2007 ICNS-1 MEW 5/2/2007 MIT Lincoln Laboratory MPAR Trade Studies Mark Weber 12 October 2007

2007 ICNS-2 MEW 5/2/2007 MIT Lincoln Laboratory Lincoln Laboratory ATC Program History Discrete Address Beacon System Mode S Surveillance and Communications Microwave Landing System Beacon Collision Avoidance System TCAS Moving Target Detector Airport Surface Detection Equipment ASR-9 SLEP Parallel Runway Monitor GPS Applications ADS-B Mode S Surface Comms Airport Surface Traffic Automation Terminal ATC Automation NASA ATM Research Storm Turbulence Terminal Doppler Weather Radar SLEP ASR-9 Wind Shear Processor NEXRAD Enhancements Multi Function Phased Array Radar Integrated Terminal Weather System Aviation Weather Research Wake Vortex GCNSS/SWIM Communication, Navigation and Surveillance Automation Weather UAS Corridor Integrated Weather System Runway Status Lights Proc. Augmentation Card

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-3 MEW 5/2/2007 Today Future National Air Surveillance Infrastructure ASR-9 ASR-11 ARSR-3 TDWR ARSR-4 ASR-8 ARSR-1/2 NEXRAD FAA transition to Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) dictates that the nation re-think its overall surveillance architecture. Needs: Weather (national scale and at airports) ADS-B integrity verification and backup Airspace situational awareness for homeland security ADS-B MPAR

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-4 MEW 5/2/2007 Today’s Operational Radar Capabilities Function Maximum Range for Detection of 1m 2 Target Required Coverage Range Altitude Angular Resol. Az El Waveform* Scan Period Terminal Area Aircraft Surveillance (ASR-9/11) 60 nmi60 nm20,000' 1.4  5o5o >18 pulses PRI ~ sec5 sec En Route Aircraft Surveillance (ARSR-4) 205 nmi250 nm60,000' 1.4  2.0  >10 pulses PRI ~ sec12 sec Airport Weather (TDWR) 212 nmi 60 nmi20,000' 11 0.5  ~50 pulses PRI ~ sec180 sec Nationwide Weather (NEXRAD) 225 nmi250 nmi50,000' 11 11 ~50 pulses PRI ~ sec>240 sec Weather surveillance drives requirements for radar power and aperture size Aircraft surveillance functions can be provided “for free” if necessary airspace coverage and update rates can be achieved Active array radar an obvious approach, but only if less expensive and/or more capable than “conventional” alternatives

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-5 MEW 5/2/2007 Outline Perspectives on operational needs A specific MPAR concept Summary

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-6 MEW 5/2/2007 Key Questions What are the operational driver’s for the “next generation” ground weather radar network? –Improved low altitude coverage, particularly at airports? –Volume scan update rate? –Capability to observe low-cross section phenomena (e.g clear air boundary winds)? –High integrity measurements, devoid of clutter, out-of-trip returns, velocity aliasing, etc.? What are requirements for the ADS-B backup system? Are additional non-cooperative aircraft surveillance capabilities needed to maintain airspace security?

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-7 MEW 5/2/2007 U.S. Airport “Weather” Radars Current WSR-88D network does not provide the near-airport low altitude coverage or update rate (30 – 60 sec) needed by terminal ATC

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-8 MEW 5/2/2007 Airport Weather Radar Alternatives Analysis Wind Shear Detection Probability ITWS “Terminal Winds” Accuracy Without TDWR With TDWR TDWRASR-9 LLWAS Airplane Lidar NEXRAD Sensors Considered

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-9 MEW 5/2/2007 Preliminary Findings Easy to make the case for high capability airport weather radar at pacing airports (e.g. NYC, ORD, ATL, DFW,....) –Large delay aversion benefits associated with high quality measurements of adverse winds and precipitation (>$10M per year per airport) Business case for “TDWR-like” capability at smaller airports less convincing –Alternative solutions may provide adequate safety margin –Weather related delay benefits small Implications for MPAR –Scalability key to realizing cost-effective solutions –Airport-specific integrated observation system configurations will be appropriate in some cases (e.g. western U.S. “dry sites”)

