs which follow.
The number of PRFs processed during an antenna dwell
time (the time it takes for the antenna mainbeam to scan
over a target) is constrained on the high side by the avail-
able processing time. If the time becomes too long, the
antenna scan rate drops below an operationally acceptable
value. O n the low side, the number of PRFs per dwell has
to be sufficient not only to resolve range but to insure good
doppler visibility, to be discussed below.
Ghosting considerations play an important part in the
PRF selection. With an "M of N" detectioncriterion in
which, say, eight PRFs are processed and the detection
criterion i s any three of the eight, its importantnot to
generate false targets due to cross correlation. Fig. 9 shows
an example using three PRFs and a two-of-three detection
criterion. The pulse repetition intervals (PRI) for the three
PRFs shown are 7, 8, and 9 rangegates, respectively, such
+
4,range gate 11 (PRI 4), range gate 18 (2*PRI 4),and so+
on. A target in rangegate 26 appears in rangegate 26
Modulo (PRI) so that for PRF 1 (PRI = 7) the target appears
in range gates 5,12, 19, 26, etc. Similarly, for PRF 2 (PRI = 8)
the target in gate 4 appears in gates 4,12, 20, 28, etc., and
the target in gate 26 appears in gates 2, IO, 18, 26, etc. The
correlation process for the three PRFs is shown in Fig. 9 and
1 2 4 6
RANGE GATE NO -
8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 x i 2 2 2 4 2 6 z B J 0 5 2
PRF 1
PRF 2
Fig. 9. Ghosting example-two PRF detection criterion.
with the two-of-three detection criterion, any time a target
appears in at least two of the three PRFs, in the same range
gate, a detection is reported. As shown, the real targets in
gates 4 and 26 line up in range (correlate) in all three PRFs
and are reported as a detection. However, in gates 12 and
18, the two real targets mix across two of the PRFs and yield
a false report at these ranges. In a practical situation, more
307
(KHz) PRF
NOTCHf 55 KNOT
REJECTION

* PASSBAND DOPPLER
NOTCH
- PRFl
0
k-
*
13 - b I
PRF 2
0

10 - c 4
PRF 3
0

PRF 4
9- # 1 0

PRF 5 2xPRF 5
8- I 4 0 I I 0

TARGET VELOCIM . KNOTS

Fig. 10. Doppler visibility, number of PRFs visible versus target velocity.

range gates are used in the pulse repetition interval which

tends to minimize ghosts. The PRFs then have to be care- Irn r
fully chosen not only to unambiguously resolve the range
but to minimize the number of possible cross correlations
when dealing with multiple targets.
Of equal importance with ghost free ranging is the dop-
pler visibility which refers to the usable doppler passband
between PRF lines. An example is shown in Fig. 10 which
shows the doppler visibility for an arbitrary five PRF set.
Here the abscissa is the target’s radial component of veloc-
itytowardthe radar with respect to the ground. It is
assumed that the main beam clutter has been hetrodyned
to dc so that the relative radar-target velocity is unim-
portant, only the target component of velocity counts. This
would mean that even if the radar and target were traveling 1 I I I I 1
co-speed in a tail chase condition, where the range rate is 45 x) 55 80 65 x)
zero, the target’s doppler visibility would be determined by
3dB HALF NOTCH WIDTH- KNOTS
its speed with respect to the ground, not the range rate.
The blanked regions around the PRF lines represent the Fig. 11. Percent doppler passband visible in two PRFs.
dopplerrejection notch and the 3-dBpassband width is
represented by the solid lines. A k55-knot rejection notch
is assumed. Also shown in Fig. 10 is the number of PRFs evidence when thetarget is competing with sidelobe clutter.
visible in doppler versus the target’s velocity. In this exam- At those target dopplers where the PRF visibility is the
ple, two or more PRFs are visible at all target speeds shown. minimum for detection, any sidelobe clutter degradation
If the detection criterion were,say, three out of the five results in acorresponding range performance reduction.
PRFs, the doppler regions where only two PRFs are visible Conversely, wherethe PRF visibility is high, the range
would represent blind speeds. At these target velocities, the performance is not degraded as much by sidelobe clutter
radar is blind tothe target at all ranges thus blind speeds for since its morelikely that the target will be visible in a
any speeds of interest are generally unacceptable. sidelobe clutter free interval.
A good figure of merit for doppler visibility is the per-
centage of the doppler passband which has the minimum
SIDELOBE CLUTTER
CONSIDERATIONS
PRF visibility for detection. Assuming the five PRF set shown
above and a two-of-five detection criterion, the percentage In a previous discussion it was stated that with a low PRF
of the doppler passband below 500 knots visible in only waveform the sidelobe clutter can be largely suppressed by
two PRFs is plotted versus the half-notch width in Fig. 11. a front-end STC which, in turn, eases the antenna sidelobe
Here, a notch width of &70 knots with the five PRFs shown requirements. When using a high PRF waveform, onthe
would have over 50 percent of the doppler passband visible other hand, often only the doppler spectrum clear of side-
in only twoPRFs. lobe clutter is processed, in which case the sidelobe clutter
The importanceof good dopplervisibility is much in level is of no consequence. In fact, some high PRF systems

