Development Plans, U.S.

Air Force Headquarters,

THE was selected to head a Blue Ribbon Air Staff Task

Force to investigate methods of countering these

RADAR lethal weapon systems in an effort to provide

warning and protection to U.S. air crews against this

WARNING new threat.

The need for aircraft self-protection assets

STORY was the driving force behind a seminar held in

August 1965, and led to a recommendation for the
development of aircraft avionics systems capable of
IN THE BEGINNING detecting and destroying the controlling radars in
YEAR: 1965
these defense networks. The concept was
In July 1965, an American F-4 Phantom II
appropriately named Wild Weasel, an animal known
was shot down over North Vietnam. This loss
to hunt vermin.
represented the first American aircraft to be downed
by an SA-2 Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) in the Almost in disastrous parallel, a Navy
Southeast Asian conflict. This event heralded the RA-5C reconnaissance aircraft was lost over
beginning of a serious and lethal new challenge to Dienbienphu. Again, the culprit was the SA-2.
American air superiority. A $5.5 million aircraft was lost, causing considerable
comment that the aircraft was too expensive to
In the succeeding months of the war,
introduce into combat. Soviet-built SAM technology
American aircraft would attempt to penetrate major
was threatening to destroy a much needed
targets in the North, and they would fly their
intelligence capability that had been developed and
missions into the teeth of the most sophisticated air
deployed at a cost of several hundred million dollars.
defense network ever deployed in history.
In parallel with the Dempster panel,
The North Vietnam air defense system, as it
DDR&E convened a committee to evaluate options
evolved in the mid to late 1960s, consisted of
and make selections for the development of a
Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA), SAMs and MIG
warning and jamming equipment suite. It was
fighter aircraft, all closely coordinated through the
decided that of all the proposals received, a concept
use of communications and radar. The need to
called Vector IV offered the best potential solution
counter this lethal new threat was painfully obvious
to the warning problem. As a result of this decision,
as losses of aircraft and crew grew to unacceptable
a then-small company based in Northern California
levels.
rocketed into national focus. The Vector IV concept
Brigadier General K.C. Dempster, was proposed by Applied Technology, Inc.

then Director of Operational Requirements and

1
 On a Friday the 13th in 1966, Applied
AN/APR-25
Technology’s AN/APR-26 radar warning receiver
performed successfully in a combat mission and
added yet another success for the growing
company. In the 1966 – 1967 time frame, Applied
Technology was shipping radar homing and
warning systems at a rate of 250 per month.
Employment levels approached 1,400, a seven-fold
increase in just two years.

In November 1965, the USAF Sacramento

Air Material Area awarded Applied Technology AN/APR-35
a contract for 500 AN/APR-25s, the system
nomenclature for the Vector IV concept. The system
was based on the use of crystal-video detection
techniques in the threat bands only, where the hostile
equipment’s relative direction was resolved by a
CRT display using vectorial inputs from four
antenna patterns. Thus, the initial concept name,
Vector IV.

Until this time, Applied Technology had

The AN/APR-36 and AN/APR-37 were
been primarily involved in strategic reconnaissance
updates to U.S. Air Force AN/APR-25/26 systems.
and intelligence technology programs where a large
Continually pressing the edge of technology for new
production run consisted of 10 systems. The impact
ways to protect aircraft and crews, Applied
of the AN/APR-25 award was huge. Further, the
Technology developed and added features such as
U.S. Navy awarded Applied Technology a
automatic time/video correlation circuits. At the
production order to outfit its aircraft with this critical
same time, the company developed a
new protective asset.
superheterodyne analysis receiver in the form of the
Very little was known about the threat in AN/APR-35 system.
those early days, and the design philosophies of
This second generation system was quickly
warning systems were based upon gathering as much
fitted into all Wild Weasel aircraft. The new
signal information as available. Later this philosophy
equipment provided the Electronic Warfare
would change as the need for sorting analysis and
Operators (EWO) with improved capability to
prioritization of lethal pulses became semi-
discretely assess the threat.
automatic.

