Multi-Static Primary Surveillance Radar – an Examination of Alternative Frequency Bands
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Multi-Static Primary Surveillance Radar – An examination of Alternative Frequency Bands Produced for: EUROCONTROL Against Task: T07/11087EB Report No: 72/07/R/376/U July 2008 - Issue 1.2 Roke Manor Research Ltd Roke Manor, Romsey Hampshire, SO51 0ZN, UK T: +44 (0)1794 833000 F: +44 (0)1794 833433 [email protected] www.roke.co.uk Approved to BS EN ISO 9001 (incl. TickIT), Reg. No Q05609 This document and the information contained within it are the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency. No part of this report may be reproduced and/or disclosed, in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the owner. Copy No. ……… This page intentionally left blank Multi-Static Primary Surveillance Radar – An examination of Alternative Frequency Bands Report No: 72/07/R/376/U Author(s): July 2008 - Issue 1.2 Dave Hill Produced for: EUROCONTROL Philip Galloway Against Task: T07/11087EB Approved By Dave Hill………………………………………………. Project Manager Roke Manor Research Limited Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire, SO51 0ZN, UK This document and the information contained within it are the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency. No part of this report may be reproduced and/or Tel: +44 (0)1794 833000 Fax: +44 (0)1794 833433 disclosed, in any form or by any means without the prior written permission Web: http://www.roke.co.uk Email: [email protected] of the owner. Approved to BS EN ISO 9001 (incl. TickIT), Reg. No Q05609 72/07/R/376/U Page 1 of 183 DISTRIBUTION LIST Full Report Copy No. Andrew Desmond-Kennedy EUROCONTROL 1 Jan Berends EUROCONTROL 2 Thomas Oster EUROCONTROL 3 Philip Galloway Roke Manor Research Ltd 4 Dave Hill Roke Manor Research Ltd 5 Information Centre Roke Manor Research Ltd 6 Project File Roke Manor Research Ltd Master Summary Only Copy No. DOCUMENT HISTORY Issue no Date Comment Issue 1.0 25/04/2008 First full issue of document Issue 1.1 19/06/2008 Re-issue following comments from EUROCONTROL Issue 1.2 09/07/2008 Re-issue following comments from EUROCONTROL Use, duplication or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this document Page 2 of 183 72/07/R/376/U Multi-Static Primary Surveillance Radar – An examination of Alternative Frequency Bands Report No: 72/07/R/376/U July 2008 - Issue 1.2 Produced for: EUROCONTROL Against Task: T07/11087EB SUMMARY Prior work has demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of producing a Multi Static Primary Surveillance Radar (MSPSR) system using dedicated transmissions operating at Ultra High Frequency (UHF), in order to provide coverage of terminal areas. The initial work suggested that the selection of operating frequency was critical, and that the UHF band had significant advantages. The change over from analogue to digital television, the so called ‘digital dividend’, will release spectrum in the UHF band. However, there is significant demand for this spectrum, particularly from telecommunications network operators, and it is probable that any available spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Hence, it could be considered unlikely that any spectrum would become available for the operation of Primary Surveillance Radar. This report assesses the feasibility of the alternative operating frequencies for a Multi-Static Primary Surveillance Radar, in either the L or S bands. Radar operating at a higher frequency will have an increase in propagation loss due to the reduced antenna efficiency, that is, the effective collection area of the antenna, being of a shorter physical size, is reduced. However, the results of this study demonstrate that the rise in loss can be compensated for by increasing the number of antenna elements, thus maintaining the overall antenna efficiency. However, it is not necessary to consequently increase the number of receiver channels as antenna elements can be combined prior to down-conversion. This is normal practice in phased array radars, where, for example, a thousand elements can be combined into 8 sub-arrays. Atmospheric attenuation increases with frequency, but it is not considered to be significantly different at L and S band compared to UHF, the change being an incremental increase rather than a step change. This is supported by the fact that existing surveillance radars operate at L and S band. The UHF band is used for very long range surveillance radars. The modelling undertaken to support the MSPSR study has been conducted using a general purpose multi-static radar modelling tool. Multi-static radar systems have a potential advantage over monostatic radar systems for a number of reasons and the simulation investigated three operating bands (UHF, L & S). The output of the simulation concludes that the coverage predicted in the previous study, see [Ref 1], is reasonable and matches the Radar 1 variant modelled herein. Roke Manor Research Limited Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire, SO51 0ZN, UK This document and the information contained within it are the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency. No part of this report may be reproduced and/or Tel: +44 (0)1794 833000 Fax: +44 (0)1794 833433 disclosed, in any form or by any means without the prior written permission Web: http://www.roke.co.uk Email: [email protected] of the owner. Approved to BS EN ISO 9001 (incl. TickIT), Reg. No Q05609 72/07/R/376/U Page 3 of 183 Radar systems operating in any of the bands investigated can be constructed to have similar coverage performance. The choice of baseline size within the bounds of 20 km to 40 km has little impact on the theoretical coverage of any of the multi-static systems modelled. In a multi-static radar system it is necessary to use multiple transmitter frequencies in order to allow the use of multiple transmitters. However, the number of different transmitter frequencies should be limited in order to minimise the requirements on the receiver. The use of multiple frequencies, and different ranging waveforms, will provide sufficient discrimination to facilitate the determination of the transmission source for a received signal. It is estimated that the spectrum allocation for a MSPSR system will be commensurate with the signal bandwidth of a conventional PSR. However, whereas adjacent conventional PSRs have separate spectrum allocations, it is anticipated that adjacent MSPSR systems will be able to operate within a single spectrum allocation. A noise like waveform, such as a pseudo-random noise waveform, is the optimum waveform for the determination of range, as such waveforms have good auto-correlation performance, which is an important criterion in range estimation. In this application, where each receiver will be in view of multiple transmitters it is also important that a receiver can distinguish between specific noise waveforms. Therefore, it is important that the chosen noise waveforms also have low cross-correlation properties, in order that there is the minimum of interaction between different waveforms. Gold codes represent the optimum choice, as they have both good auto-correlation performance and also low cross-correlation products. The implementation of a receiver at L or S band is a slightly more involved process, than at UHF, but again it is an incremental change rather than requiring the application of a different technology. A receiver suitable for this application would be required to simultaneously provide reception on a number of frequencies. The best way to achieve this is to digitise following a single down-conversion stage. This means that the intermediate frequency (IF) and bandwidth could be identical, irrespective of the radio carrier frequency (RF). The IF bandwidth and hence the analogue to digital conversion (ADC) bandwidth would be determined by the number of and individual bandwidth of transmitters. An analysis of the required instantaneous dynamic range indicates that the desired range is within that available from existing ADCs. The digital signal processing load required for the proposed MSPSR system is recognised as being significantly greater than that required for a conventional PSR system. However, advances in processor technology mean that the extra processing requirement is entirely within the bounds of feasibility. Use, duplication or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this document Page 4 of 183 72/07/R/376/U CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................15 1.1 REPORT STRUCTURE .....................................................................................15 2 SPECTRUM USAGE ...........................................................................................17 2.1 UHF BAND ................................................................................................17 2.2 L BAND ....................................................................................................19 2.2.1 Aeronautical Radio Navigation Applications ......................................20 2.2.1.1 DME ..............................................................................20 2.2.1.2 TACAN ...........................................................................21 2.2.1.3 SSR...............................................................................21 2.2.1.4 ADS-B............................................................................21 2.2.1.5 JTIDS ............................................................................21 2.2.2 L band Radar...............................................................................22