Agilent PN 8791-8

A Survey of Radar Test Applications

Using the Agilent FASS
Product Note

Adapted and expanded from “Modern

Radars Demand Sophisticated Signal
Simulation,” Microwave Systems News
(MSN), May 1990, pg. 41–49. Reprinted
with permission, Cardiff Publishing.

Radar testing has come a long way

since the days of klystron generators
and pulse modulators. But as new
radar designs turn to frequency
agility and intrapulse modulation for
improved performance, test methods
struggle to keep pace (see MSN, April
1990, “The Modulation Domain Offers
a New View of Radar Performance”).
Of growing importance is the need to
test radar systems and line-replaceable
units (LRUs) with advanced signals
representative of real target and elec-
tronic countermeasures (ECM) envi-
ronments. In a worldwide survey of
radar measurement challenges, radar
designers and systems engineers
ranked signal simulation and receiver
measurements second in importance
only to pulsed RF analysis [1]. Until
recently, however, signal simulation
has generally been limited to fully cus-
tom target and ECM simulators cost-
ing millions of dollars. These “hard-
wired” simulators often have limited
flexibility and parametric control
This radar test system on wheels contains an advanced signal simulator, pulsed phase lending little hope of asset reuse
noise system, an antenna measurement system, and several instruments to characterize from program to program.
and calibrate a radar’s pulsed RF performance. The entire system is not shown.
Inside Agilent FASS
To address the intrapulse and
agile signal requirements of modern
system testing, a high performance
signal simulator combines the best
of digital and analog synthesis to
offer unprecedented waveform gen-
eration capability and fidelity. The
Agilent Technologies 8791 Frequency
Agile Signal Simulator (FASS) is an
integrated system containing a high-
speed direct-digital synthesizer (DDS)
and a frequency agile upconverter.
The Modulation Data Source (MDS)
houses independent parallel high-
speed memory banks and sequencers
for arbitrary AM, PM, FM, and fre-
quency hopping capability. This
data feeds into the Agile Carrier
Synthesizer (ACS) — a 134-MHz
direct digital synthesizer with a
MDS
Sequencers RAMs
AM AM
PM PM
FM FM
Freq Freq
Simplified block diagram of the Agilent FASS—a digitally synthesized signal simulator
2
30-bit phase accumulator and a
12-bit DAC. This gives a 0.125 Hz
frequency resolution and a 40-MHz
instantaneous modulation bandwidth
with a typical worst-case spurious
performance of –60 dBc over the
entire frequency range. All modula-
tions, including amplitude, phase,
frequency, and pulse, are combined
digitally prior to analog conversion.
This ensures waveform repeatability
from unit to unit, and over time. A
direct-synthesis Agile Upconverter
(AUC) translates the output of ACS
over a 10 MHz to 3 GHz RF range,
with better than 100 ns typical switch-
ing speed. This fast phase settling is
important for testing coherent agile
radars. The AUC includes an ultra-
linear SAW filter [12] to preserve
passband modulation linearity and
ACS
13.5 to 58 MHz
Sine
DAC
Computer
DDS
Smart
Interface
block out unwanted spurs resulting
from aliased sampling products. The
RF output of FASS can then be com-
bined with other RF sources and
upconverted with a very low phase
noise upconverter. Typical phase
noise at 10 GHz is –120 dBc/Hz @
10 kHz offset. The overall system
can be dynamically controlled from
an external processor, allowing real-
time mode changes and dynamic
control of Doppler shift, carrier fre-
quency, and phase, and power. Such
capability simplifies integration into
complete turnkey simulators, such
as the dynamic target simulator on
page 7. For more detail, please refer
to Product Note 8791-3, Theory of
Operation for the Agilent 8791 FASS.
AUC
10 to 3000 MHz
Signal
Conditioning
Local
Oscillators
Fortunately, recent advances in
digital-synthesis-based signal simula-
tors pose a hopeful outlook for radar
designers and systems integrators [2].
Off-the-shelf simulator subsystems
such as the Agilent 8791 Frequency
Agile Signal Simulator (FASS) have a
modular architecture, enabling unique
requirements to be readily met with
a “building block” approach to hard-
Figure 1. Simplified block diagram of a modern coherent radar. Typical tests are listed near major radar blocks.
ware and software integration (see
page 2, “Inside Agilent FASS”). With
increased pressures to cut develop-
ment costs, manufacturers can lever-
age signal simulation as a competitive
weapon, enabling dramatic improve-
ments in product integrity and time-
to-market. The U.S. DoD even puts
simulation on its “critical technology”
list for the 1990s. With such a grow-
ing importance, an RF/uW engineer’s
training would be incomplete without
a basic understanding of the merits
and applications of signal simulation
to radar test. Using a modern, coher-
ent, pulse-compression radar as the
device-under-test, this product note
lays the groundwork for testing radar
systems with the Agilent FASS.
3
Complex Radars: Stringent Testing
Figure 1 shows a simplified block
diagram of a typical coherent radar.
Most radars include a waveform
exciter, transmitter, antenna, low
noise front end, one or more RF/IF
downconversion stages, optional IF
compression filters, coherent detec-
tor (I/Q demodulator), dual baseband
A/D converters, and digital signal
