The Association of Old Crows

3 Pillars of Electronic Warfare

Part 3: Electronic Protect
September 18, 2014, 1400-1500 EDT (1800-1900 GMT)
Rob “VBERRY” Vanderberry
rob@vberry.com
Advancing International Policy, Programs, and Professional Development
related to Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations in all Domains
 EP
EA

2014 | crows.org | 2
 Third in a series
 The Three Pillars of EW
• Part 1 – Electronic Attack (EA)
• August 21st, 2014
• Joe “HULTEC” Hulsey
• Part 2 – Electronic Support (ES)
• September 3rd, 2014
• Stephen “Muddy” Watters
• Part 3 – Electronic Protect (EP)
• September 18th, 2014
• Robin “VBERRY” Vanderberry

2014 | crows.org | 3
 Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations (JEMSO)
Joint Publication 3-13.1

 JEMSO are the coordinated efforts of EW and joint

electromagnetic spectrum management operations
(JEMSMO) to exploit, attack, protect, and manage
the electromagnetic operational environment
(EMOE).

 The term EW refers to military action involving the

use of EM energy and directed energy (DE) to JP 3-13.1
control the EMS or to attack the enemy. EW consists
of three divisions: electronic attack (EA), electronic
warfare support (ES) and, Electronic Protect (EP).

2014 | crows.org | 4
 Electronic Protect (EP)
Joint Publication 3-13.1
 EP refers to the division of EW involving actions taken to
protect personnel, facilities, and equipment from any
effects of friendly, neutral, or enemy use of the EMS, as well
as naturally occurring phenomena that degrade, neutralize, or
destroy friendly combat capability.
 EP is an EMS-dependent system’s use of EM energy and/or
physical properties to preserve itself from direct or
environmental effects of friendly and adversary EW.
JP 3-13.1

2014 | crows.org | 5
 Electronic Protect (EP)
Joint Publication 3-13.1 & Field Manual 3-36

• EP focuses on system or process attributes or capabilities

• Inherent hardware features minimize the impact of
unplanned/undesired EM signals on system’s operation.
• Processes designed to eliminate, reduce, or mitigate
• Features and processes combine to allow function, as intended, JP 3-13.1
in contested and congested EMOEs.

• Protection is achieved by:

 EM Hardening  Spectrum Management
 Electronic Masking  Wartime Reserve Modes
 EW Reprogramming  EM Interference
 Emission Control  EM Compatibility
FM 3-36
2014 | crows.org | 6
 EP Does Not Include
 EP is not force protection or self-protection. Flare rejection logic on an
IR missile is EP. The use of a flare to protect a platform is not.
 EP protects from the effects of EA (friendly and/or adversary) or EMI,
while defensive EA is primarily used to protect against lethal attacks
by denying adversary use of the EMS to target, guide, and/or trigger
weapons.

2014 | crows.org | 7
 DoD / USA Policy on Electronic Protect (EP)
Department of Defense Directive 3222.04 & Field Manual 3-36

Validate EMS-dependent system’s capability to operate in

the operational environment throughout the system’s life
cycle, and require the documentation of electronic protection
in a Spectrum Supportability Risk Assessment considered at
all Milestone Reviews, in accordance with DoD Instruction DoDD 3222.04
(DoDI) 4650.01.

The development and acquisition of communications and

electronic systems includes electronic protection
requirements to clarify performance parameters.

