See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245342471

Study of the deception effect of radar equipped with decoys

Article  in  COMPEL International Journal of Computations and Mathematics in Electrical · November 2009

DOI: 10.1108/03321640910991976

CITATIONS READS
0 189

4 authors, including:

Jirun Luo
Chinese Academy of Sciences
216 PUBLICATIONS   492 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Digital Predistortion View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jirun Luo on 13 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209
COMPEL
28,6
1402
COMPEL: The International Journal
for Computation and Mathematics in
Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Vol. 28 No. 6, 2009
pp. 1402-1417
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0332-1649
DOI 10.1108/03321640910991976
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0332-1649.htm
Study of the deception effect
of radar equipped with decoys
Wei-guang Zhou and Ji-run Luo
Institute of Electronics, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China, and
Yu-gui Jia and Hua-bin Wang
Second Graduate School of Air Force, Beijing, China
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a solution to investigate the deception effects of the
radar equipped with decoys.
Design/methodology/approach – Since the attacking process of the anti-radiation missile (ARM)
is very complicated, numerical simulations are used here to analyze the effects of the operating
parameters and the layout parameters of the radar and the decoys on the survival probabilities.
Findings – The survival probabilities of all the radar and the decoys can over 99.5 percent when
three decoys distribute near the radar in an appropriate way and the decoy level is set to some
appropriate values.
Research limitations/implications – The movement model of the ARM is simple and should be
improved further.
Practical implications – The numerical results may be applied directly in practice and the dynamic
simulation algorithms may be as a reference of the radar-decoy technique in the future works.
Originality/value – Some coordinate systems are built. Based on it, the models of the radar and
decoys against an ARM are introduced, including the fields radiated by the radar and the decoys, the
guidance signal and the movement of the ARM. Numerical simulations have been performed here.
Some conclusions have been given.
Keywords Radar, Weapons, Radiation
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Anti-radiation missile (ARM) can cause fatal threats to the radar. Even more seriously,
it can impose terrible psychological pressures on the radar operators. The commonly
used anti-ARM strategies, such as employing warning systems (Long, 1992), reducing
intercept probability by advanced techniques (Gross and Chen, 2005; Schleher, 2006;
Nelander, 2007), deploying decoy for radar (Li, X. et al., 2005; Li, Y.M. et al., 2008) and
executing hard-kill countermeasures, have been investigated during the past years.
The deception technique with decoys is an effective and economical method.
So far, there is no problem basically to design and manufacture the decoy hardware
systems. Some systems such as AN/TLQ-32 have been put into practice ( Jane’s
Information Group, 2004). However, the deception theory is not so satisfying.
A theoretical model was proposed to analyze the deception effect (Zhen et al., 2006) based
on the assumption that ARM tracking the normal direction of the wave fronts of
the electromagnetic-field-combined profile. It gave some formulae for calculating the
wave fronts of several omni-directional radiation sources and explained the interference
action. However, it ignores the amplitude and phase distribution characteristics of
the field and the actual reception process of the ARM receiver. The operating
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

characteristics of a monopulse direction-finding system facing to two radiation sources Study of the
were discussed (Vakin and Shustov, 1969), and various methods of monopulse angle deception effect
tracking were presented (Melino, 2002; Mclendon and Turner, 1983). Although the
results cannot be used to analyze the survival probabilities of the radar and the decoys of radar
directly, they give a clear understanding of guidance signal generation process in the
case of several sources. The simulations of the radar and the decoys against an ARM
were done (Jia et al., 2002) in two-dimension space. 1403
This paper describes the coordinate systems in the next section. Based on the field
pattern, the polarization and the propagation characteristics, the generation model of
the guidance signal is presented in Section 3. A simple movement model of ARM is
treated in Section 4. The dynamic simulations of the radar and the decoys against an
ARM are performed and the discussions of the results are given in the last section.