processor/display. Modern variants
include sum/guard and azimuth/
elevation difference receive channels
for monopulse radars, or multiple
parallel channels for adaptive array
radars (such as the APS125 airborne
early warning radar).
Critical tests — both parametric and
functional — are listed below each
block of the radar. Radar test systems
built largely from off-the-shelf test
equipment (photo on cover) can pro-
vide the required stimulus and analy-
sis horsepower to exercise even the
most sophisticated systems. Although
a radar’s architecture and mission
objectives greatly influence the type
and level of tests performed, basic
target simulation capability for range
and Doppler calibration is a universal
requirement today. When simple pulsed
radars were dominant several years
ago, a synthesized signal generator
with 1 Hz resolution and pulse mod-
ulation was sufficient to simulate
a single target return. To simulate
a moving platform, a range-delay
generator was added, along with a
controller to update range, Doppler,
and reflected power.
4
In a shift toward improved target • Good passband phase linearity and
resolution, better subclutter visibility, amplitude flatness (to minimize
and LPI (low probability-of-intercept) paired echoes and adverse effects
design, modern radar waveforms com- on range sidelobe performance)
monly include combinations of intra-
pulse and interpulse modulations • Independent parametric control
(see Table 1). Chirps and phase coding of each target (trajectory, Doppler
(Barker, Maximal Length Sequences) shift, range, azimuth, elevation,
are ubiquitous. More and more designs heading, reflected power)
include frequency agility and complex
pulse groups or frames. A fire-control • Availability of required injection
radar interleaves telemetry or guid- signals: RF/uW (including Sum/
ance data between radar main bangs. Az/El Difference), IF, Baseband
These waveform complexities place (I/Q), Digital
stringent demands on modern target
simulators. Optional Considerations
What is Needed in a Radar Target • ECM/Jamming signals to test
radar ECCM
Simulator?
While no two target simulators are
• Clutter, multipath, scintillation,
exactly alike, an evaluation of numer-
glint, JEM
ous existing simulators provides good
insight into common requirements
• Ownship trajectory
[3,4,5,6,7]. Universal considerations
for dynamic simulators are summa-
• High-density dynamic target
rized here:
environments
• Accurate emulation of the radar
Taking this one step further, Table 2
waveform (eg. chirp, direct
lists hypothetical specifications for
sequence, Barker code, PRI stag-
a generic radar target simulator. In
ger, frequency hopping, etc.)
practice, a cost-effective simulator
will have reasonable boundaries on
• Phase coherence and timing
parameter ranges shown.
synchronization of the simulator
with respect to the radar
• Good spectral purity and linearity
(low phase noise, spurs, harmonics,
and intermodulation products)
Table 1.
Waveform Characteristic Reason for Use
Coherent FIFT Doppler processing:
ECCM; clutter rejection
Frequency Agile; ECCM; LPI; clutter decorrelation;
Stepped Frequency high resolution target imaging
Pulsed RF Long unambiguous range
(Low PRF); wide unambiguous
Doppler range (high PRF),
improved Tx/Rx isolation
compared to CW.
FMOP (Frequency Modulation Pulse compression; improved
on Pulse) range resolution; LPI; ECCM;
sidelobe reduction (nonlinear FM)
PMOP (Phase Modulation Digital pulse compression;
on Pulse) improved range resolution;
LPI; ECCM
AMOP (Amplitude Modulation Spectral taming, sidelobe
on Pulse) suppression, pulse compression
PRF/PRI Agility Eliminate range/Doppler blind
zones; ECCM
Noise-like (clutter) ECM/jamming; clutter; false
alarm testing
Time-coincident Target Test minimum range
Echoes resolution; multi-target
environment simulation
UMOP (Unintentional Test radar susceptibilty to
Modulation on Pulse) system and environmental
imperfections
Requirement of Target Simulator
Low phase noise; low
spurious; synchronizable to
radar or use transponder
configuration
Fast switching speed;
broadband agility (2 GHz);
synthesized; external digital
control
>80 dB pulse on/off ratio; fast
pulse recovery, low harmonics
Synthesized wideband FM;
1 Hz min. resolution, excellent
passband phase linearity
Synthesized wideband PM;
<1 degree resolution;
excellent passband phase
linearity
Synthesized wideband AM;
programmable rise/fall times;
programmable pulse envelope
PRF synchronization with
radar, flexible timing control,
and triggering
Arbitrary AM, FM, PM; deep
memory or real-time
modulation control
Complex modulation
capability; independent RIF
source/target
Fine-resolution control of all
modulation parameters; high
repeatability and low self-
induced nonlinearity
FASS Typical Contribution
SSB phase noise: –120 dBc @
10 kHz offset from 10 GHz;
spurious –60 dBc, typical worst case
2 GHz + agile BW; 100 ns typical
switching speed; real time external
inputs
>80 dB pulse on/off ratio;
<–50 dBc harmonics @
–10 dBm
>40 MHz FM deviation;
0.25 Hz FM resolution;
<±5° phase error over 40 MHz BW
<0.10° phase resolution
Pulse shaping over 60 dB range
Extensive triggering modes (internal
and external)
Independent control of AM, FM,
PM, FREQUENCY; excellent noise
signals
Can simulate arbitrary spectrum
over 40 MHz bandwidth
Excellent passband linearity;
arbitrary AM, FM, PM
5
Table 2.

