K. W. O’Haver et al.

Radar Development for Air and Missile Defense

Kenneth W. O’Haver, Christopher K. Barker, G. Daniel Dockery,

and James D. Huffaker

ABSTRACT
Radar systems are critical elements of air and missile defense systems. The Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) has a long history of leading the development or improvement
of advanced radar systems through the application of science and technology advancements via
a systems engineering process. This article summarizes APL’s significant contributions to advanced
radar development, beginning with the creation of multifunction phased-array radar technology
for the Aegis program, continuing through solid-state radar and ballistic missile defense radar
development, and concluding with recent contributions to the U.S. Navy’s new Air and Missile
Defense Radar.

INTRODUCTION
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab- the field or at sea, and evaluating system effectiveness
oratory (APL) was founded in 1942 for the purpose of against continually evolving threats.
developing a radio proximity fuze, a device that would In this article, we review many of the significant
trigger an anti-aircraft shell when it came close to its advanced radar development accomplishments APL
target. In 1943, USS Helena became the first ship to has achieved by applying the systems engineering pro-
shoot down an enemy aircraft by means of proximity- cess to the air and missile defense mission. We begin
fuzed projectiles. This rapid development and transi- with the development and prototyping of multifunction
tion to production marked the beginning of APL’s phased-array radar technology that was foundational
75-year involvement in developing new or significantly for the Aegis program. We continue by reviewing APL’s
improved air and missile defense capabilities through contributions to modeling and characterizing effects of
the application of science and technology advancements the environment on radar performance, the importance
via a systems engineering process. This process begins of which was highlighted by early Aegis testing. The
with recognizing and quantifying the operational need, advancement and proliferation of anti-ship cruise mis-
usually driven by the adversary’s incorporation of new siles drove the need for the development of solid-state
technology or tactics. The process proceeds through radars. We describe APL’s contributions to the develop-
developing operationally responsive system concepts ment of the enabling active electronically scanned array
and requirements, applying technology and performing (AESA) technology. We then discuss APL’s role in bal-
critical experiments, transferring operationally validated listic missile defense (BMD) radar development and con-
technical approaches to industrial producers, testing in clude by summarizing APL’s significant contributions to

140­­­­ Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest
 Radar Development for Air and Missile Defense

the recent development of the Navy’s new Air and Mis-

sile Defense Radar (AMDR).

AEGIS MULTIFUNCTION PHASED-ARRAY RADAR

As the capabilities of air threats continued to evolve
in the 1950s, it became apparent that naval weapons sys-
tems would require radars that could reposition beams
within microseconds to track increasing numbers of tar-
gets. APL initially attempted to address this need with
an early experimental system concept named Typhon.1
The Typhon antenna electronically switched beams by
means of a Luneburg lens. Energy entering the lens at
a particular point will exit as a plane wave, and energy
entering at another point will exit as a plane wave in a Figure 1. APL-developed AMFAR (left) shown in contrast to the
different direction. This principle was used to devise a conventional rotating reflector radar antenna of the era (right).
radar that switched energy to various lens input ports
using microwave switches, with the resulting beams and tracking, and computer control. The major experi-
being switched to various angular locations within mental subsystems included a high-power transmitter, a
microseconds. Numerous technical problems were solved phased-array antenna, a signal-processor system, and a
in developing the Typhon system and installing it on the computer control system. The AMFAR system, installed
test ship USS Norton Sound, and successful search and on the roof of Building 6 at APL in the late 1960s, is
track tests were performed. However, the system could depicted in Fig. 1 along with the conventional rotating
not be produced at an acceptable cost, and the program reflector radar antenna of the era.
was terminated in 1963. The AMFAR development effort produced several
In the latter stages of the Typhon program, research- antenna and transmitter innovations. APL achieved
ers at APL and elsewhere began developing electronic a breakthrough in ferrite phase-shifter development
phase-shifter technology, which enabled a high-gain by using a garnet ferromagnetic material that proved
phased-array antenna in which the radar beam could relatively insensitive to temperature variations.2 A new
be steered or pointed electronically through the control array beamformer was developed that provided indepen-
of phase across the radiating elements of an aperture.2 dent sum and difference monopulse channels for angle
A 1965 Navy study identified the requirement for a estimation. The phased array was successfully devel-
phased-array radar with combined surveillance, track- oped, and the array components (Fig. 2) demonstrated
ing, and missile-guidance capabilities along with high the required reliability and performance at high power.
resistance to electronic countermeasures. Given APL’s The transmitter concept called for parallel operation of
background in phased-array technology and naval air multiple crossed-field amplifiers. As part of the trans-
defense, the Navy directed APL to begin a program to mitter development, APL developed the concept of an
reduce technological risk and demonstrate the requi- array of subarrays in which a subarray, say 64 elements,
site phased-array radar performance. This experimental was fed by a high-power microwave tube during trans-
development program was named the Advanced Multi- mission. By using dozens of tubes, very high power levels
Function Array Radar (AMFAR). were achieved even though the extremely high power
levels of conventional high-power radar transmitters
AMFAR to AN/SPY-1 were not present anywhere in the system. In addition,
The AMFAR demonstrator was conceived, designed, the large number of tubes provided redundancy since
fabricated, and tested by APL between 1964 and 1969 the loss of one or two tubes caused modest degradation.
and served as the advanced development model for tech- The antenna and transmitter concepts developed with
nologies incorporated into the Aegis AN/SPY-1A radar. AMFAR were incorporated into the SPY-1A system.
It brought all elements of the radar system together and The functions of the AMFAR signal processor were
demonstrated the feasibility of automatic detection to receive, amplify, and process the signals received by
and tracking with resistance to environmental clut- the radar from targets and the environment. The pro-
ter through computer control. Key technology areas cessing involved discriminating target returns from
addressed by the AMFAR program included tube-based competing signals (ground clutter, rain, electronic jam-
transmitter design, planar phased-array design, elec- ming, etc.) and making measurements (range, angle, and
tronic counter-countermeasures (now known as elec- speed) under all environmental conditions and without
tronic protection) development, automatic detection errors from competing signals. The development of the

Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest 141­­­­
 K. W. O’Haver et al.