2
 It was during their support of strike missions survival demanded speed. The improvements made
into North Vietnam that the Wild Weasels won their in operator interface began to pay off in lifesaving
motto of “first in and last out.” The Weasels flew dividends.
well in advance of strike aircraft and actually baited
At the same time, new information
hostile SAMs to clear a safe corridor for the follower
continued to surface about the subtleties of the
aircraft to enter and reach the target. The Weasels
various threats. After analysis, new logic and
rolled back the SAM sites through bait or attack of
techniques were consistently incorporated in true
the sites. As they detected SAMs along the strike
Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) fashion in
route, they also provided warning to strike aircraft
operational systems on board strike aircraft. When a
when they detected a SAM launch. This provided an
new requirement originated in Da Nang, in some
instant alert and maximum reaction time for evasive
cases, only 72 hours passed before an Applied
action. U.S. Air Force B-52s were never sent into
Technology representative was performing
North Vietnam, or any other areas within possible
installation changes.
range of SAMs, without a Wild Weasel escort.
TIMES CHANGE
New technology had been deployed at the
scene of the battle, and the use of Applied In 1969, the hostile chess game assumed
Technology’s radar homing and warning equipment new proportions with the fielding of more lethal
played a key role in the success of the engagements. SAMs and AAAs. The U.S. Navy, upon perception
of the Mediterranean Threat impact, initiated action
The action taken to interface this new
that resulted in the next generation warning systems
technology with needs of a pilot and an EWO
for Naval attack aircraft, the AN/ALR-45. It was the
required unprecedented military and industry
first digital system which incorporated hybrid
teamwork. Tense pilots, busy flying their aircraft
with full knowledge of their illumination by a
SAM, did not have the time to work with a AN/ALR-45
potentiometer or a confusing jumble of strobes.
The action to address this issue was is one of the
most critical successes of the Wild Weasel
program. Teamwork between the pilot and EWO
developed to a point where communications were
instantaneous, with the EWO making quick
interpretations from displays and providing
instructions to the pilot as to “which way to
duck.” When a SAM was fired at a Weasel
aircraft, there was no time for discussion as

3
microcircuits using digital logic and clock drivers. computer sciences house. Cost was a major motive
From 1970 – 1974, the AN/ALR-45 was introduced in this change.
to the Fleet.
In mid-1972, Applied Technology was in
As the threat scenario continued to the midst of purchasing a militarized computer with
proliferate into a lethal array of densely deployed an architecture similar to that of a standard avionics
weapons of varying types, frequencies and computer. Management review of the situation noted
modulation methods, a new realization emerged. an indelible trend of the future need for more costly
Previous design philosophies were based on computer systems. The determination that a circuit
obtaining as much signal data as possible. Now, it board improvement to the ALR-45 could be
became necessary to start discarding non-lethal duplicated by low cost memory, if the CPU was fast
threat information. Prioritization of threats and enough, provided a more attractive option. The
emitter tagging became critical. Only computational solution resulted in an effective application of
power could solve this increasingly complex another new technology, the Vector V warning
technical problem. Unambiguous warning, coupled concept, and a next generation Applied Technology
with ease of use, heralded the end of analog control system.
in the aircraft warning function.
Based on a processing concept that was built
The U.S. Air Force, as part of its ALR-46 around a variable programmer-alarmer idea,
program, was the first to field a digital, software- software routines were created so that probability
controlled radar warning receiver. statements on frequency/PRI, PRF, Pulse Width,
Pulse Coding, etc., could be constantly analyzed.

ALR-46 The initial study resulted in the idea that

conditional probability statements with determinant
pairs of frequency and PRI represented an effective,
processing technique. Creating a computer capable
of handling large volumes of data was the over-
riding philosophy, but dramatic technological change
had begun.

In late 1972, Applied Technology

established a goal to develop the world’s first
computer specifically designed for electronic warfare
In late 1971, a fundamental change took
applications. The system would occupy 100 cubic
place at Applied Technology. In its continual quest
inches in volume, consume 80 watts in power and
to lead technology innovations, the company was
realize a 250K words per second I/O rate. Also, the
changed from an analog circuit design house to a

