June 2012 77 1527-3342/12/$31.00©2012 IEEE

Eliot D. Cohen is the president of EBCO Technology Advising Inc., 11312 Freas Drive, North Potomac, MD 20878 USA.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MMM.2012.2189989

Date of publication: 7 May 2012

Eliot D. Cohen

It has now been more

than a quarter of a

century since the

U.S. Department of

Defense (DoD) began

its microwave and millimeter-wave mono-

lithic integrated circuits (MIMIC) program. Dur-

ing that time, the Cold War ended and, as a result,

there was a dramatic consolidation of defense companies.

Many engineers, scientists, and others who participated in

the program have changed companies, changed jobs, retired and,

in some cases, died. The legacy of the program, however, remains:

the establishment of the capabilities, infrastructure, and knowledge nec-

essary to design and produce GaAs MMICs for nearly any application with

high yield, at low cost, and possessing the specific performance and reliability

characteristics required for their use in a huge number of system applications, both

military and commercial [1]–[3]. This, in turn, has resulted in the United States’ becom-

ing the world leader in GaAs MMIC technology, a position that it still holds. The program

played a major role in disproving the once popular statement that “GaAs is the material of the

future and always will be.” This article describes the beginnings of the program and the strategy

it used to achieve its goals. It also summarizes what has been accomplished and offers some advice

ANNIVERSARY

ISSUE FEATURE—

Historical Perspective

© PHOTODISC

78 June 2012

based on the experience gained over the course of the

program.

What Came BeforeBeginning in the 1970s, a number of companies began

producing GaAs MMICs with performance levels

high enough to generate interest and excitement in the

microwave industry. In particular, Plessey, Raytheon,

Texas Instruments (TI), and others all produced MMIC

amplifiers that, at the time, achieved record-setting

performance levels. Successful R&D results continued

to be reported during the 1980s by many engineers and

organizations. In 1978, for example, one-stage power

amplifiers were considered state-of-the-art MMIC cir-

cuits; by 1986, a complete transmit-and-receive (T/R)

module had been produced on a single chip. Figure 1

shows an early MMIC T/R module chip.

However, the yield of functioning MMICs was typi-

cally quite low because GaAs material characteristics

were highly variable; computer-aided design (CAD)

capabilities were very limited; circuit fabrication was

carried out in laboratories, rather than on production

lines, and typically on wafers of very small diameter

or even on pieces of wafers; there were few attractive

packaging options; and automated testing capabili-

ties were limited to the lower range of the microwave

frequency spectrum. Most microwave and millime-

ter-wave solid-state circuits during that period were

“hybrids,” i.e., they used individual devices such as

GaAs FETs, silicon bipolar transistors, and IMPATTs

that were attached with wire bonds to various types

of microwave circuit boards or mounted in waveguide

structures. As one might expect, these circuits were

relatively expensive. The variability of circuit parasitics

associated with the use of wire bonds resulted in high

levels of unit-to-unit performance variance. Wire bonds

were also a principal cause of reliability problems.

At the time, commercial applications of GaAs

microwave devices were extremely limited. This made

it financially unattractive for industrial companies to

invest the large amounts of money required to create

the capabilities and facilities required to produce GaAs

MMICs with sufficiently high yield and acceptable

2-in Wafer Photograph

Single Chip T/R Module

Microwave Technology and Products

Wafer Yield History d.c. (Probe)

Wafer # Good Chips Yield (%)

553252121165

1H5-302 (11)H5-302 (16)H5-302 (19)H5-302 (20)H5-270 (7)H5-270 (10)H5-270 (11)H5-270 (12)

Total Wafers Run 1457%19

Wafer YieldChips per WaferChip Yield

Overall Yield 8%

Defense Systems and Electronics Group

Microwave Performance (5 Chip Average)

14%

614431

1

Chip Complexity

• 25 FETs with 20.4 mm Total Gate Width

• 43 Capacitors with 377 pF Total

Capacitance

• 24 Resistors, 48 Substrate Vias

• Chip area 58.6 mm2 (90,800 mil2)

• Transmit Channel

• Receive Channel

– Gain

– Gain

17.2 dB

13.5 dB5.1 dB

420 mW11.7%

– Output Power

– Noise Figure

– Efficiency

Figure 1. An early MMIC T/R module chip.

Beginning in the 1970s, a number of companies began producing GaAs MMICs with performance levels high enough to generate interest and excitement in the microwave industry.

June 2012 79

per-unit costs for either military or commercial appli-

cations. DoD officials recognized that it was essential

for the DoD to provide sufficient funding to bring

monolithic microwave and millimeter-wave technol-

ogy to fruition. When it became evident that numer-

ous military systems used for missile guidance, radars,

electronic countermeasures, and communications

could not achieve the required unit-to-unit unifor-

mity of acceptable performance, demonstrate reliable

operation over long periods of time, and meet accept-

able cost targets with the use of hybrid GaAs device

technology.

The Beginning of the MIMIC ProgramAlthough I served as MIMIC Program director for most

of the program’s duration, the first program director

was E. D. (Sonny) Maynard Jr. Maynard was respon-

sible for developing the selected overall program

framework and securing a budget for the program

that was adequate to accomplish what was needed to

bring MMIC technology to fruition. In the beginning,

it was not clear how the various components of the

DoD would be involved in planning and executing this

major effort or exactly what level of funding would be

provided. As one might expect, a number of propos-

als were put forth concerning how the program should

be structured and managed, since all of the military

services had considerable interest in the development

and use of microwave monolithic technology. May-

nard, who at the time was Director of Computer and

Electronics Technology in the Office of the Secretary of

Defense, produced the winning program proposal, and

on 30 December 1985, Donald A. Hicks, the Undersecre-

tary of Defense, established the MIMIC Program Office.

