Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program
by user
Comments
Transcript
Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program
• LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program William Z. Lemnios and Alan A. Grometstein ■ The technical challenge that resulted in the creation of Lincoln Laboratory was to combine dispersed radars and computers into a system to defend the continental United States against attack by fleets of strategic bomber aircraft. The problem of air defense emerged from the end of World War II as one of the more serious threats against the security of the United States. Within a decade, the problem of air defense was transformed into one of providing a defense against attack by ballistic missiles, a problem that has engaged the Laboratory’s attention ever since. This issue of the Lincoln Laboratory Journal records the history of the Laboratory’s engagement in ballistic missile defense (BMD); this article provides an overview of the Laboratory’s role. Other articles in this issue treat specific aspects of the Laboratory’s BMD work in more detail. W unprecedented burgeoning of applied technology in support of the armed forces of the major nations at war [1–2]. With few exceptions, previous wars had been fought throughout with the weapons and technology available at the onset of hostilities. In World War I, for example, there are few instances except for the development of military aircraft, in which significant technological development was made by any combatant [3]. In World War II, on the other hand, significant technological innovation pervaded most every aspect of combat. An outstanding example is radar. Inaccurate, low powered, and unreliable when invented in the early 1930s, it became sophisticated, high powered, and dependable in the following decade. Associated with radar was the development of aiming and computing devices that permitted rapid, accurate, and semiautomatic fire control. Allied superiority in the field of radar played an important role in determining the outcome of the war. During the war, two civilian laboratories operated by MIT evolved as centers of expertise in military applications of radar and its associated technology. From the Radiation Laboratory, or RadLab, and the Servomechanisms Laboratory, or ServoLab, came prototypes of the components and complete radar systems that would later appear in production quantities in the war effort [2]. By 1945, radar technology had progressed from crude bench-model demonstration apparatus to versatile systems that operated reliably on land, air, and sea. When the war ended, however, the RadLab was perceived as having served its purpose and was consequently closed [4]. In the same spirit, activities at the ServoLab were curtailed. In light of political developments in eastern Europe after the war, closure of the RadLab was seen post facto as a loss of a national technological asset. Concern mounted that the momentum of pursuing improvements in radars had been lost, just as it became clear that the ability to defend the continental United States against attack by strategic bombers in all likelihood had to depend on radars. VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 9 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program From the end of World War II in 1945 to the early 1950s, the greatest effort by far in strategic defense of the United States was concentrated on continental air defense. U.S. intelligence agencies at that time concluded that the USSR possessed long-range bomber aircraft and had, in September 1949, exploded an atomic weapon. Concerns about this threat led to the genesis of Lincoln Laboratory in 1951; the Laboratory’s mission was initially air defense. It is not the purpose of this paper to describe in detail the several studies and subsequent recommendations that eventually led to the formation of Lincoln Laboratory. That story, as well as details of the Laboratory’s early years, is ably recorded in Reference 1. We briefly summarize the Laboratory’s efforts in air defense in the early 1950s, since these formed a prelude to later Laboratory work in ballistic missile defense (BMD). Readers interested in more details in these efforts are directed to References 1 and 5; the latter reference provides unique insights into this work by an engineer directly involved. the functions of surveillance, tracking, and interceptor direction in real time, with a minimum of manual interventions. Whether radar, communications, and computer technologies could enable such an integration effort was settled by a demonstration in September 1950, when a radar at Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford, Massachusetts, tracked an aircraft and transmitted the resulting analog signals, converted to digital signals, over telephone lines to the Whirlwind I computer at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts [6]. Three months later, the success of this demonstration influenced Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Air Force Chief of Staff, to write James R. Killian, Jr., President of MIT, proposing the establishment of a laboratory dedicated to air defense. Concerns About Air Defense Early air defense systems, such as the radar defenses mounted in England against bombing attacks by the Luftwaffe, were critically dependent upon calculations and decisions made by humans at several points in the system. Trained operators performed interpretation of radar data, establishment of tracks on both bombers and interceptors, and issuance of engagement vectors to interceptor pilots. The development of digital computers—in particular, their increase in speed and versatility—made it feasible to conceive of integrating computers within a radar-human system to render a faster and more accurate response. The concept of integrated air defense emerged from a committee organized by the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (AFSAB) in December 1949, which became known as the Air Defense Systems Engineering Committee (ADSEC). The committee, operating under the chairmanship of George E. Valley, Jr., of MIT, shown in Figure 1, concluded that air defense of the continental United States against the Soviet strategic-bomber threat could only be accomplished by integrating data from numerous radars into a single powerful computer, and by carrying out 10 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 FIGURE 1. George E. Valley, Jr. (1913–1999), chairman of the Air Defense Systems Engineering Committee. Valley spent World War II at the MIT Radiation Laboratory, where he developed the H2X radar bombsight. After the war, he joined the physics faculty at MIT, where he studied the integration of radars and computers in extended defense systems. He was associate director of Lincoln Laboratory from 1949 to 1957 and Chief Scientist of the Air Force from 1957 to 1958. • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program LINCOLN LABORATORY AS AN FFRDC Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) are institutions that work in the public interest and receive the bulk of their funding from agencies of the federal government. There are currently thirty-six FFRDCs sponsored by the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Agency, Department of Transportation, and Department of the Treasury. The first of these institutions was established in the early 1940s as federal research centers. Subse- quent centers came to be known informally as Federal Contract Research Centers (FCRC), although the name Federally Chartered Research Centers was also used. The use of Department of Defense FCRCs grew out of semiacademic laboratories and research groups created by the federal government for defense research during World War II. They are now called FFRDCs. By law, FFRDCs are used only to meet special research or development needs that cannot be met as effectively by existing federal government or contractor resources. The FFRDCs have a special long-term partnership relation with their sponsors, em- MIT immediately convened a group of scientists to study and evaluate this proposal. The group, named Project Charles (after the river in Boston), studied the proposal from February to August 1951, then issued a report that became the basis of the eventual air-defense system. The report favored development of an integrated, automated defense system but required that before work begin on the full-scale continental air defense system, a scaled-down version be constructed, tested, and evaluated. The scaled-down effort became known as the Cape Cod System. Because Project Charles had been an ad hoc study, MIT decided to pursue further efforts in air defense on an ongoing basis, and therefore established Project Lincoln—eventually Lincoln Laboratory—in July 1951 [7]. This decision by MIT was supported by the Air Force when in February 1952 Secretary of the Air Force Thomas K. Finletter promised substantial phasizing independence and commitment, and they provide a body of technical expertise that cannot be sustained within the Civil Service. The FFRDCs are not-for-profit activities and operate under restrictions that prohibit the sale of products and competition with for-profit industry. The Department of Defense FFRDCs are viewed as being in three categories, with different functions: (1) studies and analysis centers; (2) laboratories; and (3) system engineering and technical direction centers. Lincoln Laboratory falls in the second of these categories. funding to the university for the laboratory. Initially, Lincoln Laboratory was referred to as a federal research center, then as a Federal Contract Research Center, and is now officially a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) (see the sidebar entitled “Lincoln Laboratory as an FFRDC”). The new laboratory was unabashedly an offspring of the RadLab. The administrative structure of Lincoln Laboratory mirrored that of the RadLab—a Director’s Office overseeing about ten divisions, each specialized in one field of technology, with the divisions subdivided into groups of five to twenty technical staff. The first director of Lincoln Laboratory was F. Wheeler Loomis, a former associate director of the RadLab. The personnel categories (staff, associate staff, assistant staff ) duplicated those of the RadLab, which itself had taken these categories from the academic world of MIT. VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 11 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program FIGURE 2. The Barta Building on Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, home of the Whirlwind I computer. Work on the Cape Cod System began immediately with the establishment of Project Lincoln. In January 1953, Project Lincoln issued a substantial design document that detailed how the Cape Cod System would operate to defend southern New England from air attack. Signals from three long-range (AN/FPS-3) radars, eleven gap-filler radars, and three height-finding radars would be converted from analog to digital format and transmitted over telephone lines to the Barta Building (shown in Figure 2) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which housed the Whirlwind I computer (shown in Figure 3). That computer would establish and maintain tracks on aircraft, perform an identification process, and issue instructions to en- able interceptor aircraft to intercept the nonfriendly aircraft. The digitized radar and track information would be displayed on interactive consoles monitored by Air Force personnel, who relayed the directional commands to the interceptors. (Later in the development of the Cape Cod System, such commands were relayed directly to autopilots in the interceptors.) The initial version of the Cape Cod System became operational in September 1953, some two-and-a-half years after its inception, and underwent testing and evaluation over the next four years. Initial tests of the Cape Cod System used only simulated data, but later tests employed bombers supplied by the U.S. Air Force, with real interceptors closing on them. During these tests, flights of B-47s made simulated attacks against points in eastern New England, and the Cape Cod System attempted intercepts, utilizing interceptor aircraft scrambled from four Air Force bases. The results were promising enough to confirm the soundness of the air defense concept envisioned by Project Charles. The decision was made, therefore, to implement the full air defense system, which was called the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) Air Defense System. It was begun by Lincoln Laboratory and was later engineered and developed by the MITRE Corporation. (MITRE is a separate corporate entity that was FIGURE 3. The Whirlwind I computer console room in 1950. Seated at left: Stephen Dodd, Jr. Standing: Jay Forrester, left, and Robert Everett, right. Seated at the right: Ramona Ferenz. 