Navy’s technical requirements,

(a) (b)
identified and assessed risk, pro-
posed alternative approaches
and conducted critical experi-
ments when appropriate, and
transitioned results to industry.
For example, APL identified a
way to reduce the number of
transmitters from four to two,
while maintaining performance,
by developing high-power wave-
guide switch technology that
(c) (d)
allowed a single transmitter to be
time-shared between two arrays.
Similarly, APL devised improve-
ments that consolidated signal
processing and control functions
into a single centralized unit.
Irzinski5 summarizes these and
other early system improvements
developed by APL.
As the technical advisor for
Figure 2. AMFAR phased-array technology. (a) Completed phased array with beamformer, Aegis, APL has worked in con-
16 subarrays, and phase-shifter drivers. (b) Assembled subarray. (c) Components of the strip- cert with the Navy, the prime
line power divider shown disassembled. (d) Ferrite phase shifter. (Reproduced from Ref. 3.) contractor, and other industrial
agents and government team
AMFAR signal processor, including a waveform and members to keep the program abreast of advances in
frequency generator, a synchronizer, and the processor technology through system upgrades that improved per-
itself, included several innovations that are described formance or reduced cost and weight. A major upgrade
by Phillips.4 These innovations included a new modula- was realized in the 1980s with the advent of the AN/
tion technique that reduced extraneous transmit signals SPY-1B radar. SPY-1B leveraged advances in solid-state
outside the radar band, a timing computer that could electronics to reduce signal-processor size and cost
develop any sequence of timing signals for the radar, and while improving processing efficiency and adding new
the use of phase-coherent digital pulse compression pro-
cessing and noncoherent multifrequency sampling tech-
niques, coupled with coherent cancellation of sequential
returns. Another new feature of AMFAR was the radar
computer and control program, which executed the
functions of scheduling, tracking, and testing within a
single transmit/receive (T/R) period in order to keep the
radar and computer in time synchronization.

SPY-1 Engineering Development and

Continuous Upgrade
The AMFAR program served to demonstrate the
technology maturity of key subsystems and the ability
of a tactical radar to satisfy operational requirements for
surveillance, tracking, and missile guidance with resis-
tance to electronic countermeasures. The innovations
helped clear the way for competitive bids on the Aegis
Engineering Development Program, which was approved
in 1969. Once the prime contractor, RCA (now Lock-
heed Martin), was selected to develop the SPY-1A radar
system, APL’s role transitioned to that of technical advi- Figure 3. USS Momsen (DDG 92) with the two AN/SPY-1D(V) radar
sor to Navy program management. In this role, APL forward faces visible on the deckhouse. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass
provided assurance that industry designs satisfied the Communication Specialist 2nd Class James R. Evans/Released.)

142­­­­ Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest
 Radar Development for Air and Missile Defense

electronic protection capabilities. Similarly, changes in ballistic missile defense, and integrated air and mis-
the array architecture and advances in manufacturing sile defense). As ship-based testing of the first genera-
tolerances and array calibration techniques allowed the tion of SPY-1 radars began, the FirmTrack Simulation
SPY-1B phased array to achieve low sidelobe perfor- was used to compare radar performance predictions to
mance and improved electronic protection. the actual performance observed in the testing. At that
The SPY-1 radar (Fig. 3) that emerged from APL’s time, the simulation included models to account for low-
original concept development studies and the experi- elevation multipath and spherical Earth horizon effects
mental development of AMFAR, and has evolved with nominal atmosphere refraction. Despite this fidel-
through numerous improvements and upgrades, has ity, the observed firm track performance of the radar
served as the centerpiece for the Navy’s Aegis Combat rarely agreed with the simulation predictions for low-
System for nearly four decades. Over 90 ships have been altitude test targets, and the observed performance was
outfitted with a version of the SPY-1 radar. extremely variable. It was clear that performance pre-
dictions must include atmospheric refraction effects on
low-elevation RF propagation to enable understanding
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND of radar performance in this regime.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION
One of the drivers for the development of SPY-1 was Modeling of Environmental Effects on Radar
the need to address the low-altitude anti-ship cruise Performance
missile threat, which stresses the engagement time- By the early 1980s, APL had developed the Electro-
line of the combat system because threats emerge from magnetic Parabolic Equation (EMPE) model to describe
behind the Earth’s horizon at relatively short ranges electromagnetic propagation in the lower atmosphere.6
from the ship. To characterize the performance of the The Aegis program began supporting this work in
new radar system, two things were needed: (i) a high- 1982, and by 1985, the EMPE was being used in con-
fidelity simulation of the radar, including the schedul- cert with the FirmTrack Simulation to account for
ing of rapid confirmation dwells and the ability to do low-altitude propagation effects in SPY-1 performance
Monte Carlo statistical analysis, and (ii) the capabil- predictions. After experimental validation and many
ity to predict the impact of low-altitude propagation fidelity improvements, the model was renamed the Tro-
and surface clutter on system performance. In the late pospheric Electromagnetic Parabolic Equation Routine
1970s, APL developed the first incarnation of the Firm- (TEMPER). Today, TEMPER is capable of predicting
Track Simulation, which provided the ability to analyze electromagnetic propagation over land and sea and
behaviors specific to electronically steered phased-array accurately represents radar and communication system
radars. The term firm track was established at this time antenna patterns.7 TEMPER has been accredited mul-
to capture the track initiation process that is enabled tiple times in support of many Navy and Missile Defense
by this class of radar. Agency (MDA) programs and is widely used by Navy
The APL FirmTrack Simulation has evolved along- laboratories and industry partners.
side the SPY-1 radar system and its expanding missions TEMPER calculations confirmed that radar behav-
(open-ocean air defense, air defense in littoral regions, ior is very sensitive to the atmospheric refraction con-

4 m evaporation duct 14 m evaporation duct 24 m evaporation duct

50 50 50

40 40 40
Altitude (m)

Altitude (m)

Altitude (m)

30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Range (km) Range (km) Range (km)

F2 in decibels

–50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10

Figure 4. TEMPER propagation factor plots at 10 GHz for various evaporation ducts.

Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest 143­­­­
 K. W. O’Haver et al.

ditions, which in turn depend on layers of temperature (a)

and humidity (water vapor) in the lower atmosphere. 400
These effects can range from substantial changes in
the apparent range to the radar horizon (beyond which 300

targets are shadowed by the Earth) to the trapping of 200 3.0

energy near the sea surface, resulting in greatly extended

Range north (km)

Terrain height (km)

detection ranges for low-altitude targets. In the latter 100
2.0
case, this same propagation phenomenon also produces
0
greatly increased backscatter from the sea and often very
distant land. 1.0
–100
Figure 4 illustrates the impact that certain types
of atmospheric “ducts” (trapping layers) can have on –200 0
propagation. The case shown is for a 10-GHz transmit- –300
ter located at 15 m above the sea surface. These plots
are best described as contours of radiated power nor- –400
malized to what would have been radiated had there
been no Earth or atmosphere present. The contour
values represent the differences from 0 dB that occur (b)
as a result of reflections/blockages from the Earth as 400
well as the bending of energy due to the atmospheric
refraction. These plots are “Earth-flattened,” so the 300

One-way propagation factor (dB)

deep blue region in Fig. 4a is the result of shadowing
200 10
due to the Earth’s curvature; the radar horizon range Range north (km)
0
versus altitude approximately follows the yellow-green 100
15-dB contour. –10
Figure 4a is representative of a near “standard atmo- 0 –20
sphere” condition, with no trapping layers present, –100
–30
while the remaining plots have increasingly large sur- –40
face trapping layers present. In this figure, one can see –200 –50
that the distribution of transmitted power is drastically
–300
affected by the assumed atmospheric condition; ducting
(trapping layers) can completely overcome the Earth’s –400
curvature, causing energy to propagate well beyond
the horizon. The long-range propagation effects are
even more evident in Fig. 5, illustrating the impact of a
(c)
large surface duct in the Arabian Gulf on surface clut-
400
ter. Radar “clutter” refers to unwanted backscatter from
the surface, which can compete with the signal reflect- 300

One-way propagation factor (dB)

ing from the targets the radar is intended to detect and
track. Figure 5a shows contours of terrain elevation to 200 10
provide geographical context, and Figs. 5b and 5c show
Range north (km)

0
100
contours of propagation factor data (quantity plotted in –10
Fig. 4) multiplied by the normalized clutter backscatter 0 –20
cross section. This quantity is integrated over the radar’s –30
resolution cell to give a value that is proportional to the –100
–40
power received from that part of the surface. –200 –50
In Fig. 5b, there is no ducting and there is very little
surface clutter beyond the near-in horizon around the –300
ship location; some of the highest mountains to the east
–400
are just barely being illuminated by the radar. In Fig. 5c, –400 –200 0 200 400
however, the effects of a typical large surface duct in Range east (km)
that region are shown; surface clutter is enhanced in all
directions, and the trapped energy is reaching land in Figure 5. Impact of a large surface duct on surface clutter.
all directions. The Navy is well aware of the need to (a) Terrain elevation. (b) Propagation factor impact with no duct-
deal with the detrimental impacts of strong, long-range ing present. (c) Propagation factor impact with typical large sur-
surface clutter in the Arabian Gulf. face duct. (Reproduced from Ref. 6.)

144­­­­ Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest
 Radar Development for Air and Missile Defense

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 6. APL-developed meteorological measurement systems. (a) Automated Environmental Assessment System (AEAS) meteorolog-
ical box; (b) rocketsonde; (c) rocketsonde and Helicopter Atmospheric Profiling System (HAPS) sensors; (d) HAPS installed on a helicopter.

Characterization of Atmospheric Refractive Conditions repeated presentations of the same low-altitude test
Given a model like TEMPER, and clutter models that target to SPY-1 radars during different test events; the
use TEMPER, the next challenge was to be able to mea- cases are arranged in order of increasing firm track
sure and characterize the atmospheric refractive condi- range. For the events during which METOC data were
tions to provide an accurate input to TEMPER. As part collected, red bars are also shown. The two takeaways
of the effort to validate TEMPER with measured data, from Fig. 7 are (i) the firm track ranges against very
several effective methods to collect the needed data were similar target presentations are varying by more than a
developed, including using meteorological sensors on factor of two, and (ii) when environmental data are col-
boats, ships, aircraft, small rockets, and balloons (Fig. 6).6 lected, the reconstructed and observed firm track ranges
The Automated Environmental Assessment System is a agree very well. Although range units are not shown in
portable METOC (meteorological) station that is used the figure, the differences between reconstructed and
on Navy ships and test platforms to collect near-surface measurement ranges are very small relative to the over-
data. The rocketsonde in Fig. 6b is a hobby rocket-based all variability seen across test events.
system that deploys a radiosonde with METOC sensors As a result of the success in explaining observed radar
on a parachute; data are transmitted to a surface station performance, there was a significant effort to incorpo-
as the package descends. The Helicopter Atmospheric rate automated versions of METOC sensors, TEMPER,
Profiling System is shown in Figs. 6c and 6d; this system and the FirmTrack Simulation into an integrated tacti-
is used to collect data during heli-
copter descents to obtain a set of
range-dependent refractivity pro-
files. These systems have been
used extensively, and with great
success, in many Navy tests and
propagation experiments over the
Increasing firm track range

past 30 years.
The use of the FirmTrack
Simulation, TEMPER, and the
above-mentioned METOC data-
collection systems became stan-
dard practice, starting in the late
1980s, for interpreting observed
performance, relative to require-
ments, for Navy tests. APL had
excellent success reconstructing
the observed firm track ranges for
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
test targets if the proper METOC Case number
data had been collected. In Fig. 7,
the results from several Navy tests Figure 7. Impact of environmental data collection on firm track range reconstruction. The
are shown; the vertical blue bars blue bars show the observed firm track range, and the red bars show the reconstructed firm
are relative firm track ranges for track range when environmental data were collected. (Reprinted from Ref. 8.)

Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest 145­­­­
 K. W. O’Haver et al.

cal decision aid, called SEAWASP (Shipboard Environ- stability required to detect low-flying anti-ship cruise
mental Assessment and Weapon System Performance).8 missiles in sea or land clutter.
Despite SEAWASP ultimately not being funded for
installation on Aegis ships, this work has influenced AESA Technology Development
other tactical decision aid programs, including the Aegis Radar systems developed in the 1970s and 1980s were
SPY-1 Sliderule. commonly passive arrays in which RF power was gener-
Although not discussed here, TEMPER and the envi- ated at a centralized tube-based transmitter, carried to
ronmental characterization process have been used for the array via waveguide, and divided in the array using
the analysis and development of other radar and weapon a transmit beamformer. High-power phase shifters were
system elements, including semi-active missile illumina- used at each element to steer the beam. The power loss
tion and Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) between the transmitter and the radiating elements was
connectivity. Furthermore, the phenomena character- typically quite high, resulting in reduced transmit power
ized, and in some cases discovered, by APL’s environ- and low system efficiency. On receive, the phase shift-
mental work have driven certain radar characteristics ers and receive beamformer were used to combine the
in new designs, including bandwidth and refraction- received signals in phase for the steered beam direction,
induced angle bias correction. TEMPER is extensively form monopulse sum and difference channels, and pres-
used to develop requirements for new systems and is ent these signals to centralized receivers. For a high-power
delivered to industry as government-furnished informa- transmit and low sidelobe receive array desired for naval
tion in major Navy acquisition programs. radar applications, the combined transmit and receive
losses of passive arrays were typically quite high and lim-
ited overall system sensitivity (generally speaking, a mea-
SOLID-STATE RADAR sure of the radar’s ability to detect small signals in noise).
The continued advancement and proliferation of low- The Aegis phased array described above is an example of
flying anti-ship cruise missiles, highlighted by the near a passive array. An advancement in the Aegis design was
loss of USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987, drove the the use of a subarray in the transmit beamformer that
need to develop a leak-proof defense of own-ship from allowed the combining of dozens of medium-power tube-
cruise missile attack. This capability required improved based transmitters to improve reliability and prevent very
sensors to detect small, fast raids of maneuvering targets high power from appearing at any one location.
as they cross the ship’s radar horizon. Target detection The next step in this evolutionary process was to place
was made more difficult by the increasing threat capabil- solid-state transistor-based power amplifiers at each ele-
ities, anomalous propagation conditions, and increased ment of the array. Such arrays are known as active elec-
radar clutter in the littoral regions of operation that were tronically scanned arrays (AESAs), and radars that use
becoming more the norm. APL engineers participated AESAs are commonly referred to as solid-state radars.
in multiple studies to develop sensor and combat system An AESA uses T/R modules placed at each element of
solutions to these challenges. In particular, APL led the the array. A typical radar T/R module (Fig. 8) provides
overall direction of the NATO Anti-Air Warfare System several stages of RF power amplification on transmit, low
(NAAWS) study, which was completed in 1991. From noise amplification on receive, a limiter for receive pro-
a radar perspective, these studies identified solid-state tection, a phase shifter for beamsteering and calibration,
radar technology as a means of providing the enhanced and a variable attenuator for receive gain control. Rela-
sensitivity, fast update rates, and the improved system tive to a passive array, the AESA architecture minimizes

Power
Driver amp
amp

Harmonic
Switch Power filter
amp
T/R VGA Amp
Phase Circulator
Switch shifter
Amp LNA Limiter

Figure 8. Typical radar T/R module and block diagram. Amp, amplifier; LNA, low-noise amplifier; VGA, variable gain amplifier. (Reprinted
from Ref. 9.)

146­­­­ Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest
 Radar Development for Air and Missile Defense

transmission and reception losses and greatly improves an X-band AESA-based radar was considered optimal
system sensitivity. Other radar system advantages pro- for shipboard self-defense (horizon search). The choice
vided by the AESA architecture include the ability to of X-band frequency provided favorable low-altitude
operate at higher-duty factors, improved system stability propagation characteristics, narrow beamwidth for track
for target detection in clutter, improved antenna pattern accuracy, wide operating bandwidth, and the ability to
flexibility for electronic protection, general ability to sup- support target illumination for guided missile engage-
port wider operating bandwidths, and improved system ments. The AESA architecture offered significantly
reliability.9 With RF power amplification distributed improved radar sensitivity to support threat character-
across the array in the form of T/R modules, the need for istics and the track update rates to support the reaction
a large centralized transmitter is also eliminated. times required for ship self-defense. APL participated in
AESAs were enabled by the development of mono- concept and requirements development and provided
lithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) technology, significant AESA technology expertise to X-band gal-
which permitted the required microwave circuits to be lium arsenide MMIC and T/R module risk-reduction
realized at chip-scale densities with economical large- efforts. The Navy initiated development of an X-band
scale production because of the batch processing tech- multifunction radar, designated SPY-3, in 1999, and in
niques used in their fabrication. Galium arsenide MMIC 2003 Raytheon delivered the initial SPY-3 radar to the
technology emerged in the late 1980s and continued U.S. Navy’s Surface Combat Systems Center at Wallops
to mature throughout the 1990s through the support Island, Virginia.
of considerable DoD and commercial investment. APL The SPY-3 radar was paired with an S-band solid-
spearheaded the introduction of AESA technology into state radar, referred to as the Volume Search Radar and
surface Navy systems through the CEC program. In 1989, designated SPY-4, to form a Dual-Band Radar suite with
AESA and T/R module technology development became common radar suite control, receiver-exciter, and radar
imperative for achieving the low weight and power con- signal-processing functions. The SPY-4 AESA, devel-
sumption required for CEC airborne terminal develop- oped by Lockheed Martin, is shown in Fig. 9. The Dual-
ment, and APL proceeded to develop an airborne AESA Band Radar suite was originally slated to be installed on
concept and associated T/R module requirements. Under the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer; however, the
the technical direction of APL, ITT developed and fabri- S-band SPY-4 was deleted as a cost-saving measure, and
cated 560 T/R modules with then state-of-the-art power- the SPY-3 software was subsequently modified to provide
added efficiency performance. These modules were the volume search functionality. The full Dual-Band
implemented in an airborne CEC AESA that underwent Radar suite is slated for installation on the first Ford-
successful flight testing in 1994. From this success it was class aircraft carrier, CVN 78.
apparent that upgrade of passive CEC shipboard arrays
to AESA technology would provide significant cost, size,
weight, and reliability benefits. APL subsequently pro- BMD RADAR
vided technical direction for the development and field- During Operation Desert Storm (1991), Iraqi forces
ing of shipboard CEC AESAs developed by Raytheon used ballistic missiles against military and civilian
during the late 1990s. These efforts proved the overall targets with sufficient effect to spur the U.S. Navy to
efficacy and reliability of AESA technology for ship- pursue a BMD capability. Initial studies by APL verified
board use and helped pave
the way for use of the tech-
nology in shipboard radar
systems. As MMIC technol-
ogy continued to mature and
become commoditized, the
AESA architecture became
the standard approach for
advanced radar development
in the first decade of the
21st century.