4
computer would deinterleave pulse trains and be allocation of jamming assets began gathering favor.
capable of squadron-level reprogramming using An aircraft flying into the forward edge of a battle
flight line equipment. area, facing SAM and AAA weapons, which are all
controlled by a variety of radars, needed to
Results were impressive. In July 1973, the
intelligently use its radiative power. The jammers
Applied Technology Advanced Computer (ATAC)
were used to spoof, or otherwise blot out the return
was implemented. Cost was well within targeted
to the hostile radar receiver. Integrated power
goals, volume was only 96 cubic inches, power
management systems, using state-of-the-art
consumption was 45 watts instead of 80 watts and
computer processing, collected and analyzed
the I/O rate was 1.25 megawords per second,
multiple threats and provided real-time data for
representing a five-fold improvement over the initial
optimum jamming capabilities.
design goals.
The typical power management suite implied
The new ATAC computer was subsequently
a “look through” time for the radar warning receiver.
injected into the Vector V program and resulted in a
The implicit need for speed and prioritized threat
third generation system which incorporated all
warning information passed to jammers pushed
advancements in microprocessor and microcode
technology to yet another frontier.
technology.
Recognizing the need for coordinated
AN/ALR-68 use of electronic warfare assets, the U.S.
Navy initiated the development of its third
generation warning receiver for the EA-6B
Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, called the
CWCS program. In 1974, intense competition
surrounded this coveted program solicitation,
as an entire fleet retrofit and new aircraft
inventory programs were on the horizon.

In 1975, Applied Technology was

awarded the CWCS program, now called the
AN/ALR-67 countermeasures warning and
The Vector V signal data converter formed control system.
the basis of the AN/ALR-68(V), as well as the
At the same time, the U.S. Air Force also
nucleus of the Enhanced Radar Warning Equipment
had other major programs underway, the ALR-46
used on the MRCA Tornado.
and the AN/ALR-69.
The concept of computer managed power

5
THREE DECADES LATER Standard attrition percentages used by Military Air
Planners are 0.3% for the first 24 hours of combat
Litton Applied Technology’s reputation for
operations.
providing products with exceptional performance
records in combat was reinforced again during During the 42 days of Desert Storm

Desert Storm. Litton threat warning systems were operations, USN/USMC pilots flew 28,000 sorties

flown onboard 80% of the 1,000 U.S. fixed wing with a total of 7 aircraft combat losses for an attrition

aircraft, and 100% of Canadian and Kuwait combat rate of 0.025%. Combat pilots repeatedly praised the

aircraft. Litton Applied Technology systems flown unambiguous threat identification and timely

included the: ALR-69 on F-16, A-10 and MC/AC- warning of Litton radar warning systems even in the

130 aircraft; ALR-46 on B-52, RF-4C and MC/AC- presence of jammers, numerous hostile threat

130 aircraft and ALR-67 on F/A-18, A-6, F-14A and systems and large numbers of friendly radars.

AV-8B aircraft. Coalition forces equipped with Since the beginning of the electronic
Litton threat warning systems achieved nearly warfare environment, Litton’s Applied Technology
perfect survivability rates. Installed EW systems and division has designed and produced threat warning
operational tactics were flown in more than 2000 systems to meet the most severe tests. Not since the
combat sorties the first 48 hours of the war. first threat warning system, the APR-25, was
Although many SAMs were fired, only one aircraft exposed to combat in the skies over Viet Nam, has
was lost to missile fire. This one loss amounts to the company’s products been so critically tested.
an almost unbelievable low attrition rate of 0.05%. Pilots who flew in Viet Nam found the Iraqi air

6
defenses as tough or more difficult than anything WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS
they had ever flown against. A member of the U.S.
Litton Applied Technology systems are
House of Representatives’ Intelligence Committee
meeting the needs of worldwide militaries in over
was quoted as saying, “next to Moscow, Baghdad is
30 nations. representing 80% of all threat warning
the most heavily defended target we might ever have
systems produced.
planned to go against.” Threats faced and survived
by coalition air forces included the SA-2, SA-3, As the proliferation of new threats and
SA-7, SA-8, SA-9 SA-14, Improved Hawk, Roland, world conflicts continue to arise, the threat
Crotale, ZSU-23, multiple AAAs and various Soviet environment becomes more complex. This
and French-made Iraqi aircraft. continuing proliferation of advanced weapons
systems and missiles will drive the requirement for
Air Force and Navy pilots reported that flack
advanced, integrated and automated self-protection
from AAA and SAM missiles was so heavy over
systems.
target areas that without effective threat warning and
coordinated countermeasures, many more aircraft There are very few defense equipment
would have been lost. suppliers that have consistently delivered leading
edge combat systems that operate effectively
against present and emerging threats anywhere in
ALR-74(V)
the world. Litton Applied Technology is the
leader of those few.