12 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program formed in July 1958 and staffed with a cadre of personnel from Lincoln Laboratory with experience on the Cape Cod System.) Lincoln Laboratory’s work on air defense provided valuable training for its later work in BMD. The Cape Cod System was the first large-scale military system controlled in real time by a digital computer. The experience gained in such areas as track initiation and maintenance, weapon assignment and intercept prediction, battle management, and data fusion (to list just a few fields of development), served as a basis for much of the BMD work undertaken later by the Laboratory. Concerns about Ballistic Missile Defense The closing year of World War II in Europe witnessed introduction of the first generation of cruise missiles and ballistic missiles as weapons of terror and intimidation. Germany launched its first cruise missile (V-1) against England in June 1944. Three months later, Germany began launching ballistic missiles (Aggregat 4, or V-2). From the first firing until Allied forces captured the launch sites in Belgium and the Netherlands on the Channel coast in March 1945, some 21,000 V-1s and 4300 V-2s were launched. These relatively short-range missiles (~300 km), carrying payloads of 850 to 1,000 kg of high explosives, could not be precisely aimed but were used to terrorize civilian targets in large cities [8]. The British Home Defense Command found that protection against the slow V-1 was feasible with the normal defenses used against manned aircraft; indeed, many V1s were shot down by interceptor aircraft and antiaircraft guns. However, no defense was possible against the much faster V-2, and only the capture of the launch sites in March 1945 stopped the destruction these missiles caused. Military planners after the war realized the crucial role that ballistic missiles could play in future conflicts, and efforts began in several countries (primarily the United States and the USSR) to increase the range and payload of these weapons and to improve their targeting accuracy. With the emergence of nuclear fission bombs in 1945 and of nuclear fusion bombs in 1949, the ultimate weapon envisioned was a ballistic missile capable of traveling intercontinental distances while carrying a nuclear warhead—the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). By the early 1950s, development efforts of such a weapon were well underway, and by the latter half of the decade, ICBMs began to enter the U.S. strategic force structure. On 26 August 1957, the USSR announced a successful ICBM test, which was followed on 4 October 1957 by the launch of Sputnik I, the first man-made satellite [9]. In response to these events, the United States began developing the Nike-Zeus system to defend cities against ICBMs in the 1950s. (The first successful live intercept occurred in July 1962.) This early BMD system was basically an improvement on existing air defense elements, such as Nike-Ajax and Nike-Hercules, which were emplaced earlier to guard against strategic bombers. Although there are similarities between air defense and BMD in the use of radars and interceptors controlled in real time by large computers, there are also significant differences. A key difference is the speeds of the oncoming threat objects. An ICBM travels at 20,000 to 25,000 kph, depending on type and mission; a strategic bomber travels at speeds of 1000 to 2500 kph, depending on type and mission. The higher speeds of ICBMs compress the battlespace, which is the interval—measured either in range or duration—between the defense’s first and last opportunities to take effective action against an approaching threat object. To compensate for the compressed battlespace, the defense must detect ballistic missiles at longer ranges, which requires more powerful radars, and must automate such critical functions as weapon allocation and fire control. Another key difference between air defense and BMD is the more prominent role of countermeasures in BMD. In 1958, Lincoln Laboratory, which had transferred responsibility for SAGE to MITRE, was asked by the Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) of the Department of Defense (DoD) to begin related research efforts in BMD. Ballistic missiles can and often do embody a variety of tactical devices intended to confuse the defense and facilitate the warhead’s penetration of the defense. Among these devices are chaff and electronic countermeasures, both of which act to create radar clutter or noise. In addition, decoys of various shapes and compositions, VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 13 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program which are intended to mimic the signatures and metric characteristics of the warheads, may accompany the missiles. The process of tracking bodies in the presence of clutter and then discriminating (that is, identifying and selecting) the warhead from all other objects is one of the most difficult and most important technical problem faced by BMD system designers. It was in this area that ARPA asked the Laboratory to initiate research, an area that we discuss in greater depth in subsequent sections of this article. Historical Overview of U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense Before proceeding with a description of Lincoln Laboratory’s work in BMD, it is instructive to give an historical overview of the national effort in BMD. Figure 4 summarizes the U.S. effort in BMD over the years. Figure 5 is a more detailed two-page timeline showing Lincoln Laboratory’s contributions to ballistic missile defense programs. The task of developing BMD systems was initially the responsibility of the U.S. Army and of ARPA. The Army (with Bell Laboratories as the system contractor) was responsible for building and testing BMD system components, and eventually deploying them in the vicinity of major U.S. population centers. ARPA was responsible for concentrating on major technical problems, whose solutions were to be integrated into the deployed BMD systems. In 1957, little technology was available to address the problems of BMD. Narrow-bandwidth dish radars operating in the VHF, UHF, and L-band frequencies had been built for air defense; however, a means to intercept the warhead of a fast incoming ICBM did not exist. Computers built for air defense had only begun to address the problem of distinguishing enemy aircraft from natural clutter and noise. The Nike-Zeus system employed separate dish radars for surveillance, target tracking, and interceptor guidance. It suffered from two major deficiencies: a limited traffic-handling capability and an inability to discriminate warheads from decoys and other objects at high altitudes [1]. (For successful defense of cities, discrimination must be performed at high altitudes.) In the 1960s, a new Army system called Nike-X 14 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 was developed specifically for BMD. Nike-X, as well as its later versions, Sentinel and Safeguard, were designed primarily for city defense. These systems were also envisioned at various times to be used for area defense and hard-site silo defense. Nike-X used two electronically scanned phased-array radars for its operations, and two types of interceptors: a long-range interceptor able to destroy warheads at long distances, and a high-acceleration short-range interceptor that allowed the system to wait until the atmosphere had effectively filtered out all objects except the warhead. Both interceptors were tipped with nuclear warheads that could destroy all objects within their lethal radius. The Nike-X phased-array radars, which could redirect their beams in microseconds instead of seconds, significantly increased traffic handling. The offense missile systems were initially simple in design, few in number, and lacking any sophisticated penetration aids (penaids) to create false intercept points. Thus discrimination could be performed with some success by using only narrowband radar cross sections and little in the way of computer resources. But as the number of Soviet ICBMs grew and the sophistication of putative countermeasures increased, no U.S. technology solution appeared capable of defending cities against a massive attack by ICBMs. There was also considerable concern about the collateral effects of multiple nuclear weapons detonating during an engagement. Consequently, a doctrine of counterstrike, or mutual assured destruction (MAD), was adopted in lieu of city defense. By 1970, the United States began to deploy ICBMs within buried silos for protection. At about the same time, contracts were awarded for construction of Safeguard anti-ballistic missile sites in Montana and North Dakota. In 1972, the United States signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) defense treaty with the Soviet Union, which allowed only one site for each country, and all Safeguard construction activities were suspended in Montana. The treaty limited the scope of any ABM deployment, so that not all cities in the United States could be defended. In October 1975, shortly after Safeguard achieved an initial operating capability, the U.S. Congress decided to deactivate the system. Attention then turned to defending U.S. ICBMs against a preemptive Soviet missile strike. Defending • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program 50s 60s 70s 80s Light Area Defense Major BMD Mission City Defense Defense of MM/MX Nike Zeus Proposed U.S. BMD Systems Site Defense Sentinel Heavy Area Defense Light Area Defense National Defense Theater Defense 00s SDI Safeguard Nike-X 90s