2. Definition of coordinate systems

In order to clearly express the field of the radar and the decoys, the forming process of
the guidance signal and the flight attitude of the ARM, radar frameðOr X r Y r Z r Þ, decoy
frame ðOd X d Y d Z d Þ, body frame ðOm X m Y m Z m Þ and reference frame (OXYZ ) are built.
For the reference frame, the OX-axis is directed to north and the OZ-axis points
upwards. The OY-axis completes the right-handed orthogonal set. The radar frame has
its origin at the location of the radar. The axes OrXr, OrYr, and OrZr are parallel to the
corresponding axes of the reference frame. The decoy frame has its origin at the
location of the decoy and the definitions of the axes are similar to those of the radar
frame. The origin of the body frame is fixed at the centroid of the ARM. The OmZm-axis
coincides with the bore-sight. The OmYm-axis is lain in the body’s symmetric plane and
directed down. It is perpendicular to the OmZm-axis. The OmXm-axis completes the
right-handed orthogonal set. A transition frame ðOt X t Y t Z t Þ is introduced to carry out
coordinate transformation from the body frame to the reference frame. Its origin is
located at the crossing point of the OmZm-axis with the XOY-plane. The whole
coordinate systems are shown in Figure 1 and the relationship of the body frame with
the transition frame is shown in Figure 2.

3. Guidance signal forming

The angle information of the target is always extracted based on the monopulse
principle, and four-arm planar equiangular spiral antenna is a widely used angle
sensor. So, two-channel amplitude-phase-combined direction-finding systems with
four-arm planar equiangular spiral antenna (Mosko, 1984; Young, 2004) are used to
derive the guidance signal of the ARM.
Given that the electromagnetic field in space is contributed by the radar and the
decoy together, the sum and difference signals received can be written as:
8
< E_ S ¼ E_ r;S þ E_ d;S
; ð1Þ
: E_ D ¼ E_ r;D þ E_ d;D

where E_ r;S and E_ r;D are the sum and difference signals if only the radar exists, E_ d;S ,
E_ d;D are the sum and difference signals if only the decoy exists. The expressions of
E_ r;S , E_ r;D ,E_ d;S and E_ d;D are listed as:
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

COMPEL Om
28,6 Xm
Z

Zm Ym

1404
Zd
Zr

Yr O Y Yd
Or
Od
Zt
Xr Xd

Ot Yt
Figure 1. Xt
Coordinate system
definition
X

Om
Xm

Zm
Ym

O Y

X
Figure 2.
Body frame definition



E_ r;S ¼ ur ðtÞE r;S exp jfr;S E_ r;D ¼ ur ðtÞE r;D exp jfr;D


 ð2Þ
E_ d;S ¼ ud ðtÞE d;S exp jfd;S E_ d;D ¼ ud ðtÞE d;D exp jfd;D ;

where ur(t) is the multiple modulation function of the radar, ud(t) is the multiple
modulation function of the decoy and the mathematical form is the same as ur(t) here.
The other terms in equation (2) are explained below:
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

   ðmÞ ðmÞ   ðrÞ ðrÞ   ðmÞ ðmÞ 

E r;S ¼ C r;S f r uðrÞ ðrÞ
m ; wm f S u r ; wr E r;D ¼ C r;D f r um ; w m g D ur ; w r Study of the
 ðd Þ ðd Þ   ðmÞ ðmÞ   ðd Þ ðd Þ   ðmÞ ðmÞ  ð3Þ deception effect
E d;S ¼ C d;S f d um ; wm f S ud ; wd E d;D ¼ C d;D f d um ; wm gD ud ; wd ;
of radar
ð f =f 0 Þ ð f =f 0 Þ ð f =f 0 Þ
fr;S ¼ ln ðmÞ
fr;D ¼ 2 ln ðmÞ
fd;S ¼ ln
a ^ wr a ^ 2wr a ^ wðmÞd
ð4Þ
1405
ð f =f 0 Þ
fd;D ¼ 2 ln ;
a ^ 2wðmÞ
d

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uð2=hÞðP G uð2=hÞðP G
u r r max GS max Þ u r r max GD max Þ
C r;S ¼ t   2  C r;D ¼ t   2 
ðrÞ
4 p r m Lr Lt 4p r ðrÞ m Lr Lt
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð5Þ
uð2=hÞðP G uð2=hÞðP G
u  d d max GS max Þ u  d d max GD max Þ
C d;S ¼ u   C d;D ¼ u  2 ;
t 2 t
4p r ðd m
Þ
Ld Lt 4p r ðd m
Þ
Ld Lt