Parameter Minimum Maximum Resolution Comments

(Typical) (Typical)

Frequency Range (RF) 100 MHz 96 GHz 0.25 Hz Frequency range depends on DUT

Power Range –147 dBm +10 dBm 0.1 dB

Carrier Agility Bandwidth 100 MHz 2 GHz

Frequency Switching Speed 500 ns 25 µs

Instantaneous Modulation Bandwidth 2 MHz 1 GHz Majority below 100 MHz

Pulse Width 10 ns CW 100 ns – 200 µs, typical

PRF 10 Hz 1 MHz Must cover low, medium, and high PRF modes

Rise/Fall Time 10 ns 1 µs 0.1 ns 15 ns to 1 µs, typical

Intrapulse Modulation 1 MHz 1 GHz 5 to 80 MHz, typical

Spurious Distortion –40 dBc –90 dBc –50 dBc to –65 dBc, typical

Number of In-Beam Targets 1 6 1 2 to 4, typical

Number of Time Multiplexed Targets 1 200 1 10 to 30, typical

RCS 0 m2 1000 m2

Doppler Shift 0 Hz ±500 kHz 0.25 Hz

Range 0 km 2000 km subrange bin

Velocity 0 m/s 2047 m/s

Acceleration 0 g’s 10 g’s

Bearing 0 degrees 360 degrees 0.1 degree

Altitude 0 km 30 km

Scintillation O dB 40 dB 1 dB

Clutter Rain, sea, land

6
Multi-Source Simulation System
Covers All Bases
The state-of-the-art in target simula-
tion uses independent RF sources
for each in-beam target. This simpli-
fies the programming when reflected
echoes from two or more targets
overlap in time—a condition that is
aggravated with pulse compression
waveforms because of their expanded
pulsewidths. Figure 2 shows a con-
ceptual block diagram of a dynamic
RF target simulator capable of simu-
lating two or more simultaneous
in-beam targets, noise clutter, and an
ECM signal. Much of the RF portion
of this simulator contains commercial
Figure 2. Conceptual block diagram of an X-band dynamic target simulator built around parallel FASS systems. Up to 2 GHz of agile
bandwidth is available for testing frequency-hopped radars.
off-the-shelf test equipment, includ-
ing parallel “baseband” FASS systems,
an AOA/RF combiner unit, and low
phase noise cleanbanded upconvert-
ers (CBUC). This configuration is
completely reconfigurable and can
be adapted to suit a variety of target
simulation requirements. Two of the
target sources, for example, could
be reprogrammed into ECM sources.
Or, if more targets were needed, the
ECM or clutter source could be dynam-
ically reallocated as a target source.
The real-time simulation/target
processor, AOA/RF distribution unit,
and system software are generally
user-supplied or developed by quali-
fied systems integrators. The Target
Descriptor File contains the user-
defined trajectory data for each target.
The Ownship Descriptor File contains
optional trajectory data for the radar
platform motion. A suitable computer
precompiles the scenario and down-
loads the required radar waveform
“snippets” to the signal simulator’s
memory and sequencer. By leaving the
high-speed waveform playback to the
simulator, effective scenario update
rates are greatly reduced, enabling
marked simplifications in the real-time
processor hardware, hence reduced
overall cost.
7
The role of the simulation/target
processor is to handle certain on-the-
fly calculations and provide suitable
waveform advance triggers to the
simulator. Typical dynamic calcula-
tions include range delay, Doppler
shift, instantaneous amplitude (based
on a simplified model of the radar
range equation), and azimuth and
elevation angle-of-arrival information.
With the addition of scintillation
tables and polar antenna gain pat-
terns, the simulation/target proces-
sor converts instantaneous target
parameters into equivalent changes
of frequency, phase, and amplitude.
Typical scenario update rates are
on the order of 1-2 ms; however, the
simulator hardware is capable of
accepting new data as often as every
30 ns. To ensure a smooth, unjerky
target trajectory, the minimum target
timing resolution is often set to one-
fifth to one-tenth the size of a range
Figure 3. Several factors influence dynamic clutter spectrum including antenna radiation
pattern, squint angle, platform motion, and radar waveform.
8
bin. The basic clock period of FASS,
