A SURVEY OF RUSSIAN LOW COST PHASED-ARRAY TECHNOLOGY

Dr. Larry E. Corey

Georgia Tech Research Institute
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332

ABSTRACT
During the past five years, GTRI personnel have been working
directly with the developers of the modem Russian SAM phasedanay radars exploring the possibilities of jointly developing low-cost
phased-array antennas based on the technology used in these
systems. This paper surveys the phased-array technologies used in
those systems and discusses their potential cost saving features.
INTRODUCTION
Since shortly after the collapse of the Former Soviet Union,
re:,earchers from GTRI have been working jointly with the designers
of Russian surface-to-air missile ( S A M ) system phased-array radars.
These systems include the S300 PMU, S300 V, TOR, URAL, RIF,
KLINTOK, and the MIG 31. The S300 PMU, S300V, TOR,
KLINKOK, and MIG-3 1 target engagement phased-arrays are
shown in Figures 1 though 5 respectively. Senior Russian radar and
antenna designers have presented several seminars at Georgia Tech,
GTRI personnel have made several visits to Russia, and some
demonstration hardware has been evaluated at GTRI. During the
seminars at Georgia Tech and through numerous discussions with
the Russian designers, it has become obvious that the Russian
designers take a very different approach to radar system as well as
phased-way antenna design. Phased-array radars developed in the
U.S. tend to be multifunction, using the beam agility of the phasedarray antenna to perform search, acquisition, track, and missile
guidance functions with the same phased-array aperture. The
RLISS~UIS
develop a SAM system using a suite of simple radars, each
only performing a single function. Since they use several phasedmays in one system, each one must be considerably simpler and less
expensive than those used in the U.S. For example, in the TOR
system a limited field-of-view (LFOV) array is dedicated to tracking
and performing missile guidance on only two targets. Phased-arrays
that are used in these limited applications must be low cost. As a
result, the Russian designers have developed simple cost-effective
methods of designing and building phased-arrays.

Figure 1 . S300 PMU Target Engagement Radar

The joint work has been focused on exploring the possibilities of

developing low cost phased-array antennas based on combining the
technologies developed by them for their SAM system arrays with
U.S. electronic and computer technologies. This paper will present
an overview of the low cost phased-array antenna design
philosophiesand techniques used in the Russian systems and the type
of performance that can be expected from them. In Section n, the
design philosophy used by the Russian designers will be presented.
Section I11 will provide examples of the application of that
philosophy to specific systems, and comments concerning the
associated performance tradeoffs are presented in Section IV.

Figure 2. S300V Target Engagement Radar

n-7~03-3232-6/96/$5.000 1 9 9 6 IEEE

255

Low-Cost Phased-Array Antenna Design Philosophy

The Russian design philosophy can be summarized in five basic
points [l]:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Minimize the required number of phase shifter modules

Simplify the array architecture
Design simple and inexpensive components
Minimize the size and complexity of the control system
Simplify the feed design

These points appear to be obvious and not particularly enlightening.

However, they have taken these concepts much further than has
been done in Western systems. The implementation of these ideas
to the degree that it is done in the Russian designs does have an
impact on performance as will be discussed in Section IV. The
Russian designers' answer to this is that they make the cost versus
performance tradeoffs to achieve the "appropriate" level of
performance consistent with the overall system requirements instead
of building phased-arrays with the best possible performance.