where:
P r , Gr max , f r ðuðrÞ ðrÞ
m ; wm Þ and Lr are, respectively, the transmitting power, antenna
gain, pattern and transmitting loss of the radar, uðrÞ ðrÞ
m ; wm are the elevation and azimuth
ðrÞ
angles of the ARM relative to the radar, r m is the distance from the radar to the ARM,
Lt is the propagation loss.
GS max , GD max are, respectively, the gain of the sum beam and difference beam of
the ARM, f S ðuðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ
r ; wr Þ and g D ður ; wr Þ are, respectively, the sum pattern and
ðmÞ ðmÞ
difference pattern, ur ; wr are the elevation and azimuth angles of the radar relative
to the ARM, f is the operating frequency, f 0 is the reference frequency and a is the
spiral rate of the antenna.
P d , Gd max , and Ld are, respectively, the transmitting power, antenna gain and
transmitting loss of the decoy. f d ðuðd Þ ðd Þ ðd Þ ðd Þ ðd Þ
m ; wm Þ, um ; wm and r m are similar to those of
ðmÞ ðmÞ
the radar. ud ; wd are the elevation and azimuth angles of the decoy relative to the
ARM.
Then, complex ratio is calculated and the expected attacking direction can be
obtained by solving the following equations:
8 ðmÞ
< kE_ D =E_ S k ¼ gf SD ððuu ðmÞ ÞÞ
    ð6Þ
: w ðmÞ ¼ arg E_ D 2 arg E_ S

4. Aviation and control process

Since the flight of the ARM is complicated and it is difficult to simulate the process in
an accurate way, it is necessary to make some approximations. The initial conditions of
simulations are given by the starting point of the PRS guidance stage in this paper.
The movement model of the ARM is shown in Figure 3. The speed rate v, maximum
overload nmax and time constant of steering gear servo system t are intrinsic
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

COMPEL parameters of the ARM, the expected attacking direction is guidance parameter, the
position and attacking direction at tnþ 1 can be determined by the corresponding
28,6 parameters at tn. Two cases are discussed below.

Case 1 ARM working in tracking mode

The movement of the ARM working in tracking mode is shown in Figure 4(a). Om is the
1406 position of the ARM. The velocity at tn is along OmOt. Although the expected
attacking direction is the same as OmP, the ARM moves to Omp and its line of sight
actually points to Otp after a time step Dt because of the inertia of servo system. The
smooth characteristics are expressed as ( Jia et al., 2002):

 
2Dt
/Ot Om Otp ¼ /Ot Om P 1 2 exp ; ð7Þ
t
The values of t and Dt can be, respectively, set to 0.1 and 0.02. Thus, the position and
velocity at tn þ Dt can be obtained as:
O t O mp ¼ O t O m þ O m O mp ; ð8Þ
O mp O tp
vðt þ DtÞ ¼ kvðtÞk : ð9Þ
kO mp O tp k

Case 2 ARM working in searching mode

Figure 4(b) shows the simplified trajectory of the ARM in searching mode. The
meanings of Om, OmOt and O mP are identical to those in Figure 4(a) except that P is
out of the field of view. The ARM will adjust the attacking direction to aim at P by

Position at tn Speed rate n Position at tn+1

Maximum overload nmax
Velocity at tn Velocity at tn+1
Time constant of
Figure 3. servo system t
Block diagram of the
simplified model
Expected attack direction

Zt Om Om

Omp
Yt
Ot

Xt Otp Ot Otp P
Figure 4.
The movement of ARM P
(a) Tracking mode (b) Searching mode
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

maximum overload and land on Otp at last. The corrected error is given below (Vakin Study of the
and Shustov, 1969): deception effect
0:5J max kO m P k
2 of radar
kO t O tp k ¼ ; ð10Þ
v2
where J max ¼ nmax g, g is the gravitational acceleration. 1407
5. Simulation and analysis
The layout of one decoy distributed near the radar is chosen as an illustrative example
to describe the algorithm. The simulation block diagram is shown in Figure 5.
The coordinates of the radar, the decoy, the ARM and the origin of the transition frame
are denoted as (xr , yr , zr), (xd , yd , zd), (rm ,um ,wm), and (xt,yt,zt) in the reference frame,
respectively. According to the relationships of the reference frame with other frames,
the coordinate of the ARM ðxðrÞ ðrÞ ðrÞ
m ; ym ; zm Þ in the radar frame, the coordinate of the radar
ðmÞ Þ ðd Þ
ðr ðmÞ
r ; u r ; w ðmÞ
r Þ in the body frame, the coordinate of the ARM ðr ðd ðd Þ
m ; um ; wm Þ in the
ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ
decoy frame and the coordinate of the decoy ðr d ; ud ; wd Þ in the body frame can be
obtained. The sum signal E_ S and the difference signal E_ D are derived by substituting
the coordinates into equations (1)-(5). Then the expected attacking direction is

Operational
parameters &
initial condition
setting

Guidance signal
generation

Is target in No ARM working in

field of view searching mode
?