Maynard was named the first MIMIC Program Direc-

tor and was vested with the responsibility for working

with the Army, Navy, and Air Force to assure that their

MMIC requirements would be met. After considerable

study, a budget of approximately US$570 million was

approved for the overall program. Thus the MIMIC

Program was born.

During mid-1985, Maynard contacted me and

requested that I assist him in preparing the technical

plan for this new effort. Early in 1986, the position of

Deputy Director of Microwave and Millimeter-wave

Programs was established in the DoD Technology

Analysis Office, under Maynard’s supervision. I was

appointed to this position on 20 April 1986 and given

the responsibility for serving as manager of the MIMIC

Program. In August 1987, Ms. Elissa (Lisa) Sobolewski

joined the program and, after the program was trans-

ferred to the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency (DARPA), subsequently became responsible

for managing the numerous programs conducted as

part of MIMIC Phase 3.

Maynard introduced the MIMIC Program to the

microwave community (and the world) on 4 June 1986

at that year’s IEEE Microwave and Millimeter-Wave

Monolithic Circuits Symposium, held in Baltimore,

Maryland [4].

Transition to DARPAEarly in 1988, senior DoD managers made the decision

that major programs should not be conducted within

the Office of the Secretary of Defense, since it was also

charged with oversight of those programs. As a result,

in late 1988, responsibility for the MIMIC Program,

along with several other major DoD efforts, was trans-

ferred to DARPA. The rationale for selection of DARPA

as the new home for the program was that it was a

so-called “purple suit” agency that was not under the

direction of any of the individual services but could

take responsibility for R&D efforts that would benefit

all of them. Maynard left government service at that

time, and Craig I. Fields, Deputy Director of DARPA

for Research, appointed me to the position of Director

of the MIMIC Program, with overall responsibility for

its management, technical strategy, and execution.

MIMIC Program StructureThe MIMIC Program adopted a management structure

similar to that used by one of its predecessors, the Very

High-Speed Integrated Circuits (VHSIC) Program. The

VHSIC Program (operational from 1980 to 1990) was

aimed at developing two new generations of silicon

digital IC technology. The MIMIC management struc-

ture consisted of a MIMIC Program Office within each

of the Services—Army, Navy, and Air Force—headed

by a Service Program Director and staffed by person-

nel from that service. The initial Army MIMIC Director

was C.G. Thornton. He was succeeded by V.G. (Walt)

Gelnovatch, who initially served as the Army’s Dep-

uty MIMIC Director. The initial Navy MIMIC Director

was Daniel McCoy, who was succeeded by Charles D.

(Chuck) Caposell. Gerald Borsuk served as the Navy’s

Deputy MIMIC Director. The Air Force’s MIMIC Direc-

tor throughout the program was William Edwards.

Robert T. (Tim) Kemerley and Steve Kiss served as the

Air Force’s Deputy MIMIC Directors.

Each Service’s Program Director was respon-

sible for providing input to the MIMIC Program

Director concerning the needs of his service and

recommendations about how these needs could be

met. They also provided suggestions and recommen-

dations concerning what should be included in the

The MIMIC Program adopted a management structure similar to that used by the Very High-Speed Integrated Circuits (VHSIC) Program.

80 June 2012

statements of work for each phase of the program,

led their service’s teams during proposal evaluations,

and provided input as to which proposals should be

selected. Regular steering committee meetings were

held every few weeks, chaired by the MIMIC Director

and attended by the Service Program Directors and

Deputy Directors, to discuss their needs, assess the

program’s progress, and resolve any problems. They

and their staff members provided invaluable services

to the overall program by assuring that program con-

tracts were awarded in a timely manner, providing

day-to-day oversight of contractor activities, oversee-

ing evaluation of various deliverable items produced

during the program, providing information to system

program managers within their Services about the

MIMIC Program, and encouraging the use of MMIC

technology in Army, Navy, and Air Force systems.

There were well over 100 people throughout the DoD

who contributed their time and efforts to the MIMIC

Program, and they helped immeasurably to make the

program a success. In addition to the DARPA and

Service personnel, two outstanding consultants—

Robert Bierig and Albert Brodzinsky—contributed

invaluable insight, recommendations, and support

throughout the program. The contributions made by

the microwave contractor community were remark-

able and, of course, they played the key role in assur-

ing that the program achieved its goals.

As was the case for the VHSIC Program, the MIMIC

Program was divided into several phases. Phase 0,

the program definition phase, was conducted during

1986 and 1987. It gave selected contractors (virtually

the entire U.S. microwave community) the opportu-

nity to study and submit their recommendations as

to how best to meet the program’s goals and require-

ments. Sixteen industrial teams, including a total of 48

participating companies, were selected to participate

in this phase. These teams studied the potential use

of MMICs in more than 50 system applications and,

in their final reports, submitted recommendations

for device and circuit approaches, design and manu-

facturing facilities, material improvement, test strate-

gies, and foundry selection and capabilities. Phase 1,

the first of two development phases, was conducted

between 1988 and 1991 by four contractor teams. The

companies heading the teams were Raytheon and TI,

which formed a formal joint venture to carry out their

program responsibilities (team members were Aero-

jet, Airtron, Compact Software, Consilium, General

Dynamics, Magnavox, Norden, and Teledyne); TRW,

now Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems (team

members were General Dynamics, Hittite, and Honey-

well); General Electric/Hughes (team members were

AT&T, Cascade Microtech, EEsof, E-Systems, Harris

Microwave, Hercules, and M/A COM); and ITT/Mar-

tin Marietta, which also formed a formal joint ven-

ture (team members were Alpha, Harris Government

Systems, Pacific Monolithics and Watkins-Johnson).