Figure 3. TOR Target Engagement Radar

Specific Design Examples

The minimization of the total number of elements required for a
specific field-of-view (FOV) is achieved in full FOV designs by the
use a dielectric rod radiator design. The element radiator/phase
shifter modules for the space-fed S300 PMU and S300 V arrays are
shown in Figures 6 and 7. They have a relatively flat topped element
patterns that are well matched as the main beam of the array is
scanned across a grating lobe boundary. Therefore, the lattice can
be increased to allow grating lobes to form during parts of the FOV.
This, in turn, reduces the number of elements required to cover a
specific aperture area. A savings of approximately 30% in the
number of elements required over a design without grating lobes has
been achieved using this method in full FOV designs. Figure 8 [Z]
shows the element pattern for the S300 V rddiator. The graling lobe
cnters real spacc when the main beam is scanned to approximately
32" and the design scan limit is 42". The figure shows only a slight
mismatch at the grating lobe inception point, less than 3 dB scan loss
at maximum scan, and a fairly sharp rolloff beyond 42".
The (LFOV) Limited Field-of-View TOR target engagement array
has elements in a rectangular lattice with 3A spacing in both
directions. It achieves approximately 42 dB gain with only 576
elements and has a design scan limit of 7.5" in any direction. A
LFOV design without grating lobes would require approximately
7,000 clcments. Mcasured m a y patterns for this antenna for
broadside and maximum scan are presented in Figures 9 and 10
respectively. As Seen from these pattems, the grating lobes are well
controlled by the element pattem at broadside scan, but at maximum
scan the grating lobe grows to within 3 dB of the main beam.

Figure 4. KLINTOK Target Engagement Radar

The simplification of the array architecture is obtained by the use of

a fenite phase shifter and driver design in which two coils are placed
on each phase shifter (see Figures 11 and 12). One coil is connected
in series with a coil on every other phase shifter in the same row, and
the other coil is connected in series with the other coil for every
other phase shifter in the same column. The phase shift for an
element is the sum of the row and column phase shift for its
respective row and column. The phase shifter for the S300 V shown
in Figurc 7 is of this type.
This row-column phase shifting architecture simplifies the array in
several important ways. First, a NxM element array can be
controlled by M t N drivers instead of MN drivers. Second, only

Figure 5. MIG 31 Radar

256

M+N phase commands need to be computed each time the beam is

scanned to a new position. Finally. there are no driver or logic
circuits, data busses, or DC power busses required in the aperture.
The only electrical interface with the aperture is a single wire that
runs in series through the row and column coils of the phase shifter.
The phase shifters are the basic building blocks of the array and
therefore must be simple and easy to manufacture. In the S300 V,
TOR, and the naval systems, the phase shifter is a non-reciprocal
dual-mode type. However, the nc:ed for intemal polarization
converters and to reset the phase shifter between transmit and
receive is avoided since the radar operates in a single bounce circular
(SBC) polarization mode (see Figure 12). It transmits and receives
orthogonal circular polarizations taking advantage of the fact that
sense of the primary (single bounce) n:turn of a circularly polarized
field is reversed upon reflection from the target. The non-reciprocal
phase shifters provide the same phase shift for right hand circular
(RHC) in one direction as it does lor left hand circular (LHC)
polarization in the other. Therefore, there is no requirement to shift
the phase shifter between transmit and receive when it operates in
the SBC mode. The transmission End reception of orthogonal
circular polarizations also provides a natural isolation between the
transmit and receive chains in the radar. The result is a space-fed
phase shiftedelement module consisting of fewer than ten easily
manufactured parts (see Figure 7).