Yes

ARM working in
tracking mode

No Is ARM on land
?

Yes

Survival probability analysis

Figure 5.
The simulation block
End diagram
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

COMPEL extracted by equation (6). The operating mode of the ARM will be determined by the
28,6 angle offset between the expected attacking direction and the line of sight. If the ARM
works in tracking mode, the position and the attacking direction at the next moment
can be solved by equations (8) and (9); otherwise, the landing point of the ARM can be
calculated by equation (10). When several decoys are distributed near the radar, the
radiation field of all the decoys should be calculated by equations (2)-(5) and then
1408 substituted into equation (1). The other steps are similar to the case that one decoy is
distributed near the radar.
The conditions of the simulation are summarized in Table I.
The pattern of the pencil beam antenna, which is widely used for the radar, can be
modeled as (Blake, 1986):
  seff ap sin cðkr sin up Þð1 þ cos up Þ
f r uðrÞ ðrÞ
m ; wm ¼ ; ð11Þ
2
The variables in equation (11) are as follow: uðrÞ ðrÞ
m ; wm , the elevation and azimuth angles
of the ARM relative to the radar; seff, the scan loss factor due to the fact that the
effective aperture becomes smaller when the beam is steered away from the normal
direction of the antenna aperture; ap, ½ð102l þ 1Þ þ sgnðup 2 u0 Þð102l 2 1Þ
=2; l,
0.05(SL1 2 13.26); SL1, the first side lobe level; up, the included angle between the
direction of the ARM and the main lobe; u0, sin21 ðp=kr Þ is the angle of the first null; kr,
1:3916= sinðub =2Þ; ub, the half-power beam width:
(
1 x$0
sgnðxÞ ¼
21 x , 0

The modified dipole antenna is a commonly used decoy antenna. The expression of the
decoy pattern is:
 Þ ðd Þ   
ðd Þ q q
f d uðd
m ; wm ¼ sin uðd Þ
m cos um 2 ð12Þ
where uðd Þ ðd Þ
m ; wm are, respectively, the elevation and azimuth angles of the ARM

Systems Operational parameters Value

Radar Power gain 38.5 dB

Transmitting loss 2.1 dB
Transmitting signal wave Continuous wave
Beam width of half power 28
Average side lobe level 258 dB
Beam scanning rate of azimuth 0.2 p radian/s
Decoy Power gain 3 dB
Transmitting loss 0.2 dB
Elevation coverage control factor 1
ARM Speed rate 3 Mach
Table I. Maximum overload 10
Operational Time constant of servo system 0.1 s
parameters setting Field of view angle ^ 48
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

relative to the decoy, q is called as elevation coverage control factor, which is Study of the
introduced to control the domain covered by the radiation field of the decoy.
The pattern of the ARM is written as (Hagedon and Brustad, 1982; Bullock et al.,
deception effect
1971; Chou, 2006): of radar
8


< F S ¼ f S ðu ðmÞ Þ lnð f =f 0 Þ=a exp ^ jw ðmÞ


; ð13Þ 1409
: F D ¼ g D ðu ðmÞ Þ 2 lnð f =f 0 Þ=a exp ^ j2w ðmÞ

where u ðmÞ ; w ðmÞ are the elevation and azimuth angles.

