Recent Developments in Russian Radar Systems

David K. Barton
ANRO Engineering
450 Bedford Street
Lexington, MA 02173

Abstract - During the past several decades, the Soviet Union

investment in air defense systems has exceeded that of the Westem
nations. New relationships with the West have provided opportunities for
us to see aspects of a new generation of Russian radar engineering not
previously evident, with some surprising results. A few of these are
described here, in areas of surface-to-air missile control radar systems
using new types of phased arrays, unlike those developed in the U.S. and
allied countries. The major features of some of these systems, and
differences from Westem design practices, are discussed.This paper is an
expanded version of a luncheon talk presented at the IEEE National Radar
Conference in Atlanta, March 29, 1994.

launch control, and for midcourse corrections resulting from target

maneuver. Terminal guidance of the interceptor is provided by a
semiactive seeker, homing on reflected CW illumination from the
TELAR. An important feature of the missile is its directional warhead,
which concentrates most of the 20-g fragments in a 60 60 cone. The
missile is rolled within the last second prior to intercept to direct this cone
at the target.

SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM DESIGN
SA-I2 Field Army Defense System
Two major SAM systems provide examples of Russian radar design
practice. The SA-12 field army defense system, Russian designation
S300V, was designed to defend tactical army forces and their support
facilities against tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs), cruise missiles (CMs),
aerodynamic missiles, aeroballistic missiles such as the U.S. short-range
attack missile (SRAM), and conventional aircraft [l].The system uses two
types of interceptor missile, each carried on it transporter-erector-launcherradar (TELAR), Figs. 1 and 2. The missiles are identical except for a
larger booster on the Giant, which gives it a maximum velocity of 2500 m/
s, compared to 1700 m/s for the smaller Gladiator missile (NATO names
for the Russian equipment will be used here, rather than the Russian type
numbers). The missile is launched vertically from its cannister to about 25
m altitude and then oriented along its initial trajectory by reaction motors
prior to firing of the main motor. This gives a 360 field of fire without use
of the cumbersome trainable launchers characteristic of U.S. systems.
Both types of interceptor are guided by a multitarget tracking phased
array, Grill Pan (Fig. 3), which provides target data for prelaunch loading
into the missile of approximate midcourse inertial guidance data, for

Figure 2 SA-I2 TELAR for the larger Giant interceptor, two of which are
carried i n cannisters, erected for vertical launch.

Figure 3 SA-I2 Grill Pan, an X-band multitarget tracking radar. The Bill
Board surveillance radar is behind Grill Pan.

Figure 1 SA-12 TELAR for the smaller Gladiator interceptor, four of which
are c a n i d i n cannisters, erected for vertical launch.

340
0-7803-2120-0/95/0000-0340
$4.000 (1995 IEEE)

IEEE INTERNATIONAL RADAR CONFERENCE

Target acquisition data are provided through a command post by two

organic surveillance radars, supplemented by an extemal network. The
Bill Board 3D radar (Fig. 4) rotates through 360 in azimuth, while
electronically scanning a pencil beam in elevation from the horizon to a
selected upper limit (up to 65). This radar is designed primarily for
aerodynamic targets. The High Screen sector surveillance radar (Fig. 5 )
scans an assigned sector at high elevation, with azimuth coverage up to a
90 sector, covering the TBM threat corridors. Either surveillance radar can
be assigned to scan a sector at high or low elevation for special threat
conditions.

radio links, with telescopic antenna masts mounted on each vehicle. Each
vehicle also has onboard navigation equipment which provides a horizon
and North reference and parallax correction. Power is supplied by gas
turbines wiih 125 kVA capacity at 400 Hz in the radars, 65 kVA in the
TELARs and command post, each having backup from an alternator
mounted on the vehicle engine.

SA-IO Air Defense System

The SA-10 system, Russian designation S300PMU, is designed
primarily for defense against aerodynamic and aeroballistic targets, with
residual capability against TBMs. The equipment was designed for the Air
Defense foirces, and has road mobility using wheeled vehicles. The Flap
Lid fire control radar (Fig. 6) acquires and tracks up to six designated
targets, providing tracking and guidance data for up to twelve interceptor
missiles. Tlhe Grumble missile is launched vertically from its cannister
and oriented by reaction motors, as with the SA-12 missiles. Command
guidance is used for midcourse, and may continue through the terminal
phase. Nornnally, semiactive homing takes over for terminal guidance,
illumination being supplied by Hap Lid.