Phase 1 Sentry GPALS TMD/NMD BMDS FIGURE 4. Timeline of the U.S. national effort in ballistic missile defense (BMD). During an approximately forty-five-year period, the U.S. objectives in ballistic missile defense have undergone several changes. The objectives were influenced by the nature of the threat and by the state of the required technology. The above figure lists the BMD missions and the systems proposed to meet the missions. For a more detailed timeline showing Lincoln Laboratory’s contributions to ballistic missile defense programs, see Figure 5. silos rather than cities became the goal, and a new system called Site Defense was designed. (Although no components of this system were ever deployed, a prototype Site Defense radar was built on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands in the late 1970s.) Defending hardened silos allows intercepts deep within the atmosphere, thus providing more time to detect an incoming threat and to discriminate the warheads. Upon reentry into the atmosphere, launch hardware, debris, and light exoatmospheric decoys slow down and fall away from the faster-traveling warhead and can be discriminated from it. Heavy endoatmospheric decoys that do not slow down until deeper into atmospheric reentry can be discriminated later. Further, as atmospheric scientists had long known by studying the radar trails of meteors, the plasma bow shock and ionized wake of reentering bodies could be detected by radars and used to characterize them. Such characterization requires wideband (several hundred MHz) phased-array radars that could resolve small sections of the ionized wakes. Development of these radars began at the Laboratory in the late 1960s. On 23 March 1983, President Reagan announced the beginning of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The President asked “Would it not be better to save lives than to avenge them?” suggesting that international stability could be achieved better through BMD than MAD. To accomplish this formidable task, he directed the beginning of a long-term research and development effort. Large amounts of funding were provided to reinvigorate the missile defense effort and a new organization, the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), was formed to manage and direct the programs. Renewed attention was given to discrimination, with emphasis on spacebased sensors and directed-energy weapons. Now missiles were to be discriminated during boost phase, while separating from their booster, and during their entire midcourse flight as well as in reentry. These long timelines allow radars to image objects and to measure their motion with great precision. For resolved targets, space-based infrared (IR) telescopes could measure thermal properties. At about the same time, the United States adopted a doctrine not to use nuclear-tipped interceptors. This doctrine significantly reduced an interceptor’s lethal radius, and required precision guidance of the non-nuclear interceptors. FIGURE 5. (overleaf) Events and achievements of Lincoln Laboratory’s program in BMD. The chart is a time-ordered listing of major Laboratory contributions to BMD. Also shown are major events that influenced the focus of U.S. BMD. VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 15 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program 1955 1960 Project PRESS Reentry Physics Program Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and BMD-Related Programs 1965 1975 Kiernan Reentry Measurements Site (KREMS) Dedicated (Kwajalein) Penetration Aids Program Millstone Hill Radar Operational (UHF) 1970 Millstone Hill Radar Modified Army BMD Program Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR) Sentinel Studies Radar Study (High Frequency, Wide Band) Single Silo Hardpoint Defense TRADEX Radar Operational (Kwajalein) Waveguide Ferrite Phase Shifter ALCOR Radar Operational (Kwajalein) AMRAD Radar Operational (WSMR) Frequency-Stable CO2 Laser ALTAIR Radar Operational (Kwajalein) Radar Test Bed Array (LL) Firepond Laser Radar Operational TRADEX Radar Modified-L, S-Band System Studies Phased Array Studies Arbuckle Neck S-Band Tracker Operational (Wallops Island) Microwave and Laser Radars Laser Atmospheric Propagation Interactions Intercept-X Studies Space Object Surveillance Study 500J Electron-Beam Excited CO2 Laser Schmidt Cameras (Wallops Island) Long Wavelength IR Detectors Tracking Spectrometer (Wallops Island) InSb Photodiodes Army Optical StationSOLITAIRE, GBM (Kwajalein) PRESS Ground Optics (Kwajalein) Visible and Infrared Sensors PRESS Airborne Optics Air Force KC-135, Navy A-3D (Kwajalein) Trailblazer Tests (Wallops Island) Reentry Simulation Range (LL) REDD System (Kwajalein) SIMPAR Modification for ALTAIR Have Jeep Tests (Kwajalein) Laboratory Experiments and Field Tests First Thermal Blooming Experiments Data Analysis and Modeling Near-Wake Phenomenology Measured Clean-Air Wake Chemistry Modeled Reentry Phenomenology First Successful U.S. ICBM Flight Bulk Filtering Precursor Plasma Modeled Project Lunar See (Measurements on the Moon) Structure and Statistics SKYLAB Radar Images of Turbulent Wake Measurements First Successful Live Intercept by Nike Zeus Nike-X System First Successful USSR ICBM Flight Adoption of MutuallyAssured Destruction (MAD) Doctrine Sputnik (USSR) Sentinel System National BMD Program Events Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) Safeguard System Deployed at Grand Forks, ND Explorer I (US) Formation of MITRE Corporation 1955 16 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 1960 1965 1970 1975 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program 1975 1980 1985 1995 2000 Standard Missile Program Navy BMD Program Optical Discrimination Technology (ODT) Program Optical Aircraft Measurements Program (OAMP) Haystack Long Range Imaging Radar (LRIR) Operational 1990 Termination of ODT Program Project Hercules National Missile Defense Kinetic Boost Phase Intercept Program Haystack Auxiliary Radar (HAX) Operational Strategic Defense Concept Study Interactive Discrimination MDS-3 Study LWIR Exoatmospheric Discrimination Radar Discrimination Study Optical Discrimination Study MATTR Study MMW Radar Operational (Kwajalein) LRPA Installed (Firepond) ALTAIR 24/7 SPACETRACK Operational LITE Laser Radar Operational (Kwajalein) SAW Processor at ALCOR Navy TMD IR Seeker Band Selection Study Sensor Fusion Study National Missile Defense (NMD) Discrimination Technology Roadmap Sea-Based Terminal Study GaAs Ka-band Transmit/Receive Module Thermal Blooming Correction of MIRCL Laser (SABLE) KMAR Radars Operational Tunable Solid-State Laser Developed Wideband Laser Radar (Firepond) 32 32 Geiger Mode Avalanche Photodiode Angle-Angle-Range Laser Radar Lightweight Steering Mirror Fabricated Semiconductor, Diodepumped, Q-Switched Nd:YAG Transmitter (Firepond) Mid-Course Sensor Study Pilot Architecture Study Design Studies for Cobra Judy Pan Pacific Range Roadmap Navy Radar Roadmap Theater Defense Netting Study Non-nuclear Interceptor 2002 Ultraviolet and Visible Angle-Angle-Range Laser Radar Developed Cobra eye Sensor in “Hot Storage” Cobra Eye Sensor Operational (Shemya AFB, AK) Schottky-Barrier PtSl Detectors Compact LADAR Range Kwajalein Modernization and Remoting (KMAR) MMW BeamWaveguide System Optical Beam-Steering System Developed Avalanche Photodiodes Cobra Judy II Support THAAD Radar Conversion to TPS-X Cobra Gemini Operational Micro-lens Focal Plane Array Captive Carry (IR Seeker) Fly-Along Sensor Package (FASP) Flown on TCMP-2A Termination of Cobra Eye Sea Lite Beam Director (SLBD) (WSMR) Seeker Experimental System (LL) Space-Based Visible Sensor (MSX) Sky Noise Measurements NASA Lear Jet (CA, AK, Panama) Discrimination Performance (k-factors) Atmospheric Compensation Experiments-CLASP, TRAPAF, OCULAR (FL) Firefly Tests (Wallops Island) Kwajalein Discrimination System (KDS) Firebird Tests (Wallops Island) Real-Time 2-D Radar Imaging TCMP-1 Tests (Kwajalein) Red Crow Test (Hawaii) Coherent Polarization Techniques Bandwidth Interpolation Atmospheric Transmission Measurements NASA Lear Jet Have Sled Tests (Alaska) Atmospheric Compensation Experiments-ACE, SWAT (HI) Phase-Derived Range Applied to Target Dynamics Cobra Dane Radar Operational “Strategic Defense” Speech by Pres.Reagan Safeguard System Deactivated Defensive Technologies Study Site Defense Formation of SDIO Measurements-Based Target Modeling Multi-Aspect Imaging Space-Based IR Calibration THAAD Analysis Workstation National Missile Defense (NMD) BMDO Reorganized to MDA Persian Gulf War First Successful NMD Intercepts Integrated BMD System (BMDS) Theater Missile Defense (TMD) First Successful TMD Intercepts Navy Theater Wide System Terminated Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) Cobra Judy Radar Operational Dissolution of USSR START I Treaty Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE) ICBM Hit-to-Kill 1980 Ballistic Missile Defense System Testbed TCMP-2 Tests (Kwajalein) Atmospheric Compensation ExperimentsLACE, SABLE, Firepond (CA, MA) 3-Band IR Discrimination Technique 1975 TCMP-3 Tests (Kwajalein) Simulation of ABL Propagation Effects (Firepond) Lexington Discrimination System (LDS) 1985 SDIO to BMDO 1990 1995 VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 2002 17 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program By 1992, the USSR had collapsed, USSR and U.S. strategic missile arsenals were reduced under Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START 1 and START 2), and theater missile proliferations were underway. The Scud missile, a derivative of the World War II German V-2s, which had been further developed by the Soviets, had become the only ballistic missile used extensively after World War II. Scud was used during the Middle East War of 1973, later in large numbers during the War of the Cities between Iran and Iraq, and extensively during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. As a result, the BMD effort in the United States was redirected to deal with more limited threats against the territory of our nation and our allies and against deployed troops involved in theater engagements. The SDIO was renamed the BMD Organization (BMDO). The discrimination problem, although not fully solved, became more tractable. The ICBM threat was more limited in numbers, and technology had surged ahead during the SDI years. Short-range missiles used in theater engagements generally do not carry light decoys. But challenges in theater defense remain. Short timelines and the need to defend simultaneously against air-breathing threats (cruise missiles) makes theater missile defense difficult even against short-range missiles. In January 2002, the BMDO was redesignated the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and given the task of developing a single integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). Current BMD technology provides powerful highfrequency wideband phased-array radars, infrared (IR) seekers, light non-nuclear hit-to-kill interceptors, and fast computers. A tool kit of discrimination algorithms, under development since the 1960s, now exists. The challenge for discrimination is to design an architecture of discrimination algorithms that is sufficiently flexible and resilient to deal