In order to analyze the deception effect, the relationships of the survival probability
with the decoy level in different distances between the radar and the decoy are shown
in Figure 6. The low limit of the distance is 150 m, because the safe radius of the radar
and the decoy are about 50 and 30 m, respectively. In practical application, 250-300 m
are chosen as usual. So, the minimum distance between the radar and the decoy is set
to 150 m and the maximum distance is set to 300 m.
For the four cases shown in Figure 6, the decoy level is the lowest when the distance
is 300 m to achieve the same survival probability. It can be seen that the survival
probability of the radar increases with the decoy level; however, the survival
probability of the decoy decreases at the same time. Both the survival probabilities
of the radar and the decoy are above 99 percent when the decoy level varies from
2 75 to 2 62 dB. So, the survival probabilities of the radar and the decoy can be over
99 percent even if the decoy level is 4 dB less than the average side level of the radar.
In order to explain the results, the side lobe zone is divided into the high-side lobe
zone V1(u,w) and the low-side lobe zone V2(u,w). The side lobe level is higher than
the average side lobe level in the high-side lobe zone and lower than that in the low-side
lobe zone. The interception probabilities of the high-side lobe zone and the low-side
lobe zone are w1 and w2, respectively. It is known that w1 þ w2 , 1. The
effective average side level of the radar sensed by the ARM is:
ðw1 M 1 þ w2 M 2 Þ
Gav_eff ¼ , Gav ; ð14Þ
ðN 1 þ N 2 Þ
where:
Z Z
PGðu; wÞ 2
Mi ¼ r sin udud w;
Vi 4pr 2
Z Z
P
Ni ¼ 2
r 2 sin udud w; i ¼ 1; 2:
Vi 4pr

Gav is the average side level of the radar.

Hence, the survival probabilities are higher than 99 percent even if the decoy level is
lower than the average side lobe level of the radar.
To evaluate the effect of beam scanning on the survival probability, the distribution
maps of the touch-down are given. In Figure 7(a), the main lobe of the radar is fixed at
(0,p/4) all the time, where the coordinates in parentheses are, respectively, the azimuth
and elevation angles. In Figure 7(b), the main lobe is directed to (0,p/4) at the beginning
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

COMPEL 100
28,6 95
150 m
200 m

Survival probability of radar (%)

250 m
90 300 m
85
1410
80

75

70

65

60
–100 – 90 – 80 – 70 – 60 – 50
Levels of decoy (dB)
(a)
100

95 150 m
Survival probability of decoy (%)

200 m
90 250 m
85 300 m

80

75

70

65

60
Figure 6. –100 – 90 – 80 – 70 – 60 – 50
Survival probabilities
Levels of decoy (dB)
with decoy levels
(b)

and then scans with 0.2p radian/s in azimuth. The decoy level is set to 2 57 dB in this
simulation, which is slightly higher than the average side level. The radar and the
decoy are located at (0, 2 150) and (0,150), respectively. The azimuth and the elevation
angles of the attacking direction of the ARMs are, respectively, set to 0-3608 and 20-608.
The circles represent the safe range of the radar or the decoy, and the symbols “ þ ”
represent the landing points of the ARM. About 500 times, simulations have been done
in both Figure 7(a) and (b).
In Figure 7(a), the destructive probabilities of the radar and the decoy are,
respectively, 0.97 and 14.31 percent. About 3.45 percent of the total ARMs land on the
region 2 250 # x # 250, 2 250 # y # 0, 38.45 percent of the total ARMs land on
the region 2 250 # x # 250, 0 # y # 250, and 58.1 percent of the total ARMs
are outside the region shown in the figure. In Figure 7(b), none lands on the
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

250 Study of the

200 deception effect
150 of radar
100
50
1411
0
–50
–100
–150
–200
–250
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250
(a) Without beam scanning

250
200
150
100
50
0
–50
–100
–150
–200
Figure 7.
–250 The distribution map
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250
of the touch-down
(b) With beam scanning

region 2 250 # x # 250, 2 250 # y # 0. The destructive probability of the decoy is

1.53 percent. About 2.36 percent of the total ARMs land on the
region 2 250 # x # 250, 0 # y # 250, and 97.64 percent of the total ARMs are
outside the region shown in the figure. The simulation results show that the survival
probability of the radar increases from 99 percent without beam scanning to
100 percent with beam scanning, while the survival probability of the decoy increases
from 85.7 to 98.47 percent. About 10,000 times, simulations have also been done and
the survival probabilities are almost the same as the results in Figure 7.
Table II gives the statistic data of the touch-down. The simulation conditions are the
same as those in Figure 7. For the radar, it is safe when the main lobe scans; however, it
is not safe when the main lobe does not scan and the ARM attack from 30 to 608
(azimuth angle). Comparing to the case that the main lobe is fixed, although the
survival probability of the decoy is slightly decreased in the case that the radar with
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