Figure 4 Bill Board Wand 3D surveillance radar, used in the SA-12

system primarily for aerodynamictargets.

Figure 6 Flap Lid X-band multitarget tracking and fire control radar, used
for guidance of SA-10 missiles.

Figure 5 High Screen X-hand pencil-beam sector-scanning radar, used in the

SA-I2 system primarily for ballistic targets.

An SA-12 battery consists of a command unit, with a command post

and its two associated surveillance radars, controlling up to four fire units,
each having a Grill Pan tracking radar and up to three of each type of
TELAR. The command post can handle 200 targets, 70 of them in track
simultaneously, and its fire units can engage 24 targets simultaneously
with up to 48 missiles. All units of the SA-12 system are mounted on
tracked vehicles, designed for off-road mobility with very short setup and
redeployment times. Communication between units is entirely through

Figure 7 Big Bird S-hand 3D surveillance radar, used in the SA-IO system
for targets at medium and high altitude.

341

IEEE INTERNATIONAL RADAR CONFERENCE

Target designation and threat ordering are provided by a command post

and its associated Big Bird 3D radar (Fig. 7). Data from external radar
networks also feeds into the command post, where targets are assigned to
one of three to six fire units for Flap Lid acquisition and tracking. To
supplement these designations on low-altitude targets, each fire unit has a
Clam Shell low-altitude surveillance radar, which scans a 1 beam around
the horizon. Pop-up targets are transferred directly to the nearby Flap Lid
for tracking, and if they meet the threat profile they are assigned a high
priority for intercept. Interceptor launches are normally controlled by the
command post, but local reaction at the Flap Lid is possible when the time
line is short.

Naval Air Defense System

The SA-N-6 naval air defense system uses the same missile as the SA10, but the space-fed lens of Flap Lid is replaced by the space-fed
reflectarray radar, Top Dome (Fig. 8). Surveillance and designation data
for this system are provided by conventional naval 3D radars.

Figure 8 Top Dome X-band multitarget fire control radar for SA-N-6 naval

air defense system, using space-fed reflectarray antenna.

History of Development
Historically, the SA-12 and SA-10 systems were developed in a
competitive program for the S300 system, with a decision on which
system to produce planned after testing of prototypes. The test results
showed the SA-12 to have superior mobility and performance against
TBMs, while SA-10 was judged superior against cruise missiles and other
targets at low altitude. As a result, both systems were placed in
production, with SA-10 leading in time and numbers of units produced.
Continued improvements were made in both systems, increasing the
overlap of their capabilities. Thus we see an example within Soviet (and
now Russian) military system development of competition leading to cost
reduction and performance improvement, while the U.S. carried forward a
single program without competition (and with predictable results in terms
of cost, effectiveness, and obsolescence). Another example of the Russian
approach is the use of a common missile for land and naval systems.
While the basic radar approach used for the two applications is similar,
the Russian naval systems appear to prefer the space-fed reflectarray
antenna to the space-fed lens.

Use of space-fed arrays with multimode monopulse feeds to provide

reduced spillover and low sidelobes in both sum and difference channels;
Use of Faraday rotator phase shifters designed for minimum
complexity, loss, and cost, and having reciprocal characteristics for
transmission and reception of opposite-sense circular polarizations;
Reliance on polarization duplexing and low-noise electrostatic RF
preamplifiers to eliminate TIR devices, circulators, and solid-state limiters
and their losses; and
System design to permit the multitarget tracker to use medium- and
high-PRF burst waveforms on relatively long dwells, providing rejection
of rain, chaff, and birds while retaining the sensitivity needed to detect
low-RCS targets.
Each of these features will be discussed in detail below.