308 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E IEEE, VOL. 73, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1985

 G, = ANTENNA
SIMLOBE
G,=uldB
LEVELS RELATIVE
TO MAINBEAM

\ CONSTANT FLOOR
LEVEL

I 0- = 45dB \

1 3 10 30
ALTITUDE. KFT
Fig. 12. Range extent of sidelobe clutter versus altitude.

use a uniformly weighted antenna aperture to maximize

gain and operate with the resulting high sidelobes.
In a medium PRF waveform the sidelobe levels are of
great importance and have adirect bearing on system
performance. Some insight can be gained into this by con-
sidering the range extent of sidelobe clutter for the case of
constant antenna sidelobe levels. Fig. 12 shows the sidelobe
clutter extent for a typical medium PRF system versus radar
altitude; the ordinate is range extent measured in I-ps gates
and the abscissa, altitude. Range extent is the difference in
range from the altitude line to the range where sidelobe
clutter equals thermal noise. Considering that the average
number of I-ps gates in an interpulse period is 90 or so, it is
evidentfrom Fig. 12 that whenthe sidelobe levelsget
above 45 dB, a significant portion ofthe unambiguous
range interval is covered by sidelobe clutter. For example,
with a 35-dB sidelobe level at 10000-ftaltitude 64 gates or
71 percent of the unambiguous range interval has sidelobe
clutter greater than thermal noise. As stated in the preced-
ing section, this would severely impact the detection per-
formance at those target dopplers where the minimum PRF
visibility is in effect.
A second consideration concerning sidelobe levels is the
sidelobes resulting from reflections off the radome walls. A
small portion of the antenna main beam is reflected off the
radome walls and forms a lobe which is generally on the Fig. 13. Radome reflection lobe geometry.

opposite side of the aircraft from the main lobe. This lobe,
commonly calledthereflectionlobe or image lobe, i s
usually broader thanthe main lobedue to defocusing
caused bythe curvature ofthe radome walls. Fig. 13 il-
lustrates the geometry. The reflection lobe level is a com-
plicated function of the radome’s length-to-diameter ratio,
relative flatness, dielectric material, wall thickness, and
transmission frequency.
The primary concern regarding the reflection lobe is that
large, discrete reflectors on the ground can become visible
to the radar through this lobe and be reported as moving
targets, i.e.,falsealarms.Thereason for this is that even
thoughthe reflectors are stationary on theground and
would be normally rejected by the mainbeam clutter rejec-
tion notch, they have an apparent doppler since the reflec-
tionlobe is at a different angleand,hence, a different
frequency than the main beam. This is illustrated in Fig. 14
where the doppler angle is the angle of the reflection lobe
with respect to the aircraft’s velocity vector.
Radar returns from targets in the antenna sidelobes (in-
cluding the reflection lobe) are prevented from causing
false reports by using either a guard channel receiver or by
an amplitude comparison scheme with a single receiver
channel. With a guard channel, the received amplitudes
from awide-beamwidth,low-gain antenna are compared
with returns from the main-channel receiver. If the guard
amplitudes arelarger than the main amplitudes it is as-
sumed that the returns are sidelobe returns and they are
blanked from further processing. The guard channel mecha-

LONG A N D H A R R I C E R : MEDIUM PRF F O R T H E A N / A P G 6 6 R A D A R 309

 withfunctional autonomy plus an equipment rack.The
antenna, low-power RF, transmitter, digital signal processor,
REFLECTON
computer,and control panel LRUs are depicted in the
LOBE
ANGLE (R)
simplified block diagram of Fig. 15.

Antenna
The high-gain, low-sidelobe, planar-array antenna is
gimballed in two axes and mechanically counterbalanced
by an electric motor/tape drive system. Four nonreciprocal
phase shifters associated with the array's quadrants provide
silent sequential lobing for derivation of targetangle dis-
criminants. The antenna servo, controlled by the computer
F, = % ( C O S R -COS 11) AFTER CLLlTTrR TRACKING software scan pattern generatorvia digibus, utilizes re-
solvers for position sensing.
DOPPLER ANGLE = Cos-'[* +W]

Fig. 14. Reflection lobe apparent doppler. Low-Power RF

The functions of transmit signal generation and receive

nization requires an additional antenna (guard horn) and a
separate receiver channel and, thus, is more expensive than
the single-channel approach.
In the single-channel approach, the received amplitudes
are compared against expected values on an unambiguous
range basis and a determination is made whether the re-
turns are from a sidelobe or in the main beam ofthe
antenna; the sidelobe returns are rejected from further
target processing [3].TheAPG-66uses the single-channel
approach.
signal conditioning are performed in the low-power radio
frequency (LPRF) unit. TheSTALO includes the reference
oscillators and frequency multiplier. The single-channel
analog receiver includes a passive receiver protector with
diode attenuatorfor automatic gain control(AGC) and
sensitivity timecontrol (STC) functions, alow-noise FET
amplifier, and a triple-conversion superheterodyne receiver.
The receiver baseband video signal is processed through a
dumped integrator for pulse-matched filtering prior to A/D
conversion.