AN/SPY-3 and AN/SPY-4

Solid-State Radars
Following the results of
the NATO Anti-Air War- Figure 9. Front and back views of the S-band Volume Search Radar. The back view depicts a com-
fare System (NAAWS) monly used architecture for shipboard AESAs in which maintenance access is available for critical
study and other studies, T/R module and power supply assemblies. (Lockheed Martin Corporation.)

Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest 147­­­­
 K. W. O’Haver et al.

the feasibility of modifying the Aegis Combat System, ing Group, which was charged with identifying and
including the AN/SPY-1 radar and Standard Missile-2 exploring well-outside-of-the-box approaches to NMD,
Block IV, to add an Area BMD endo-atmospheric including heavily modified and/or new missile systems,
engagement capability to protect ports and forces ashore launchers, sensors, and ships to provide varying degrees
against ballistic missile threats such as the Scud variety of NMD capability, as well as concepts for globally dis-
seen in Desert Storm. tributing and coordinating sensor and interceptor capa-
Key AN/SPY-1 advances necessary to support the bilities. Many of the basic ideas explored in this early
new Area BMD mission included the ability to respond Navy NMD study (e.g., forward-based sensors near the
to cues from offboard sensors, increased sensitivity, new adversary supporting midcourse interceptors launched
surveillance approaches for early detection of threats, within or near U.S. territory) align well with the current-
new tracking approaches, and new functionality to dis- day MDA’s Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).
criminate ballistic missile warheads. APL worked closely In late 2002, MDA asked APL to assist in standing
in the early to mid-1990s with the Aegis prime contrac- up a new Sensors and Networking Directorate at MDA
tor, Lockheed Martin, and the Naval Surface Warfare (MDA/SN). APL worked hand in hand with the early
Center Dahlgren Division to incrementally design and MDA/SN leadership to define and staff key technical
field-test each of these capabilities. APL continued efforts, including the development of requirements for
to work closely with the team through the late 1990s a European Midcourse Radar (not programmed) and
to implement these new capabilities on top of exist- other midcourse sensor options; MDA decided to repur-
ing Aegis missions in the operational Aegis Baseline 6 pose the THAAD radar (now AN/TPY-2; see Fig. 10)
phase III system. APL also worked closely with Lock- as a forward-based standalone sensor supporting the
heed Martin to integrate CEC into the Aegis Baseline 6 BMDS with early detection, tracking, and discrimina-
phase III Area BMD mission including designs for dis- tion against intercontinental ballistic missiles. APL pro-
tributed weapon coordination and distributed sensor vided technical leadership of the government teams for
coordination—a means to share ballistic missile tracking systems engineering; tracking and discrimination algo-
responsibilities among multiple Area BMD ships. APL rithm development; and command, control, battle man-
continued to support Baseline 6 phase III development, agement, and communication (C2BMC) integration.
performance analysis, and demonstration test planning The second TPY-2 radar to be built is shown in Fig. 10.
into early 2000 when the program was canceled. The U.S. Navy PMS 452 (now MDA/AB) requested
Roughly in parallel with the development of the Area APL leadership in the U.S./Japan Cooperative Develop-
BMD program, the U.S. Navy initiated early develop- ment Program focused on the co-development of weap-
ment of exo-atmospheric intercept capabilities with suc- ons and defense systems capable of serving both the
cessful Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) Japanese defense of their homeland and U.S. defense
demonstrations, first using the Terrier combat system interests against regional threats. In addition to overall
(Terrier-LEAP) and later with Aegis (Aegis Leap Inter- leadership of the cooperative development effort, APL
cept). In addition to the new interceptor that became provided key technical assessments of the capabilities of
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), the new Navy Theater Wide SM-3 future development options. The Lab also assessed
program also included substantial Aegis radar, combat the abilities of the AN/SPY-1 radar (as part of Aegis
system, and weapon system development. Modifications BMD) and the AN/TPY-2 radar (as part of the BMDS)
to AN/SPY-1 included the implementation of a new to support the joint missions. In parallel with the U.S./
waveform to enable discrimination capabilities, new Japan Cooperative Development effort, APL also played
surveillance approaches, and new tracking algorithms. a critical role in the U.S. government gaining permis-
APL provided significant support in the early design and sion from the government of Japan to host the first
analysis of candidate search, association, tracking, and forward-based AN/TPY-2 radar in Japan for defense of
discrimination algorithms. APL also served as a critical the United States against intercontinental ballistic mis-
partner with Lockheed Martin and Raytheon in the cer- siles. APL provided technical advice to MDA through-
tification of the initial Theater BMD capability through out this process, provided technical support for direct
the Linebacker program in the early 2000s and has con- MDA discussions with the Japan Defense Agency as
tinued in this role through today’s Aegis BMD baselines. well as several ministries of the government of Japan,
With area and theater-wide BMD development and supported joint site surveys with the Japan Defense
efforts ongoing, the U.S. Navy became interested in Forces that led to approval to install the first AN/TPY-2
the types of roles they might play in National Missile forward-based radar overseas at a former Japan Defense
Defense (NMD). In late 1999, a large Navy NMD study Forces airbase in Shariki, Aomori Prefecture, Japan.
team was assembled including APL, Navy laboratories In 2014, the MDA initiated the Long Range Discrimi-
and warfare centers, and several key federally funded nation Radar (LRDR) effort to identify and procure a
research and development centers across the country. new midcourse discrimination capability to supplement
For this effort, APL led the Concept Formulation Work- the existing BMDS. APL led the systems engineering