Space-Fed Arrays
Westem developers of phased array radars have, since 1960, been
preoccupied with constrained-feed designs (for a discussion of altemative
feed methods, see [3, 41). Only the Patriot radar has achieved production
status with a space-fed array. The Missile Site Radar of the Safeguard
AMB system used a space-fed lens at a very high power level, but only
two were built and these have been decommissioned. An instrumentation
radar, the Multiple Object Tracking Radar, has been built by RCA/GE/
Martin-Marietta to replace or supplement radars of the AN/FPS-16 class
at missile test ranges, but only four have been delivered. In spite of its use
of a space-fed lens, the cost of this radar has discouraged wider
application. The major Westem designers and users of, and writers on,
phased arrays tend to ignore or reject the space-fed approach. One major
U S . engineering organization, with heavy influence on govemment
studies, contributed as recently as 1988 the judgment that space-feed
techniques were not sufficiently mature to be considered as an early
option for large antennas in space-based radar. A major course in phased
array antennas, conducted in 1993-94 by the IEEE, did not even include
mention of the space-fed array in its detailed outline of subjects. Such
attitudes in Westem radar engineering have left the development of
advanced space-fed array technology almost entirely to Russian engineers,
and they have moved vigorously into the void.
The primary advantage of space feed is its elimination of multiple
couplers and transmission lines as sources of loss, mismatch, weight, and
cost in the array. These components are replaced by feed homs in the
focal plane of a lens or reflector composed of phase-shifting elements.
The elements are coupled through space to the feed, as well as to the
target. In a reflectarray (Fig. 9), there is only one set of radiators on the
elements, illuminated by the hom, radiating into (and receiving from) the
beam in space. A short circuit at the end of each phase shifter retums the
wave to space, with twice the one-way phase shift. Obviously, the phase
shifter must be reciprocal, and this is accomplished using a circularly
polarized wave through a Faraday rotator phase shifting element. A righthand polarization at the input is converted to left-hand at the short circuit,
and vice-versa.

LOW-COST,
HIGH-PERFORMANCE
ARRAY RADARS
The fire control radars of the SA-12 and SA-10 systems (and of SA-N6) illustrate a unique Russian approach to modem, high-fire-power SAM
systems, achieved at relatively low cost. (While no radar having twocoordinate electronic scan is actually low in cost, there are significant cost
differences between the several design options, as will be described
below.) The major features of the Russian multitarget fire control radars
are :

342
IEEE INTERNATIONAL RADAR CONFERENCE

Figure 9 Cross Swords K,-band multitarget naval fire control radar, using

space-fed reflectanay antenna.

In a space-fed lens (Figs. 3, 5, 6), there are two radiators on each

element, one on the side facing the hom and one facing beam space. A
typical group of lens elements is shown in Fig. 10. Matching from space
into the circular waveguide is done with elongated dielectric plugs,
minimizing reflections from (and losses at) the array faces. In the Russian
designs, a thin plastic sheet covers each face, keeping rain, ice, and
condensation off the radiators. Some loss will be encountered if a water
film forms on this sheet, but its coating discourages the formation of such
films.

The Russian radar establishment embraced the Faraday rotator as the

basis for a new class of phased array tracking radars. The use of circular
polarization is desirable in missile guidance, as it permits simple, linearly
polarized missile antennas to be used without sensitivity to missile
attitude. The Faraday rotator phase shifter is reciprocal if opposite senses
of circular polarization are used for transmission and reception, capturing
the predominant, single-bounce echo from the target. Doppler processing
is relied upon for rejection of rain. The availability of reciprocal phase
shifters permits multiple-pulse doppler burst waveforms to be transmitted
and received without changing the phase shifter magnetization, and
switching o~f the magnetic field is needed only when changing beam
position. Since the system design is based on relatively long dwells in
each beam i(typical1y several ms), a reasonably long time can be allowed
for phase shifter switching, and this reduces the cost of the ferrite material
and drive circuits [2].
The SA-1% Grill Pan and High Screen radars use space-fed lens arrays
of 10,000 and 20,000 elements, respectively. The phase shifters have a
control range of 720, using separate row and column control regions in
series, each with its control coil. A single driver for each row drives all its
element coils in series, and similarly for each column. Thus, a 10,000
element circular array using 112 rows and 112 columns requires only 2 x
112 = 224 drivers, rather than the 10,000 required for individual element
control. Array collimation (focusing) is applied as an additive drive
command proportional to the square of the row or column displacement
from the center of the array. For an fD= 1, the error of this .x? + y2
collimation function, relative to perfect focusing, is less than 0.1 dB,
appearing as a 1% broadening of the main lobe. The phase shifter loss for
the 720 unit is only 1520% greater than for the conventional 360-deg
unit, and is approximately 0.8 dB one way. The control speed with series
coils is slower than for individual element control, but times from 30 to
400 s are allowable.

