______THEMEARTICLES

BILL Y D. DOBBINS and GEORGE W. LUKE

FROM TO AEGIS: AN INTRODUCTION

This issue of the Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest discusses one major aspect of the Applied Physics Laboratory's involvement in U.S. Navy Air Defense from World War II to the present. To place this role in perspective, we must examine the development of guided missile technology and the factors that brought it into being.

The Applied Physics Laboratory was founded in foundation of guided missile technology while simul­ 1942 for the purpose of developing, perfecting, and taneously developing the BUMBLEBEE family of speeding into production a radio proximity fuze to supersonic guided missiles to meet specific tactical re­ protect the Fleet from air attack. This device was de­ quirements. The Laboratory established BUMBLE­ signed to trigger an antiaircraft shell when it came BEE Technical Panels, embracing each relevant area close to its target. In January 1943, the USS HELENA of technology, to promote an exchange of ideas was the first ship to shoot down an enemy aircraft by among government, universities, and industry. means of proximity-fuzed projectiles. In the early stages of the program, ramjet propul­ Pursuing the technological breakthrough with the sion was considered to entail somewhat less risk than highly effective proximity fuze, the Navy's Bureau of solid-propellant rocket propulsion for controlled Ordnance (BuOrd) requested, in July 1944, that APL supersonic flight. The ramjet offered greater range make a study of future requirements for U.S. Fleet and maneuverability - attributes that were con­ antiaircraft defense and develop "something brand sidered very desirable for engaging a missile-carrying new" that could maintain an effective counter to aircraft before it reached launch range. Priority was enemy air attack. Until that time, no rockets existed therefore given to the development of a long-range with which to launch a missile with a warhead pay­ ramjet. load large enough to destroy a plane, radar guidance By 1948, rapid progress had been made in the technology was minimal, and the techniques of su­ development of rocket-powered supersonic flight. personic flight were virtually unknown. After the One of the early solid-rocket-propelled test vehicles, problem was studied, "The results of an extensive designed and built to obtain aerodynamic data, had and intensive investigation by APL and its associated exhibited excellent flight characteristics. After universities, notably the University of Virginia, were careful review, the Navy decided that this test vehicle reported to BuOrd in November 1944, suggesting that could become a useful short-range antiaircraft a supersonic, rocket-launched, ramjet-propelled, ra­ missile for use on -size ships. dar-guided missile was the 'something new' that APL accepted the responsibility for converting this

might solve the emerging operational problems." J test vehicle into a prototype missile, and the At about the same time, the Japanese deployed the TERRIER Program was officially launched. By the Kamikaze - a manned suicide aircraft dedicated to end of 1953, TERRIER Missiles were ready for sea carrying bombs into direct collision with Navy ships. tests from the experimental ship USS NORTON The Kamikaze, in fact, became the first "guided" SOUND and the USS . In antiship missile in the Pacific theater of operations. November 1955, the USS BOSTON was recommis­ Early in 1945, BuOrd assigned to APL the broad sioned as CAG-l and, carrying TERRIER Missiles, task of developing guided missiles for shipboard use. became the first guided missile ship in the world. The The Laboratory turned its attention to the develop­ event marked the culmination of the first phase of ment of the technologies (aerodynamics, propulsion, the TERRIER Program. guidance and control, launchers, structures, test While TERRIER was being readied for production, methods, analysis, etc.) needed to develop and pro­ parallel development continued on the ramjet missile duce guided missiles. This program was given the called TALOS. In 1949, the first full-scale propulsion code name BUMBLEBEE. In accordance with the test vehicle was successfully flown, and in 1952, the overall objectives of the BUMBLEBEE program, APL first TALOS Missile was successfully flight tested. In and its associated contractors moved to establish a 1958, the recommissioning of USS GALVESTON as a