FM 3-36
2014 | crows.org | 8
 EP Design Considerations
Acceleration Limit Instantaneous Frequency Dicke-Fix Display Integration Polarization Diversity
Angle Sector Blanking Noncoherent MTI Dicke-Fix FM Delay Line Integration Polarization Selector
Angular Resolution Video Dicke-Fix CFAR Noncoherent (Video) Integration Post Canceller Log FTC
Audio Limiterr Diplexing Pulse Integration PRF Discrimination
Aural Detection Doppler-Range Rate Comparison Video Delay-Line Integration Pulse Burst Mode
Autocorrelation Signal Processing Double Threshold Detection Inter-Pulse Coding (PPM) Pulse Coding and Correlation
Automatic Cancellation of Extended Targets Electronic Implementation of Jamming Cancellation Receiver Pulse Compression, Stretching
Automatic Threshold Variation (ATV) Baseline-Break Jittered PRF (CHIRP)
Automatic Tuner (SNIFFER) Fast Manual Frequency Shift Kirbar Fix Pulse Edge Tracking
Automatic Video Noise Leveling (AVNL) Fast Time Constant (FTC) Least Voltage Coincidence Detector Pulse Interference Elimination (PIE)
Back-Bias Receiver Fine Frequency Linear Intra-Pulse FM (CHIRP) Pulse Shape Discrimination
Baseline-Break (on A-Scope) Frequency Agility Lin-Log IF Pulse-to-Pulse Frequency Shift
Bistatic Radar Frequency Diversity Lin-Log Receiver (RAINBOW)
Broad-Band Receiver Frequency Preselection Lobe-on-Receive Only (LORO) Pulse Width Discrimination (PWD)
Coded Waveform Modulation Frequency Shift Log Fix (also Log FTC) Pulse Length Discrimination (PLD)
Coherent Long-Pulse Discrimination Gain Control Logarithmic Receiver Random-Pulse Blanker
Compressive IF Amplifier Automatic Gain Control (AGC) Logical ECCM Processing Random Pulse Discrimination RPD)
Constant False Alarm Rate (CFAR) Dual Gated AGC Main Lobe Cancellation (MLC) Range/Angle Rate Memory
Cross Gated CFAR Fast AGC (FAGC) Monopulse MLC Range Gating
IF Dicke-Fix CFAR (Dicke-Fix) Gated FAGC Polarization MLC Range Rate Memory
MTI CFAR Instantaneous AGC (IAGC) Manually Aided Tracking Scan-Rate Amplitude Modulation
Unipolar Video CFAR Manual Gain Control Matched Filtering Short Pulse Radar
Video Dicke-Fix CFAR (Dicke-Fix) Pulse Gain Control Monopinch Sidelobe Blanker
Zero Crossings CFAR Sensitivity-Time Control Monopulse Tracker Sidelobe Canceller
Contiguous Filter-Limiter Guard-Band Blanker MTI Sidelobe Reduction
Cross Correlation Signal Processing High PRF Tracking Area MTI (Velocity Filter) Sidelobe Suppression
CW Jamming Canceller High Resolution Radar Cascaded Feedback Canceller (MTI) Sidelobe Suppression by Absorbing
Detector Back Bias (same as Detector IF Diversity Clutter Gating (MTI) Material
Balanced Bias) IF Limiter Coherent MTI Staggered PRF
Dicke-Fix Image Suppressor Noncoherent MTI Transmitter Power
Clark Dicke-Fix (Cascaded Dicke-Fix) Instantaneous Frequency Correlator Pulse Doppler Two Pulse Autocorrelation
Coherent MTI Dicke-Fix Integration Pseudocoherent MTI Variable Bandwidth Receiver
Craft Receiver AM Video Delay Line Integration Single-Delay Line (MTIC Canceller) Variable PRF
Dicke Log Fix Coherent IF Integration Re-Entrant Data Processor Variable Scan Rate
IF Canceller MTI Dicke-Fix Coherent IF Integration (Moving Target) Three-Pulse Canceller Veloctiy Tracker
IF Dicke-Fix CFAR (Zero Crossings Coherent IF Integration (Stationary Two-Pulse Canceller Video Correlator
Dicke-Fix CFAR) Target) Multifrequency Radar Wide-Bandwidth Radar
Phased Array Radar Zero Crossing Counter
2014 | crows.org | 9
 Effective EP Is Designed Into a System
Intrinsic Design (Always in Effect) & Effective Response (Logic Enabled)

• Spectral
• Low Probability of Intercept
• Low Probability of Detection
• Frequency Agility
• Doppler Filtering
• Spatial
• UltraLow Side Lobes
• Side Lobe Cancellation / Blanking
• Power Management:
• Burn Through / Under

• Temporal • Collaborative Approaches

• Pulse Compression • Data Fusion
• PRF Agility • Off Board Contribution

2014 | crows.org | 10
 FROM THE BEGINNING
BAKED IN -- NOT SPREAD ON

2014 | crows.org | 11
 RADAR Range Equation
Power captured by radar antenna
Power density at radar
Power reflected by target
Power density at target
Effective Radiated power
Radiated power

Pr= Peak received power

G = Antenna gain
R= Range to target
s = Target RCS
AE = Effective aperture area
R Ts = System noise temperature
BN = Noise bandwidth for detection

G
Ae

Pt
2014 | crows.org | 12
 Example Radar System

2014 | crows.org | 13
 Aperture Related EP

Low Sidelobes
Sidelobe Blanker
Sidelobe Canceller
Highly Effective Investment Area

2014 | crows.org | 14
 Side Lobe Considerations
Low Side Lobes (< -30dB)
Low Side Lobe High Side Lobe
present less vulnerability to
receiving and processing
unwanted signals (jamming)

2014 | crows.org | 15
 Side Lobe Blanking

3-4 dB margin

 Compares signal received in main lobe to signal

received in guard/auxillary channel
 Effective against False Targets and Blinking

2014 | crows.org | 16
 Side Lobe Cancellation

Senses energy source

outside of main lobe and
places an adaptive null at
that location

• Auxiliary antenna/receiver channel allows generation of adaptive null

which cancels jamming entering main receiver channel
• Effective against continuous noise
• 10s of dBs of effective cancellation
2014 | crows.org | 17
 Transmitter Related EP