Tomorrow’s changing requirements for

self-protection and surveillance systems will
continue to press the limits of technology.
Leading the way with practical cost-effective
solutions, Litton Applied Technology has
designed and developed upgrade kits for installed
systems, as well as new systems and self-
protection suites.

Litton’s ALR-67, ALR-69 and ALR-74(V) series NEW TECHNOLOGY BREAKTHROUGHS

threat warning systems were designed to defeat the ALR-66B(V) Surveillance and Targeting System
best Soviet and other nations weapons technology.
Operation Desert Storm was a real world The ALR-66B(V)2 Surveillance and

demonstration of the superiority of the technology Targeting System provides precision direction

and knowledge embodied in the Litton systems. finding for over-the-horizon capabilities for
operators of maritime patrol aircraft through the

7
 incorporates the latest in technology advancements
ALR-66B(V)3 including:
 Frequency Sorting Techniques

 Multiple Preprocessors and Processors

 Gate Arrays

 Integrated Instantaneous Frequency

Measurement Receiver, Superheterodyne
Receiver, Crystal Video Receiver and
YIG-controlled receiver

 Capability to integrate with jammers, chaff

and flare dispensers and missile warning
detection, identification and location of radars in the systems and to provide Forward Looking
Precision
C-J frequency range.

The ALR-66B(V) system uses advanced

signal processing techniques to achieve ALR-62I
instantaneous, positive emitter identification in high-
density environments. Integrated with the aircraft’s
radar antenna, the system provides ultra-high system
sensitivity and precision DF accuracy with no
penalty to radar performance. Simultaneous
operation of the radar, surveillance and direction
finding functions is allowed.

Advanced system capabilities include:

• Automatic measurement of emitter
parameters
The ALR-62I addresses CW, On/Off Keyed
 Integration with other aircraft sensors and
systems via an expandable processor interface CW, Electronically Scanning emitters, Pulse Doppler,
structure Pulse emitters (RF stable/hopper/agile and PRI

• Advanced signal processing concepts cou pled stable/jitter/stagger/agile/wide-random) in the RF

with expanded data memory range of 0.5 to 18 GHz.
ALR-62I Threat Warning System
A higher density environment capability was
The ALR-62I represents major changes to the added to identify state-of-the-art threats, and to
previously fielded ALR-62, providing improved provide faster processing time with lower false alarm
situational awareness, survivability and mission rates. Flight-line reprogrammable with a
accomplishment capabilities. The ALR-62I comprehensive diagnostic BIT, other ALR-62

8
improvements include 1553B interfaces with Litton has made a significant investment in a
onboard avionics and increased MTBF rates. follow-on upgrade to the ALR-67 ECP-510 system.
Upgrade features include wide band passive ranging
This advanced technology system upgrade
and the capability to detect and/or exploit low
includes fast bipolar CVRs, a wide-band IFM
frequency signals for improved tactical awareness.
receiver, dual bandwidth SHR, multiple CW/PD
input protection devices consisting of two-band ALR-91(V) Series Threat Warning Systems
reject YIG filters, variable attenuator, software
The principle technology breakthrough
adaptive threshold, frequency and AOA screens.
provided by the ALR-91(V) Series threat warning
Also, a computer network consisting of dual CPUs
systems is the capability to continuously collect and
with EEROM memory and 7 microcontrollers, dual
analyze radar signals over the full 0.5 to 18.0 GHz
pipeline video processors, dynamic input scheduling,
frequency range. Prior and current generation
new self test oscillators and new software algorithms
are included.

ALR-67 and the ECP-510/Follow-On Upgrade

ALR-91(V)

The basic ALR-67 threat warning system is

installed on F-14, F/A-18, A-6 and AV-8B tactical
aircraft for improved situational awareness. The

ALR-67

systems are constrained in that collection and

analysis capabilities of radar signal data are limited
to a portion of the frequency range. Typically, other
systems are of “band sampling” type; that is they
collect and analyze signal data of one band at a time.