Volume 2, Number 4, 1981 233 guided missile cruiser marked the introduction of the of the Navy, began to formulate the concepts for a TALOS System into the missile arsenal of the U.S. new, fully integrated, antiair warfare weapon sys tem. Navy. The TALOS Weapon System stayed in the Fleet For the next six years, in a succession of program­ until 1980. matic steps (including concept formulation, contract Missile technology continued to evolve at APL with definition, and advanced development), APL played the study of a surface-to-air missile suitable for de­ a vital role in the determination of requirements and ployment on smaller ships, such as destroyer escorts. in exploratory development of the more complex ele­ That missile, named TARTAR, was first deployed in ments of the system. The Advanced Multi-Function USS ADAMS in 1960. Array Radar (AMFAR), discussed in the article by In 1957, APL formulated the basic concepts and C. C. Phillips in this issue, is representative of this techniques for the first integrated missile weapon sys­ development. Concurrently, a decision was made by tem based on a radar system with an electronically the Navy to standardize the TERRIER and TARTAR steered beam of radar energy. The concept included a Missiles by developing modular components that medium-range missile similar to TARTAR but with could be assembled into medium-range and ex­ Track-Via-Missile (TVM) guidance and an extended tended-range versions for TARTAR and TERRIER range missile that was a small advanced ramjet with ships, respectively. command and TVM guidance. This system was During the summer of 19,68, the Laboratory was named TYPHON. In 1959, APL, Westinghouse, host to a second Navy Technical Planning Group, General Dynamics, and Bendix began development which recommended that the "standardized" mis­ of the TYPHON Weapon System and the two versions sile, now known as the STANDARD Missile (SM-l), be of the missile. The weapon system was installed in the equipped with a midcourse command guidance mode NORTON SOUND. Successful search and track tests for use with the TERRIER and TARTAR Systems, as were performed, but no missiles were fired. The mis­ well as with the new Advanced Surface Missile Sys­ siles were designed and the long-range missile was tem. The evolution of these developments is dis­ successfully flight tested at White Sands Missile cussed in the article, "STANDARD Missile: The Range with the command guidance system. The TVM Common Denominator," by M. E. Oliver and W. N. guidance system was successfully demonstrated in Sweet, in this issue. In late 1969, engineering devel­ aircraft flight tests. Although the designs achieved opment commenced on the system, now called expected performance, the system could not be pro­ AEGIS. (This development is presented in the article duced at an acceptable cost using technology avail­ in this issue by 1. D. Flanagan and G. W. Luke, able at that time. Therefore, the program was ter­ "AEGIS: Newest Line of Navy Defense.") By the minated in 1963. early 1970's, the AEGIS Mk 7 Weapon System had By 1960, it had become apparent that the emerged conceptually as the embodiment of all the TERRIER, TARTAR, and TALOS Systems (the 3T key elements required in an area antiair warfare de­ family) faced performance limitations, particularly fense ship. (Area defense, the middle ground between in view of the expected growth and diversity of air at­ long-range outer defense and short-range self-de­ tacks in the next several decades. Those limitations fense antiair warfare, is discussed in the article, were first perceived to be associated with the ship­ "Battle Group Air Defense Analysis," by R. S. Far­ board equipment but were later seen to have total ris and R. 1. Hunt, in this issue.) system connotations. To improve the effectiveness of Meanwhile, it had become apparent that many the systems then being deployed, the Navy estab­ changes were needed to upgrade existing ships to lished the Surface Missile Systems (SMS)* Project keep them competitive until AEGIS could be exten­ and, following the recommendations made by a sively deployed. In particular, the requirement for Technical Planning Group (later referred to as TPG), greatly improved target detection performance in requested that APL initiate a program for upgrading adverse radar operating environments, and the need the capabilities of the 3T ships. Concurrently, studies to increase the effective range of the TERRIER were begun to determine requirements for a new mis­ System to fill the gap left by the retirement of the sile system. TALOS cruisers, demanded attention. In 1963, a formal expression of need was made by Investigation of radar performance at sea during the Chief of Naval Operations for an Advanced Fleet operations and exercises showed that, although Surface Missile System (ASMS) suitable for installa­ the radars generally detected targets, the operators tion on new cruisers and . (See the article were unable to deal effectively with the large quantity by 1. D. Flanagan and W. N. Sweet, "AEGIS: Ad­ of detections reported on their displays or to perform vanced Surface Missile System," in this issue.) To the manual operations required to track a target at meet this need, an ASMS Assessment Study Group rates that would cope with the numbers of targets en­ composed of members from the Navy, APL, Navy countered. Combining experience with radar signal laboratories, and industrial organizations was estab­ processing and the small digital computers just be­ lished. This team, under the direction of the (then) coming available, APL undertook the development of Bureau of Weapons and chartered by the Secretary automatic detection and tracking systems. As dis­ cussed in the articles by W. G. Bath and E. A. • See G LOSSAR Y, page 236 Frekko in this issue, this effort led to the successful