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-10 MEW 5/2/2007 ADS-B Backup Separation Services Map SeparationAirspace TypeAltitudeRangeCoverage Area 5 nmYesEn Route SSR250 nm2,820,000 nm 2 3 nm No661,000 nm 2 60 nm Terminal PSR 3 nm Yes Terminal SSR 40 nm 314,000 nm 2 No coverage SeparationAirspace Type Altitude RangeCoverage Area 5 nmBeaconEn Route SSR200 nm2,820,000 nm 2 3 nm Pilot661,000 nm 2 40 nm Terminal PSR 3 nm Beacon Terminal SSR 60 nm 314,000 nm 2 No coverage

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-11 MEW 5/2/2007 Required Surveillance Performance (RSP) Methodology

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-12 MEW 5/2/2007 RSP Derived from En Route Radar Capabilities* Currently Acceptable (sliding window SSR) Latest Technology (monopulse SSR) Registration Errors Location Bias200’ uniform any direction Azimuth Bias  0.3  uniform Range Errors Radar Bias  30’ uniform Radar Jitter  = 25’ Gaussian Azimuth ErrorAzimuth Jitter  =  =  Data Quant. (CD2 format) Range760’ (1/8 NM) Azimuth  (1 ACP) Uncorrelated* Sensor Scan Time Error10-12 sec Transponder Error Range Error (ATCRBS)  250’ uniform  = 144’ RSP Analysis Location Error  = 1.0 NM   0.30 NM Separation Errors (at kts)  = 0.8 NM  = 0.25 NM 90% <  1.4 NM 99% <  2.4 NM 99.9% <  3.3 NM 90% <  0.43 NM 99% <  0.76 NM 99.9% <  1.02 NM *Only applies for multiple sensors *Supports 5 nmi separation

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-13 MEW 5/2/2007 RSP Derived from Terminal Radar Capabilities* Currently Acceptable (sliding window SSR) Intermediate (primary radar) Latest Technology (monopulse SSR) Registration Errors Location Bias200’ uniform any direction Azimuth Bias  0.3  uniform Range Errors Radar Bias  30’ uniform Radar Jitter  = 25’ Gaussian  = 275’ Gaussian  = 25’ Gaussian Azimuth ErrorAzimuth Jitter  =  =  =  Data Quant. (CD2 format) Range95’ (1/64 NM) Azimuth  (1 ACP) Uncorrelated* Sensor Scan Time Error4-5 sec Transponder Error Range Error (ATCRBS)  250’ uniform  = 144’ N/A  250’ uniform  = 144’ RSP Analysis Location Error  = 0.20 NM   0.15 NM   0.10 NM Separation Errors (at specified 250 kts)  = 0.16 NM at 40 nm  = 0.12 NM at 40 nm  = 0.08 NM at 60 nm 90% <  0.28 NM 99% <  0.49 NM 99.9% <  0.65 NM 90% <  0.20 NM 99% <  0.35 NM 99.9% <  0.46 NM 90% <  0.13 NM 99% <  0.23 NM 99.9% <  0.32 NM *Only applies for multiple sensors *Supports 3 nmi separation

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-14 MEW 5/2/2007 MPAR RSP Analysis 4.4  antenna beamwidth meets Terminal RSP Separation Error 4.6  antenna beamwidth meets En Route RSP Separation Error 4.4  antenna beamwidth meets Terminal RSP Separation Error 4.6  antenna beamwidth meets En Route RSP Separation Error 20:1 Monopulse

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-15 MEW 5/2/2007 Enhanced Regional Situation Awareness System Elements Ground Based Sentinel Radars Elevated Sentinel Radars FAA Radars And Data Bases Wide Area3-D NORAD TADIL-J Visual Hi-Res EO Sites Hi-Perf EO/IR and Warning Systems Mode-S RCVR Redundant Networks USERS FUSION SENSORS Air Situation Decision Support Display and Camera Control Fan-out to Multiple Users Redundant Networks Primary Facility Fusion and Aggregation Evidence Accrual and Decision Support Portable Air Situation Display Lincoln facilities provided infrastructure for rapid system development – Radar and camera sites – FAA data feeds and fusion – Network connectivity Lincoln developed Integrated Air Picture, Decision Support, ID, and Visual Warning deployed for operational use in NCR