with evolving threats and countermeasures. With the advent of hitto-kill interceptors, end-game discrimination is also needed. Discrimination information from a groundbased radar and from space-based IR sensors must be handed over to the interceptor seeker in a form it can interpret and fuse with its own discrimination data. The interceptor seeker must aim at a specific hit point on the missile in order to destroy it, and the ground18 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 based radar and space-based IR sensors must assess the effectiveness of the intercept. Because there are still no absolute methods for ensuring good discrimination against all threats, the collection and analysis of performance data during combat to identify discrimination modifications quickly is also needed. Early Laboratory Work in Ballistic Missile Defense (1958–1972) The ARPA program in BMD technology was centered in Project Defender and was focused on one of the most challenging problems in BMD, namely, discriminating warheads from decoys and deployment hardware. ARPA turned to Lincoln Laboratory and began sponsoring work in discrimination in July 1958, an effort that has continued to the present, although under different sponsors [9]. The BMD program at the Laboratory grew to include development of radar and IR sensors capable of making flight-test measurements, which led to the formulation of discrimination algorithms, the planning and execution of flight tests, the development of sensor technologies appropriate for BMD systems, and the design, analysis, and performance evaluation of candidate BMD systems. The following section summarizes key research areas in BMD during this period. Phenomenology and Discrimination The ability to discriminate a warhead from accompanying decoys or deployment hardware depends on how closely the signatures of these objects match that of the warhead and how well the observing sensors can detect the dissimilarities. In the early period, when the sensors had relatively crude performance (e.g., poor resolution), discrimination was difficult. It was especially difficult at high altitudes, where atmospheric interactions with the incoming objects are nonexistent. At lower altitudes, where atmospheric interactions exist, discrimination becomes less difficult for two reasons. First, many objects (especially the deployment hardware and the more poorly designed decoys) are slowed by the atmosphere with respect to the warhead and thus are naturally filtered out. Second, objects reentering the atmosphere create a plasma bow shock and a wake of ionized gas that is detectable by a radar. The magnitude of these returns • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program is related to the energy of the incoming object and hence to its mass, thus providing a basis for discrimination. Several field-test programs were initiated to make phenomenology measurements relating to the effects described above, and then to develop discrimination techniques and algorithms. The programs and sensors used for these measurements are described below. Measurements at Arbuckle Neck, Wallops Island, Virginia The initial set of field measurements (from March 1959 to July 1962) was made in a joint program with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), during which launches from Wallops Island, Virginia, of the NASA Trailblazer I vehicle were observed. Fourteen launches occurred during this fortymonth period. By using a total of six stages, three of which fired during descent, the Trailblazer I was able to boost 2-lb payloads to ICBM velocities. Later (1962 to 1965), the Trailblazer II had a payload capability of 35 lb. Three radars were built by Lincoln Laboratory and installed at Arbuckle Neck for these tests. The first radar, an S-band tracker with a 60-ft dish, successfully tracked the first Trailblazer launch in December 1959. The second radar, also with a 60ft dish, had duplex UHF and X-band systems that were slaved to the S-band tracker to form the first integrated multiwavelength data-gathering systems for missile observations. The third radar of the trio was the Space Range Radar, or SPANDAR (built for NASA), another S-band system with a superior mount designed expressly for tracking satellite and rocket vehicles at long ranges. Observations of the small Trailblazer payloads by the three radars led to increased understanding of the wake properties of reentering vehicles; however, the understanding was limited because of the poor resolution of the radars and the small size of the payloads. Reentry Simulation Range To supplement the phenomenology measurements at Wallops Island, the Laboratory constructed a Reentry Simulation Range (RSR) in 1960. The range included a powder gun that fired half-inch projectiles with a speed of 9.2 kft/sec, and a light-gas gun that fired 0.186-in projectiles with a speed of 20 kft/sec [9]. Optical and microwave sensors and schlieren cameras were used to make measurements. The RSR, which operated until 1970, provided insight on the reentry effects associated with an object entering the atmosphere at high speed. White Sands Missile Range Other tests were conducted at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico. The tests used the ARPA Measurements Radar (AMRAD), an Lband 60-ft dish radar built for Lincoln by Raytheon, to observe the reentry (at WSMR) of Athena missiles launched from Green River, Utah, and accelerated during their late flight. AMRAD used burst waveforms to achieve the high Doppler ambiguities needed for measuring velocities of ionized gases in the wake. Project PRESS The largest program supported by ARPA to investigate discrimination was Project Pacific Range Electromagnetic Signature Studies (PRESS), which began in mid-1958, with Lincoln Laboratory as its technical director. Central to PRESS was the construction of several large instrumentation radars to make measurements during field tests for developing and validating discrimination algorithms. Under ARPA sponsorship, three such radars were constructed (described below). Also constructed under PRESS were airborne passive optical sensors carried in a KC-135, and numerous ground-based optical sensors interconnected through and controlled by an IBM 7094 computer. TRADEX. The Target Resolution and Discrimination Experiment (TRADEX) radar was a derivative of the UHF surveillance and tracking radar that RCA had built for the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, but with an added L-band tracker and datagathering capability. When in February 1959 the Army decided to locate its Nike-Zeus anti-ballistic missile system at Kwajalein (where it could operate against targets launched from Johnson Island in the Pacific Ocean or from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California), it became evident that TRADEX should be located at the same atoll. A site on the island of Roi-Namur at the northern end of Kwajalein Atoll VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 19 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program was selected, and construction of TRADEX began in 1961. (The site is now called the Kiernan Reentry Measurements Site [KREMS] in honor of Lt. Col. Joseph Kiernan, U.S. Army, who played an important role in the site selection process and who was later killed in action in Vietnam.) On 26 June 1962, TRADEX successfully tracked the first Atlas ICBM launched to Kwajalein, which led to its acceptance by ARPA and subsequent transfer to Lincoln Laboratory on 1 December 1962. Since then, TRADEX has gathered valuable data on the discrimination of missile warheads. ALTAIR. In the early 1960s, the United States discovered that the Soviet Union was developing very large VHF and UHF phased-array radars (dubbed Doghouse and Henhouse) for ballistic missile detection and defense. Understanding how U.S. missiles would fare against these radars required testing them against radars of similar frequency and capability. Hence the second PRESS radar was initiated: the ARPA Long Range Tracking and Instrumentation Radar (ALTAIR). Sylvania Corporation won the contract to build ALTAIR, which was specified to be a high-sensitivity VHF tracker, incorporating a UHF transmitter/receiver to provide data with superior sensitivity and range resolution than that available from TRADEX. ALTAIR’s antenna is unusual for its size and agility: it is a 150-ft dish capable of accelerations of 2∞/sec2 and angular rates of 10∞/sec. The rotating components of the antenna weigh 800 klb. Since becoming operational in May 1970, ALTAIR has supplied much valuable data that has contributed greatly to the development of discrimination techniques. ALCOR. In this same period, Lincoln Laboratory engineers began to examine the use of wideband waveforms for discrimination of warheads from decoys on the basis of their physical dimensions [10]. While it is possible in a test range to employ lowpower short pulses to measure the length of a static target, it is not possible to pack enough energy in a short pulse to make similar measurements at ranges of several hundred kilometers, as would be required by a BMD radar. Nor was it known how the plasma sheath that forms around a body in reentry would affect such measurements. The Laboratory used pulse20 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 compression techniques to modulate the frequency of long radar pulses over a wide frequency band and then upon reception to compress the return signal, effectively integrating the received energy into a very short pulse [10]. In response to a Laboratory proposal dated 17 June 1965, ARPA authorized the Laboratory to build the ARPA/Lincoln C-band Observables Radar (ALCOR) at Kwajalein. Lincoln Laboratory was the prime contractor, and utilized subcontractors such as Hughes, Honeywell, Westinghouse, and RCA. ALCOR became operational in January 1970. Passive Optical Sensors. The major passive optical sensors for PRESS were those carried aboard the Air Force KC-135 aircraft. The initial instrument (called Skyscraper) was an IR tracker/spectrometer developed by the Geophysics Research Directorate of the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory. This instrument was soon augmented with seven others. Data gathering on missile flights to Kwajalein commenced in 1964. During the course of the next few years several of these instruments were replaced. The Skyscraper was replaced by a new tracker/spectrometer called the Airborne InfraRed Telescope (AIRT). Operations continued until 1972 when the use of the KC-135 was ended. For a brief period (1964 to 1966) some passive optical instruments were also carried aboard a Navy A3D aircraft. There were also ground-based instruments, including ballistic cameras, a spectrograph, and a Recording Optical Tracking Instrument (ROTI) located at various islands of the Kwajalein Atoll. Phased Arrays It was recognized early on that the traffic-handling capacity of the early BMD radar sensors was limited by the mechanical movement of their dishes. A much faster and more agile way of controlling the propagating direction of a radar beam was by using a set of fixed radiating elements, the relative phases of which were controlled to form a beam in a chosen direction. Such electronic movement of the beam could be accomplished in microseconds, in contrast to the mechanical slewing of a dish, in which response times are measured in seconds. In the late 1950s Laboratory staff began an intense • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program program in phased-array technology. Array theory was investigated, beamforming and beam-scanning schemes were analyzed, and several test arrays were built [11]. Collaborations with a wide range of industrial and government development programs were established. In later years the Laboratory made important contributions to phase shifters, solid state transmit/receive modules, gallium-arsenide monolithic microwave integrated circuits, and array calibration and testing [11]. The following example describes Lincoln Laboratory’s work in phased shifters. For a phased-array radar to perform beam steering, it is essential that the phases of each contributing radiating element be precisely controlled, because the accuracy of the phases determines the shape and quality of the resulting beam. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Lincoln Laboratory developed latching ferrite phase shifters, which have since become standard configurations for industry. These devices produce phase shifts of a microwave signal through interaction with a magnetized ferrite. Lincoln also researched and developed suitable ferrite material, because the materials available at the time were expensive and incapable of maintaining a controlled magnetic state over a range of ambient temperatures and stresses. Appropriate low-cost ferrite materials with superior operating characteristics were developed at the Laboratory in the early 1970s. Countermeasures In 1962, under Air Force sponsorship, the Laboratory began work on the design, development, testing, and evaluation of countermeasures. The objective of the program (named Advanced Ballistic Missile Reentry Systems, or ABRES) was to examine the effectiveness of various U.S. countermeasures against postulated Soviet BMD systems. Work of this nature continues at the Laboratory, but this article does not go into details. We note that during this period several countermeasure devices were fabricated and tested at Lincoln Laboratory. Among them were the first inflatable replica decoys and compact radar jammers. Operational Strategic Missiles The Laboratory has also been involved since the late 1960s in examining the effectiveness of Air Force and Navy strategic missiles. To that end, measurements of operational ICBMs impacting in the vicinity of Kwajalein Atoll were analyzed. Studies at different levels of complexity have contributed to the determination of the effectiveness of these missiles for different offense-defense scenarios. As with the case of the ABRES program, we do not treat this topic further in this article. It is worth remarking, however, that the Laboratory’s BMD expertise coupled with its involvement in the ABRES program and strategic-missile effectiveness work enables the Laboratory to view both sides of a complex offense-defense interaction, in which the offense develops and tests countermeasures and the defense develops systems to counter them. Key Developments of the Early Years During the early period from 1958 to 1972, the performance of BMD radars improved significantly. Phased arrays were developed to improve traffic handling. Pulse-compression waveforms, with improved range resolution, were demonstrated. A library of coherent radar waveforms was built to measure the ionized wake of objects in reentry. By the end of the period, an extensive database of high-quality radar signature data had been assembled on the plasma bow shock and wake of warhead-like targets. This information was used for developing discriminants for defense systems designed during the subsequent middle period, from 1972 to 1983. The Middle Period (1972–1983) In 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the ABM Treaty, which limited the deployment of BMD systems to 100 interceptors located at a single site. However, the treaty allowed continued research and development in BMD. In the United States, that research focused on systems to defend Minuteman (MM) and Peacekeeper (MX) missiles in their silos or in a different basing mode. Experts felt that low-leakage defense of a city against a massive Soviet first strike was not possible, and that only the threat of massive retaliation would deter such an attack. That retaliation depended on the survival of some fraction (roughly, one-third, in some estimates) of our MM and MX missile force. The putative straVOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 21 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program tegic balance achieved by assuring the survival of this fraction was called mutual assured destruction (MAD). The first BMD systems defined in this period, Sentinel and Safeguard, were based on components originally developed for urban defense. The radars for these systems were expensive, and both the radars and the urban targets were vulnerable to nuclear attacks. The MM and MX silos, on the other hand, were much harder than cities, allowing the intercepts to be conducted at much lower altitudes and the radars to operate at shorter ranges, and thus be less vulnerable to nuclear attacks and penaids. The silo-defense systems envisioned were named Site Defense and later Sentry, neither of which was deployed. During this period, Lincoln Laboratory’s research efforts expanded to include a number of areas, which are described below. Discrimination The discrimination requirements for dedicated silo defense systems differed significantly from those for urban defense considered in the early period of BMD. Since the Site Defense and Sentry radars operated at relatively short ranges and had to be hardened against nuclear effects, the defense battlespace shifted to lower altitudes than for Nike X, Sentinel, or Safeguard. Against a massive attack with sophisticated warheads and penaids, the defense would rely on the atmosphere to filter out much of the missile debris and light decoys, leaving only the warheads and heavy reentry decoys to be discriminated. Early in the development cycle, measurements of booster-tank breakup in reentry indicated that large numbers of fast booster-tank fragments must be anticipated in the Site Defense radar battlespace. It was recognized that some technique of bulk filtering was needed to discriminate these fragments. Special burst waveforms were proposed to separate warheads and decoys from the slightly slower fragments located at the same range. Once warheads and decoys were detected among the fragment set, it was necessary to discriminate them. New discriminants were proposed, based on very fine range resolution, such as an estimate of target length or wake-velocity measurements at low altitudes. 22 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 Radar Development New burst or pulse-pair waveforms were developed and installed on the radars at Kwajalein to measure the aerodynamic structure of the wake. New discriminants based on fine range resolution were achieved with the wideband waveforms of ALCOR. Concurrently, considerable work was done on the development of signal processors and signal processing techniques to bulk-filter the many fragments in the vicinity of the warhead with the use of minimal radar resources. Radar Modifications at Kwajalein The new waveforms and signal processing techniques resulted in, and depended upon, several modifications of the Kwajalein radars, exemplifying three major themes: (1) modification of radars with wideband waveforms, (2) software development of discrimination algorithms, including their real-time testing, and (3) development of a millimeter wave (MMW) radar to obtain data for interceptor seekers. These modifications are discussed below. ALCOR. Simple tracking radars can collect metric data (that is, determine the location and trajectory of a target) but can do little in the way of processing signature data (for example, determine target size or shape). Interest in wideband measurements resulted from the need to reject small decoys that might be otherwise credible targets (that is, they might have credible slowdown and present warhead-like radar cross section [RCS] levels to a narrowband radar). Initial work on wideband radars focused on the hardware required to generate and process high-resolution waveforms [10]. Initial tests of ALCOR in the 1970s showed that length measurements were feasible and could provide important discrimination information against penaids such as small decoys. Later in this period, Laboratory staff developed and installed surface acoustic wave (SAW) devices for pulse compression. TRADEX. In the late 1970s, TRADEX was shut down for a major redesign. The UHF capability was removed. A new feed and additional channels were added to make it an L-band tracker, and an S-band radar was added, which complemented a phased-array Site Defense radar built at Kwajalein. The phased • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program array could make measurements over a very large threat cloud, but it lacked the sensitivity and measurement precision of TRADEX. Thus these two radars were combined to gather a database of measurements for developing discrimination algorithms. Real-Time Testing of Discrimination Algorithms. By the late 1960s, considerable data had been collected by the TRADEX radar, on the basis of which several discrimination algorithms had been developed. The conventional manner of developing a discrimination algorithm was to analyze a large set of field data, then to postulate an algorithm that could be tested at leisure on other collected data. This process was time consuming and depended on the insights of individual scientists. Furthermore, this approach did not disclose the practical difficulties that would arise when the algorithm was implemented in a realistic environment in the field. One of the pioneering efforts of the Laboratory was to develop techniques for converting a candidate algorithm to a detailed software program that would accept radar data at realtime rates and output a decision, or sequence of decisions, concerning the nature of the target. Integration of such an algorithm into an overall logic (or schema) that realistically simulates the conditions of a radar in the field is an essential step in selecting algorithms that will work not only in the laboratory but also in practice. In 1969, after ARPA had relinquished its role in BMD to the Army, the Army Ballistic Missile Defense Agency (ABMDA) requested the Laboratory install a real-time discrimination schema on the Kwajalein radars, to be used as a model for such systems as Safeguard and Site Defense. The implementation, which was termed the Reentry Designation and Discrimination System (REDD), became operational in 1972. TRADEX was the first radar incorporated into REDD, which was based on a CDC 6600 computer. An identical computer with identical software was installed at Lexington, where algorithms were developed and tested on recorded radar data. The promising algorithms were then demonstrated in real time on actual missile flights into Kwajalein. In this manner, a number of tracking and wake discriminants were fully tested. Shortly