234 Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest development of the AN/ SYS-l Integrated Automatic guided missile ships going out of service and to Detection and Tracking System. restore Naval forces to full fighting proficiency. The Progress in inertial reference technology made it need for a destroyer to complement the CG-47 AEGIS possible to modify the STANDARD Missile to employ cruiser is clearly indicated by threat assessments that midcourse guidance. The SM-2 Extended Range have shown that, in any major naval engagement in Missile, in conjunction with changes to the TERRIER the future, the surface forces will be confronted by ship weapon control system, provided a mode of op­ heavy saturation attacks, heavy countermeasures, eration that greatly extended the missile's effective and tactics that require a high degree of Battle Group engagement range and altitude beyond that previous­ coordination. Under the cognizance of the Naval Sea lyattainable. Systems Command, the AEGIS ship Combat Systems The potent threat posed by a new generation of an­ are being designed to incorporate advanced distribu­ tis hip missiles led, in 1975, to the formulation of a ted Combat System Architecture and technology suf­ program to upgrade the capabilities of the TERRIER ficient to sustain this ship class in service into the first and TARTAR ships. The result was the New Threat quarter of the 21 st century. Upgrade Program, as described in the article by T. R. The TERRIER and TARTAR Weapon Systems, cur­ Betzer in this issue. This program incorporates per­ rently installed in U.S. ships and in ships of our formance improvements in the STANDARD Missile allies, and the decommissioned TALOS Weapon and the SYS-l Integrated Automatic Detection and System have demonstrated outstanding performance Tracking System, and upgrades in the surveillance in every encounter - on the test range and in combat radars and weapon control systems. action - and have established a highly successful Throughout the decade of the 1970's, engineering tradition. The AEGIS Combat System, designed for development of the AEGIS Weapon System continued modern cruisers and destroyers, continues this tradi­ with a succession of highly successful demonstrations tion and will be the first ship combat system with at land-based test sites and in at-sea tests from USS "total system" design integrity. In conjunction with NORTON SOUND. Partly as a result of these suc­ upgraded TERRIER and TARTAR Weapon Systems, cessful demonstrations, the Navy decided to incor­ AEGIS will assure the U.S. Navy mission of sea con­ porate the AEGIS Mk 7 Weapon System as the nucleus trol well into the future. of a total ship combat system that included antisub­ In the Foreword, Admiral Meyer speaks of a com­ marine and antisurface warfare systems. In 1978, the posite force, which he perceives as a prime requisite Navy contracted for the first AEGIS ship to carry this in countering the threat. The work going on within new system. This AEGIS ship, TICONDEROGA (CG- the APL Fleet Systems Department is strongly sup­ 47), has been christened recently. Commissioning is portive of the Navy's needs for such a force, as un­ scheduled for early 1983. Follow-on production of derscored by the articles in this Technical Digest, AEGIS-armed ships has been authorized. which summarize the principal relevant programs With the AEGIS ship, U.S. Navy Battle Groups, within the department. for the first time, will possess the fundamental elements (AEGIS AN / SPY-l Radar and Combat Direction System) to provide a coherent air picture REFERENCE and coordinate ships and aircraft weapons to fully I R . E. G ibson, " Refl ecti o ns o n the O rigin and Earl y His tory of the A ppli ed utilize their inherent capabilities. Accordingly, the P hysics La bora to ry," A PL Tech. Dig. IS , 0.2,8 ( 1976). Navy has now embarked on a major program under the technical direction of APL to provide the Fleet with advanced capabilities for Battle Group Anti-Air ACKNOWLEDGMENT - We wis h to thank Thomas W. Sheppard, Warfare Coordination. These capabilities are dis­ associate supervisor o f the Fleet Systems Department , for his review of the cussed by several authors in the Battle Group Opera­ final manuscript and for his technical and chro no logical correcti o ns. We tions section. also wish to thank Norman T . Rasmussen, member o f the Combat System Desig n Group, fo r his invaluable ass istance in coordinating Fleet Systems In 1978, the Chief of Naval Operations also re­ Department and Editorial Board comments and .fo r organi zing them in such quested a study to define and to explore alternatives a way that editorial decisio ns could be made where diffe rences occurred. We also wi sh to acknowledge the contributio ns of Pauline J. Fagan, super­ to a "battle-force-capable" surface ship with visor of the Fleet Sys tems Department Publicatio ns Sec ti o n, a nd her staff in AEGIS-like capabilities in order to offset the loss of editing and coordinating the o ri ginal Fleet Sys tems ma nuscripts.

Volume 2, N u/l1ber4, 1981 235