COMPEL beam scanning when the ARM attack from 30 to 608, the survival probability of the
28,6 decoy is increased when the ARM attack from other directions. So, beam scanning is
beneficial to increase the survival probabilities of the radar and the decoy.
Figure 8 shows the relationship of the survival probability with the initial phase of
the decoy radiation field. The decoy level of 2 55, 2 66 and 2 84 dB are investigated.
The initial phase of the field radiated by the radar is set to 08. The distance between the
1412 radar and the decoy is set to 300 m in the simulation. It can be seen that the fluctuation
of the survival probability is no more than 0.5 percent. So, the survival probabilities of
the radar and the decoy are insensitive to the initial phase of the decoy radiation field.
R, D1, D2, and D3, respectively, represent the radar, the first, the second and the
third decoys, in Figure 9. Three different layout topologies are investigated. It is
assumed that chirp signals are transmitted by the radar and the decoys. The widths of
the pulses transmitted by the radar and the decoys are the same and the pulses are
transmitted in synchronism. The pulse width, the pulse repeating period, and the pulse
compression ratio are set to 52 ms, 2,000 ms and 100 in the simulations. The average
side lobe level is set to 2 52 dB here. The others conditions are listed in Table I.
Figure 10(a)-(c) show the relationships of the survival probability with the decoy level
when the radar is, respectively, equipped with one decoy (D3), two decoys (D1 and D2)
and three decoys (D1-D3). In Figure 10(a), the distance between the radar and the decoy
is set to 300 m. In Figure 10(b), the distances between the radar and the two decoys are
set to 385 m, and the distance between the two decoys is set to 335 m. In Figure 10(c),
the distances between the radar and the first two decoys are set to 385 m, and the
distances among the three decoys are set to 335 m. Figure 10(d) shows the deception
effects of the three different layout topologies.
Figure 10(a) shows that the survival probability of the radar increases with the decoy
level, while the survival probability of the decoy decreases under the same condition. It
means that the decoy level is neither too high nor too low. The value of the decoy level
must be limited to an appropriate range. Both the survival probabilities of the radar and
the decoy are above 99.5 percent when the decoy level varies from 2 80 to 2 50 dB.
Both, Figure 10(b) and (c) show that the survival probability of the radar increases
with the decoy level and the survival probabilities of the decoys have little change. The
survival probability of the radar is higher than 99.5 percent when the decoy level over
2 90 dB. Although the ARM will be decoyed to the zone near the decoys when the
decoy level increases, the decoys can still disturb the tracking and will protect
themselves each other. So, the survival probabilities of the decoys always approach
100 percent regardless of the decoy level. To ensure the safety of the radar and the

The azimuth angle of attacking direction (degree)

Survival probability 2180 to 2 120 to 260 to 0 to 30 to 60 to 120 to
(%) 2 120 2 60 0 30 60 120 180

Radar
With scan 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
No scan 100 100 94.98 93.86 100 100 100
Table II. Decoy
Statistic report With scan 100 100 100 100 97.81 87.41 100
of tounch-down No scan 75.15 97.14 100 100 100 69.96 59.49
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

100 Study of the

deception effect
Survival probability of radar (%)
99 of radar
Decoy level –55 dB
Decoy level –66 dB
98 Decoy level –84 dB
1413
97

96

95
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
The initial phase of decoy (degree)
(a)

100
Survival probability of decoy (%)

Decoy level –55 dB

99
Decoy level –66 dB
Decoy level –84 dB
98

97

96

95 Figure 8.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Survival probabilities with
The initial phase of decoy (degree) the initial phase of decoy
(b)
decoys, the decoy level will be slightly higher than the average side lobe level of the
radar in practice. Hence, it is easier to set a proper value of the decoy level for the case
that the radar is equipped with two decoys or three decoys.
Figure 10(d) shows that the minimum decoy level are, respectively, 2 87, 2 92
and 2 99 dB for one decoy, two decoys and three decoys to make the radar achieve the
same survival probability 99.5 percent. So, the decoy level can be lowered if the number
of the decoys increases. Although the survival probability of the radar increases with
the number of the decoys, the amount of the increment presents a decreasing trend.
In addition, the survival probability of the radar is already about 100 percent when the
decoy level over the minimum decoy level. So, it is unnecessary to increase too much
decoys. To satisfy the reliability and feasibility, it is usually preferred that the radar
is equipped with three decoys and the decoy level is slightly higher than the average
side lobe level of the radar.
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

