2007
DOI: 10.1109/radar.2007.374200
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance of Pulse Compression Code and Filter Pairs Optimized For Loss and Integrated Sidelobe Level

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the same pulse width ( 32 μs ) and rise/fall-time ( 50 ns for the non-tapered pulse), Figure 3 depicts the spectrum for the CPM implementation (red) of a length-64 Nunn-Kretschmer loss constrained polyphase code [8]. The spectral content for the CPM waveform implementations of the binary and polyphase codes are nearly identical.…”
Section: Cpm Implementation For Radar Waveformsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the same pulse width ( 32 μs ) and rise/fall-time ( 50 ns for the non-tapered pulse), Figure 3 depicts the spectrum for the CPM implementation (red) of a length-64 Nunn-Kretschmer loss constrained polyphase code [8]. The spectral content for the CPM waveform implementations of the binary and polyphase codes are nearly identical.…”
Section: Cpm Implementation For Radar Waveformsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zero-Doppler range cut for the CPM and ideal implementations of the length-64 Nunn-Kretschmer code For the 64-length Nunn-Kretschmer code[8] with a 32 μs pulse width and a sampling rate of 100 MHz (yielding 50 samples per chip), the CPM waveform implementation (with 50 ns rise/fall-time) and the ideal implementation from (1) are employed to generate and,Fig. 5illustrates the zero-Doppler range cut of the ambiguity function for the CPM waveform implementation as well as a comparison with the ideal implementation from (1) for the same code.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typical MMF length is P=3N. The search complexity increases considerably [13][14][15] because in addition to looking for waveform/MMF combination with good ISLR, it is necessary to add a constraint on the acceptable SNR loss. Tolerated SNR loss is usually < 2dB.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The received signal consists of delayed, attenuated versions of the transmitted waveform and thus provides information regarding the range and relative radar cross-section (RCS) of scatterers illuminated by the radar. The optimal extraction of this information has been investigated for decades, resulting in numerous contributions to the design of radar waveforms and receive filtering strategies that seek to optimize various performance metrics, such as output signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and peak/integrated sidelobe levels, as well as maintain desirable properties such as Doppler tolerance [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of these, mismatch filtering is perhaps the most widely used and can achieve very low sidelobe levels when paired with an "optimal" transmit code (e.g. [1]- [2]) or when reduced range resolution is tolerable.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%