Figure 6 . S300 PMU Phase Shiftermadar Module

The complexity of the beam steering computer and phase shifter

drivers is greatly simplitied by the row-column architecture discussed
above. As mentioned above, the computer is only required to
calculate M+N phase commands instead of MN. Furthermore, each
command for a row or column phase requires only one half the
number of calculations as would be required to compute an
individual element phase command.
In the Russian systems, the feed designs are also very simple. Those
with less than 2,500 elements, such as tke TOR and the MIG-3 1, are
linearly polarized and use waveguide series constrained feed with
quadrant combining for monopulse. Arrays containing more than
2,500 elements such as the S300 Ph4U, S300 V, and the naval
systems, typically are SBC polarized and use space feeds. The S300
PMU multi-hom feed system [3], shown in Figure 13, uses separate
transmit and receive homs on opposite sides of a wire grid
polarization filter. The field radiated by the horizontally polarized
(HL) transmit feed is reflected off the filter and then converted to
LHC polarization as it passes througb polarizing lens. The RHC
polarized target return is converted to Iertical polarization (VL) by
the polarizing lens, passes through the polarization filter, and is
received by the VL monopulse feed. 'The multimode S300 V feed
is shown in Figure 14. It performs the same functions as the S300
PMU feed system, but uses a single multi-mode feed horn. The
transmit port excites HL mode in the throat of the horn which is
converted to LHC by the polarizer in the mouth of the horn. The
RHC target return is converted to vertical polarization by the
polarizer. The throat of the hom has both horizontal and vertical
septums through which the target return propagates. This VP
energy in each of the four quadrants of the throat is coupled out of
sidewall couplers and re-combined through hybrids to form the E,
AAz, and AEl monopulse channels.

Figure 7. S300V Phase Shiftermadiator Module

10

20

40

50

30

6b

c
On

Angle (degrees)

Figure 8. S300V Element Pattern

257

Figure 11. Row-Column Phasing Architecture

Q.C.

O0

RAC

RAC

G.L.

IHC

Figure 9. TOR Radiation Pattem Scanned to Broadside

Transmit RHWLHL
Receive LHC/RHC
720' Differential Phase Shifts
1Driver per Row & COlUmn

Figure 12. S300V/TOR Phase Shifter Configuration

for SBC Operation

LENS
ARRAY

DIELECTRIC
RADOME
POLARIZING

HORIZONTAL
CIRCULAR
RECEIVE

Figure 10. TOR Radiation Pattern Scanned to 7.5"

with Grating Lobes

.....................

ELEVATION

RECEIVE HORN
v-POL

Figure 13. S300 PMU Feed System

258

Target

TABLE 1: Antenna Characteristics

E-E

R-C

Elsnrentby6lnnent

* Row-column

SBC
Smgk Bounce Cimuhr
W. * VnficalLtnenr

Figure 14. S300V Feed System

Performance Tradeoffs

The Russian low-cost techniques presented in this paper are very

effective in reducing the cost and complexity of phased-array
arlteiinas and appear to work well for the purposes for which they
wc:re designed. However, when compared to U.S. design practices,
there are performance and flexibility penalties associated with these
sa.vings. The larger element lattices reduce element count but create
grating lobes under certain scan conditions. The row-column phase
control architecture is simple and cost effective, but does not allow
for errors in individual phase shifters to be corrected using the beam
steering computer and can create phase errors that are correlated
over entire rows or columns of elements. This lack of individual
element control tends increase sidelobe levels, reduce beam pointing
accuracy, and slightly defocused the large space-fed arrays. The
reduction in phase shifter drivers from MN to M+N means that if a
driver fails, an cntire row or column of elements is lost. The
multimode feeds in the large space-fed arrays perform well but are
not suitable for very low sidelobe or wide bandwidth applications.
The simple series constrained feed used in the smaller systems are
not capable of simultaneouslyproviding good sidelobe control in the
monopulse Z and A modes.

References
[l] Sophia A. Barsokova, Russian Low-Cost Phased Array
Antennas, IEEE National Radar Conf. March 28,1994.

[2] IBID
[3] David K. Barton, The Moscow Airshow, Microwave
Journal, May 1993.

In conclusion, the Russian phased-array designers have developed

phased-array antenna components, architectures, and design
concepts that are simple, inherently low cost, and very effective.
The application of these low-cost techniques allows them to use
phased arrays in applicationsthat would not be cost effective if U.S.
design practices we^ used. This, in tum, allows them to build large
numbers of phased-array radar systems and achieve even further cost
savings through the economy of scale. Table 1 provides a summary
of the basic features of the modem Russian target engagement
phased-arrays and indicated which ones use the cost saving features
discussed in this paper.

259