Phase 1 was directed toward establishing many of the

necessary capabilities and the infrastructure for meet-

ing the program’s overall goals.

Phase 2, the second of the development phases,

began in 1991 and continued until the conclusion of

the program in 1995. It was conducted by three teams

headed by Raytheon/TI (team members were Aerojet,

Airtron, Consilium, General Dynamics, Hittite, Lock-

heed-Sanders, and Teledyne), Hughes (team members

were Alliant Techsystems, Cascade Microtech, EEsof,

ITT, Litton, M/A-COM, Martin Marietta, and Rock-

well), and TRW (team members were Alliant Techsys-

tems, Comsat, Hercules, Northrop, and Westinghouse).

During this phase, the work begun in Phase 1 con-

tinued, with increasing emphasis on higher levels of

chip performance, reduction of the minimum feature

sizes of devices, realizing high levels of performance

at frequencies up to 94 GHz, extending the capabili-

ties of test equipment, assessing MMIC reliability,

and promoting insertion of MMIC technology into

military systems. There were two MMIC development

tracks during Phase 2: the first was aimed at assuring

a very robust base for MMIC technology, making use

of device types and feature sizes developed during

Phase 1, while the second was a higher-risk set of tasks

directed toward the development of a new generation

of higher-performance MMICs.

Phase 3 of the program afforded the opportunity for

important but smaller efforts to be pursued in parallel

with Phases 1 and 2 by various contractors, including

Avantek, Ball, Cascade Microtech, Compact Software,

M/A-COM, Motorola, North Carolina State University,

Scientific Atlanta, Sonnet Software, TriQuint, Univer-

sity of California at San Diego, University of Colorado,

University of Illinois, and Varian.

Program StrategyThe overall objective of the MIMIC Program remained

invariant throughout. It was “to develop micro-

wave/millimeter-wave subsystems for use in mili-

tary weapon system ‘front ends’ that are affordable,

available, and broadly applicable.” The program was

directed toward the acceleration of development, man-

ufacturing, and demonstration of affordable micro-

wave and millimeter-wave analog ICs and promoting

the use of MMICs in all systems where benefits could

be gained.

The strategy adopted to meet these overall goals

involved putting into place a comprehensive program

that was aimed at improving capabilities in every

technical area considered critical for meeting the pro-

gram’s objectives. Affordable manufacturing was a pri-

mary consideration, and all contractors were strongly

encouraged throughout the program to assign a high

priority to this requirement. Emphasis was placed on

putting into place the design, fabrication, packaging,

June 2012 81

and test capabilities and tools that would allow the

realization of MMICs that would provide performance,

reliability, and cost benefits for any system (consistent,

of course, with the laws of physics) rather than focus-

ing on producing sets of generic MMICs that did not

necessarily meet the specific needs of the systems they

were intended for. In order to demonstrate the value

of MMIC technology, every MIMIC contractor team

was required to select at least one radar, electronic

countermeasures, communications, or smart weapon

system of importance to the DoD, identify the issues

and problems of this system (or systems) that could be

addressed by use of MMIC technology, and lay out the

course of action it would follow to realize the advan-

tages of MMIC use in system applications. Brassboards

for each system were designed and produced over the

course of the program to demonstrate the success of

the contractor’s approach.

Major efforts undertaken to ensure successful sys-

tem implementation were focused on making signifi-

cant advances in bulk GaAs boule quality and size. In

addition, considerable effort was expended to improve

capabilities for GaAs active-layer growth. Ion implan-

tation, chemical vapor deposition, and molecular beam

epitaxy (MBE) were all used for active-layer formation.

Advanced CAD capabilities and accurate device and

circuit models were established, as were “production-

level” fabrication capabilities that made use of sta-

tistical process controls to improve chip yields. The

state-of-the-art of microwave and millimeter-wave

MMICs continued to advance through research and

development activities. Automated on-wafer testing

capabilities that could provide accurate measure-

ments at frequencies up to 110 GHz were designed

and installed. Finally, packages that would not com-

promise either the performance or reliability of the

MMICs they housed were produced and put into use.

Techniques first developed by the silicon digital IC

industry were adopted. These included determination

of parameters critical for high-performance operation,

gathering and processing of large amounts of data

during MMIC fabrication and evaluation for use in

establishing statistics-based process controls, estab-

lishment of upper and lower limits for the values of the

parameters considered important, use of Pareto charts

to determine and eliminate yield inhibitors, and feed-

back of microwave (and millimeter-wave) test data to

refine the recipes for the MMICs being fabricated and

improve model accuracy. Each contractor team was

required to put into place an automated process con-

trol system database that tied together price and cost

models, process control, CAD, computer-aided testing

(CAT), computer-aided manufacture (CAM), and envi-

ronmental considerations.

Throughout the program, each team was also

required to periodically submit a business plan that

described its strategy to affordably manufacture and

insert MIMIC program hardware into systems. The

plan also included projected sales and the progress of

efforts to make use of MMICs in systems. The objective

of requiring business plans was to assure that every

participating contractor focused on interacting with

DoD systems personnel on a regular basis to make

sure they were informed of what MMIC capabilities

were available to them and to determine how best to

meet their system needs. Development for commer-

cial applications of the technology was also strongly

encouraged. Great emphasis was placed on continuous

yield improvement and cost reduction of the MMICs

being produced. This goal was achieved by com-

paction of the circuitry on each chip so that smaller

amounts of GaAs area were needed to produce MMICs

with increasing circuit complexity and capabilities.