after its initial operational date, ALCOR was incorporated into REDD for real-time testing of various length-measurement algorithms for the Site Defense system. Although ALCOR operates at Cband and Site Defense at S-band, the algorithms developed on ALCOR data worked well when they were implemented on the Site Defense radar. A number of bulk filtering algorithms were developed and partially tested by using TRADEX data modified so as to resemble data collected by a phased-array radar. ALTAIR. Initially, ALTAIR tracked at VHF and passively collected data at UHF. Because the Perimeter Acquisition Radar (PAR) of the Safeguard system operated at UHF, however, this part of ALTAIR was modified to represent the PAR. Actual PAR algorithms were tested during Safeguard flights and became a major element of the REDD system. (After the termination of the Safeguard system, the PAR was transferred to the Air Force to be used for surveillance and threat warning.) The Simulation of PAR (SIMPAR) involved running the PAR real-time program on the CDC 6600 at Kwajalein, modifying the ALTAIR feed to permit monopulse tracking at UHF, and adding new waveforms to simulate narrowband PAR waveforms. The new feed included a frequencyselective subreflector almost 7 m in diameter. The modified radar operated well; the PAR software produced good results, and the modifications were invaluable for future ALTAIR operations. Millimeter-Wave Radar. Late in the 1970s, interest arose in using MMW seekers for homing interceptors, such as the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC3), and in using MMW radars for airborne or space applications to detect and discriminate targets at higher altitudes. In general, millimeter waves are attractive when the antenna size is limited by platform constraints. Lincoln Laboratory proposed to the Army that a MMW radar be constructed at Kwajalein to make measurements relevant to these interests. With Army approval, the radar was constructed; it achieved operational status in the early 1980s. The MMW radar has a 14-m dish and operates at 35 and 94 GHz. Interpolation between its lower frequency and ALCOR (at 5 GHz) provides a good approximation to what a current defense radar at X-band (10 GHz) might measure. VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 23 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program (Nd:YAG) laser operating at a wavelength of 1.064 mm. LITE began operations at Kwajalein in 1977. Flight Tests The Laboratory also conducted several flight tests (Have Jeep, Have Sled) with sounding rockets during this period to collect data for discrimination algorithm development. For a detailed account of these tests, see the article by Kent R. Edwards and Wade M. Kornegay, entitled “Measurements, Phenomenology, and Discrimination.” Infrared Sensors In the late 1970s, there was increasing interest in the use of passive IR sensors for discrimination. Calculations suggested that the temperature of thermally uninsulated black and gray bodies would depend on their mass. Therefore, multicolor IR sensors might be useful in exoatmospheric discrimination. A detailed study carried out by the Laboratory resulted in the design, development, and construction of the Cobra Eye aircraft described in the final section of this article, and in an accompanying article in this issue by Bartley L. Cardon, Donald E. Lencioni, and William W. Camp, entitled “The Optical Aircraft Measurements Program and Cobra Eye. “ Army Optical Station With the focus of the U.S. BMD effort shifting to the defense of hard targets, measurements made during missile reentry became important. Because the airborne optics program was terminated in 1972, there was a need for expanded ground-based optics. The Laboratory proposed the creation of an Army Optical Station (AOS) at Roi-Namur Island in the Kwajalein Atoll. The AOS consisted of two passive IR sensor and a laser radar. The passive IR sensors (SAMSO/Lincoln Tracking and Acquisition Infrared Experiment [SOLITAIRE] and Ground Based Measurement [GBM]) were originally located at White Sands Missile Range and were both originally developed and operated for measurements there. Each was extensively reworked (SOLITAIRE by the Laboratory and GBM by General Electric) and installed in the AOS. Operations began in 1973 for SOLITAIRE and in 1976 for GBM. The Laser Infrared Tracking Experiment (LITE) was a neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet 24 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 BMD Analyses and Studies As Soviet ICBM force levels and circular error probabilities (CEPs) improved (primarily, through the use of multiple independently targeted reentry-vehicle [MIRV] technology, which increased the numbers of independently targeted warheads per missile, and through the use of bussing, which improved their impact accuracy), it was expected that improved BMD would be required to maintain survivability of the deterrent force. Several national studies were conducted during this period to investigate and evaluate the performance of BMD systems proposed for the defense of MM and MX. Lincoln Laboratory staff played major roles in these studies. Foreign Missile Data Collection and Interpretation In the 1970s, radars began collecting foreign-missile data, which was subsequently interpreted. The primary collection radars were the Cobra Dane radar and the radars of the Cobra Judy ship [10]. Lincoln Laboratory was consulted in the design of these radars (both built by Raytheon Corporation), and played a role in reduction and analysis of the data. The information gained was of great use in the design of BMD systems. The Laboratory later developed the Cobra Gemini shipboard collection system to gather intelligence on shorter-range missiles. Thermal-Blooming Experiments The transmission of a laser beam through the earth’s atmosphere broadens the beam and degrades its coherence, a phenomenon known as thermal blooming. The general technique for correcting this effect is to measure the gradient of the phase error of the wavefront from a known source and use that information to reconfigure the surface of a deformable mirror. In the 1960s the Laboratory began the development of the hardware and conducted measurement programs to verify this technique. These efforts extended well into future eras. Key Developments of the Middle Period The period from 1972 to 1983 saw impressive ad- • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program vances in the use of radars for BMD discrimination. Phased array radars were deployed, among them the Missile Site Radar and Site Defense radars at Kwajalein, and the PAR in North Dakota. The first wideband radar (ALCOR) sited at Kwajalein made important measurements on ICBMs. Many discrimination algorithms were developed, some of them based on wideband measurements that achieved high resolution. Schemas were designed, implemented at Kwajalein, and tested in real time. These advances were preludes to the needs of BMD during the subsequent periods from 1983 to the present. As a result of these efforts, a large body of knowledge on the performance of radars for BMD discrimination existed at the beginning of the SDI era in 1983. The SDI Era (1983–1993) The SDI era of ballistic missile defense began as a result of President Reagan’s speech to the nation on 23 March 1983. In this speech, the President questioned whether the strategic doctrine of mutual assured destruction could produce lasting stability. He argued that effective ballistic missile defense would allow “free people to live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest on the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to defer a Soviet attack.” Following his speech, the President ordered that two studies be conducted. The first of these was directed to examine the feasibility and technology required to conduct effective defense against massive ICBM attacks. The second was to examine strategic and arms-control policy implications. Both studies were conducted in the summer and early fall of 1983. The technology study, called the Defensive Technologies Study (DTS), was headed by James Fletcher, a former NASA director, and involved approximately forty experts in BMD systems and in BMD technology. Several Lincoln Laboratory staff members served on this study and contributed to the DTS conclusions and recommendations. The DTS resulted in two major recommendations. 1. A multilayer defense should be used to achieve low leakage. For example, a three-layer defense, each layer independent of the others and with a leakage of 10% per layer, could achieve an overall leakage of 0.1%. Figure 6 shows a generic sketch of an ICBM trajectory with possible layers and associated timelines. 2. To complicate the design and use of countermeasures, several different types of sensors (microwave radars, lasers, passive IR sensors) should be employed for detection, tracking, and Midcourse 10–15 min Deployment 0–5 min Terminal 2–3 min Boost 3–5 min FIGURE 6. Ballistic missile timeline for a nominal intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) flight. The trajectory is divided into four phases: boost, deployment, midcourse, and terminal. Under the Defensive Technologies Study (DTS) multilayer defense plan, sensors would detect, track, and discriminate, and interceptors would attack during each of the four phases. VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 25 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program discrimination. In addition, a variety of interceptors (e.g., kinetic energy interceptors, lasers, neutral particle beams) should be used to maximize the probability of warhead kill. Not all the technologies required for implementing a multilayered BMD were available. In some cases there were competing technologies and the DTS could not select the one most likely to succeed. However, the DTS concluded that “powerful new technologies are becoming available that justify a major technological development effort offering future technological options to implement a defensive strategy.” The DTS then recommended a long-term research and development effort that would select the most promising technologies, which in turn would be the basis for future BMD architectures. To implement the research and development program recommended by the DTS, the SDIO was established in January 1984 with Lt. Gen. James Abrahamson of the Air Force as the director. Lincoln Laboratory’s efforts during this period are summarized below. Technology Studies The SDIO moved quickly and vigorously to initiate research programs in all the areas the DTS recommended. This was accomplished by conducting detailed studies in specific areas to investigate particular technologies in detail. The Laboratory was the lead organization for these investigations, directing four crucial studies in the 1980s that were instrumental in guiding SDIO research in BMD sensors. These studies were: 1. The Optical Discrimination Study (1984) examined the capabilities of passive IR sensors to discriminate countermeasures from warheads and made recommendations on IR sensor development. 2. The Radar Discrimination Study (1985) examined the capabilities of microwave radars to discriminate countermeasures from warheads and made recommendation on microwave radar development. 