There seem to be a host of malevolent factors that work in concert to inhibit the collection of accurate RCS information. They range from random internal thermal noise generated in the instrumentation system to residual external echoes from optically invisible obstacles on the test range. The cumulative result of this multiplicity of internal and external errors is an absolute limit on data accuracy that is seldom better than 0.5 dB (about 12 percent).
KeywordsMain Lobe Radar Cross Section Incident Field Background Contribution Target Zone
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.R. B. Dybdal and R. H. Ott, “Coherent RF Error Statistics,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. MTT-34, December 1986, pp. 1413–1420.Google Scholar
- 3.M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun (editors), “Error Function and Fresnel Integrals,” Handbook of Mathematical Functions, U.S. National Bureau of Standards, November 1970, Chapter 7.Google Scholar
- 4.J. Boersma, “Computation of Fresnel Integrals,” Mathematics of Computation, vol. 14, National Acacemy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1960, p. 380.Google Scholar
- 5.E. F. Knott, “Far Field RCS Test Ranges,” Radar Reflectivity Measurement, edited by N. C. Currie, Artech House, Norwood, Mass., 1989, Chapter 9, pp. 307–367.Google Scholar
- 7.J. D. Kraus, Antennas ( first edition ), McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1950, p. 350.Google Scholar
- 8.E. F. Knott and T. B. A Senior, “Studies of Scattering by Cellular Plastic Materials,” Report No. 5849–1-F, University of Michigan, Radiation Laboratory, April 1964.Google Scholar
- 9.Radar Cross-Section Measurements with the HP 8510 Network Analyzer,“ Hewlett-Packard Product Note No. 8510–2 (no date cited).Google Scholar
- 10.E. F. Knott, J. F. Shaeffer, and M. T. Tuley, Radar Cross Section, Artech House, Norwood, Mass., 1985.Google Scholar