Near the conclusion of the program, the Phase 2 con-

tractor teams were required to perform a validation

procedure to demonstrate that their fabrication capa-

bilities were sufficient to repeatedly produce wafers of

MMICs with an acceptable yield, leading to acceptable

unit chip costs. They were also strongly encouraged

to establish and maintain “foundry” services so that

other contractors, who did not have in-house MMIC

fabrication capabilities, could make use of the wafer-

processing capabilities developed under the program.

The focus on high yield and low cost led to the viabil-

ity of using MMICs in commercial applications, most

notably as power amplifiers for cellular telephones.

Establishment of commercial applications has done

much to sustain the production capabilities developed

during the program.

Progress over the Course of the ProgramFor people just beginning their careers in the micro-

wave industry, it may be hard to imagine the state

of MMIC capabilities less than 25 years ago. In 1988,

many GaAs devices and circuits were being fabri-

cated on 3-in-diameter wafers grown using high- or

low-pressure Czochralski processes, with some 2-in

material still being used [5]. Boules were quite small,

material characteristics were highly variable, and

predictors of which material properties would result

in superior RF performance had not yet been firmly

established. Typically, companies received GaAs

substrates grown as “best efforts” by material ven-

dors and then conducted their own evaluations in an

attempt to identify acceptable material. At the time,

the best GaAs substrates were produced by Japanese

companies. (During the first years of the MIMIC Pro-

gram, however, three U.S. companies began producing

high-quality GaAs substrates. Although only a small

amount of program funding was devoted to GaAs

substrate development, the program’s existence served

as a catalyst that encouraged U.S. companies to make

the necessary investments to produce high-quality

GaAs substrates.) Also, at the program’s start, there

82 June 2012

were no nondestructive evaluation techniques that

yielded accurate information about which substrates

were “good” or “bad.” Most substrates had high levels

of etch pit densities, indicative of substantial crystal-

line imperfections and high and variable amounts of

unwanted impurities. There were spirited discussions

concerning which material properties were important

for determining microwave device and MMIC perfor-

mance, but no definitive answers existed. Processing

was done in R&D laboratories, typically using wet-

etching techniques and optical lithography, although

some use was being made of electron-beam lithog-

raphy. Low yield, nonexistent process control, and a

lack of manufacturing discipline characterized the

status of MMIC fabrication capabilities in the early

and mid-1980s.

A major contribution of the MIMIC Program to

advancing GaAs MMIC technology was the stabili-

zation of fabrication processes and the accumulation

of sufficient statistical process control data to per-

mit accurate identification of the sources of process

variability. Accumulation of the requisite database

required a high throughput of GaAs wafers using a

nominally unchanging fabrication “recipe.” The rela-

tively large wafer throughput, data accumulation and

analysis, and subsequent continuous corrective actions

undertaken led to the achievement of wafer fabrication

process integrity. This, in turn, provided the ability to

repeatably produce MMIC circuits with predictable

performance at a cost acceptable to military system

program offices.

By 1988 there were a number of individual CAD

tools available, approximate models were available for

some linear circuits, and there were some design verifi-

cation capabilities. No integrated microwave CAD sys-

tem yet existed, however; there was a lack of accurate

models for nonlinear circuits and for all millimeter-

wave devices and circuits, and there were very limited

performance simulation capabilities. MESFETs with

gate lengths of 0.5 µm or greater were available, and

ones with smaller gate lengths as well as some HBTs

and HEMTs had been demonstrated. The HEMT and

HBT technologies were very immature, however. The

reliability of these devices had not been verified, and

most power devices had relatively low power-added

efficiency. There were many individual types of cir-

cuit housings available. Most were custom-fabricated

from machined aluminum, but they were expensive,

required large amounts of manual assembly, and often

degraded performance, particularly at higher frequen-

cies of operation. Wafer-level small-signal perfor-

mance evaluation equipment was becoming available

for use at frequencies up to 26.5 GHz, but there was

limited automation and a lack of capability for wafer-

level testing of power devices.

By 1991, near the conclusion of Phase 1 of the pro-

gram, considerable progress had been made toward

establishing the necessary capabilities to mass-produce

MMICs with reasonable yields and relatively uniform

performance characteristics. High-quality 3-in-diam-

eter GaAs wafers with uniform characteristics had

become available from U.S. vendors; new design work-

stations had been developed and were being offered

for sale; contractors had put into place high-rate MMIC

processing capabilities; major advances in lithogra-

phy had been achieved; new types of circuit housings,

including ones fabricated from ceramic and metal

matrix materials, were becoming available, with pro-

jected costs of a few dollars each; and on-wafer test-

ing capabilities had significantly advanced. In parallel,

as part of Phase 3, on-wafer pulse power testing sta-

tions had been produced, and by September 1990 the

first 50–75-GHz wafer probe system was being offered

for sale by Cascade Microtech [6]. The time needed

for evaluation of a chip’s S-parameters, noise figure,

IP3, and other performance characteristics had been

decreased, through the use of on-wafer testing instead

of in-fixture testing, from several minutes to fractions

of a minute. On-wafer testing also afforded large cost

savings. For example, one contractor reduced testing

costs of a 2-W Ku-band power amplifier from US$107

per chip to US$2.37 per chip using on-wafer testing

rather than in-fixture testing.

Other Phase 3 programs were focused on improve-

ment of metal–organic chemical vapor deposition

(MOCVD) and MBE growth techniques, CAD mod-

els and tools, advanced multichip ceramic packages,

and development of a MIMIC Hardware Description

Language. Statistical process controls and design

centering were being used to improve yield and cir-

cuit performance. At least one company had incorpo-

rated a voice recognition system linked to an Oracle

database for operators to use during visual inspec-

tion of MMIC die MMIC GaAs FET X-band ampli-

fiers had been fabricated by the GE/Hughes team

that produced a minimum power output of 2 W with

30% minimum power-added efficiency over the band

from 7.5–11 GHz and had a minimum power gain of

11 dB. Wide-band amplifiers had also been produced

with power-added efficiency of approximately 20%.