3. The Interactive Discrimination Study (1986) investigated the performance of interactive discrimination (disturbing ICBM components 26 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 and measuring the effects of the disturbance), and described the sensors required for this type of discrimination. 4. The Midcourse Sensors Study (1988) did a cost-effective analysis of space-based IR sensors that detected, tracked and discriminated ICBM elements. Research Development Highlights As these studies progressed, SDIO was quick to begin research developments along the recommended lines. The Laboratory had significant involvement in the following research efforts. Exoatmospheric Discrimination. The exoatmosphere is the most difficult phase for successful discrimination. Here there is no atmosphere to slow down or to impart particular signatures to decoys. Reliance must be placed on “birth-to-death” tracking schemes, on small motion differences, and on thermal signatures measured by IR sensors. The Laboratory conducted research in all these areas, focusing on the capabilities and limits of optical discrimination including analyzing data gathered by passive IR sensors and lasers on flight tests at Wallops Island, Virginia. Development of Optical Sensors. Following the recommendations of the Optical Discrimination Study, an extensive program was carried out to develop passive IR sensors and lasers for discrimination. Of great interest was the development of several laser “phased array” techniques that allowed many bodies to be tracked near simultaneously. Discrimination algorithms based on passive IR and laser-radar data were developed, and several field tests were conducted. Constructing and Operating Optical Measurement Sensors. The Laboratory constructed optical measurement sensors to make the measurements necessary for developing optical discrimination. The AOS assembled at Kwajalein consisted of two passive IR sensors and a doubled-frequency Nd:YAG laser. A large-scale (60 cm diameter) IR telescope was designed, built, and installed on a modified KC-135 aircraft. The Cobra Eye IR sensor was used for the collection of both foreign and domestic missile tests. Modifications to the Kwajalein Radars. The Kwajalein radars were modified with waveforms and signal processors that simulated radars that eventually • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program Capability Advanced directed energy Weapons and support technologies Directed energy systems Active discrimination sensors Phase III Phase II Kinetic energy interceptors, radars and passive sensors Phase I Development and deployment decision Time FIGURE 7. The architecture plan toward “thoroughly reli- able” defenses. The plan envisions a BMD system of increasing capability. Initially the system elements are radars, infrared sensors, and kinetic energy interceptors. Laser directed-energy interceptors and advanced discrimination sensors are added. would be used as BMD operational radars. Of greater importance, the Kwajalein radars were netted together, thus allowing for improved operation and a more effective simulation of netting the operational BMD radars. Lexington and Kwajalein Discrimination Systems. Large-scale simulations were constructed to allow the testing of individual discrimination algorithms and of combinations of discrimination algorithms. There were duplicate systems, one at Lexington and one at Kwajalein. Other Technology Efforts. Several other technology efforts important to BMD were pursued. These included development of monolithic 35-GHz transceivers, electro-optic switches, and analog-to-digital converters. Architectural Studies There were two major architectural studies in the 1980s with extensive Laboratory involvement: Pilot Architecture Study. In the fall of 1984, SDIO sponsored the Pilot Architecture Study (PAS). The members of this study were drawn from various Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), the government, and the military. The PAS defined a baseline multi-tier defense-system architecture to counter a massive ICBM attack from the Soviet Union. The PAS concluded that rocket-basedtechnology weapons could be developed more quickly than directed-energy systems. Consequently, the concept of an evolutionary architecture was adopted by the SDIO. Figure 7 shows a notional chart depicting the planned evolution of BMD [13]. Mid- and Terminal-Tier Review. A comprehensive review (in which Lincoln Laboratory staff members took a leading role) of the expected capabilities and cost of the Phase I system was concluded in the summer and fall of 1990. Called the Mid- and TerminalTier Review (MATTR), the study concluded that small space-based interceptors as well as space-based sensors would be needed to augment ground-based interceptors and radars to counter a massive (over 3000 warheads) attack on the United States. Key Developments of the SDI Era Toward the end of the SDI Era, two major events occurred that changed the direction of BMD efforts. The first was the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. The second was the theater ballistic missile attacks launched by Iraq upon U.S. and allied forces as well as upon Israel during Desert Storm, the Gulf War in 1990 [13]. The main threat changed from a massive ICBM attack upon the U.S. mainland from the Soviet Union to a limited attack from any of several countries [14] and to a theater attack upon U.S. and allied expeditionary forces. The shift in direction was made explicit by the Missile Defense Act passed by Congress in 1991. The act directed the Pentagon to develop and deploy theater BMD systems, which included participation by the Army, Air Force, and Navy. It also directed the Pentagon to pursue the development of an ABM-treaty-compliant national missile defense (NMD). In 1994, the NMD Program was redirected to a technology-readiness program [13]. The SDI Era was characterized by the following: 1. Technologies required for NMD were explored and selected, and development was initiated. 2. Architectural evolutions of an NMD system to counter a large scale attack upon the United States were defined. 3. The threat was shifted from that of a massive attack upon the United States from the Soviet VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 27 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program Union to a limited attack initiated by any of several countries on the United States and allied expeditionary forces. 4. The NMD effort was redirected to a technology-readiness program. 5. A major effort involving all military services was begun to develop and deploy TMD systems. Table 1. Theater Missile Defense Systems Army Theater Missile Defense Because ballistic missile attacks upon expeditionary forces can occur in a variety of geographic locations, no one armed service can develop a TMD system that is effective for all situations. Both land-based and seabased systems are required. Thus both the Army and the Navy became involved in TMD. Both services began development of systems that would operate at low altitudes (endoatmospheric) as well as at high altitudes (exoatmospheric). The systems, shown in Table 1, are designed to protect expeditionary forces against attacks by ballistic missiles. The Laboratory’s work in TMD was and continues to be critical to the success of the program. Key areas of the Laboratory’s involvement are listed below. Discrimination. The wide variety of theater missiles systems, their behavior, their signatures, and their countermeasure capabilities require new and robust 28 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 High Altitude Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) THAAD Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) The BMDO/MDA Era (1993 to Present) By 1993 there was a major redefinition of the goals of BMD and a consequent restructuring of the program. The new goals were to (1) place primary emphasis on the development and acquisition of Theater Missile Defense (TMD) for the protection of expeditionary forces, and (2) restructure NMD to a technologyreadiness program [13]. Consequently, the program office was restructured and its name was changed from the SDIO to the BMDO. Funding for research efforts was reduced to achieve these goals. In January 2002, the Secretary of Defense redesignated the BMDO as the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and directed the establishment of “… a single program to develop an integrated system….” The role of that system, to be called the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), was “to intercept missiles in all phases of their flight, against all ranges of threats.” Low Altitude Navy Navy Area Defense (NAD)* Navy Theater Wide (NTW) *In December 2001, the NAD System was discontinued by the Department of Defense. discrimination algorithms. The Laboratory continues to be foremost in this area. Two particular areas of concern are the filtering of clutter as boosters disintegrate during reentry, and the correlation of tracks between surface-based radars and interceptor IR seekers during the final stages of an intercept. Theater Critical Measurements Program. To investigate signatures of putative countermeasures, the Laboratory has been and is conducting a series of well-instrumented field tests at Kwajalein. Three campaigns consisting of two or three flights each have been conducted thus far. The devices flown on these tests were designed and built by the Laboratory. The analysis of the test data has led to new discriminants. THAAD Radar. The radar for the Theater HighAltitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is a new and powerful phased array that incorporates several novel design features. (The radar was designed, developed, and built by Raytheon.) Early in its design phase, Laboratory staff aided in defining the radar requirements and in critiquing the radar design. Later the Laboratory staff analyzed data from prototypes of the THAAD radar and evaluated its performance. Navy Theater Wide. Several studies were conducted to determine the effectiveness of Navy assets in a theater-wide role. The studies determined where improvements or new capabilities (especially for radars) were needed. The Laboratory played a major role in these studies by making major design recommendation for the Navy radar systems after conducting a • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program design and performance analysis of more powerful radars. The Laboratory also was a key contributor of discrimination technology for use in these systems. THAAD System Tests. Some of the first THAAD system tests failed; others were only partially successful. In cooperation with staff from other organizations, Laboratory staff analyzed the data to determine the cause of the failures. TMD Netting. With the large number and variety of TMD systems likely to be deployed in a theater of operations, it is important that these systems be netted through a battle-management, command, control and communication network. Netting provides an economical use of interceptors, reduces missile leakage, and aids the discrimination process. The Laboratory has been very active in this area. In 1994 the Theater Defense Netting Study (TDNS) was carried out