Figure 10 Phase shifting element group from the SA-10 Flap Lid radar.

The common objections of Western engineers to the space feed are that
the illumination cannot be controlled accurately by simple hom structures
(e.g., to produce Taylor and Bayliss illuminations), spillover loss and
sidelobes may be produced when the hom illuminates the edges of the
array structure, and mismatch losses at the face are doubled by the spacefeed geometry. However, the design of multimode hom structures has
been carried by the Russian designers to the point that low-sidelobe
illuminations with negligible spillover are available. They have used the
thirty years since appearance of Hannan's classic paper [5] to make
advancements in this important area of antenna technology. Careful
design of the radiating elements can hold the two-way reflection losses to
the order of 0.1 dB over the angles used for feeding and beam scanning.
Advantages of space feed, in addition to its simplicity, lie in the ability
to form multiple beams, both for monopulse tracking and for simultaneous
search over several beamwidths with long dwells (see below). In future
developments, additional beamports in the focal plane may be
implemented to support adaptive nulling systems, making use of the high
gain of the full aperture and simplifying the control algorithms.
Mechanically, the fact that there are no RF lines coupled to the array
face makes it possible to fold the array without using rotary joints and
without opening the waveguide ends to extemal contaminants. The
elimination of lines and couplers simplifies the array structure and its
mechanical supports. Individual array elements are accessible for removal
and inspection, and no RF connectors are involved in this process. These
considerations are not of great importance in large (e.g., UHF) arrays
using active modules, and in such arrays (e.g., Pave Paws) the
accessibility of modules is actually better than would have been the case if
a space-fed lens had been used. However, for the tactical array radar it
must be concluded that a space-fed system has major advantages.

Low -Noise Receiver Protection

Conventional Westem practice in high-power radar design is to use a
ferrite circulator or gas-tube T/R device, followed by a solid-state switch
or limiter in the receiver path. A loss of 0.4 to 0.6 dB in each of these
circuit elements is expected. In arrays using nonreciprocal phase shifters,
the circulator can be replaced by phase-shifter switching between transmit
and receive. In Patriot, separate feed homs are used, with an additive
linear phase function applied to the array on transmit, to focus the array on
the transm:it hom (space duplexing). In Aegis, subarray pairs are
combined in a hybrid junction, and 180-deg relative phase shift within the
pair switches the subarray from the transmit feed port to the receive feed
port. The resulting isolation is about 25 dB, depending on array match,
and a solid-:stateprotector is required prior to the receiver.

In the Russian approach, the first 25 dB isolation is obtained by use of

opposite (orthogonal) circular polarizations for transmit and receive. On
transmit, the linearly polarized wave from the hom passes through a
quarter-wave: grating at 45-deg orientation, producing (say) right-hand CP
at the array. Single-bounce target reflections arrive at the array with lefthand CP, and are converted to vertical polarization by the 45-deg grating.
This polarization is accepted by the multimode monopulse feed, which is
isolated frorri the transmitted energy.
In the SA-10 Flap Lid, the transmit-receive isolation is achieved with a
polarized planar reflector (Fig. 1l), placed between the feed homs and the
array at an angle 45-deg from the array axis. In the SA-12 radars, the
polarizing grating is integrated with the feedhom assembly, which uses an
orthomode born design to separate transmit from receive ports. In each
case, transmitter leakage (> 100 W peak) is above the tolerable level for
low-noise receivers. A special electrostatic RF amplifier has been
designed which can accept such levels without damage, recovering
instantly to amplify received signals with a noise factor of 3 - 4 dB. This
fast recovery, to an ultrastable gain state, is essential for high clutter
cancellation in the high-PRF mode.

Phase Shifter Design

In 1962, engineers at Raytheon had designed an experimental X-band
array, using a space-fed reflector with Faraday rotator phase shifters. This
design was the simplest, least expensive option, but it required that
circularly polarized waves be used, and is nonreciprocal if the same sense
of polarization is to be transmitted and received (as necessary for rain
cancellation, for example). This array approach was rejected by military
customers in the US., and subsequent developments proceeded along
other lines.