for example, allows a minimum range
quantization as small as roughly 7 ns.
Mainlobe clutter (MLC) and sidelobe
clutter (SLC) can be calculated using
a variety of statistical models repre-
sentative of rain, snow, terrain, or sea
backscatter. In this case, the proces-
sor provides a dedicated simulator
channel with the instantaneous AM,
PM, and FM data. During the clutter
calculation, consideration must be
given to the gaming geometry and the
effective plane of intersection of the
clutter source with the radar line of
sight (LOS). In air-to-ground modes—
as Figure 3 shows—several conditions
affect the received clutter spectrum,
such as squint angle, antenna radia-
tion pattern, platform motion, and
radar waveform. Because of the incre-
mental complexities of clutter simula-
tion, some target simulators use band-
limited CW noise to add a cost-
effective but moderate degree of
realism to a given scenario. Some-
times clutter sources require dedi-
cated RF channels. In other cases,
the clutter can be stored along with
the point-target return to form a
composite backscatter signal. Depend-
ing on the clutter model, however,
combining clutter directly with stored
target returns can complicate program-
ming and place burdensome restric-
tions on target parameter ranges. With
dedicated channels, the incremental
hardware cost may be offset by greater
flexibility and ease-of-programming.
Sometimes deep-memory arbitrary
waveform synthesizers such as the
Agilent 8770A are used as clutter
sources by summing their outputs
into the IF portion of the simulator
prior to upconversion.
Realistic dynamic clutter simulation Multiple-target phase coherence Within the limitations of the simula-
remains one of the toughest challenges has traditionally required one RF tor waveform memory, even target
facing designers of radar environment source per target. This is because overlap conditions can be synthesized
simulators. The computational com- typical synthesizers based on phase- with one RF source if overlapping
plexities can become so unwieldly locked loop architectures switch with returns fall within the instantaneous
that even the fastest computers get random phase between frequencies. modulation bandwidth of the simula-
tangled in statistical calculations. In Hence the proper phase relationship tor. Few people realize that direct-
practice, simplifying assumptions of each target is lost when synthesiz- digital synthesizers can simulate
about the clutter spectrum and diver- ing the respective target Doppler off- multiple simultaneous signals so long
sity are essential unless the simulation sets. With the new phase coherent as the equivalent phase and ampli-
is short enough to be precompiled frequency switching mode, the FASS tude modulation components are
and stored fully within the simulator system is the first signal source to contained within the instantaneous
waveform memory. offer this capability over a full 3-GHz bandwidth of the simulator. The digi-
bandwidth and with 0.125 Hz mini- tized IF of Figure 5 illustrates this
Multi-Target Simulation Possible mum frequency resolution. Further- point with two coherent pulsed RF
more, most synthesizers have typical returns overlapping in time. The
with Single Source frequency switching speeds of several Doppler shift is exaggerated to make
A scaled-down version of the multi-
milliseconds—much too long for simu- the interaction easily visible. Notice
target simulator involves one FASS
lating time-multiplexed targets.
operating in a novel phase-coherent
frequency-switching mode. Phase-
coherent frequency switching allows
one target source to simulate several
time-multiplexed targets with full
coherence. In this mode, the simula-
tor can switch frequency from f1 to f2
to f3 to fn back to f1 while maintain-
ing the proper Doppler phase rela-
tionship with respect to each target
(see Figure 4). This “phase-memory”
capability is essential if the target
Doppler information is to be recovered
from burst-mode FFT processing.