ALR-67 ECP-510 upgrade for fielded ALR-67 Three or four bands are usually required to cover the

systems is a card-for-card upgrade that provides a full frequency range. Detection of radar signals on

significant increase in system sensitivity in the other bands is not possible when a band sampling is

presence of strong signals, and a sizeable increase in underway. The ALR-91(V) Series does not require

computer pulse processing capability using the latest band sampling, as all bands are collected at the same

in technology. time. This new capability allows detection of all

tactical radars as soon as aircraft tracking begins.

9
 The capability to continuously collect and The principle technology breakthrough
analyze radar signals over the full frequency range is provided by the ALR-93(V) Series Threat Warning
made possible because of recent breakthroughs in the and ESM systems is continuous collection and
design of Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) analysis of radar signals in complex environments.
Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC). A
set of these VLSI ASIC chips was developed by ALR-93(V)
Litton to enable the ALR-91(V) Series to rapidly
detect and provide warning of the growing number
of phased array radars. Software programmable,
these chips automatically:
• Collect radar signal pulse data;

• Sort each pulse by frequency, angle and

amplitude;

• Store the sorted pulses in separate memory

areas;
The ALR-93(V) is an effective asset to use against
• Store only the desired number of pulses from
each radar signal, and these modern threats including:
• Lethal radars that operate in CW, wide
 Remove redundant pulses. pulse widths and/or high duty cycle (Pulse
Doppler);
The ALR-91(V) Series threat warning
systems detect, analyze and identify all known types • Lethal scanning radars (track-while-scan);

of tactical threat radars in less than two seconds. The • High duty cycle emitters capable of masking
systems have been successfully tested against the full the detection of other radars; and

range of standard and modern radar types. • Simultaneous agility in PRI and RF
parameters.
ALR-93(V) Series Threat Warning and ESM System
The ALR-93(V)’s unique receiver
The ALR-93(V) Threat Warning and ESM configuration contributes to its effective operation.
System is a lightweight, high-sensitivity, C through J Baseband receivers and a wide acquisition
band system, designed to operate in dense, complex bandwidth Instantaneous Frequency Measurement
emitter environments with a high probability of (IFM) receiver cover the entire frequency spectrum
intercept capability. Its unique architecture, in continuous bands while maintaining a high
combined with advanced technology and probability of intercept. This capability minimizes
sophisticated packaging concepts, resulted in a high- the time required to cover the entire RF spectrum
performance, small footprint system which weighs and provides pulse-to-pulse frequency measurement
less than 55 pounds, and meets the critical of even the most frequency agile radars. The IFM
requirements needed for today’s fighter aircraft. provides the key discriminator to the emitter analysis

10
process, and significantly contributes to its ability to The ASPIS consists of threat warning/ESM
operate in high density environments. systems, provided by Litton, electronic
countermeasures systems (jammers) provided by
The ALR-93 incorporates a superhet
Raytheon, and chaff and flare countermeasures
receiver for high sensitivity and high selectivity with
dispenser systems provided by Tracor.
narrowband frequency search modes. The SHR
scanning capability further contributes to the The customer is able to purchase a system
elimination of ambiguities by resolving and/or tailored to his unique needs using off-the-shelf and
looking around multiple high duty cycle Pulse proven electronic warfare systems which have been
Doppler and CW emissions radiating at closely pre-integrated and demonstrated. The diversity of
spaced frequencies and bearings. this unrivaled approach allows ASPIS to be installed

The ALR-93(V) Series

contains hardware and software
tools which function auto-
matically and without
degradation in high density
environments, and addresses
the problem of high duty cycle
signal corruption and the
acquisition of pulsed emissions
in the presence of these signals.
This includes environment
filtering at RF and video,
narrowband SHR search and
preprocessing.
as an original system or as an upgrade to existing

Advanced Self-Protection Integrated Suite (ASPIS) systems. Phased upgrades of capabilities are
available to meet the user’s schedule and budget.
One of the ways Litton Applied Technology
is improving situational awareness capabilities for
tactical aircraft is through an Advanced Self-
Protection Integrated Suite or ASPIS. Strategically
aligned, Litton Applied Technology, Raytheon’s
Electromagnetic Systems Division and Tracor
Aerospace have integrated what is clearly the
survivability system for the 21st century.

11