A W-band amplifier chip had been realized by TRW

that made use of a pseudomorphic InGaAs HEMT

with a 0.1-µm T-gate. It had a gain of more than 13 dB

and a noise figure of 5.5 dB at 94 GHz. In addition, a

16-function transceiver chip had been developed by

the ITT/Martin-Marietta team that operated from 5–6

GHz with a receive mode noise figure of 4 dB, gain

flatness of !1.5 dB, and receiver gain of 22 dB. In its

transmit mode, it provided 3.5 W of output power with

42 dB of gain and 40% power-added efficiency. Scores

of other MMIC chip types were produced, including

phase shifters, low-noise amplifiers, power ampli-

fiers, T/R switches, voltage-controlled oscillators,

down-converters, and tuners. In many cases, multiple

June 2012 83

functions were performed using a single MMIC chip.

Frequency ranges addressed were from C-band to

W-band. The first insertion of MMIC technology into

a military system occurred near the beginning of the

program: MMICs were used in the Navy’s High-Speed

Anti-Radiation missile (HARM), produced by TI [7].

Figure  2 describes the HARM MIMIC insertion and

shows a photograph of the IF amplifier used in this

system. Numerous demonstrations of potential MMIC

use in other military systems had also been carried out

by the end of Phase 1 for systems such as an Advanced

Medium-Range Air-To-Air Missile (AMRAAM), Sense

and Destroy Armor (SADARM), GEN-X (an expend-

able missile terminal guidance phase decoy) [8], [9],

and the Multi-Option Fuze for Artillery (MOFA) [3],

[10], [11]. Figure 3 describes the GEN-X insertion and

shows a picture of the MMIC module that was used.

MOFA made use of an FM CW radar transceiver on a

chip that cost only a few dollars. It replaced ten fuze

types previously used by the Army. Low cost was an

essential requirement imposed by the MOFA program

manager, and this objective was achieved.

In general, MMIC chip costs were being steadily

reduced by significant amounts. At the beginning

of the program, for example, the Raytheon/TI team

established a cost metric of U.S. dollars per square mil-

limeter of GaAs. This became widely used as a figure

of merit by many of the program’s participants. The

estimated chip cost of an X-band power amplifier at

the beginning of Phase 0 of the program was approxi-

mately US$20/mm2. By the middle of Phase 1, TI was

producing X-band power amplifiers on its production

line at a cost of US$3.24/mm2 and low-noise amplifiers

for US$2.67/mm2.

By 1994, near the conclusion of Phase 2 of the MIMIC

Program, a solid infrastructure had been established

for MMIC technology [12]. U.S substrate vendors had

become profitable and were selling GaAs material

worldwide. Two U.S. CAD vendors were profitable and

dominated the world market for microwave CAD. RF

test equipment developed under Phase 3 of the MIMIC

Program included wafer probe equipment from Cas-

cade Microtech that provided accurate parameter mea-

surements at frequencies up to 110 GHz and defined

the state of the art. Several package vendors were avail-

able to support the MMIC industry. GaAs boule sizes

had increased substantially, with typical boules yield-

ing greater than 100 substrates. Wafers with diameters

of 4 in were readily available, and some 6-in-diameter

wafers were being produced. Wafer characteristics

and uniformity had greatly improved, and several

participating companies were offering foundry ser-

vices to provide MMICs to other organizations. The

program also helped to establish commercial supplies

of prequalified, production-grade epitaxial material.

This was particularly important for the fabrication of

HEMTs and HBTs. Many types of MMICs, for both

power and low-noise applications, were routinely being

produced with reasonably high yield. These MMICs

operated at frequencies from UHF to as high as 94 GHz.

The Raytheon/Texas Instruments MIMIC Joint Venture Raytheon

MIMIC Insertionin

High-Speed Anti-RadiationMissile

AGM-88AApplication/Benefit

• Passive Radar Homing Missile Uses Broadband Monopulse Seeker for Precision Guidance• Two IF Amplifier Pairs (Four Amplifier Modules) Provide Sum and Delta Signal Conditioning• MMIC Insertion Provides Approximately x2 Cost Reduction

• Major Insertion Milestones

• Production Volume

– Module Level Qualification Completed 10/88– System Level Validation Complete 1/89– System Insertion Initiated 1/89

– 150 Systems/Month for Next Five to Six Years– With Two MMICs/Amplifier, 1,200 Yielded MMICs Required Per Month

Aerojet Airtron Compact Consilium General Dynamics Magnavox Norden Teledyne

• Insertion/Status

AGM-88A Launched From F/A-18C

Broadband IF AmplifierMMIC (0.5-4.0 GHz)

Figure 2. MMIC insertion of IF amplifier into Navy’s HARM system.

84 June 2012

They included power MESFETs produced using base-

line processes that had 0.4-µm gate lengths, low-noise

HEMTs with gate lengths of 0.2 µm, and power HBTs

with emitter widths as small as 3 µm. Under the

advanced device technology portion of the program,

GaAs power and low-noise HEMTs were realized with

gate lengths of 0.1 µm, and power HBTs were fabricated

with emitter widths as small as 2 µm. Companies had

made major advances in making chips more compact to

reduce their cost. A notable example was a M/A-COM

MESFET X-band low-noise amplifier. Its size had been

reduced to 25% of its original area, and improved per-

formance was achieved as well. This resulted in a cost

reduction from US$80 to US$13.50 per chip. TI reported

that its cost target of US$1/mm2 had been achieved

for X-band low-noise amplifier chips produced in rela-

tively high quantities. PHEMT power amplifiers with

0.25-µm gate lengths had been produced by multiple

companies. One of these achieved a power output of

2–3 W with power-added efficiency of 15–20% over the

frequency range from 6–18 GHz. TI had demonstrated

a 10-W, 239% power-added-efficiency, 8.5–10 GHz HBT

power amplifier. A particularly exciting MMIC was a

2–20-GHz frequency synthesizer designed and fabri-

cated by Northrop using 0.15-µm-gate-length HEMTs

on a single 3.7-by-4.1-mm2 chip. This chip combined 35

functions. Fully functional chips were realized during

the first pass, with a 56% RF yield on a tested wafer.