AN/APG-66 MECHANIZATION Transmitter

The AN/APG-66 is mechanized with digital technology
to provide high reliability and is controlled by computer
software to provide a high degree of flexibility. Harmoniza-
tion of radar assemblies is eliminated by automatic calibra-
tions performed as part of the self test/built in test (ST/BIT)
maintainability features. Radar functions are computer con-
trolled via bidirectional data busses (Digibus and DSP bus)
internally, and the F-16 Avionics Mil-Std-1553 multiplex bus
externally. Each LRU incorporates an integral power supply,
test stimuli as well as fault sensors, power (missing 400-H~
phase), and thermal interlocks.
The radar is organized as six-line replaceable units (LRUs)
The transmitter amplifier is a wide-band traveling-wave
tube (TWT) suppliedfroma high-voltage powermodule
and grid pulser packaged within a gas-filled pressure vessel.
Grid pulse coupling from low-voltage to high-voltage cir-
cuits is via fiber-optic cables. Low-voltage and ion-pump
power supplies, as well as protection and control circuits
comprise the remainder of the transmitter unit.
Digital Signal Processor
The digital signal processing hardware is configurable to
a large extent by multiplexers to provide algorithm selec-

E
a Antenna

W I

31 0 P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E IEEE. VOL. 73, NO, 2, FEBRUARY 1985

tion under control of computer software. Extensive parame- SUMMARY
MECHANIZATION
ter programmability, especially in the system timing genera-
APG-66 mechanized characteristics are summarized be-
tor (synchronizer), provides the flexibility required for the
low:
multimode radar. Processing in air-to-air modes includes
clutter cancellation for downlook mode, Dolph-Chebychev
volume 4 ft3
weighted 64-point FFT doppler filtering, detection, constant
weight 300 Ib
false alarm rate (CFAR) adaptive thresholding, and range
power 3.7 kW
correlation. In air-to-surface noncoherent modes, processing
cooling air cooled at 1 2 Ib/min
includes video detection, post-detection integration, loga-
electronic parts 9500
rithmic compression, and digital scan conversion of data to
serialized assemblies 147
provide RS-I70 composite video for display of symbolics
reliability 97-h demonstrated MTBF
and real video.
maintenance 5-min flightline MTTR.
Arithmetic processing flow is structured as a pipeline; a
complex “butterfly” stage and 26K-bits of scratchpad RAM
perform the 64-point FFT in 224 p s . A bulk memory of 218
bits serves as a corner turn memory in air-to-air modes and CONCLUSION
as a display refresh memory for the scan converter in The AN/APG-66 multimode radarwas designed as a
air-to-surface modes. Clutter amplitude and frequency dis- modular system with features of high reliability, excellent
crimination circuitry is provided for AGC and main beam maintainability, and flexibility. The design-to-affordable cost
clutter tracking functions. Map reference generation cir- aspect of the program ledto a medium PRF downlook
cuitry is incorporated, under computercontrol, for the mode that was optimizedin terms of transmitter peak
Doppler Beam Sharpening mode. power, PRF selection, and sidelobe clutter rejection. Exten-
sive operational experience has proven that the radar meets
Radar Computer or exceeds the design specifications. Unprecedented field
The radar computer (.RC) is a general-purpose-type com- reliability has been achieved; for the year1983, the radar’s
puter with single CPU having 16-bit fixed-point sequential MTBF was 102.9 h based on 64204 operating hours at two
operation under control of a stored program residing in 48K operational air bases.
words of EPROM memory. CPU instructions are micropro-
grammed sequences residing in PROM, and operations are
facilitated with eight general-purpose registers and eight
registers for interrupt handling. REFERENCES
The speed capabilityofthe RC is 800K to W O K oper-
5. A.Hovanessian, “Medium PRF performance analysis,” /E€€
ations/s for the instruction mix that implements the radar Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. AES-18, no. 3, pp. 286-2%,
control functions. May 1982.
D. H. Mooney and W. A. Skillman, ”Pulse doppler radar,” in M.
Radar Control Panel I. Skolnik, Ed.,Radar Handbook. New York: McCraw-Hill,
1970, ch. 19.
The radar control panel (RCP) provides for thepilot’s M. 6. Ringel, D. H. Mooney, and W. H. Long 111, “F-16 pulse
manual interaction with the radar. The front panel is edgelit doppler radar (AN/APG-%) performance,” /E€€ Trans. Aerosp.
Electron. Syst., vol. AES-19, no. 1, pp. 147-158, Jan. 1983.
and contains seven multiposition switches for selection of M. B. Ringel, “An advanced computer calculation of ground
radar mode, range scale,scan pattern, RF frequency, and clutter in an airborne pulse doppler radar,” in /E€€ NAECON
radar video display features. Rec., pp. 921 -928, 1977.

LONG A N D HARRIGER: MEDIUM PRF F O R THE AN/APG& RADAR 311