Power Management
Frequency Variation
Pulse Compression
PRF Variation

2014 | crows.org | 18
 Self Protect
Power Management
High Power Burn Through

Stand Off

• Range where S is greater than J

• Effective vs saturated jammer
• Less effective vs linear repeater
• Not desirable vs ARM / ESM

2014 | crows.org | 19
 Frequency Utilization
Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum

• Seemingly random series of frequencies

• Receiver hops between frequencies in
Power

sync with transmitter

• Jamming one frequency has limited
effect
Frequency

2.4 GHz Devices – Static Frequency Hopping

• Utilizes a predetermined set of frequencies with either a hopping or
pseudorandom hop pattern, e.g.. Bluetooth versions 1.0/1.1
2014 | crows.org | 20
 Pulse Compression
• Benefits
• Spreads Radar Spectrum
• Improves Range Resolution
• Increases Average Power

• Variations
• Linear FM (LFM)
• Frequency Jump Burst
• Phase Coding (effective vs RSN)
2014 | crows.org | 21
 Pulse Repetition Frequency – PRF Variation
• Complicates ESM task
• Pulse-to-pulse
• Jitter -- random-like PRI variations
• Stagger -- alternate between several PRIs
• Usually for LPRF radars
• Limits deceptive EA capability
• Dwell-to-dwell
• Used by MPRF radars
• Forces deceptive jammer to measure and adapt to PRI

2014 | crows.org | 22
 Receiver/Signal Processor Related EP

Preselection
Dynamic Range
Multiple Pulse Integration

2014 | crows.org | 23
 Multi Pulse Integration
• Coherent integration
• Pulsed Doppler
• MTI

• Noncoherent Integration
• Post-detection
• Comparable to coherent for small number of pulses
• Improves performance vs noise

2014 | crows.org | 24
 Data Processing Related EP

Leading-Edge Track
Range/Doppler Comparison
Track Filter Rate Limits

2014 | crows.org | 25
 Leading Edge Tracking
J
S

Leading Edge Track Gate

Normal Range Gate

• Skin return will slightly precede jamming

• Requires wide bandwidth
• May impact SNR
• Exploits jammer throughput delay
2014 | crows.org | 26
 Range Doppler Track Filter Limits

V e l o c it y

V e l o c it y
Reject
Reject Reject Reject

Velocity

Velocity
Range
Limit

Range
Limit Limit Limit

Velocity
Range

Accept Accept
Accept Accept
time time time time
Time Time
T im e

• Effective Counter to:

• RGPO, RGPI, VGPO, VGPI, and Angle deception
• Forecasts Realistic Range, Doppler, and Angle tracking
• Rejects unrealistically high or low target dynamics
• Rejects sudden jumps
2014 | crows.org | 27
 Future EP
 Ultra Wide Operating Frequency: XX GHz vice X GHz
 Ultra wide instantaneous bandwidth
 Agility: Frequency, PRF, jitter, stagger, compression,
encoding, pre-pulse…
 Spectral diversity
 Collaboration: correlation, fusion, multi-spectral,
multiplatform
 Cognitive Adaptive underpinnings

2014 | crows.org | 28
 Summary
 Advances in sensor/jammer technology continue to challenge legacy systems and force
early requirements consideration.
 Across DOTMLPF, protecting advantageous use of spectrum is no longer a choice, but
a foundational component to enabling mission success.
 EP provides freedom of maneuver in the EMS by protecting personnel, facilities, and
equipment from any effects of friendly, neutral, or enemy use of the EMS, as well as
naturally occurring phenomena that degrade, neutralize, or destroy friendly combat
capability.
 EP supports operations in all domains by ensuring viable access to the spectrum.

Questions?

There are few (but some) original thoughts and graphics in this briefing. Plagiarism is
acknowledged and has been fully embraced in the creation of this presentation. Thank you to the
many contributors: especially Skolnick, Schleher, Adamy, Wiley, Stimson, and Partizian.
2014 | crows.org | 29
2014 | crows.org | 30
 Velocity Difference
Velocity Difference
Range Difference
Range Difference
Range Doppler Comparison
RGS RGS

Velocity
R R V V VGS VGS
Range

Target Target Target Target

time
Time time time Time
time

• Counters uncoordinated range-velocity deception

Time T
• Compare velocity estimates from
• Range tracker
• Doppler tracker
• Disagreement implies jamming
• Combine with “snap-back” logic to return to skin

2014 | crows.org | 31
 Preselection and IF Filters
• Preselector and IF filters
• Rejects strong out-of-band signals
• Prevents “image” jamming in mixers

J
IF RF LO LO+IF

• Fixed narrowband RF filter for constant frequency operation

• Switchable/tunable narrowband RF filter to follow RF agility
• Wideband RF filter with high IF receiver design for
wideband/agile waveforms
2014 | crows.org | 32
 Wide Dynamic Range and AGC

AGC Deception Counter AGC Capture Counter

2014 | crows.org | 33