The Russian emphasis on overall RF efficiency is in contrast to Westem

phased array design practice. Tables 1, 2, and 3 compare the RF losses of
Grill Pan with estimates for typical U.S. systems using space feed (Table
2) and constrained feed with subarrays (Table 3). The advantages of 3 and

343
IEEE INTERNATIONAL RADAR CONFERENCE

Table 3: RF Loss Estimates for U.S Subarray System

Component

Figure 11 Flap Lid antenna feed configuration.

1
I

7.6 dB would not apply to active jamming environments in which the

sidelobe response of the arrays to jamming exceeds the receiver noise, but
even in these cases the transmit power advantages of 1.0 and 4.6 dB
would be significant.

Table 1: RF Loss Estimates for Grill Pan

I

Ferrite circulator duplexer

Solid-state receiver protector

0.4

0.4

Column feed network

0.8

1.6

Row feed network

0.8

1.6

Phase shifter

1.0

2.0

Waveguide, Tx

1.5

1.5

Waveguide, Rx

1.o

1.0

Face switch
O t h e r ~ xloss

I
I

1.0

1.9

Transmit loss

7.0

Receive loss

5.0

Total RF loss

I
I
I

1.9

1
I

12.0

2.0

Component

Radar Modes, Waveforms, and Processing

0

Ferrite circulator duplexer

Solid-state receiver protector

Column feed network

Row feed network

1
I
I
I
I
1

Illumination spillover

0.8

1.6

Phase shifter

0.8

1.6

Transmit loss

I
1
I

Receive loss

Total RF loss

Waveguide, Tx
Waveguide, Rx

0.8

0.4
2.4
2.0

I
I

I
I
I

0.8

0.4

4.4

I
1
1
I

I
I

Table 2: RF Loss Estimates for U.S. Space-Fed Array

Component

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Ferrite circulator duplexer

Solid-state receiver protector

0.4

0.4

Column feed network

Row feed network

1
I

0.8

I
I

Waveguide, Rx

1.0

Transmit loss

3.4

Illumination spillover
Phaseshifter

1.2

1.6

I
I

1.0

2.4

Waveguide, Tx

Receive loss
TotalRFloss

7.4

I
344

IEEE INTERNATIONAL RADAR CONFERENCE

When several targets must be engaged at once, economics dictate the

use of an electronically scanned fire control radar. In Westem systems,
this fact has become distorted to favor the so-called multifunction array
radar (MFAR) approach, in which one radar performs both search and fire
control functions. This has been justified on the basis of cost advantages
over multiple, more specialized radars, but it has also driven the MFAR
costs up and performance down. In fact, the high cost of the MFAR
almost guarantees that there will be insufficient program funding to
provide supplementary search radars.
The main problems in the WARapproach have been:
Need to accept a compromise frequency, too high for good search
performance and too low for good tracking;
Need to budget transmitted power between search and track modes;
Need to budget time between search and track modes, with resulting
short dwells and long revisit intervals for both;
Need to match waveforms and processing to the available short dwells,
rather than to the requirements of the radar environment; and
Need for complex software for dynamic scheduling and control, often
leading to inability to schedule the available radar resources and to
conflicts between different modes of operation.
These problems have led to MFAR design compromises which are
incompatible with requirements for detection and tracking of low-RCS
targets in environments containing extended clouds of rain or chaff, or
large numbers of birds in the low-altitude regions. Figure 12 shows the
velocity spectra of typical moving clutter sources, the required clutter
rejection notch width of 40 m/s, and the response of target doppler filters
above this notch. Unless the basic blind speed of the radar waveform can
provide adequate target detection while supporting the rejection notch, the
radar's sensitivity to low-RCS targets must be compromised in beams
covering the lower atmosphere. In chaff and rain, which often extend
beyond the unambiguous range of the waveform, even normal targets may
be lost.
One practical approach to the clutter problem is to use PRF diversity,
with two or more bursts of pulses in each beam position, each burst
having a blind speed in excess of about 120 m/s but avoiding overlap with
the blind regions of the other. Figure 13 shows the response of an
acceptable dual PRF-diversity waveform which covers target velocities
from 40 to 480 m/s, requiring an average blind speed of 140 m/s, with 16
pulses per burst (or 32 per search dwell). In tracking, a single 16-pulse
burst per dwell would be sufficient, with PRF adapted to the target
velocity.

Spectral density
Rain (chaff)at target
Second-time-aroundrain (chaff)
Third-timearound chaff
Target filter

Surface wind

Figure 12 Velocity spectra of moving clutter with required doppler filters

and extended rejection notch.

Voltage
response
at PRFl

Voltage
responsc
at PRF2

\i
-

-~

system, must be derived from careful modulation of the CW carrier, often

applied after initial target detection.
Since the: dual-antenna requirement of a CW radar is inconsistent with
economy in a multitarget phased array, the Russians elected to use a
pulsed waveform at medium or high PRF. The high-PRF system requires
only about 100 dB clutter attenuation and dynamic range, giving the CW
system designer a margin of 20 dB to cover instabilities due to pulsing the
transmitter and range gating the receiver. With medium PRF, somewhat
lesser requirements apply. Both systems yield ambiguous range data, with
eclipsed range gaps in the coverage, and the medium-PRF system is also
ambiguous in velocity, requiring multiple-PRF diversity waveforms for
search and larget acquisition dwells. Relatively long dwells are required,
typically 5 ms per burst, with two or more bursts per dwell. Such dwells
can readily be scheduled when the radar is specialized to the tracking and
fire control function on a few targets (e.g., six to twelve). The volume
search functions must then be assigned to separate radars.
The fire control radar design resulting from this approach is optimized
extended and moving clutter. The use of X-band (h = 0.03 m) results in
very narrow beams (< 1 deg). With average powers in the 10 - 20 kW
range, and peak powers of 100 - 200 kW, very high effective radiated
power @RI) is brought to bear on the target, and the long dwell gives
high energy to overcome jamming. For example, in a typical Westem
single puls~: repetition interval, t, (even if multiple-pulse MTI bursts are
used), to the revisit interval, t,, on the target, and to transmit antenna gain
(or the square of the ratio D/h, antenna diameter to wavelength). The
Russian radar with equal average transmitter power has an effective
energy per target proportional to the ratio of dwell time, td, to revisit

--

Average
voltage
response

Factor
0

100

200

300

400

500

Target velocity in m/s

Figure 13 Velocity response for dual PRF-diversity waveform.

At S-band (h = 0.1 cm), the resulting PRF is 3200 Hz, giving an

unambiguous range of 48 km and a search dwell time of about 10 ms. In
practice, this medium-PRF waveform will have to include several fill

~~PRI, t , 01 dwell
~Revisit interval
Wavelength
@/h)(for D=2.5 m)

Symbol

Western
System

Russian
System

Relative

andunits
t d (ms)

10

+lo

t, (ms)

500

100

4-7

h(m)

0.055

0.03

2067

6944

dB

+5.3
i-22.5

The SA-10 (and SA-N-6) have the option of command guidance all the
way. In these systems, illumination is provided by the fire control radar,
time-shared with the tracking bursts.

In the SA-12 system, illumination is provided by separate CW

transmitters and 1-m reflector antennas on the TELARs (Figs. 1, 2),
slaved to the target track data of Grill Pan. Target intercepts are scheduled
to permit a TELAR to illuminate each target continuously during homing,
a period typically 5 - 8 s prior to intercept. This scheduling and
coordination is provided by the command post or from within the fire
control radar, and it imposes a minor constraint on firepower which is not
present in other Russian systems or in Patriot. The CW nature of the
illumination more than compensates for the reduced (D/h)2of the TELAR
antennas. In Westem systems, the MFAR antenna can support homing at
C-band, but separate CW illuminators, scheduled as with SA-12, are
required when an S-band MFAR is used.

