Performance Predominance of a New Strategy for CFAR Processors over the N-P Model in Detecting Four Degrees of Freedom χ2 Fluctuating Targets
- 6 Downloads
Modern radars have adopted adaptive processing techniques to mitigate the deleterious effects of unwanted clutter and jammer. In this situation, the CFAR algorithms play a vital role in achieving the heterogeneous detection of fluctuating targets. In this regard, while the CA-CFAR processor has the top homogeneous performance, the OS and TM techniques have been suggested to provide robust estimates of the threshold in heterogeneous situations. In order to simultaneously exploit the merits of CA and OS or TM processors, some their hybrid versions have been recently introduced. They are termed as CAOS and CATM models. Practically, the frequency diversity between noncoherent sweeps is widespread in actual radar systems. Additionally, the pulse integration strategy is often used in radar systems to improve the target signal-to-noise ratio and correspondingly the system detection performance. For this reason, this paper is focusing on analyzing these new models in the case where the radar receiver noncoherently integrates M-pulses to handle its detection. Closed-form expression is derived for their nonhomogeneous performance. The tested as well as the spurious targets are assumed to follow χ2-distribution with four degrees of freedom in their fluctuations. Our simulation results reveal that the new version CATM exhibits a homogeneous performance that outweighs that of the classical Neyman-Pearson (N-P) procedure, which is employed as a baseline comparison for other strategies in the field of adaptive detectors.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 8.T. Laroussi, M. Barkat, “A performance comparison of two time diversity systems using CMLD-CFAR detection for partially-correlated chi-square targets and multiple target situations,” Proc. of 14th European Signal Processing Conf., 4–8 Sept. 2006, Florence, Italy (IEEE, 2006), pp. 4–8, URI: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7071138.Google Scholar
- 12.W. Q. Wang, Radar Systems: Technology, Principles and Applications (Nova Science Publishers, Inc, 2013).Google Scholar
- 13.Dejan Ivkoviã, Milenko Andriã, Bojan Zrniã, “A new model of CFAR detector,” Frequenz 68, No. 3–4, 125 (2014). DOI: 10.1515/freq-2013-0087.Google Scholar
- 14.Dejan Ivkoviã, Milenko Andriã, Bojan Zrniã, “False alarm analysis of the CATM-CFAR in presence of clutter edge,” Radioengineering 23, No. 1, 66 (2014). URI: http://www.radioeng.cz/fulltexts/2014/14_01_0066_ 0072.pdf.Google Scholar
- 16.Dejan Ivkoviã, Milenko Andriã, Bojan Zrniã, Predrag Okiljeviã, Nadica Koziã, “CATM-CFAR detector in the receiver of the software defined radar,” Sci. Tech. Rev. 54, No. 4, 27 (2014). URI: http://www.vti.mod.gov.rs/ntp/rad2014/4-2014/3/e3.htm.Google Scholar
- 20.M. M. Islam, M. Hossam-E-Haider, “Detection capability and CFAR loss under fluctuating targets of different Swerling model for various gamma parameters in RADAR,” Int. J. Advanced Computer Science Applications 9, No. 2, 90 (2018). DOI: 10.14569/IJACSA.2018.090214.Google Scholar
- 21.M. B. El Mashade, “Heterogeneous performance analysis of the new model of CFAR detectors for partially-correlated - 2 -targets,” J. Systems Engineering Electronics 29, No. 1, 1 (2018). DOI: 10.21629/JSEE.2018.01.01.Google Scholar