148­­­­ Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest
 Radar Development for Air and Missile Defense

portion of the sensor trade studies that identified perfor- development, leveraging existing analysis tools and
mance requirements and siting suitability and developed capabilities to assess the LRDR design and performance.
the LRDR element specification. Key characteristics of
the radar include operation at S-band (~3 GHz), wide
instantaneous field of view to enable wide-area defense INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR
against raids, wide instantaneous bandwidth and a large The AMDR program was initiated in the early 2000s
suite of discrimination features to support robust mid- to provide the Navy with next-generation air and mis-
course discrimination, and high sensitivity to provide sile defense capabilities enabled by state-of-the-art radar
this discrimination capability at the long ranges required. technologies.
The choice of S-band for LRDR was a compromise:
S-band was assessed to provide acceptable performance
for much lower cost than an X-band (~10 GHz) system at
Defining Studies
the same sensitivity and field of view. Trade study analy- The AMDR program is the culmination of multiple
sis indicated that although discrimination performance detailed trade studies and technology risk-reduction
at X-band would be superior, it was not sufficiently better efforts that were aimed at meeting a broad set of radar
than the performance at S-band to justify the cost dif- mission demands with an open and scalable architecture.
ferential. Another compromise in the frequency band During the early phases of the AMDR program, APL
trade is the impact of the ionosphere on performance. had lead roles in the development of operational require-
Ionospheric impacts on RF signals roll off sharply with ments and top-level system requirements. APL contin-
increasing frequency, and above L-band (~1 GHz), they ues to provide technical leadership and oversight to
tend to be negligible in many cases. APL’s early trade ensure that AMDR, recently designated the AN/SPY-6,
study analysis suggested that the dispersion and scintil- provides the planned DDG 51 Flight III destroyers with
lation impacts would still be present at S-band (negli- the requisite sensor performance to conduct and sustain
gible at X-band), although sufficient means existed to forward operations in future threat environments.
mitigate those effects through design and radar opera- In 2000, the U.S. Navy established the Surface Navy
tion choices. APL is continuing work to better under- Radar Roadmap, which, among other things, recognized
stand the dynamic characteristics of the ionosphere and the need for increased radar sensitivity beyond the cur-
the impacts on radar. rent AN/SPY-1 to meet evolving BMD needs, increased
In late 2015, the MDA selected Lockheed Martin clutter rejection to address small targets in littoral envi-
to produce the LRDR system. Their approach heavily ronments, and wide instantaneous bandwidth for BMD
leverages the hardware design Lockheed Martin devel- discrimination. An early digital array radar study identi-
oped during the AMDR technology development (TD) fied a distributed receiver and exciter radar architecture
phase of that program as well as algorithms and soft- and digital beamforming as key enablers of a future radar
ware developed for AN/SPY-1 for Aegis BMD and Aegis system to meet these needs. A follow-on 2003 gap anal-
Ashore. With its familiarity with both the Lockheed ysis defined the capability needs of the Next Genera-
Martin AMDR TD phase hardware and the AN/SPY-1 tion Guided Missile Cruiser, called CG(X) at the time,
algorithms and discrimination functionality, the Lab and its associated multi-mission radar. The analysis of
continues to support government oversight of the radar alternatives that followed assessed the cost, schedule,
and performance of various ship and radar alternatives,
including different frequency bands and combinations,
radar sensitivities, and architectural and technology
solutions. Ultimately the analysis of alternatives con-
cluded that the preferred option for a new radar was a
large S-band radar sized for simultaneous BMD and area
air defense coupled with a smaller X-band radar sized for
self-defense. The recommended radar, though scaled to
a smaller size, would ultimately become AMDR.
The Radar/Hull Study was a key effort in which
APL provided technical leadership and guidance to
the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Devel-
opment, and Acquisition study co-leads. The Radar/
Hull Study compared cost, performance, schedule, and
future extensibility of AMDR, with digital beamforming
Figure 10. AN/TPY-2 radar no. 2, the first forward-based BMDS and an all-new active phased-array design, to a modi-
radar in testing at Vandenberg Air Force Base. fied active array AN/SPY-4, with conventional analog

Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest 149­­­­
 K. W. O’Haver et al.