Work continued on C-band frequency-modulated con-

tinuous-wave (FMCW) radar chips costing less than

US$10 each. This led to a factor-of-eight reduction in dc

power and a 50% reduction in chip area compared with

a previous version. TRW was able to realize W-band

LNAs and 50–100-mw W-band power amplifiers with

6 dB of gain and 8.5% power-added efficiency. The

W-band LNAs were used in millimeter-wave cameras

to provide improved visibility through smoke and fog

over that available using infrared sensors [13]. Figure 4

is a photo of a three-stage W-band LNA developed by

TRW during Phase 2 of the MIMIC Program; Figure 5

shows a collection of W-band MMICs developed by

TRW during the MIMIC Program; and Figure  6 pro-

vides photos and information about the millimeter-

wave camera developed by TRW using technology

from the MIMIC Program.

As a result of the advances made during the pro-

gram, MMICs were being used in increasing numbers

in both military and commercial systems. The first

demonstration of MMICs from the program in a solid-

state phased array was in the Counter-Battery Radar

(COBRA) system. Later, the production of the first large-

scale phased array [Raytheon’s Ground-Based Radar

(GBR) system] that used MMICs was a direct result

of the technology advancement and chips developed

under the MIMIC Program. Figure 7 shows a GBR sys-

tem MMIC module. The deciding factors that mitigated

in favor of using modules populated with GaAs MMICs

in this system were both performance- and cost-related.

The Raytheon/Texas Instruments MIMIC Joint Venture

Gen-X Decoy

Application

Insertion Status

Raytheon

• Missile Terminal Guidance Phase Decoy

• Program in FSED and Tech Eval Completed with 65 Successes out of 69 Trials

• Op Eval Including Live Firings was 100% Successful

• More Than 9,200 MMICs of 12 Circuit Types Supplied in Units to Date

• Initilal Production Order is Planned for Release in May 1992. Full Production Could Involve Several Hundred Thousand Units

Aerojet

Module

Assembled Decoy

Airton Consilium General Dynamics Hittite Lockheed Sanders Teledyne

• Deployed from Standard Navy Chaff/Flare Dispenser (Size: 1.3 in Diameter, 6 in Long)

• Size and Cost Constraints Dictate MMIC Insertion

Figure 3. Insertion of MMICs into the Navy’s GEN-X Decoy developed by TI.

June 2012 85

Yield improvements and technology advances result-

ing in dramatic cost reductions also led to the nearly

universal use of MMICs as power amplifiers in cellu-

lar telephones [14], [15]. GaAs MMICs were and still

are used in satellite communication systems, includ-

ing iridium, and in some automotive collision avoid-

ance radar systems [16]. During the program, Hughes

Aircraft developed X-band radar chips that were pro-

duced in the same MMIC foundries that fabricate chips

for military applications. These were used in a system

called Forewarn that let school bus drivers become

aware of the presence of children within the “blind”

areas surrounding buses.

More Recent ProgramsMany of the capabilities and technical approaches devel-

oped under the MIMIC Program have continued to

be used in subsequent programs, including DARPA’s

Microwave and Analog Front-End Technology (MAFET)

program. MAFET was conducted between 1995 and 2000

and resulted in further advances in GaAs HEMT and

HBT technology as well as the realization of high-perfor-

mance indium phosphide (InP) MMICs, principally for

use at millimeter-wave frequencies. More recently, DAR-

PA’s Wide-Band-Gap Semiconductors for RF (WBGS-RF)

program, focused on development of GaN MMICs that

provide higher power output per unit area and more

robust performance at high operating temperatures than

GaAs MMICs, has also benefited from the experience,

fabrication capabilities, CAD, packaging, and testing

advances that resulted from the MIMIC Program.

Some Observations and AdviceAny program whose goal is to transition technology

from an embryonic stage to maturity will be expensive.

Before undertaking such a program, the following

questions should be asked:

• Are significant benefits likely to result from this

technology or product?

• Is it enabling? For example, will it make a sig-

nificant difference in system performance, cost,

weight, volume, or reliability?

• Is the cost of developing and marketing it com-

mensurate with the benefits it will provide?

• Will the program result in its “customers” receiv-

ing what they want and need?

As the program progresses, the following addi-

tional factors should be evaluated on a periodic basis:

• Is the product or technology ready for use?

• Does it still offer compelling advantages versus

its competition?

• Is its price right?

• Is it readily available?

• Is it reliable?

• Does it meet customer needs?

One approach that should be avoided is using avail-

able resources to fund a large number of small, unre-

lated efforts. Programs of various sizes and durations

W-Band Monolithic 3-Stage InGaAs HEMT LNA

Performance

Key Features

0.1μm T-gate

25

20

15

Gai

n (d

B)

Noi

se F

igur

e (d

B)

10

5

091 92 93 94

Frequency (GHz)

N.F. (dB)

Gain (dB)

Goals

95 96 97

PM InGaAs HEMT on GaAs

Chip Size: 1.2 × 3.2 mm

3.5 dB Noise Figure

21 dB Associated Gain

91–97 GHz

2523

46-9

1

Figure 4. A three-stage W-band LNA developed by TRW during Phase 2 of the MIMIC Program. (Photo courtesy of Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems.)

86 June 2012

are completely acceptable and desirable, but strong

emphasis must be placed on making use of the results

from all efforts, large and small, to meet overall program

objectives. From its beginning, the MIMIC Program was

focused on comprehensively addressing every aspect of

MMIC development considered critical for achieving

success in establishing the necessary MMIC design, fab-

rication, packaging, and testing capabilities. To ensure

that this strategy could be successfully carried out, the

DoD provided the program with both an adequate bud-

get and a sufficient period of time in which to achieve

success. There is no question that sufficient financial

TRW’s W-Band MMICs

Low Noise Amplifiers

Two-Stage LNA

Single-Stage LNA

Performance PerformancePerformance

Performance

PerformancePerformance

Performance

Performance

Performance

2449

36-9

0

2449

41-9

0

Single-Balance Diode Mixer

Voltage Controlled Oscillator Power AmplifierE

MP

I 100

0

Monolithic Image-Reject Mixer W-Band Downconverter

Three-Stage LNA

100 mW Power Amplifier

2449

40-9

0

Mixers/Downconverters

VCOS/Power Amplifers

• 3.5 dB Noise Figure• 5.3 dB Associated Gain• 1.35 × 1.2 MM2

• 7.6 dB Conversion Loss• 10 dBm LO Power• >20 dB RF-LO Isolation• 90–98 GHz RF/LO Frequency

• 10 dB Conversion Loss• 10 dB LO Power• >12 dB Image Frequency Rejection• <12 dB Noise Figure at 100 MHz IF• 1.6 × 2.0 mm2

• 8.8 dBm Output Power• 14% Conversion Efficiency• 1.6 × 2.1 mm

• 17.9 dBm Output Power• 6.5 dB Gain• 8.5% Power Added Efficiency• 320 μm Output Stage• 2.3 × 3.2 mm2

• 6.5 dBm Noise Figure• 5.5 dB Conversion Gain• 0.02–8 GHz IF• 1.0 × 4.0 mm2

• 3.5 dBm Noise Figure• 21 dB Associated Gain• 1.2 × 3.2 mm2

• 4.6 dBm Noise Figure• 13.7 dB Associated Gain• 2.24 × 1.2 mm2

• 19.8 dBm Output Power• 6 dB Gain• 320 μm Output Stage• 3.5 × 4.2 mm2

Figure 5. A collection of W-band MMICs developed by TRW during the MIMIC Program. (Photo courtesy of Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems.)

June 2012 87

resources are absolutely essential for transitioning any

technology from research status to production readi-

ness. For example, the budget of the MIMIC Program

allowed for the production of thousands of wafers over

its lifetime, making it possible to gather sufficient statis-

tical information to eliminate yield inhibitors, make use

of statistical process control, establish design centering,

greatly improve chip yield, and drive costs down to the

point where MMICs could be used in both military and

commercial applications. This, in turn led to further ben-

efits because it became economically feasible for indus-

trial corporations to invest more of their own funds to

improve production, design, and testing capabilities. In

addition, having some discretionary funding permit-

ted new, promising efforts to be pursued rapidly and

allowed the results of these efforts to be incorporated

into mainstream program activities. It also increased

the incentive for companies to assign the “best and the

brightest” people to the program and assign the high-

est priority to designing and fabricating the program’s

hardware. Finally, it provided funding to overcome the

unforeseen problems that arose from time to time.

There were a number of other factors related to

the MIMIC Program that, in my opinion, contributed

greatly to its success. Although for most of its life the

program was carried out under DARPA sponsorship,

Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel were heavily

involved from beginning to end and contributed greatly

to the success achieved. Their involvement made pos-

sible continuing fruitful interactions between Service

MIMIC Program personnel and Service and industry

system program offices. As a result, managers charged

with the development and fielding of major electronic

systems were kept informed of program accomplish-

ments and encouraged to make use of MMIC technol-

ogy. Many of them did so. In addition, Service laboratory

personnel contributed their technical expertise on a

day-to-day basis during interactions with program

contractors: they attended program reviews and steer-

ing group meetings, carried out measurements, evalu-

ated hardware and software that was produced by the

various program contractors, and performed reliability

assessments of MMIC chips. The National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) also contributed sig-

nificantly to the program by establishing measurement

standards for use in evaluating program deliverables.

PMMW Camera Uses TRW’S Unique W-Band MMIC Technology

GaAs MMICReceiver (2 × 7 mm2)

1 × 4 Receivers Module

1 × 40 ReceiversCard FPA with 1,040 Receivers

Camera Technical Data

• 15° × 10° Field of View with 18′′ Lens Aperture• Center Frequency 89 GHz with 10 GHz BW (from 84 to 94 GHz)• Minimum Resolvable Temperature = 2K in the Scene• 17 Hz Scene Refresh Rate and 30 Hz Display Rate

GaAs MMICReceiver (2 × 7 mm2)

1 × 4 Receivers Module

1 × 40 ReceiversCard FPA with 1,040 Receivers

Camera Technical Data

• 15° × 10° Field of View with 18′′ Lens Aperture

Figure 6. A passive millimeter-wave camera developed by TRW using technology from the MIMIC Program. (Photo courtesy of Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems.)

Figure 7. A GBR system MMIC module.

88 June 2012

A remarkable degree of cooperation existed among

government personnel from various agencies and

between them and the program’s contractor partici-

pants. Even more impressive was the degree of cooper-

ation among virtually all of the contractor participants.