Figure 4. This three-dimensional graph illustrates why phase-coherent frequency switch-

ing is important for simulating more than one target from a single RF source.

9
the constructive addition and sub-
traction of the two carriers during
coincidence. In practice, the computa-
tion of time-overlapped target returns
adds considerable complexity to the
simulation. To avoid excessive use of
precious waveform memory it is rec-
ommended, therefore, that time-over
Figure 5. This sampled IF signal shows the effects of two overlapping coherent target
returns. The composite signal was simulated from one RF source.
Figure 6. Special consideration must be given to proper synchronization between the radar and the simulator.
10
lapped targets be limited to two
targets or be avoided altogether.
To avoid time-coincident echoes,
simply place each target sufficiently
distant from any other target. The
transmitted pulse width generally
dictates this minimum distance.
Synchronizing to the Radar
Synchronizing the simulator to the
radar is essential if trigger jitter and
coherence are to be preserved [8].
The simulator must be able to operate
from an external clock supplied by
the radar. Alternatively, the radar can
operate from clocks supplied by the
simulator. The AN/APG-71 radar, for
example, operates from an internal
master clock of roughly 116 MHz.
From this clock all important timing
information is derived, including PRF
triggers, phase code chip timing, and
gating. As shown in Figure 6, this
116 MHz reference becomes the clock
for the direct digital synthesizer and
memory/sequencer inside the FASS.
This guarantees that triggers from
the radar will be synchronous with
changes in the simulation, virtually
eliminating any range trigger jitter.
Experience shows that ground loops
and radar power supply noise can
affect the integrity and stability of
the simulation. Therefore, special
care in proper shielding and ground-
ing is essential. For detailed informa-
tion on FASS operation with external
clocks, Reference 8 provides useful
examples and diagrams.
Seeker Testing: A Special Case
Seeker target simulators can be quite
elaborate and expensive, depending
on the particular requirements at
hand. For example, many seekers are
tested in specially designed anechoic
chambers, such as the RFSS (Radio
Frequency Signal Simulator) phased-
array target simulator in Huntsville,
Alabama. With such a system it is
possible to “test fly” the missile through
a hypothetical gaming area. Connec-
tions to the missile’s inertial naviga-
tion system simulate trajectory pitch,
roll, and yaw for “hit or miss” testing
and software validation.
In all of the preceding examples,
however, the target simulation was
accomplished by synthesizing a
model of the radar waveform and
triggering it synchronously with the
radar PRF. In effect, the simulator
provided a “synthetic” echo back to
the radar receiver. There are cases,
Figure 7. A digital RF memory (DRFM) could be used as a block in a coherent repeater.
however, when direct connections
to the radar are impractical, or where
the radar waveform or precise fre-
quency is not known a priori. When
the seeker must be tested without any
connections to the internal radar, this
clearly complicates synchronization
and coherence of the target simulator
with respect to the seeker under test.
In such cases, it may be difficult or
impossible to “preload” the required
signals into the simulator for “on-
demand” playback of synthetic target
echoes. Consideration of these testing
difficulties should be included in the
seeker design review to ensure that
a viable and cost-effective test proce-
dure can accompany the validation
process.
To address this problem, several
“transponder” or coherent repeater
configurations have been proposed
to provide a real-time echo of the
seeker’s transmitted waveform. Such
a configuration is required also for
coherent jamming of pulse Doppler
radars and is, therefore, the subject
of intense research and development.
Digital RF memories (DRFMs)—as