under the leadership of Laboratory staff. The study showed that significant performance gains can accrue if TMD systems are netted during a missile attack. Since the study, the Laboratory has continued to examine netting especially as it aids discrimination. National Missile Defense The NMD Program was recast as a technology-readiness program in 1993 and its funding was drastically reduced in order to emphasize the TMD Program. Coping quickly with an emerging threat required a system architecture based primarily on surface-based components (radars and interceptors). In the late 1990s, IR sensors on satellites were integrated into the architecture. The threat facing NMD consists of a few missiles but with very sophisticated countermeasures, and is assumed to originate from any of several geographically dispersed nations. An NMD system is needed to ensure that leakage will not exceed an extremely low amount. These assumptions and requirements make the discrimination requirements very stringent. In more recent times the NMD Program has become a deployment-readiness program. In 1997 a “3 + 3” schedule was adopted. Under that schedule, development and testing would occur over the next three years with a deployment readiness review in 2000. Although the initial deployment, if warranted, was to have been in 2003, the schedule was modified Table 2. National Missile Defense System Components Surface-Based Radars Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWR) Position and Velocity Extraction Phased Array Warning System (PAVE PAWS) Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) X-Band Ground-Based Radar (XBR) Radars on Navy ships (Aegis) Space-Based Sensors Defense Support Program (DSP) (initial version of NMD only) Space-Based Infrared Sensor (SBIRS)–High Space-Based Infrared Sensor (SBIRS)–Low Weapons Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) Navy Ship-Based Interceptor Airborne Laser (ABL) Space-Based Laser (SBL) in 1999 so that the initial deployment would occur in 2005 (with a presumed reduction in technical risk) [13]. The change in the NMD Program to deployment readiness resulted from a proliferation of longrange ballistic missiles by so-called third-world countries, some of whom have interests inimical to the United States and its friends and allies. As of the date of this article, the architecture for NMD is undergoing review, and its exact composition is unknown. The components listed in Table 2, however, are expected to play a role in NMD. Discrimination The Laboratory’s role in this program continues to be focused on discrimination algorithms and on discrimination schemas. The extremely low leakage requirements and the multitude of possible counterVOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 29 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program measures that have been postulated by countermeasure specialists make this one of the key technical areas that must be resolved for a successful NMD system. As in the case for TMD, the fusion of data from several sensors should aid the discrimination process and is being actively pursued. Range Support, Measurements, and Data Analysis The primary location for the collection of data relevant to NMD continues to be the Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR). The Laboratory’s radars at KMR are the nation’s premier asset for this collection, and they are used whenever any U.S. test planned to impact near the Kwajalein Atoll is conducted. Test planning, radar operations, data reduction, and data analysis are all conducted by Laboratory staff and contribute to discrimination research as well as to NMD performance evaluation. Foreign-Data Collection The proliferation of the threat to several countries (together with the proliferation of missile systems) make it mandatory that data on foreign missiles be collected and analyzed whenever possible. The Laboratory participates in this endeavor and is a major contributor to the understanding of the capabilities of foreign missile systems. Architecture Studies With the large number of sensors and weapons being considered for NMD architectures, shown in Table 1, it is essential that trade-offs be made of the overall system performance as the mix and use of system elements changes. The Laboratory is one of several organizations engaged in these studies. Summary Throughout approximately a forty-five-year period, the U.S. objectives in ballistic missile defense have undergone changes. The changes have been made in response to three factors: the perceived threat, the technology available to meet the threat, and above all the calculus that provides the greatest security for the United States. However, during this same period many of the key technical issues of BMD have remained the same. These are discrimination, architec30 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 Table 3. BMD Reviewers Reviewer Affiliation Mark Bernstein Lincoln Laboratory William P. Delaney Lincoln Laboratory George Dezenburg SAIC John C. Fielding Raytheon J. Richard Fisher DESE Research, Inc. Richard Gray Nichols Research (retired) Michael S. Holtcamp Holtcamp Associates, Inc. Leslie A. Hromas TRW Robert H. Kingston Lincoln Laboratory (retired) Michael Lash SMDC Technical Center Charles. W. Niessen Lincoln Laboratory Glen Pippert Lincoln Laboratory (retired) William P. Schoendorf Torch Concepts, Inc. ture design and evaluation, and technology leading to new system elements. Lincoln Laboratory has played a key role in all these issues and has made important contributions to BMD. Figure 5 shows a timeline of events and achievements in Lincoln Laboratory’s program in BMD. Figure 5 also shows the major events that influenced the focus of the U.S. BMD program. Acknowledgments Each article in this special issue of the Lincoln Laboratory Journal was reviewed by at least one BMD specialist outside the Laboratory and one BMD specialist at the Laboratory. Their careful scrutiny of the text and helpful suggestions greatly improved the quality of each article, and we thank them for their efforts. The reviewers are listed in Table 3 with their current affiliations. In addition to reviewers, this issues owes such qualities as it might possess, and even its very existence, to numerous people at Lincoln Laboratory who contributed essential services. We thank them for their invaluable support. • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program REFERENCES 1. E.C. Freeman, ed., MIT Lincoln Laboratory: Technology in the National Interest (Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, Mass., 1995). 2. H.E. Guerlac, Radar in World War II, vol. 8, bk. 1 (A–C) and bk. 2 (D–E), The History of Modern Physics, 1800–1950 (Tomash Publishers, Los Angeles, 1987). 3. In 1909, the U.S. Army specified that its “Airplane No. 1” must achieve a speed of 65 kph. By 1918, the heavily armed (British) Bristol F.2b had a top speed of 200 kph. 4. In place of the Rad Lab, the Research Laboratory for Electronics (RLE) was formed, a smaller counterpart with academic rather than military overtones. 5. J.F. Jacobs, The SAGE Air Defense System: A Personal History (MITRE Corp., Bedford, Mass., 1986). 6. Whirlwind I had been developed at the MIT Servomechanisms Laboratory for the Office of Naval Research, to be part of a flight simulator. The Navy released it to the Air Force. 7. It became clear that the new laboratory would eventually be based, not in Cambridge, but rather on Hanscom Air Force Base, which lies at the juncture of the towns of Bedford, Concord, and Lincoln. Projects involving the names “Bedford” and “Concord” already existed, so the new laboratory took its name from the third town. “Project Lincoln” became “Lincoln Laboratory” soon thereafter. 8. D. Lennox, “Threats—Development and Proliferation of Ballistic and Cruise Missiles,” Seventh Multinational Conf. on Theater Missile Defense: Theater Missile Defense: Systems and Issues—1994, Annapolis, Md., June 1994, pp. 29–36. 9. P.A. Ingwersen and W.Z. Lemnios, “Radars for Ballistic Missile Defense Research,” Linc. Lab. J., vol. 12, no. 2 (2000), pp. 245–266. 10. W.W. Camp, J.T. Mayhan, and R.M. O’Donnell, “Wideband Radar for Ballistic Missile Defense and Range-Doppler Imaging of Satellites,” Linc. Lab. J., vol. 12, no. 2 (2000), pp. 267– 280. 11. A.J. Fenn, D.H. Temme, W.P. Delaney, and W.E. Courtney, “The Development of Phased-Array Technology,” Linc. Lab. J., vol. 12, no. 2 (2000), pp. 321–340. 12. R.J. Purdy, P.E. Blankenship, C.E. Muehe, C.M. Rader, E. Stern, and R.C. Williamson, “Radar Signal Processing,” Linc. Lab. J., vol. 12, no. 2 (2000), pp. 297–320. 13. “Harnessing the Power of Technology: The Road to Ballistic Missile Defense from 1983–2007,” Ballistic Missile Defense, Sept. 2000. 14. This missile defense system called Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) included not only defense of the United States, but also defense of U.S. Allies. This latter requirement was subsequently dropped and the basic architecture of GPALS, many of its system elements, and even the name did not survive for long. VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 31 • LEMNIOS AND GROMETSTEIN Overview of the Lincoln Laboratory Ballistic Missile Defense Program . received an S.B. degree in electrical engineering from MIT and an M.S. degree in physics from the University of Illinois. His early work at the Laboratory included design and programming of the intercept function of the Cape Cod System and the SAGE system (both prototype systems of continental air defense), and analyses of the acquisition and tracking capabilities of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radars. From 1963 to 1969 he was associate leader and then leader of the Systems Analysis group, where he was engaged in the design, fabrication, and performance evaluation of ballistic missile penetration aids. From 1969 to 1993 he served as assistant head, associate head, and head of the Radar Measurements division. He is now a consultant to the division as well as a member of the Independent Science and Engineering group that advises the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization on matters related to ballistic missile defense. Among his awards are the Outstanding Civilian Service Medal, conferred by the Secretary of the Army. He is a lifetime Senior Member of the IEEE, a Senior Member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and a member of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Society of Sigma X. 32 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL . received a B.A. degree in physics from Columbia College, an M.A. degree in mathematics from Columbia University, and an M.B.A. degree from Western New England College. He joined Lincoln Laboratory in 1956, working first on the SAGE air defense system, then on ballistic missile testing, analysis, and evaluation. In 1989, after 33 years at Lincoln Laboratory as staff member, group leader, and senior staff, he retired—a transition that his wife claims to have seen little evidence of— and has since worked part-time at the Laboratory. In 1999 he published The Roots of Things—Essays on Quantum Mechanics, and he is currently writing a book on special relativity. VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, 2002