This helped immeasurably to overcome the many tech-

nical challenges that presented themselves throughout

the program. A particularly unusual event was the for-

mation of formal legal joint ventures between Raytheon

and TI and between ITT and Martin Marietta. Hughes

and GE also worked closely with each other. I believe

that one of the principal reasons for the program’s suc-

cess was that most of the participants, throughout the

microwave industry, had been involved in the devel-

opment of various aspects of microwave solid-state

technology for many years, knew each other, and had a

high level of respect for one another.

Every year from 1989 to 1994, a MIMIC conference

was held to discuss technical program and product

availability. System program office personnel were

strongly encouraged to attend these conferences, visit

the exhibits, and discuss their requirements for incor-

porating MMICs into their systems. In addition, the

conferences included demonstrations not only of MMIC

chips and modules but also of the use of MMICs in sys-

tems and subsystems. Rump sessions were conducted

during one or more evenings to discuss problems

encountered during the course of the program and elicit

suggestions for eliminating them. Finally, in addition to

these conferences, MIMIC introductory courses and

workshops were developed by Bert Berson of Berson &

Associates and held throughout the United States on a

periodic basis. (A portion of the information in this sec-

tion was developed and presented by the author to the

Joint DSB/DSAC Task Force on Critical Technologies:

Electronic Components Panel on 5 May 2005.)

ConclusionsIt was a great honor to be entrusted with the responsi-

bility of serving as the director of the MIMIC Program.

Every person and every company that participated in

the program should be proud of contributing to the

many successful outcomes of the program. There was

an incredible amount of cooperation among all the

people and companies involved, and that was a major

reason for its success. Many of the high-volume, high-

yield production facilities established by the contrac-

tor participants are still being used today to produce

high-performance, reliable, affordable MMICs, includ-

ing ones made from InP and GaN. These MMICs have

resulted in the realization of military systems with

markedly improved performance and reliability char-

acteristics and commercial products that are used by

nearly everyone on a daily basis. The program contin-

ues to serve as a model for ongoing and future efforts

to advance microwave, millimeter-wave, submillime-

ter-wave and THz-frequency solid-state electronics.

AcknowledgmentsThe author wishes to thank Vijay Nair of Intel; David

McQuiddy of TriQuint (formerly the TI leader of

the Raytheon/TI MIMIC Joint Venture Team); Fred

Schindler (formerly a member of the Raytheon/

TI MIMIC Joint Venture team and now at RF Micro

Devices); and Reynold Kagiwada, Rich Lai, and Aaron

Oki of NGAS (formerly TRW) for providing the pho-

tographs for this paper. Because the MIMIC Program

ended in 1995, before the era of digital photography, it

was quite difficult to obtain graphic material related to

the program, and their help was invaluable.

The author, regrettably, could not include the names

of all of the individuals who participated in the MIMIC

Program, though unquestionably they all deserve rec-

ognition and respect. All the program participants—

from DoD, from industry, and from academe—assigned

people of outstanding talent to participate in the MIMIC

Program. It was this extraordinary collective talent

pool, working within a well-conceived program struc-

ture and supported by adequate funding, that enabled

the attainment of the myriad of successful MIMIC Pro-

gram results. All of you have the author’s sincere thanks

and appreciation for your significant contributions.

References[1] J. S. Gansler, “In search of spinoffs—We need to make better civil-

ian use of all that amazing federal R&D,” The Washington Post, Jan.

5, 1992, p. C2.

[2] J. S. Gansler, Defense Conversion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995,

pp. 89–90.

[3] D. Fisher and I. Bahl, Eds., Gallium Arsenide IC Applications Hand-book. San Francisco, CA: Academic, 1995, p. 35.

[4] E. D. Maynard, Jr., “Microwave/millimeter wave monolithic in-

tegrated circuits (MIMIC) program”, in IEEE 1986 Microwave and Millimeter-Wave Monolithic Circuits Symp. Dig. Papers, pp. 1–4.

[5] E. D. Cohen, “The MIMIC program—Key to affordable MMICs for

DoD systems,” in IEEE 1988 Microwave and Millimeter-Wave Mono-lithic Circuits Symp. Dig. Papers, pp. 1–4.

[6] Cascade Microtech, “Introducing the world’s first 50 to 75 GHz

wafer probe,” Microprobe Update, Sept. 1990.

[7] J. Rhea, “MIMIC insertion begins with HARM,” Armed Forces J. Int., pp. 58–59, June 1990.

[8] P. J. Klass, “Pentagon’s mimic program shows potential electronic

warfare benefits,” Aviat. Week Space Technol., pp. 50–53, Oct. 1990.

[9] “MMIC technology benefits EW systems,” Aviat. Week Space Tech-nol., pp. 42–44, Oct. 1992.

[10] E. D. Cohen, “The U.S. MIMIC program—Status and expecta-

tions,” Appl. Microwave, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 14–22, Nov./Dec. 1989.

[11] E. D. Cohen, “Military applications of MMICs,” in IEEE 1991 Mi-crowave and Millimeter-Wave Monolithic Circuits Symp. Dig. Papers, pp. 31–34.

[12] E. D. Cohen, “The impact of the U.S. MIMIC program on MMIC

technology and applications (invited paper),” in Proc. European Gallium Arsenide and Related III–V Compounds Applications Symp.

(GaAs‘94), 1994, pp. 3–6.

[13] “S&EG-led consortium to develop camera that can “see” through

fog, Smoke, Darkness,” TRW Info Link, Aug. 15, 1994.

[14] L. Wirbel, “GaAs RF chips fit for cellular markets,” Electron. Eng. Times, p. 54, Apr. 1994.

[15] J. Van, “Chipping away at silicon’s foothold,” Chicago Tribune, Jan.

10, 1994, business section.

[16] M. Lewyn, “Wireless’ wild, wild north,” Bus. Week, p. 87–90, Mar.

1996.