beamforming. The radar solutions were compared in dif- risk-reduction activities. Notable examples are in the
ferent combinations of combat system (Aegis Combat areas of digital array and gallium nitride power ampli-
System versus Total Ship Computing Environment) and fier development. A subsequent Digital Array Radar
ship hulls (DDG 51 versus DDG 1000). The results of Study identified a distributed receiver and exciter radar
the Radar/Hull Study led U.S. Navy leadership to con- architecture and digital beamforming as key enablers
clude that a scaled version of AMDR integrated on the of a future system to meet these needs. APL was a key
DDG 51 hull with a future version of the Aegis Combat participant in the Digital Array Radar Study, which ini-
System was the preferred solution. Following senior- tially identified digital beamforming as a key enabling
level review of the Radar/Hull Study, and informed by technology for AMDR, and has subsequently been at
the decision to continue the DDG 51 program with pro- the forefront of several digital array radar risk-reduction
curement of additional Flight IIA ships, the Navy can- activities. APL engineers served as the technical lead
celed the CG(X) program in April 2010 and directed the for two international digital array radar risk-reduction
AMDR program to proceed to the next milestone. programs that developed and tested experimental digi-
With the conclusion of the Radar/Hull Study and tal arrays: the Advanced Radar Technology Integrated
cancellation of CG(X), the nominal capability and System Test-bed program, carried out jointly between
configuration of AMDR was established. AMDR is a the governments of the United States and the United
suite of two radars, AMDR-S (S-band) and an X-band Kingdom, and the Australian United States Phased
radar, with a Radar Suite Controller to coordinate the Array Radar program, carried out jointly between the
activities of the two radars. Per the Radar/Hull Study, governments of the United States and Australia. High-
the AMDR system is slated to be installed on DDG 51 power, high-efficiency power amplifier technology
Flight III destroyers. The high-level operations and roles was recognized early on as a key enabling technology
for AMDR are illustrated in Fig. 11. for AMDR. APL subject-matter experts supported the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office
Technology Risk Reduction of Naval Research, and other offices and programs that
During the early concept and requirements develop- invested heavily in developing gallium nitride power
ment, APL also participated in a variety of technology amplifier technology.

Kill assessment
support (BMD) BMD cued
acquisition

Midcourse track
Interceptor and discrimination Threat
comms evaluation
Terminal track
and discrimination

IAMD
Interceptor 1 BMD
comms autonomous search

Kill assessment
Dedicated support (AAW) Electronic protection
track and NCTR

AAW
AAW area defense
self-defense
Four-face AAW
volume search
with DBF

SUW
Four-face AAW Surface search
horizon search and track
with DBF
1 SPY-6 data passed off-ship via Flight III DDG tactical data links

Figure 11. Operational view of AMDR/AN/SPY-6. AAW, anti-air warfare; DBF, digital beamforming; IAMD, integrated air and missile
defense; NCTR, noncooperative target recognition; SUW, surface warfare.

150­­­­ Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest
 Radar Development for Air and Missile Defense

AMDR-S Development In the TD phase, the contractors refined system

The AMDR program affords a once-in-a-generation concepts to a sufficient level of detail to allow them to
opportunity to develop the complete replacement for the develop specifications and conduct initial preliminary
surface Navy’s primary fire control sensor (AN/SPY-1). design reviews, all in a competitive environment where
Recognizing this in 2005, the Office of the Chief of each contractor was incentivized to thoroughly explore
Naval Operations directed the Above Water Sensors the cost/performance trade space. The government sys-
Directorate of Program Executive Office Integrated War- tems engineering team partnered with each contractor
fare Systems (PEO IWS 2.0) to begin the long-lead pro- to ensure that the concepts evolved to fully address Navy
cess of generating top-level radar performance (TLRP) requirements. The result was a competitive landscape
requirements in preparation for a multiphase acquisition at the time the engineering and manufacturing devel-
program. Given the significant operational demands of opment (EMD) request for proposal was released, with
the integrated air and missile defense mission, coupled three relatively mature designs as a basis for proposal. At
with the cost and implied technology development needs this point, the government team had an unprecedented
of an advanced maritime radar, PEO IWS 2.0 sponsored understanding of each of the contractor designs with
a multi-organizational government team, for which APL respect to cost and performance and was well positioned
provided technical leadership in several areas, to develop to ensure the best value in the next phase of develop-
a government concept architecture. This reference ment. From the early study phases through the TD
architecture was developed in parallel with the TLRP phase, APL provided critical contributions to AMDR
in order to underpin and justify the feasibility of the via leadership roles in system architecture, modeling and
requirements being established. Guided by top-level per- simulation, software development, physical and electri-
formance needs defined by the Maritime Air and Missile cal ship integration, and testing and evaluation.
Defense of the Joint Forces Analysis of Alternatives and In 2014, the AMDR EMD contract was competi-
Radar/Hull Study, a top-level architecture concept was tively awarded to Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems,
synthesized to provide the level of radar performance based in Sudbury, Massachusetts. Coming out of the TD
determined by these past Navy studies. This concept was phase, the radar hardware design was relatively mature,
deemed feasible to implement in modern radar hardware with only a few changes planned to components based
and software architectures, as guided by subject-matter on the TD phase testing experience. The technologies
experts from APL and other government laboratories.
The TLRP became the requirements basis for a
6-month competitive concept studies phase in which
three U.S. defense prime contractors (Lockheed Martin,
Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon) each developed
their own radar architecture and design concepts. This
concept phase validated the performance goals of the
TLRP, with changes only in secondary areas of design
concern; provided feedback to industry in areas where
their proposed concepts were inconsistent with the
requirements; identified and solidified the principal
areas of technology development that would be pursued
in the subsequent TD phase; and validated that key
ship constraints (weight/power/cooling/footprint) were
appropriately addressed in each contractor’s concept.
During a subsequent TD phase, each of the three prime
contractors were tasked with the following objectives:
• Demonstrate maturity of critical technologies.
• Develop an initial system design to a level sufficient
to conduct a preliminary design review.
• Conduct a technology demonstration review to pres-
ent test data and analysis of demonstrations.
• Conduct a systems requirements review, system
functional review, test readiness review, and a pre-
liminary design review. Figure 12. AN/SPY-6(V) installed at the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Missile
Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii. (Raytheon photo; reproduced with
• Provide a TD prototype. permission from Raytheon.)

Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest 151­­­­
 K. W. O’Haver et al.

employed in the design were assessed as being at the tional multifunction phased-array radar technology of
required technology readiness level of TRL 6. Aegis and concluding with recent technical leadership
APL provided oversight and subject-matter expertise in the development of the Navy’s new AMDR. Through-
in the development of the AMDR architecture and the out this history, APL has played the roles of innovator,
associated hardware and software during the AMDR technical advisor, and partner with government and
TD phase. In the current EMD phase, APL continues industry to introduce these capabilities. These accom-
to provide this type of support for government oversight plishments are the result of a dedicated and technically
of Raytheon’s agile software development process, algo- diverse staff and an adherence to a systems engineer-
rithms development, modeling and simulation (which ing process that includes concept development, devel-
will be used to sell off many key requirements), cyberse- opment and application of enabling technology, critical
curity, and ongoing ship integration analysis and designs. experiments, transition to industry producers, rigorous
The full AN/SPY-6 engineering development model testing, and evaluation of effectiveness against continu-
array has been delivered to and installed at the Advanced ing evolving threats. This process continues today with
Radar Detection Laboratory at the Pacific Missile Range new radar technology and system and system-of-system
Facility in Kauai, Hawaii (Fig. 12). AMDR-S will undergo innovations in development. APL is committed to con-
demonstration testing at the Advanced Radar Detection tinued innovation and application of the systems engi-
Laboratory for all missions during FY2017 before pro- neering perspective and practice to ensure future success
ceeding to ship and combat system integration. Because in outpacing rapidly evolving threats.
of the Laboratory’s long, successful history supporting
Aegis BMD testing, it has several key responsibilities in REFERENCES
the area of BMD flight testing, including target and mis- 1Gussow, M., and Prettyman, E. C., “Typhon—A System Ahead of its
sion requirements development, trajectory evaluation, Time,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 13(1), 82–89 (1992).
radar cross section prediction and measurement, sce- 2Frank, J., Shipley, C. A., Grady, H. M., and Kuck, J., “Latching Ferrite

nario planning and analysis, configuration management, Phase Shifter for Phased Arrays,” Microw. J. 10, 97–102 (1967).
3Frank, J., and O’Haver, K. W., “Phased Array Antenna Development
materials science and materials application, target-based at the Applied Physics Laboratory,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig.
instrumentation (e.g., imaging sensor payloads) and asso- 14(4), 339–347 (1993).
ciated ground support equipment, terminal target (mock 4Phillips, C. C., “Aegis: Advanced Multi-Function Array Radar,” Johns
Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 2(4), 246–249 (1981).
reentry vehicle) prototypes, satellite collision avoidance, 5Irzinski, E. P., “APL Contributions to Aegis,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech.
and post-mission target trajectory reconstruction. Dig. 2(4), 250–255 (1981).
6Rottier, J. R., Rowland, J. R., Konstanzer, G. C., Goldhirsh, J., and
Dockery, G. D., “APL Environmental Assessment for Naval Anti-Air
Warfare,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 22(4), 447–461 (2001).
CONCLUSION 7Newkirk, M. H., Gehman, J. Z., and Dockery, G. D., “Advances in

Throughout the Laboratory’s history, its engineers Calculating Electromagnetic Field Propagation Near the Earth’s Sur-
face,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 22(4), 462–472 (2001).
have played leading roles in developing and evolving 8Sylvester, J. J., Konstanzer, G. C., Rottier, J. R., Dockery, G. D., and

advanced radar capabilities to counter ever-advancing Rowland, J. R., “Aegis Anti-Air Warfare Tactical Decision Aids,”
air, cruise missile, and ballistic missile threats. This arti- Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 22(4), 473–487 (2001).
9Agrawal, A. K., Kopp, B. A., Luesse, M. H., and O’Haver, K. W.,
cle highlights some major accomplishments, beginning “Active Phased Array Antenna Development for Modern Shipboard
with the development and prototyping of the founda- Radar Systems,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 22(4), 600–613 (2001).

Kenneth W. O’Haver, Air and Missile Christopher K. Barker, Air and Missile
Defense Sector, Johns Hopkins University Defense Sector, Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD
Kenneth O’Haver is a Principal Profes- Christopher Barker is a Principal Profes-
sional Staff member and Chief Scientist in sional Staff member and program manager
the Sensor and Communications Branch in APL’s Air and Missile Defense Sector.
in APL’s Air and Missile Defense Sector. He received a B.S. in political science
He received a B.S. in electrical engineering from the United States Naval Academy
from Virginia Tech and an M.S. in electrical engineering from and served as a commissioned officer and carrier aviator in the
Johns Hopkins University. He has over 30 years of experience E-2C Hawkeye community. Since joining APL in 2009, he has
in the development of advanced radar systems, communica- managed the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) program
tions systems, electronic warfare systems, phased-array anten- and other related advanced Surface Navy radar development
nas, and advanced RF technologies. He has published numer- initiatives. In 2014, he and teammates were granted the APL
ous technical papers and has presented at various conferences. Achievement Award for Outstanding Mission Accomplish-
His e-mail address is [email protected]. ment for their contributions to AMDR capabilities. His e-mail
address is [email protected].

152­­­­ Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest
 Radar Development for Air and Missile Defense

G. Daniel Dockery, Air and Missile James D. Huffaker, Air and Missile
Defense Sector, Johns Hopkins University Defense Sector, Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD
G. Daniel Dockery is a Principal Profes- James Dodd Huffaker is a Principal Profes-
sional Staff member and Supervisor of sional Staff member and Assistant Super-
the Sensor and Communication Systems visor of the Sensor and Communication
Branch in APL’s Air and Missile Defense Systems Branch in APL’s Air and Missile
Sector. He received a B.S. in physics and an Defense Sector. He received a B.S. and an
M.S. in electrical engineering, both from Virginia Tech. He M.S. in electrical engineering, both from Georgia Tech. He has
completed coursework in the University of Maryland’s Ph.D. 30 years’ experience in advanced radar system development,
program in electrical engineering. Since joining APL in 1983, analysis, testing, and simulation for the U.S. Navy and Missile
Dan has worked in the areas of EM propagation and radar Defense Agency, primarily focused on AN/TPY-2, Aegis AN/
engineering as well as environmental characterization for U.S. SPY-1, and AN/SPY-6. His e-mail address is dodd.huffaker@
Navy radar and communication systems. His e-mail address is jhuapl.edu.
[email protected].

Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018), www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest 153­­­­