shown in Figure 7, for example—have
been developed with bandwidths
approaching 1 GHz [9, 10]. However,
the sophistication of modern radars
often precludes their use as target
simulators because of the very high
spurious content. Such high spurious
signals are “rejected” by the radar as
false targets, seemingly produced by
a deceptive jammer. To obtain the 40
to 60 dBc spurious levels requested
by manufacturers, the DRFM quanti-
zation levels must approach a dynam-
ic linearity equivalent to 8 to 12 bits,
accounting for the practical effects
of intermodulation spurs, clock leak-
ages, and other digitally induced
phenomenon.
11
One proposed transponder method is
a hybrid that combines a DRFM front
end and an Agilent FASS back end
(Figure 8). The DRFM front end down-
converts the incoming radar waveform
to a reasonable intermediate frequency
(IF) followed by an I/Q demodulator
and dual baseband A/D converters.
While splitting the waveform into I/Q
components places stringent require-
ments on acceptable gain and quad-
rature errors, this method enables
the use of lower bandwidth, higher
dynamic range converters that are
readily available, such as a 75-MHz,
10-Bit A/D. Once the waveform is
digitized, the high-speed samples are
stored in a dual-port circular RAM
buffer that provides range delay in
increments of 60 ns for up to several
hundred microseconds, depending
on the memory depth. After the spec-
ified range delay, the echo is read
out of memory, processed, and down-
loaded to the FASS dynamic modula-
tion data ports. The FASS not only
provides a spectrally pure 12-bit D/A
conversion process, but it enables
Figure 8. This conceptual block diagram of a coherent repeater combines a DRFM front end with a FASS.
12
the direct summation of doppler shift
and amplitude variations, such as
R4 power rolloff and/or scintillation.
This hybrid approach offers moderate
instantaneous bandwidth and would
require up-front engineering to evalu-
ate the performance for different
mission objectives.
Use the Simulator for LRU Testing
In addition to dynamic simulations,
digitally synthesized signal simula-
tors can perform static tests of LRU’s
and components. For example, typical
IF SAW chirp compressors are speci-
fied for range sidelobe performance.
Generally, this measurement is impos-
sible to make unless a precision
expander or transmitter is available
to produce the required chirp injec-
tion signal. Testing may be impossible
altogether if the receiver design is
occurring in parallel with the transmit-
ter development. In such a case, the
signal simulator can be programmed
to simulate the required chirp profile,
including effects such as nonlinear
FM, pulse shaping, and group delay
distortion. Figure 9 shows the magni-
tude response of a chirp when com-
pressed with a Hamming-weighted
mismatch filter to reduce range side-
lobes. The 40-dB peak sidelobe levels
attest to the excellent gain and phase
linearity of the chirp generation/
compression process.
Taking this one step further, the sim-
ulator can even simulate the effects
of the radar compression stages to
enable downstream testing of the IF/
baseband processor. Figure 10 shows
two synthetic targets of different RCS
with the effects of pulse compression
added. To make the range sidelobes
easily visible, no mismatch filtering
was used in this example. For rectan-
gular windowing, peak sidelobes are
down 13 dB as expected. Any sidelobe
weighting scheme could have been
incorporated into the simulation,
such as a 30-dB Taylor weighting.
This capability simplifies margin
testing of receivers when upstream
hardware is unavailable or faulty.
The simulation was accomplished
Pulse Compression of Chirped Signal
by numerically convolving a chirp
waveform with its matched filter. A
matched filter has a transfer function
that is the complex conjugate of the
exciter waveform. Reference [11] pro-
vides an excellent source of informa-
tion of pulse compression techniques
and effects of gain and phase linearity
on compression sidelobes.