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-16 MEW 5/2/2007 Lincoln Perspectives on Role of FAA Surveillance Systems Current primary/secondary radars “as is” will provide an essential backbone to homeland air picture and decision support system Enhancement recommendations –“Network compatible interface” –External access to unfiltered target detections (amplitude, Doppler velocity, …) –Target height information would be very valuable DoD/DHS will deploy ancillary sensor as necessary to meet specific operational needs

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-17 MEW 5/2/2007 Outline Perspectives on operational needs A specific MPAR concept Summary

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-18 MEW 5/2/2007 Concept MPAR Parameters Active Array (planar, 4 faces) Diameter: 8 m TR elements/face: 20,000 Dual polarization Beamwidth: 0.7  (broadside) 1.0  45  ) Gain: > 46 dB Transmit/Receive Modules Wavelength: 10 cm (2.7–2.9 GHz) Bandwidth/channel: 1 MHz Frequency channels: 3 Pulse length: 30  s Peak power/element: 2 W Architecture Overlapped subarray Number of subarrays: 300–400 Maximum concurrent beams: ~160 Aircraft Surveillance Non cooperative target tracking and characterization Weather Surveillance 334 MPARS required to duplicate today’s airspace coverage. Half of these are scaled “Terminal MPARS”

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-19 MEW 5/2/2007 Concept MPAR Capability Summary Airspace coverage equal to today’s operational radar networks. Angular resolution, minimum detectible reflectivity and volume scan update rate equal or exceed today’s operational weather radars –Ancillary benefits from improved data integrity and cross-beam wind measurement Can easily support 3-5 nmi separation standards required for ADS-B backup Can provide non-cooperative aircraft surveillance data of significantly higher quality that today’s surveillance radars –Altitude information –Substantially lower minimum RCS threshold

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-20 MEW 5/2/2007 2W Dual Mode T/R Module Parts Costs Parts costs driven by SP2T switches and multi-layer PC board fabrication Packaging / test costs not included Parts costs driven by SP2T switches and multi-layer PC board fabrication Packaging / test costs not included Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost HPA 2 $2.37 $4.74 SP2T 3 $4.00 $12.00 LNA 1 $1.69 $1.69 BPF 1 $3.00 $3.00 Diplx 1 $1.50 $1.50 Vect Mod 3 $2.14 $6.42 Load 1 $2.00 $2.00 Board 1 $20.00 $20.00 Total = $51.35 v

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-21 MEW 5/2/2007 Preliminary Parts Cost Estimates ComponentPre-PrototypeFull Scale MPAR Antenna Element$1.25 T/R Module$115.00*$51.00** Power, Timing and Control$18.00 Digital Transceiver$12.50$6.25 Analog Beamformer$186.00***$55.00**** Digital Beamformer$18.00$8.00 Mechanical/Packaging$105.00$25.00 Equivalent Cost per Element - Parts Only $ $ Totals: * Assumes 8W module incl RF board with sequential polarization ** Assumes 2W module and sequential polarization (updated 18 Sept 2007) *** Assumes standard beamformer in azimuth **** Assumes hybrid tile/brick architecture with RFIC overlapped subarray beamformer

MIT Lincoln Laboratory 2007 ICNS-22 MEW 5/2/2007 Summary As a community, we are making substantial progress in exposing requirements for the Next Generation surveillance radar network –Multifunction, active array (MPAR) approach continues to be a leading candidate Low cost is the key to success of MPAR –‘Commercial’ approach needed to achieve extremely low cost goals We are ready to solicit input from industry on specific design concepts and cost Need to sell concept to policy makers –Compelling operational application demonstration –Business case substantiating agency cost savings