COMPEL
400
28,6
D2
200

1414 0
R D3

–200
D1

Figure 9.
– 400
The typical layouts of the
radar and the decoys
– 400 –200 0 200 400

100 100

the radar and the decoys (%)

the radar and the decoys (%)

Survival probabilities of
Survival probabilities of

Radar
99 99
Decoy 1
Decoy 2
98 98 Decoy 3

97 Radar 97
Decoy

96 96

–140 –120 –100 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 –140 –120 –100 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40
Level of decoy (dB) Level of decoy (dB)
(a) (c)

100 100
the radar and the decoys (%)

Survival probabilities of
Survival probabilities of

99 One decoy
99
the radar (%)

Radar Two decoy

Decoy 1 Three decoy
98 98
Decoy 2

97 97

96 96
Figure 10.
Survival probabilities in –140 –120 –100 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 –140 –120 –100 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40
Level of decoy (dB) Level of decoy (dB)
different layout topologies
(b) (d)

Figure 11 shows the relationship of the survival probability with the decoy level under
three different settings of the initial phase:
(1) the initial phases of the radar and the decoys are the same, i.e. (0,0,0,0);
(2) the initial phases of the radar and the decoys are reversed, i.e. (0,p,p,p); and
(3) the initial phases of the radar and the three decoys havep/2 phase transition in
sequence, i.e. (0,p/2,p,3p/2).
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

100.0 100.00 Study of the

99.5 99.98 deception effect

of the second decoy (%)

Survival probability

Survival probability
99.0
99.96
of radar
of radar (%)

98.5 Initial phase (0,0,0,0)

Initial phase (0,π,π,π) 99.94
98.0
Initial phase (0,π/2,π,3π/2) 99.92 Initial phase (0,0,0,0)
97.5
99.90 Initial phase (0,π,π,π)
97.0
99.88
Initial phase (0,π/2,π,3π/2) 1415
96.5
99.86
96.0
–140 –120 –100 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 –140 –120 –100 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40
Levels of decoy (dB) Levels of decoy (dB)
(a) (c)

100.00 100.00
99.98 99.98
of the third decoy (%)
of the first decoy (%)

Survival probability
Survival probability

99.96 99.96
99.94 99.94
99.92 Initial phase (0,0,0,0) 99.92
99.90 Initial phase (0,π,π,π) 99.90
Initial phase (0,π/2,π,3π/2) Initial phase (0,0,0,0) Figure 11.
99.88 99.88
Initial phase (0,π,π,π) Survival probability with
99.86 99.86 Initial phase (0,π/2,π,3π/2)
decoy levels for different
–140 –120 –100 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 –140 –120 –100 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 initial phase of the decoy
Levels of decoy (dB) Levels of decoy (dB) radiation field
(b) (d)

The four values in parentheses are, respectively, the initial phase of the field radiated
by the radar and the decoys. The other conditions of the simulation are the same as
those in Figure 10(c). Parts (a) through (d) of Figure 11 show that the fluctuation of the
survival probability is no more than 0.1 percent. Therefore, the initial phases of the
field radiated by the radar and the decoys have small effect on the survival
probabilities.

6. Conclusion
Since the closed loop of a seeker head with the missile control is a very complicated
dynamic process, it is difficult to get the survival probabilities by simple mathematical
expressions. If the survival probabilities of the radar and the decoys are obtained fully
by experiments, it will cost much time and money. To solve these problems, some
coordinate systems are built. Based on it, the models of the radar and decoys against an
ARM are introduced, including the fields radiated by the radar and the decoys, the
guidance signal and the movement of the ARM. Then numerical simulations have been
performed here to obtain the conditions of high-survival probabilities.
For the case that one decoy distribute near the radar, the survival probabilities of
the radar and the decoy are above 99 percent when the distance between the radar and
the decoy is 300 m and the decoy level varies from 2 75 to 2 62 dB. To satisfy the
reliability and feasibility, it is usually preferred that the radar is equipped with three
decoys, and the decoy level is slightly higher than the average side lobe level of the
radar. The results show that the survival probabilities of all the radar and the decoys
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

COMPEL can over 99.5 percent when three decoys distribute near the radar according to the
28,6 typical layout topology described.