Toward the Future

Several examples of signal simulation
have been presented in the context of
radar test. From advanced dynamic
target simulators to handy laboratory-
grade modulation sources, modern
digitally synthesized simulators help
radar designers cope with advances
in radar technology. Much like the
spectrum and network analyzer have
become indispensable tools to any
engineer, the signal simulator is rap-
idly becoming an essential element of Figure 9. This pulse-compression plot demonstrates the excellent sidelobe performance
successful, on-time programs. Simula- achievable with modern signal simulators. A Hamming weighting was added to bring
tors speed development of systems peak sidelobes down to 40 dB.
and subsystems by permitting parallel
development of RF modules when
upstream hardware is unavailable as
a stimulus source. They also provide Compressed Returns
confidence that a system doesn’t just
meet spec, but that it will operate as
expected when put to the ultimate
test in the field. As digital synthesizer
technology continues to evolve, radar
designers and test engineers will ben-
efit from simulators with even wider
bandwidths, better spurious, all with
reductions in size and cost.

Figure 10. This sampled IF plot shows the simulated effects of pulse compression on two
targets of different RCS. No sidelobe filter was added to make sidelobe viewing easy on
the sampling scope’s linear scale.

13
References
[1] “Analysis and Simulation Techniques for Modern Radar,” GTRI Short
Course, 1989 worldwide tour survey.

[2] G. Lowitz, “The Frequency Agile Signal Simulator: Advanced Applications

in Radar, EW, and Communication Signals,” Proceedings of the RF&W
Symposium, March 1989.

[3] “Radar Target Simulators Brochure,” Hughes Radar Systems Group,

Los Angeles, California.

[4] F. Belrose et al., Radio Frequency Simulation System (RFSS) Capabilities

Summary, Technical Report RD-82-21, US Army Missile Laboratory,
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

[5] L. Buse, “Range Delay Techniques for Radar Target Simulators,” White
Paper, Boeing Aerospace Company, Seattle, Washington.

[6] Adaptive Array Flight Test Equipment for the AN/APS-125, General
Electric Co. Contract N00173-77-C-0238, 1978.

[7] Design Specification for the System Target Simulator [F- 14D],
DS 40019-064, Cross Systems, Inc., 1985.

[8] Tips on External Clock Operation with Agilent FASS, Product Note 8791-5,
February 1990 (#5952-1901).

[9] R. Clarke, “Lucrative Market for DoD Drives DRFM Technology,”

Microwaves & RF, March 1988.

[10] T. Vu and J. Hattis, “A GaAs Phase Digitizing and Summing System for
Microwave Signal Storage,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits,
Vol. 24, No. 1, February 1989.

[11] C. Cook and M. Bernfeld, Radar Signals, Academic Press, Orlando,

Florida, 1967.

[12] T. Bagwell, C. Johnsen, R. Bray, and S. Carp, “Development of an Ultra-

Flat SAW Filter Module and its Application to FASS: A Frequency Agile
Signal Source,” 1989 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium Proceedings.

14
Agilent Technologies’ Test and Measurement
Support, Services, and Assistance
Agilent Technologies aims to maximize
the value you receive, while minimizing
your risk and problems. We strive to
ensure that you get the test and measure-
ment capabilities you paid for and obtain
the support you need. Our extensive sup-
port resources and services can help you
choose the right Agilent products for your
applications and apply them successfully.
Every instrument and system we sell has
a global warranty. Support is available
for at least five years beyond the produc-
tion life of the product. Two concepts
underlie Agilent’s overall support policy:
“Our Promise” and “Your Advantage.”
Our Promise
“Our Promise” means your Agilent test
and measurement equipment will meet its
advertised performance and functionality.
When you are choosing new equipment,
we will help you with product informa-
tion, including realistic performance spec-
ifications and practical recommendations
from experienced test engineers. When
you use Agilent equipment, we can verify By internet, phone, or fax, get assistance
that it works properly, help with product with all your test and measurement needs.
operation, and provide basic measurement
Online Assistance
assistance for the use of specified capabil-
ities, at no extra cost upon request. Many www.agilent.com/find/assist
self-help tools are available. Phone or Fax
United States:
Your Advantage
(tel) 1 800 452 4844
“Your Advantage” means that Agilent
offers a wide range of additional expert Canada:
test and measurement services, which you (tel) 1 877 894 4414
can purchase according to your unique (fax) (905) 206 4120
technical and business needs. Solve prob-
Europe:
lems efficiently and gain a competitive edge
(tel) (31 20) 547 2323
by contracting with us for calibration, extra-
(fax) (31 20) 547 2390
cost upgrades, out-of-warranty repairs, and
on-site education and training, as well Japan:
as design, system integration, project man- (tel) (81) 426 56 7832
agement, and other professional services. (fax) (81) 426 56 7840
Experienced Agilent engineers and techni-
cians worldwide can help you maximize Latin America:
your productivity, optimize the return on (tel) (305) 269 7500
investment of your Agilent instruments and (fax) (305) 269 7599
systems, and obtain dependable measure- Australia:
ment accuracy for the life of those products. (tel) 1 800 629 485
(fax) (61 3) 9210 5947
New Zealand:
(tel) 0 800 738 378
(fax) (64 4) 495 8950
Asia Pacific:
(tel) (852) 3197 7777
(fax) (852) 2506 9284
Product specifications and descriptions in this
document subject to change without notice.
Copyright © 1990, 2000 Agilent Technologies
Printed in U.S.A. 9/00
5952-2847