Surveillance Radars
Several types of surveillance radar have been designed to support the
fire control radars of the Russian systems. In the SA-10 system, the CW
horizon search radar is collocated with the Flap Lid and launchers. The
radar uses the dual antennas required for CW operation, and these are of
the conventional hom-fed reflector type, elevated on a 25-m tower to
maximize low-altitude coverage. The transmitter and receiver are
mounted with the antenna to minimize losses. The number of radar
vehicles per site is thus doubled, and cost increased by a factor near 1.5.
For the entire radar-missile complex, the vehicle count (assuming four
launchers) is increased by 6/5 = 1.2 by the presence of the horizonscanning radar.
At the regimental level, considering one command post and three or
four fire control sites, a 3D surveillance radar (Fig. 7) is used, feeding data
to the command post. The Big Bird is a space-fed lens array, providing
two-coordinate electronic scan along with mechanical rotation through
360 deg. A single pencil beam is scanned in elevation, at an azimuth 30
deg in advance of broadside. Following a target detection, a confirmation
beam at broadside is scheduled for the azimuth and elevation of the
original detection, and confirmation will occur 30 deg after detection. If
the target is c o n f i e d , further track dwells are scheduled every 180 deg
of rotation, the first of these occurring 210 deg after initial detection,
using the horn on the opposite side of the lens array. Thus, the track-whilescan (TWS) data rate is twice the normal search rate, and TWS energy can
be increased by dwelling longer, as may be needed against jamming. The
regimental command post also exchanges data with external surveillance
networks, feeding these data to the fire control sites along with target
assignments and missile launch commands.
The 3D surveillance radar increases the vehicle count per fire control
site by 0.33 (assuming three sites), to 6.33 per site, compared to five if an
W A R and four launchers were used. This increase, 6.3315 = 1.27,
appears entirely reasonable when considering the increased capability of
the resulting system over that provided by an MFAR. However, it must be
noted that the S-band 3D radar with MTI clutter rejection has no more
capability against clutter than the corresponding Westem designs, and this
constitutes an important limitation in all the systems.
The SA-12 system has two surveillance radars at the regimental level.
The Bill Board (Fig. 4) uses an elevation-scanning pencil beam, with
mechanical rotation in azimuth, and is similar to many Westem systems in

346
IEEE INTERNATIONAL RADAR CONFERENCE

its capability and limitations. Its large aperture provides greater search
capability than Westem MFARs. If a sector less than 360 deg is assigned
for search, the antenna may be sector scanned, with some loss in time for
reversal of rotation at each edge of the sector.
The High Screen (Fig. 5) was designed primarily for TBM sector
search, using a 20,000-element X-band array with 20 kW average power.
The inherent flexibility of the two-coordinate electronically scanned array
makes it an excellent candidate for this search assignment, since all a
priori information on possible target trajectories can be exploited to
concentrate the search resources in the appropriate sector. This radar can
also provide specialized search functions near the horizon or in jammed
sectors, for airborne targets. These are the advantages normally advertised
for MFARs, but when assigned to a separate radar they can be performed
without compromising the performance of the fire control tracker. The
high-PRF waveforms needed to perform these functions against low-RCS
target in a clutter environment also contribute to the effectiveness of the
Russian radar.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Russian system designers recognized, twenty years ago, that Ihe
prirnaq role of two-coordinate scanning phased arrays was for increased
firepower in multitarget tracking and engagement, rather than for
"multifunction" operation.
2. High-performance, efficient trackers have been designed, exploiting
modem technology in the areas of arrays, stable transmitters and
receivers, and digital signal processors.
3. Supplementary search radars have been provided, using rotating
phased array (3D) technology, low-frequency rotating systems, and, for
TBM search, two-coordinate phased arrays.
4. Clutter problems have been solved with high-PRF waveforms and
processing, providing rejection of moving clutter as well as surface
clutter, while preserving the ability to detect low-RCS targets.
5. Land-based and naval systems have been developed around common
missile designs, reducing cost and development time.
6. Acceptance of disciplined requirements has permitted acceptance of
various options for cost reduction, making economically feasible the largescale production of the Russian surface-to-air missile systems.

REFERENCES
[ I ] V. P. Efremov, "SA-12 System Overview," seminar at IEEE
National Radar Conf., 29-31 March, 1994, Atlanta, GA.
[2] S. A. Barsukova, "Low Cost Techniques in Phased Array
Antennas," seminar at IEEE National Radar Conf., 29-31 March, 1994,
Atlanta, GA.
[3] T. C. Cheston and J. Frank, "Array Antennas," Chap. 7 in Radar
Handbook, M. I. Skolnik (ed.), McGraw-Hill, 1990.
[4] D. K. Barton, Modem Radar System Analysis, Artech House, 1988,
Chap. 4.
[SI P. W. Hannan, "Optimum Feeds for All Three Modes of a
Monopulse Antenna," IEEE Tuans. AP-16, No. 5 , Sept. 1961, pp. 444461.