References
Blake, L.V. (1986), Radar Rang-performance Analysis, Academic Press, Norwood, MA, pp. 367-79.
1416 Bullock, L.G., Oeh, G.R. and Sparagna, J.J. (1971), “An analysis of wide-band microwave
monopulse direction-finding techniques”, IEEE Transactions Aerospace and Electronic
Systems, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 188-203.
Chou, H.-T. (2006), “Characteristics of spiral antennas in the estimation of direction-of-arrival”,
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium, Vol. 9-14, pp. 3689-92.
Gross, F.B. and Chen, K. (2005), “Comparison of detectability of traditional pulsed and spread
spectrum radar waveforms in classic passive receivers”, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace
and Electronic Systems, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 746-51.
Hagedon, G.L. and Brustad, J.T. (1982), “Receiver and method for use with a four-arm spiral
antenna”, US Patent 4 366 483, 28 December.
Jane’s Information Group (2004), “AN/TLQ-32 ARM-D anti-radiation missile decoy”, Jane’s
Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems, 19 January, available at: www.janes.com/extracts/
extract/jrew/jrew0943.html
Jia, Y.G., Zhang, L.F., Shen, Q. and Pan, J. (2002), “Simulation of air surveillance radar equipping
decoys for resisting ARM”, Proceedings of 8th National Radar Conference 2002, Hefei,
China, pp. 134-8.
Li, X., Yuan, Z.W. and Yang, B. (2005), “Design of anti-radar missile decoy system arrange
project and decoying effect analysis”, Systems Engineering and Electronics, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 439-45.
Li, Y.M., Gan, D.Y. and Su, D.L. (2008), “Analysis of amplitude for the anti-radiation weapon
antagonizing active decoy”, 8th International Symposium Antennas Propagation and EM
Theory 2008, Kunming, 2-5 November, pp. 1198-202.
Long, M.W. (1992), Airborne Early Warning System Concepts, Artech House, Boston, MA,
pp. 13-137.
Mclendon, R. and Turner, C. (1983), “Broadband sensors for lethal defense suppression”,
Microwave Journal, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 85-101.
Melino, C. (2002), “Average monopulse angle tracking response to two unresolved sources”,
IEEE Transactions Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 1038-46.
Mosko, J.A. (1984), “An introduction to two-channel direction-finding systems”, Microwave
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 105-22.
Nelander, A. (2007), “Continuous coded waveforms for noise radar”, Proceedings of IEEE
Waveform Diversity and Design Conference 2007, Pisa, Italy, 4-8 June, pp. 438-42.
Schleher, D.C. (2006), “LPI radar: fact or fiction”, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems
Magazine, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 3-6.
Vakin, S.A. and Shustov, L.N. (1969), Principles of Jamming and Electronic Reconnaissance,
Clearinghouse, Washington, DC, pp. 57-255.
Young, M. (2004), Microwave Passive Direction Finding, SciTech Publishing, Mill Valley, CA,
pp. 21-274.
Zhen, S., Yan, L. and Yuan, W.L. (2006), “Modeling of guidance signal of anti-radiation missile in
the case of multiple sources”, Proceedings of IEEE Mechatronics and Automation
Conferences 2006, Luoyang, China, 25-28 June, pp. 2264-8.
COMPEL 118685—28/9/2009—RAGHAVAN—347209

About the authors Study of the

Wei-guang Zhou received the BS degree from the University of Electronic Science and
Technology of China in 2004. He is with the Institute of Electronics, Chinese Academy and is a deception effect
PhD student in Electrical Engineering. His research interests include microwave circuit and of radar
systems, radar, and ECM. Wei-guang Zhou is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
zhouweiguang@tom.com; wgzhou04@mails.gucas.ac.cn
Ji-run Luo is with the Institute of Electronics, Chinese Academy. His research interests
include high-power microwave technology and application. 1417
Yu-gui Jia is based at the Second Graduate School of Air Force, Beijing, China.
Hua-bin Wang is based at the Second Graduate School of Air Force, Beijing, China.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats